What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

@Ceili,

Quote:

To feign surprise at the outcome is just playing with words.

Not very many are feigning surprise, Ceili. That's the whole point. The dismay, of which there is a great deal, is the totally illegal manner in which the US handled this.

It really was the same with Saddam. Notice, if you will, just how open any of these things are? Was Saddam's trial on Fox, with translation, so that all could see "justice" being carried out?

Notice how little you ever hear from the other side. The Taliban offered more than once to give up OBL but their offers were refused. You have got to ask yourself --> at what cost and to whom.

Saddam also offered to leave Iraq to prevent war. Again, ask yourself why this didn't happen --> at what cost and to whom?

Why is there no discussion of OBL's role as a close ally of the US? Why is there no discussion of their join role in the slaughter of maybe a million Afghans, or of all the deaths that the US cause to others using OBL and Al Qaeda as their proxy killers?

Why is there no discussion of Saddam's role as a close ally of the US for over 40 years? Why is there no discussion of their joint role in all the deaths that the US caused to others using Saddam as their proxy killer?

Why is there no discussion of the WMDs that the US supplied to Saddam, including anthrax?

Given the myriad lies that have issued from the US, why is there this rush to believe them on anything they have to say. Even on the OBL assassination, the lies have flowed fast and furious.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

It really was the same with Saddam.

Yes, the poor man...he wanted to rule the world ....and he never committed a war crime did he ?

Poor Osama....he only wanted to do Gods work by killing people like you...pity he missed .

Tell us how it is all the fault of the military.....

Quote:

Given the myriad lies that have issued from the US

Given the myriad of lies that have issued from your psychosis, why am I reading your bullshit ?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I was relieved and happy just like everybody else.

Meanwhile, however, my feelings are increasingly stained by disgust.

Let spray.

So it's the protocol of death that is troublesome.

I felt empty in the certain knowledge of no end to the madness.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili, I don't often disagree with you on things political, but I do on this issue.

Quote:

... the USA was very open with their warrant. For almost 10 long years, every nation on earth knew what the Americans had in store for Osama.

I can't see how this justifies execution instead of a trial.
It is rather like saying (for example) that killing Salman Rushdie at some stage is OK because we've all known for years that there's been a fatwa declared against him by fundamentalist Muslims, who have been very open about their intention to kill him. Because an intention is declared & everyone knows about it, doesn't necessarily make the declaration of the intention, or carrying out the act, right.

Quote:

I also don't think Cowboy justice is sometimes ok. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, and in the case, the was never another option.

Well that is what some people are questioning. Given that he was unarmed (apparently) & outnumbered, was there the option of capture (& trial) rather than execution? Maybe there was, in fact, another option?

2 Replies

Quote:

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

Free burial at sea if killed by a Navy SEAL team.....if you want a land burial you have to be killed by the Army Rangers . A cremation will be by the Air Force . The Marines will eat you alive .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?
Free burial at sea if killed by a Navy SEAL team.....if you want a land burial you have to be killed by the Army Rangers . A cremation will be by the Air Force . The Marines will eat you alive .

I must be getting jaded. I actually like this joke. Anyway, an important distinction is that the killing took place under the circumstances of an ongoing war. Justice for everyday domestic crimes is different.

Personally, I also would have been happy if Hitler had been killed before 1945.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

It would have been better to have killed him before 9/11 though, wouldn't it? As soon as he started to look like he might be an enemy?

2 Replies

@Eorl,

I probably should stop posting on this subject. The recent events have had an emotional effect on me.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

I value your opinion a great deal wandeljw (on this matter as much as any) But by all means do what's best for you. (I hope you know I mean no harm to anyone)

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

You just saw the truth in it, JW, at least the partial truth. It's not so much that you liked it, you've mistaken that feeling for twinges of guilt mixed with exhilaration to be part of one of the most efficient killing machines the world has ever known. It's sort of a "geeze, I feel the power, just look at what my tax dollars can do".

In Vietnam, it matters not what force it was, but combined they were able to execute and cremate many innocents with massive napalm attacks.

In Japan, again it matters not what branches took part, they were able to execute and cremate a hundred thousand or so innocents in one raid on civilian targets. You do know that these are war crimes, don't you?

In Vietnam, they were able to saturate/carpet bomb innocent civilians in a manner so effective that neither burial nor cremation was necessary. It was more a smithereens affect. Same thing occurred in Laos and Cambodia but as a extra special treat the US left untold numbers of little bomblets, specifically designed to remain unexploded so that future generations of little kids and their parents could find them as they tilled their fields.

Anyway, an important distinction is that these killings never took place under the circumstances of an ongoing war. But you know that too, don't you?

0 Replies

@msolga,

msloga, I have not justified this killing. I've only said, that all this wringing of hands surprises me. Where was the indignation when the USA plainly said what they planned to do. To come out in the days after his predictably violent death and start screaming for a trial by jury is beyond stupid? Where was the law and order crowd during the last 10 years? Were you blind the the USA's intent? Why did you and Amnesty not start jumping on this subject when the posters for Dead or Alive were hung in the local post office. I'm not clairvoyant, but I could see the writing on the wall. Obama would have no trial, he would be killed, no ands, ifs or buts. He was doomed.
This is not the same as _____ in the blank example. I'm not for the shooting of unarmed men, women or children. I didn't pull the trigger. I believe in the right to a fair trial. However, In this case I never saw that as an option and I guess I was right and the rest of you are niave. Obama had no choice but to die a violent death and the rest of the world is complicit in that they never did a thing to stop it.
As I've said, if the world really gave two shits about justice, they would have told the US to cool their jets. It didn't happen.
Once Osama was shot and killed, did you hear any world wide indignation? I haven't really. Just a bit of snuffling about the rule of law. Again, I ask. Where were these objections during the last ten years, when the plan was to kill this man. There were none.
In this case, I think the vast majority of people are just glad it's over. In a months time or several years from now, do you honestly think any one nation, government, rights organization will champion his cause, or file suit because he was shot?
Probably not. Why? because this came as no surprise. I'm not saying it's right, it just is what it is, and in this case, I for one didn't see another outcome. I don't think I'm alone. This was an anomaly. This wasn't a precedent.

4 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

msloga, I have not justified this killing. I've only said, that all this wringing of hands surprises me. Where was the indignation when the USA plainly said what they planned to do.

I can only speak for myself, and please don't make me dig into many-year-old A2K posts to prove it, but I have spoken out several times about America's vigilante justice, and its violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, Maybe you just didn't pay that much attention then.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

I'm not clairvoyant, but I could see the writing on the wall. Obama would have no trial, he would be killed, no ands, ifs or buts. He was doomed.

Pretty much. Eric Holder testified before Congress more than a year ago and laid it out...

Quote:

"Osama Bin Laden will be brought to justice in a body bag, not a court of law,"

"The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden - he will never appear in an American courtroom,"

Holder repeated - slowly - to the Texas congressman that "the possibility simply does not exist" that Bin Laden will ever be arraigned in any court.

"The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal - he will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people," Holder said.

Source

That last statement by Mr. Holder was based on intel from Osama's captured bodyguards who stated they were instructed to kill him with either a bullet or a bomb belt rather than let him be captured.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili, prosecutors the world over know of the likelihood that gangsters are going to take one another out, often with collateral damage, but they don't run around shouting warnings and threatening the gangsters for possible future indiscretions.

You provide partial justification for a typical US response that illustrates, again, clearly to the world, that, to them, the rule of law is a mere toy to be bantered about for their convenience.

No one was blind to the USA's intent. How could that be when everyone is well aware of the fact that the US has no qualms whatsoever about bombing the **** out of millions of innocents, no qualms whatsoever about enforcing illegal embargoes that kill half a million kids, [fill in here your favorite example of one of the numerous examples of the total disregard that the US has for innocents around the world] to play their evil grab the wealth games?

There was hardly much chance in this case to tell the US to cool their jets, was there? But there are myriad chances to let the only people who can really tell the US [governments] to cool their jets and way too many of those opportunities are, sadly, left untouched.

It obviously will take some jarring, but there are many Americans who are sane, rational, honest, caring, loving individuals. You can see it here by their silence. Not all of them are h2omans, farmers, cycloptichorns, gobs, finns, oralloys, ... .

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

It would have been better to have killed him before 9/11 though, wouldn't it? As soon as he started to look like he might be an enemy?

Well, before 9/11, he had already masterminded a plot to attack the WTC in 1993. So we already knew he was an enemy, or at the very least, a criminal (which is how I think of the guy). But knowing that and finding him are two different things, and even if you find his general area, the option of killing him or trying to take him alive isn't always there.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

I can't see how this justifies execution instead of a trial.

The man had already, publicly and often, admitted guilt. What's the point of the trial, exactly? Just to make him say it again?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The question was meant to be rhetorical. Intended to demonstrate where this path of government extermination of possible threats without moderation or control could lead. If that wasnt obvious, then it's even more disturbing.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Ceili wrote:
msloga, I have not justified this killing. I've only said, that all this wringing of hands surprises me. Where was the indignation when the USA plainly said what they planned to do.

I can only speak for myself, and please don't make me dig into many-year-old A2K posts to prove it, but I have spoken out several times about America's vigilante justice, and its violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, Maybe you just didn't pay that much attention then.

Now I understand why I have been making such negative comments. I automatically disagree with whatever viewpoint Thomas takes. Smile

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili, I care little about Bin Laden as a person, pretty much my sole concerns throughout these two threads have been about my clear preference for "due process", concerns about repercussions stemming from to his execution from his followers & also worries about precedents for the future.

As if any of us ordinary people could have had any influence over anything to do with the 10 years of the "war on terror" & the US government. We marched in our millions, all over the world, to no avail. Iraq was still invaded. Our governments sent troops to Iraq & Afghanistan against the majority of citizens' wishes. As if the protection of Osama Bin Laden's rights would have been anyone's major focus, when we were far more concerned about what was happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, the various terrorist attacks from Bali to Spain.

Whether you have "justified" this killing or not, you seem to have no concern that it happened & how it happened. I do.

From my point of view (& without going over & over old ground) the concern was not so much about protecting Bin Laden's rights, but more a strong preference that he be dealt with lawfully once detained. As I said earlier, more to uphold our laws & our standards than for anything to do with him .

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The point is for western democrats to feel good about themselves--we had a fair trial, in open court, then we snuffed the son-of-a-bitch.

1 Reply

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know