Bin Laden dead?

  • Thread starter Captain_Fishpaste
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Medulla said:
I'm not sure if that sits on solid ground but even if it does, let's face it, that's not primarily why he was killed. He was killed for reasons of 1) vengeance, 2) So skeletons would remain in closets, at least as far as mainstream reporting goes and 3) So there weren't a raft of hostages taken around the world to try and force his release.

It might be used as a fig-leaf, with varying degrees of success, but IMO it's extremely difficult to buy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but from a legal perspective his was killed in battle. The wording of 'war on terror' is not accidental.
 


not spavin said:
Agreed, but from a legal perspective his was killed in battle. The wording of 'war on terror' is not accidental.
Click to expand...

Under international law are security forces authorized to use lethal force on unarmed terrorist suspects?
 
not spavin said:
Agreed, but from a legal perspective his was killed in battle. The wording of 'war on terror' is not accidental.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, but perhaps you're making the argument the politicians want you to make? To play devil's advocate, a clever branding trick might not be enough to fool legal experts.

I mean, as I understand it, regarding asymmetric 'war' against terrorist groups (or indeed against the noun or verb itself) as legally the same as wars involving state actors is shaky, and the law is still catching up with the emergence of such a phenomenon.

There are some good accessible legal podcasts on twitter about bin Laden's death and dicussions of the legality of it all, on a side note- @charonqc and @carlgardner are put one up on Friday which is worth a listen.

Evil Limey said:
Under international law are security forces authorized to use lethal force on unarmed terrorist suspects?
Click to expand...

One of the interesting things to come out of the podcast I mention above is that 'international law' is a term used with conviction, where it is very seldom justified.
 
Medulla said:
No, it's not, but perhaps you're making the argument the politicians want you to make? To play devil's advocate, a clever branding trick might not be enough to fool legal experts.

I mean, as I understand it, regarding asymmetric 'war' against terrorist groups (or indeed against the noun or verb itself) as legally the same as wars involving state actors is shaky, and the law is still catching up with the emergence of such a phenomenon.

There are some good accessible legal podcasts on twitter about bin Laden's death and dicussions of the legality of it all, on a side note- @charonqc and @carlgardner are put one up on Friday which is worth a listen.
Click to expand...

It's not a asymmetric war though - Al Qaeda have declared Jihad. I suspect that the White House legal teams have this all sewn up.

I personally think it was an old fashioned assassination, but also think there's enough robust factors out there for the US to call it a death in battle.
 
not spavin said:
It's not a asymmetric war though - Al Qaeda have declared Jihad. I suspect that the White House legal teams have this all sewn up.

I personally think it was an old fashioned assassination, but also think there's enough robust factors out there for the US to call it a death in battle.
Click to expand...

Asymmetric war is generally defined as a state:non-state thing, or at least where the balance of power and methods differ significantly. I think an instance where one side are adhering to and bound by the conventions of war and the other are essentially an ideology which does not, and which transcends national boundaries, is generally deemed to count.

As for the bold, perhaps you're correct however ultimately I don't think they'll much care. They're not signatories to the ICC and I doubt anyone has the heart to pursue them through other channels, the flak they'd cop.

I've probably gone outside the bounds of my knowledge already, but I don't think we yet know enough about what happened to make any firm judgments. It doesn't help when the US lie, and lie ridiculously, either.
 
Medulla said:
Asymmetric war is generally defined as a state:non-state thing, or at least where the balance of power and methods differ significantly. I think an instance where one side are adhering to and bound by the conventions of war and the other are essentially an ideology which does not, and which transcends national boundaries, is generally deemed to count.

As for the bold, perhaps you're correct however ultimately I don't think they'll much care. They're not signatories to the ICC and I doubt anyone has the heart to pursue them through other channels, the flak they'd cop.

I've probably gone outside the bounds of my knowledge already, but I don't think we yet know enough about what happened to make any firm judgments. It doesn't help when the US lie, and lie ridiculously, either.
Click to expand...

I was never in mine like. ;)

Nazism was essentially an ideology though, no? OK, it was tied to a state, but it went beyond Germany. Similarly, the US was at (cold) war with Communism for 40-odd years.
 
not spavin said:
It's not a asymmetric war though - Al Qaeda have declared Jihad. I suspect that the White House legal teams have this all sewn up.

I personally think it was an old fashioned assassination, but also think there's enough robust factors out there for the US to call it a death in battle.
Click to expand...

they have,Al Qaeda as we know it is an invention of the FBI ,it needed to prosecute the first twin towers bomber using laws designed to fight the mafia , so they needed a clearly defined group
 
not spavin said:
I was never in mine like. ;)

Nazism was essentially an ideology though, no? OK, it was tied to a state, but it went beyond Germany. Similarly, the US was at (cold) war with Communism for 40-odd years.
Click to expand...

True, but the tools of war were tied to the state, much like their opponent. The methods were essentially the same, and the Geneva conventions set up after WWII are not really suited to dealing with a loose global network falling under a hundred different jurisdictions, not necessarily tied to any nation states or accepting normal standards of 'combat'.

I think it has been argued that they are essentially criminals, and thus fall under criminal law and its process, though the issue is cloudy.

Um, I think.
 
I see blair has said he would 'without a doubt' authorise the assasination of bin laden. Im no fan of new labour and i deteste blair but have to agree there. They should have killed mladic anarl, someone reply to my mladic thread please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top