Ding Dong the Witch is dead

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.

 

I believe they disposed of the body quickly to try and adhere to the Muslim tradition of entombing before 24 hours.

I could be wrong, this is just what a friend said and it seems to make sense.

Personally, I want to see a picture.

 

A dark day for justice and rule of law. Indeed when might is right no justice is served. No wonder why US never agreed to join the ICC (international criminal court, seated in Hague http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/), since government sanctioned/executed murder is a crime against humanity, by definition.

Now we have neither proof of Osama’s death nor of his guilt for any crime (after the imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Saddam’s link to al-Qaida, one just can’t believe the mere word of Yanks). He was denied the very fundamental right in any free and law binding society: to get his case tried by an impartial court of justice. ”No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, or in any other way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of his peers.” Magna Carta 15. June. AD 1215 .

It saddens me that in these times when we see the war criminals of former Yugoslavia and even the tyrants of African states face the fierce and fair justice of international court, the worst war criminals stay at large just because they are Americans. Double standard sickens me. How can those who propagate freedom, liberty, democracy and rule of law simultaneously commit crimes of war and crimes against humanity, especially without repercussion?

Usāma ibn Muḥammad ibn `Awad ibn Lādin may you find the peace and justice in hereafter that you were denied in this world.

Ps. According to ever trustworthy internet Islam does not approve neither burial at sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_funeral) nor tombs as places of pilgrimage (http://islam.about.com/cs/elderly/a/funerals.htm).

Pss. “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” –Benjamin Franklin.

 

Under United States law, the President of the United States can sign a "finding" that authorizes a covert operation of this sort. The original finding that authorized action against Bin Laden and Al Quaeda was signed by President Clinton in 1993. A finding is not signed until the issues surrounding it are scrutinized thoroughly by knowledgeable experts and is essentially a trial en absentia.

If Bin Laden felt that he was about to be dealt with unfairly by the United States, he could have turned himself in to any organization that he thought would have done right by him. He was aware of the accusations against him and responded to them by gloating over the death of thousands of innocent American civilians.

In America, the accused is entitled to trial by jury. Bin Laden clearly declined that privelage. His death was the the result of heinous crimes committed against Americans in America and abroad. The rest of the world had over 17 years to intervene and bring Bin Laden to justice. Justice cannot be denied simply because of the objections and inaction of indfferent third parties.

The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt. Do you seriously suggest Bin was innocent?

 

.

Even with the possibility of being provocative the Nürnberg laws of German Reich in 1935 legalized the holocaust. The very idea of international law was to abolish this kind of arbitrary and to bind all civilized nations under the same set of rules of human rights. To this day only US is determined to stay outside civilized community, perhaps because there is still some oil fields to conquer. Even the federation of Russia has abolished the death penalty in order to join the European Convent…

.
And which would have been that? Where could have he gone? Yanks been hunting him over the globe, no place to hide or flee. The saudis, the pakis being american allies and most of the Afghanistan occupied by hostile forces. Europe being the only place with even a hope of a fair trial, but the way to there was filled with US troops in whose hands immediate execution would be imminent.

Agreed. Osama would have been granted a fair trial in US (just like Saddam given that he was tried in Iraq, but that was hardly a fair trial)), no wonder why he declined.

Study your history. Yanks themselves trained Osama and his friends to fight the Soviets during the first Afghan war. You reap what you sew, tax dollars well spent. And revenge/murder is hardly justice.

Before his (alleged) death I did not. Now I do. There must be a reason to avoid fair trial.

 

Even with the possibility of being provocative the Nürnberg laws of German Reich in 1935 legalized the holocaust. The very idea of international law was to abolish this kind of arbitrary and to bind all civilized nations under the same set of rules of human rights. To this day only US is determined to stay outside civilized community, perhaps because there is still some oil fields to conquer. Even the federation of Russia has abolished the death penalty in order to join the European Convent…

Piffle. Oil fields in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

ONLY the U.S.? World Trade Center, 9/11

.
And which would have been that? Where could have he gone? Yanks been hunting him over the globe, no place to hide or flee. The saudis, the pakis being american allies and most of the Afghanistan occupied by hostile forces. Europe being the only place with even a hope of a fair trial, but the way to there was filled with US troops in whose hands immediate execution would be imminent.

I doubt the U.S. troops in Europe are sufficient to take him from any country in Europe.

Agreed. Osama would have been granted a fair trial in US (just like Saddam given that he was tried in Iraq, but that was hardly a fair trial)), no wonder why he declined.

Nonetheless, he would have received one.


Study your history. Yanks themselves trained Osama and his friends to fight the Soviets during the first Afghan war. You reap what you sew, tax dollars well spent. And revenge/murder is hardly justice.

And the Soviets left Afghanistan, and Bin Laden showed his gratitude.

Before his (alleged) death I did not. Now I do. There must be a reason to avoid fair trial.

Sorry, I believe you DO know.

Yes, Bin Laden knew he was guilty. Why would he want a fair trial?

 

Yes a burial at sea IS a in order for an Islamic follower, this is what an expert had to say:

" On May 2, less than 24 hours after his death, Osama bin Laden's body was placed on a flat board and eased into the North Arabian Sea. Before being slid overboard the USS Carl Vinson, his body was washed and wrapped in white sheets in a 40-minute long traditional ceremony, while a Muslim officer read prayers for his soul.

The burial at sea might be unorthodox, but it's not unheard of, says Halevi, an associate professor of history at Vanderbilt. What was stranger was that he was granted the funeral ceremony reserved for the passing of ordinary Muslims under ordinary circumstances. Bin Laden was hardly ordinary and most would agree he died in extraordinary circumstances. Some would even argue he died in battle. The rituals for those who died in battle according to Halevi are different; they don't require the person be buried in a shroud or someone to say a prayer. And from what Halevi can see, the U.S. did not try to humiliate bin Laden in death. "

I believe he got what was coming and take it from a soldier that has been on more than one battlefield, the US is the only army that actually takes the Geneva convention into consideration when carrying out military operations.

btw, which branch of the armed services did you serve in for your country Rocktoy?

 

Pakis are US allies, at least to my knowledge, so no need to invade that country, even if they have oil (like the Saudis). Taliban ruled Afghanistan refused to obey UN resolution to extradite Osama to US so the UN sanctioned the current Afghan operation. That’s why even Finland (non-NATO country) has troops in there, only 176 strong though.

Iraq is entirely different thing. No UN sanction was ever given and according to UN charter an offensive war of UN member state against another without the sanction of UN Security Council is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Sadly the US tends to follow the international law only when it suits its purposes. (How I miss the days when the Ruskies were strong enough to keep the US at bay).

WTC was hardly a deed done by a civilized nation, or group. What separates us from terrorist and other barbarians is that we do follow the rule of law, the due process and we do honor the bill of human rights.

No disagreement there. But the repercussions of such act would have been somewhat unacceptable to Obama. At least he has been trying to build warmer relations with the old continent. Snatching a prisoner waiting to be tried would definitely sour those relations for a long time. Most likely the EU would have made a joint decision to withdraw all troops in Afghanistan letting the Yanks clean up their own mess alone.

Do you really claim that any US jury wouldn’t have any prejudice over Osama? I sincerely doubt that.

No I do not, and now I will never know for sure.

A fair trial is not there just to benefit the accused, but also (and even more importantly) to benefit the general public. To show that no man is above or below the rule of law, that the rule of law is not arbitrary and that it is the same for all. To skip the due process is nothing but allowing lynch mobs to operate freely.

 

Truly so. And the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay is an excellent example of that. Oh my mistake: the detainees there are not “prisoners of war” (that the Geneva convention is about) but “enemy combatants”. Yeah. Just like the detainees in Auschwitz Birkenau were not prisoners but only subjects of the final solution…

I served in the 2. Jääkärikomppania in the Uudenmaan Jääkäripataljoona, which is a part of Kaartinjääkärirykmentti. That being the 2nd Jaeger Company in the Newlands Jaeger Battalion of the Jaegers of the Guard Regiment (translations are mine, since I have no idea if they have any name in English). In addition to the basic (/guerilla?) infantry training I received the Jaegers of the Guard training. The Jaeger companies are the best trained reserve units, in separation with the local defensive units and the rapid deployment units (later being only career soldier, currently deployed in Afghanistan).
The Jaegers of the Guard are motorized/armored infantry that specializes in urban warfare, mainly in order to defend our Capital Helsinki. My personal specialization being the squad support weapon (PKM) and my company’s main training was offensive and defensive operations in urban areas.

Sadly this is no longer the case with me. As a matter of fact I spent most of this day being briefed what my future military training will be. As I have now lived over six years here in Joensuu, I am no longer considered to be able to maintain necessary motivation to defend Helsinki (all Finnish troops are trained to defend their home area to maximize motivation) and I will be re-trained. So I will be spending one to three weekends every month for the next six years learning how to fight in the surroundings of my current location of residence. Oh joy…

 

Your insinuation was that we don't care unless oil is involved. We DID violate their territorial sovereignity in that operation. An ally would not have harbored him for 10 years.

The United Nations Agreements from 1991, which Hussein repeatedly violated, authorized exactly that. Check the history of U.N. pronouncement against Iraq throughout the '90's.

That it was an "uncivilized" group doesn't mean they cannot be called to reckoning. The world had 10 years to produce some sort of "civilized" resolution. Of course, as usual, none was available. The law does not apply to those who choose not to avail themselves of it. Self-defense supercedes ALL legal fictions. If the police choose not to protect you, you STILL get to defend yourself. Even from the police.

Agreed. Bin Laden chose not to avail himself of that.

Bin Laden's lawyers would have the opportunity to resolve that.

As you wish.

Due process also includes the authorities using force to bring a criminal to justice. Even if I am innocent, I must submit to arrest or have escalating levels of force used against me. This includes death. If Bin Laden wanted a trial after murdering thousands of innocent people, he had plenty of opportunity.

 

I think I agree with Rocktoy on this one.
And I understand why American citizens mostly do not agree with him, because they are affected by emotions artificially inspired by their government.

I have found this particular sentence, you have typed, GA, to be the most interesting.

If you read it carefully, you will see that it makes the law ultimately ineffective. If this sentence is true, then the law should only be applied to law-abiding citizens. And then, criminals should not be prosecuted, because they chose "not to avail themselves of it", hence "law does not apply to" them, and crime is a matter of law.
No law -> no crime -> no prosecution. Just that simple.

Of course, you meant "beneficial" aspect of the law should not be applied to criminals. But you still have to determine if someone is a criminal before that one is denied the benefits of law and is subjected to punishing part of law. And exactly for this various courts were invented and various international treaties were signed - to determine who is a criminal with as little possibility of mistake as possible.

As for the Osama guy, well, now we will not know if he really was behind that act of terrorism, or that was someone else (and you know, second man under suspicion is former USA President George W. Bush, for he had motives, means and he was the one who got a lot of benefits from it. Well, OK, not he himself, but a certain part of USA elite for whom he was the face-person.)

Now that we know Osama was killed while being defenceless and already captured...
Oh, well...

[EDIT] More discussion.

It is not unknown of not guilty people to evade arrest and trial due to their mistrust to the court or justice system. So, if you consider Osama was not the guilty party, he would naturally try to evade trial, since almost every American thinks he is guilty, thus almost every jury in USA would judge him unfairly.

 

I do not insinuate. I am an Ostrobothnian so I say as it is: oil or no oil, US follows international laws only when it suits US agendas, otherwise it does what it pleases.

Correct. But that mandated only the Desert Strom. After that Iraq followed all the UN given regulations. Sadly Iraq was banished from UN membership as a result of Desert Strom, giving the US and UK a legal loophole to invade it later. Just because you can does not make it right.

Murder after ten years is hardly an act of self defense; it is an act of vengeance. Like Martin Luther King Jr. said: one cannot fight darkness with darkness, as that will only create more darkness. One must fight darkness with light. Vengeance leads only to vengeance. One day it may be you and your family who the hooded forces raids and kill in order to settle a score. As Gandhi said: Eye for an eye leads only to world of blind people.

And any decent judge would declare immediately a mistrial, by the grounds of impossibility of fair trial.

As an academian I have learn to trust only scientifically proven facts, in this case I have shown none.

No murders or any guilt of a crime in that matter have ever been proven, that being a lawful judgment of a lawful court, and since all suspects are considered not guilty until the lawful judgment of their peers: the case remain open.
(Disclaimer: do not take me as an average US hater. I spend the summer of 2009 in Kirkland Washington, and I fell in love with the country. Should the opportunity arise, I would happily immigrate. I am only a humanist and a Christian so my values and my opinions follows those paths.)

 

I think the English translation of Jaeger is "Light Infantry". In the U.S. Army, this would include the 10th Mountain Division and the old 6th Arctic Light Division, as well as the 7 and 25 Light Divisions.

I assure you the United States citizens are thoroughly inscensed at Bin laden and terrorists in general without the help of our candy-ass president.

10 years after? There have been Al Quaeda attacks THIS year.

Simply put, police the world over have to resort to force, including deadly force, in order to cause a criminal to cease his violent acts, and, hopefully, be taken into custody. This force is applied without benefit of trial and often in the heat of the moment. It's repulsive, but necessary for the preservation of law. A criminal can voluntarily surrender peacefully, or fight to the death.

In one sentence: Obey the Law or Die.

You and I voluntarily obey the law because we are smart enough to see the benefits of doing so. If we were not protected by the law, we would likely engage in "lawless" activity to preserve ourselves, and be imprisoned or killed for doing so.

(Disclaimer: do not take me as an average US hater. I spend the summer of 2009 in Kirkland Washington, and I fell in love with the country. Should the opportunity arise, I would happily immigrate. I am only a humanist and a Christian so my values and my opinions follows those paths.)

You would, of course, be welcome here. You would fit right in. You might not like Texas, though, it's hotter than hell. :flamed:

 

You guys sure have interesting discussions.

Of interest to me, is the low opinion some people appear to have of the US.

I live here and am well aware of US inequalities and politics (well maybe not well aware, certainly not anywhere near the depth that others on this forum seem to have) but it seems to me that all countries have their um inequalities and self serving politics, don't they?

Is the US any worse in this regard than others?

Edit: Don't mean to derail this topic. If it is, just ignore my post.