They don't call me a great man
for nothing.
In fact, they charge me quite a bit!
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause. It's not just distasteful to kill an unarmed man in the conduct of a war, it's illegal, both a violation of US law, and of international law. I'm not shedding any tears for Osama Bin Laden. On the other hand, what does it say about us that we celebrate such actions? Are we turning into Nazi Germany? Other Bloggers On Related Topics: |
|||
|
|
"one or more persons taking
"one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities"
Since the average Joe doesn't have access to any information regarding bin laden's current actions prior to his death, how can you be certain that the above statement is true? According to what I understand, bin laden claimed responsiblity for the attacks of 9/11. Had I been King at that time, whatever cave, mud hut, town, or city that was protecting him would have been incinerated. These people have been fighting amongst themselves for as long and probably longer than history has been written down. Nothing the U.S. or any other nation on this planet will change that. We need to make it abundantly clear, if you kill one of us, we will destroy your way of life. It's harsh, but I think it's the only way.
On a lighter note, I've been a fairly regular reader of your blog and do enjoy your view points on the topics you discuss. I don't agree alot of the time, but they do make a person think. Please correct me if you think the next statement is wrong. I think throughout history the strongest civilization always wins, and grows stronger. Then at some point in their evolution, they begin to worry more about the rights and feelings of others and their civilization starts to decline.
A matter of timing
Bin Laden's actions prior to his death don't matter, as far as the War Crimes law is concerned. What matters is his actions at the time of his death. We've had a number of stories come out about his death, but they all seem to agree that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot. There was a sentry that was armed, but the other three who were killed were all unarmed.
One could make an effective argument that he was trying to resist arrest by escaping. One could make an effective argument that there were weapons in the room where Bin Laden was killed. Perhaps the law ought to be different than it is. The way the law reads, though, the SEAL team appears to have been engaging in war crimes.
Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann swore out a warrant for the arrest of Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, because she said she was glad Osama Bin Laden is dead. He says that German law forbids the "rewarding and approving" of crimes, and her statement endorsing a homicide could subject her to 3 years in the hoosegow.
There's an argument to be made as well that Osama Bin Laden was not killed in a war, and thus there was no war crime. We never declared a war, nor is there a state of military conflict between two or more sovereign nations, so it's not a war, either formally or informally.
But if it's not a war, then Osama Bin Laden should have been hauled into court. The word "justice" gets bandied about, but in fact, there was no judging taking place, only a killing.
As I said, I don't shed any tears for OBL, and there's little doubt in my mind as to what the result of a trial would be. He'd have been convicted, and terrorists would try to disrupt the city where the trial is held.
Spain was the strongest country, and then the British Empire became the top dog. That's not because Spain worried about the rights and feelings of others but because the British Empire had better spies.
Then Germany became the top dog. That's because the British monarch worried TOO LITTLE about the rights and feelings of others, leading the US, India, Canada, Australia, and vast segments of Africa, etc., resulting in their fighting for independence.
Then the US became the top dog, because the Germans were spending so much of their wealth on militarism, and they became too poor to support their war machine.
The USSR dropped from superpower status, not because they were worrying about the rights and feelings of others, but because they were broke from spending too much on their military.
And if you notice, we're spending too much on our military, too. The last time a sovereign nation invaded the US was 1812. Our military forces don't protect us. Instead, we're providing free military welfare by paying for military bases in 130 countries. We can't afford it. We need to bring our troops home from 129 of those countries.