For those convinced the recent operation in Pakistan was an example of continuous, heinous illegality, Noam Chomsky's got your back:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Last edited by NJS (2011-05-07 12:58:19)

FNB - First of all, have a look at Articles 2, 3, 4, 13 and 33 of the Geneva Convention. If he had been a combatant in an armed struggle, he was not engaged in it when he was captured (and, even if he had been, he seems to have been captured unarmed, on any reasonable interpretation) and, accordingly, he should have been afforded the protection of the Convention, before he were dealt with according to an appropriate judicial procedure. The number of armed and armoured crack troops involved speaks for itself in relation to the question whether he was a captive at the moment that he was shot. Moreover, shooting an unarmed man is just not the thing to do, is it? 

Moreover, I have already said that had this been done covertly and not 'claimed' as a kill and celebrated as a strike for civilization, I would feel far less uneasy and less moved to speak out. Prospective Special Operations' Executives in WWII were asked one main question: "Do you have any moral objection to murder?" - because they might have to kill unarmed Nazis behind enemy lines but in that case there is a distinction because they were acting against actual invaders of sovereign soil. Here, I think that the law is complex in relation to what ObL actually did, for the purpose of prosecution and also in relation to where the crimes were committed, for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. Incitement and conspiracy are complex areas of the law, for a start. I don't think that it is said that he ever killed anyone direct. Correct me if I am wrong. There should have been an Indictment waiting for his capture and all this should now be known but it isn't.

I fear that having the police running around with guns, exercising summary justice, is a new thing in Britain and armed gun battles between the police and criminals are comparatively rare in Britain, so we are not used to people being whacked by the authorities; especially since Britain abolished the death penalty.

Last edited by NJS (2011-05-07 17:50:01)

NJS, as a lawyer I'm sure that you already know that:

1. ) OBL and his followers were / are not signatories to the Geneva Convention and thus it does not apply

2. ) Non uniformed troops do not share protections provided by the Geneva convention.


Aside from the photo of you with your snuff handkerchief peeking out of your pocket , your statement   " Moreover, shooting an unarmed man is just not the thing to do, is it? "  is perhaps the most iGenty thing I've ever seen or read on FNB.

Last edited by K. A. Adams (2011-05-07 18:49:07)

I do dare.

And as you wait for your hand engraved copy of OBL's list of 'alleged' crimes,  I will state that his death, regardless of the circumstance or method, was an absolute moral good.

Pine also, if you must, because he died so valiantly at the hands of 40 American thugs.  They're so unsporting, those Americans !  Pip Pip

Had British commandos scaled the heights of Berchtesgaden and found Hitler at his desk, unarmed, I'm sure that they would've invited him to a cup of tea and a chat with his court appointed attorney. That's the British way. Huzzah !

Your comments about passionless justice show how truly disconnected you are from the reality of OBL's actions.

I wish that were true in my case but within a 500 foot radius of my home 11 of my neighbors were killed by OBL. That number does not include my friend Karen nor the countless strangers that I saw falling, jumping, half naked and ablaze, from the Twin Towers.  Nor does it include the effects of the destruction of my business nor the unknown affect on my health from breathing in all that dust.

So while you stroke yourself and prattle on about the ' blind expression of the administration of justice ' I will do a little jig on his imaginary grave

You see, It's always personal.

P.S. Congratulations and best regards to Ms. Granville

Last edited by K. A. Adams (2011-05-07 22:09:12)

Your points about the Geneva Convention are completely irrelevant because, as I pointed out, it does not apply, period.

And the fact that you keep dragging sport / wing shooting references into the context of a war makes you not only ridiculous but pretentious

As far as Granville goes, I was aware of her but I have yet to figure out why you even mention her other than to fulfill your fantasist's view of how you think the current circumstances should have played out.

I praise God I'm not a lawyer. If you want a legal debate I suggest the Hague or pro bono work in Luton. They'd love you there.