Osama bin Laden Killed

Why is there so much clamor over weather or not Osama Bin Laden was armed? What about the thousands of innocent, unarmed people that have been killed on his orders? I really don't care if he was armed or not. I am glad that the last thing he saw was an AMERICAN. I hope he shit his pants when the SEALS broke down his door. What people should be asking is what the hell was Bin Laden doing just outside of Islamabad, less than a mile from a military acadamy? Why won't the President release the photos?
 
Perun said:
Yes, as soon as the soldiers entered the house, it was clear that he was going to be killed. The question is: Was the raid itself lawful? Would there have been alternatives to raiding the house in the middle of the night? Was this the most likely action that would bring Osama out alive?
Click to expand...
Well it took 11 years to find him. How else would you handle it? Ask him nicely to surrender over the phone? Knock on the door? IMO A Raid was the only thing that would work.

By that logic, we could all go out with a shot gun and kill anyone we suspect of being a murderer, rapist, child-molester, etc. That is precisely the kind of attitude a legislation attempts to counter. And that is what everybody was afraid of in the start: Letting the terrorists win by abandoning the principles of democracy and lawfulness. Either you have laws and follow them, or you don't. You can't just disregard them when it becomes inconvenient to you, but insist they are still in state. That is not how it works.
Click to expand...
I think it should be appropriate to make an exception to  someone such as Bin Laden.

Yes, under the condition that death penalty is the only option. See above.
Click to expand...
And it was. There is no way he wouldn't get the death penalty. Which is another thing that comes to my mind. Why are people so upset that he was killed on the spot. I think of it as a convenience. There is no money spent on a trial or keeping him in prison and executing him. This is good, especially with the current state of the economy.

And this piece of news is going to nullify a lot of arguments: Apparently, Osama was unarmed.
Click to expand...
That's really irrelevant. He resisted arrest. Doesn't matter if he was unarmed. Also, it doesn't specify if others were unarmed as well. (and I suspect they were not)
 
Stallion Duck said:
There is no way he wouldn't get the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Do you live in a state where death penalty is normal? Ever heard of the International Court of Justice? Not recognized by the USA so in a way you are right, because the Americans wouldn't deliver Bin Laden to him. But other people who were responsible for higher deathtolls were transported to that area. Some of them got the worst punishment possible. Death penalty you'd think? No way. Doesn't happen.

Stallion Duck said:
Why are people so upset that he was killed on the spot. I think of it as a convenience. There is no money spent on a trial or keeping him in prison and executing him. This is good, especially with the current state of the economy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I find such reasoning
:nuts2:
 
Stallion Duck said:
I think it should be appropriate to make an exception to  someone such as Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

I see. And who determines when an exception is to be made and when not?
 
Forostar said:
Do you live in a state where death penalty is normal? Ever heard of the International Court of Justice? Not recognized by the USA so in a way you are right, because the Americans wouldn't deliver Bin Laden to him. But other people who were responsible for higher deathtolls were transported to that area. Some of them got the worst punishment possible. Death penalty you'd think? No way. Doesn't happen.

:nuts2:
Click to expand...

had he been captured, he would have either been tried before a military tribunal and the death penalty is an option there, there is certainly a precedent for it from the International Military Tribunals in Europe and the Far East after WWII.  There is no way I would turn him over to the ICJ, neither would Obama.
 
Who knows what would have happened if he was, say, transferred to a prison in USA... He would probably get tortured by the guards, other prisoners, police etc. And maybe his crazy companions would try to free him out...
 
Perun said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

I think Internaational courts (in generall) have a place in limited circumstances, prosecuting war criminals from countries that really do not exist.  Yugosloavia, the WWII trials, and the such.  In the case of Bin Laden, there are clear cases of crimes/agression carried out specifically against the US and the US would be capable of trying him either in a civilian court, but more likely (and correctly IMO) before a military tribunal and treat him as an enemy combatant.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Um, pretty sure that conspiring to hijack a civilian aircraft and fly it into a civilian building, killing thousands of noncombatants, is a "crime" in the U.S.  I agree with most of what you write, Loosey, but that statement is indefensible.  Now, if your point is that Osama bin Laden had no right to due process because he had declared war on the U.S. and attacked it, you may be on to something there.   I frankly think this was a "kill" mission from the get-go, and it doesn't bother me in the least.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the inaccuracy of my statement. I meant to say that as the leader of a multinational terrorist organization, his declaration of war supersedes any rights under American civil law that he might have had.

If Osama has been arrested in the USA? Different again. But hey. It's one of those things that there is no law for...
 
They also flew a plane into a government/military building (Pentagon)  I really am not sure that that matters.  This is (thankfully) a fairly odd case and does not fit perfectly in any court/legal structure.
 
Perun said:
I see. And who determines when an exception is to be made and when not?
Click to expand...
Well considering the only time an exception should be made is when it is as big a crime as Bin Laden's, then the president should.
 
The 9/11 attacks were not crimes, but acts of war. Bin Laden was a legitimate military target, as he was head of a paramilitary organization. I think he was dealt with appropriately. No different if the attacks were committed by a country or a private organization.
 
bearfan said:
I think Internaational courts (in generall) have a place in limited circumstances, prosecuting war criminals from countries that really do not exist.  Yugosloavia, the WWII trials, and the such.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong with the non-existing countries. There might be one or two examples, but it's not the goal of the court to persecute people from non-existing countries. Apart from that:
In reality the Court has sentenced war criminals or people who were responsible for mass killings.
 
Stallion Duck said:
Well considering the only time an exception should be made is when it is as big a crime as Bin Laden's, then the president should.
Click to expand...

Yeah, why not completely abolish separation of powers, you've already abolished habeas corpus. Why not say that the president gets his powers from God and is infallible as such, just like the Pope?

Look, you either uphold your principles or you don't - there are no exceptions.
 
bearfan said:
I think Internaational courts (in generall) have a place in limited circumstances, prosecuting war criminals from countries that really do not exist.  Yugosloavia, the WWII trials, and the such.  In the case of Bin Laden, there are clear cases of crimes/agression carried out specifically against the US and the US would be capable of trying him either in a civilian court, but more likely (and correctly IMO) before a military tribunal and treat him as an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the role of the ICJ and it's forerunners, then. It's primary role is cases of genocide, crime against humanity and war crime - no matter if the country exists or not. If we insist that bin Laden's attacks were acts of war, then the deliberate and dastardly killing of innocent civilians, especially in great mass such as in the World Trade Center attacks, are clearly a war crime.

Such things would be in the best interest of the US, because the way it looks like now is that the US will just invade any country they like to kill anyone they want to kill, claim to take care innocents aren't hurt but the same time not being able to guarantee it, and nobody is able to stop them. If that goes on, there will be a lot more planes flying into a lot more World Trade Centers, figuratively speaking, in times to come.

Stallion Duck said:
Well considering the only time an exception should be made is when it is as big a crime as Bin Laden's, then the president should.
Click to expand...

What Ranko said.
 
Forostar said:
I think you are wrong with the non-existing countries. There might be one or two examples, but it's not the goal of the court to persecute people from non-existing countries. Apart from that:
In reality the Court has sentenced war criminals or people who were responsible for mass killings.
Click to expand...

True..  I do not follow the International Court all that much, but my impressions is they do that when the country where the crimes commited are not in a position to hold the trials themselves/are in a state of disrepair.

In this case, the US would be prepared and capable of holding court.
Stallion Duck said:
I think they can be called both.
Click to expand...

Possibibly, but you can look at other acts (The USS Cole) as an act of war.
 
The ideal would be for Osama to have been referred to the ICJ. Of course, the USA is not a participant in the ICJ, for fear they would be judged, so...that says a lot right there.
 
LooseCannon said:
The ideal would be for Osama to have been referred to the ICJ. Of course, the USA is not a participant in the ICJ, for fear they would be judged, so...that says a lot right there.
Click to expand...

That was never gonna happen.  If you kill Americans, America will want to deal with you directly.  Not sure how other nations handle things like that, but that's simply the American mindset.  It's not just an international concept, either, it applies domestically within the U.S. too -- if you shoot someone in Texas, they haul your ass back to Texas and try you there, not where you're living now, because a Texas jury may feel more strongly about the issue than, say, an Oregon jury. 

Now, if Pakistan had found ObL, I suppose it would have been Pakistan's prerogative to turn him over to the ICJ.  But, Pakistan was apparently sheltering him, or at least deliberately turning a blind eye to his presence.  This is an example of why the U.S. is, and probably should be, skeptical of relying on international efforts to arrest, prosecute and try someone for attacking American citizens.  I'm sure there have been a few instances where that has happened, for diplomatic reasons, but that would be a suboptimal compromise from a U.S. point of view. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top