Free Markets, Free People


Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama

One of the “Rules for Radicals” that Saul Alinsky touted was:

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

In a piece published by the New York Times, the “bin Laden family” condemns the attack on their father and demands that there be a reckoning:

If OBL has been killed in that operation as President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports that why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world. If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law has been sacrificed on which western society is built and is standing when a trial of OBL was possible for any wrongdoing as that of Iraqi President Sadam Hussein and Serbian President Slobodan Miloševic’. We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems and crime’s adjudication as Justice must be seen to be done.

They’re also threatening to take the case to the International Criminal Court which would be an interesting turn of events.

The hidden premise, of course, is OBL was a criminal, not an unlawful combatant. The UN is also pushing that premise through its odious "Human Rights Council":

The United Nations (UN) affiliated human rights attorneys say the United States should release more details on the death of Osama Bin Laden during a military raid in Pakistan.They say in the statement that

actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.”

The statement, issued jointly by law professors Christof Heyns of South Africa’s University of Pretoria and Martin Scheinin of European University Institute in Florence, Italy, says that the “use of deadly force may be permissible” in certain circumstances “as a measure of last resort.” But they say that "the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.” These guidelines, the men say, are “international standards on the use of force. [emphasis mine]

The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”.  In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections.  In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that.  The other says these are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war).

Second guessing by all the world’s hand wringers should simply be ignored.  This isn’t a criminal matter.  It is a military matter and it was executed as such.  The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless.  Those are two good messages to send.

As for the bin Laden family – sorry about dear old dad.  Go float a wreath.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

16 Responses to Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama

  • At least OBL is dead.  All the hand wringing in the world cant bring him back, free him, make excuses for his actions, or justify his actions. 

  • Oh, but the irony is sweet…

    Bush’s treatment of Saddam Hussein is being referenced directly as the standard for these cases: apprehension, trial, and sentencing.

    In direct contrast, Obama’s assassination of OBL is called a “violation of international law”, earning high-minded clucks from our European betters. There is little the American liberal fears most than disapproval by Europeans.

    Oh, oh, oh — what rationalizations will the MSM and the “anti-war” left use to defend their godling now, hmmm?

  • I find it hilarious that with all the embracing of the UN, the International Criminal Court and such, we have the current admin being a greater villain that poor old Bush in international circles.
    Sucking up to people who have no respect for you does not make them your friend.  Weakness breeds contempt.
    Another idiotic effort by the WH clown show
    What goes around ….
     

  • I don’t know if it is possible to walk back from the sickly sweet poppy fields of “civil” notions, BUT…
    I think we had better try.
    As noble as might have been some of their ideals, there are MANY treaties, conventions, and accords that have made the world a LESS civilized place than it was in an earlier day.
    I think of the entire ambit of pirates…of which terrorists are a subset, IMNHO…and their treatment now.  Some sea-faring nations will not arrest and detain them, finding the prospect of trying and incarcerating them rather…odious.  They are subject to “catch and release”, like under-sized trout.
    It  once was…in “uncivilized days”…the practice among all nations to summarily execute a pirate caught in the act.  That was rational, and more humane for all humans EXCEPT the pirates.  Now, we have turned that on its head.
    Pirates and terrorists caught in the act should be extended no “right” or even consideration, except as a matter of expedience to gain from them intelligence or cooperation.  They deserve no due process after they have, like OBL, crowed of their crimes.  It should be entirely the option of nations to make them prisoners or DRT (dead, right there).

    • “Pirates and terrorists caught in the act should be extended no “right” or even consideration, except as a matter of expedience to gain from them intelligence or cooperation.  They deserve no due process after they have, like OBL, crowed of their crimes.  It should be entirely the option of nations to make them prisoners or DRT (dead, right there).”

      Completely agree – burn em to the waterline, “The quarter that we gave them, we sank them in the sea”.  Do the equivalent on land.

      As for the poor poor Bin Laden’s – okay, here’s a thought if they want some court based justice – Let me suggest then that the Bin Laden family are accessories after the fact in sheltering Osama.  Perhaps they too should be rounded up and tried in one of these courts they’re interested in.

      We can be found guilty of violating Osama’s rights, we’ll pay punative damages and then we can commence trying them from aiding and abetting a known, self confessed, mass murdering terrorist.

       

      • If I were AG, and they actually DID urge a lawsuit in any jurisdiction…
        the COUNTER-SUIT would be a bitch

        • The current AG would probably have them over for tea.

        • Every “Alinsky” deserves a “Counter-Alinsky”
          If the bin Laden family were to sue, the 9/11 families would have a new self-identified target to sue.

          • Ah, bunch of racists, they have no standing in this, I mean, seriously, what business is this of the 9/11 families?  They just don’t like Islam, and their families were all victims of Booooosh. After all, FIRE CAN’T MELT STEEL.

            Amazing, I can channel some of the opinion makers from the left!

          • One of your more dubious accomplishments, I am compelled to note…

  • You know what?  I’m throwing my full-bore support behind the Bin Laden Family and the UNs demands and assertions. Because those are EXACTLY the positions Candidate Obama, the Dems and their liberal base took for 8 years with any action Bush initiated.  So yeah, I’d pay good money to hear Obama defend himself to the ICC after 8 years of running his mouth in the other direction.

    • Don’t worry shark, Holder’s on the case – he’ll defend ‘em.

    • sharkI’m throwing my full-bore support behind the Bin Laden Family and the UNs demands and assertions. Because those are EXACTLY the positions Candidate Obama, the Dems and their liberal base took for 8 years with any action Bush initiated.

      Right there with you.  Bush and Co. were called everything from murderers to terrorists for what they did (when Belgium had the bright idea of arrest and trying GEN Franks, I was furious).  Captain Bullsh*t is doing nothing different than what Bush did aside from lying his a** off by yapping about “law enforcement” one day while ordering Hellfire strikes and SEAL team “no prisoners” raids then next.  I suppose that this is Bush’s “crime”: he made no bones about being at war and doing whatever he thought best to protect our country and people.  The left can’t stand that kind of moral clarity.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet