For those of you who believe execution was preferable/acceptable in the case of bin Laden

[Capitalocracy]

My question for you is this: Is this an exceptional case, and it should be acceptable only in this case, or should it be considered acceptable in other cases? If so, in which real or hypothetical situations is this acceptable?

If this is going to be the new normal, we have to establish some ground rules, I would think.

And if you think he resisted and therefore killing him was justified, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about those who believe that it was the best course of action to kill him regardless of whether or not he could be captured safely.

[fascisthunter]

1. this ought to be interesting

[dkf]

2. I support what was done because I don't believe we would have taken him alive.

And I do believe it would have been more dangerous to plan to take him alive at all costs.

In retrospect I am also glad we won't have to go through how to prosecute and treat him. I am glad it is over.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. I'm not going to discuss a speculation on your part that has not been proven.

Maybe later when the dust settles.

[Capitalocracy]

16. I'm not speculating. I don't know what happened. But people are saying they don't care

whether it was an attempt to capture that was resisted, or an execution.

I am NOT saying which one I think it was, I have no idea. I'm responding to the people who think an execution was preferable to a trial.

[EFerrari]

4. This is the new normal.

When we lose the White House, the next Republican president will assume the right to assassinate anyone he calls a threat anywhere in the world.

No oversight, no problem.

I don't see why anyone should be uncomfortable with that. :sarcasm:

[dkf]

11. Clinton tried to bomb Bin Laden.

Did we forget?

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Key phrase there is "anywhere in the world." Obama started it (in

this latest iteration anyway) in the Af-Pak theater. But the next Repuke Prez will have no compunction about extra-judicially executing anyone even on U.S. soil. I wish it were not so, but that's how slippery slopes work.

[EFerrari]

18. The idea that our entire planet is a war zone is grotesque

and only benefits people who make their living promoting wars.

[PufPuf23]

97. The entire planet, the USA itself, cyberspace, and outer space

are included in some sort of military COM.

[hack89]

29. Don't forget Sudan, Somalia and Yemen

Obama has ordered targeted killings on a scale not imagined by Bush.

Your fears of extra-judicial killings on American soil is emotional hyperbole.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. OK. Someone once accused me of "hysteria" when Cheney said we

would have to operate "in the shadows" and I predicted it meant we would start torturing. I would much rather have actually been hysterical and had us not torture than what actually did happen. Same goes here. I hope I'm engaging in "emotional hyperbole" (as opposed, say, to "rhetorical hyperbole" :)

[Abq_Sarah]

15. There was oversight

By the President of the United States of America.

We do not need to ask permission to take action to defend ourselves or to answer an act of aggression.

[EFerrari]

17. You can't oversee yourself. In case you were confused. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

30. We are a soverign nation

And we do not put our defense and protection in the hands of others.

Period.

[EFerrari]

40. That has exactly zip to do with oversight. n/t

[Zhade]

57. I suspect imperial Rome shared your viewpoint.

NT!

[Johonny]

34. vote his ass out then

He works for you

[Solomon]

87. Thank you thank you thank you

:applause:


The handwringing is sickensing. Vote him out if you don't like him. It will take lees time to get rid of him that way, than by crying about it for the next 5 years.

[Johonny]

33. This isn't new

Don't get people pretending suddenly OBAMA has changed military tactics that are as old as dirt.

[EFerrari]

41. Well, that's true. But recently Cheney fought for it

and Obama claimed it as his right so yes, he did escalate the claim.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. Puh-leeze. You think this was a "military tactic"? Maybe in XBox 360-land, but

it was actually an extra-judicial execution that used members of the military as executioners.

[Taverner]

5. A: It should be acceptable in other cases also, but they need a solid reason

There was a solid reason with OBL - this was a compound. There were weapons there. The Navy SEALs didn't know if he had a gun under his pillow or not.

This is someone who orchestrated the death of 3000

Did he orchestrate it? No. Did he fund it? Yes.

Kill the money and you kill the rabid dog.

[cliffordu]

6. I think killing him was just fine.

He bragged about 9/11, said his only regret was not killing more Americans, planned more attacks, aided and abetted terrorism worldwide.

Fuck him. He could have walked into any embassy anywhere and been given safe passage to an international court but failed to take that route.

Kill people and get a trial.

Kill people and brag about it, regret not killing more and finance a worldwide terrorist organization and be put down like a rabid skunk.

(See another OP here for the skunk reference......)

I'd say that kind of describes what the rules should be.

[Rex]

7. Well show me another person that caused as much damage

and death as OBL and I will think about their individual case as well. Exceptional people deserve exceptional circumstances imo.

[Capitalocracy]

20. Easy. Bush.

[qazplm]

45. OBL led to Bush

Bush is likely an ineffectual one term president but for 9/11. No invasion of Iraq, no invasion of Afghanistan, and we'd possibly be on the second term of Kerry and possibly getting ready for the first term of Obama at this point.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

74. Not so easy and your apples to oranges fails.

Try again.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Bush caused way more damage and death than OBL could in

his worst nightmare. (Start with the estimated 1,000,000+ dead and wounded Iraqi civilians.)

So . . . time to put up or shut up for you, I'd say.

For the record, I think Bush deserves a trial and the various rights that accompany it, including but not limited to the presumption of innocence. He should not be tortured or forced to incriminate himself.

On edit; my wife has brought to my attention the reality that I will probably have to ask to be excused from any jury formed to try Bush, because I can no longer in good conscience grant him the presumption of innocence. But I still think Bush deserves a trial.

[Rex]

73. The two comparisons are moronic.

Try again, thanks.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

82. No your post was pure garbage.

Hope you love ignore, most shallow narrowminded people do.

[Ikonoklast]

96. That 'one million' dead Iraqi number is false.

Pulled out of thin air by the Lancet, and has been widely debunked.

Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by their fellow Iraqis, and in total, using good methodology the figure is about 110,000 civilian dead...most of those killed by sectarian violence.

Not by us.

[spanone]

8. oy

[robinlynne]

13. !

[KittyWampus]

9. IMO, it's acceptable in cases where evidence is overwhelming and it minimizes risk to civilians.

[The Wielding Truth]

10. Here's something to ponder. Is this exceptional? How many OBL's have we bombed?

[cleanhippie]

14. In this case, it was perfectly acceptable.

I reserve the right to make further judgements on a case-by-case basis. This was an extraordinary circumstance and it required extraordinary action.


Many people like to say that even free speech has limitations, such as not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Which is perfectly fine unless there really is a fire.

That my opinion, YMMV.

[karnac]

19. Are you prepared to pay the piper! that's the answer.

Assassination is wrong. Torture is wrong. Period.

Free speech is right. Period.

Ah, but absolutes are also wrong. period.

Ergo, there should be the exceptions and not the rule. And be able to defend your actions to the utmost extent. Much like self defence, but more complete.

Want to waterboard? fine. but resign from your post and be prepared to serve a lifetime in leavenworth IF it was not worth it. Saving just 10 lives by your action is not worth it. even 1000 lives.


Bin Laden's death? You tell me.

But *i* ask, 100,000 or a million lives is worth it?

you tell me

[dmallind]

55. Speak for yourself only here.

I think that allowing 10 people to die rather than one to experience even far more severe pain and fear than waterboarding is tantamount to mass murder. Torturing 1 to save the lives of 10 not worth it?? Would you say that if you were one of the 10, or the parent of one of them? 1000 lives not worth a mid-level infliction of pain? That's insane - I certainly will tell you that.

[karnac]

66. dang, you seem more hard core than i.

actually, i made the numbers larger than i would like so folk would see YOUR point more clearly. :)

[dmallind]

69. It's hard-core to prefer the avoidance of ten lives ending over one suffering pain?

Seems pretty obvious and universalized to me.

Only people who cannot fathom the idea of minimizing harm being equivalent to maximizing benefit should even have to think for a second here.

[TheKentuckian]

70. You also count on having the right person to torture, granting everything else.

Torturing innocent people is a great evil.

I don't get this world some folks want to live in or the powers granted to the government.

I'm not squeamish but IF you capture someone then they are a prisoner. We don't behave like that out of sympathy for the devil but to live our values and out of love for our ideals.

[dmallind]

91. as did you, when you said 10 lives saved was not worth it

Torturing the wrong person would not save the 10 lives would it?

Are you genuinely a fan of deontological morality? Are there moral absolutes for you? I've met a few who claim to be so but few who are comfortable explaining it when presented with some, admittedly often, but not always, highly improbable scenarios.

You seem (I may be wrong) to be saying you would let 1000 people die rather than waterboard one. Is that correct? If so please give me some idea how you would explain that to the families of the 1000, or how you would feel if you were one of those family members. Answer their obvious question: "Why did you let hundreds die when causing a terrorist a few moments of pain and fear would have saved them all, including incidentally the terrorist who now, guilty of this crime you did not prevent, is likely to face the death penalty?"

[TheKentuckian]

101. You don't get to answer questions without answering.

You refuse to address that you have no way to know the subject has what you want to know or if you are torturing a person that is innocent.

What gives you any indication that torture is ever going to save anyone, other than too much 24.

[dmallind]

105. Never seen it - but you have not answered at all, and changed the question to boot

Tell me what you say to the families of the dead 1000......

I am contesting the stupidity of saying torturing one is not worth it to save 1000 lives, I am not claiming torture is a fine idea. However I will say it's a perfectly reasonable choice when the alternative is many deaths.

[TheKentuckian]

106. I don't refuse to answer, I don't accept your premise.

You have no justification that torture is an effective way to gather information with decades of experts telling you it isn't and no way to show that you don't have a totally innocent and/or totally ignorant subject.

My only answer, accepting a TV driven premise, is that it is better to die with honor than live as a torturing, fearful, amoral, and unprincipled people. Better to leave this world than live in the one we create by sinking back into barbarism, witch trials, and guilty until proven innocent.

There is no moral high horse to ride on with the justification of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on an innocent person under the "saving lives" fig leaf.

Your path inevitably leads to becoming what you hate and possibly worse. Reality is you would torture hundreds and thousands and using an exception to justify reverting to the dark ages and the inquisition in a game of chicken with fear.

[themadstork]

108. I'm guessing the guy being tortured would disagree.

But that's just me.

"Minimizing harm" is a sleazy basis for morality. It's the same "principle" commonly used to justify Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

[OHdem10]

22. From day the day we declared war on Afghanistan, I said we

would only get Bin Ladin with Special Operations.

I prefer this to bombing the place baxk to the stone age,
having all the "collateral damage" (innocents killed because
they just happen to be in the line of fire.

Such operations should be in case by case.

Knowing Bin Ladin was in a certain place. Do Nothing.
Use Special Operations Bomb the place.

I choose Spec. Ops. You know you got your target.
You can collect all the evidence, Computers etc.

Bombing. No way of knowing for sure you got your target
and no way to get evidence for future use.

War and situations like these are tough decisions. No easy
answer .

This country needed a win.

[Capitalocracy]

32. I'm all in favor of using special forces to get him

My only question is was the order to capture or kill, or was the order kill, do not capture? If they went in and he resisted, great, shoot him. But if he didn't, if it was considered possible to capture him and they decided it would be too much of a hassle to put him on trial so they went in with a kill order for purely political reasons, I think that's wrong. But some people (actually, quite a few) on the board have said that execution is preferable. I just want to know why, and in what situations they believe that's the appropriate course of action.

[OHdem10]

65. This was a kill mission.

[Withywindle]

72. This is exactly the way it should have been done in fall of '01, IMO

No, I don't think it was wrong to kill OBL. Capturing would have been better, if only for the intelligence that died with him--but capturing a potentially armed suspect with a network of armed guards around him is WAY more difficult and risky than killing him, so if the decision was made not to risk any other lives in that respect, I'm fine with that.

The problem is, this should have (and, IMO, could have) been done with good intelligence and special ops 9 years ago. No mass bombings, no mass troop deployments, no ANY kind of bullshit mention of Iraq, which never had anything to do with it.

I think OBL needed to die, and he needed to do so at the hands of the US. I'm glad that finally happened. The problem is the incredible waste of human life--US, Afghani, Iraqi--that the Bush administration inflicted for absolutely no good reason.

[slackmaster]

23. I have to recuse myself because I hold bin Laden responsible for the death of a family member

HTH

[robinlynne]

24. Are you trying to be the ACLU defending the Nazi Party? I dont think it applies here.

Really. Why not worry about one of the children killed in any one of our 3 wars. Bin Laden? really?
All humans should have equal rights. That part of your argument is true.
But for goodness sakes, would you like me to be sad if Dick Cheney dies? not going to happen. Some human beings do not make this earth better by being here.

[Capitalocracy]

28. No, I'm not talking about forcing people to be sad about it.

I am by no means sad about the death of bin Laden. I'm glad they caught him. I'd have liked to see him squirm in a courtroom, though.

[robinlynne]

42. I would rather spend our tax money on food and medicine, personally.

[Capitalocracy]

43. Apparently that's not an option either.

[robinlynne]

44. true! we give it to oil companies, banks, and pakistan.....

[Distant Observer]

25. ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER OPTION: Too many Govs, Agencies, People, could be implicated in OBL saga

both the things he did pre and post 9/11 and how he got away with it.

The question is HOW the execution was planned and carried out and which parties at different points of the process were involved in making sure justice was executed quickly and before he could talk.

The true story could make an incredible movie.

[kath]

76. "Too many Govs, Agencies, People, could be implicated in OBL saga"& "executed quickly and before he

could talk"

DING,DING,DING,DING! - A WINNAH!!

[bighart]

83. And by not allowing the capture and trial bin laden, the current administration

is now explicitly complicit in the cover up of the previous administration.

[qazplm]

26. It was acceptable, though not preferable

I would have preferred capture and interrogation, but given there was some level of resistance and understanding that those SEALS had to make near split second decisions I'm ok with it.

I think this is a somewhat limited case. Although I often think our aversion to assassination is actually counter-productive (how many lives could we have saved if we'd merely taken out Saddam and his sons instead of invading the whole country?) I recognize it isn't currently legal. However, Bin Laden was not a leader in the political sense as much as he is a field commander (granted the highest ranking one) of an armed group of terrorists. Under the Law of Armed Conflict and Common Article 3 of the GC, it was more than legal to shoot him on sight.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Every standard requires common sense be applied when enforcing it.

For example, that's why Zero Tolerance Rules have created so many stupid decisions, like students suspended because of an aspirin or properly proscribed medication. People don't stop and think that maybe the rule isn't absolute and sometimes common sense needs to prevail.

In cases like OBL, I think we all can agree he was a very exceptional situation. Those that blindly say "He should have been brought back for trial as all other criminals" are like the school principle not applying common sense to an exceptional situation. Common sense says a trial wasn't practical nor safe for Americans.

The world isn't black and white, and while some rules (like trials) require very extreme situations to grant exceptions, sometimes in those situations those exceptions are the only common sense decision.

[JuniperLea]

31. OFFS

The time to worry about this bullshit was when the first of three presidents said "capture or kill." If people felt so strongly, that drum should have started beating the minute Clinton said it and it should have never stopped. This is disingenuous fucking bullshit.

I think the dissecting of the information on this raid is foolishness. I'm pretty damn sick of the spectacle of this foolishness being played out on DU by a bunch of armchair generals who clearly have no clue what it means to be a Navy SEAL and what their operations are about. By simply asking these questions, the OP puts themselves firmly in this category.

[Capitalocracy]

36. In the U.S., a civilian, democratic government has authority over the military

So yes, I will take interest in what our military does, thank you very much.

[JuniperLea]

61. You still have no right to information...

On a tactical mission of Navy SEALs. Period.

[Politicalboi]

35. How is killing your target worse than bombing

An entire neighborhood and killing possibly a lot of innocent people with bombs and maybe missing your target. I think Obama made the right choice.

[Capitalocracy]

37. Where did I say special forces shouldn't be used

or that they should've bombed them?

Put words in my mouth, that helps your argument, whatever it is.

[think]

38. In a perfect world I would be dissatisfied

In this world I am thankful the children weren't droned into it...

[coalition_unwilling]

46. Kudos to you for posing what may be the best question to come out

of the entire affair. I supose I'm of a mind that, Pandora's Box of extra-judicial assassinations once opened, it's hard to get the box to close again. But your questions might offer a way to 'walk back' from the moral abyss into which we currently stare.

Thanks for the thought-provoking question.

An emphatic K&R!

[Capitalocracy]

48. Thanks, but...

it appears to have provoked more flame than thought.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. A thought by any other name would burn as hotly (with apologies to

William Shakespeare). The minute you start having "guidelines" to this, you are making baby steps back on the road to due process of law. Without guidelines, you have something quite primitive. The historical example that comes to my mind is Star Chamber from pre-1640 Britain:

"Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

[Fuzz]

49. It was OSAMA BIN LADEN. /ends argument.

[damntexdem]

50. Exceptional case. Nothing else was in practice possible.

If you think OBL could have been tried in the U.S., just look at the clown circuses of the GOP-led House of Representatives, of Faux News, of nutcase politics in general. If you think he could have been sent to the International Criminal Court, just look at the same array. There was no possible alternative to what was done.

[Capitalocracy]

52. Why should we let them make those decisions?

Last I heard, they weren't in the White House and only have a majority in one Chamber.

[guitar man]

51. I think this case was exceptional

After all the wrong things that were done under Bush in response to 9-11 this is the first right thing we've done, should have been the first thing we did though, not the last, but that's a seperate subject.

OBL financed, recruited and sent a bunch of religiously insane, suicidal mad dog killers to attack our nation, killing around 3000 people in one day. I know he's not a formal head of state of a nation, but in my mind, that's war. As far as I'm concerned he's a legitimate military target.

Now, as far as "execution" goes. I don't know if that's what I'd call it, but that's just me. The problem with bringing him and/or his henchmen in alive is that of dealing with suicidal as well as homicidal maniacs that like to play with explosives. In the situation the SEALs faced, even if they all had their hands in the air saying "don't shoot", you could never know if you're safe. They could have explosives under their clothes or they could have even had the whole damn place wired up with C4 that they could set off at any time, there's just no way to know. It took a hell of a lot of guts to go into that compound knowing what they could be facing.

So no, under those circumstances I won't second guess them and I wouldn't blame them if they shot every living thing just as fast as they could pull the trigger. Bottom line is, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback this thing from the comfort of our easy chairs and point fingers and find fault, but I won't do it. SEAL Team 6 did a hell of a job. :patriot:

[Capitalocracy]

54. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it's not what we've been told.

We've been told they went in to capture, bin Laden resisted, they killed him. If you said to me OK, the plan is to go in shooting no matter what they do because this is just that dangerous a situation... I would have no problem with that.

[guitar man]

58. That's the problem with instant news

and the 24 hour multi-channel news cycle. They should have just not said a damn thing until a thorough debriefing was completed and then issued a press release

I really don't give a damn either way, the sonofabitch needed killing and now he's dead, good enough for me.

[uppityperson]

68. + a brazillion

[JoePhilly]

59. As a candidate, Obama said that given the chance he would "take him out".

Did you think he meant, "take him out to lunch?"

I'll let the Seal team we dropped in via helicopter decide what was "safe".

[JuniperLea]

62. Thank you

And anyone who thinks they are entitled to know all the details of a Navy SEAL mission is just foolish... and I'm being kind.

[Ohio Joe]

60. I believe I made myself clear

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1028348

[Demoiselle]

63. He declared war on the world.

He organized war, financed it, convinced people to fight it, kill and die for it. His wars, like most wars, killed innocents ..by the thousands (at least!.)
We gave him a warrior's death.
It doesn't bother me.

[reorg]

64. are you talking about George Bush?

[bluestate10]

67. For any top terrorists figure, killing on sight is the best option. nt

[Lil Missy]

71. He needed killing. He commited an act of war upon the US.

[kath]

77. Thanks for this thread - your questions provide good food for thought.

Sadly, in their blood lust, thirst for revenge, or jingoistic fervor, and/or various combinations of the above, many are incapable of thought, even here...

[Capitalocracy]

90. Thanks, although most people haven't responded to the question

Most people are saying it's OK to execute Osama bin Laden, but they're not answering the question, which is is this an exceptional case, in what other cases would it be acceptable, etc. And apparently everyone hates me now, which is nice.

The inconsistent story bothers me, too. I would be fine with it if they said it's not safe to try to capture bin Laden, because the place could be wired with explosives or they could be wearing suicide vests or whatever. I wouldn't want to see anyone killed going in after him. But why say he shot back, then say OK, he didn't have a gun but he resisted...?

People's reaction to asking some basic questions is upsetting me as well. This is a democracy. Asking these questions is NOT supporting bin Laden or crying over bin Laden or "handwringing". Basically they're telling me wave the flag, smile, and shut up. Feels too much like the Bush years. I don't like it.

[kath]

95. I've been hammered a bit in another thread for asking a question (though not as important as yours)

about something that makes me uncomfortable (and I'm not very articulate at putting my thoughts into a post) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1048269 (Did Obama really need to lay a wreath at the WTC site - we expect these public commemorations on the anniversary of the deaths, but to do it *now*, to celebrate the assassination of a terrorist responsible for the deaths? When is it appropriate to wring yet another media event or photo-op out of the WTC site? Did doing this just capitalize on (and help promote) the baser emotions of the public, rather than trying to operate on a higher level? (this is where it has some commonality w/ your thread here) And wouldn't DUers been upset if a Republican President had done this, even though Obama behaved in a lower-key fashion than W ever did?)

SOOOO, this quote of yours really resonates with me: "People's reaction to asking some basic questions is upsetting me as well. This is a democracy. Asking these questions is NOT supporting bin Laden or crying over bin Laden or "handwringing". Basically they're telling me wave the flag, smile, and shut up. Feels too much like the Bush years. I don't like it." Very well put, and something we should all reflect upon.


A "new normal" where extra-legal assassinations are carried out wherever and whenever the US wants to is a disturbing prospect indeed...

[themadstork]

109. Yeah, I had the feeling going in that the responses would not be systematic arguments for when

extrajudicial killing is justified and when it isn't. "When the other dude is really really evil" seems to be te consensus.

[BzaDem]

78. We will continue to go after declared combatants against the United States, just as any country goes

after and often kills declared combatants against itself during war.

In the situation where the declared combatant is face to face with a US soldier and the combatant affirmatively surrenders (white flag/hands up/etc), we would likely take him alive (so long as there was no reason to suspect he had a suicide vest or something). But the burden on a declared combatant to surrender is on the declared combatant, not the soldier, as is the case in any war going back centuries and up through and including today.

Note that this is precisely the opposite of the standards that apply to civilian cops, where cops can (more or less) only shoot in the case of an imminent threat. In war, the presumption is that the declared combatant does not want to surrender (whether or not they are armed), and this presumption goes away only upon an active attempt to surrender.

[LiberalAndProud]

79. Yes, this is an exceptional case.

His actions led directly to the declaration of two wars, not to mention that atrocious piece of legislation they named the Patriot Act. Hundreds of thousands are dead because of him. How do I know that? Because he had no compunction in gloating over his own guilt.

If Hitler had been assassinated rather than suicided, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Sometimes it's better just to truncate the evil.

My hypocrisy lies in the fact that although I believe Bush and Cheney are equally culpable with Bin Laden, I don't think they should be summarily executed. I would like to see them go to trial for their crimes against humanity so that they might be revealed. That would be a triumph of justice.

[coalition_unwilling]

98. Glenn Greenwald has said it best:

Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

[kath]

103. "His actions led directly to the declaration of two wars" - this statement

is bullshit. Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush used the attacks as a convenient excuse to invade and illegally occupy Iraq, sonething he'd been itching to do ever since he got into the White House. (and I hate to use the word "wars" for what were, and are, illegal invasions and occupations.)
And the hundreds-of-pages-long PATRIOT Act showed up so quickly that you gotta think that BushCo had the whole thing written up and ready to go.

[Raine]

80. It is completely acceptable to me

but I'm not going to argue the point because it's not going to change anyone's mind at all.

[shoutinfreud]

81. I am now with holding judgment on this until a few weeks when the story is solid

Then I'll decide

[leftynyc]

84. For anyone responsible for the

killing of 3000 Americans were were guilty of nothing other than going to work, I'm more than okay with this. The hand wringing on this issue is sickening. This same man you're crying over would have turned any woman into a slave to their fathers/husbands/brothers and would have cut the head off any of the men for having their beard too short. The world is a better place this week than it was last week.

[Matt_in_STL]

85. This is a pretty easy case, IMO

If OBL had ever said he had nothing to do with 9/11, ever denied it in any way to where it could leave doubt, killing him in this manner would be questionable. However, he admitted it as often as he could, releasing video after video like a serial killer taunting the police. He left no doubt that he was the one behind it.

Now, even with that, capturing him could have still been an option except that it would have actually made us less safe. I am not saying that killing him has made us much safer but capturing him would have, without a doubt, made us much less safe. How many people in this world would have set to the task of trying to free him by any means necessary? How many people would have died because we refused to negotiate for his release when hostages were taken? In a risk assessment, there was no huge upside to his capture (he would have never talked and we gathered tons of intel anyway) but there was a huge downside to capturing him.

It is a crappy decision to take a life in any case but this one made sense on every level, IMO.

[RegieRocker]

86. First: How do you know he was executed?

[Capitalocracy]

88. If you read the OP, I say I don't know.

But without knowing all the facts and seeing that it's a possibility, a lot of people have been saying they thing it's a good thing if he was, preferable to a trial.

Edit: Actually, maybe I didn't make it 100% clear in the OP. But I am talking abuot the hypothetical situation of an execution. I don't know.

[RegieRocker]

89. Hind sight statements mostly. Had he been captured there still would

have been no trial. He would have died in confinement from natural causes.

[Cerridwen]

92. I'm relieved that

the Democrats and President Obama succeeded where bush/cheney and the repubs failed.

edit to add link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1052015

[blondeatlast]

93. There are leaders who are assholes, there are leaders who are murderous assholes,

and there are leaders who are murderous assholes that target civilians specifically. That's the fine line between why I personally think Usama bin Laden qualifies and George W. Bush does not.

I'm semi-sorta-tentatively okay with (yes, I'm gonna say it) assassinating murderous assholes who target civilians specifically and no, I don't think our leaders necessarily have to let us know beforehand but they damn well should afterward.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

94. While you may think ..

this is a "New Normal", a saying I think should be retired, read history.

This is only news because OBL was huge. Arguably the biggest war criminal ever.

We have taken out others.

I do believe he never even resisted. It was the safest thing to do killing him.

Think of the trial. Venue - USA? The Hague? Gitmo? Elsewhere, then where?

Security?, do a little critical thinking. Easy wasn't it?

We have a tendency to believe this is the first criminal to be taken out.
False thinking. As I said biggest, ok. Not a "New Normal". Normal.

[Karenina]

99. Neither. It's another case of "S/he's outta here. NEXT.

Pakistanis are asking the same question. Will India swoop in next?

It's not a new normal, it's an old tactic whose ground rules were established long ago.

There is NO WAY the Admin/ MIC would deal with a live OBL on their hands, put him on a stand and let him speak. NO FUCKING WAY.
So they did what THEY felt was expedient.

It was clearly illegal, they botched their PR out of the gate and we move on to the blow back, whatever it may be.

[quinnox]

100. whoops, didn't read this thread

I started a thread that was asking the same questions, almost identical to this one. Anyway, good OP!

[Capitalocracy]

102. That's an unpopular opinion...

But thanks :toast:

[blondeatlast]

104. Kudos for respectfully addressing points of view not shared by you.

I see that raw nerves of both factions are on display but I think you show a real interest in hearing alternative POVs.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

107. If he could have been captured and turned, he might have shut the whole thing

down.