I don't think that many people on here are as liberal as I am, but I have no idea how people view this act as anything but lawful. What do people want? He was a known terrorist, and financier of terrorism.

If people read a story in the daily heil tomorrow about a high ranking Nazi being executed by the Mossad in Argentina, very few people would have an issue with it. Why is OBL any different?

There is a difference between lawful and right.
Lawful
Adjective
Conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

Bin Ladens death was a clear violation of the fundamental the right of a fair trial before a punishment of death.

However it was 100% the right thing to do.

Yes,it was.

Some people are so highly sought after for numerous terrorist actions that they are wanted dead or alive. This is cleared through the legal channels in their own country.

America acted lawfully within their own laws.

Actually, I think you will find there was no military tribunal conducted before Bin Laden execution and it was therefore not legal under US law.

I think the fact they added him to their most wanted list, sort of informs people what their intentions are. Once you're on that list, it's dead or alive. It's not capture, trial, punishment.

OBL declared war on the US numerous occasions and attacked the WTC on 2 seperate occasions killing over 3000 people, with money he provided.

I'm sorry, but there was nothing unlawful about the killing of OSL.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...inladen_050211

Well what if the seals had tortured him, made him their sex slave and then killed him after a 10 hour ordeal. Would that be lawful?

If my auntie had bollocks, would she be my uncle?

Of course that wouldn't be ok, because torture is never is, and directly contravenes the Geneva convention. Your example also suggests they raped him, which again is illegal. We can play stupid scenario based word games for as long as you like.

But at some point you're going to need to provide a real reason why this was unlawful. If you can do that, then I'll hold my hands up and say you're right.

Summary executions go against the Geneva Convention.
Also not sure how murder is more legal than rape and touture. I'd much rather have the rape and torture, but then I'm a kinky bitch.

This isn't a summary execution. He wasn't captured.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-co...2/09/avila.gif

Wikipedia:
A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial.

To stop all the other malicious nasty men ( that hide behind religion) thinking they can dictate to the rest of the planet !

Can you add the rest of that paragraph to your text please?

And he wasn't just accused of this crime. He declared war, financed it, then made video's about how awesome his work was.

Legally, they could say he was killed on the battleground, using a civilian human shield.

This includes show trials, but is usually understood to mean capture, accusation, and execution all conducted during a very short span of time.

This holds true for the Bin Laden case, the time span was very shot but he was essential captured, they didn't have to kill him.

No more questions your honour.

He wasn't captured, he was executed trying to use a civilian as a human shield.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m85sp8DmnE1qzbh7d.gif

Whatever superstar.

joseline :worship:

Where did you get the bit about a human shield?

Surely a US Navy Seal team could have captured him if that had been their orders.

But that would have meant a lot of publicity for him and the cause , with a trial etc. And a lot of the faithful going out to gain their 72 virgins and spot in paradise.

Incidentally, although the US wanted him dead or alive, why was it ok to shoot him in cold blood in a foreign country?

more people are killed by america's own then the threat from al qaeda

Makes a note...

Bin Laden is dead and I'm okay with that. If I wanted to take up the torch for injustice there would be about a million cases in the world that would come before him.

1) They would never be the single orders in this situation because the battle field is a dynamic environment of semi-organised chaos. But I think dead or alive is a pretty blunt objective. It's not like they say "preferably alive, but y'know, sh*t happens".

2) I'm a real advocate for human rights, and in an ideal world he should have had his day in court. The thread is about whether it was lawful or not to kill him, and it absolutely was lawful.

3) Because that's what "dead or alive" means. It's the "dead" part of the sound byte.


The guy who actually shot OBL said he was either trying to push his wife in front of him or was actually hiding behind her when he went in to the room. I'm paraphrasing. That would clear up any legal argument if any were needed as a last defence. But the killing was lawful, so of course it's not necessary, but we're playing what ifs.

Dead or alive. Please. Believe it or not, the US military is far too smart to have wanted him caught alive. After the Saddam Hussein fiasco there is absolutely no way in hell the orders were dead or alive.

german soldier's who oversaw the death's of hundred's of thousand's of jew's during the war got a trial.

He declared war on America, so normal laws don't apply. The laws of war are different.

If he wanted a fair trial, he had 10 years to surrender himself and get a trial. Clearly he didn't want a trial, if he did he had plenty of opportunities to turn himself in to the justice system.

:joker::joker: