This is one of Moore's more tolerable dissertations, but frankly, other than a few true believers in fairytale land, if you think anything good would have come from dragging OBL back here for a trial and execution you're an idiot. Ideologically pure, but a simpleton and naive child all the same.Why?
"For a man on the run, Osama bin Laden seemed to do very little running. Instead, he chose to spend long stretches – possibly years – in one place and often in the company of his family.posted by ericb at 10:42 AM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
As details emerge of bin Laden's era as America's most-wanted man, it appears he was often going in one direction while the American-directed hunt was moving in another.
... bin Laden relied on Afghan allies for years after the Sept. 11 attacks and possibly spent relatively limited time in Pakistan's rugged tribal areas, which had been the much-discussed focus of U.S. intelligence and military resources in the manhunt.
... Bin Laden didn't go underground, as widely believed by intelligence agencies. He stayed in Kandahar, mingled with his Arab fighters and met Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, according to an AP interview with a former Taliban intelligence chief."
"Two imams heading to a conference on prejudice against Muslims* said they were forced off their North Carolina-bound flight to undergo an additional security check -- only to have the pilot take off without them, even after they were cleared.* -- Oh, the irony.
... Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul, both imams in the Memphis area, were clad in Islamic attire when they were told to leave the aircraft as it was taxiing toward the runway.
... One representative of Delta Air Lines, who claimed to be advocating on the two men's behalf, came out visibly red-faced after a long talk with the pilot, according to Rahman. This was after the plane had returned to the gate and Rahman and Zaghoul had gotten off and gone through a secondary screening process. Shortly thereafter, the plane took off -- without the men, who hadn't been allowed back on board.
'He didn't give any reason,' said Rahman, referring to the pilot. '[The representative] said only that the pilot is not allowing you to go.'"
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"It’s possible [the Nuremberg principles] weren’t applicable here; if [bin Laden] couldn’t be safely captured because of his attempted resistance, then capturing him wasn’t a reasonable possibility."posted by octobersurprise at 3:04 PM on May 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
In one passage, Bin Laden wondered how many Americans would have to die in U.S. cities to force the U.S. government to withdraw from the Arab world. He concluded that it would require another mass murder on the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks to spur a reversal in U.S. policy, an official said.So...it turns out bin Laden's real, private motivation was exactly the same as his stated public motivation: to stop U.S. intervention in the mideast.
"States likely still retain a right to issue declarations of war, at least in exercising the right of self-defense; and such a declaration seemingly would still automatically create a state of war. But it is not clear that the legal consequences under international law that would flow from a declaration differ dramatically from those that occur if an armed conflict comes into being pursuant to an authorization for the use of force [italics mine]."The gist of the paper as it's relevant to the topic here is, as I see from a quick reading, is that regardless of whether war is made by an explicit declaration, or by an authorization for the use of force, there's very little difference in the way the armed conflict that follows can be conducted on the battlefield:
" ... conventions that attempt to regulate the means used to wage war, such as the Hague Conventions and other more recent agreements, and those that attempt to ameliorate the consequences of war for certain categories of persons, such as the Geneva Conventions, are deemed to apply to armed conflicts regardless of what label the Parties attach to them. A state of war still gives rise to “a mutual right to kill in battle,” triggers application of the various conventions regulating the means of waging war as well as of the general principles of necessity and proportionality, and brings into play the Geneva Conventions. (pg. 23)"So, while your citation does make the case that there are historical, procedural, and probably legal distinctions between a "declaration of war" and an "authorization for the use of force," it doesn't make the case (as far as I can see) that the the absence of an explicitly worded declaration of war makes the armed conflict in Afghanistan a "make-believe war," or that Bin Laden is less of a legitimate target in such a conflict, or that the US is morally obligated to take the Al-Qaeda commander alive.
« Older Do doctors violate the 2nd Amendment when they ask... | The TSA has performed a "... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:42 AM on May 13, 2011 [25 favorites]