Monday, May 9, 2011

Re: when was the trial?

Does a president just get to order anyone he wants killed?
----
The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target
list. U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill
even U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist
activities that threaten Americans.

On May 9, 7:54 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously true
>
> I don't have a problem with the his being shot or the Seals shooting him.
>
> But Obama doesn't say he sent the Seals to arrest Osama and the Seals had to
> shoot him because he had an AK47 against the wall and was moving toward it
>
> Obama told Steve Kroft that we gave Osama the justice he deserved
>
> When was the trial, which we had 10 whole years to conduct, to establish
> that this is justice?
>
> Does a president just get to order anyone he wants killed?  And establish
> the case later?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Beowulf <beow...@westerndefense.net> wrote:
>
> > Hello…NO ONE needs a trial…anywhere in the known universe, to kill someone
> > attacking you.
>
> > B
>
> > *From:* Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Majors
> > *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 5:03 AM
> > *To:* tea-party-patriots@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* [I-S] when was the trial?
>
> > *When was the trial?*
>
> > * I'm not complaining that Osama is dead or even that we shot him. *
>
> > *But we had 10 years to try him  (even in absentia) before we "served him
> > justice" as President Obama just told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" last
> > night. I saw evidence on "Geraldo at Large" on FOX. *
>
> > *Was that the trial? *
>
> > Who's next?
>
> >  __._,_.___
> >   Reply to sender<beow...@westerndefense.net?subject=RE%3A%20%5BI-S%5D%20when%20was%20the%20trial%3F­>| Reply
> > to group<Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BI-S%5D%20when%20was%20the%20trial%3F>| Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>| Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>
> > Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/message/236297;_...>(
> > 2)
> >  Recent Activity:
>
> >    - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/members;_ylc=X3o...>
> >    1
>
> >  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjN...>
> >  Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
> > Individual-Sovereignty-ow...@yahoogroups.com
>
> >  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOTE0Z2QyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<Individual-Sovereignty-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<Individual-Sovereignty-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> > Unsubscribe<Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >    .
>
> > __,_._,___- 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.

Re: How Perverted Have We Become?

On May 9, 10:30 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why was he not taken into custody, and allowed to stand trial for his
> alleged deeds?
> ----
> He was given an opportunity to surrender. He decided to fight it out.
> His choice ... his instant death.
>
> choose sides carefully
>
> you're either an American or something else
>
> On May 9, 7:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "My criticism of bin Laden's killing has less to do with what was done to him, than with the morally depraved character of so many Americans who, once again, react to the crimes of its leaders by waving flags and chanting "USA, USA!" My children and grandchildren will have to live in -- and, hopefully, not have to escape from -- this country whose fate is so utterly a matter of indifference to most of their neighbors. Thanks to the influence that politics, government schools, and the mainstream media have had in anesthetizing minds to the pain of clear, self-directed thinking, the kinds of principles that used to define the essence of American society, have become labeled "extremist ideology" or "crackpot" thinking. After all, what do such notions as "constitutional restraints," the "rule of law," "due process," "individual liberty," "privacy," "fair trials for the accused," the rejection of "torture," and other related ideas, have to do with such "real world" matters as details of the royal wedding, or the question "who will be the next American Idol?""How Perverted Have We Become?by Butler ShafferMichael:My father is no different from any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.Kay Adams:Do you know how naïve you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.Michael:Oh, who's being naïve, Kay?   --The Godfather(1972)
> > When I was in high school, one of my teachers showed the filmThe Ox-Bow Incident. For those unfamiliar with the movie, it is a western that takes place in 19th century Nevada. Three strangers are captured by townsfolk -- who had formed a posse -- and accused of having murdered a local cattleman and stolen his cattle. The three are in possession of the cattle, but claim they had bought them from the owner. As the sale took place out on the range, no bill of sale accompanied the transaction. In due course, most members of the posse conclude these men were guilty of the crime, and decide to hang them, which they summarily do. Shortly thereafter, the posse meets up with the sheriff who informs them that the cattleman had been wounded, but not murdered, and that the wrongdoers who had shot him had been caught.
> > I recall no lengthy discussion of this film once it ended. Its message was as evident to each of us as it was to theater audiences; its meaning stood on its own. Unlike so much of the public response to the killing of Osama bin Laden, there was no post-lynching praise of the posse for having performed a community service; no bestowal of "hero" status upon the perpetrators.
> > Like most Americans -- and, perhaps, people in general -- I have no defense to make of bin Laden. Outside of his own circle of operatives, the only person I can recall who had good words to say about this man was Ronald Reagan. It was during his presidency that the U.S. government helped to create and fund Al Qaeda -- with bin Laden in a leadership role -- to help drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. For those of you who derive your sense of history from motion pictures, you might want to watchCharlie Wilson's War.Having been established to serve American Cold War interests, when Al Qaeda's success in evicting the Soviets was no longer useful to such purposes, it pursuedotherforeign invaders (i.e., its creators)! Once again Boobus Americanus is confronted with Newton's "third law of motion" which, in matters political, is known to thoughtful minds as "blowback."
> > My criticism of bin Laden's killing has less to do with what was done to him, than with the morally depraved character of so many Americans who, once again, react to the crimes of its leaders by waving flags and chanting "USA, USA!" My children and grandchildren will have to live in -- and, hopefully, not have to escape from -- this country whose fate is so utterly a matter of indifference to most of their neighbors. Thanks to the influence that politics, government schools, and the mainstream media have had in anesthetizing minds to the pain of clear, self-directed thinking, the kinds of principles that used to define the essence of American society, have become labeled "extremist ideology" or "crackpot" thinking. After all, what do such notions as "constitutional restraints," the "rule of law," "due process," "individual liberty," "privacy," "fair trials for the accused," the rejection of "torture," and other related ideas, have to do with such "real world" matters as details of the royal wedding, or the question "who will be the next American Idol?"
> > This is what America has become: a nation of people who accept what the Nuremberg trials declared to be the most serious of war crimes, namely, the starting of wars; people who regard "liberty" as the condition that derives from obedience to authority; for whom "justice" means nothing more than the redistribution of violence; and who are willing to accept heroes on the cheap. The official story of how bin Laden was killed has changed so many times that it remains uncertain what actually occurred. What can be distilled, at this point, is that Navy SEALs were brought to bin Laden's residence by helicopter; he was unarmed and put up no resistance; and, having been captured, was then shot and killed, and his body dumped into the sea.
> > It borders on the psychotic for Americans to cheer, as "heroes," men who, not defending themselves from gunfire, and having captured a now helpless old man, would then commit such a cold-blooded atrocity. Why was he not taken into custody, and allowed to stand trial for his alleged deeds? Was it preordained that, no matter the circumstances, bin Laden was not to survive his capture; that, as Noam Chomsky and others have observed, the United States did not have concrete evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the crimes of 9/11? Was there, perhaps, the greater fear that if bin Laden -- a creature of American foreign policy -- were to be subjected to a public trial, the underside of such policies might be revealed; that such evidence -- coupled with the revelations coming from Julian Assange and his Wikileaks organization -- might prove embarrassing?
> > If American troops are to play the role of "hit men" for the political establishment -- gunning down those who might inconvenience the purposes of statist godfathers -- what are we to think of our neighbors who see such behavior as a matter of national greatness? It is now the common wisdom among the political talking-heads -- whose opinions are alltoocommon -- that Obama's criminal act greatly boosts his reelection chances. Has the market for moral principles so bottomed out in this country? Is it in the dregs of human character that future historians will find the essence of 21st century America?
> > Nearly six years ago, British policemen tackled a young Brazilian man in a subway station on his way to work. After getting him down, he was shot five times in the head and died, for which FOX News' witless commentator, John Gibson, praised the police, adding "five in the noggin is fine." It was later revealed that the victim of this murder was innocent of any wrongdoing. In a rational world, it would be the purpose of a public trial to determine whether a suspect was guilty of a criminal offense. In whatever form a lynch-mob appears, the society that condones -- or worse yet glorifies -- such practices destroys itself.
> > Hero-worship is far too overdone in this country, and is often confused with fame. Nonetheless, those who seek heroic behavior can find it if one is discriminating in where to look for it. One can sometimes find it within the military, although such persons are often treated as pariahs. One example can be found in the U.S. Army helicopter pilot, Hugh Thompson, who came upon the systematic murdering of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, led by Lt. Calley. When Thompson figured out what was occurring, he turned his helicopter toward the American soldiers and ordered his crew members to open fire on them should they persist in their slaughter. For his heroic act of decency, Thompson spent much of his remaining years being treated more as a villain. Boobus has been too conditioned in his support of the state to be willing to make independent judgments, particularly about anything that lays too great burden upon his mind. A more recent example of military heroism is seen in Private Bradley Manning, who has been accused of providing WikiLeaks' Julian Assange with the restricted material that Wikileaks later released. For a nation that professes to operate on democratic principles, Manning and Assange are providing the public with an essential service: a documented awareness of what its government has been doing. If anyone wants to build a monument to any of these genuine heroes, please let me know where I can send my donation!http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer235.html- 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.

A new wave of bills being introduced......

It is starting with TSA on trains..... there will be more. All for
your own good.

--
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.

Re: How Perverted Have We Become?

So far the only indicted person in the bin Laden killing is ....
Angela Merckel.

On May 9, 9:52 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> So why are the members of Seal Team 6 and all those who advised them not
> being tried for violation of International laws? All involved, from the
> President on down, seem content to brag about breaking the "law" and
> getting away with it.
>
> On 05/09/2011 08:06 AM, GregfromBoston wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > military heroism is seen in Private Bradley Manning
> > -------------------------------------------
>
> > Yea, breaking the law, KNOWING it, and bragging about it for
> > attention, is "heroic".
> > Saddest thing here is that there are people that actually believe
> > that.
>
> > HORRENDOUSLY, sad.
>
> > On the upside, military courts ain't falling for it.
>
> > Buh bye kid.  Send a card when you get out at 70
>
> > On May 9, 8:26 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote:
> >> "My criticism of bin Laden's killing has less to do with what was done to him, than with the morally depraved character of so many Americans who, once again, react to the crimes of its leaders by waving flags and chanting "USA, USA!" My children and grandchildren will have to live in -- and, hopefully, not have to escape from -- this country whose fate is so utterly a matter of indifference to most of their neighbors. Thanks to the influence that politics, government schools, and the mainstream media have had in anesthetizing minds to the pain of clear, self-directed thinking, the kinds of principles that used to define the essence of American society, have become labeled "extremist ideology" or "crackpot" thinking. After all, what do such notions as "constitutional restraints," the "rule of law," "due process," "individual liberty," "privacy," "fair trials for the accused," the rejection of "torture," and other related ideas, have to do with such "real world" matters as details of the royal wedding, or the question "who will be the next American Idol?""How Perverted Have We Become?by Butler ShafferMichael:My father is no different from any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.Kay Adams:Do you know how naïve you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.Michael:Oh, who's being naïve, Kay?   --The Godfather(1972)
> >> When I was in high school, one of my teachers showed the filmThe Ox-Bow Incident. For those unfamiliar with the movie, it is a western that takes place in 19th century Nevada. Three strangers are captured by townsfolk -- who had formed a posse -- and accused of having murdered a local cattleman and stolen his cattle. The three are in possession of the cattle, but claim they had bought them from the owner. As the sale took place out on the range, no bill of sale accompanied the transaction. In due course, most members of the posse conclude these men were guilty of the crime, and decide to hang them, which they summarily do. Shortly thereafter, the posse meets up with the sheriff who informs them that the cattleman had been wounded, but not murdered, and that the wrongdoers who had shot him had been caught.
> >> I recall no lengthy discussion of this film once it ended. Its message was as evident to each of us as it was to theater audiences; its meaning stood on its own. Unlike so much of the public response to the killing of Osama bin Laden, there was no post-lynching praise of the posse for having performed a community service; no bestowal of "hero" status upon the perpetrators.
> >> Like most Americans -- and, perhaps, people in general -- I have no defense to make of bin Laden. Outside of his own circle of operatives, the only person I can recall who had good words to say about this man was Ronald Reagan. It was during his presidency that the U.S. government helped to create and fund Al Qaeda -- with bin Laden in a leadership role -- to help drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. For those of you who derive your sense of history from motion pictures, you might want to watchCharlie Wilson's War.Having been established to serve American Cold War interests, when Al Qaeda's success in evicting the Soviets was no longer useful to such purposes, it pursuedotherforeign invaders (i.e., its creators)! Once again Boobus Americanus is confronted with Newton's "third law of motion" which, in matters political, is known to thoughtful minds as "blowback."
> >> My criticism of bin Laden's killing has less to do with what was done to him, than with the morally depraved character of so many Americans who, once again, react to the crimes of its leaders by waving flags and chanting "USA, USA!" My children and grandchildren will have to live in -- and, hopefully, not have to escape from -- this country whose fate is so utterly a matter of indifference to most of their neighbors. Thanks to the influence that politics, government schools, and the mainstream media have had in anesthetizing minds to the pain of clear, self-directed thinking, the kinds of principles that used to define the essence of American society, have become labeled "extremist ideology" or "crackpot" thinking. After all, what do such notions as "constitutional restraints," the "rule of law," "due process," "individual liberty," "privacy," "fair trials for the accused," the rejection of "torture," and other related ideas, have to do with such "real world" matters as details of the royal wedding, or the question "who will be the next American Idol?"
> >> This is what America has become: a nation of people who accept what the Nuremberg trials declared to be the most serious of war crimes, namely, the starting of wars; people who regard "liberty" as the condition that derives from obedience to authority; for whom "justice" means nothing more than the redistribution of violence; and who are willing to accept heroes on the cheap. The official story of how bin Laden was killed has changed so many times that it remains uncertain what actually occurred. What can be distilled, at this point, is that Navy SEALs were brought to bin Laden's residence by helicopter; he was unarmed and put up no resistance; and, having been captured, was then shot and killed, and his body dumped into the sea.
> >> It borders on the psychotic for Americans to cheer, as "heroes," men who, not defending themselves from gunfire, and having captured a now helpless old man, would then commit such a cold-blooded atrocity. Why was he not taken into custody, and allowed to stand trial for his alleged deeds? Was it preordained that, no matter the circumstances, bin Laden was not to survive his capture; that, as Noam Chomsky and others have observed, the United States did not have concrete evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the crimes of 9/11? Was there, perhaps, the greater fear that if bin Laden -- a creature of American foreign policy -- were to be subjected to a public trial, the underside of such policies might be revealed; that such evidence -- coupled with the revelations coming from Julian Assange and his Wikileaks organization -- might prove embarrassing?
> >> If American troops are to play the role of "hit men" for the political establishment -- gunning down those who might inconvenience the purposes of statist godfathers -- what are we to think of our neighbors who see such behavior as a matter of national greatness? It is now the common wisdom among the political talking-heads -- whose opinions are alltoocommon -- that Obama's criminal act greatly boosts his reelection chances. Has the market for moral principles so bottomed out in this country? Is it in the dregs of human character that future historians will find the essence of 21st century America?
> >> Nearly six years ago, British policemen tackled a young Brazilian man in a subway station on his way to work. After getting him down, he was shot five times in the head and died, for which FOX News' witless commentator, John Gibson, praised the police, adding "five in the noggin is fine." It was later revealed that the victim of this murder was innocent of any wrongdoing. In a rational world, it would be the purpose of a public trial to determine whether a suspect was guilty of a criminal offense. In whatever form a lynch-mob appears, the society that condones -- or worse yet glorifies -- such practices destroys itself.
> >> Hero-worship is far too overdone in this country, and is often confused with fame. Nonetheless, those who seek heroic behavior can find it if one is discriminating in where to look for it. One can sometimes find it within the military, although such persons are often treated as pariahs. One example can be found in the U.S. Army helicopter pilot, Hugh Thompson, who came upon the systematic murdering of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, led by Lt. Calley. When Thompson figured out what was occurring, he turned his helicopter toward the American soldiers and ordered his crew members to open fire on them should they persist in their slaughter. For his heroic act of decency, Thompson spent much of his remaining years being treated more as a villain. Boobus has been too conditioned in his support of the state to be willing to make independent judgments, particularly about anything that lays too great burden upon his mind. A more recent example of military heroism is seen in Private Bradley Manning, who has been accused of providing WikiLeaks' Julian Assange with the restricted material that Wikileaks later released. For a nation that professes to operate on democratic principles, Manning and Assange are providing the public with an essential service: a documented awareness of what its government has been doing. If anyone wants to build a monument to any of these genuine heroes, please let me know where I can send my donation!http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer235.html
>
> --
>
>       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.

--
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.

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

it is illegal in any jurisdictional
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.