Bin Laden is dead

[Scat]

Some interesting info on the lost helicopter and about a mysterious power outage that lasted exactly as long as the raid. Also where the copter will likely end up.

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-raid-pakistan-hints-china-peak/story?id=13570573

You'll need to both watch the video and read the story.

 

[SaltyDawg]

someone mentioned that putting bin laden on trial would be a logistic nightmare. it would not be a cakewalk. so it would be illogical to attempt to put obl on trial. so as a response i said if the managed to put eichman on trial(albeit in a bulletproof glass booth to protect his life no less) the man who is responsible for about 430.000 deaths. why cant america put obl on trial. since israel managed to put not 1 but several nazis on trial without it being a impossible task. why cant OBL be put on trail( the man who is repsonsible for 3000 death.

also what was mentioned is that ebcause obl commited 3000 murders he did not deserve a trial. so there is a magci number for when people deserv trials obviously 3000 does not falll in that range.
but 430.000 does. so does 1 3 5 10 30 and 300).

it's jkust an example of that a trail can be done and if nazis deserved the trial so does OBL

also note that while the nazis where put on trial they where assumed innocent isn't that what AMERICA stands for innocent until proven guilty. israel guaranteed the nazis safety while they where put on trial there where agents protecting the Nazis with their life.


wouldn't it send a greater message to the world (morraly and ethically) if a obl was put to trial and showing compassion. seeing americans guard obls life with their own until he is proven guilty(doesn't America stand for that?)

it would be a wonderful thing if obl was put to trial and he was treated like a human being during that trial. and if found guilty hanged or whatever. cremated and burried at sea.


this "war on terror" damaged the USA's reputation abroad.
my brother in law has a kinda Muslim name ending on ali. but he is no Muslim yet every time he goes to America he is treated unfairly.(treated like he is guilty)
another example another friend of mine(lives in Holland) who is from Afghanistan(and he is no terrorist of that i'm sure he married a jew) send money(from his dutch bank account) to his uncle to give to his. not a large amount somewhere between 1000-2000 erous. yet the next day his accounts where frozen under orders of some ******** patriot act from a land of the free and the brave. he had to hire a lawyer to sort this **** out.

Thats the way America is treating innocent people by treating them as criminals. so if they could have put obl on trial it would send a message to the world that truly innocent until proven guilty. it would change the view foreigners have on America. if they gave obl the decency of being innocent until proven guilty. ordinary citizens who look like osama who have a beard. who have a strange name. who is helping out family in a Muslim country will get the message he America is morally and ethically correct, they have decency, humanity and whatnot.

instead by being this arrogant all they create is more hate.

it would have been a wonderful thing to put osama on trial.

again i state they might have not had the option to capture osama alive because he was resisting.

Okay, first off, I don't give a **** if some clowns in a country on the other side of the world think it would be "wonderful" to treat Bin Laden like a human being. **** Bin Laden, and **** those clowns too if they are going to hate me because I wanted Bin Laden dead.

Now that that is out of the way...

I agree with you on the Patriot Act. It needs to be repealed in its entirety now that Bin laden is dead. It was supposed to only be a temporary thing while we fought this ******** war on terror. They made certain parts of it permanent after the fact. Now that Bin Laden is dead, we need to repeal the whole damn thing.

But that brings me to a point I had made earlier.. If I am dealing with crap like the Patriot Act, specifically because of Bin Laden, then they better not bend over backwards to treat Bin Laden with kid gloves.

I have been extremely disappointed with many things Obama has done. I have been telling everyone I didn't think Obama could even win a primary if one were held. But him killing Bin Laden (being in charge of the country and the mission, for all you that make long *** posts arguing semantics) was probably enough to get him a second term. His public approval rating is through the roof right now. So if you are looking for people to criticize the way this was handled, you're barking up the wrong tree. Sure, a few people here and there might agree with you. But by and large, the vast majority of Americans are not at all upset that Bin Laden is dead.

 

[LogGrad98]

Okay, first off, I don't give a **** if some clowns in a country on the other side of the world think it would be "wonderful" to treat Bin Laden like a human being. **** Bin Laden, and **** those clowns too if they are going to hate me because I wanted Bin Laden dead.

Got it. For you there is a point where people give up their right to the protections of the GC and other IHL's, there is a point where they give up their most basic rights as a human being. Fair enough.

I agree with you on the Patriot Act. It needs to be repealed in its entirety now that Bin laden is dead. It was supposed to only be a temporary thing while we fought this ******** war on terror. They made certain parts of it permanent after the fact. Now that Bin Laden is dead, we need to repeal the whole damn thing.

No arguments with that. Although I must say, I am not sure what the Patriot Act even did. I can't tell you when, if, or how I have been oppressed by the Patriot Act. I still disagree with it in principle, but to me it was a lot like the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS). I never knew if it was condition Orange, or Lime Green, or Plaid.

But that brings me to a point I had made earlier.. If I am dealing with crap like the Patriot Act, specifically because of Bin Laden, then they better not bend over backwards to treat Bin Laden with kid gloves.

No argument there either. I have no issues with him being handled brutally as long as it was within the law. I think he was killed within the law so I am good with it. If he wasn't then I think that is another issue (that we have been debating here).

I have been extremely disappointed with many things Obama has done. I have been telling everyone I didn't think Obama could even win a primary if one were held. But him killing Bin Laden (being in charge of the country and the mission, for all you that make long *** posts arguing semantics) was probably enough to get him a second term. His public approval rating is through the roof right now.

Again, no argument. I think Obama is simply reaping the reward of a decade of tireless work by our fantastic intelligence agencies and military. Obama's entire role in all this was saying "ok, go ahead". Not much to be lauded for really.

So if you are looking for people to criticize the way this was handled, you're barking up the wrong tree. Sure, a few people here and there might agree with you. But by and large, the vast majority of Americans are not at all upset that Bin Laden is dead.

I don't think a single person in this entire thread is "upset that Bin Laden is dead". Everyone here is glad he is no longer a threat, and being dead is one way he is no longer a threat. I am thrilled he is dead, and have absolutely no issues with it as long as THE METHOD OF HIS DEATH was legal according to international law.

The "few people here and there" that might agree that the methods used needed to adhere to the GC are pretty much every sovereign nation that signed off on the treaties, some billion or so people I believe (minus the few in those nations that, like you, feel that if we are mad enough the need to treat people as human goes out the window). I know that's a small group, but they can be pretty vocal about upholding international law.

 

[LogGrad98]

Hey it worked! I am not very good at the multi-quote thing so I tried it and it worked.

 

[Sloanfeld]

There was a joke on another site that was talking about all the different stories coming from the Obama camp after the killing. Osama got 72 virgins, America got 72 versions.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Got it. For you there is a point where people give up their right to the protections of the GC and other IHL's, there is a point where they give up their most basic rights as a human being. Fair enough.

You walk in on some guy raping your daughter, and you happen to be holding a loaded pistol. Do you shoot him? Probably. So then you also have a breaking point. Don't act like I'm some weirdo for admitting I, like most Americans, think Bin Laden deserved to die.

No arguments with that. Although I must say, I am not sure what the Patriot Act even did. I can't tell you when, if, or how I have been oppressed by the Patriot Act. I still disagree with it in principle, but to me it was a lot like the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS). I never knew if it was condition Orange, or Lime Green, or Plaid.

I don't know if the Patriot has affected you, or even me, but among other things it gives them power to do lots of things without a warrant that previously required a warrant. I remember reading about mexican gang bangers in LA that were being labeled as terrorists and taken away without a trial, and held without being charged with anything and not being allowed any visitors or lawyers.

No argument there either. I have no issues with him being handled brutally as long as it was within the law. I think he was killed within the law so I am good with it. If he wasn't then I think that is another issue (that we have been debating here).

I think we all know it was within the law. For example, we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there. That would make it totally legal to shoot Bin Laden in the head if he turned around too fast and the SEAL thought he might be a threat. The law is loose enough that they could easily make it within the law to kill Bin Laden. We are only speculating and talking about what ifs here.

Again, no argument. I think Obama is simply reaping the reward of a decade of tireless work by our fantastic intelligence agencies and military. Obama's entire role in all this was saying "ok, go ahead". Not much to be lauded for really.

Well there was a little more to it than that. For example, he called Panetta into his office shortly after being elected and revamped the CIA's role in the hunt for Bin laden (supposedly "doubling down" the efforts and revamping the team). He also supposedly asked all the tough questions to make the strike team prepare for any scenario, for example, "What if we lose a helicopter?" and things like that. Not only that, but he over ruled the people who were adamantly recommending a bombing of the compound, opting for a strike. So while he wasn't on the ground doing the hard part, he definitely played a role in making it happen.

I don't think a single person in this entire thread is "upset that Bin Laden is dead". Everyone here is glad he is no longer a threat, and being dead is one way he is no longer a threat. I am thrilled he is dead, and have absolutely no issues with it as long as THE METHOD OF HIS DEATH was legal according to international law.

And many of us don't care how he was killed, we're just glad he is gone.

The "few people here and there" that might agree that the methods used needed to adhere to the GC are pretty much every sovereign nation that signed off on the treaties, some billion or so people I believe (minus the few in those nations that, like you, feel that if we are mad enough the need to treat people as human goes out the window). I know that's a small group, but they can be pretty vocal about upholding international law.

I don't care about any of those people in this regard. This was an American issue, handled by American forces. Sometimes you have to do something yourself in order for it to get done right. And regardless of what those other countries might think, the vast majority of Americans agree with me on this one. Bin Laden needed to die.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe OBL was tried by a tribunal in absentia, and the execution carried out. Is that out of the realm of possibility?

That's also a possibility.

 

[One Brow]

Dammit, this is like the third time I've agreed with you in this thread. Enough is enough.

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

The question is, will Millsapa now accuse me of saying DutchJazzer is a clock?

 

[LogGrad98]

You walk in on some guy raping your daughter, and you happen to be holding a loaded pistol. Do you shoot him? Probably. So then you also have a breaking point. Don't act like I'm some weirdo for admitting I, like most Americans, think Bin Laden deserved to die.

Completely inapplicable as stated.

If you walk in on some guy raping your daughter you are fully within the law to defend her in any way possible, including killing him.

HOWEVER, if you have knocked him down and tied him up and called the police...THEN while he lay there you put a gun to his head and blew his brains out, you are outside the law and will (and should) be prosecuted. That would be illegal.


In either case (as with OBL) I doubt anyone would say that he didn't deserve to die, but the way he died in both cases is very very different and fits differently within the law.

See, in the eyes of the law, and in the world of social and personal ethics, circumstances matter.

Same applies to OBL. That has been my and One Brow and Dutch's assertion from the get-go. You are of the opinion that no matter how he was killed, even if we poured honey all over him and let pigs feast on his body while he was still alive, then it is fine because he deserved to die.

I disagree. I think the way he was killed, the circumstances around it, are important to know, and determine whether it was right or wrong (or legal or illegal). Either way he deserved to die, but by international law, if the option was there, he also deserved a fair trial. You think otherwise, and that opinion is your prerogotive. But it would still be illegal to deny him a trial (again, if it was an option at the time) and would have been illegal to summarily execute him if it had been possible to take him and bring him to justice, as Obama said was the goal.

Just as if after I tied up the guy raping my daughter I cut him in various places and let my dogs eat him alive (pomeranians can be vicious little ******** =) it would be illegal. The guy might deserve that kind of death, but administering it that way, in those circumstances, would be illegal.

 

[One Brow]

You walk in on some guy raping your daughter, and you happen to be holding a loaded pistol. Do you shoot him? Probably.

Also, that's generally considered justified if he is in the act of rape.

So then you also have a breaking point.

People go to prison for having breaking points.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't care about any of those people in this regard. This was an American issue, handled by American forces. Sometimes you have to do something yourself in order for it to get done right. And regardless of what those other countries might think, the vast majority of Americans agree with me on this one. Bin Laden needed to die.

Regardless of whether you agree with the law or not, it is still the law. Disagreeing with it does not make it right to break it. And it was not just an American issue. OBL killed people in other countries too. This is being watched very closely around the world, and depending on the details of the event, could have very real international repercussions.

 

[PearlWatson]

Completely inapplicable as stated.

If you walk in on some guy raping your daughter you are fully within the law to defend her in any way possible, including killing him.

HOWEVER, if you have knocked him down and tied him up and called the police...THEN while he lay there you put a gun to his head and blew his brains out, you are outside the law and will (and should) be prosecuted. That would be illegal.

Is that true?

 

[Beantown]

Why are you guys talking more about bin ladens death rather than the woman that was killed?

Or the Libya guys son who was killed with his children in an airstrike?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Completely inapplicable as stated.

If you walk in on some guy raping your daughter you are fully within the law to defend her in any way possible, including killing him.

HOWEVER, if you have knocked him down and tied him up and called the police...THEN while he lay there you put a gun to his head and blew his brains out, you are outside the law and will (and should) be prosecuted. That would be illegal.


In either case (as with OBL) I doubt anyone would say that he didn't deserve to die, but the way he died in both cases is very very different and fits differently within the law.

See, in the eyes of the law, and in the world of social and personal ethics, circumstances matter.

Same applies to OBL. That has been my and One Brow and Dutch's assertion from the get-go. You are of the opinion that no matter how he was killed, even if we poured honey all over him and let pigs feast on his body while he was still alive, then it is fine because he deserved to die.

I disagree. I think the way he was killed, the circumstances around it, are important to know, and determine whether it was right or wrong (or legal or illegal). Either way he deserved to die, but by international law, if the option was there, he also deserved a fair trial. You think otherwise, and that opinion is your prerogotive. But it would still be illegal to deny him a trial (again, if it was an option at the time) and would have been illegal to summarily execute him if it had been possible to take him and bring him to justice, as Obama said was the goal.

Just as if after I tied up the guy raping my daughter I cut him in various places and let my dogs eat him alive (pomeranians can be vicious little ******** =) it would be illegal. The guy might deserve that kind of death, but administering it that way, in those circumstances, would be illegal.

Obama was "in the act" of planning attacks on this nation. While catching him in the act of raping your daughter is definitely a reason to kill him, does it compare to catching him after he murdered thousands of people, while he was attempting to murder thousands more? You said I had a point where I would treat him like less than human. Apparently you do too- legal or not.

Regardless of whether you agree with the law or not, it is still the law. Disagreeing with it does not make it right to break it. And it was not just an American issue. OBL killed people in other countries too. This is being watched very closely around the world, and depending on the details of the event, could have very real international repercussions.

It won't have any repercussions whatsoever. Some people might complain, but nothing will come of this. If we can flat out invade Iraq with no good reason whatsoever (and I am not saying that was right, by any means), then we can certainly kill the ******* that attacked us, continued to attack us, and was actively planning more attacks at the time we killed him.

It is not our responsibility to take him alive at all costs. And it's not our responsibility to prove that we tried to take him alive at all costs either (which is what dutch seems to be suggesting we need to do).

 

[PearlWatson]

Declaring wars with arbitrary/ideological enemies, such as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Terror" are nutjob wars in the first place. In the second place we didn't follow the Constitutiion in declaring the wars, just sort of gave the President a nod, and a bunch of money to spend, without defining who the enemy was, or how the war should be defined, is idiocy of the highest rank. If we had "probable cause" we could get a US judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. Then if we could seize him even in hostile territory and get him out and give him a trial, the "host" country could be intimidated at peril with good relations with the US or worldwide public opinion for harboring a heinous criminal fugitive.

Spending trillions of dollars on catching a few heinous criminals has gotta rank as the worst case of cost-effective law enforcement in our history. It's not worth turning our backs on principles like due process, and many other basic safeguards of human rights.

Like Bush giving permission to fly a planeload of Bin Laden relatives out of the USA just two days after 9/11, the decision to kill him and dump the body at sea really is a statement that US officials can't afford to let some people "talk".

I don't know about that. If we just leave them alone until they intrude into our country we get 9/11. I don't think we can afford appeasement any more than going on the offense.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is that true?

Which part?

As for defending your family/property I know the laws vary somewhat state to state. In Nevada they have a so-called "Defend Your Castle" law that states if anyone enters your house, or ****s with your property (including family) you are fully within your rights to shoot them dead.

Our house was broken into last year and it kind of freaked me out for a few days (since I had moved here ahead of my family I was alone for a month or so after the breakin). I talked to the cop who came to take my report the night of the breakin and asked what he thought I should do, as in barricade the door (I couldn't get it fixed that time of night) or go stay elsewhere or what. He said "hell if it were me I would sit in the dark with the door wide open holding a shotgun hoping they come back". He said the laws were so strongly on the side of the homeowner in Nevada that as long as you, in his words, "can drag him to within a few yards of a window" you could kill them.

As far as the execution part I described, I am pretty sure it would be considered murder in every state, in those circumstances. Might get off due to temp insanity or something, but having the guy tied up with the police on the way, then shooting him in the head is pretty cut and dried illegal.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Is that true?

No, I don't think so, lol. I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to kill someone if someone's life is in danger. I think there are other rules if someone breaks into your house too. But if you find your daughter getting raped and you shoot the guy, you may have some explaining to do before a judge. I guess it depends on where you live too.

 

[PearlWatson]

No, I don't think so, lol. I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to kill someone if someone's life is in danger. I think there are other rules if someone breaks into your house too. But if you find your daughter getting raped and you shoot the guy, you may have some explaining to do before a judge. I guess it depends on where you live too.

Her life is in danger if she is being raped.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Her life is in danger if she is being raped.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the guy would deserve to die and probably would 99% of the time (assuming the father was holding a loaded gun).

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Rape is considered serious bodily injury. Shooting the intruder would be justified in defending someone from death or serious bodily injury...or what they perceive to be death or serious bodily injury.