At least now you are conceding that it was an illegal act. I see no reason to believe that pakistan's president could not be trusted to keep the information to himself. There is after all "no evidence" that he is in any way whatsoever colluding with aq.
Hillary says it again - no evidence
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
My god you are anal. What I said was that there is a point where legality doesn't matter. You said so yourself. The Pakistanis are pissed because they were either caught lying or caught with their pants down. The government is also fearful of the backlash in their own country for anyone to think they were at all complicit. Obama did them a favor, and when they go to bed at night and tuck themselves in, I think they know it.
I wash my hands Fuji - and probably should have done so long ago.
Among many other things you want to keep equating LOAC (and other points of international law) with domestic law with you as "the finder of fact."
Indeed that seems to be the way you would like the world to be, however, it is not the way the world is. You should note for example that besides the U.S.A. neither the PRC nor the Russian Federation have acceded to the ICC.
Further, I do love how scores of JAG Officers and members of the White House Counsel’s Office review an action such as this to make sure that there is a defendable legal position but – of course - they know nothing.
Didn't Hillary also say there was no evidence of Bill's shenanigans (the infamous blue dress didn't count)? Anyways, prepare the mudwrestling pit, as we have the makings of the catfight of the century here: Clinton vs Merkel!
He would have been very concerned about approving a very risky US military mission that could have easily ended badly and ended his career.
He would have likely preferred to have Pakistani forces inspect the compound or at least participate in the operation.
At the very least, he would have told his military commanders so that they would not try to shoot down the American choppers.
Who knows who they would have told?
Clinton didn't trust them when sending cruise missiles over Pakistan but Obama was supposed to trust them with the Seals' lives?
That makes no sense at all.
And Obama was supposed to risk the best shot at OBL in 10 years and perhaps the last one ever?
It would have been way safer and preferable to do the mission with Pakistan's blessing but the risks to the Seals and the mission's success were unacceptable.
It is unclear how authentically committed Kayani and other top military leaders are to cleansing their ranks. U.S. officials and Pakistani analysts say support by the nation’s top military spy agency for insurgent groups, particularly those that attack in India and Afghanistan, is de facto security policy in Pakistan, not a matter of a few rogue elements.
There's no need for anyone to be a finder of fact. We have the unequivocal word of the President and the Secretary of State.
The ICC has serious structural issues. The ICC is not operating at the level of the domestic American (or Canadian) courts and so I agree with the decision not to participate in its present form. If the ICC offered better guarantees of the rights of the accused, though, then it would be a different issue.
None of this has anything to do with whether the American act was legal or not. Also, the impact of the act being illegal is not so much that some prosecutor is going to lay a charge, but rather the repeated flouting of the law by the Americans weakens their reputation worldwide and, ultimately, damages American security and harms American interests. It's in the court of public opinion--world public opinion--that this impacts.
The US has done many illegal things, so I don't believe this is true. Extra judicial rendition? Do you know what the phrase "extra judicial" even means?
That doesn't alter the law, which says he has to have "strong reasons" before violating the sovereignty of another country. The Pakistani president could have made the whole operation legal with a single word, and could have committed not to share that information even with his inner circle, just as Obama did not share it with many in his own administration.
Why? Pakistan has approved many other US strikes inside Pakistani territory. It's beyond belief that they would treat this case any differently.
He could be asked not to do that.
There is no reason to believe that is true. None whatsoever: "no evidence". It's unequivocal.
Unacceptable risk does not require irrefutable evidence that betrayal was a certainty.
Even if it was more likely than not that they wouldn't have been betrayed, the risk could be considered unacceptable.
No evidence does not mean that they had complete trust and just didn't feel like telling them.
Their reasons were strong enough for them and the results are not irrelevant.
OBL was there and there was no collateral damage.
fuji and AQ are in the vast minority of people who still give a fuck.
Even if it was more likely than not that they wouldn't have been betrayed, the risk could be considered unacceptable.
No evidence does not mean that they had complete trust and just didn't feel like telling them.
Their reasons were strong enough for them and the results are not irrelevant.
OBL was there and there was no collateral damage.
fuji and AQ are in the vast minority of people who still give a fuck.
Last edited:
Informing Pakistan would have been like playing Russian Roulette.
Even if the odds were only 1 in 100 or more instead of just 6, the risk was unacceptable to those who matter.
Who gives a fuck if fuji thinks the risk was non-existent or acceptable to him?
Even if the odds were only 1 in 100 or more instead of just 6, the risk was unacceptable to those who matter.
Who gives a fuck if fuji thinks the risk was non-existent or acceptable to him?
They are allowing Pakistan to save face......it's diplomacy.i would bet good money behind closed doors Pakistans reps have been told very honestly."We are watching.Don't forget that."
There was a lot that could have gone wrong with the mission.
What if that helicopter crashed into a house and killed some people and OBL was not even there?
Do you think the Pakistani President would tell the nation and world that he sanctioned this US mission and he told nobody?
When a US missile kills innocent people, does the Pakistani President tell his people that he approved the drone attack?
Unacceptable risk is subjective.
It is like fuji telling his wife to walk to the store at night to get him some breath mints.
Even though the odds of her being attacked on the way there or back are extremely remote, she says that she feels uncomfortable and it is an unacceptable risk that she is not willing to take.
Who the fuck is fuji to say that the risk is acceptable or completely non-existent?
It is like fuji telling his wife to walk to the store at night to get him some breath mints.
Even though the odds of her being attacked on the way there or back are extremely remote, she says that she feels uncomfortable and it is an unacceptable risk that she is not willing to take.
Who the fuck is fuji to say that the risk is acceptable or completely non-existent?
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not given a clean chit to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) over its alleged complicity in Osama bin Laden's sheltering in Abbottabad, her spokesman has said.
"I don't think she [Clinton] gave them a free chit," Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark C. Toner told reporters in Washington.
"We acknowledge that there are difficulties in the relationship, but the bottom line is that this is a relationship that's in our interest and in Pakistan's interest, and so we need to work through these challenges moving forward," he added.
Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, who had evaded capture for a decade, was killed on May 2 in a top-secret operation involving a small team of US Special Forces in Pakistan's Abbottabad city.
Following the raid, some US lawmakers had said that it defied logic that bin Laden was able to hide in plain sight without some level of official Pakistani knowledge or complicity.
During a press briefing following her talks with Pakistan's civilian and military leadership in Islamabad on Friday, Clinton had said: "I want to underscore a point...There is absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest levels of the Pakistani Government knew that Osama bin Laden was living just miles from where we are today."
Toner also said that Clinton had a "very frank, open discussion" with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari , and then with Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani , Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha.
"The Secretary was clear to say that we're at a pivotal moment in the relationship, certainly with the death of bin Laden, but there's other important aspects of the relationship that are in motion," said Toner.
"We've been applying - next door in Afghanistan; we've been applying steady pressure on the Taliban. We want to see also, concurrent with that, the reconciliation - Afghan-led reconciliation process move forward. So there's clearly a lot on the table here. This is not a time for inaction at all. This is a time for greater action and consolidated effort, I think, is what the Secretary was trying to say," he added.
"I don't think she [Clinton] gave them a free chit," Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark C. Toner told reporters in Washington.
"We acknowledge that there are difficulties in the relationship, but the bottom line is that this is a relationship that's in our interest and in Pakistan's interest, and so we need to work through these challenges moving forward," he added.
Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, who had evaded capture for a decade, was killed on May 2 in a top-secret operation involving a small team of US Special Forces in Pakistan's Abbottabad city.
Following the raid, some US lawmakers had said that it defied logic that bin Laden was able to hide in plain sight without some level of official Pakistani knowledge or complicity.
During a press briefing following her talks with Pakistan's civilian and military leadership in Islamabad on Friday, Clinton had said: "I want to underscore a point...There is absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest levels of the Pakistani Government knew that Osama bin Laden was living just miles from where we are today."
Toner also said that Clinton had a "very frank, open discussion" with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari , and then with Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani , Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha.
"The Secretary was clear to say that we're at a pivotal moment in the relationship, certainly with the death of bin Laden, but there's other important aspects of the relationship that are in motion," said Toner.
"We've been applying - next door in Afghanistan; we've been applying steady pressure on the Taliban. We want to see also, concurrent with that, the reconciliation - Afghan-led reconciliation process move forward. So there's clearly a lot on the table here. This is not a time for inaction at all. This is a time for greater action and consolidated effort, I think, is what the Secretary was trying to say," he added.
You don't get it. There is very good reason why the law requires "strong reasons" before you can barge into someone else's country and violate their sovereignty by carrying out military acts on their soil.
Who the fuck are the Americans to do that? Just because they have a "subjective" feeling that the risk is too high they can violate another countries sovereignty? Bull shit. They need to have some pretty damn good reason before doing something like that--not some wishy washy subjective feeling that they don't like the risk. Hard evidence. Strong reasons.
It is unequivocal, I'll highlight the key bit so you can read it and re-read it and re-read it again:
"I want to underscore a point...There is absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest levels of the Pakistani Government knew that Osama bin Laden was living just miles from where we are today."
That is unequivocal. Are there lower ranks of the ISI or Pakistani military that may be colluding with Al Qaeda? Probably.
That's irrelevant though, to whether or not it would have been safe to share the information with the highest levels of the Pakistani Government and in particular with the Pakistani President.
