Justified or Murder. The death of bin laden.

[AZhitman]

Could be. But Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir's running his mouth isn't helping matters.

[R/T Hemi]

Least we forget, Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club. Al Qaeda knows that and is probably wooing them for a little nuclear handout. That compounds our problems to some degree.

[AZhitman]

I hadn't thought of that. Not good.

Hopefully they're smart enough to know which side of their bread is buttered. Then again, they were seeking to get cozier with China, which leads me to question their relational savvy.

[Cold_Zero]

I have a feeling if it came to that (the Pakistani' nuclear material and facilities being compromised) the bombers would come out of Diego Garcia and Anderson AFB and hit the facilities. I tend to think that most Pakistanis would not allow for extremists to overtake their country. Yes, they have a problem in Waziristan but that part of the country doesn’t outweigh the rest of the country. Another thought would be the balance of India and their nuclear/armed response if the country of Pakistan would fall to extremists. I just don’t see this end game unfolding…

We have had (in the past) more of an issue of scientists falling into the wrong hands. Not so much into Al Qaedas’ hands, but Rogue states. That, in my mind, is still the biggest issue in the Middle East and South Asia.

[Cold_Zero]

He was an enemy combatant, we had full authority to kill him if he did anything other than throw his hands up in surrender, as per the Geneva convention.

Question, are terrorists we are engaged with under the Global War on terror afforded rights under the convention? Or is it something we extend to them? In our classes were instructed that if you were operating behind enemy lines, you were always to wear your uniform under an enemy’s uniform or civilian clothing. If you were caught, then you would be a tried as a soldier under the Geneva Convention and not shot as a spy.

[mattblancarte]

Specifically, when I read that the order from the White House was to "take no prisoners,"

I'm questioning the "take no prisoners" order.

I haven't seen that. Is that from a reliable source?

Everything I've read says the team was given a directive to capture unless resistance is met.

I don't believe someone said "take no prisoners". If they had, a missile strike would have been cleaner (and safer).

IF BHO did indeed give that order, then you libbies had best put your money where your mouth is and start criticizing.

Sorry for not responding more promptly. I took my girlfriend to Victoria B.C. for her birthday, and we just returned to Seattle this evening. My login credentials weren't working on her iPad.

That's interesting. I haven't really read anything that states the mission was to capture him. Most have been like these two (maybe not as obviously backing my assertion, but between the lines at minimum):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyh ... d-or-dead/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... H220110502

The way in which the operation was executed... It doesn't look like they were trying to capture anyone.

I have enough faith in our special forces to assume that if the order was to capture OBL and only terminate if he violently resisted, they would have been able to capture him. OBL had weapons in his room, but couldn't react fast enough when the SEAL Team busted in. They blasted him without thinking twice.

I guess if the official story is that they were trying to capture him, I'll buy it. Haven't heard it, and I see no evidence of it. From what I've read, it was a "raid."

Bin Laden received gun-shot wounds to the chest and head. That is known as a "double-tap." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap

Sounds to me like they executed the mission with a 100% success rate.

I'm just sayin'... I question the morality behind this mission. I'm not the only one, and I'm definitely more reserved in my opinions compared to some others.

Have you guys read what Noam Chomsky had to say? Sheesh.

Let me also reiterate that I think our military is outstanding and the best in the world. They are in no way at fault or the target of my criticisms in any way. They get s*** done and they do with amazing accuracy, efficiency, and reliability.

I'm looking at the Obama Administration.

[mattblancarte]

It doesn't matter to me if he said take no prisoners. But then, it's other people who say I'm liberal.

The reptile in me feels this way... But...

I just can't help but take the contrarian's approach to this one. Poking and prodding for holes in a situation like this also feels like the right thing to do.

I felt the same way when the whole "United We Stand" thing became popular. It just felt too nationalist for me.

The murder of OBL has our country murmuring the same tones. Emphasis on the murmur.

He was an enemy combatant, we had full authority to kill him if he did anything other than throw his hands up in surrender, as per the Geneva convention.

Our "right" to violate Pakistani sovereignty is more in doubt

That's good stuff right there. Truth.

[AZhitman]

I'm gonna go the other way on this one... I see too many people living in fear, poverty, and oppression elsewhere in the world to be real critical of us for crushing a dung-eating roach under our heel. I'm a nationalist and proud of it. We're flawed, but we're still awesome.

And yes, I give the BHO administration credit for doing what needed to be done. I may not agree with the man's ideologies, but in this instance, he did good - and his handling of the aftermath, thus far, has been just fine.

[mattblancarte]

Totally understand, and I have tons of respect for fervent patriots such as yourself.

Overall, I'm pleased with what's happened. Dead or alive, OBL needed to go down. My conflict was simply with the fact that it looks like they completely overlooked the alive part.

Call me a stickler for the law, and for the fortification of our moral fabric even while our nation is under duress.

We captured Saddam. He was tried, and then sentenced to death. Same type of deal should have gone down with Osama, if possible. You get a dead guy at the end of the day with this method, and you can say that you at least gave a fair trial.

Perhaps the answer shouldn't be as simple as "justified or murder." That doesn't easily sum up the reality of the situation. My answer is more along the lines of "semi-justified murder."

[IBCoupe]

Matt, don't mistake my ambivalence for jingoism. I think we need to be very careful about when we say it's okay for our government to kill people. It's just that I'm pretty okay with them doing it here. Would have been pretty okay with them taking him alive, too.

[mattblancarte]

I certainly wouldn't go as far to label you a jingoist, and I definitely understand where you're coming from. For the most part (not only in this particular case), I share your sentiments.

I'm just nitpicking the scenario because I want to know and expose the truth.

[AZhitman]

^ I'll buy that for a dollar.

[R/T Hemi]

Interesting.
According to the local news, Pakistan has detained some of bin laden's family members. Those members are not being allowed contact with the CIA. Apparently, the CIA wants to question them on the extent of Pakistan's participation in bin laden's hiding. I wonder if Pakistan is hiding something here?
Also, 66% of the people Pakistan don't believe he's dead.

This isn't over yet folks.

[AZhitman]

...and so it begins.

How 'bout that aid package, Mr. President? Let's spend that here at home, kthxbai.

[IBCoupe]

We misplace more money than we spend on Pakistan.

[AZhitman]

The amount isn't the important part, although .44 percent of the federal budget is still a chunk o' change.

[stebo0728]

We misplace more money than we spend on Pakistan.

True, and thats part of the lunacy of the people who think cutting foreign aid will fix the budget. But yet, even though the amount is not necessarily huge, does that mean it doesnt matter what we do with it? Even though cutting foreign aid wont put a huge dent in our troubles, does that mean its ok to just keep dolling it out? I dont know, Im asking, perhaps the image and PR it brings us globally is worth it, perhaps not. But just saying "its not that much anyway" isnt a good argument for continuing cutting the checks.

[IBCoupe]

Oh, I'm not saying that we can't be selective with our aid. I'm saying that if the worst thing Pakistan does is hide a mostly symbolic figure, everything else we get might be worth the little we spend.

[stebo0728]

And could they have been hiding him, and not for nefarious reasons? For fear that his death would be worse for the world than his continued sh*t hole mediocrity? Time will tell what effect his death will have on the workings of Al-Queda, but I think you're right in your assessment of his "mostly symbolic" status.

[Mooniac]

Saddam was hiding in a hole in the ground then surrendered and was tried by an interim government of his own people as a political head of state. Bin Laden was an international terrorlst terminated by a special forces team in a country whose pluralistic intelligence structure left doubt in our governments mind as to it's integrity. The facts matter. As the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, this decision and the speed with which it was performed, President Obama demonstrated the EXACT purpose of the Executive branch of our three branch government. This will be the perfect illustration of our Founding Fathers intent of designing the Constitution... for generations... in civics, government and law schools. As a matter of fact, President Obama taught Constitional Law at the Universty of Chicago so he didn't have to consult with a White House lawyer to know he was well within his Executive Powers to make the decision. Obvious to operational security and speed, this was a clear advantage to achieving success. Regarding the red herring of the argument that we violated our policy of assassinating heads of state--he wasn't a head of state.

[IBCoupe]

Constitution doesn't clearly speak to the President's authority to issue a kill order. Arguably, it's part of his Article 2 powers, but, arguably, it's not. If he was unarmed or surrendering, I'm not sure that constitutional law is where you'd look.

[Mooniac]

I dissagree. The Presidents powers expand during times of war according to The Supreme Court of the United States (I don't consider "SCOTUS" nor "POTUS" respectful regardless of political affiliation). The Constitution is short, sweet and to the point--but it's a blueprint not a rendering. I got grilled on my feet on the Constitution every weekday for a year by Professor David Guinn at Baylor Law School. Ask me about pornography or how Jehovah's Witnesses have improved your chance of speaking your mind without getting in trouble. .

[IBCoupe]

It's not a blueprint. The Constitution is anything but a blueprint. It's a collection of vague terms meant to be just specific enough for everybody to believe it meant what they wanted it to mean in order to get some semblance of unity on the matter, so that we could have a functioning government.

No matter what the Constitution says about the President's war powers (again: not much), it does give him the authority, with the consent and advisement of Congress to pass treaties. Though the Court typically gives him a wide berth when it comes to wartime activities (and would probably call this a political question, anyways), we did duly enact the Articles of the Geneva Convention. Again, I really don't think the Constitution is the place to look for whether it was legal to shoot Osama bin Laden in the face.

[Mooniac]

It's not really my opinion. It's my best recollection of ConLaw specifically in relation to the Separation of Powers ( see Marbury v. Madison and it's progeny) My professional opinion should be subject to disagreement by other ConLaw scholars who can correct me with Supreme Court authority on the error of my reliance upon specific authority. I ask you pardon the fact that in law school (20years ago), I lost that part of me that thinks without consideration of Constitutional principles formed by precedent. Our country is one of laws, not men. It's what makes us different from other countries and difficult to reproduce. The amount of reading required to pass a typical ConLaw course is staggering but highly rewarding. Even better when you're held accountable for the entire opinion-- not just the majority. I respect your opinion and would remark that you are generally very well read and informed.

[Mooniac]

LSAT test Q: "OBL is to Saddam" as " Pablo Escobar is to -------" (hint: Libya).

[AZ89two4Tsx]

My only qualm about this whole situation is that IF it was just a "raid" and the mindset was to just kill OBL, why didn't we just blow the place to pieces? That would have eliminated any kind of possible injury to our soldiers and equipment (ahem...helicopter). And to add insult to injury, he was immediately dumped into the ocean and no "formal" proof (pictures/reports) were released. And if you really want to put on the tinfoil hat, for all we know he could be in Guantanamo right now getting water boarded to s*** by Bush!

At the very least, more extensive details need to be released on what really happened at that compound, whether the administration likes it or not. People have the right to know about what's really going on, especially with such a high profile target, regardless of what their moral standpoint is.

I also agree that this should have gone down the same way it did with Saddam. Hell, let the dude rot in jail instead of getting the easy way out.

[IBCoupe]

It's not really my opinion. It's my best recollection of ConLaw specifically in relation to the Separation of Powers ( see Marbury v. Madison and it's progeny) My professional opinion should be subject to disagreement by other ConLaw scholars who can correct me with Supreme Court authority on the error of my reliance upon specific authority. I ask you pardon the fact that in law school (20years ago), I lost that part of me that thinks without consideration of Constitutional principles formed by precedent. Our country is one of laws, not men. It's what makes us different from other countries and difficult to reproduce. The amount of reading required to pass a typical ConLaw course is staggering but highly rewarding. Even better when you're held accountable for the entire opinion-- not just the majority. I respect your opinion and would remark that you are generally very well read and informed.

I appreciate your respect, and I should be well read. I'm a 2L at UConn, and I just took my ConLaw final on Monday night.

The President's authority under Article II is broadly phrased, and the Courts have been keen to see it that way. But it's not limitless - Congress explicitly has the power to establish standards for land and naval forces. It's an enumerated power. There, the Courts still side with the President, as per Curtiss Wright and the Prize cases.

But not always. In Ex Parte Milligan, there were limits placed on what President Lincoln could do to civilian criminals. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court said that President Bush could not use military commissions because they violated precedent. And, as for this matter, it's at least illegal for the military to shoot an unarmed person, especially if they are surrendering, under the Geneva Conventions, the Fifth Amendment, or both.

Now, I don't know the facts around OBL's death, and I don't care that much. I don't want to challenge the legality of it, but I think we do ourselves a disservice if we plug our ears and close our eyes to the fact that we might have just broken the supreme law of the land in order to kill somebody we don't like.

If we did, I'm okay with it, but we need to tread lightly here.

[IBCoupe]

My only qualm about this whole situation is that IF it was just a "raid" and the mindset was to just kill OBL, why didn't we just blow the place to pieces? That would have eliminated any kind of possible injury to our soldiers and equipment (ahem...helicopter). And to add insult to injury, he was immediately dumped into the ocean and no "formal" proof (pictures/reports) were released. And if you really want to put on the tinfoil hat, for all we know he could be in Guantanamo right now getting water boarded to s*** by Bush!

At the very least, more extensive details need to be released on what really happened at that compound, whether the administration likes it or not. People have the right to know about what's really going on, especially with such a high profile target, regardless of what their moral standpoint is.

I also agree that this should have gone down the same way it did with Saddam. Hell, let the dude rot in jail instead of getting the easy way out.

It's difficult to get intel from computers that have been blown up.

[HashiriyaS14]

True, and thats part of the lunacy of the people who think cutting foreign aid will fix the budget. But yet, even though the amount is not necessarily huge, does that mean it doesnt matter what we do with it? Even though cutting foreign aid wont put a huge dent in our troubles, does that mean its ok to just keep dolling it out? I dont know, Im asking, perhaps the image and PR it brings us globally is worth it, perhaps not. But just saying "its not that much anyway" isnt a good argument for continuing cutting the checks.

In international relations, you have to fight or bribe just about everyone. It's more expensive to fight people than it is to bribe them. This is what foreign aid is.

We shouldn't cut a dime of it.

[stebo0728]

I understand what you're saying there, and it makes sense, but what's Zimbabwe gonna do if we cut their aid? Are we really bribing them, or are we actually involved in some humanitarian interests there? Now when you're talking about Pakistan or the like, the bribe card makes more sense, but I wouldnt say ALL foreign aid is self serving.