quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Pakistan is clearly not terribly happy with the current arrangement, though. What with expelling ~100 US operatives after a CIA guy murdered a couple Pakistanis in broad daylight, and the constant protests in regards drones. Technically what the US did here was several instances of first-degree murder, break and enter, ill treatment of a corpse, and so on.

---

You will always find individuals in any country who are opposed to any action. Just look at the US. There are some who opposed everything George Bush did (and claimed much of what he did illegal). There are other groups who oppose everything Barrack Obama does, and go so far as claiming he is illegal.

If the action was on US soil, and US Marshalls were going after a high ranking narco-terrorist, then all of the actions might have been completely justified. As so they might be in Pakistan.

So yours claims of first degree murder are not necessarily true. They are only credible (meaning possible) if:
1. we don't have a formal arrangement with Pakistan that allowed our actions, and
2. International Law regarding the pursuit of high-value terrorists (who had killed thousands of our citizens) would preclude these actions.

We don't know what secret arrangements exist between the two countries. I do know there are elements in Pakistan that hate us, and others that love us. I know that Pakistan cannot be too vocal against terrorists without incurring some wrath of the home-gown types in the border areas with Pakistan and Kashmir. Pakistan is always walking the line between denouncing terrorism and not denouncing Islam or the Madras philosophy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
You will always find individuals in any country who are opposed to any action. Just look at the US. There are some who opposed everything George Bush did (and claimed much of what he did illegal). There are other groups who oppose everything Barrack Obama does, and go so far as claiming he is illegal.

If the action was on US soil, and US Marshalls were going after a high ranking narco-terrorist, then all of the actions might have been completely justified. As so they might be in Pakistan.

So yours claims of first degree murder are not necessarily true. They are only credible (meaning possible) if:
1. we don't have a formal arrangement with Pakistan that allowed our actions, and
2. International Law regarding the pursuit of high-value terrorists (who had killed thousands of our citizens) would preclude these actions.

We don't know what secret arrangements exist between the two countries. I do know there are elements in Pakistan that hate us, and others that love us. I know that Pakistan cannot be too vocal against terrorists without incurring some wrath of the home-gown types in the border areas with Pakistan and Kashmir. Pakistan is always walking the line between denouncing terrorism and not denouncing Islam or the Madras philosophy.

So what we did is "criminal" murder, if and only if, the legal government of Pakistan accuses us of such, and has those assertions upheld by a credible World Court. From what I am hearing, the initial response from the general populace is agreement with the action (save the local Taliban) and the initial response from the government of Pakistan is silence (while they try and figure out who in their government was protecting Bin Laden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Actually, Pakistan can tear up the alliance and expel all Americans. They don't need to go to "a World Court" if they want to punish the Americans for unauthorized military expeditions on their territory. They can also issue warrants for everybody involved if they wanted to and prosecute accordingly. They won't because they are on the way to being a puppet state, but still.

---

That wasn't the question. Obviously, any country can act in a unilateral manner, regardless of International Law or treaties. This happens all the time, especially when there is an abrupt regime change.

The question was whether the actions taken by the USA to get Bin Laden were "legal". That presumes there will be some reference to the treaties in force (whether public or secret) between the US and Pakistan. Or, as a backup, the possible actions against a confirmed terrorist in accordance with International Law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
That wasn't the question. Obviously, any country can act in a unilateral manner, regardless of International Law or treaties. This happens all the time, especially when there is an abrupt regime change.

The question was whether the actions taken by the USA to get Bin Laden were "legal". That presumes there will be some reference to the treaties in force (whether public or secret) between the US and Pakistan. Or, as a backup, the possible actions against a confirmed terrorist in accordance with International Law.

Its not like Bin Laden ever denied being involved in terrorism (generally) or being intimately involved in 9/11.

---

To be honest, I think it was more of the Pakistanis really not looking for him rather than hiding him. I think they honestly want as little involvement as possible.

Iran allows the US to conduct limited drone strikes on targets in regions near the pakistan border without notifying them every time. The US did go a little bit further this time but Pakistan doesn't want to take sides.

The last time they took sides and admitted they approved of US action, the politician in question was assassinated and strikes were made against the government. (remember the car bombings in pakistan a few years back)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sdematt:
Yeah, then the US just cuts off aid and puts Pakistan in a bad place.

To be honest, I think it was more of the Pakistanis really not looking for him rather than hiding him. I think they honestly want as little involvement as possible.

-Matt

---

Re not just to you, but it was in the papers today that the Pakistani Army is not pleased on how the US handled the incident. Remember that the Army has ruled Pakistan quite often since '49.

And Pakistan could just as easily team up with China if it wanted aid with strings attached.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shaselai:
ok now even taliban said bin laden dead... so they "saved" obama from fighting off those wanting to see proof of bin laden's death.... now obama has to fight off those saying why didnt they take obl alive when he wasnt even armed etc...

---

You mean Al Qaeda, I think. Taliban =/= Al Qaeda.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

It is not so much the military as the ISI that is upset. They like to be in charge behind the scenes and are constantly playing terrorist groups against each other and against the moderate (secular) majority of Pakistanis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Pakistan would have a heck of a time beholden to China, since the Chinese hate both religion and dissension. China already has a healthy hatred for Islamic extremists.

It is not so much the military as the ISI that is upset. They like to be in charge behind the scenes and are constantly playing terrorist groups against each other and against the moderate (secular) majority of Pakistanis.

The military has to be embarrassed that Bin Laden was found in their midst. I'm sure some of them knew and abetted, but the big embarrassment is likely the majority of military who should have known and didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigbob585:
I'm guessing that one thing stopping middle eastern countries from using China is that they may be worried about something like Tienanmen Square massacre reoccurring.

---

That is irrelevant. The nature of the Tienanmen Square incident has nothing to do with terrorism.

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13354995

quote:

---

Bin Laden sons protest to US over 'arbitrary killing'

Omar Bin Laden has repeatedly distanced himself from his father in the past

A statement given to the New York Times newspaper said the family wanted to know why the al-Qaeda leader had not been captured alive.

Relatives who survived the 2 May raid in Pakistan should be freed, it said.

Another statement appeared on a jihadist website saying the burial of Bin Laden at sea "demeans and humiliates his family".

Osama Bin Laden was shot dead by US special forces during a raid on his home in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad.

US officials have said that while Bin Laden was unarmed he had given no indication to the US troops that he wanted to surrender.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the killing was lawful and "an act of national self-defence".

Humiliation

The statement printed by the New York Times was attributed to Bin Laden's fourth son, Omar Bin Laden, who has repeatedly distanced himself from his father's ideology.

It said that in absence of a body or photographic evidence, the family were not convinced he was dead.

But if he was dead, it said, they were questioning "why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world".

They argue Bin Laden's killing had broken international law and that figures such as former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic had been given the chance to stand trial.

"We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems and crime's adjudication as justice must be seen to be done."

The family said they were demanding an inquiry into why Bin Laden was "summarily executed without a court of law" and demanded the release of his three wives and several children, who are believed to be in Pakistani custody.

The statement also said the US decision to bury Bin Laden's corpse at sea had deprived the family of performing religious rites.

A slightly different version of the report was published on a jihadist websites, said the SITE Intelligence Group.

It said US President Barack Obama was "legally responsible" for clarifying "the fate of our father" and that the sea burial "demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters".

US President Barack Obama has urged Pakistan to investigate how the al-Qaeda leader could live in the garrison city of Abbottabad undetected and to find out if any officials knew of his whereabouts.

Pakistan's PM Yousuf Raza Gilani has insisted that allegations of Pakistani complicity and incompetence are "absurd".

---

My opinion? They can go **** themselves. The families of the people turned to mush an/or rubble in the embassy bombings and 9/11 didn't get a chance to bury their family members either.

But keeping the body for the sake of his SUPPORTERS? **** no. Was hitler's body released for his sympathizers? Was Saddam's corpse turned over to the remnants of the baath party? No. Osama's supporters deserve the same fate he met.

__________________
Ebay problems?
File a claim, leave a neg, buy on MOTL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
My opinion? They can go **** themselves. The families of the people turned to mush an/or rubble in the embassy bombings and 9/11 didn't get a chance to bury their family members either.

---

The families of the (significantly more) people turned to mush and/or rubble in Iraq won't get to bury their dead either--does that mean that the corpses of Bush and Cheney should be executed and chucked into the ocean without their families having a last goodbye, or even a fair trial?

quote:

---

Originally posted by korgkb:
Its better that he is dead. Just think about this scenario if he's alive and tried: The terrorists will just hostage an embassy, train, airplane or even a school to their liking in exchange for his release.

---

You're right, it would be a risk. Similarly, arbitrarily killing him risks attempts at vengeance.

Here's the thing, though: you've declared war on a concept (terrorism), not a nation. Unfortunately, that means that ideology plays a more important role than usual. Killing important people involved in the concept against which you've declared war does eliminate some threats--on the other hand, it does nothing to reinforce the values that you keep preaching to your enemy, and keep accusing them of lacking. To win on the ideological front, you can't stoop to their levels. Sure, upholding your values won't affect the hardcore supporters of your enemy. But then, nothing is going to change their minds: these are not the people you're trying to win over, they're not the people who matter. So if you stand to gain nothing (or very little) by abandoning your values, why abandon them in the first place? Take the risk, uphold those values, and show the world--show your people--what it means to be American.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the stance that your president took during his election campaign (re: torture), and it seemed to win the crowds over.

Unfortunately, we have very little in the way of facts or evidence in this case, and we may never have what we would like. All we seem to know is that 1.) Bin Laden is dead, 2.) He was shot in the head, 3.) He was unarmed, 4.) His corpse was thrown into the sea, and 4.) He was hiding in a sovereign nation not at war with the US. That is NOT a stellar case for the moral high ground.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Here's the thing, though: you've declared war on a concept (terrorism), not a nation. Unfortunately, that means that ideology plays a more important role than usual. Killing important people involved in the concept against which you've declared war does eliminate some threats--on the other hand, it does nothing to reinforce the values that you keep preaching to your enemy, and keep accusing them of lacking. To win on the ideological front, you can't stoop to their levels. Sure, upholding your values won't affect the hardcore supporters of your enemy. But then, nothing is going to change their minds: these are not the people you're trying to win over, they're not the people who matter. So if you stand to gain nothing (or very little) by abandoning your values, why abandon them in the first place? Take the risk, uphold those values, and show the world--show your people--what it means to be American.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the stance that your president took during his election campaign (re: torture), and it seemed to win the crowds over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presidential Nominee Barrack Obama:

“What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

---

Second presidential debate: foreign policy, Oct. 7, 2008

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/901/we-will-kil l-bin-laden/

Edit - I think you are being a little bit too ideological Goaswerfraiejen, and you definitely come off as being a bit too full of yourself. Furthermore, as far as I know it was either kill or capture mission. If Pakistan actually would have done something about OBL then maybe he'd be rotting in some jail right now. Your statement "His corpse was thrown into the sea" is clearly inflammatory by the way, I have not read any reports that say he was thrown from the vessel. In fact, I was under the assumption that while it wasn't ideal, the military personnel followed Muslim traditions as best they could.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presidential Nominee Barrack Obama:

“What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

---

Fair enough, so he's been consistent as far as his stance on Bin Laden goes: so what? What I was pointing out is that it's at odds with the broader foreign policy message he campaigned on and, more importantly, it's at odds with the values that your country preaches (especially in this conflict).

quote:

---

]Originally posted by WCFmo:
Edit - I think you are being a little bit too ideological Goaswerfraiejen, and you definitely come off as being a bit too full of yourself.

---

Sure, I'm always full of myself. It's part of my job description. But in what sense do you think I'm being too ideological? Is it because I' overvaluing the message of freedom, fairness, equality, and justice that the US preaches abroad? Given the scant facts, I hardly think my arguments are particularly ideological or far-out.

quote:

---

Your statement "His corpse was thrown into the sea" is clearly inflammatory by the way, I have not read any reports that say he was thrown from the vessel. In fact, I was under the assumption that while it wasn't ideal, the military personnel followed Muslim traditions as best they could.

---

It was hardly inaccurate: it was picked up, let go, and it went *splash*. Ok, fine, I didn't mention that they eased him gently into the sea so that his soul could rest content at heaven's gate--that's because they threw the body from an aircraft carrier. That's a lot of falling through the air. By contrast, if you want to be buried at sea, you won't be dumped from several hundred feet: you'll be eased in and you'll sink. Once again, the point was that the few facts that we have seem to license a more cautiously reflective position than one of joyous revelry. Indeed, if anything is inflammatory, it's celebrating someone's death--even if it looks like the man deserved nothing better.

To reiterate: I have zero sympathy for Bin Laden, and I'm not trying to defend him. What I am concerned about is what an event like this says about the US, especially from a foreign policy perspective. It looks no different in kind to me than the policies on torture, extraordinary rendition, and preemptive war. So far, it looks like a net retreat from the moral high ground--not that the US has held much of that over the last ten years, even post-Obama. That saddens me, and it leaves me rather uneasy.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

It was hardly inaccurate: it was picked up, let go, and it went *splash*. Ok, fine, I didn't mention that they eased him gently into the sea so that his soul could rest content at heaven's gate--that's because they threw the body from an aircraft carrier. That's a lot of falling through the air. By contrast, if you want to be buried at sea, you won't be dumped from several hundred feet: you'll be eased in and you'll sink. Once again, the point was that the few facts that we have seem to license a more cautiously reflective position than one of joyous revelry. Indeed, if anything is inflammatory, it's celebrating someone's death--even if it looks like the man deserved nothing better.

---

I think there is a difference between throwing and dropping, just like there's a difference between running and jogging, pushing and punching, etc. I don't think I reveled in OBL death at all in my post, I'm not sure if you are referring to me. To kind of quote Samuel Jackson, I do agree he deserved to die, and I hope....

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
I think there is a difference between throwing and dropping, just like there's a difference between running and jogging, pushing and punching, etc.

---

Sure, that's fair: there's a difference--it just seems negligiblet in this case, since I doubt a bunch of Christian marines cared much for the sworn enemy they killed. I assumed that "throwing" adequately conveyed the lack of respect or sympathy in the gesture, but if you prefer "dropping", that's fine. I retract my "throwing" and will heretofore refer to it as "dropping". Of course, "dropping" isn't all that respectful either, and can be just as inflammatory.

So yeah, since it's an insignificant point, I'm happy with whatever term everyone else wants to use. There was no inflammatory intent there, just a descriptive one.

quote:

---

I don't think I reveled in OBL death at all in my post, I'm not sure if you are referring to me. To kind of quote Samuel Jackson, I do agree he deserved to die, and I hope....

---

I wasn't referring to you specifically, no, just to the general sentiments being expressed here and on the news. Apologies if it seemed otherwise. The point was simply that if we're concerned about being inflammatory, then we have our work cut out for us.

On a different front, for those who know something about the event: what are the chances that Pakistan's government was unaware of Bin Laden's whereabouts but their military was, and actively kept the secret?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

It may seem like petty semantics, but at this point, that's the image that the US government does want to convey, that his body was disposed with some amount of respect.

You don't have to go very far to see how some Americans are disgusted at the government's respectful treatment of the body and wish that something closer to the end of Braveheart had been done (in the movie, Wallace's body was dismembered and sent to different regions of England as a message).

As to your other point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
On a different front, for those who know something about the event: what are the chances that Pakistan's government was unaware of Bin Laden's whereabouts but their military was, and actively kept the secret?

---

I don't know that much so that I can speak authoritatively without hesitation, so I won't even hazard a guess as to which is the more likely scenario, but we can very easily enumerate all the possibilities and boil everything down to two likely scenarios:

If an organization had no knowledge, their competency is questionable and the US should think twice about trusting them in the future as a reliable source of information.

If an organization had some or full knowledge, but failed to disclose that information, then their motives are questionable and the US should think twice about trusting them in the future as a reliable ally in future engagements.

Unfortunately, US foreign policy for decades has been that the enemy of our enemy is our ally and we either trust their information as we deploy our own troops, or arm and train an ally, knowing there is a chance that they could turn against us in the future. (c.f. Afghanistan-USSR or Iraq-Iran)