Bin Laden's Son Says 'Arbitrary' Killing of His Father Was Illegal

Bin Laden's Son Says 'Arbitrary' Killing of His Father Was Illegal

The letter from Omar bin Laden, purporting to be on behalf of other family members, was reported by the New York Times. It cites the U.S. government's reports that bin Laden was unarmed but was killed by a team of Navy SEALs during a May 2 raid at a compound in Pakistan. The letter said the U.S. should have arrested bin Laden and put him on trial as was done with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic.

"If he has been summarily executed then we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated" but also U.S. laws guaranteeing presumption of innocence anda fair trial, the letter says. "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems."

I just saw this posted a little bit ago and thought by now somebody would have posted the story here at ATS. So purportedly some of OBL family believes he was killed in the raid and are coming out stating that their view it was an illegal killing.

I thought I post it to see what other members think.

Let's ask him what he thinks of his father's arbitrary killing of 3,000 workers in the WTC towers on 9/11?

hard to know what to think

when the us can go in to any country to kill any one with out question,the usa is becomeing a world class tyrant,

It's sad his martyrdom will bring a new breed of terror to us all here in the USA.

If only our government kept the body for proper documentation, I would at least be able to stand by what we allegedly did along with the rest of the US.
Now I really don't care what these people think, they are closer allies to us the people the our own government.
Think about it. . .

Tell his son,

Live by the sword, die by the sword.


David Grouchy

He gave up his rights as a human being when he made a business of killing American civilians for a political agenda.

A "violation of US law"? Since when does US law apply in Pakistan?

a "trial"? Why? Summary battlefield execution happens all the time. It's WAR, not a minor tiff amongst the Crips and the Bloods in the Hood, subject to US legal process!

Geneva Conventions? My ass. When did AQ sign off on the Geneva Conventions to be afforded their protections?

BTW, I can't find anywhere in the Geneva Conventions that AQ-like organizations fall under any protections from them, anyhow. They sure as hell don't feel bound by them when it's THEIR blade to an infidel's neck!

Nope, they're fair game - in the words of the Qur'an "wherever you may find them".

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Let's ask him what he thinks of his father's arbitrary killing of 3,000 workers in the WTC towers on 9/11?

Was he ever found guilty in connection to this..or just happy that it happened? I am just playing devil's advocate..but, he wasn't wanted even by the FBI in connection with 9/11.

reply to post by nenothtu


They seemed convinced he died in the raid.
Unless of course they are simply trying to take advantage of the situation.

reply to post by superman2012


His involvement with 9/11 is irrelevant, he had taken credit for far more terrorist attacks killing people before that.

of course this is a complex and emotionally sensitive issue, but it makes the ubiquitous Ghandi statement no less true:

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

and another one from MLK:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

and finally (and i realize this will earn me a whole heap of ire), but for those who profess christian values--- is this what Christ would have advocated? he who forgive his enemies even as he was being crucified by them?

justice through violence? is that how an advanced culture copes with tragedy?

too readily to we cry for blood, not understanding that such visceral remedies are merely temporary salves for our pain.

violence begets violence.

such is the world we tolerate.

an earlier poster stated - live by the sword, die by the sword.

it certainly wasn't a dove that the US has been wielding.

Emotion aside, technically, he may be right, if this was considered an act of war that they used as the precedent to go in there. Killing vs capturing an unarmed combatant would be illegal, no? I think that's what I've read anyway.

That's still the OS, right? Unarmed? I lost track of this particular detail.

Apparently, plenty of others agree.

Concerns raised over shooting of unarmed bin Laden, burial

ormer West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law," .

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

and this www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Let's ask him what he thinks of his father's arbitrary killing of 3,000 workers in the WTC towers on 9/11?

we're supposed to be better than that. and considering he hasn't been charged for 9/11 how can you execute him for that crime.

and if they held a trial, it would expose on the public record all of the governments crimes against detainees at guantanamo bay.

there could be no witnesses to testify against him, because all their testimony would be in question because of torture or classified because of national security. he could potentially walk, if the justice system is as fair and impartial as it claims to be.

can you imagine the trial.

lawyer: so you say you saw osama give the order for 9/11. how did you come to this conclusion.

witness: i was waterboarded 687 times. when i said i might have recalled osama saying that, the waterboarding stopped.

lawyer: next witness.

I love this little tidbit

and has said in news interviews that he spent time at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In the interviews, he has distanced himself from terror attacks carried out against civilians

Isn't that nice. So a son who has tried his hand at his fathers business. Considering OBL's track record a trial would be a joke. It sounds more like the son is trying to ride the coattails of his fathers death.

Since when does US law apply to citizens living in a forgin land?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Bin Laden's Son Says 'Arbitrary' Killing of His Father Was Illegal

The letter from Omar bin Laden, purporting to be on behalf of other family members, was reported by the New York Times. It cites the U.S. government's reports that bin Laden was unarmed but was killed by a team of Navy SEALs during a May 2 raid at a compound in Pakistan. The letter said the U.S. should have arrested bin Laden and put him on trial as was done with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic.

"If he has been summarily executed then we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated" but also U.S. laws guaranteeing presumption of innocence anda fair trial, the letter says. "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems."

I just saw this posted a little bit ago and thought by now somebody would have posted the story here at ATS. So purportedly some of OBL family believes he was killed in the raid and are coming out stating that their view it was an illegal killing.

I thought I post it to see what other members think.

Following the Japan beastly thread I'm learning to read between the lines in statements presented to us by the media...

"If he has been"...If. Now IF we believe...because we've been presented with the true account handed to us by our media from say the Gulf of Tonkin and since, well.

It just so happens that I have via screengrab evidence that OBL was my friend on FB...we were chatting about the Royal Wedding, and we had a friendly wager of $3.5 m...that Kate wouldn't cry tears of joy...

Where's my compensation?

Wasnt he unarmed but "reaching for a pile of guns he had next to him"? I am by no means a navy seal but if I had a gun aimed at the worlds most wanted man and he was reaching for a weapon I would shoot. Everything is being made political when it was probably a matter of shoot or be shot. Peace

A grand jury charged him with "Inciting violence against US citizens in 1998" according to this article here which has some interesting info it's from 1998: articles.cnn.com...:US

and this one say's he was formally charged for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania: www.indianexpress.com...

Thought those would be relevant

Here's another one from the New York Times: .www.nytimes.com...


I had to add this here is the text of the indictment: www.fas.org...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by nenothtu

 

They seemed convinced he died in the raid.
Unless of course they are simply trying to take advantage of the situation.

People will believe what they want to believe and most have had their minds made up long ago, with or without substantive evidence to give the opinion/belief true weight. My opinion of OBL's "official" death is this: he got what he gave in life and in that, it ended as it was lived. Good riddance...

I would have much rather seen him tortured for a few years befor he got nailed what's the point in sending him straight to hell oh sorry I mean his 20 virgins.
At least it would have given the government some much needed credabilaty 
