Justified or Murder. The death of bin laden.

[R/T Hemi]

I had wondered about the legality of killing bin laden. Apparently, he was unarmed and the resistance he offered is questionable. He was shot in the chest, then another team member walked up and put one in his head once he was on the ground.

Here's my point. I hate bin laden. I'm glad he's dead, at least, I'm glad he can't participate in terror against my countrymen anymore. However, if a cop had done this to a drug dealer (who I also despise) I'd demand the DA review the case with an eye towards a manslaughter charge. I understand this is war, and bin laden's the leader of the enemy who intends harm on our countrymen, but my question, and apparently the question of many others (see link here) is, was it really necessary to shoot? Did he resist by merely not putting his hands up?

I wonder how far this issue is going to go with world opinion.

Another unexpected result. Apparently a Saudi al qaeda member turned himself in fearing the bin laden treatment. (no link available - tv news source) Maybe there is a message in what the US did here.

So, what's the general feeling here. Justified or Murder?

[IBCoupe]

Murder, but I'm not about to suggest that we prosecute anybody for it. This was a necessary killing, and that's why I'm in favor of the act, but opposed to the celebration of it.

This was government exerting deadly force against an unpopular individual. Don't lose sight of that. Like the Internet, this is serious business.

[telcoman]

I had wondered about the legality of killing bin laden. Apparently, he was unarmed and the resistance he offered is questionable. He was shot in the chest, then another team member walked up and put one in his head once he was on the ground.

Here's my point. I hate bin laden. I'm glad he's dead, at least, I'm glad he can't participate in terror against my countrymen anymore. However, if a cop had done this to a drug dealer (who I also despise) I'd demand the DA review the case with an eye towards a manslaughter charge. I understand this is war, and bin laden's the leader of the enemy who intends harm on our countrymen, but my question, and apparently the question of many others (see link here) is, was it really necessary to shoot? Did he resist by merely not putting his hands up?

I wonder how far this issue is going to go with world opinion.

Another unexpected result. Apparently a Saudi al qaeda member turned himself in fearing the bin laden treatment. (no link available - tv news source) Maybe there is a message in what the US did here.

So, what's the general feeling here. Justified or Murder?

Wasn't this part of the change we can believe in?

We elected a new commander in chief to complete the job the last one failed to do

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

Isaac nailed it.

OBL had ample opportunities over the past 10 years to "surrender". His rhetoric indicated he'd die fighting, and in the US, we take a man at his word. It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field.

I understand Navi Pillay UN human rights commissioner is calling for a "full disclosure" of the events. Dandy. She's got nothing better to do, since China is behaving so nicely towards it's BILLION citizens.

(...and if not China, substitute Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Bangladesh... you get the point.)

Since the official report on the events in the compound hasn't been released, I'm not sure where you get your info - but the point is, there should be an investigation, if only to adhere to our own (and international) policies.

Cooler heads will hopefully prevail.

p.s. I wasn't aware of the other surrender. Perhaps this will send a small message, at least to those who are kinda questioning their "commitment"...

[R/T Hemi]

I have to admit, I'm impressed with how well Obama played the hand out. It took balls to do what he did.

[AZhitman]

We elected a new commander in chief to complete the job the last one failed to do

Your bumperstickers are overlapping.

Clinton also issued an edict to kill OBL. Can't be bothered by details, can ya?

[telcoman]

We elected a new commander in chief to complete the job the last one failed to do

Your bumperstickers are overlapping.

Clinton also issued an edict to kill OBL. Can't be bothered by details, can ya?

He was sharply critized by your party

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... e-20110502

"March 2002: Bush on bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Almost as good as his Mission Accomplished party

[AZhitman]

Independents criticized WJC?

My point (the one that went over your melon) was that Clinton also failed to "complete the job".

p.s. I have no use for Rolling Stone or their so-called "journalism". I can smell the patchouli, cloves and unwashed pits from here.

[R/T Hemi]

We elected a new commander in chief to complete the job the last one failed to do

Your bumperstickers are overlapping.

Clinton also issued an edict to kill OBL. Can't be bothered by details, can ya?

I'm not sure that's the case. Wiki (sorry) states;

Several sources dispute Ijaz's claim, including the National Commission on terrorlst Attacks on the U.S. (the 9–11 Commission), which concluded in part:
Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the U.S. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.[91] (referring to the alleged offer to turn bin laden over for arrest to the Clinton admin)

I may be wrong,l but I can find no reference to an exec order by Bill Clinton to "kill" bin laden. Apparently the indictment to kill bin laden came from the events of 9/11. I'd be interested in seeing information to the contrary if it's there.

[AZhitman]

Details, brother. Details.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

In August, 1998, Clinton ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill OBL.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-24/poli ... M:POLITICS

“Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his national security advisor, told us that the President’s intent regarding covert action against Bin Ladin was clear: he wanted him dead.” (9/11 Report, p. 133)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... XrgKlmUBvw

The indictment of OBL and al Qaeda clearly preceded 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/

Details. Getcha some.

[AZhitman]

Since the official report on the events in the compound hasn't been released, I'm not sure where you get your info...

I don't mind a debate, but let's make sure we're not conveying inaccuracies. I have a hard enough time keeping your fellow Libbie on-topic.

[telcoman]

Details, brother. Details.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

In August, 1998, Clinton ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill OBL.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-24/poli ... M:POLITICS

“Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his national security advisor, told us that the President’s intent regarding covert action against Bin Ladin was clear: he wanted him dead.” (9/11 Report, p. 133)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... XrgKlmUBvw

The indictment of OBL and al Qaeda clearly preceded 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/

Details. Getcha some.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006 ... st_to.html

[AZhitman]

We've established that WJC did, in fact, issue an edict to apprehend, and if necessary, kill OBL.

Let's stay on-topic. R/T is inquiring as to the legality of that action, regardless of whose watch it occurred on.

[R/T Hemi]

Interesting. I see OBL made the FBI's 10 most wanted list in 1998, so there was at the least, an attempt to arrest him. I don't remember hearing his name prior to the 9/11 attacks though.

[telcoman]

We've established that WJC did, in fact, issue an edict to apprehend, and if necessary, kill OBL.

Let's stay on-topic. R/T is inquiring as to the legality of that action, regardless of whose watch it occurred on.

Our commander in chief gave the order to kill the sob who ordered planes to fly into the two WTC buildings killing almost 3000 innocent Americans.

When he decides to use these guys and give the orders to kill its legal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/world ... =1&_r=1&hp

Of course killing him is legal when our president gives the orders. Osama could have raised his hands to surrender.

Is the tea party planning to sue?

Am I the only one that noticed since he was killed the night of the White House dinner the Donald finally STFU over Obamas birth certificate

And speaking of trump since NICO is a car site

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05 ... dy-500/?hp

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

Interesting. I see OBL made the FBI's 10 most wanted list in 1998, so there was at the least, an attempt to arrest him. I don't remember hearing his name prior to the 9/11 attacks though.

Are you kidding, he orchestrated the bombing of the towers in '94. He's been on our radar at least since then. Clinton had a chance to take him out, but passed. That doesnt meant you lay the blame for 9/11 on Clinton, but still, had he been paying attention we'd have gotten this guy alot sooner.

[IBCoupe]

Towers were bombed in '93.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

p.s. I wasn't aware of the other surrender. Perhaps this will send a small message, at least to those who are kinda questioning their "commitment"...

I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH
*Seal team blows open the door*
OH GOD DON'T HURT ME

If only they had captured that on a recording and broadcast it all over the world...

[Cold_Zero]

He had been on the radar for a very long time prior to 2001.
There was a bombing in Yemen that Al Qaeda orchestrated in 92. And a lesser known involvement of teaching Somali militants how to shoot at/down helicopters with RPG-7 which we all remember from the Battle of Mogadishu 1993. Let us not forget the Khobar Towers in 1993 and the USS Cole in 2000.
He also had Al Qaeda assassinate Ahmad Shah Massoud the Lion of Pashtun which was payback for to the Taliban for harboring him and to smooth things over when the s*** would hit the fan the three days later after 9-11. May not mean much to Americans, but the guy would have been our strongest ally during American invasion and frankly was the guy that f*** warned us that an attack was coming from Afghanistan.

I do find it ironic that people are questioning now the order to execute the operation. When President Obama signed the order.. that was it, it didn’t really matter if Osama was armed or not. There may be international fall out, but as long as it was executed within the confines of US Law, who gives a s***.

[mattblancarte]

I'm still feeling conflicted about the murder of OBL. While I understand and sympathize with all who lost loved ones on 9/11 and other atrocities connected to OBL, cold-blooded killing is just not how we do things.

It concerns me, particularly for this reason:

This was government exerting deadly force against an unpopular individual. Don't lose sight of that.

Holding onto OBL could have made the US a target for terrorism, or it could have caused some negative event to occur. I understand that.

The murder just feels... dirty. My honest-to-('insert deity here') reaction was, "Oh s***. They couldn't capture him?"

Perhaps this image depicting one of history's most significant legal and moral events is too seared into my mind:



Killing OBL gives us some closure. However, it doesn't change the fact that thousands were killed on his behalf, and it most likely won't do anything to stave off future acts of terrorism.

[mattblancarte]

Should also say that if there is a politically-convenient time to bring our troops home, it is now. Obama is going to lose a lot of points with me very quickly if we are still stuck in the quagmire when he is up for re-election.

[Cold_Zero]

Let's not lose sight that there were more than just 3,000 victims at the hand of Al Qaeda. There had been a LOT of attacks from the formation of the group to 2001. Also, do not be deceived that 'we dont do things like this.' We do, we just dont advertise it. Orwell said it best, 'Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.'

[IBCoupe]

Eh, I don't know. I'm not for leaving Afghanistan right now. I get the feeling that it would be worse for us in the long run to leave it in the state it is now.

[mattblancarte]

Let's not lose sight that there were more than just 3,000 victims at the hand of Al Qaeda. There had been a LOT of attacks from the formation of the group to 2001. Also, do not be deceived that 'we dont do things like this.' We do, we just dont advertise it. Orwell said it best, 'Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.'

Yes, I'm well aware that the body count is higher than those accounted for on 9/11. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though.

Perhaps I should have said, "We shouldn't do things like this, based on the moral and legal guidelines of our nation." I'm well aware that covert-ops have killed, and will kill in the future.

Specifically, when I read that the order from the White House was to "take no prisoners," I was then conflicted. Initially, I assumed that they were trying to capture OBL and just got caught up in the moment. My gripe has absolutely nothing to do with our armed forces. They are doing their job damn well.

Your Orwell quote doesn't really help justify anything from a moral standpoint, which is what I'm trying to explore... I hope I haven't confused you into thinking that I'm saying that all violence is wrong. I'm questioning the "take no prisoners" order.

Eh, I don't know. I'm not for leaving Afghanistan right now. I get the feeling that it would be worse for us in the long run to leave it in the state it is now.

I often reach for this concept to help understand why the POTUS and military brass are interested in continuing our occupation, but it's never taken me to anywhere but a dead end. Across the board, that country is trouble. We haven't done anything, nor can we do anything to help with the use of our military.

Efforts should be solely domestic and charitable. Win the hearts with money and resources, not with armed and violent occupation.

I hear what you're saying, though. It's a b**** of a scenario that we've gotten ourselves into.

[AZhitman]

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.

[IBCoupe]

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

[HashiriyaS14]

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, but frankly they'll be lucky to get out of this with their aid package intact. They can EAD.

[R/T Hemi]

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, but frankly they'll be lucky to get out of this with their aid package intact. They can EAD.

I question the "didn't surrender fast enough" reason. It's bin laden, so I'm not about to waste vitriol on such scum, but it appears that we were intent on assassinating him and looking for a reason to shoot. If our government made a habit of this I think I'd make a political statement when I voted. But like I said, the likes of bin laden deserve little protection from society.

On the other hand, I agree with your second point. We invaded Pakistan airspace, put armed soldiers on their ground, and conducted, without their knowledge, a military operation. I'd be plenty pissed if Mexico landed 2 helicopters, shot up a building in California, killed a few people and left. The other side of the coin is that if had we told them, I'm pretty sure OBL would have been warned.

I guess my final thoughts are good job seals, but next time, let's try a little harder to take him alive. But, the ends probably justify the means. This issue definitely has two sides.

[AZhitman]

^ Well-said.

I think this is a case where we say, "OK, yeah - Easy to second-guess, and maybe we could have done things a tiny bit differently... whatcha gonna do about it?"

Don't misconstrue that as a "might makes right" position, but I think these were extenuating circumstances, and Pakistan would be wise to slink off and chill (especially given the questions about THEIR loyalties that this brings to light).

BTW, to address Hash's 2nd point and R/T's analysis of it - "We invaded Pakistan airspace, put armed soldiers on their ground, and conducted, without their knowledge, a military operation." I'd remind folks that this happens with international law enforcement operations all the time. There will always be hand-wringers, but again, if Pakistan wants to press the issue, perhaps they'd like to explain why they were knowingly and with full consent providing save haven to an international terrorlst. Hmmmm...

[stebo0728]

Personally I believe Pakistan's outrage is feigned, more for political reasons, to seem pissed. I'm not quite sure how to eloquently portray what I mean, but I dont think they were truly as pissed as they seem.