Justice Stevens says Bin Laden killing was legal

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Why? That would just be another lawyers opinion. Or do you think they are not out there?

Here is a international law expert who says it was illegal under international law.

JURIST - Forum: The Illegal Killing of Osama Bin Laden

A judge in Germany filed a complaint against Merkel because she said she was glad bin Laden is dead.

'Tacky and Undignified': Judge Files Complaint against Merkel over Bin Laden Comments - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Like I said, one man's opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

 

[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:



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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

I'm still waiting fort them to show me where in the COTUS it says the military may not engage and kill the enemy.......

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

I'm still waiting fort them to show me where in the COTUS it says the military may not engage and kill the enemy.......

Only after they have been convicted and all appeals exhausted.
Individually.

 

[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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

We did not attack Pakistan.
Thus, my statement stands.
:shrug:

 

[xsited1]

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

That's good to know. If he'd said it was illegal, they'd have to throw Obama in jail.

 

[TheBrain]

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

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

There are undeclared wars simpleton. In fact 190 of them (give or take) in our countries history.

 

[Contumacious]

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

We did not attack Pakistan.
Thus, my statement stands.
:shrug:

My bad. I thought Abbotabad was in Pakistan. And that Pakistan had not authorized the US to enter its airspace.

Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Contumacious]

The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

There are undeclared wars simpleton. In fact 190 of them (give or take) in our countries history.

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

.

 

[TheBrain]

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

There are undeclared wars simpleton. In fact 190 of them (give or take) in our countries history.

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

.

Really? Then you would have no problem pointing out where they are made unconstitutional.

LOL gotta love people who think they understand the COTUS and then make such stupid statements as you just made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.
Or are you one of those who can not handle the truth, to wit, that we are being governed by criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are undeclared wars simpleton. In fact 190 of them (give or take) in our countries history.

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.

Iraq, too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad. I had no idea we had declared war on Pakistan.

We did not attack Pakistan.
Thus, my statement stands.
:shrug:

My bad. I thought Abbotabad was in Pakistan. And that Pakistan had not authorized the US to enter its airspace.

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

 

[TheBrain]

There are undeclared wars simpleton. In fact 190 of them (give or take) in our countries history.

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.

Iraq, too.

Sir , they were not. We haven't ever declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq. The only thing COngress has ever authorized is funding . We haven't declared war on anyone since 1942

 

[Trajan]

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

the irony is do delicious............thx a lot man.... my severe paroxysms have not gone unnoticed, now I have to go explain to my cube mates... classic really.

god I love politics..

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.
Iraq, too.

Sir, they were not.

They were.
The Constitution does not specify the format for a decalartion of war.
Given that, Congress can use whatever language it chooses, to that end.
The net effect of both resolutions of force was to create the conditions necessary for the US to go to war, and as such, are declarations of same.

 

[Contumacious]

We did not attack Pakistan.
Thus, my statement stands.
:shrug:

My bad. I thought Abbotabad was in Pakistan. And that Pakistan had not authorized the US to enter its airspace.

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad fucktard.

I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

But I guess that is true only when they enter OUR territory but not when we enter theirs.

All clear.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad. I thought Abbotabad was in Pakistan. And that Pakistan had not authorized the US to enter its airspace.

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad fucktard.
I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

That's because you started with a conclusion and then worked to fit facts around it.

Thus, my statement -continues- to stand:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield

 

[Contumacious]

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.
Iraq, too.

Sir, they were not.

They were.
The Constitution does not specify the format for a decalartion of war.
Given that, Congress can use whatever language it chooses, to that end.
The net effect of both resolutions of force was to create the conditions necessary for the US to go to war, and as such, are declarations of same.

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice"

.

 

[Contumacious]

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad fucktard.
I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

That's because you started with a conclusion and then worked to fit facts around it.

Thus, my statement -continues- to stand:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield

Shut the fuck up.

We violated Pakistan Sovereignty in order to boost Obama's ratings.

Are you in the committee to re-elect him?!?!?!?!?!?

.