There's nothing radical about condemning Osama's killing

[bailey_187]

Cosnidering it is it is mostly framed in legalistic terms. The question is raised "did it violate international law", as if the "international law" thats allowing Libya to be bombed is some sort of law worth upholding. It similar to the Iraq war arguments, when it was opposed as an "illegal war", as if a UN mandate for that invasion would have somehow justified it.

Its usual Guardian style politics from the "radical" middle classes and their spokepeople like Rowan Williams

I really dont care if someone blew Bin Laden's head up, nor do i care about the legal basis for it.

[Public Domain]

I don't really care, though I do find the United States creepier for their actions.
The cultish celebration of death shows a problematic culture as well. Just another
piece of sobering evidence to show that Americans are no 'better' than people's of
other lands. They can be just as bloodthirsty (stop me if I'm pointing out the obvious)
as any other human being.

When I was a young Flavour-Aid drinking social democrat, I believed in the integrity of
'international law'. I used the exact argument you mentioned used by liberals to 'oppose'
the Iraq War.

Truthfully, it seems like ever since the fall of the USSR the West has been cleaning
up it's own ridiculous messes. So desperate for world power that it's biting them in
the ass to this day and probably will for decades to come.

It took 10 years to kill this guy... Will it take another decade for the next state enemy?

The only basis for the legal argument is perhaps to point out the hypocrisy of those
who claim to uphold it and its assumed integrity. This hypocrisy, of course, is not surprising,
and never has been.

I could care less if Osama was dead or alive. America's campaign for revenge has been
psychotic and it's not going to end with Osama. I care more about that ongoing crisis
than this pathetic trophy kill.

[graymouser]

I think international law has been an ineffective framework for radicals to frame their critiques of imperialism, but I do think that nevertheless radicals can and should condemn it, albeit on grounds not relying on international law.

What the US did was to assert its right to hunt down and kill, without any kind of trial, anyone that they label as an enemy. Revolutionaries can oppose this on purely anti-imperialist demands: we don't recognize this right, and we'll keep building movements that are opposed to all of the activities of imperialism, from neoliberalism to wars of aggression to the assassination of targeted figures. We can keep supporting genuinely anti-imperialist forces, and keep building social pressure against the imperial policies from "in the belly of the beast."

This kind of nihilist, "who cares" approach to imperialism misses the mark for me; we need to call it by its name and say that nothing it does is justice, nothing it does is for anything but its own profit and glory.

[chegitz guevara]

As far as international law goes, it's been revealed the U.S. and Pakistan had a secret agreement that the U.S. could do what it did. That's what happens when you rely on legalistic arguments. You get the rug yanked out from under you.

[graymouser]

As far as international law goes, it's been revealed the U.S. and Pakistan had a secret agreement that the U.S. could do what it did. That's what happens when you rely on legalistic arguments. You get the rug yanked out from under you.
Yeah, a lot of horrible shit is done under the auspices of international law. But that doesn't mean anti-imperialists should sit by and say "ok, whatever" when US imperialism goes out and kills its biggest opponent in the night, using the (later falsified) excuse of a "firefight" for what sounds more like an execution. The question is not whether Pakistan's government okayed the action (which gets you in the whole complicated morass of international law), but that the imperial assassination squad are not heroes and the assassination had nothing at all to do with justice or making the world safer.

The Democrats are beating the drum for Obama on this one, and calling for it to be a template for interventions in the future. We should point out this hypocrisy to anyone who still thinks of them as an "anti-war" party in any way.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i just think the whole hypocrisy surrounding a guy makes good anti war rhetoric for those who aren't yet conscious of capitalism and its wars. i don't care, but its a good talking point for friends who are politically ignorant. not international law, but the analysis of war in an anti-capitalist context. it is a duty of ours to get people thinking and the death of bin laden was a good invitation to do that - major political events require our analysis.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think there is a lot to be gained by condemning extra judicial punishment (killings or not) like this. This can even be framed in a legalist position if you like though if you are relying on codification of laws instead of spirit of laws and the principles of laws you can be set up for failure like the fact that congres gave the president these powers or the fact that there is a treaty between the US and Pakistan (in this specific case).

However; the fact that two countries agreed that these kind of actions can be taken do not make the actions legal or legally right per se.

Now, why should we oppose such actions? Because it goes to show capitalist countries will forego their own legal statutes in order to serve their goals. It shows that laws in a capitalist society only serve the purpose of the ruling elite.

Does it matter to protest? Yes and no. Our dissent will not have any effect whatsoever on the way the governments operate. However...being persistent and consistenty will open eyes on the long run.

[RadioRaheem84]

Cosnidering it is it is mostly framed in legalistic terms. The question is raised "did it violate international law", as if the "international law" thats allowing Libya to be bombed is some sort of law worth upholding. It similar to the Iraq war arguments, when it was opposed as an "illegal war", as if a UN mandate for that invasion would have somehow justified it.

Its usual Guardian style politics from the "radical" middle classes and their spokepeople like Rowan Williams

I really dont care if someone blew Bin Laden's head up, nor do i care about the legal basis for it.

Of course it's useless. I just use it against liberals who become all jingoistic when raving about how Obama got Osama and how he is handling the War on Terror.

I ask them, "did you ever protest against Bush"?

They say, "yeah".

So I tell them, "so basically you're saying Obama is doing Bush's job better"?

Apparently, they're saying that Obama is a more efficient, subtle and better war criminal and liar.

[GPDP]

Apparently, they're saying that Obama is a more efficient, subtle and better war criminal and liar.

And of course that's a good thing to them, correct?

[RadioRaheem84]

And of course that's a good thing to them, correct?

They mostly say that I am being far-left. Which is true.

Or that the way Bush handled things is different than Obama.

[GPDP]

They mostly say that I am being far-left. Which is true.

Or that the way Bush handled things is different than Obama.

Sounds to me like they're skirting around giving a positive answer to the question, then. Typical liberals. When called out on hypocrisy or exposed as hawks, imply you're only being pragmatic.

[Rakhmetov]

Big deal ... you kill one reactionary bastard and he's quickly replaced by another reactionary bastard. Bin Laden is already replaced by the al Qaeda chain of command. :rolleyes:

[nuisance]

Big deal ... you kill one reactionary bastard and he's quickly replaced by another reactionary bastard. Bin Laden is already replaced by the al Qaeda chain of command. :rolleyes:
Guess you missed the memo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

[alphshuffel]

As US is a super power can declare war or attack anywhere. He killed Osama by dissordering the international rules and regulations. He should not attack within Pakistan border. He can ask Pakistan to take action against Bin Laden and US can take part with Pakistan. This all seems to be artificial hardwork, there are certain questions raised in the world, Obama should answer them first. US has not burried any anti Ameran person into sea, then why did with bin laden;