No laws were broken. So says Eric Holder

[ed1066]

May 4, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

In the United States, police officers shoot and kill unarmed suspects fairly frequently, and in the vast majority of cases the police officers' actions were found to be within departmental and legal guidelines. In most cases, the suspects were either resisting, fleeing, or the officers "thought" they might be armed. Police Officers aren't required to actually SEE a gun or knife, or wait to be shot at, before they are allowed to open fire.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. I worked in law enforcement and I can say without a doubt if an officer was involved in a shooting with an unarmed suspect (and I mean completely unarmed), there would be a serious investigation at a minimum, with a trial being very likely. And using lethal force on an unarmed suspect who's fleeing?? You do that as a cop, you're very likely going to jail, I don't care what department you work for.

The bin Laden operation was a kill mission pure and simple, and there's nothing wrong wth that, it's how we should be fighting the war on terror, with surgical assassinations of high value targets. Armed or not, resisting or not, it was search and destroy. All this post-facto, was he armed or not, did he resist or not, is all BS. The SEALS don't run operations like this to make arrests...

[marshabar1]

Very cute tap dance the Obama administration is doing over these issues though, Ed. On the one hand Obama wants credit for the kill, on the other hand they've tried to paint it as an action taken in self defense, . . . . and he wants no blood on either hand.


Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the U.S. military mission that killed Osama bin Laden "was justified as an act of national self-defense" and that Navy SEALs would have had good grounds to shoot bin Laden even if he sought to surrender.

"It’s lawful to target an enemy commander in the field. We did so for instance with regard to [Japanese Admiral Isoroku] Yamamoto in World War II. He was shot down in an airplane. [Bin Laden] was by my estimation and the estimation of the Justice Department a lawful military target and the operation was conducted in a way that was consistent with our law, with our values," Holder said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Holder initially said the U.S. team "obviously" should have accepted if bin Laden attempted to surrender, but after some prodding by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) the attorney general said there'd have been a "good basis" for the SEALs to have killed the Al Qaeda leader if he gave some indication of giving up.

"To those out there who question what happened here, the intelligence and the statements from the man himself said he’d never be taken alive, that he had bombs strapped to himself," Graham said. "The Navy SEAL team had to believe from the moment they encountered bin Laden, whether he raised his hands or not--that could have been a fake surrender, that they were well within their rights and shooting him as soon as possible probably protected everybody, including the SEALs and women and children."

"It was a kill or capture mission. He made no attempt to surrender and I tend to agree with you that, even if he had, there’d be a good basis on the of the part of those very brave Navy SEAL team members to do what they did in order to protect themselves and the other people in that building," Holder replied. "What they did was entirely lawful and consistent with our values."

It seems clear that under international law bin Laden could have been legally shot without warning by U.S. forces in a combat zone, such as Afghanistan. However, some international law scholars contend that outside a declared combat zone, the use of lethal force by the Central Intelligence Agency or the U.S. military is unlawful. These scholars say the U.S.'s extensive use of armed drones in Pakistan violates international law, as, presumably, would another option the U.S. considered to take out bin Laden: dropping large bombs on his suspected hideout.

"The death of bin Ladin should also be the death of extra-judicial killing. Capture-and-trial is the legal and effective option for dealing with the criminals we call 'terrorists,'" Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell wrote Tuesday on Opinio Juris.

"Yes, resistance to capture may have to be met with appropriate force, but it should be police force, acting on the basis of solid intelligence. If we do not stop using drones to pursue terrorist suspects, we will have extended to bin Laden more rights than we do to persons about whom we have far less information. Instead, let’s devote appropriate resources to finding, apprehending, and trying these individuals in courts of law, with legal cases built on evidence gathered using police techniques and proper chains of evidence," O'Connell said.
www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0511/Holder_Killing_of_bin_Laden_legal_as_national_selfdefense.html

[ed1066]

The raid on the Obama compound across an international border, without the invitation or cooperation of the government on the other side of that border, followed by the killing by gunfire of an unknown number of people, at least one of which was unarmed and defenseless, (bin Laden), the shooting and wounding of at least one unarmed and defenseless woman, (bin Laden's wife), and no laws were broken???

I promise I'm not picking on you Henry, but I have been enjoying listening to the news reporters stumbling over this one as well. It's confounding, I'm sure, how close the names are, and they are really having a hard time with it...I heard O'Reilly do it, as well as some of the stuffed shirts and stuffed skirts on CNN...no disrespect, sir, just surprised no onle else caught it yet...

[henryclay]

That's the way wars should be fought.

Exactly! And not just by the good old boy at the top, where no law, or lawyer out to make a name for himself, can second guess them.
We have too many men in prison right now for doing a helluva lot less, except that they didn't have Obama as their back-up.

I'm glad it went off without more hitches than it did, but there was one hitch. They left a "mechanical failure" in the compound. Here is a picture of the part they didn't burn. Mechanical failure my azz. The pilot dragged his tail rotor across a concrete wall and broke it off. I wonder what glory he had waiting for him after he and his crew had to get a ride back in somebody else's helicopter when it was over.

[henryclay]

Hey, ed, I'm sitting here all warm and fuzzy, and having a ball. while the hand picked clowns Obama calls his team try to step over all the pot holes thay have made in the roads they travel.

Marsh, regarding killing enemy commabders in the field,. It is the same set of vocal cords that suddenly elevate Osama to a respected status in order to placate their own lack of focus that tomorrow or the next day will go back to referring to the entire war, just like they have been doing all this time, as nothing but routing out criminals.

Ratchets, kudos to you. Thanks for making it simple for the liberals.

[domeasingold]

Who's gonna indict them?
So the 3000 or so that died on 911, there was a question about whether they were combatants? OBL was a dead man 10 seconds after the towers were breached.
Oh yeah Henry, you try flying a helicopter in pitch black between those walls. There will be no judgement on that mans ability to fly under those conditions.
Semper Fi!

[floridayankee]

All I can say is what kind of totally f'ed up society do we live in when we immediately start thinking legality, the negative connotation of "blood on the hands", and look to place "blame" and for somebody to "punish" when justice is served to America's public enemy #1.

Some people just don't deserve to live.

[steff]

This message has been deleted.

[Deleted]

I just heard they captured him first, then killed him, according to reports from some in the compound. US denies that. I hope it is true. I hope they terrified him, tortured him, then slaughtered him.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Oh fer crying out loud, how convoluted does RW thinking have to get in order to biotch and moan about Dems following the LAW?
Boosh's making a religious army out of a band of criminals and talking of crusades and showing inflammatory pictures of Saddam and his sons was a GREAT idea producing thousands MORE terrorist criminals (see the way they can be BOTH, dittoheads?). The few clues gotten by illegal un-American torture in secret illegal "prisons" were NOT worth the disrespect, distrust, and hate they produced EVERYWHERE.

[henryclay]

Boosh's making an religious army out of a band of criminals and talking of crusades and showing inflammatory pictures of Saddam and his sons was a GREAT idea producing thousands MORE terrorist criminals (see the way they can be BOTH, dittoheads?). The few clues gotten by torture in secret illegal "prisons" were NOT worth the disrespect, distrust, and hate they produced EVERYWHERE.

Then why was Boosh crucified over it?
.
.
.
.
.
And tell us now, please tell us, , , , that it was NOT those very Boosh policies that led up to Obama being able to take the credit for kiling bin Laden.

Come on,, please tell us.

[deziloooooo]

May 4, 2011 14:27:31 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 4, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

In the United States, police officers shoot and kill unarmed suspects fairly frequently, and in the vast majority of cases the police officers' actions were found to be within departmental and legal guidelines. In most cases, the suspects were either resisting, fleeing, or the officers "thought" they might be armed. Police Officers aren't required to actually SEE a gun or knife, or wait to be shot at, before they are allowed to open fire.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. I worked in law enforcement and I can say without a doubt if an officer was involved in a shooting with an unarmed suspect (and I mean completely unarmed), there would be a serious investigation at a minimum, with a trial being very likely. And using lethal force on an unarmed suspect who's fleeing?? You do that as a cop, you're very likely going to jail, I don't care what department you work for.

The bin Laden operation was a kill mission pure and simple, and there's nothing wrong wth that, it's how we should be fighting the war on terror, with surgical assassinations of high value targets. Armed or not, resisting or not, it was search and destroy. All this post-facto, was he armed or not, did he resist or not, is all BS. The SEALS don't run operations like this to make arrests...

Think it's the second time for me..maybe third...it's killing me but...

[hello fromWarsaw]

His wife was charging at the guy, OBL was attacking while not armed (a threat), he had to put up his hands and surrender to avoid getting shot. Sounds fair to me.

[henryclay]

domeasingold, Toss in some adrenalin and the knowledge that with flying machines everything runs on "automatic rough" at night and that nothing after dark is a peice of cake even on familiar turf, and you'll see that it could have been a whole lot worse. , , , a whole helluva lot worse.

And I would expect that the entire team, pilots included, are still in shock for havig pulled it off so well and haven't yet gotten the taste of copper pennies out of their saliva, except the poor slob that was driving the one that they ended up burning. And he is probably suffering a prolonged case of self-doubt.

[jarhead1976]

May 4, 2011 15:15:08 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Oh fer crying out loud, how convoluted does RW thinking have to get in order to biotch and moan about Dems following the LAW?
Boosh's making a religious army out of a band of criminals and talking of crusades and showing inflammatory pictures of Saddam and his sons was a GREAT idea producing thousands MORE terrorist criminals (see the way they can be BOTH, dittoheads?). The few clues gotten by illegal un-American torture in secret illegal "prisons" were NOT worth the disrespect, distrust, and hate they produced EVERYWHERE.

1st. If you are in upper Government or the police you are above the law. 2nd. Who gives a rats A$$ about what a bunch of Muslim extremist think. Their own governments grow rich from oil profits and do nothing to help their own. They blame the US. While, we continue to send the best our country has, our young men and women, to protect those that can not protect themselves.

[ed1066]

I read that the helicopter which was left behind had a mechanical problem on the way in and was detonated before they left the site. It's impressive that the pilot was able to put it down and complete the mission knowing that he and his team would not be leaving the scene in that heli...

[deziloooooo]

May 4, 2011 15:24:05 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

His wife was charging at the guy, OBL was attacking while not armed (a threat), he had to put up his hands and surrender to avoid getting shot. Sounds fair to me.

He blinked , to bad, he's down.

These folks who did this are trained so much more then I and my fellows, 1000 times better, more time at it, and fitter, sharper, more experienced, more time served, scenario after scenario , practiced so they knew how many steps it would take to go back to their transportation, and in the fog of war, with all that..s*** happens and here I believe what happpened was planned, nothing to chance and that's all she wrote.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

May 4, 2011 14:27:31 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 4, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

In the United States, police officers shoot and kill unarmed suspects fairly frequently, and in the vast majority of cases the police officers' actions were found to be within departmental and legal guidelines. In most cases, the suspects were either resisting, fleeing, or the officers "thought" they might be armed. Police Officers aren't required to actually SEE a gun or knife, or wait to be shot at, before they are allowed to open fire.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. I worked in law enforcement and I can say without a doubt if an officer was involved in a shooting with an unarmed suspect (and I mean completely unarmed), there would be a serious investigation at a minimum, with a trial being very likely. And using lethal force on an unarmed suspect who's fleeing?? You do that as a cop, you're very likely going to jail, I don't care what department you work for.

I spent 13 years as a civil trial attorney, specializing in the defense of police misconduct/excessive force cases, and personally helped investigate dozens and dozens of officer-involved shootings.

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2011 14:27:31 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 4, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

In the United States, police officers shoot and kill unarmed suspects fairly frequently, and in the vast majority of cases the police officers' actions were found to be within departmental and legal guidelines. In most cases, the suspects were either resisting, fleeing, or the officers "thought" they might be armed. Police Officers aren't required to actually SEE a gun or knife, or wait to be shot at, before they are allowed to open fire.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. I worked in law enforcement and I can say without a doubt if an officer was involved in a shooting with an unarmed suspect (and I mean completely unarmed), there would be a serious investigation at a minimum, with a trial being very likely. And using lethal force on an unarmed suspect who's fleeing?? You do that as a cop, you're very likely going to jail, I don't care what department you work for.

The bin Laden operation was a kill mission pure and simple, and there's nothing wrong wth that, it's how we should be fighting the war on terror, with surgical assassinations of high value targets. Armed or not, resisting or not, it was search and destroy. All this post-facto, was he armed or not, did he resist or not, is all BS. The SEALS don't run operations like this to make arrests...

[Deleted]

These last few days have been amazing to me on the boards, watching so many people approve of Obama things that they hated Bush for. Everybody scrambling around trying to figure it all out. It's kind of confusing, actually. When will things get back to normal, I wonder?

[henryclay]

ed1066, I have not seen that mentioned. What I have seen and heard was that that helicopter was disabled by a hard landing and that they destroyed it. The photo of a tail rotor draped across a fence would be consistent with such a report.

Nor am I critiqueing the mission because I was not part of setting it up, but it would not seem tactically wise to launch the team so far from its destination on a night foray without including an overkill possibility, just as a safeguard that one or more helicopters would not be able to complete the mission.

That is to say, if they were sent on the raid with barely enough transportation to do the job, and without the luxury of spare capability, , , to the point of one helicopter with mechanical problems absolutely HAD to continue regardless, somebody needs to rethink the tactic from top to bottom.

It is this simple. If the mechanical problem was such that it contributed to a hard landing, that helicopter should not have continued. Doing so would jeopardize the entire mission by having a part of the assault force exposed to a crash, with friendlies injured and dead, and not only a massive loss of mission capability, with the entire thing going south, but unnecessarily creating a recovery mission, too, and all of it out in what is normally called "Indian country" away from anything but hostile forces.

Giving the planners more credit than to do that, I suspect the "hard landing" report was just a way of sayiong that the compound was small, it was dark, and that one bird struck a hard object in the Landing Zone.

The pilot is probably being harder on himself than anybody else is even thinking about.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2011 16:16:53 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

These last few days have been amazing to me on the boards, watching so many people approve of Obama things that they hated Bush for. Everybody scrambling around trying to figure it all out. It's kind of confusing, actually. When will things get back to normal, I wonder?

?? What are you talking about?

[domeasingold]

Henry, Mission was still accomplished regardless. No loss of our people. I'm sure the main contigency was OBL. Dead and spirited out of the compound. If we missed an opportunity taking prisoners so be it. We got data and the body. We don't need the criticism for holding a 27 yo woman against her will. She probably doesn't know shit anyway. Just the same she could have been dead just as easily.
IMO, special ops groups work with a minimum of harware. The more assets in play, the more difficult to have a successful operation.

[Deleted]

I figure that every American on that raid should be punished. I figure that a 1 grade promotion should do (except for the guy that "took the shot", he should get promoted 2 grades. That is a punishment after all, the higher the rank the more responsibility you get.