Bin Laden is dead

[Qman]

Again you limit the possible options. Wow you really do think in black and white. I would hate to be your kid.

One Brow is completely correct. It was preferrable to bring OBL to justice, try him for his crimes, and do it all within the international laws we agreed to adhere to. You jump straight to the extremes. Osama had to die in this raid no matter what or how...or...no one should ever be killed at all no matter what.

I believe One Brow and I share the opinion that we feel the Seals did just what they were supposed to. I believe they worked within the law. We do not know for certain and will not until the debriefing and investaigations are complete, but we certainly hope that holds up to scrutiny.

That has been the big difference in this argument. We find it necessary that we do things the right way, by rule of law, and within the framework of the agreements our country has co-authored and signed. Others feel it is ok to toss those laws and agreements out the window because "this is war" and "he deserved to die" and "people are going to die". That is just horrible reasoning for throwing away the laws and ethics that make for a civilized society, imo.

To my knowledge the United States has not ratified several of the international laws you are referencing.

 

[LogGrad98]

You're all over the place again. If you found it preferable to raid the place, even if it meant kneeling him down and putting a bullet in his head, then there is no further discussion. Because whatever happened in that compound, the only alternative was to bomb the place.

The whole purpose of the raid was to kill or capture Bin Laden.

Um, yeah, Obama sent in the best killers the nation has to offer with the full intention of NOT killing America's biggest threat and biggest enemy. Hell yeah you're a clown if you actually believe that.

Ok so again, you speak in absolutes completely ignoring what has already been said. See, I already said it was preferable to raid the compound and SPECIFICALLY NOT kneel him down and summarily execute him. You seem to be unable to separate the 2 for whatever reason. Bombing it was not the only other option. Wow are you really that dense? Do you really think the strategy meeting went:

"Ok what are the options."

"Bust in there, kneel him down, and shoot him in the head."

"Ok other options."

"Bomb the bejeebus out of it killing everyone."

"Ok any others?"

"Nope, that's it."

And talk about being all over the place. You specifically state the purpose of the raid was to kill OBL, then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you change your story to say "kill or capture". Nice back-pedal there, sticking to your story.

You are also woefully uninformed about our military if you think the only reason the Seals are in existence is to go around slaughtering people at the behest of the president. They are trained for missions like this, not just a bunch of rabid dogs with no understanding of anything but kill kill kill. Obama said, they were to bring OBL to justice. Obviously they were authorized to use deadly force in attempting to apprehend him. But I assure you they are trained to do more than just kill. You need to get the image of Schwarzenegger jumping up out of a stream with twin M60's mowing down everyone around him out of your head. If they could have apprehended him alive, I believe they would have, since that is what the President said the mission was. And I certainly hope they didn't apprehend him then kneel him down and shoot him in the head, even if it had been their direct order. That would have been illegal.

 

[LogGrad98]

To my knowledge the United States has not ratified several of the international laws you are referencing.

The US has ratified the entirety of the GC. There are other provisions added since the 70's that I believe they may have abstained from, but what I have been referencing was contained in the original treaties.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Nobody is throwing away any laws or ethics. Killing Bin Laden was totally justified, and totally legal.

Justified and legal?

where you there? did you wtiness it? do you have hard evidence?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Ok so again, you speak in absolutes completely ignoring what has already been said. See, I already said it was preferable to raid the compound and SPECIFICALLY NOT kneel him down and summarily execute him. You seem to be unable to separate the 2 for whatever reason. Bombing it was not the only other option. Wow are you really that dense? Do you really think the strategy meeting went:

"Ok what are the options."

"Bust in there, kneel him down, and shoot him in the head."

"Ok other options."

"Bomb the bejeebus out of it killing everyone."

"Ok any others?"

"Nope, that's it."

And talk about being all over the place. You specifically state the purpose of the raid was to kill OBL, then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you change your story to say "kill or capture". Nice back-pedal there, sticking to your story.

You are also woefully uninformed about our military if you think the only reason the Seals are in existence is to go around slaughtering people at the behest of the president. They are trained for missions like this, not just a bunch of rabid dogs with no understanding of anything but kill kill kill. Obama said, they were to bring OBL to justice. Obviously they were authorized to use deadly force in attempting to apprehend him. But I assure you they are trained to do more than just kill. You need to get the image of Schwarzenegger jumping up out of a stream with twin M60's mowing down everyone around him out of your head. If they could have apprehended him alive, I believe they would have, since that is what the President said the mission was. And I certainly hope they didn't apprehend him then kneel him down and shoot him in the head, even if it had been their direct order. That would have been illegal.

I am not backpedaling from a damn thing. I said the mission was to "capture or kill Bin Laden" as in, "we don't care either way as long as one of them gets done." The mission was never claimed to be "capture Bin Laden unless he starts shooting as us then kill him" or whatever you are trying to make it. Killing him has always been an acceptable outcome.

So your bogus strategy meeting aside, I think it went down something like this:

Obama: What are the options?
Adviser # 1: We can probably get him alive if we get lucky and catch them totally off guard.
Obama: Then what do we do with him?
Adviser # 2: We could hold him on a sub somewhere and extract whatever intel he gives us, and then put him on trial under a military court on the sub.
Obama: I can't really do that after I campaigned against it. Plus the pressure from the rest of the world would be pretty great to give him a normal trial, and the red cross would entitled to inspections.
Adviser # 3: We could just bomb the place and kill everyone inside. He'd be dead for sure.
Obama: The collateral damage would be too great. If we're doing this without getting approval from Pakistan, we don't want any collateral damage.
Obama: Lets just have the best of both worlds... Lets raid the place and catch them totally off guard. That way we can hopefully get all of the computers and we don't even need to interrogate Bin Laden. And if we catch any fire from any of them at any point during the raid, we can justify killing Bin Laden. Then we'll throw his body in the ocean so the terrorists don't have a shrine.

It is HIGHLY possible, even PROBABLE that it went down like that. Even dutch, who you jumped into this to agree with, is saying that it probably went down like that. If you don't think that is pretty dang close to what happened, then you're off your rocker.

Again, the Obama administration has said several times now that bombing the compound was the only alternative to this raid, and at least some advisers pressed for that option with Obama over ruling them.

So I ask again, even if they knelt Bin laden down and shot him in the head, would you prefer that to bombing the compound? Because it's pretty clear Bin Laden was getting killed either way. Taking him alive was not a serious option. If it were a serious option, they would have tased him, gassed him, shot him in the leg, or any number of non lethal forces the US military has at its disposal.

They didn't do any of that. They shot him in the head. Why? Because that is what they went there to do.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Justified and legal?

where you there? did you wtiness it? do you have hard evidence?

I can tell you it was absolutely justified no matter what any law says. I didn't have to be there for that.

As for it being legal- were you there? Do you have any evidence that it was not legal?

 

[DutchJazzer]

I can tell you it was absolutely justified no matter what any law says. I didn't have to be there for that.

As for it being legal- were you there? Do you have any evidence that it was not legal?

justified how so do explain.

not because i wasnt there or dont have evidence that it was not legal makes it legal.


I am just saying the legality may be in question. but since you are so sure about the legality and justifiability. I asked you for the evidence?

I never said i am 100% sure it was justified and legal. imho it is in question.

 

[Gameface]

justified how so do explain.

I think he's saying that there was no question as to what Bin Laden was guilty of, so he deserved to die. By bombing, shoot-out, heart attack, execution-style shooting after being rendered helpless, being drawn and quartered, whatever.

 

[SaltyDawg]

justified how so do explain.

not because i wasnt there or dont have evidence that it was not legal makes it legal.


I am just saying the legality may be in question. but since you are so sure about the legality and justifiability. I asked you for the evidence?

I never said i am 100% sure it was justified and legal. imho it is in question.

It's justified because the dude killed over 3000 American civilians, and was actively planning more attacks on American civilians.

As to the legality of it- we in America are innocent until proven guilty. If you are saying they may be guilty of a crime, it would be up to you to prove they are guilty.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I think he's saying that there was no question as to what Bin Laden was guilty of, so he deserved to die. By bombing, shoot-out, heart attack, execution-style shooting after being rendered helpless, being drawn and quartered, whatever.

Exactly.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Exactly.

but then again where's the evidence. where is the trial in a court of law?
where is the legality in all this.

now dont get me wrong not condoning what bin laden did. but in his point of view i Bet you he also thinks he is justified in doing what he did.
no whats the difference now between you and bin laden.

murder is ok as long as you think ur justified or some **** like that?

the problem is if we(the good guys) are just acting like the bad guys. whats the point then

 

[Bronco70]

We should have captured him and tried him. He could plead temporary insanity and get off with some mandatory therapy and community service.

 

[LogGrad98]

So I ask again, even if they knelt Bin laden down and shot him in the head, would you prefer that to bombing the compound? Because it's pretty clear Bin Laden was getting killed either way. Taking him alive was not a serious option. If it were a serious option, they would have tased him, gassed him, shot him in the leg, or any number of non lethal forces the US military has at its disposal.

They didn't do any of that. They shot him in the head. Why? Because that is what they went there to do.

You keep going back to the same limited options. Either murder him or bomb the compound. That is seriously short-sighted. The option I would choose, in your poorly thought-out question, would be to have them complete their mission and bring him back alive. If they had him safely in custody then knelt him down and shot him in the head it is illegal. Period. No debate. That is where throwing ethics and laws out the window come in to play. If they simply executed him while he was in custody, then that is just throwing the laws we have agreed to out the window.

The alternative if they had him in custody was to bring him back as Obama said their mission entailed.

You keep saying that even if they knelt him down and shot him in the head that the ONLY ALTERNATIVE was to bomb the place. I call ********. IF they had him in custody and were in a position to choose whether or not to execute him, they had plenty of options. Bringing him to justice, as was their mission as outlined by Obama, was just one of those options.

 

[DutchJazzer]

We should have captured him and tried him. He could plead temporary insanity and get off with some mandatory therapy and community service.

temporary? 20 years is temporary? wow.

 

[Bronco70]

Dutch - I understand that english is not your native tongue, but that was a joke.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think what actually went down may have been against the GC, which Obama and the Democrats have pretended to care about during the last 10 years.
The reason I think this is because of the conflicting stories, and the indecision on releasing the photos.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Dutch - I understand that english is not your native tongue, but that was a joke.

ok noted

 

[DutchJazzer]

I think what actually went down may have been against the GC, which Obama and the Democrats have pretended to care about during the last 10 years.
The reason I think this is because of the conflicting stories, and the indecision on releasing the photos.

thats why i have my doubts. look i get it why you bury obl at sea Israel does it all the time (although a lot of people around me seem to questioning the burial at sea). but so fast after the incident,no pictures, no videos, no body to investigate.
all the conflicting reports. makes me question it all.
this is turning internationally in a PR nightmare for usa. people are starting to question it al.
now maybe some of you don't care what foreigners think. but still with al technology available no seal was outfitted with some night vision camera? no evidence whatsoever. now if this evidence exist shouldn't the at least release it in some united nations assembly to certain governments/ certain diplomats. or are they afraid of wikileaks?

it is just buried in to much secrecy.

 

[Bronco70]

thats why i have my doubts. look i get it why you bury obl at sea Israel does it all the time (although a lot of people around me seem to questioning the burial at sea). but so fast after the incident,no pictures, no videos, no body to investigate.
all the conflicting reports. makes me question it all.
this is turning internationally in a PR nightmare for usa. people are starting to question it al.
now maybe some of you don't care what foreigners think. but still with al technology available no seal was outfitted with some night vision camera? no evidence whatsoever. now if this evidence exist shouldn't the at least release it in some united nations assembly to certain governments/ certain diplomats. or are they afraid of wikileaks?

it is just buried in to much secrecy.

Maybe it's important for security reasons, maybe not. Maybe they are just covering their asses. It would, admittedly, be nice to have all the pertinent info laid out for examination by all - I'd love to know the details - but the U.S. gov't never works that way, right or wrong.

 

[Beantown]

thats why i have my doubts. look i get it why you bury obl at sea Israel does it all the time (although a lot of people around me seem to questioning the burial at sea). but so fast after the incident,no pictures, no videos, no body to investigate.
all the conflicting reports. makes me question it all.
this is turning internationally in a PR nightmare for usa. people are starting to question it al.
now maybe some of you don't care what foreigners think. but still with al technology available no seal was outfitted with some night vision camera? no evidence whatsoever. now if this evidence exist shouldn't the at least release it in some united nations assembly to certain governments/ certain diplomats. or are they afraid of wikileaks?

it is just buried in to much secrecy.

So what type of "consipracies" are you hinting at? You seem to strongly believe that our government is hiding something.

If they were hiding something Im pretty sure Osama's wife would not still be alive to tell her version of the story. She was right there when he was killed. I also dont believe the SEALS knew it was Osama until he was dead. The events would have happened so fast theres no way they could.

The only mistakes the administration is being to vague. Obama had to release the news to the world before it started getting out. Also some people in the Administration were probably "speculating" on alot of the details. In a perfect world the adminstration could have waited a few days until they got a full report back from the SEALS.

Also we dont owe your country or any other anything.