Has a Dangerous New President Now Been Set?

#1
In light of the assassination of Osama bin Laden on orders by the U.S president by stealth in Pakistan and other similar incidents of the same nature that have happened, one has to ask the question, what right does any country have to enter another by stealth for purpose of assassination?

This is NOT a thread about the evils of bin laden, the question being ...... Has a dangerous precedent now been set where world leaders can now dispose of undesirable people not to their liking by sending in military forces by stealth to foreign country's for purpose of assassination ??
 
#2
Aside from making the obvious observation about any US President being a 'dangerous president' in his own right...

And this isn't exactly the first time this has happened. The Americans, Israelis, Russians and the UK have all carried out similar activities, to the best of my knowledge.
 
#3
precedent....

you think it's the first time a government has assassinated somebody outside of their borders?
 
#4
The president has been set for years... oh, you mean precedent.

But it is a bit worrying, that a team of foreign nationals can descend upon a villa and deal out death, despite the recipiant being of a deserving nature.

But I'd imagine the uproar from such a mission against a non-global enemy would be great.

In this instance, a known global head of a terrorist network, and a threat to international security and stabilisation. Good intell and a good take down.

Wouldn't want to be the prez if they took down some Pakistani Granny having a holiday.
 
#6
The precedent was probably set years ago and even in our not too distant past SOE had developed Operation Foxley to assassinate Hitler but it was not put into operation because of the rapid Allied advances in 1945 .
 
#7
FFS did you bother going to any history lessons when you were at school OP? Lets see off the top of my head, Heydrich assassinated by British trained and equipped Czech partisans, dozens of Palestinians by the Isrealis, the dozens of attempts by the Americans on Castro, the North Koreans numerous attempts at assassination against South Korean figures including a substantial bombing in Burma, the South Africans against the ANC throughtout Africa and probably thousands of other examples throughout history.
If the Pakistani's are unable or unwilling to properly police their country which is being used as a base of operations and sanctuary by international terrorists, who are actively attacking or enabling attacks on Western targets, then they can hardly be surprised when the West does it for them.
 
#8
What about, say, a person who has residency in the UK and has been under suspicion for involvment in major terrorist incidents but due judicial process has found him not guilty (because, let's say, of the inadmissability of intelligence material) and the US decides that the world would be better of without him and sends a team to the UK to dispatch him.

Second thoughts, I should be a script writer for Spooks...
 
#9
The precedent was probably set years ago and even in our not too distant past SOE had developed Operation Foxley to assassinate Hitler but it was not put into operation because of the rapid Allied advances in 1945 .
Surely a legitimate act of war, covered by international law?

Whereas Bin Laden was a criminal (you can't declare war on an individual, group or set of ideas, despite the Yank War on Terror) and should be dealt with by legal sanction.

This is a dangerous precedent on the basis that the US has claimed the right to act as it sees fit when it sees fit. The precedent is the fact that they are making no secret of it and are holding two fingers up to the world. On a lesser scale, it's like despatching the SAS in the past to the Irish republic to scratch a few troublesome itches and making sure the world knows about it-an attractive idea for some no doubt, but hardly calculated to win hearts and minds.

The concern here is that the USA clearly had not thought out what happens after they killed Bin Laden. If they are going to set themselves up as the supreme arbiters of justice, they could at least look like they've given it a little thought
 
#10
Exceptional circs here, I think. Anyway, the Pakistanis werren't prepared to do anything about him, i.e., arrest him. Extrajudicial it may have been, but justifiable IMHO.
 
#11
What about, say, a person who has residency in the UK and has been under suspicion for involvment in major terrorist incidents but due judicial process has found him not guilty (because, let's say, of the inadmissability of intelligence material) and the US decides that the world would be better of without him and sends a team to the UK to dispatch him.

Second thoughts, I should be a script writer for Spooks...
Well if he started releasing videos boasting about having carried out said terrorist attacks and threatening to carry out more such attacks and for whatever reason MI5/6 chose not to arrest him or extradite him but instead seemed to be hiding him on the outskirts of Camberley with a pair of other suspected terrorists then yes I wouldn't have much of a problem with the Americans taking him out. But then again OBL is a pretty special case and highly unlikely to be repeated anytime soon.
 
#12
Surely a legitimate act of war, covered by international law?

Whereas Bin Laden was a criminal (you can't declare war on an individual, group or set of ideas, despite the Yank War on Terror) and should be dealt with by legal sanction.

This is a dangerous precedent on the basis that the US has claimed the right to act as it sees fit when it sees fit. The precedent is the fact that they are making no secret of it and are holding two fingers up to the world. On a lesser scale, it's like despatching the SAS in the past to the Irish republic to scratch a few troublesome itches and making sure the world knows about it-an attractive idea for some no doubt, but hardly calculated to win hearts and minds.

The concern here is that the USA clearly had not thought out what happens after they killed Bin Laden. If they are going to set themselves up as the supreme arbiters of justice, they could at least look like they've given it a little thought
So it would have been better that OBL was taken alive and put on trial? Where would the trial be held and in what fashion as he was believed to have ordered attacks across the globe, with the Kenyans, Tanzanians, Afghans, Pakistanis and even UK (9/11 is still the worst terror attack in our history) having valid claims to put him on trial. Would it be held in camera or would he be allowed to use the trial as a piece of Islamist propaganda spouting the hate he was famous for?
Had the Americans simply shot him and bugged out and kept quiet would the Pakistani's have admitted who it was who had been killed outside their a major military installation? Unfuckinglikely his body would have been torched and the ashes scattered quick sharp. This was a major propaganda coup for the Americans and was never going to play any other way.
 
#14
Surely a legitimate act of war, covered by international law?

Whereas Bin Laden was a criminal (you can't declare war on an individual, group or set of ideas, despite the Yank War on Terror) and should be dealt with by legal sanction.
Well that got me thinking and as Google is my friend did a quick search and the first site based on " Is Assassination ever Legal " resulted in this statement concerning terrorists .... it depends who you ask .
I am not sure if the assassination of a head of state is allowed under International Law but then again ... it probably depends upon who you ask ..... hence our actions in WW2 .
 
#15
What about, say, a person who has residency in the UK and has been under suspicion for involvment in major terrorist incidents and the US decides that the world would be better of without him and sends a team to the UK to dispatch him.
I should imagine our government would punish the individual themselves by giving him a house and benefits.
 
#16
Nothing new in this - it's been going on for years. But, unlike the US' handling of the OBL case, other perpetrators keep quiet about their successes or failures.

And it now appears that the whole affair is going tits up.
 
#18
So it would have been better that OBL was taken alive and put on trial? Where would the trial be held and in what fashion as he was believed to have ordered attacks across the globe, with the Kenyans, Tanzanians, Afghans, Pakistanis and even UK (9/11 is still the worst terror attack in our history) having valid claims to put him on trial. Would it be held in camera or would he be allowed to use the trial as a piece of Islamist propaganda spouting the hate he was famous for?
Had the Americans simply shot him and bugged out and kept quiet would the Pakistani's have admitted who it was who had been killed outside their a major military installation? Unfuckinglikely his body would have been torched and the ashes scattered quick sharp. This was a major propaganda coup for the Americans and was never going to play any other way.


The concern is they're like the kid in the playground with a big stick. It has been ill thought through.
 
#19
Any asset that the enemy uses in the prosecution of hostilities is a legitimate target. OBL was a huge asset to Al Q.
 
#20
You forgot the free car for running their tribe to the Mosque and back.
So would your opinion change if the US had conducted this little operation in England and OBL had been found to be living in bedsit in Leicester.

Or perhaps, it now legally empowers the Taleban to undertake a strike against George Bush who through his actions in Afghan has indirectly killed lots of their people. I know they do not have the military ability, but legally it seems OK to me.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top