4 ms·

They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arreste

by wbl 8y ago

They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.

mhjas 8y ago
As far as I know that is exactly what they did. > ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of... A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
- adventured 8y ago
  > It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want. That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now. China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
  - stef25 8y ago
    > Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.
- bluedevil2k 8y ago
  How was Obama a hypocrite? And why was this a defining moment for the US? The US has been killing foreign nationals for decades, think of all the CIA operations in the past. Obama ordered 540 drone strikes during his 8 years in office. I think the OBL operation was an expected response after finding his location. And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
  - mhjas 8y ago
    Whether Obama is a hypocrite or not is certainly a matter of opinion. The defining moment was the missed opportunity to end, or begin to end, the war on terror. Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit. > And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel? Probably not, which is sort of the point.
- wbl 8y ago
  Notice what Osama did not do: put his hands up and shout "I surrender". Osama is a bad case because of LOAC. Most criminals are not engaged in acts of war.
drexlspivey 8y ago
In what sense is it legal to send a covert SEAL team to enter a sovereign allied country and arrest/kill somebody? US has no such jurisdiction in Pakistan.
- bluedevil2k 8y ago
  I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States when they were knowingly harboring the world's most wanted terrorist.
  - madeuptempacct 8y ago
    And who funded both the guy they were harboring and the country during the Soviet-Afghanistan war?
    - bluedevil2k 8y ago
      I don't see your point here. The US funded Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war? What's that have to do with the US's decision to kill the world's most wanted terrorist in a country giving him safety?
      - madeuptempacct 8y ago
        My point is that betraying the sovereignity of allies and claiming the higher moral ground is mutually exclusive. You can't be someone's friend and then punch them in the face when it's convenient. Pakistan is a shitty country, with shitty practices, but it IS an ally. Note that Saudi Arabia is a VERY shitty country, and is currently a strong ally. "I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States" "Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Alliance_with_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States... Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.
exolymph 8y ago
> Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent. Agreed, but governments do plenty of abhorrent things.

by wbl 8y ago

mhjas 8y ago

As far as I know that is exactly what they did. > ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of... A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.

adventured 8y ago
> It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want. That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now. China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
- stef25 8y ago
  > Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.
bluedevil2k 8y ago
How was Obama a hypocrite? And why was this a defining moment for the US? The US has been killing foreign nationals for decades, think of all the CIA operations in the past. Obama ordered 540 drone strikes during his 8 years in office. I think the OBL operation was an expected response after finding his location. And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
- mhjas 8y ago
  Whether Obama is a hypocrite or not is certainly a matter of opinion. The defining moment was the missed opportunity to end, or begin to end, the war on terror. Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit. > And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel? Probably not, which is sort of the point.
wbl 8y ago
Notice what Osama did not do: put his hands up and shout "I surrender". Osama is a bad case because of LOAC. Most criminals are not engaged in acts of war.

drexlspivey 8y ago

In what sense is it legal to send a covert SEAL team to enter a sovereign allied country and arrest/kill somebody? US has no such jurisdiction in Pakistan.

bluedevil2k 8y ago
I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States when they were knowingly harboring the world's most wanted terrorist.
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  And who funded both the guy they were harboring and the country during the Soviet-Afghanistan war?
  - bluedevil2k 8y ago
    I don't see your point here. The US funded Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war? What's that have to do with the US's decision to kill the world's most wanted terrorist in a country giving him safety?
    - madeuptempacct 8y ago
      My point is that betraying the sovereignity of allies and claiming the higher moral ground is mutually exclusive. You can't be someone's friend and then punch them in the face when it's convenient. Pakistan is a shitty country, with shitty practices, but it IS an ally. Note that Saudi Arabia is a VERY shitty country, and is currently a strong ally. "I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States" "Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Alliance_with_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States... Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.

exolymph 8y ago

> Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent. Agreed, but governments do plenty of abhorrent things.