Andy9o8

Wall Street Journal: 3 Reasons to Be Skeptical of Seymour Hersh’s Account of the Bin Laden Raid by Michael Kugelman.

Can't believe you didn't know that, Big Guy.

So which species is the most important? I vote for moose and squirrel.

Some people just need killin'.

Absolutely, if not sanctioned in advance, either expressly or by a pre-existing general protocol (even if informal) between the 2 nations' governments. That said, as I noted above, not every breach of sovereignty necessarily rises to the level of cassus belli.. Needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Also depends on the specific relationship between the 2 particular nations. See below: Possibly more severe because she's a US citizen than if she was not. But because it's between the US and Italy, who are close allies, it would probably be no more than diplomatic. Maybe airdrop cases of Ragu on them, as an insult. A country not a belligerent but not a close ally, either - say, maybe... Thailand or some place like that? - a combination of diplomatic and economic sanctions, and maybe a show of force by warships and overflights off their coast for a couple weeks, and maybe a complaint to (or even claim through) an international body. Venezuela? Buzz their bases, with low-threshold rules of engagement by US pilots should the Venezuelan military even twitch in response. Iran? That could get to shootin'. North Korea? Bitch about it, then reward them with foreign aid. Russia or China? Serious military eyeball-to-eyeball for a while, the Pope and the UN doing their thing and Wolf Blitzer getting lots of airtime; plus some risky hair triggers until the dick-swinging contest settled down.

Did the author attend public or private school? Of course in England a public school is a private school which really bolloxes up the definitions. What are you trying to hide?

Am I the only one here who might be somewhat relieved? the narrative all along has been that we found out where Bin Laden was. The President authorized the US Military to do a hit on him without arrest or trial or due process. Then the US Military performed an Act of War by invading sovereign Pakistan for the sole purpose of assassinating a fugitive. And ultimately was successful. Now Hersch is out there saying that Pakistan cooperated. And holy shit! Defense mode sets in. Hersch says the US didn't commit an Act of War. "Yes he did!" screams the left. Here I am thinking that I hope it is true that the US didn't unilaterally invade Pakistan. I'm still not happy with the US assassinating anybody but I would feel better if Pakistan was in on it. I'm legally ok with what the US did. I acknowledge the 2 categories of belligerent recognized by international law: (a) criminal defendant, subject to whatever civilian law rights and protections accorded by the applicable jurisdiction(s) to criminal defendants, and (b) belligerent of war, subject to the Geneva Convention if captured, but also subject to lethal force without further notice (including what might be referred-to by the context-biased term "assassination"). Contrary to the Bush Admin doctrine, I do not believe in a 3rd category subject to neither set of protections, so that the person thus can be tortured and/or imprisoned indefinitely without charge and trial. (That's a travesty, but outside the scope of my post.) Sometimes, IMPO, a person co-occupies both categories (a) and (b). In such cases, I feel that the President has very broad discretion to choose whether to treat the person as either criminal defendant or as a belligerent of war. I believe that bin Laden occupied that status. Which brings us to the final factor: what level of cooperation or participation was accorded by Pakistan, and whether bin Laden was technically in or not in Pakistani custody at the time of the mission. If Pakistan knew exactly where bin Laden was, but he was not in their custody, then it was lawful to either arrest bin Laden and bring him to the US for civilian criminal prosecution, or to kill bin Laden as a belligerent of war, at the President's discretion. The only way that the US's killing of bin Laden would have been unlawful, IMO, is if he was in actual custody of US ally Pakistan, and the US was aware of that, but simnply chose to kill him rather than to assume custody of him. That seems to be what Hersh is saying; but frankly, it's so unlikely and poorly "sourced" that my (rebuttable) presumption is that Hersh's pants are on fire. ETA: "Act of War" became archane as a formal term of international law after 1945. Not all violations, even deliberate ones, of a nation's territorial integrity necessarily rise to the level of cassus belli. It's a question of degree, on a case by case basis. For example, the hot pursuit of a belligerent into another nation's territory without its permission, but leaving immediately and not engaging the nation's military forces or causing non-belligerent casualties. I think the bin Laden killing, even if entirely without the sanction of the Pakistani government, fits into this category.

But...but... eyewitnesses said it.

Lawyers. I was worried it would be giant flying cockroaches with foot long poisonous stingers and acid based paralytic saliva.....where one sting immobilizes you while they plant their eggs in your belly and melt off your skin to drink... Now that you've laid out one alternative. I'm hoping it will be the roaches....... You don't have an extra roach laying around do you? Sighh. No, those days are long gone... Don't you ever attend safety meetings at the DZ? Ditto.

In fairness to The New Yorker, they have great cartoons.

I got ur 6 dude

Lawyers. I was worried it would be giant flying cockroaches with foot long poisonous stingers and acid based paralytic saliva.....where one sting immobilizes you while they plant their eggs in your belly and melt off your skin to drink... Now that you've laid out one alternative. I'm hoping it will be the roaches....... You don't have an extra roach laying around do you? Sighh. No, those days are long gone...

Detailed rebuttal of Hersh by Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinions/bergen-bin-laden-story-a-lie/index.html Also see Hersh's Wikipedia bio - in particular, criticism in 3rd paragraph of Hersh using "anonymous sources" (citing footnotes 6,7,8 & 9), and entire section "Criticism". Hersh has considerable prominence, but he also has a considerable reputation for, to put it diplomatically, "fuzzy" sourcing. So Yes, his reputation for credibility - good, bad and neutral - is relevant.

That only applies to urban black people. For redneck white people, they get a pass. That's right, they be passin'.

Lawyers. No, no no, certainly not.

J'Accuse.

Didn't read his post, did you.

Oh, bullshit. DanG's rebuttal is correct, and your counter is twaddle. I'm,.... I'm hurt. I could have said it was poopie, so just back off.

Oh, bullshit. DanG's rebuttal is correct, and your counter is twaddle.

There is but one true Post Turtle.

Short sighted and arrogant. Arrogant, as if humans are the only important species on Earth. Short sighted, for discounting the chain reaction damage to the biosphere that would be wrought by eliminating an important food source for many species that prey on mosquitoes.

Unless you're reading it on your phone, in which case you won't know what the fuckity fuck the OP is talking about. This thread has wasted precious time out of my life that I won't ever get back.

Sharpton's name has become the Godwin of American racists. Utterly predictable. Yawn.

Well Billy did it so its ok that I do it too...Do you use that excuse to keep your job? Isn't it interesting to identify the hypocrites who ignore the liars in their own party. So you admit she is a liar. Ah, but maybe he's lying.

Seriously. You'd think he was a fucking lawyer.