Shep Smith gets it right

[RGacky3]

I think he's the only one saying that assasinating Bin Laden was not at all legal.

2pSZNi-kBXw

[PhoenixAsh]

Good...more people should.


I do not give a hoot about Osama...but it is still an illegal action everybody is cheering.

In Holland two people actually filed charges against the US president claiming there was an unarmed man killed, executed....that the crime was confessed as being premeditated on television.

The police stated they were not the proper authorities. So they are now thinking about taking this to the ICJ.

Link...to Dutch article.

http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2506595/brabanders-doen-poging-aangifte-van-dood-bin-laden.html

[Drosophila]

Already a thread about this.

[Queercommie Girl]

When socialists do illegal things, it's terrorism;

When capitalists do illegal things, it's merely pragmatic necessity.

When Lenin killed off the entire Tsarist family, he was being a brutal bloodthirsty horrible monster;

When bourgeois revolutionaries killed off feudal aristocrats during the French Revolution, it was just an objective fact of history.

:rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

he was a legitimate military target.

[RGacky3]

In pakistan, its not legal to assasinate a target, even a military target, in another country without that countries permission.

[Tablo]

Meh, not like anything will happen to them. The whole US is overjoyed he is dead and couldn't care less about the legality. I doubt any country in Europe would want to get the US in trouble over this. Laws aren't meant for the bourgeoisie, they are meant for us.

[RGacky3]

Laws aren't meant for the bourgeoisie, they are meant for us.

Great line.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Borders are just imaginary lines, and laws respecting soveriegnty of seperate nations are bourgeois inventions.

Way to sell out gacky. Perhaps your restriction is warranted after all.

In reality though, this shouldnt be an issue made by the left and it wont be by anyone who is serious about appealing to large groups of people. The debate should now focus on what the fuck we are still doing in afghanistan if "justice has been served."

[RGacky3]

Borders are just imaginary lines, and laws respecting soveriegnty of seperate nations are bourgeois inventions.

Way to sell out gacky. Perhaps your restriction is warranted after all.


I'm not saying I agree with the laws, but these are the Capitalist's laws, that they hold everyone accountable too, and i'm point out they are hypocrites.

[¿Que?]

WHat's this guy's name? Sheperd smith. He's like the surreptitious Alan Combs or something. Or is he a straight up leftist?

I'm so sick of MSNBC towing the administration line!

[RGacky3]

He's not a leftist at all, nor is he Alan Colmbs, he's a normal rational person ... except on Fox news, he's more of a CNN guy.

[stuckinarut]

I was just saying that you know the world is spinning out of control when the leftists start agreeing with Shep Smith and Judge Napolitano.

[Rafiq]

When Lenin killed off the entire Tsarist family, he was being a brutal bloodthirsty horrible monster;


There's no justification for killing kids. Ever. I don't care who it is.

[Queercommie Girl]

There's no justification for killing kids. Ever. I don't care who it is.

I don't believe in absolutist ethics. Ever. Regardless of whatever context it is in.

Lenin may or may not be right in what he did, but to focus on this single point as a form of anti-Bolshevik propaganda is really quite reactionary. Lenin was not perfect, but he still did much more good than harm in general.

[RGacky3]

Lenin was not perfect, but he still did much more good than harm in general.

I honestly believe that the revolution in Russia would have gone better without Lenin.

[Queercommie Girl]

I honestly believe that the revolution in Russia would have gone better without Lenin.


That's a debate for another thread, I think.

I'm not saying Lenin can't be criticised in a serious and systematic ideological way, but to just label him as some kind of brutal monster for what he did to the Tsarist royal family is simply anti-Bolshevik propaganda. It's like bashing anarchism as a whole for the fact that an anarchist terrorist murdered the empress of Austria.

I mean I'm critical of anarchism in many ways, sure, but "killing the empress of Austria" wouldn't be one of them.

[danyboy27]

That's a debate for another thread, I think.

I'm not saying Lenin can't be criticised in a serious and systematic ideological way, but to just label him as some kind of brutal monster for what he did to the Tsarist royal family is simply anti-Bolshevik propaganda. It's like bashing anarchism as a whole for the fact that an anarchist terrorist murdered the empress of Austria.

I mean I'm critical of anarchism in many ways, sure, but "killing the empress of Austria" wouldn't be one of them.


condemning the negative actions of an individual dosnt meant discrediting the whole ideological movement.


hell, even criticizing a whole movement dosnt mean we discredit it totally.

[Queercommie Girl]

condemning the negative actions of an individual dosnt meant discrediting the whole ideological movement.

hell, even criticizing a whole movement dosnt mean we discredit it totally.

This particular issue isn't what a serious Marxist or anarchist would focus on in his/her systematic critique of Leninism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Back to the topic in this thread:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death

[RGacky3]

Great article.

[Baseball]

In pakistan, its not legal to assasinate a target, even a military target, in another country without that countries permission.

It doesn't matter. Congress gave the president the authority to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. If Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, then no issue. If they are not, then the president has the authority to disregard the opinion of Pakistan on the subject.

[RGacky3]

It doesn't matter. Congress gave the president the authority to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. If Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, then no issue. If they are not, then the president has the authority to disregard the opinion of Pakistan on the subject.

That is the dumbest post I've ever read, when your in pakistan YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW PAKISTANI LAW!!! also there are tons of international treaties you have to follow.

BTW, can Iraq also hunt down terrorists and assasinate Bush in Texas? Hey, American is an ally, no issue.

Honestly, re-read your post, how are you not embarrased by that.

[Baseball]

That is the dumbest post I've ever read, when your in pakistan YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW PAKISTANI LAW!!! also there are tons of international treaties you have to follow.

BTW, can Iraq also hunt down terrorists and assasinate Bush in Texas? Hey, American is an ally, no issue.

Honestly, re-read your post, how are you not embarrased by that.

And American presidents have to follow American law, and are free to exercise their authority under American law. And American law authorizes the president to go after terrorists where they may be found. And to authorize actions against countries which may be in support of terrorism. An American president is under no more legal obligation to follow Pakistani law, in these sets of circumstances, than President Roosevelt was under obligation to obey German law during WW II.

Bin Laden was not head of state or government or had anything to do with Pakistan's government at any point. The analogy is false. Hey, we already know that it was once policy of the Iraqi government to send an assassination team against President Bush (#41). If the Iraq wishes to poison relations its relations with the USA... If Pakistan would rather be in the good graces of the allies and sympathizers of OBL...

[RGacky3]

And American presidents have to follow American law, and are free to exercise their authority under American law. And American law authorizes the president to go after terrorists where they may be found.

No, when your in Pakistan Pakistan laws go, no matter what American law says because your not in America. Thats the dumbest argument, does that mean that if Iraq passes a law allowing Iraqis to kill war criminals, no crime would be commited if they kill Bush?


An American president is under no more legal obligation to follow Pakistani law, in these sets of circumstances, than President Roosevelt was under obligation to obey German law during WW II.


Because they were at war with Germany, germany declared wra on the US.


And to authorize actions against countries which may be in support of terrorism. An American president is under no more legal obligation to follow Pakistani law, in these sets of circumstances

Your not at war with pakistan, so yes you are, just as much as a pakistani in the US has to follow US law, not matter what pakistani law says.


Bin Laden was not head of state or government or had anything to do with Pakistan's government at any point. The analogy is false.

Who gives a shit, neither is George Bush.


If Pakistan would rather be in the good graces of the allies and sympathizers of OBL...

just because the US is a gangster governemnt does'nt mean they broke international law.

[bailey_187]

And if killing Osama was "legal", would it be any different?

Who really cares tho

[RGacky3]

People that care about hypocrisy.

[RGacky3]

My mistake (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal), IF that counts without Musharaff in power.