Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Ziggurat]

So it was "war" was it, and not "terrorism"?

I'm not sure why you think that these terms are mutually exclusive. Bin Laden himself certainly never did. After all, he even went to the trouble of formally and publicly declaring war on us.

Or perhaps OBL's alleged part (without a trial that's all it can ever be) in the events of September 2001 was "terrorism"

And Hitler's part in WW2? Is that also alleged? After all, we never put him on trial. Trials are the overwhelming exception to the conduct of war, not the norm.

You also seem to believe that trials have magic power to determine truth that is otherwise unavailable. This belief is... illogical.

In any case, the killing happened on the territory of a friendly state (Pakistan), so the special pleading about "what happens in war" doesn't even apply.

That doesn't actually make any sense. You can say that our actions were unfair to Pakistan, but 1) I don't care, it's largely Pakistan's fault to begin with, and 2) any unfairness to Pakistan is irrelevant to whether the treatment of bin Landen himself was fair.

To get back on topic, the events of 9/11 were incontestably a terrorist atrocity. OBL was rightly or wrongly blamed for organising it.

Are you just trying to play devil's advocate here, or do you seriously believe that the attribution might be incorrect?

There are 2 possible responses to this:

1. we can go along with the trial conducted in the press and in politicians' briefings, declare him guilty, condemn him to death and whoop it up when the "sentence" is carried out;
2. we can tell ourselves that we are better than the terrorists, and call for due process of law.

Again, you seem to not understand the nature of war. We followed due process. But the due process of war is different from civil due process.

I don't think "tragedy" is too strong a word for the fact that there can never now be a trial.

Yeah, no. Not a tragedy.

Apart from the breakdown of due process, it means that most of the facts about the organisation of the atrocity (and, believably, other tragedies) can never be known.

Again, you say that like a trial has magical truth-determining properties otherwise unavailable. This belief is unjustified.

There is, of course, no indication that any attempt to arrest OBL alive was made.

That's usually the case in war. You don't try to arrest the enemy, you try to kill them.

Yet with these questions overshadowing the whole operation, the choice of words of a UK politician is regarded as a bigger talking point than the issues he raises. Regrettably, this is par for the course when it comes to the military actions of states regarded as "friendly" to the US and the UK.

Each time you talk, you sound more and more like a truther.

 

[Craig B]

So let's get this straight. Bin Laden's guilt is uncertain on account of it never being proved in law. Yet the alleged illegality of the killing of Bin Laden, which has never been proved in law, holds true and is to be condemned. That's some double-standards you have there.

Is it? If the government kills a suspect instead of giving the person a fair trial, we can't accuse the government of any offence, because the government has not received a fair trial? Very ingenious! That way, no government can be accused of any malpractice.

Stalin didn't give Zinoviev a fair trial? How can we say that? That would be a double standard. After all, Stalin was never tried for the judicial murder of Zinoviev!

 

[GlennB]

Surely he wouldn't fall in to that trap.

He's a very naughty man!

 

[baron]

Is it? If the government kills a suspect instead of giving the person a fair trial, we can't accuse the government of any offence, because the government has not received a fair trial? Very ingenious! That way, no government can be accused of any malpractice.

Stalin didn't give Zinoviev a fair trial? How can we say that? That would be a double standard. After all, Stalin was never tried for the judicial murder of Zinoviev!

I don't know why you think it's some sort of paradox. If a government entity is shown to have broken the law in their action then that action is illegal. That to me seems a very straightforward concept.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So how is executing a foreign national in a foreign country without any kind of a trial not a crime? Was it because our aged with it?
How would it be if a team of Russian special forces flew in to the US and executed someone they thought deserved?
By the reasoning in this thread it should be OK.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So how is executing a foreign national in a foreign country without any kind of a trial not a crime? Was it because our aged with it?
How would it be if a team of Russian special forces flew in to the US and executed someone they thought deserved?
By the reasoning in this thread it should be OK.

I didn't know the mastermind behind the slaughter of 3000 people was "someone they thought deserved?". And tell me how you were going to get Bin Laden extradited from Pakistan, because that bastard wasn't going to be taken alive no matter what

 

[Craig B]

I don't know why you think it's some sort of paradox. If a government entity is shown to have broken the law in their action then that action is illegal. That to me seems a very straightforward concept.

And if has not been shown to have broken the law (because it has not subjected itself to a trial) can its actions nevertheless be criticised or condemned?

 

[baron]

So how is executing a foreign national in a foreign country without any kind of a trial not a crime?

When it is done within the parameters of the law. Have you evidence this wasn't?

 

[baron]

And if has not been shown to have broken the law (because it has not subjected itself to a trial) can its actions nevertheless be criticised or condemned?

I don't understand your question. Anybody can bring a legal action against the government. Why on earth would they prosecute themselves?

 

[Craig B]

When it is done within the parameters of the law. Have you evidence this wasn't?

When governments kill people they have a responsibility to show that the act is lawful. It is not for other people to prove that it isn't before the government action can be condemned.

 

[baron]

When governments kill people they have a responsibility to show that the act is lawful. It is not for other people to prove that it isn't before the government action can be condemned.

Do they? Where is that written because I've never heard it? A democratic government should function as an extension of the will of the people, you're making out that it's some devilish entity that must jump through hoops to prove it's not indulging in evil every time it takes action in the name of national security. Two key tenets of the legal system is innocent until proven guilty and legal recourse for everyone, so I'm not sure on what basis governments should spend billions of taxpayers money proving their innocence in law for every terrorist capped in a foreign land just because some people don't agree with their actions. If a government is thought to have acted illegally then anybody can take them to court and prove it, I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I didn't know the mastermind behind the slaughter of 3000 people was "someone they thought deserved?". And tell me how you were going to get Bin Laden extradited from Pakistan, because that bastard wasn't going to be taken alive no matter what

So is that a yes, some foreign Special Forces team can land in your country and kill someone?

 

[Craig B]

Do they? Where is that written because I've never heard it? A democratic government should function as an extension of the will of the people, you're making out that it's some devilish entity that must jump through hoops to prove it's not indulging in evil every time it takes action in the name of national security. Two key tenets of the legal system is innocent until proven guilty and legal recourse for everyone, so I'm not sure on what basis governments should spend billions of taxpayers money proving their innocence in law for every terrorist capped in a foreign land just because some people don't agree with their actions. If a government is thought to have acted illegally then anybody can take them to court and prove it, I don't see a problem with that.

Things only have the presumption of innocence against punishment, not against opposition or hostility. "Taking action in the name of national security"! What tyrant doesn't use that excuse?

Blair - no tyrant; just a corrupt charlatan - joined the invasion of Iraq on that pretext. He is a scoundrel. But nobody is suggesting clapping him in jail unless and until he is found guilty of something in a court of law. However, we can denounce him even in the absence of that procedure.

 

[Aber]

That's why I'd like to see the context of the letter. I often see outrageous letters in journals I read, without myself embracing the views therein, or assuming the editors do. Was this a joke? I don't know. But I'd like to find out more. Corbyn is currently the victim of ridiculous innuendo and distortion. Is this yet another example? I don't know.

Given that Corbyn has been a member of the far left since his election in 1983, and the behaviour of many of the activists, I'm not convinced there is a huge level of distortion going on. Eg the same Telegraph article has unearthed past statements from John McDonnell that he was against the NI peace process, contradicting his recent claims justifying his association with IRA members.

 

[baron]

Things only have the presumption of innocence against punishment, not against opposition or hostility. "Taking action in the name of national security"! What tyrant doesn't use that excuse?

Presumption of innocence does not take qualification. It is what it is. And just because some people use valid motive as a cover for depravity doesn't alter that fact one bit.

Blair - no tyrant; just a corrupt charlatan - joined the invasion of Iraq on that pretext. He is a scoundrel. But nobody is suggesting clapping him in jail unless and until he is found guilty of something in a court of law. However, we can denounce him even in the absence of that procedure.

OK..? I don't know what your point is.

 

[The Atheist]

So it was "war" was it, and not "terrorism"? Or perhaps OBL's alleged part (without a trial that's all it can ever be) in the events of September 2001 was "terrorism", but killing him was "war". It wasn't even a combat situation - by all accounts the US navy seals simply walked in on him, unarmed, and blasted him.

No indeed; 9/11 was not war. It was large scale crime, and should have been dealt with as such. War against what? Another country? Internal uprising? Are the detainees treated as POWs? No. As criminal suspects whose cases should be tried in court? No.

So we have neither a war, in any legitimate sense of the term, nor legal action against suspected murderers. It is a hideous mess, and indeed a tragedy that has cost us dear and has reduced much of the Middle East to chaos.

Bravo x 2!

 

[ddt]

Is it? If the government kills a suspect instead of giving the person a fair trial, we can't accuse the government of any offence, because the government has not received a fair trial? Very ingenious! That way, no government can be accused of any malpractice.

Stalin didn't give Zinoviev a fair trial? How can we say that? That would be a double standard. After all, Stalin was never tried for the judicial murder of Zinoviev!

Zinoviev was obviously guilty of sending a letter to the CPGB, after all, the Daily Fail published it. But why stop at the tragedy of Zinoviev's fate? Stalin had millions of people killed, through sham show trials, famine or otherwise. I guess that's just a statistic.

I agree fully with you that the government has the obligation to bring suspects to trial, and only kill them in the process if it's inevitable. Was that standard met? The Mossad managed to smuggle Eichmann out of Argentina and have him have a fair trial in Israel; they didn't kill him on the spot, which they certainly could have done.

 

[GlennB]

I didn't know the mastermind behind the slaughter of 3000 people was "someone they thought deserved?". And tell me how you were going to get Bin Laden extradited from Pakistan, because that bastard wasn't going to be taken alive no matter what

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the gist that's going on here, but of the legality of extra-judicial assassinations: let's suppose Russia has a serious beef with certain Chechens including some they consider to be terrorists, and one of those is considered, with good evidence, to be responsible for the murder of many Russians.

Let's suppose than this Chechen 'terrorist' becomes resident in the US, UK or elsewhere. Russia manages a military incursion into that sovereign state in order to assassinate that 'terrorist'. How does everybody feel about that?

Well, obviously, one major difference is that we'd trust the US or UK to make any incarceration and trial of such a person a public issue and afford the 'terrorist' due process, whereas if he was whisked back to Russia we wouldn't be at all confident of the process of prosecution. But this really improves on the case for having OBL simply abducted from that place and put on trial in the US, rather than assassinating him.

Looking at it pragmatically it strikes me they did the right thing, as abduction would have raised him to the status of living martyr and unleashed waves of reprisals during the inevitably interminable process, whereas they got it done and dusted without even a grave to mark the spot (nice touch, actually!)

None of this means that Corbyn regrets OBL's passage from life into death, though. Corbyn regretted the manner of the act (somewhat unlike me) and the fact that a guilty OBL didn't get bunged in prison for the rest of his natural. And the highlighted bit is the lie that underpins Cameron's shameful statement.

 

[Antony]

Yes, and I'm also aware of the saying, "Don't be so open minded your brain falls out." If you witnessed a murder would you say the perpetrator was innocent on account of not yet being tried? If in this instance you can so freely discard such strong evidence on the basis of a legal technicality then truly your argument is that of an apologist.

Who said anything about "freely discarding evidence"? No matter what the evidence, it still has to be presented in a trial.

So let's get this straight. Bin Laden's guilt is uncertain on account of it never being proved in law.

All I'm saying is that I haven't seen this evidence, and neither has a jury. It may even be sound for all I know, but regardless of anything, you can't simply skip the trial and carry out the execution. Is that so hard to understand?

Yet the alleged illegality of the killing of Bin Laden, which has never been proved in law, holds true and is to be condemned. That's some double-standards you have there.

On the contrary, the (alleged) killers of OBL are not facing execution without trial, so there's no double standard. OBL should have been tried. And the same goes for his (alleged) killers. And they should be tried in Pakistan, where the crime (allegedly) occurred.

OK, back on topic after the derail:

No, I don't accept Cameron misrepresented anything. I've already explained that. And no, I don't feel the need to apologise for having an opinion different to yours.

This is known as "being in denial". Corbyn's statement was in the context of there having been no trial. Cameron ignored that and, either deliberately or in deplorable ignorance, quoted him out of context. That is misrepresentation by any definition.

 

[baron]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the gist that's going on here, but of the legality of extra-judicial assassinations: let's suppose Russia has a serious beef with certain Chechens including some they consider to be terrorists, and one of those is considered, with good evidence, to be responsible for the murder of many Russians.

Let's suppose than this Chechen 'terrorist' becomes resident in the US, UK or elsewhere. Russia manages a military incursion into that sovereign state in order to assassinate that 'terrorist'. How does everybody feel about that?

Well, obviously, one major difference is that we'd trust the US or UK to make any incarceration and trial of such a person a public issue and afford the 'terrorist' due process, whereas if he was whisked back to Russia we wouldn't be at all confident of the process of prosecution. But this really improves on the case for having OBL simply abducted from that place and put on trial in the US, rather than assassinating him.

Further to that, it's highly likely that Pakistan were well aware of an impending US mission to carry out this raid. It wasn't like these guys suddenly popped up in a foreign country and nobody knew anything about it.