Justice Stevens says Bin Laden killing was legal

[JimH52]

Justice Stevens says bin Laden killing legally justified - CNN.com

 

[TheBrain]

No sitting member of the SCOTUS would say otherwise . Regardless of who the POTUS was.

 

[Sunni Man]

So assassination is legal now??

 

[TheBrain]

So assassination is legal now??

Wasn't an assassination. Was a targeted military strike.

 

[Contumacious]

So assassination is legal now??

Those of us that support the Constitution, Law and order categorically state that assassination is not legal and should be prosecuted.

The members of the narcotized populace will say that it wasn't an assassination because it "was a targeted military strike".

.

 

[Sallow]

So assassination is legal now??

Those of us that support the Constitution, Law and order categorically state that assassination is not legal and should be prosecuted.

The members of the narcotized populace will say that it wasn't an assassination because it "was a targeted military strike".

.

Let me help you out here.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States and planned the killing of several thousand Americans. That makes him both a criminal and an adversary of the state. It was well known that the United States was seeking to bring him to justice. At any time he could have surrendered to international authorities to address the charges.

He did not.

Additionally he was involved in further planning of attacks. So what the United States did was twofold.
-It thwarted his efforts to do further harm to the United States.
-It brought a fugitive to justice.

Both completely legal under domestic law..and international protocol.

 

[Contumacious]

So assassination is legal now??

Those of us that support the Constitution, Law and order categorically state that assassination is not legal and should be prosecuted.

The members of the narcotized populace will say that it wasn't an assassination because it "was a targeted military strike".

.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States and planned the killing of several thousand Americans.

Let me help you out here.


Show EVIDENCE that Osamah declared war on the US of A and had the means to carry his threat to fruition.

If you are going to rely on videos for your argument please show EVIDENCE that those videos were authenticated.

.

.

 

[Sallow]

Those of us that support the Constitution, Law and order categorically state that assassination is not legal and should be prosecuted.

The members of the narcotized populace will say that it wasn't an assassination because it "was a targeted military strike".

.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States and planned the killing of several thousand Americans.

Let me help you out here.


Show EVIDENCE that Osamah declared war on the US of A and had the means to carry his threat to fruition.

If you are going to rely on videos for your argument please show EVIDENCE that those videos were authenticated.

.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o]YouTube - CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad[/ame]

It's from CNN.

If you don't believe them..then we are done.

 

[Contumacious]

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States and planned the killing of several thousand Americans.

Let me help you out here.


Show EVIDENCE that Osamah declared war on the US of A and had the means to carry his threat to fruition.

If you are going to rely on videos for your argument please show EVIDENCE that those videos were authenticated.

.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o]YouTube - CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad[/ame]

It's from CNN.

If you don't believe them..then we are done.

Yo Vern, did you listen to the video? He gave the same response as the one given to the Pakistani newspaper.

He declared jihad against MILITARY targets in Saudi Arabia. He specifically stated that he would not go after civilian targets.

If you don't believe your own evidence ..then we are done.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Justice Stevens says bin Laden killing legally justified - CNN.com

Do you understand the difference between one man's opinion that something is legally justified and it actually being legal?

 

[TheBrain]

Let me help you out here.


Show EVIDENCE that Osamah declared war on the US of A and had the means to carry his threat to fruition.

If you are going to rely on videos for your argument please show EVIDENCE that those videos were authenticated.

.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o]YouTube - CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad[/ame]

It's from CNN.

If you don't believe them..then we are done.

Yo Vern, did you listen to the video? He gave the same response as the one given to the Pakistani newspaper.

He declared jihad against MILITARY targets in Saudi Arabia. He specifically stated that he would not go after civilian targets.

If you don't believe your own evidence ..then we are done.

.

So you seriously believe that Bin Laden didn't desire to kill every American?

 

[freedombecki]

So assassination is legal now??

Not to speak ill of the dead, but Mr. bin Laden, spoiled heir to millions, assassinated over 3,000 Americans who did nothing at all to him, and tens of thousands of muslims he disagreed with, glibly and foolishly promising his guns sexual gratification in the afterlife, which is a callous lie not to mention a blasphemy in that he was taking away Allah's choice and substituting his own reward in its stead.

 

[Contumacious]

YouTube - CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad

It's from CNN.

If you don't believe them..then we are done.

Yo Vern, did you listen to the video? He gave the same response as the one given to the Pakistani newspaper.

He declared jihad against MILITARY targets in Saudi Arabia. He specifically stated that he would not go after civilian targets.

If you don't believe your own evidence ..then we are done.

.

So you seriously believe that Bin Laden didn't desire to kill every American?

I am certain that he knew that not every American is a jingoistic warmonger.

Even if it is true that he wanted to kill every American he did not have the means ;

One thing is for sure , elements of the War Party and Military Industrial Complex were going to profit from his statements. Since Americans have no way of knowing how much power the fellow had the powers-that-be could easily capitalize by hyping his persona.

.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go into any detail but we may assume the former justice was aware of and referring to the following:

The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks.

Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis - Council on Foreign Relations

This would indicate Stevens’ is not ‘one man’s opinion.’

 

[Contumacious]

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go into any detail but we may assume the former justice was aware of and referring to the following:

The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks.

Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis - Council on Foreign Relations

This would indicate Stevens’ is not ‘one man’s opinion.’

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943


.

 

[TheBrain]

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go into any detail but we may assume the former justice was aware of and referring to the following:

The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks.

Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis - Council on Foreign Relations

This would indicate Stevens’ is not ‘one man’s opinion.’

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943


.

That is correct, but unfortunately for Bin Laden and others, the COTUS does NOT prohibit us from using our military to kill them. Not in any section.

 

[Contumacious]

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go into any detail but we may assume the former justice was aware of and referring to the following:



This would indicate Stevens’ is not ‘one man’s opinion.’

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943


.

That is correct, but unfortunately for Bin Laden and others, the COTUS does NOT prohibit us from using our military to kill them. Not in any section.

Exactly.

The criminal element will always ignore the law.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately the article doesn’t go into any detail but we may assume the former justice was aware of and referring to the following:

The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks.

Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis - Council on Foreign Relations

This would indicate Stevens’ is not ‘one man’s opinion.’

All it indicates is that he thinks like a lawyer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I assume someone will be posting a link soon from a legal source documenting the killing was illegal.

 

[Contumacious]

I assume someone will be posting a link soon from a legal source documenting the killing was illegal.

Beyond the issue of whether the government is telling us the truth or pulling a fast one to save Obama’s lousy Presidency – is the issue of the lawful power of the President to order someone killed, no matter how monstrous, how dangerous or how unpopular.”

Judge Napolitano wondered could the President authorize the killing of anyone he deemed an enemy and sarcastically asked could Obama next kill Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

.