Sas guy on sky news

[doodab]

Have a look here for some analysis: US: Bin Laden - a license to kill? | Radio Netherlands Worldwide
It's a bit murkier than you suggest. You seem to want it both ways. Either the Laws of War apply, or they don't, in which case it is a criminal matter subject to due process. Which is it?

It's war. There is no grey area. Bin Laden declared war, the US considered him an "enemy combatant" in a war, and he was killed by soldiers doing their job.

I doubt anyone involved gives a monkeys what the Dutch think.

[Incognito]

Have a look here for some analysis

I don't agree with the cloggy's assertions in that article. Each to their own though.

[Old Greg]

It's war. There is no grey area. Bin Laden declared war, the US considered him an "enemy combatant" in a war, and he was killed by soldiers doing their job.

I doubt anyone involved gives a monkeys what the Dutch think.

It's not 'the Dutch'. It's a Professor of International Law who is Dutch. I am sure nobody gives a monkeys what he thinks, because nobody gives a monkeys about legalities as long as the bad man is dead. interesting that they feel it important that they do care. Hey, but that's gangsters for you.

[Incognito]

It's not 'the Dutch'. It's a Professor of International Law who is Dutch. I am sure nobody gives a monkeys what he thinks, because nobody gives a monkeys about legalities as long as the bad man is dead. interesting that they feel it important that they do care. Hey, but that's gangsters for you.

As I said before, the Geneva Conventions do not recognise any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. Any state that is caught up in such a conflict legally only has to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

I don't agree with your Dutch professor.

[Old Greg]

As I said before, the Geneva Conventions do not recognise any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. Any state that is caught up in such a conflict legally only has to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

I don't agree with your Dutch professor.

Of course not. You're just glad the bad man is dead.

[Incognito]

Of course not. You're just glad the bad man is dead.

Not really, there's plenty more people out there will step up to the plate to take on that mantle. I do believe though you live by the sword you die by the sword. He'd rejected the concept of western civilisation so shouldn't be able to rely on it to avoid his maker.

[Old Greg]

Not really, there's plenty more people out there will step up to the plate to take on that mantle. I do believe though you live by the sword you die by the sword. He'd rejected the concept of western civilisation so shouldn't be able to rely on it to avoid his maker.

I'm not concerned (particularly) about what the lawlessness does to him, but to us.

[Board Game Geek]

I'm not concerned (particularly) about what the lawlessness does to him, but to us.

Greg does have a point in this regard, if you dig a little deeper and take a reflective look at things.

Do the West have a right to amend the law, post 9-11, to give themselves carte blanche to pursue and kill their enemies, wherever they may be on the world's stage ?

Does AQ have the right to target innocent Westerner's in the name of Jihad ?

Rightly or Wrongly, AQ would argue that their religion allows them to do so.

Rightly or Wrongly, the West would argue that they have the right to defend themselves and pursue their enemies.

Both sides could probably argue Rightly or Wrongly until they were blue in the face.

It gets to a point where even debating what is right or wrong becomes ultimately futile.

As an extreme example, an alien race might land tomorrow and start herding us all in to their ships for "food". (V anyone ?)

Now, I suspect that most of the human race would view this as "not ok" and call it murder.

The alien race however, see us in the same way as we might see cows, for example. Hell, perhaps we contain an enzyme that will save their dying race. Except we need to die to manufacture it.

So I perceive things with AQ and their ilk.

Different values, mores, laws, opinions, the whole shebang.

Either we learn to get along and tolerate each other, which most of the time, moderate people of moderate civilisations tend to do, as human nature is mostly moderate in temprament anyway.

Or we let extremists incite us and the violence renews.

Since we've been on this planet, the cycle of war and peace has ever been thus, and will always be so. To change that, you need to change human nature, and the only effective way to do that is to make everyone identical in thought, action, belief and creed.

I'm not sure, without massive amounts of indoctrination, imprisonment, and the loss of free will, that that is a possible thing to achieve.

Thus, you accept that intolerance and war will always prevail somewhere around the world.

Walk softly ; but seriously, always carry a big stick ; and don't be a wuss if and when there comes a time when you need to use it.

Obama used the big stick.

Osama ?

Meh.

[manclarky]

It gets to a point where even debating what is right or wrong becomes ultimately futile.

But that would debase the CUK Forums where futile arguments thrive!