@hidden
lmao.

No you prove me correct. The laws you refer to are international laws regarding rules of war
between signatories. They are not domestic laws. Police officers and domestic courts do
not recognize the geneva convention.

In accordance with the laws of war you site, a soldier if taking fire from a building will
react by calling in a airstrike on said building.

However a police officer is under stricter domestic laws and must react to live fire in
the most passive way at his disposal.

Edit: Domestic law is in reference to the local laws of the area in which you live as
enforced by local law enforcement.


Treaties such as the geneva convention are international treaties and not law at all. The
geneva convention is more of a honor system between the nations who signed it and not
enforceable as a law. Should the nation you are fighting not be a signer of the geneva
convention or should violate said agreement the other nation is not required to adhere to
it during said war.

"In short the military does not follow and cannot follow domestic law while at war.
Therefore the prisoners they capture are almost automatically not able to be prosecuted in
a domestic court. "

You are wrong. There is the Haager Land war convetion is valid since 1907 and since 1949
the Geneva convention with all of its additional protocols. Those laws do include military
actions.

@aud
It is possible that they knew where laden was the whole time and have been monitoring his
activities. That would be classic sun tzu.

But it would make more sense at least to me to have waited until the presidential
elections. Obama could have ridden the popularity bump to aid his re-election. As is the
death of bin laden will be a political whitewash by the elections and the usefulness gone.

But I do see your point. If he can do damage control during the raise of the debt ceiling
it would do him so good.

But it seems more like a repulican jab then something that is real.

I heard an interesting theory yesterday. This whole thing happened during the time the
deadline of raising the national debt ceiling happened. Maybe they're trying to draw our
attention away?

In a perfect world a domestic trial for terrorists maybe the most moral solution. However
in the current world it is the most impractical idea.

The most problematic issue that Obama ran into was that the military is not a police
force. The mission of the military is much more urgent and requires the lose of a lot more
lives. The purpose of the military is not to project American laws but to affect the most
expeditious end to whatever threat is currently threatening the nation. When they come to
your house they are not showing up to serve a warrant and read you your rights. They will
if necessary skin you alive even if it means they go to jail if it means the saving of
american lives.

In short the military does not follow and cannot follow domestic law while at war.
Therefore the prisoners they capture are almost automatically not able to be prosecuted in
a domestic court.

10 years, billions spent, thousands dead. Osama is not dead, he's in Diego Garcia.

Don't bring abortion up please...my ex just had to get one because of a tublar preg that
would have killed her so DO not bring it up please.

Abortion this is my opinion is only valid for rape victims or those who cannot have a baby
due to complications such as a tublar pregnancy or if birth defects are detected that
could possibly harm or kill the baby upon birth.

Mercy killings i agree with, i say they should be legal but only to those in a civilian
case who suffer from a terminal disease that will kill them in the end if it is to far
developed. Mercy killings in war i agree with also, if the combatant can not be saved i
say just put a bullet in him and end his or her's suffering.

"Yes, as that's what many tried to do to hitler and other leaders in the world so yes it is
a legal tactic. "

Just to clarify, the same applies to abortion and mercy killing too, right?

@hidden
"it would have been legal for the taliban regime in afghanistan to
assassin george bush"

Yes, as that's what many tried to do to hitler and other leaders in the world so yes it is
a legal tactic.

@hidden

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm no idealist, and I do not believe in 'doing
the right thing'.

I draw the line when someone declares 'war' on a society based on religious
ideology, and was in the past, directly or indirectly connected/responsible for many
such heinous acts.

Such a person does not deserve the benefit of the doubt nor to be put on trial. He
should be put down at the earliest opportunity possible. Yes there may be rules, but
in this instance, it need not apply and anything is fair game.