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 <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Steven Leser <sleser...@yahoo.com>
> > 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: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com,
> > Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com,
> > fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com,
> > he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser <
> > buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com,
> > USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com
>
> >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<sleser...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Hand%20Wringing%20Over%20Osama%E2%80%99s%2 0Death%20from%20Fellow%20Progressives%20is%20Unwarranted>|
> > Reply
> > to group<NewMexico_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com?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.
No comments:
Post a Comment