What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

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.

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

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.

People keep trotting out pathetic analogies. Using other examples is not constructing an analogy, because bin Laden's behavior is unexampled, it is not analogous to compare him to other criminals. But Salmon Rushdie ? ! ? ! ? My god--he was condemned for offending religious views, not for killing thousands of people. Comparing that fatwa to American statments that they would get the son-of-a-bitch is incredibly stupid. Do people lose all sense of proportion when their pet moral sacred cows are offended?

Quote:

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

Please read my response to Ceili, Cyclo.
It is 1:30 am & I'm getting quite tired of being expected to repeat things I & others have already said before in this thread.

Well, before 9/11, he had already masterminded a plot to attack the WTC in 1993.

Myth 3. He was responsible for 1993 bombing of World Trade Centre

Ramzi Yousef, who was the main perpetrator of the attack, was probably working for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who was an independent operator at the time. Mohammed only started working with al-Qaida in 1996 and even then kept his distance from Bin Laden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-10-myths-cia-arsenal

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,

Myth 6. He spent a lot of time in caves

In the late 1990s, for propaganda purposes, Bin Laden invited select journalists to meet him in caves near Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan. However he lived in a much more comfortable compound a short drive away, near the former Soviet collective farm of Hadda owned by a local warlord. By 1999 he had moved to a complex of houses near Kandahar. When he was killed, he was living in a relatively comfortable detached house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In between, there is no evidence that he spent any time living in caves. The rest of al-Qaida's senior militants appear to have lived in the semi-fortified houses that are common in the tribal zones.

and even if you find his general area, the option of killing him or trying to take him alive isn't always there.

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.

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 wrote:

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

Would you apply the same standard to the American justice system? In other words, if someone confesses, should we just dispense with a trial and go straight to an extrajudicial imposition of punishment?

Well, it isn't as if our police don't shoot and kill suspects who refuse to go along on a regular basis. Like, every single day. But we don't really concern ourselves about it when it is abundantly clear, based either on the suspect's own admission or an overwhelming body of evidence, that the person was guilty of a heinous crime.

There is no presumption of innocence in the case of OBL at all; applying our legal code to the current situation doesn't lead to a workable situation. We can have a larger conversation about whether or not it's appropriate to declare war and engage in war against a criminal group (instead of a country or international coalition), and that's a fair conversation to have. But in this case, declaring war against them is exactly what we did, and within that frame, killing the enemies' leader is hardly illegal. It's not even immoral.

Fair enough, though I don't think that your response to her adequately answered the question I posed above.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier in the thread - the real question is, when is it appropriate for nations or individuals to step outside the Rule of Law?

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier in the thread - the real question is, when is it appropriate for nations or individuals to step outside the Rule of Law?

. . . killing the enemies' leader is hardly illegal. It's not even immoral.

I'd like to emphasize this.

Well, it isn't as if our police don't shoot and kill suspects who refuse to go along on a regular basis. Like, every single day. But we don't really concern ourselves about it when it is abundantly clear, based either on the suspect's own admission or an overwhelming body of evidence, that the person was guilty of a heinous crime.

There is no presumption of innocence in the case of OBL at all; applying our legal code to the current situation doesn't lead to a workable situation.

We can have a larger conversation about whether or not it's appropriate to declare war and engage in war against a criminal group (instead of a country or international coalition), and that's a fair conversation to have. But in this case, declaring war against them is exactly what we did, and within that frame, killing the enemies' leader is hardly illegal. It's not even immoral.