Obama announcement at 10:30 p.m. - Bin Laden Dead

But there are specific rules of engagement about it.

 

Yes. I mean, it would be pretty open-and-shut, but you document what happened, right? And someone higher up looks at it, right?

 

SEALS in a compound, where people with guns could appear from anywhere. Don't think it's on them to try to apprehend Osama. You kill the enemy before the enemy kills you.

 

No matter how hard you try, YF, killing the enemy in combat has always been legal, and torture has pretty much always been, you know, not. Make the false equivalence over and over and over again if you like. It still doesn't work.

 

That's what I've said. I think the situation was chaotic and dangerous enough that the SEALs would have reasonably believed their lives were in danger. Hence, the kill was most likely justified, even though it was discovered after the fact that bin Laden was unarmed. I think YF, on the other hand, is more concerned about the order that was given in the first place - i.e., were the SEALs under orders to kill even if there was a surrender?

 

Tell my boss what happened and go back to work. Open and shut.

 

Three Bags, you probably already answered this in the last 70 pages, but what kind of helicopters are used to transport 79 soldiers? If there were only four of them, how big are those damn things? This Time story talks about a new type of secret chopper but that seems to relate to its stealth, not the size.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/04/could-the-bin-laden-raid-have-revealed-a-secret-new-helicopter/

 

Outside of the obvious lack of practicality, It seems that the correct legal procedure would have been to go through Pakistan law enforcement agencies and have Bin Laden extradited.

 

OK, fuck all this sophistry. Let's play the hypothetical. It is found that Osama, unarmed, begged for his life and offered the SEALs cookies and milk. Said SEALs followed orders and blew him away, anyway.

What do you want to happen then?

 

If the combatant was unarmed? Same thing?

But, as I've written, the fact that there was a firefight going on around you probably means that you reasonably don't have the time to start making judgments about every single combatant, right?

 

Are you terming SEAL raid in a sovereign country "combat"?

 

It sounds like they operated within the rules of engagement.

I would guess they had to tell their CO what happened, but that's about it.

It's the rules of engagement that I question the most here. They were pretty extraordinary, no?

And, they're kind of fucked up. It's like telling a pitched to "pitch around" someone instead of intentionally walking them.

These guys were told to "kill" him but..

Fuck the but (no pun intended) then.

Because it's the "but" that gives Obama and others cover while putting questions on the SEALs.