What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

@msolga,

Quote:

It is what the repercussions of his death might be that is the worrying aspect.

Theoretically, those who would be most upset by this pretty much didn't like us anyway, no? From what I've read, Bin Laden wasn't exactly considered a saint over there.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Theoretically, those who would be most upset by this pretty much didn't like us anyway, no? From what I've read, Bin Laden wasn't exactly considered a saint over there.

Well I don't believe that too many participants in the "Arab Spring" would be would be calling for revenge for his killing, Cyclo. Wink

I mean his jihadists followers, who (as I said) were fast becoming irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
I'm concerned about the real harm that they could do & also that they might gain more followers as a result of this killing. Bin Laden is now a martyr in their eyes.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
Theoretically, those who would be most upset by this pretty much didn't like us anyway, no? From what I've read, Bin Laden wasn't exactly considered a saint over there.

Well I don't believe that too many participants in the "Arab Spring" would be would be calling for revenge for his killing, Cyclo.
I mean his jihadists followers, who (as I said) were fast becoming irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
I'm concerned about the real harm that they could do & also that they might gain more followers as a result of this killing. Bin Laden is now a martyr in their eyes.

I think it's a fair concern. But they ought to be concerned about us as well - the intelligence gathered from the site was described as 'the mother lode' and will undoubtedly reveal some, and hopefully many, of his jihadist followers.

The point isn't to remove the threat - that will never happen. It's to break up the organization, to the point where coordination can't take place, or the leadership loss reaches a critical level and the whole thing sort of implodes. That can happen, and I hope it does happen.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

All is fair in love and war.. Osama declared war on the US.
The United States has been very clear on the desire to kill OBL. OBL is said to have made a tape in the event of his untimely demise. He knew the stakes. So did Pakistan. So for that matter did the rest of the world. This comes as no surprise to anyone. It was expected. There is no precedent here, the Russian's and Israelis among others have done this before.
I think if live by the sword, you may die by swat team in the middle of the night. Societal conventions be damned.

2 Replies

I have a couple of things to add to this interesting thread.

1) I don't think anyone has ever cared about morality or international law when it comes to foreign affairs. The assumption that they should is so out of line with reality that it makes the idea ridiculous. This thread has lots of examples where nations broke international law, and human decency in their own national interest.

What is missing are the examples where a nation followed a moral principle or international standard against its own national interest. If there are any, they are few and far between.

2) Based on my first point, my assumption was that the Navy Seals understood fully well that it would not be in the US best interest to take Bin Ladin alive. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a direct order to make sure he didn't surprised, if not I bet there was a pretty strong tacit understanding that he should die on the spot.

There will be the obvious spin of the situation, but come on. There was no way that Bin Ladin was leaving that compound with a heartbeat.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

My understanding is that Bin Laden has been pretty much a figurehead "leader" these past few years, Cylco. That he wasn't a major participant any longer in the global "jihadist movement". Which had been on the wan anyway, not exactly popular in Muslim countries.
I think his importance is largely symbolic to his followers & his death won't have much impact on the (very loosely defined) organization at all. But, like I said, I'm hoping his "martyrdom" doesn't inspire new young converts.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

My understanding is that Bin Laden has been pretty much a figurehead "leader" these past few years, Cylco. That he wasn't a major participant any longer in the global "jihadist movement". Which had been on the wan anyway, not exactly popular in Muslim countries.

Well, but what do we really know about it? I think it's entirely possible that Bin Laden could have been outside of what you would call 'active status,' which is to say, he was stuck in a friggin house and couldn't go anywhere or do anything. But he likely had a lot of information on the organization, which at heart is nothing but a criminal group - including financial information. That sort of stuff will be critical in shutting down their ability to carry out the sort of attacks that they still want to do.

Quote:

I think his importance is largely symbolic to his followers & his death won't have much impact on the (very loosely defined) organization at all. But, like I said, I'm hoping his "martyrdom" doesn't inspire new young converts.

Me too.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Well, but what do we really know about it? I think it's entirely possible that Bin Laden could have been outside of what you would call 'active status,' which is to say, he was stuck in a friggin house and couldn't go anywhere or do anything. But he likely had a lot of information on the organization, which at heart is nothing but a criminal group - including financial information. That sort of stuff will be critical in shutting down their ability to carry out the sort of attacks that they still want to do.

We can only speculate about such things, Cyclo.
You may be right about information he held, or you might be wrong.
We simply don't know at this point.

1 Reply

@msolga,

That's true, I was just reacting to early reports in the news that there had been a significant amount of intel found.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Ceili,

well said

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Quote:

I think if live by the sword, you may die by swat team in the middle of the night. Societal conventions be damned.

Another generation went the other way however.....there was a debate and then we decided that being the ones who claimed to be the civilized ones meant that we had on obligation to hold trials in Nuremberg before we did the executions. But then I have been claiming for years that our civilization is deep into its death spiral......we can't roll like our parents and grandparents did.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

We were at war. He was our opponent's General...

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I think you should be in rather serious trouble for declaring war on a country by a surprise mass murder. I don't think you should be excused due to loss in status in your terrorist organization.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I don't think you should be excused due to loss in status in your terrorist organization.

It's not about excusing Bin Laden. It's about abstaining from lynch justice and from violating other countries' sovereignty.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I'm a little chafed at reports that say he was unarmed. They are quite different from today's earlier reports strongly inferring that OBL was armed and resisted capture. Since Pakistan was obviously aiding him, I support the operation, but can understand why some would disagree.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I don't think it's a precedent, as others have said.

More a confirmation of might makes right...if you can do it, you'll get away with it.

In this case I am conflicted anyway...I think it's a good thing for mass murderers not to get away with it, but aware that Bush et al, and numerous other prosecutors of wrongful wars, will never be tried, much less summarily executed in this way.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The lack of excusing him, to me, supports his arrest/killing.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Another generation went the other way however.....there was a debate and then we decided that being the ones who claimed to be the civilized ones meant that we had on obligation to hold trials in Nuremberg before we did the executions. But then I have been claiming for years that our civilization is deep into its death spiral.

Without commenting on our civilization's "death spiral" Wink

, hawkeye, for once I agree with you.
No matter how evil the person is perceived to be, or how notorious they might be, a proper trial if at all possible, is the civilized way to address their activities.
More for our sakes, than for his, I believe.

0 Replies

@Lash,

It seems generally accepted that a state of war (a real thing or otherwise) means there are no rules and human rights have no place. Unless you win, and retrospectively apply human rights abuse laws to the loser.

An opportunity to demonstrate to the entire world how civilised people deal with criminals was wasted I think. Instead, America has declared openly they agree with AQ's MO, that one's enemies are simply to be killed in thier homes. Some example!

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

In this case I am conflicted anyway...I think it's a good thing for mass murderers not to get away with it, but aware that Bush et al, and numerous other prosecutors of wrongful wars, will never be tried, much less summarily executed in this way.

Yes.
Exactly.
Acceptance of different "rules", depending on one's importance in the grand scheme of things & the amount of real power the individual (or organization, or country) holds.

1 Reply

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know