Bin Laden is dead

[YB85]

This has been a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing for Obama. If he had simply had a Predator shoot a hellfire missile into the compound, killing everyone inside and maybe some outside the compound, he faces questions, maybe even his own, about whether bin Laden was dead. Instead, he sends the SEAL team in and they get him and he faces the questions not only about whether bin Laden is dead, but also whether it was legal. The armchair QB's were going to have a field day with this, regardless of how it was done.

 

[LogGrad98]

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but I think Dutch has a point. I think it is valid to question the circumstances about OBL’s death. If he was just standing there and we summarily executed him that is different than if he were reaching for a weapon or resisting in some way. And I think the comparison to the Nazi war criminals and even Saddam are valid. Even in war, they were captured where possible. They were given trials and held accountable for their crimes, why are we so ready to say that OBL is so different?

If we did simply execute OBL then it was an act of revenge, not justice. Yes, there is a difference, and I think in a healthy society we have to understand and respect that difference.

For the record, I fully support the mission to take out OBL, and I believe the official story so far, that OBL was killed resisting his capture. And you can count me among those who are happy he is gone and are glad that the Seals maybe erred on the side of caution to complete their mission. I think that as the situation is debriefed we will get more details showing they were justified in killing him. But at the same time I think it is absolutely necessary that it be investigated, that we understand exactly what did happen and the ramifications of those actions. Healthy skepticism and investigation into situations such as this are where international agreements such as the Geneva Convention came from. Would we be better off without those pacts? I don’t think we would. In fact, one of the things that I believe separates us from people like OBL is just that, our system of laws and ethics. If we throw that out the window, what keeps us from being just like them?

This also raises a very apropos philosophical question: at what point, at what level of anger, or perceived harm, do our laws and/or personal ethics break down in the blood lust of revenge? To Dutch’s point, if someone kills 10, 20, or 300 people, they would be put on trial. But somewhere between 300 and 3000 that requirement of justice is considered null and void? Where is that tipping point?

Last fall someone broke into our house right after we moved in. They stole some computer equipment, dvd players, and various smaller items, but the worse thing is they emptied my wife’s jewelry box. In there were irreplaceable items we will mourn for a very long time: the pearl earrings I gave her on our wedding night, her grandmother’s pearl necklace, my wedding ring which was waiting to be resized, and the watch my family pitched into buy me when I graduated from college, among other things. At the time and for the next few weeks I thought a lot about how I could happily “go Dexter” on the perpetrators if I could catch them. To get back at them for the feelings of violation, loss of security, and simply outrage and anger. Looking back, of course I know that would have been wrong, it would have gone against my own code of ethics, not to mention the law, if I had come across one of them and actually done something like that. At the time I imagined it would have felt pretty good, but I could have never lived with myself.

So at what point does that all change? When is it acceptable to toss the laws and rules and standards that define our society out the window to get even? Where do your personal ethics shift or change or break down? Is there a line someone can cross that would allow us to do things like that and still be able to live with ourselves? Where is the tipping point?



[DISCLAIMER: please keep in mind I am framing this in terms of the possibility that we COULD HAVE captured OBL alive and did not need to kill him. So don’t bother posting “but he fought back moron so they had to kill him”.]

 

[SaltyDawg]

Dutch is a real piece of work. So much that I am now wondering if his account is even real, or if his account is just a weak attempt at comedy created by a regular poster here.

Let me clarify for you dutch, just in case you are real and being serious.

1: Criminals get shot by cops in the USA pretty much every day. If you pose a threat, you can and probably will be shot (especially if you killed a bunch of people).
2: This was not a police operation. This was a battle in the middle of a war (which Bin Laden started anyway).
3: This was not even on USA soil, nor was Bil Laden a USA citizen.

Unbelievable that some clown would suggest that soldiers in a war, engaged in an active battle on foreign soil, should be trying to follow USA civilian law instead of trying to kill the enemy.

Yes, we all would have rather seen Bin Laden taken alive, and then put on a float for a parade across the nation with all the onlookers having a free for all. That would have been a much better end (he would have never made it across the nation). But we will certainly take this, and no, we don't consider it a bad thing that he was killed instead of put on trial.

Bin Laden declared war on the US. The US had every right to go after him and kill him on the spot. He didn't steal a candy bar from the local Walmart and then flee to Pakistan. He declared war on the US, attacked the US every chance he got, and was finally killed almost 20 years after he initially declared war and committed his first attack.

If you declare war on a country and attack it every chance you get, and keep this up for 20 years, don't be surprised when they try to kill you too. I can tell you right now, you're probably not getting a trial unless you surrender. and even then, you better surrender in public because the badass Navy Seals coming for you aren't going to be very happy with you.

 

[One Brow]

I'm sure keeping OBL in custody would have been a logistic cakewalk. Easy like Sunday morning.

We keep mobsters, skinheads, and all other varieties of reprehesible people from reprehensible organizations in custody.

 

[Sneakers]

We keep mobsters, skinheads, and all other varieties of reprehesible people from reprehensible organizations in custody.

None of which have the same level of profile as Bin Laden

 

[One Brow]

LogGrad98 has made an excellent post. Only the second reputation point I've given. Count me in for support by rule of law, not rule of emotions.

Unbelievable that some clown would suggest that soldiers in a war, engaged in an active battle on foreign soil, should be trying to follow USA civilian law instead of trying to kill the enemy.

If it's a war, there are still rules. We signed the Geneva conventions. Shooting unarmed combatents is against those rules.

 

[One Brow]

None of which have the same level of profile as Bin Laden

What does "level of profile" mean here?

 

[Sneakers]

What does "level of profile" mean here?

Nevermind, i don't know why I'm arguing about this. US was able to keep Saddam in jail here for an extended period of time.

I guess I just don't disagree with the decision to ice Bin Laden what-so-ever.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Dutch is a real piece of work. So much that I am now wondering if his account is even real, or if his account is just a weak attempt at comedy created by a regular poster here.

Let me clarify for you dutch, just in case you are real and being serious.

1: Criminals get shot by cops in the USA pretty much every day. If you pose a threat, you can and probably will be shot (especially if you killed a bunch of people).
2: This was not a police operation. This was a battle in the middle of a war (which Bin Laden started anyway).
3: This was not even on USA soil, nor was Bil Laden a USA citizen.

Unbelievable that some clown would suggest that soldiers in a war, engaged in an active battle on foreign soil, should be trying to follow USA civilian law instead of trying to kill the enemy.

Yes, we all would have rather seen Bin Laden taken alive, and then put on a float for a parade across the nation with all the onlookers having a free for all. That would have been a much better end (he would have never made it across the nation). But we will certainly take this, and no, we don't consider it a bad thing that he was killed instead of put on trial.

Bin Laden declared war on the US. The US had every right to go after him and kill him on the spot. He didn't steal a candy bar from the local Walmart and then flee to Pakistan. He declared war on the US, attacked the US every chance he got, and was finally killed almost 20 years after he initially declared war and committed his first attack.

If you declare war on a country and attack it every chance you get, and keep this up for 20 years, don't be surprised when they try to kill you too. I can tell you right now, you're probably not getting a trial unless you surrender. and even then, you better surrender in public because the badass Navy Seals coming for you aren't going to be very happy with you.

I haven't read Dutch's posts and you're right, he's so moranic sometimes, it's comedy to a whole 'nother level. But that said, and maybe I'm wrong here, you seem to be oversimplifying everything, at least based on your list. Don't get me wrong. I really don't give a damn. In my opinion, it's been open season on Bitch Laden for nearly a decade now. But I'm curious if our actions fall in line with the Geneva Convention. Again, I don't give a damn and I'm not playing armchair qb. I'm just curious if they do or not.

 

[LogGrad98]

Dutch is a real piece of work. So much that I am now wondering if his account is even real, or if his account is just a weak attempt at comedy created by a regular poster here.

Let me clarify for you dutch, just in case you are real and being serious.

1: Criminals get shot by cops in the USA pretty much every day. If you pose a threat, you can and probably will be shot (especially if you killed a bunch of people).
2: This was not a police operation. This was a battle in the middle of a war (which Bin Laden started anyway).
3: This was not even on USA soil, nor was Bil Laden a USA citizen.

Unbelievable that some clown would suggest that soldiers in a war, engaged in an active battle on foreign soil, should be trying to follow USA civilian law instead of trying to kill the enemy.

Yes, we all would have rather seen Bin Laden taken alive, and then put on a float for a parade across the nation with all the onlookers having a free for all. That would have been a much better end (he would have never made it across the nation). But we will certainly take this, and no, we don't consider it a bad thing that he was killed instead of put on trial.

Bin Laden declared war on the US. The US had every right to go after him and kill him on the spot. He didn't steal a candy bar from the local Walmart and then flee to Pakistan. He declared war on the US, attacked the US every chance he got, and was finally killed almost 20 years after he initially declared war and committed his first attack.

If you declare war on a country and attack it every chance you get, and keep this up for 20 years, don't be surprised when they try to kill you too. I can tell you right now, you're probably not getting a trial unless you surrender. and even then, you better surrender in public because the badass Navy Seals coming for you aren't going to be very happy with you.

This is actually covered under the Geneva Convention. Believe it or not, those clowns that signed those treaties required a legal trial where possible:

Grave breaches
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments

willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power

willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial

So if we find out that OBL was summarily executed when he could have been captured, then we have committed 2 grave war crimes: willfully causing serious injury and willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial. If he ordered it outright, Obama would be a war criminal per the Geneva Convention.

Can you believe the clowns that signed the treaties of the Geneva convention? What clowns they must have been to agree on a universal set of laws and statutes to provide for humane treatment of people during war. Don't they know it is war and everything goes, no matter what?

The stupid clowns.


Ok clowning aside, there is the debate over whether our conflict with OBL and Al Qaeda qualified as a "war" under the Geneva Convention. There are also provisions for engaging embedded armies and leaders during war that might be applicable and could defend the actions taken there regardless of OBL's actions. That is a bigger discussion than this though.

Even still, if they could have taken him alive, they should have. To expect that to have happened if possible does not make one a clown. To completely disregard the laws we agreed to under the Geneva convention, now that would make us clowns indeed. And worse.

 

[DutchJazzer]

1: Criminals get shot by cops in the USA pretty much every day. If you pose a threat, you can and probably will be shot (especially if you killed a bunch of people).

Yes but did osama pose a threat there are conflicting reports. he used a human shield, he lunged for a gun, he did nothing, he gave up. if he lunged for a gun and some navy seal or some bystanders life was in danger. i'm just assuming he could have been taken a live.(there is no evidence to suggest he was resisting or anything)

2: This was not a police operation. This was a battle in the middle of a war (which Bin Laden started anyway).

what war? war on terror?
america declares everything a war. remeber the war on alcohol(during prohibition did it give the right for goverment officials to execute mobsters)
the war on drugs did it give america the right to shoot on corner boys. america just declares a war for everything. the word war has no meaning to america
again was osama killed in a battle was he armed did he fight back.

3: This was not even on USA soil, nor was Bil Laden a USA citizen.

so non us citzen on no us soil dont deserve the equal. so americas principles only counts agains us citizen on us soil. then why fight for freedom and democracy in iraq.


again i dont know if osama resisted, if he did if he grabbed a gun, if he used a human shield oir even if he was asleep and just got executed. i am just saying there is no evidence of what happened.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Count me in for support by rule of law, not rule of emotions.

thats what i am trying to say. should get better in english.

i know what osama did brings up a lot of emotions in certain americans. and most of the m throw the laws out of the window.

 

[Sneakers]

If they had bombed Osama would you "rule of law" people still be taking issue with what happened? Because technically they would be bombing someone who had no way of bombing them back...

 

[Beantown]

thats what i am trying to say. should get better in english.

i know what osama did brings up a lot of emotions in certain americans. and most of the m throw the laws out of the window.

I wonder why?.....maybe because 9/11 was the most emotional event that have ever occured in our borders.

Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.

The fact that you are questioning the top Navy seals judgement in favor of being more just to Osama Bin Laden is disgusting.

 

[Beantown]

Dutch, how would you be reacting if one of the drone bombs had hit Osama in the mountains back in 2001?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.

could be they reacted emotionally we might never know cus all the evidence got destroyed
.

take eichman for example captured in argentina by private citizen brought to trail. now that's true justice

 

[Beantown]

Dutch, how would you be reacting if one of the drone bombs had hit Osama in the mountains back in 2001?

 

[Sneakers]

could be they reacted emotionally we might never know cus all the evidence got destroyed
.

take eichman for example captured in argentina by private citizen brought to trail. now that's true justice

What evidence got destroyed? You mean the body? What could be more incriminating about the body than what they've already admitted themselves?

 

[LogGrad98]

I wonder why?.....maybe because 9/11 was the most emotional event that have ever occured in our borders.

Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.

The fact that you are questioning the top Navy seals judgement in favor of being more just to Osama Bin Laden is disgusting.

Or if they were ordered to. That is the point of a debriefing and investigation, to find out what happened.

 

[LogGrad98]

And lobbing bombs at each other is a far different situation than standing in a room with someone pointing a gun at them. The Geneva Convention makes a distinction. In an all out fire fight people are going to die, of course. But that is completely different than asking the question, could they have captured him instead of killing him.

The issue I have is just the total disregard for even considering the possibility that maybe we did something wrong in all this. Not that it is not wrong that OBL is dead or captured, but as per international agreements and laws, if we simply executed him if there were no threat, that would be wrong.

And I thank God we have "rule of law" people that are willing to speak out. If we did not expect the government, or each other, to follow the rule of law, or if we did not hold people accountable to the law, where would we be as a country or a society? Even if we don't always agree with or like the laws. We can't just pick and choose which ones we follow because we think one guy is worse than another.

No one answered my original question. At what point does the law break down, do our personal ethics break down, and we find it acceptable as a society to step outside the laws and just give in to the blood lust for revenge? How bad does the offense have to be, or how mad or outraged do we have to be to justify ignoring the law in our desire for vengeance?