Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

HP: Shep Smith: Bin Laden Killing 'Illegal'


@SkinsGoldPants

Am I crazy?  

185 members have voted

  1. 1. Am I crazy?

    • Yes
      128
    • No
      31
    • Need to lay off the booze, but you might be onto something here
      26


Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/shep-smith-bin-laden-illegal_n_857356.html

Shep Smith called the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden "illegal" on Tuesday's "Studio B."

Speaking to Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Smith was discussing the various reports about the intelligence that led to Bin Laden. At one point, he asked Herridge, "is anyone talking about the fact that this is illegal, this operation was illegal, or is that a matter that's going to be left for another day?"

Herridge said no one had discussed it with her.

Smith is not the only Fox host to raise questions about the operation's legality. Fox Business anchor Andrew Napolitano explicitly called the killing illegal on his Monday show, saying it violated the Constitution and several treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was illegal about it? Or..unconstitutional?

Do we have permission from Pakistan to send troops into their lands without talking to them about it first?

I suspect on some level the operation was illegal. I also am guessing this in one of those cases where it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and there's not going to be much international blowback from this. I also doubt Shepard Smith was attempting to spin this action as a negative, but was merely trying to determine if anyone, anywhere was thinking about this stuff. Frankly I think it's a legitimate question.

Napolitano, on the other hand, is an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it to the Faux News legal department.

Oh please, it has been bandied about all over.

The US AG says it's legal.......that's really all that matters :evilg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/bin-laden-killing-legal-basis/p24866?cid=rss-terrorism-bin_laden_killing__the_legal_b-050211&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+issue%2Fterrorism+%28CFR.org+-+Issues+-+Terrorism%29%27

The U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was lawful under both U.S. domestic law and international law. The U.S. government's legal rationale will be similar to arguments used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify drone strikes against other al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Authorization to Use Military Force Act of September 18, 2001, authorizes the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned, or committed the 9/11 attacks.

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.

Some critics of the administration's legal theory that the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda might--if they were consistent with their past criticisms--argue that the United States did not have a right to use military force against bin Laden outside of Afghanistan, and that Washington should instead have sent an extradition request to Pakistan or asked the Pakistani government to arrest bin Laden. But such traditional critics may prefer to remain silent in this instance.

In addition, under the UN Charter, the United States would normally be prohibited from using force inside Pakistan without obtaining Pakistan's consent. It is not clear whether the Obama administration received the consent of the Pakistani government to use force inside Pakistan in this case, but the Pakistani government appears at least to have consented after the fact to this potential infringement of its sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have permission from Pakistan to send troops into their lands without talking to them about it first?

And we've been bombing targets in Pakistan ever since Osama slipped across the border because the previous administration trusted the Pakistanis when they should have done what was requested and put 600 Army Rangers on the ground between OBL and the Pakistan border as was requested by the CIA when they had OBL on the run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, when my President posted a Wanted poster which said "Wanted: Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive" I thought either was acceptable...

Exactly.

I like Shep Smith, and I like that he thinks outside of the Fox Box, but he's off on this one.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only illegality in my mind was violating the sovereignty of Pakistan....They can file a formal complaint if they wish :ols:

Exactly. :)

If you watch the video it's clear that's what Shepard Smith is asking about, and I don't get the sense that he personally dissapproved of anything we did based on any supposed illegality.

For the HP to link his question to Napolitano's incoherent blathering is a little disingenuous if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we've been bombing targets in Pakistan ever since Osama slipped across the border because the previous administration trusted the Pakistanis when they should have done what was requested and put 600 Army Rangers on the ground between OBL and the Pakistan border as was requested by the CIA when they had OBL on the run.

If fairness, I doubt Bush trusted the Pakistanis. I think most everyone knew the Pakistani government, including the ISI, was infiltrated by Taliban and AQ-sympathizers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most sane, reasonable people couldn't care less about the legality of Bin Laden's death. I'm already getting tired of people trying to find some way to criticize Obama after such an accomplishment. Osama Bin Laden is dead and all certain people care about is how the President's speech was too long and how minor misspeakings show how incompetent he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fairness, I doubt Bush trusted the Pakistanis. I think most everyone knew the Pakistani government, including the ISI, was infiltrated by Taliban and AQ-sympathizers.

Not according to the director of Operation Jawbreaker who specifically requested 600 Rangers on the ground to cut off OBL's escape to Pakistan, because the CIA team couldn't trust the locals in the area, the administration chose to trust the Pakistanis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...