In real life, Panetta's prolific use of profanity is well known. Furthermore they removed the use of dogs from the torture scenes.
In an unusual step, acting CIA Director Michael Morell issued a statement about the film emphasizing that while the production team had met with the CIA, the film is a dramatization and is not historically accurate. Morell specifically contradicted the film's assertion that "enhanced interrogation techniques," also known as "torture," had been of significant benefit in locating Osama bin Laden. Director Morell stated, "That impression is false.
We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory. Chris Pratt went through vigorous training and boot camp to prepare for his role. He has also partaken in the famous "O-Course" in the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, but gave up when he attempted to swim through cold water.
Jessica Chastain's agents originally declined the role of Maya. Producer Megan Ellison, who had worked with Chastain on Lawless , gave Kathryn Bigelow Chastain's phone number so she could personally offer her the role.
Chastain accepted. Some second-unit film footage was also actually shot in Pakistan. Several important factors in the preparation and execution of the raid, as detailed in the book "No Easy Day," were glossed over or not mentioned in this film.
These include, specifically: 1 the debate over whether to bomb the compound or conduct a special forces raid, 2 the construction of a complete training mock-up of the compound in North Carolina and repeated drills using the same SEAL teams and helicopters as on the eventual raid, and 3 the presence of backup Black Hawks at a forward staging area during the mission, which proved to be vital to recovering the team after the crash of the stealth Black Hawk during the initial insertion.
It is assumed these were left out for dramatic purposes. It is similar to the phrase "Beer-thirty. Digital footage equivalent to 1. Co-editor William Goldenberg estimated that an eighth of the total footage was of the climatic assault of Osama bin Laden's compound.
The raid was shot at least twice, one on a normal moonlight-illuminated compound, and another on night vision mode. Discussion in ' The Dungeon ' started by todzuki , Jun 2, Log in or Sign up. Funny to me how what should be a subtle insult only serves to broadcast to folks what your political views are. UBL is used only by Fox news fans and the bin ladens and his crazy followers. OBL, which is wrong and therefore insulting, is used by the rest of the world.
Why would such Osama haters as the American Rightwing want to go to such lengths not to offend osama? It's like how George H. Bush used to pronounce Saddam as Sad 'em, which was arabic for little boy or something similarly insulting. Thanks for the response. Let me try to reiterate your position and tell me if I am getting it right.
Article 51 self-defense against non-state actors requires the existence of an armed conflict, as opposed to self-defense against state actors which merely requires an armed attack. In the bin Laden example you find that there is an armed conflict between al Qaeda original and the US that bin Laden is participating in, therefore the self-defense jus ad bellum justification for the killing is valid. Is that correct?
If so, would the killing have been equally valid if bin Laden had been in Yemen? To clarify one point from my post that you were commenting upon. My reference to the SEALs and the manner in which the operation took place was merely done to clarify the fact that the US was treating this as a military operation not a law enforcement operation. I agree with you that the mere fact that the US characterizes it that way does not make it so legally your Syrian tank example. No, my argument is precisely the opposite of that.
Article 51 self-defense a jus ad bellum issue in no way requires the existence of armed conflict a jus in bello issue. Article 51 permits self-defense against non-state actors because, as you point out, states have consistently and uniformly interpreted Article 51 that way.
Conversely — and this is my point — whether Article 51 justifies a use of force a jus ad bellum issue in no way determines, and is indeed not even relevant to, whether an armed conflict exists where the self-defensive force is used a jus in bello issue. Some actions taken during legitimate uses of force in self-defense against non-state actors will be governed by IHL: when they take place during hostilities that satisfy the customary definition of NIAC.
Other actions taken during legitimate uses of force in self-defense against non-state actors will be governed by IHRL: when they take place during hostilities that are not sufficiently intense or protracted to trigger IHL.
Which regime applies has nothing to do with whether the use of force is legitimate under Article 51; the jus ad bellum and jus in bello are separate. Hi Kevin, Thanks for sharing your views.
I mean all it says is that OBL is a legitimate target, so could be killed unless he laid down arms, was detained or clearly surrendered, no? The current info from US we have is that he was unarmed but that there were weapons within his reach — if that is true, I could leave with the reasoning that as a legitimate target he could be killed legally. If he clearly surrendered though being out of reach of weapons I think it would have been illegal.
What do you think? See here, here, here Foreign Policy , and here. If Pakistan had captured the soldier who killed bin Laden, it could have prosecuted him for murder. That obviously would have been a political non-starter, but nothing in international law would have prohibited the prosecution. Its my understanding that the US are not currently engaged in an armed conflict on Pakistani territory.
And in Afghanistan enemy combatants are at time afghan Taliban not Al-Qaida. Lewis: The idea that this a case of Art. Leaving aside that by prevailing opinion it does not apply to non-state actors: Use of force under Art.
I doubt that the general characterization of OBL being a potential dangerous person if he still was at all would fall … Read more ». He writes: [S]tate practice strongly supports the view that an expansive reading of Article 51 to include non-state actors is appropriate.
Notify of. Kevin Jon Heller. Justice in Conflict. Mark Kersten. Thanks for the post and sharing your views. Marty Lederman. Ian Henderson. Dear Prof. Lederman, For what it is worth, I have an article due for publication around mid-year in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law that addresses your exact question. Marty, It is also important to recognize that states , not lefty human-rights groups, have traditionally insisted that only intense hostilities involving non-state actors i.
Is there persuasive authority for either proposition? Marty, Can you think of even one European country that accepts the U. John C. Michael W. Michael, As I said in the post, I completely agree with you that Article 51 gives states the right to act in self-defense against non-state actors.
For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive. Join the Westword community and help support independent local journalism in Denver. Get the latest updates in news, food, music and culture, and receive special offers direct to your inbox.
Support Us Denver's independent source of local news and culture. In our post about how Osama bin Laden's death was experienced by the Facebook generation , we noted that Fox News continues to spell his first name "Usama" and abbreviate his moniker as "UBL," while the rest of the major American media prefers "Osama" and "OBL.
Dallas Heltzell writes: OMG! I support. Support the independent voice of Denver and help keep the future of Westword free. Support Us.
0コメント