Barack Obama and Joe Biden should face the death penalty for the murder of Osama Bin Laden - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15129574
This seems like an open and shut case to me. Barack Obama ordered the murder of Osama bin Laden. Joe Biden seems to have been complicit in this murder. Osama Bin Laden was not in war zone. He wasn't even in area with a major insurgency. He was living a short distance from one of Pakistan's major military establishment.

There don't seem to be any mitigating circumstances in this cold blooded murder. Hence they should face the death penalty.
#15129812
This is a no brainer. I think Barack Obama was decisive and made the right call ordering the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Obama was simply delivering justice to that evil terrorist mastermind. We are talking about a terrorist who brought untold death, suffering and misery to many people. I actually drank a beer and celebrated when I found out our Navy SEALs got him. It is very rare that I ever drink. But on that night, I drank a beer in celebration. I wanted to shake the hand of every Navy SEAL on that team and buy them a beer to show them my gratitude for a job well done.
#15129813
Rich wrote:This seems like an open and shut case to me. Barack Obama ordered the murder of Osama bin Laden. Joe Biden seems to have been complicit in this murder. Osama Bin Laden was not in war zone. He wasn't even in area with a major insurgency. He was living a short distance from one of Pakistan's major military establishment.

There don't seem to be any mitigating circumstances in this cold blooded murder. Hence they should face the death penalty.


Of all the war casualties, you care about this asshole?
#15129852
Unthinking Majority wrote:Of all the war casualties, you care about this asshole?

He wasn't a war casualty. As to whether he was an arsehole, I've little idea. But I guess we democrats have a different outlook to you fascists. If the President leader, Fuhrer, el Duce decides that someone should be killed that's enough for you. I have to say I find your child like faith in your government leaders quite touching.

For myself I prefer the 3 checks and balances:

Democracy
Free Speech
Due Process

Osama Bin Laden was resident in Pakistan, a US ally and recipient of vast military aid. All the US had to do was to ask the Pakistani government to arrest him and hand him over for trial. If Osama Bin Laden got killed while the Pakistanis were trying to arrest him then so be it. If the Pakistani authorities failed to arrest him, then military aid could be stopped, the country could be sanctioned and if necessary subject to military strikes.
#15129854
Bin Laden was a non-state actor, ie. a terrorist, who had declared war on the US. Obama/Biden had a sacred duty to assassinate him. What the US has no right to do is to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc., by waging illegal wars in these countries. What the US has no right to do either is to assassinate the leaders of foreign nations such as Soleimani. A century ago, WWI was started because Serbian terrorists assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. The assassination of Soleimani is worse since it wasn't committed by out-off control terrorists but by the president of the US.

If there is any justice in this world, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Trump and Pence need to face a firing squat to pay for these heinous crimes.

Obama deserves his Nobel peace price because he avoided foreign wars. Only the simple minded and deluded would assume that any president has the power to reverse the US's imperial tradition in merely two terms. The crimes of previous administrations has created a responsibility (eg. the fight against ISIS) future presidents have to assume.
#15129929
Rich wrote:He wasn't a war casualty. As to whether he was an arsehole.

He targeted and murdered innocent civilians constantly. The world is better off that he's dead.

Osama Bin Laden was resident in Pakistan, a US ally and recipient of vast military aid. All the US had to do was to ask the Pakistani government to arrest him and hand him over for trial. If Osama Bin Laden got killed while the Pakistanis were trying to arrest him then so be it. If the Pakistani authorities failed to arrest him, then military aid could be stopped, the country could be sanctioned and if necessary subject to military strikes.[/quote]
Haha. You think Pakistan is an ally? Do you know anything about the ISI? They were harbouring bin Laden. He was located in a compound around the corner from a Pakistani military base. You think the US knew where he was but Pakistan didn't? There's a very good reason the US didn't ask permission to enter their airspace before they attacked OBL. Pakistan can suck my penis.

Also calling for Obama and Biden to receive the death penalty is much less violent!
#15129934
In the aftermath of bin Laden's death, Obama asked Pakistan to investigate the shadowy network that sustained bin Laden as there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. Osama's stay at Abbottabad was arranged by a senior ISI officer on Pervez Musharraf's orders. The assassination of bin Laden may be technically illegal because America invaded Pakistan to pull off the stunt, while drone strikes in Afghanistan to kill terrorist chieftains may be barely legal as they are taking a direct part in hostilities. Pakistan did not raise the thorny issue because Pakistan was actually responsible for harboring Osama for many years and it was caught red-handed and embarrassed about its wrongdoing.

The killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces on 2 May 2011 raises several questions of international law with regard to the legality of this particular operation and the permissibility of targeted killings of international terrorists in general. In this article it will be argued, on the basis of an analysis of the applicable international law, that the killing of bin Laden cannot be justified under international humanitarian law because there is no armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda. Even if one were to assume the existence of such an armed conflict, bin Laden's killing would only have been lawful if Al Qaeda were to be considered an organised armed group within the meaning of international humanitarian law and bin Laden could have been killed qua membership of this group. Otherwise, his killing could only have been lawful if he was (still) taking a direct part in hostilities. In any case, in the absence of an armed conflict, under the applicable legal regime of peacetime, the killing could only be justified in a situation of self-defence or an immediate danger for others. As this situation apparently did not exist, the killing of bin Laden amounted to an extrajudicial execution. On another note, the operation may also have violated international law by failing to respect Pakistan's territorial sovereignty. Ultimately, this depends on the recognition of a (pre-emptive) right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, in particular taking into account the immediacy criterion.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 8F8E85D22D
#15129959
ThirdTerm wrote:
In the aftermath of bin Laden's death, Obama asked Pakistan to investigate the shadowy network that sustained bin Laden as there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. Osama's stay at Abbottabad was arranged by a senior ISI officer on Pervez Musharraf's orders. The assassination of bin Laden may be technically illegal because America invaded Pakistan to pull off the stunt, while drone strikes in Afghanistan to kill terrorist chieftains may be barely legal as they are taking a direct part in hostilities. Pakistan did not raise the thorny issue because Pakistan was actually responsible for harboring Osama for many years and it was caught red-handed and embarrassed about its wrongdoing.



Nice post, I gave it a like, and I commend your choice of source.

Now I'm going to disagree with it.

This was asymmetrical war. It's not new, it happens routinely when people resist a superior military.

When OBL arranged violence acts to be done to us, he joined the game. He knew the 'rules' of the game, and so did everyone else.

Pakistan is a complication, but a trivial one. Pakistan, the ISI to be specific, is deeply involved with ISIS and the Taliban. They've been screwing us since the 80s when we were stupid enough to let them. They were/are players in this game, and that attack doesn't begin to redress the balance, as I see it. There are complicating factors (like their nukes) but I see them as enemies more than I see them as allies. For a variety of reasons, that doesn't change things, but it does mean that I don't care if that attack bunched up their panties..
#15129967
Atlantis wrote:violate the sovereignty of Pakistan


It was more like a bribe for permission to operate in Pakistan than a violation of sovereignty.

US gives so called "aid" money to Pakistan so long as Pakistan aids in rooting out terrorism (whatever the US defines as terrorism). That money includes permission to seek out people like bin laden in Pakistan.

So the US didn't invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, they just paid them off with hush money.


Aide money is never aid money, that's just a nice way to dress up a bribe. Many countries do this. Not saying it's right, but that's how it works.
#15130019
Rancid wrote:It was more like a bribe for permission to operate in Pakistan than a violation of sovereignty.

US gives so called "aid" money to Pakistan so long as Pakistan aids in rooting out terrorism (whatever the US defines as terrorism). That money includes permission to seek out people like bin laden in Pakistan.

So the US didn't invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, they just paid them off with hush money.


Aide money is never aid money, that's just a nice way to dress up a bribe. Many countries do this. Not saying it's right, but that's how it works.


Americans seem to think that everything is for sale, including the US presidency. Some things aren't for sale, sovereignty isn't. The US should have cooperated with Pakistan for the capture of Bin Laden. If Pakistan refuses to cooperate, the US should have ceased cooperation, for example in not giving aid. Violating a country's sovereignty is an act of war.
#15130021
Atlantis wrote:Americans seem to think that everything is for sale, including the US presidency. Some things aren't for sale, sovereignty isn't.

Sure it is. You just have to put the right people in power and then bribe them. I'm surprised you didn't know that, @Atlantis. Lol.

The US should have cooperated with Pakistan for the capture of Bin Laden. If Pakistan refuses to cooperate, the US should have ceased cooperation, for example in not giving aid. Violating a country's sovereignty is an act of war.

....Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, Osama bin Laden is dead and Pakistan is the USA's little bitch.

Seriously though, if you want any of the things you claim to want, if you believe in any of the things you claim to believe in, then you are calling for a world revolution. The status quo is your enemy.
#15130029
Sorry @Potemkin, can't join you in the World revolution. I'm not going to throw away all the good things we have for a pie in the sky.

The EU exemplifies peaceful coexistence among nations. It's proven and tested. It can't fail. The social market economy guarantees the highest level of social justice and prosperity we can hope for in a imperfect world.

I know this is anathema to the imperialists, but that just proves that I'm right. :)
#15130035
@late

Pakistan was double dealing us in the 1980s when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan and Pakistan is double dealing us today while we occupy Afghanistan. I am no fan of the Pakistanis. Never trust the Pakistanis.
#15130038
Potemkin wrote:Pakistan is the USA's little bitch.


I thought it's CCP rather than USA.


Potemkin wrote:Seriously though, if you want any of the things you claim to want, if you believe in any of the things you claim to believe in, then you are calling for a world revolution. The status quo is your enemy.


I agree. Status quo is never perfect.

But as a matter of fact, neither are my (or anyone's) ideals.
Why do they hate Sig 144?

https://i.imgur.com/cCUWWrT.jpg […]

Destruction is not a strategy, nor should it be t[…]

What is God?

@Wellsy , what do you think of this response? T[…]

Mainly this just involves an incubator and being […]