it is illegal in any jurisdictional court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman --- it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice
On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and > internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who > the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act). > > The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito); > is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT > Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently > shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional > court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed > and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman. > > On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Steven Leser <[email protected]> > > Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM > > Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from > > Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted > > To: [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], Victoria Leser < > > [email protected]>, [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected] > > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov... > > # > > > False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and > > more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular > > segment of the Progressive left. > > > To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let’s completely > > outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and > > bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda. > > > In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of > > war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a > > Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the > > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he > > called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel. > > > In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the > > United States, it’s allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war, > > bin Laden among other things said “The ruling to kill the Americans and > > their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every > > Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it” > > > On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war, > > the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the > > capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the > > October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001 > > attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas > > and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas. > > > Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist > > between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more > > non-nation state entities? The answer is, “of course”, as an example, many > > civil wars fit this description. > > > My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of > > war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda > > and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between > > the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them. > > > International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the > > Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and > > self defense. > > > Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says “Nothing in the present > > Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective > > self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United > > Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain > > international peace and security….” > > > Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the > > authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the > > idea that the Security council can “take measures necessary to maintain > > international peace and security” in this situation via any kind of > > diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand. > > > On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that > > condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to > > combat terrorist acts by “all means”, re-affirmed the inherent right of > > individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness “to take > > all necessary steps” to respond to the terrorist attacks. > > > The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia, > > Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining > > together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban > > supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be > > involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go > > beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the > > entire international community supported the United States in their efforts > > to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. > > > Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary > > General of the United Nations said “Personally, I am very much relieved by > > the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international > > terrorism. I would like to commend the work and the determined and > > principled commitment of many people in the world who have been struggling > > to eradicate international terrorism.” > > > Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and > > asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical > > attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky > > suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and > > author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was > > lynched. > > > As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as > > unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written > > several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush > > administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary > > justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq > > was not true. Here is one such article > > http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-.... > > Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who > > ordered it are guilty of that war crime. > > > The easiest response to Chomsky’s suggestion is that currently no state of > > war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government > > of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how > > many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a > > killing that occurred between two entities that are at war and a > > hypothetical one between two entities that are not only no longer at war, > > they have good relations. > > > International law and most countries’ criminal law statutes take those kind > > of distinctions very seriously. > > > It would be quite an odd argument to claim that bin Laden should get the > > protection of a non-war status and those who killed him should be prosecuted > > for an extra-judicial killing after he himself declared war twice and since > > then has continuously waged war directly through the organization he led. > > > A helpful second example that illustrates the inaccuracy of the Chomsky and > > Swanson analogies is the April 18, 1943 killing of Japanese Commander in > > Chief Isoroku Yamamoto by the US Army Air Corps. Military intelligence > > learned that Yamamoto would be conducting an inspection of Japanese > > installations in the Solomon Islands and they learned the flight path his > > aircraft would be taking, and they had US Fighter aircraft ambush and shoot > > down the plane. > > > The ambushing of Yamamoto was not a crime and no one then or since has > > considered it so. In wartime, the commanders of combatants are legitimate > > and legal targets. It’s not considered an extra-judicial killing or lynching > > to attack combatants and their commanders in wartime. > > > A high percentage of those who self identify as Democrats and/or > > Progressives also self identify as anti-war, and I include myself in that. > > There is a difference, however, between protesting unjust wars and > > preferring non-violent solutions to conflicts whenever possible versus > > twisting facts and using false equivalencies to demonize actions because you > > want to try to assert that all acts of violence, particularly those by one > > country or entity (in this case the US), are evil. > > > __._,_.___ > > Reply to > > sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Hand%20Wringing%20Over%20Osama%E2%80%99s%2 > > 0Death%20from%20Fellow%20Progressives%20is%20Unwarranted>| > > Reply > > to > > group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Hand%20Wringing%20Over%20Osama%E2%80 > > %99s%20Death%20from%20Fellow%20Progressives%20is%20Unwarranted>| > > Reply > > via web > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
