Osama killing: Obama accused of crimes against humanity

[Al Bhatti]

Since Osama wanted to assassinate Obama, Obama decided to assassinate Osama first. So in reality Osama should be charged with attempting to assassinate Obama.

Preemptive strike or "Minority Report" Obama style?

 

[harpoon]

Preemptive strike or "Minority Report" Obama style?

Do you honestly believe that OBL or any Jihadi worth his salt will simply overlook or ignore any chance to assassinate the President of United States- their enemy no:1?

 

[gubbi]

why didnt us just blindly kill all the nazis that where captured? didnt they kill us people and soldiers to? why did they get a democratical court and then charged? what do they have that osama bin laden doesnt have?

i can say for sure that the only reason obama got peace prize is because he would never visit norway, just so you know it was the first time a us president visited norway since 2000. norwegian politicians are idiots. they dont look at other people who works for peace, but obama. who did so much great things for humanity.

Lets see your Turkish govt talk like this about the Kurds/PKK.

 

[gambit]

""Daniel Fiol has lodged a written complaint at the International Criminal Court accusing the US president of breaching the Geneva Convention for ordering the assassination of Osama bin Laden



In his written complaint, the Spanish lawyer said bin Laden should have been, arrested, tried and convicted according to the law. The killing of bin Laden was even worse as it took place in foreign territory, Pakistan, without the permission of that government, he said.""

Dunya TV Print: Osama killing: Obama accused of crimes against humanity

The lawyer is wrong...And we have gone through this already...

International Humanitarian Law - Hague Convention V 1907

Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

CHAPTER I

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus forthe purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.

Article 1 can be respected ONLY IF said neutral party has effectively exercised and enforced Articles 2 through 5.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have a grievance against the US and declared themselves hostile COMBATANTS against the same. They acted upon that grievance and declaration. But in being non-state actors, they placed in jeopardy every country's right to Article 1 with their presence in those countries. Pakistan claimed to be a neutral party to this conflict, then allied with US against al-Qaeda, but that alliance is weakened by Pakistan's incompetence and/or unwillingness to exercise effective control of Pakistani territory per Articles 2 through 5 to the point where Osama bin Laden lived -- for who knows how long -- within minutes of a Pakistani military installation.

The US was fully within reason to kill Osama bin Laden as the opportunity present itself.

 

[S.M.R]

""Daniel Fiol has lodged a written complaint at the International Criminal Court accusing the US president of breaching the Geneva Convention for ordering the assassination of Osama bin Laden



In his written complaint, the Spanish lawyer said bin Laden should have been, arrested, tried and convicted according to the law. The killing of bin Laden was even worse as it took place in foreign territory, Pakistan, without the permission of that government, he said.""

Dunya TV Print: Osama killing: Obama accused of crimes against humanity

I would love to see the comments from fellow members, who were saying that it is only Pakistan who is saying this.

Dont tell me that it is ISI's move again.

 

[Oldman1]

Preemptive strike or "Minority Report" Obama style?

Preemptive.

 

[silko]

Lets see your Turkish govt talk like this about the Kurds/PKK.

what exactly do you mean by that? we have pkk's leader. and he got a democratic court and is now in prison for what he did.

if you talk about the terrorists killed in battle, offcourse! what? the soldiers are just going to stand there and get shot?

 

[Imran Khan]

International Criminal Court lol i dont think this court can even ask a US solder let alone obama .these type of org work for protect US and WEST interests not foe sue them .

 

[CENTCOM]

Dear readers, is not the world a safer place without the mass murderer Usama Bin-Laden (UBL)? Was it not Al Qaeda, his organization that claimed responsibility for orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed thousands of innocent civilians. UBL ideology is revealed when Al-Qaeda’s and their counterparts (TTP) continue their crimes against humanity while using his death as an excuse to continue their evil agenda.

When US Navy seals killed UBL on May 2nd, 2011 Justice was finally served to the survivors of all those killed by his inspiration of evil and hatred. Has this act not saved many innocents who would have fallen prey to his evil doing and ideology of hatred? Our mission against terrorism is ongoing and will not end until Al Qaeda and the Taliban are defeated and the world is one again free of terrorists.

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[silko]

Dear readers, is not the world a safer place without the mass murderer Usama Bin-Laden (UBL)? Was it not Al Qaeda, his organization that claimed responsibility for orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed thousands of innocent civilians. UBL ideology is revealed when Al-Qaeda’s and their counterparts (TTP) continue their crimes against humanity while using his death as an excuse to continue their evil agenda.

When US Navy seals killed UBL on May 2nd, 2011 Justice was finally served to the survivors of all those killed by his inspiration of evil and hatred. Has this act not saved many innocents who would have fallen prey to his evil doing and ideology of hatred? Our mission against terrorism is ongoing and will not end until Al Qaeda and the Taliban are defeated and the world is one again free of terrorists.

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

the world will never be free for terrorism, get that into your american heads!

 

[Respect4Respect01]

Dear readers, is not the world a safer place without the mass murderer Usama Bin-Laden (UBL)? Was it not Al Qaeda, his organization that claimed responsibility for orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed thousands of innocent civilians. UBL ideology is revealed when Al-Qaeda’s and their counterparts (TTP) continue their crimes against humanity while using his death as an excuse to continue their evil agenda.

When US Navy seals killed UBL on May 2nd, 2011 Justice was finally served to the survivors of all those killed by his inspiration of evil and hatred. Has this act not saved many innocents who would have fallen prey to his evil doing and ideology of hatred? Our mission against terrorism is ongoing and will not end until Al Qaeda and the Taliban are defeated and the world is one again free of terrorists.

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

ok yes ur right, he should be killed if he was responsible for 9/11 (there was no solid proof or anything btw)

but what about your country killing hundreds of thousands innocents? who should be killed for that?