Bin Laden Death: 'CIA Doctor' Accused Of Treason

reply to post by SevenThunders


Yeah I agree. This is crap to lead everone away from what is really happening. And of course this information cannot be trusted as it comes from the government propaganda mouthpiece the Biased Broadcasting Corruption (BBC).

The killing of Bin Laden is just made up crap and the buttheads are tying up loose ends to hide this fact. This guy more than likely knows the truth and is being silenced. Wouldn't be surprised if they didn't kill him. If they can kill one of their own (JFK) then they can kill anyone!!

Don't trust the media. Don't trust the government!!

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Cecilofs
BS. This was not "self defence",

Care to develop that theory beyond bare assertion? If I see the words "actor" or "Tim Osman," though, I'm gonna stop reading.

Assuming the OS is true, the guy was in another country posing no immediate danger to the US. Therefore, not self defence. In fact he was allegedly killed in retaliation for 9/11, so its more like pre-meditated murder/assassination in my mind.

If the OS isn't true its even more black and white.

As for the legality I am not sure on that so I retract my statement but would like to hear from people more knowledgable. I am sure there are International Laws preventing it but I am also sure the US has loop holes around it or didn't bother to sign the documents as usual.

After all, who will hold them accountable? They killed the only person who supposedly tried

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

Huh.... So they are pissed the Doctor helped bring down a murdering terrorist and want to charge him with high treason. How about the morons pushing that be charged with High treason as well for supporting Bin Laden and giving him protection and sanctuary in Pakistan?

Sounds to me like some prominant pakistanis are upset they got caught with their hand in the terrorist jar and are trying to shift focus.

Don't let the fact an innocent until proven guilty dude was extra judicially slaughtered, by violent aggressive war mongers, get in the way of a good patriotic propaganda belch.

If he conspired with foreigners to kill someone, he should be charged & tried.. like anyone else.

True justice is blind to television "leaders" and useful idiots determining guilt.

reply to post by Convicted


Doesn't work that way. If he didn't use the pork himself, it doesn't count so dipping bullets in pig fat and the like is just wasting time by the ignorant. What keeps them out of heaven in this case is the murder of innocents.

Originally posted by Cecilofs
As for the legality I am not sure on that so I retract my statement but would like to hear from people more knowledgable. I am sure there are International Laws preventing it but I am also sure the US has loop holes around it or didn't bother to sign the documents as usual.

The experts are divided on the legality. The self defense argument does apply because Bin Laden was planning future attacks, so it was those future attacks that were being defended against.

Probably the better argument is that a state of war existed between the US and Al Queda so it was a wartime attack on an enemy who had declared war on the USA:

www.guardian.co.uk...

"The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.

"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."

I'm sure the legality will be hotly debated for some time to come.

But I feel sorry for the doctor who helped whom they failed to extract.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mortika
One thing I don't get is, That the Pakistani government said they didn't know he was there. So how can one be accused of treason?

That's a great comment!

The charge of treason almost suggests the Pakistani government knew he was there!

Otherwise, all he did was run a fake vaccine program, so the charge would be medical malpractice or something like that, which would still be a stretch since he didn't really hurt anybody. They may not even have a law to fit exactly what he did.

You guys are right on -- the "charge" of treason is actually very telling.

Treason (according to Webster's):

1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Did the doctor personally injure or kill a sovereign or the sovereign's family? No.

Did the doctor attempt to overthrow the Pakistani government? No.

So we are free to induce through the charge of treason that the doctor betrayed a TRUST with the Pakistani government re OBL. Telling, no?

There is this, however. A "sovereign" is defined as:

1a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c : an acknowledged leader

www.merriam-webster.com...

Is Pakistan admitting that it viewed OBL as a "sovereign?"

reply to post by stevcolx


Very true, don't trust them. Moreover if they can get away with this psy-op how will they fool us next? False alien invasion? More false flag terrorist attacks? They are already getting away with the predicted-in-advance Arab spring uprising. Now they are trying the same tactics here in the US. They have plenty of useful idiots for their agenda no doubt.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"The self defense argument does apply because Bin Laden was planning future attacks"

Which process found this credible & relevant nugget?.. incidentally, he couldn't have planned 9/11.. Operation Northwoods & US military came up with the idea first.

Can your neighbor kill your dog based on the opinion Fido is planning to bite?

Ever wonder why judges order jurors to ignore media reports and sometimes sequester jurors on so called "high profile" cases?..

Courts recognize the media can & will bias / shape opinions.. TV leaders & professional pie holes aren't under oath or under any obligation to be truthful.. often times they are very full of crap and can only speculate about intimate details.

This is one reason there will never be a high profile 9/11 case in open court imo.. the guy on TV calling himself president is a professional liar by trade.. not under oath... he can say whatever he wants. The govt needs all the elites turds of disinformation & spin to float around the public punchbowl to be argued over Ad nauseam.. rather than settled after aggressive challenge.

Who wins by holding court in the streets?.. not in court?.. the govt elite do, their side becomes the "official" story.. of course they're going to leave it like that. One reason questioning 9/11 on TV is verboten.

reply to post by GovtFlu

You're missing a key difference here.

If your neighbor is planning some attacks against you, and you have evidence of this, you can call the police, and they will deal with your neighbor.

There is and was no equivalent the US could call for help. In fact had the US even asked Pakistan for help it was at least as likely as not that someone in Pakistan would tip off Bin Laden and he'd escape before he could be apprehended.

But I also said I think the argument it was a wartime combat operation is probably a better argument than the self defense argument anyway.

And yes in war, you're allowed to kill the enemy.

www.ibtimes.com...

According to Walter E. Dellinger, solicitor general under former U.S. President Bill Clinton, shooting bin Laden is legal because it was not an "assassination" of a political leader but the killing of a military commander at best as part of an operation i.e. in a military combat. And, in a military combat, an enemy can be lawfully killed even if he is unarmed.

"Under international law, bin Laden is an enemy combatant. And one of the points of war is that you can kill enemy combatants.

I don't see why they need to bring up self defense when they have the enemy combatant argument, I think that's all they need, though I don't claim to be a law expert, but apparently Walter Dellinger is. Are you?

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Assuming the OS is true, the guy was in another country posing no immediate danger to the US.

Assuming the OS is true, the guy was in another country directing a belligerent power that was at war with the US. Try again.

In fact he was allegedly killed in retaliation for 9/11, so its more like pre-meditated murder/assassination in my mind.

"In fact ... allegedly." You cannot make something a fact by alleging it.

As for the legality I am not sure on that so I retract my statement but would like to hear from people more knowledgable. I am sure there are International Laws preventing it

Show them to me. I've already called you out on making up Geneva Conventions. If you're sure Osama bin Laden was a protected person under international law, you can show me the convention or proof of a custom.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"If your neighbor is planning some attacks against you, and you have evidence of this, you can call the police, and they will deal with your neighbor. There is and was no equivalent the US could call for help. "

Oh please.. the US had options to "call" upon.. they just decided to ignore them and summarily kill the guy.. allegedly.

"'The latest information available to the security agencies is that al-Awlaki was driving in a motorcade of three cars when a US drone targeted them (on September 30),' the source told the Yemeni website Mareb Press on condition of anonymity. He added that one car had been hit, while the other two escaped. 'There is no irrefutable information that al-Awlaki was inside the hit car,' he said."

www.uruknet.info...

.. we're supposed to call police, and the US govt elite are supposed to call the court, submit evidence and obtain authorization to "deal with" it.

They could file charges, hold a kangaroo pre-hanging trial in absentia and upon being found guilty.. "go get em".. or convene a grand jury where even a ham sandwich can be indicted. Supposedly dude was so overwhelmingly evil.. it should be easy to prove to "jurors"..

.. Jurors are ordered to be impartial (think for themselves).. only to consider aggressively contested court vetted information called "evidence" in pre-911 USSA. Jurors are also ordered ignore TV personalities anointed "leaders" whose verbal vomit is not under oath.. up to and including infamous professional virtue-less liar puppet politicians who are under no legal obligation to be truthful.

It's not called TV/media "programming" for not programming bias... the whole bullshizzle fake war on terror propaganda screed is sold to you, with your money.. Macs & Big Macs advertise with 2-min commercials, the fascists have 24/7 patriotic tilted infomercials called news. Actors, TV leaders & total strangers have programed & sold you on the idea Nazi behavior is cool again... just like it was sold to millions of fast asleep 1930s Germans.

Welcome to history repeating.. and oh yeah, German national socialists had plenty of John Yoo useful idiots around to write notes making it all ok.

reply to post by Cecilofs

this was Assassination - which is illegal according to the Geneva Convention

I think you will find that at no point is the word “Assassination” used in the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
He was doing this at our behest, he ought to be offered asylum, if it comes down to it.

I agree. This latest action by the Pakistani government further reinforces failing relations between our two nations. They continue to support anti-American militants and pro-Taliban groups. They are undermining all the efforts that the U.S. military has trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis grow closer to China as well. When is enough enough?

reply to post by Cosmic911


Why is it surprising when locals side with and assist fellow locals?.. especially in that region!!, they have a long rich history of kicking all would be occupiers squarely in the ass.

These are tribal folks who don't pledge allegiance to whatever cloth on a stick.. been there 1000s of years, many don't consider international borders as meaning much either.. history tells them lines and leaders.. largely irrelevant to tribal business.. come and go.

All most of them know is there is a new occupier in town and it's their time to fight.. like their ancestors have been doing for centuries before the corporation known as "USA" was a twinkle in the founding fathers eye.

An American who conspired with a foreign govt to kill a suspect.. would be anointed a domestic boogie-man, stripped of all rights and paraded around in chains for Federal photo ops.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Cecilofs

 

this was Assassination - which is illegal according to the Geneva Convention

I think you will find that at no point is the word “Assassination” used in the Geneva Convention.

I believe you are correct. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which codified a policy first laid down in 1976 by the Ford administration. It stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

reply to post by GovtFlu


Please explain the comment on innocent till prven guilty and extrajudicial punishment. Please explain how that is even relevent?

Bin Laden is not a US citizen.
The group he runs is at war with the US.
The group he runs attacked the US
The group he runs killed voer 3k civilians in the US

The term you are looking for is called declaration of war, which Bin Laden achieved all on his own.

Ill care about extrajudicial punishment when those types of wingnuts are dead. They dont care who they kill, so long as its the infadel. I really dont think the Us filing an amicus brief with Pakistan is really go to help do you?

How I long for the days of Civus Romanus....

Prior to the 2nd Gulf War, America knew it had a problem in the Middle East: It's two greatest "Allies" were the two biggest problems in the region. Pakistani and Saudi Arabia both had Governments that were willing to work with America, but the People of both countries basically distrusted or outright hated the Americans.

One of the prime unstated goals of the 2nd Gulf War was to create an American friendly Democracy in Iraq that the United States could count on for support of an extensive network of bases and a major PERMANENT military presence. It was not as far fetched as that may sound today. In spite of the brutal totalitarian dictatorship, the Iraqi culture was the most secular and "western" in the entire region.

The Americans knew that they would have to turn their backs on their former allies of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but needed a SECURE base of operations to take them on.

Whether those countries fell as a result of theocratic popular revolutions (similar to Iran), or collapsed into full blown civil war against the ruling elites, the Americans felt they were wearing out their welcome.

We all know how poorly this plan worked out. Now the USA finds itself in the same situation it knew it would face, but now with no alternative basing options and even greater civil resentment against them.

Without a suitable alternative, the Americans have no choice but to continue make the best of the Pakistani and Saudi situations. The Pakistani relationship is the most tenuous with the Government as WELL as the people "of the street" openly defying the Americans. The Pakistani government is hooked on US aid, particularly military aid and is likely that supply of arms and money that is the only reason Pakistan is still an ally. The fear within Pakistan and America is what might happen to all that military hardware if the political climate precipitates a change, leading to another theocratic Muslim government, but one much better armed and dangerous than Iran ever was.

Awkwardly, the traditional enemy of the Pakistani's is the Indians who have been building stronger and stronger ties with Russia. There is significant military and engineering exchanges between the two countries and that relationship will only get stronger. (The joint venture PAK-FA is only on example) Neither the Russians nor the Americans relish the prospect of a 21st Proxy "Cold War" of ANY sort. Despite any sabre rattling during their respective elections, the Russians and Americans are desperate to get on with each other.

So where does the Iran situation fit into all this? The Russians are not happy about the Iranian program at all, but they are even more disinterested in any sort of military conflict in their own backyard and will do everything in their power to avoid ANY military "solutions" for Iran. The Americans - in public anyway - continue to show very little sympathy or understanding for that Russian mindset. With the two largest oceans, Canada and Mexico as it's only neighbours they just dont seem to fathom the Russian concern.

The wild card in this entire mess is the Israeli's. They have shown tine and again that, despite their extremely close ties with America, they will conduct their own foreign policy as they see fit when threatened. And they feel very threatened. Even though the Russians, Saudis and Pakistanis all KNOW Israel could very well strike Iran without America's prior knowledge, they are still trying their best in the UN and in the media to make Israeli reaction America's Problem. In large part because they have no choice. There is little or nothing - less than nothing - that any of them can do to exert pressure on Israel without making things even worse.

An Israeli attack on Iran will require a Herculean effort on the part of Russia, America, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and China to stop the situation escalating into something that would embroil all of South Asia in a cataclysmic military disaster.

So while the Americans may not like one of their intelligence assets being thrown in jail for 30 + years, dont expect them to make much of a fuss about it. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fate of the world depends on how Pakistan, Russia, America, Iran, China, Israel and the entire Middle East behave themselves over the next eight months.