I don't understand some liberals... some here, Rosie, Greenwald, Sirota. Obama broke the law? really

[Windy]

Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist who killed thousands here and abroad and admitted it in numerous video and audiotapes. Our Navy Seals bravely walked into a precarious situation where a suicide bomb/IED was very possible given who they were dealing with. Forget about guns!

Osama Bin Laden was not a head of state! He was a dangerous criminal and mass murderer!

If someone would have shot Hitler (who was a head of state) or one of the assassination attempts against him had succeeded, many lives would have been saved... soldiers and the jewish race!

Those mentioned and some of you are also against drone strikes... I must ask, have they or many of you ever served in the military?

Ok, what would you rather do? Let those that want to kill Americans/Brits/EU citizens continue to plot and attempt to carry out attacks? Well, lets see, Yemen won't give up the former American who is now a member of al queda... you know, the one that sent the underwear bomber... should he be permitted to roam the streets? Lets see...should we send in our men and women to go and ARREST him on Yemeni soil? Do you think that might cause an even greater international incident and potentially cost the lives of US/EU soldiers? And what about the fact that Yemen really hasn't complained about the drone strikes... for that matter, neither has the government of Pakistan until they got caught with osama bin laden within a stone's throw of their version of West Point. I really don't understand people. Think of how many lives would have been saved in WWII if drones/small teams of special forces were used instead of soldiers to round up the Nazis during WWII.


Some people have tunnel vision, over-inflated egos and a warped sense of morals.

[Drale]

1. I'm not sure what it is but

these same people would have attacked FDR or Lincoln or hell even Washington had they been around at the time. It might be they are still mad Hillary didn't get the nomination in 08.

[EFerrari]

9. Why do you think FDR or Lincoln or Washington shouldn't be challenged

if one of their constituents thinks they're wrong? This is America, not North Korea.

[Common Sense Party]

21. Or Venezuela.

Oh, wait...

[EFerrari]

30. There's plenty of dissent in Venezuela. If you think the right wing media

is awful to Obama, you should see how it treats Chavez in Venezuela. It makes even the most racist @sshole here look tame by comparison.

[bobbolink]

48. I adore FDR, but I freely criticise him for what he did to US citizens who were of Japanese decent.

And, get this... I don't give a damn one way or the other whether HIllary got what....

I might suggest, on your Hillary thing... it is against the rules to impart motivations to people. That is a good rule, and you might consider instituting that in your own dialogue.

[Angry Dragon]

2. .............

:popcorn:

[Old and In the Way]

3. I think we'd all have perferred that they bring him to justcie and stand trial.

OBL has been public enemy #1 since 9/11. Okay, so show the world that we aren't afraid to try those accused and let them have their day in court. Personally, I think it would have been a brilliant move on Obama's part to show the world that we believe in our system of justice. If we have the case to make, it should have been a no brainer. Treat him as the criminal he was that planned acts that killed 3000 people. Put him in prison and maybe get ongoing intel for the rest of his remaining days.

The problem is, did we really have a case that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? And could this country have held it together had OBL been able to disclose incriminating evidence against the previous administration? If it couldn't be proven, the political price would have been horrible for Obama. Maybe worse for him than the not getting him at all.

[SoDesuKa]

5. "Horrible" Political Price

<i>If it couldn't be proven, the political price would have been horrible for Obama. Maybe worse for him than the not getting him at all. </i>

Whenever you put any kind of defendant on trial, there's always a chance of an acquittal. That risk does not justify an end run around the judicial system. The rule of law requires that there be no short cuts. The best way to know of a defendant's guilt or innocence is to present the case against them according to the rules of evidence.

[jaxx]

6. No, we all wouldn't have preferred that.

It would have taken years, he would have been lauded as poor poor OBL, just like it's being done now. He's dead. All the what iffing in the world won't change that or the fact he was a mass murderer who would have liked to kill more.

[Old and In the Way]

11. But, could you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

Maybe they could try him and win conviction on the embassy bombings and I'd bet that those charges would be included in any indictment, but the link to 9/11 may not have been nearly as easy to prove. We'll never know. I'm not shedding any tears over his demise. I just hope Obama seizes the window of opportunity and uses this to finally end our military presence in Afghanistan.

[jaxx]

14. I would think it could be proven without a doubt.

Specially since he put out those tapes. He outed himself. And now he's dead and gone. Justice.

[sabrina 1]

16. So, Clinton was wrong to put the 1993 WTC Bombers on trial?

He should have killed the blind Sheik Rahman instead of allowing our justice to work? Rahman at that time had even more status with jihadists than OBL appears to have at this point in time. But Clinton was not afraid. It took several years, but people were satisfied that those convicted, Ramsi Yousef and Rahman WERE guilty. There was no doubt and we did not lose anything at all by trusting in our judicial system.

Bush policies, which is what we're still living with now, were totally opposed by the left and by all other thinking Americans. How come there are democrats now who suddenly support them?

I do not think it's strange that those who opposed Bush policies still oppose them. What is strange is that some democrats appear to have flip-flopped on these most important issues.

[jaxx]

42. There is nothing strange about it.

Arrest and conviction
See also: New York City landmark bomb plot

After the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993, the FBI began to investigate Rahman and his followers more closely. With the assistance of an Egyptian informant wearing a listening device, the FBI managed to record Rahman issuing a fatwa encouraging acts of violence against US civilian targets, particularly in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. The most startling plan, the government charged, was to set off five bombs in 10 minutes, blowing up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building housing the FBI. Government prosecutors showed videotapes of defendants mixing bomb ingredients in a garage before their arrest in 1993. Rahman was arrested on 24 June 1993, along with nine of his followers.<10> On 1 October 1995, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and in 1996 was sentenced to life in prison.<11>

Rahman, with the Federal Bureau of Prisons ID# 34892-054, is located in Butner Federal Medical Center.<12>
Legacy

Abdel-Rahman’s imprisonment has become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world, including Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In 1997, members of his group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya conducted two attacks against European visitors to Egypt, including the massacre of 58 tourists at Deir el-Bahri in Luxor. In addition to killing women and children, the attackers mutilated a number of bodies and distributed leaflets throughout the scene demanding Rahman’s release.

In 2005, members of Rahman’s legal team, including lawyer Lynne Stewart, were convicted of facilitating communication between the imprisoned Sheikh and members of the terrorist organization Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman

Rahman was caught in the USA. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. As you can see it was not the sweet little trial with no repercussions you alluded to. Two completely different circumstances.

Flip-flop? No, it isn't. But apples and oranges seem to be the preference for some. Use facts, they work.

[sabrina 1]

47. No one expected it to be a 'sweet little trial' did they?

But that didn't stop Clinton from NOT permitting terrorists to determine how this country administers justice.

Now we ask 'ooooh, will it upset terrorists if we adhere to our laws and conduct fair trials'? Hey, let's let THEM decide we do not need the freedoms we used to care so much about, just as they intended.

And if holding a fair trial had the expected reaction from terrorists, I suppose you think assassination their heroes will have zero consequences?

I guess that was Clinton's thinking, but then he's a smart man. That if the US were to arrange the killing of the Sheik, there would be a reaction, and if the US were to give him a fair trial, there would be a reaction, so why not hold on to our principles since either way his followers were going to be a little upset.

[jaxx]

88. Enjoy the parables, they always have that moralistic twist to them.

Unfortunately they are usually just stories.

[sabrina 1]

112. There's something wrong with having morals now?

[leftynyc]

45. Speak for yourself

If they had brought bin laden to the US for trial we would have had months, maybe years, of hostage situations, hijacked planes, etc... I'm perfectly happy with him dead and fish food.

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. Except that young americans are cynical and materialistic. They have no faith in American justice.

They believe that justice is for the affluent -- to protect people like them (progressive intellectuals) from people who are poor and desperate, and that the cops and soldiers are a working-class warrior caste, so to speak, who they will never be a part of, designed to protect the light and life they enjoy from all those enemies on the outside.

Just like ancient Rome.

[mn9driver]

4. Most people I think understand that making OBL a part of history is a good thing.

There is way too much going on in the middle east for him to be tossed into the mix as an ongoing current event.

[CelticThunder]

7. And some people will excuse murder because it happened on Obama's watch.

[Liberal Gramma]

10. I'm not only willing to excuse this "murder", I'd have shot him myself.

And some people will criticize everything Obama does.

[CelticThunder]

37. This is the kind of thinking Obama was counting on.

[jenmito]

12. It's not murder. It's justice. Yet if he would've surrendered, they would've taken him alive. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Many credible reports (in various sources) that the SEALs were

sent to "kill, not capture" OBL. Shall I translate that into plain English for you? The SEALs performed an extra-judicial execution.

Osama's 12-year-old daughter was reported in al Arabiya to have told Pakistani investigators that her father was executed after being taken into custody. Care for me to translate that into plain English for you? Why don't we just start with 'war crime' and go from there.

[jenmito]

49. Yes, the order was to kill UNLESS he SURRENDERED, which he didn't.

We're at WAR with bin Laden, which HE declared. You can choose to believe his daughter. I don't.

[coalition_unwilling]

115. Um, that's NOT what Reuters, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post

(among others) have reported. There was no mention to kill OBL unless he surrendered. The order given (as reported) was to 'kill, not capture.' Big difference and one that decidedly marks our departure (or continued absence) from civilized norms.

N.B. A Fatwa (what OBL declared) is NOT a declaration of war. Individuals cannot declare war; only nation-states can.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Matter Of Perspective

I understand you're point, but it's not as "criminal matter" as you suggest. OBL himself made it very clear that he was AT WAR with the United States. He made himself, by his own words and writings, an enemy combatant.

So, this was not an execution. It was a military action.

I'm not happy about war, ever. I don't really accept there is a "war on terror". But, if someone declares war on another country, they can't expect to be immune from the retaliatory strikes that happen in war.

He was not just a criminal who needed to be brought to justice. He was the mouthpiece, fund raiser, and inspirational leader for a paramilitary organization with designs on killing americans.
GAC

[jenmito]

80. Good post. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

117. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated. Issuing a

fatwa, as OBL did, is NOT the same thing as a Declaration of War. Why not? Because only nation-states and not inidividuals can declare war.

Defenders of the indefensible try to have it both ways. OBL 'declared war' on us and so deserved what he got BUT (and it's a big but), members of al quaida captured on the battlefield of planet earth are 'enemy combatants' and not entitled to POW protection under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, we can be at war when it suits our purposes and also simultaneously not be at war when it suits our purposes.

It's like some Moebius strip of tortured logic, an Ouroboros of language rationalizing utter depravity that utltimately devours itself.

[Forkboy]

120. Props for using the word Ouroboros.

Hope some people look it up. :)

[CelticThunder]

38. So much for being better than bin Laden, huh?

[jenmito]

50. Um, no. Bin Laden declared war on us. He purposely got thousands of people killed.

The SEALs killed BIN LADEN-who declared war on us.

[EOTE]

43. You're wrong on that. Dead wrong.

The orders were to kill. Not capture, dead or alive. There was never a recommendation that he was to be taken alive.

[jenmito]

51. IF he surrendered, they would not have killed him. That's why Obama sent TWO groups in

when getting bin Laden-one to deal with him surrendering, and the other to deal with him NOT surrendering.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

61. When he first showed his face he could've put his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

And then when the SEALs stormed his room, he could've put his hands up in surrender again. He DIDN'T. Those of you implying he was just an innocent unarmed man are the insane ones.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

73. No. He was shot when the SEALs entered his room and he didn't surrender, but

went for his gun. And I repeat what I said: When he first showed his face he could've put his hands up in surrender. He didn't. And then when the SEALs stormed his room, he could've put his hands up in surrender again. He DIDN'T. Another poster said it was wrong to shoot "an unarmed man." He wasn't just any unarmed man. He was Osama bin Laden, who declared war on America and not only attacked us on 9/11 but was planning MORE attacks.

[EOTE]

82. You seem so certain of so many things.

None of which have any facts to back them up. And once again, why is it that you conflate the desire to follow international law with suggesting that we believe Osama to be innocent (not unarmed, mind you, but innocent). Can you link to ANYONE here saying that Osama is innocent? Or is that just a disgusting, despicable attack you use because you have a disdain for the truth?

[jenmito]

89. I posted a link a couple posts down that shows they were prepared to take him alive.

And I take back the "innocent" part of what some here said about bin Laden, but they DID describe him as an "unarmed man" as if he were just ANY unarmed man.

[EOTE]

94. Ahhh, so there goes whatever was remaining of your argument.

So it's completely fine that we execute an unarmed man, so long as it's the right unarmed man. And your worthless links aside, the narrative from the White House has NEVER been that they were prepared to take him alive. Show me one quote from an administration official that says they had an intention to take him alive if it were possible.

[jenmito]

101. Bull. And again, we didn't "execute an unarmed man." We killed bin Laden, who declared war on us,

which makes what we did legal. And here you go:

Holder also said the team that carried out the raid had been trained to take bin Laden alive if he was willing to surrender. "It was a kill-or-capture mission," he said. "He made no attempt to surrender."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/121241234.html

[EOTE]

103. People can't declare wars on country.

Not "legally". Only states can declare war, so that in no way makes what we did legal. I mean, if you can't even get such basic concepts correct, are you really capable of having a discussion on the legality of actions?

[jenmito]

107. OK-you can defend bin Laden all you want and try to insult me all you want, too. You're

hell-bent on defending a mass-murderer. I'm not.

[EOTE]

110. There you go again! Defense of international law is now defending a mass murderer!

Congratulations, it only took you 3 posts to return to your despicable habit of conflating respect for international law to defending a mass murderer! It feels good to get back to relying on your old logical fallacies, don't it?

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[MedicalAdmin]

98. Ooooooo. Scary.

Did he fwighten the poor widdle seals?

My only issue was the kill order.

[jenmito]

104. He had the chance to surrender. He didn't surrender. Period. n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

118. They shot him. Period. -- hey, I can play too.

Understand that I have no beef with the SEALs. None. They did their job.

My beef was with whoever issued a kill order. If it comes out that they had no choice but to kill him while attempting a capture, then fine. Assuming that they did try to capture and assuming that there was a capture order (if possible). But if there was a kill order then it's assasination, no matter how vile the dead one is/was.

For me it's just about the rule of law, both domestic and international. If he could have been brought in alive then he should have been if possible. But it the mission intent was to kill him, then that's fucked up.

[ima_sinnic]

68. and you know that, how?

which of the many conflicting and constantly changing but totally unsubstantiated stories do YOU believe simply as a matter of faith?

[jenmito]

76. Here:

In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials said two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Osama if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, mostly likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2007293.ece?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dca223a8693bd51,0

Those are facts. The changing story of how the mission went down was due to a rush to get out info. before everything was known for sure.

[ima_sinnic]

114. whatever.

the "additional details" come out as needed, I see.
Interesting that, so far, no substantial evidence of anything at all has been given.
But that also means nobody can make any kind of court case out of it, too -- what a relief!

[spin]

111. Were you there when the orders were given?

or do you have access to unimpeachable sources who know what the orders were?

If so, I'm impressed.

[JTFrog]

123. No you're wrong on that. n/t

[Forkboy]

72. It's revenge, not justice.

Easy to confuse the two, as our own legal system does it on a regular basis (the death penalty is just sanctioned revenge, for instance. It doesn't bring anyone back).

I don't want to harp on Obama over this, but I do feel that we missed an awesome chance to show the world that we truly do stand for the rule of law. The trial would have been insanely difficult security wise, fair-trial wise, and all of that. That's what would have made it such a powerful statement. If we had gone ahead with justice instead of revenge, in light of all the difficulties that doing so would entail, it would have sent the one of the most amazing messages from this country in my adult lifetime.

I don't give a wet fart that Osama is dead. One less smeghead in the world (5 billion more to go lol). But I do regret that we opted for the easy out on this when we had a chance to do something truly amazing. If some random bozo had killed Osama I would have been fine with it. I'm not as fine with it when a country that espouses the rule of law to the rest of the world undermines it's own message. You can't say you stand for something, and then not stand for it when an easy out pops up. Either you stand for something or you don't, and as a nation this is the very foundation we stand on. Either America really wants to be what we tell the world we are, or we should just admit that America is really just selling a myth to the rest of the world.

Not to mention that expecting other countries to follow the rule of law when they see us ignore it makes for a tough sell.

[jenmito]

78. "I don't give a wet fart that Osama is dead. One less smeghead in the world (5 billion more to go

lol)." Are you saying all Muslims are terrorists?

[EOTE]

87. Wow, I suggest you read up a bit more before making such a reckless comment.

Or at least have a fair assessment of facts before you take a joke and make it into something racial. You do know the world population is around 6 billion, right? And that the Muslim population is a bit more than 1 billion? But let's not let facts get in the way when you've got someone you'd like to denigrate, right?

[jenmito]

90. I have a feeling you meant this post for forkboy, not me. n/t

[EOTE]

92. No, it was meant for you.

For taking what was a simple, misanthropic joke and nonsensically trying to turn it into the bashing of Muslims. Your comment did illustrate your knowledge of world affairs, though.

[jenmito]

99. Then you're wrong to think I'm uninformed. I know about how many Muslims are in the world.

I figured the poster didn't. I posted a link to the fact that Obama had two forces sent to get bin Laden-one if he was killed and another if he wasn't.

[EOTE]

100. Ahhh, so you assume that the poster is not only bigoted, but has wildly innacurate information...

regarding world populations. I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and suggest that you're wholly ignorant on world populations and very quick to accuse others of bigotry. One simply doesn't accuse another of being a bigot by assuming their data is wholly inaccurate. Nice try at a cover, though. I read the comment and understood it the first time around, you'd have to be ignorant in the extreme to read that comment and assume he meant that all Muslims are terrorists and should die.

[jenmito]

105. Your insults mean nothing to me. n/t

[EOTE]

106. Just as your "facts" mean nothing to meaningful conversation. NT

[Forkboy]

93. Edited

Saw your reply to jenmito. Thanks for getting it. :)

[EOTE]

95. I never suggested it was racial.

I was criticizing jenmito for turning your comment into something that it was not.

[Forkboy]

96. Yup, I see that now. Just edited my post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[EOTE]

97. No problem.

It irks me to no end that people would be so quick to attribute bigotry to something when a quick reference to the facts would clear things up.

[Forkboy]

91. LOL...That's all you took from that post?

There's 6 billion people on Earth. Are 5 billion of them Muslims? Do the math and get back to me, and then I'll tell you what I meant by that.

[JaneQPublic]

15. Is it murder when U.S. military shoot and kill our enemies who aren't household names?

It happens every day and has so for nearly 10 years in Afghanistan. Where's all the angst and wringing of hands over the anonymous Taliban member?

It seems that "murder" isn't the issue so much as it is Obama getting a major victory... especially one in the realm of national defense.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Well, there is the tiny matter that, according to various reports, the

SEALs were ordered to 'kill, not capture' OBL. That's a major problem, Jane, and no amount of white-washing will wish it away. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the taking of life by the state except after 'due process of law.'

Don't think the 5th Amendment applies to non-citizens? Fine, the court have not decided that issue definitively yet. But there is the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, specifically articles 3-13. As signatories to that Declaration, the U.S. now must conform to it or join the ranks of rogue states.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[backscatter712]

18. In order for it be murder, by definition, the victim has to be human.

Osama bin Laden doesn't qualify as human.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

56. bless your little heart.

[MedicalAdmin]

102. Ummm. Wow.

Of course I kinda feel that way sometimes about bankers and health insurance folks, so I get the angst.

[Union Scribe]

22. Lol.

There's just no way to take someone seriously who calls this murder.

[CelticThunder]

39. Then what do you call shooting an unarmed man?

[dionysus]

58. in this case, a good shot.

[JoePhilly]

63. "Quick thinking" .... given there were multiple weapons in the room.

[ima_sinnic]

70. you have seen evidence of that? or you just believe everything you're told? (nt)

[JoePhilly]

75. Do you mean "was I there"? To that I respond ...

"Were YOU there?"

Here is what I KNOW. He confessed to 9/11. Called on followers to do the same. Advocated IEDs and suicide bombers. And said he'd never be taken alive. That he would kill any who tried to apprehend him.

Those last 2 are important.

As I said to another poster on this ... some of you want to claim this was "murder" and yet you have no evidence, and then you will overlook the actual murders (of 3000+) to which OBL has confessed freely.

The irony is hard to escape.

[dionysus]

54. poor sweet prince, he was MURDERED *sob*

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

60. Let's say YOU are alleged to have commited murder.

And YOU have gone on TV and claimed that YES, it was YOU who did it.

And YOU have gone on TV to claim that you will never be taken alive. And then if anyone comes for YOU, YOU will kill them.

And YOU have also gone on TV and called on YOUR FOLLOWERS to kill more Americans and Westerners using whatever means available.

And YOU have done all of this within the US.

YOU should not be surprised if at some point, law enforcement kicks in the door of YOUR location, exchanges live fire with YOUR protection, and then shoots you when YOU blink funny.

The BEST part of your post is that you have no problem declaring OBL's death MURDER, but you want OBL, who we know helped kill thousands, to be given more consideration.

Enjoy your stay at DU.

[krabigirl]

8. I am actually in favor of assassination over wars that kill countless civilians, but...

I know that is not a popular view, as it does violate laws and such. I do think we are better than that, though, and bringing him to trial could have been a good idea.

[backscatter712]

13. Bin Laden could have surrendered if he wanted.

Or he could have chosen not to organize the murder of 3,000 people...

But he didn't surrender. Not clearly enough to the SEALS that were carrying out their mission in potentially hostile territory, and they damned well weren't going to let him go or take any chances with him, so now he sleeps with the fishes. Too bad, so sad, but not sad for me...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

34. oh boy, I also wish I could rec your post

the original premise is downright disgusting and actually quite frightening in the precedent being set.

[madamesilverspurs]

19. OBL had repeatedly declared

that he would not be taken alive. The seals might have been a bit surprised by the lack of effective resistance, but they would have been stupid to assume that bin Laden was unarmed.

Some will argue til the cows come home about whether or not his demise was "justice". What is not debatable is that he can't kill thousands any more.

-

[coalition_unwilling]

28. What is also not debatable is that OBL received no due process of law - n/t

[ArcticFox]

20. OBL was not Hitler

And we should not replace justice with assassination.

[coalition_unwilling]

29. Justice is so 20th Century - n/t

[Windy]

31. OBL was not a head of state. He was not assassinated.

He could have surrendered. I don't second guess the judgment of the SEALS when they were in the precarious situation and I wasn't.

This doesn't sound like an assasination to me:

"In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html

Next time we go after a terrorist, I propose that the administration ask for volunteers to walk into a potentially life endangering situation, without guns, grenades, etc... and only handcuffs. those that volunteer can politely ask oh lets say Ayman Alzawahiri to "come along quitely now."

I'm sure you'll be the first one to raise you hand right?

[ima_sinnic]

40. oh, I see

some more "slowly evolving details" we didn't hear about before.
Since no evidence of any form has been given for anything, including the identity of the one "killed," or even a killing happening, and the story was edited and modified several times until it "gelled," why should we believe that story any more than any of the rest?

[JTFrog]

41. +1 n/t

[EOTE]

44. He could NOT have surrendered.

The orders were to kill, not capture. He only could have surrendered knowing he'd be dead in seconds. And all this talk about it being impossible to have captured him is ludicrous. We DID capture him, and had him executed minutes after. It's amazing the justifications we make for executions when it's our guy doing it.

[EFerrari]

66. There is nothing in the definition of "assassination" that limits it

to heads of state.

[AlabamaLibrul]

23. If you believe there is nothing illegal about going into a country without permission

then open the borders and give full amnesty to everyone here "illegally".

Pick one or the other.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. My modest proposal for you: let's just execute anyone accused

of a capital crime without a trial first. It's much less expensive and much less messy that way. More efficient. No more pesky lawyers with their 'technicalities,' no more 'presumption of innocence' because we all know if the government says you're guilty, why by God you must be guilty.

Presumption of innocence is so 20th century.

What say you to my modest proposal?

[Windy]

32. read post 31. nt

[ima_sinnic]

33. now that Obama has made it cool to assassinate anyone he wants on his say-so

(against every rule of law in the civilized world), who will the inevitable next Republican president order assassinated?
According to Obama's own dictates, it's now okay to have even American citizens assassinated just on his say-so, with no evidence, trial, or anything needed. Bang -- one "enemy" gone.
When a president starts breaking the law, the excuse that he's a "Democrat" or the one assassinated was "a terrorist" isn't good enough for me. After all, the way OBL was turned into archenemy #1 by the media -- the superantihero villain worse than Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin and Charles Manson rolled into one -- could just as easily be done to anyone who speaks out or protests a Republican president -- that means any one of us.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, who's going to stuff it back in?
I guess trials, courts, evidence, and civilized rules of law are sooo 16th to 20th century. Why don't we bring back lynch mobs and stonings while we're at it?

I wonder what the big deal would have been to bring the man to trial, the way civilized countries do? :eyes:

[dionysus]

55. then work your little heart out to charge him with war crimes. wear a sandwich board out on the

street demanding justice!!

:rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

59. excuse me?

wow -- unbelievable.

I'll be watching for your rofl smiley when the next republican president starts executing whoever he or she wants without trial.

You can read the Constitution, right? bvar22 says it all just below this.

[EFerrari]

109. There are all kinds of trials ongoing in Latin America

for former government officials and others who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered thousands of people. It's unclear to me why the United States is somehow less capable than Argentina or Chile of dealing with monsters.

[bvar22]

46. You don't understand some Liberals?

You also don't understand our Constitution.
You should read it sometime.
It places some very unambiguous limits on what our government can do.

[onenote]

62. Let's play this out

Imagine the following scenario:

A group of terrorists kidnap a busload of American tourists, men, women, children. They take them hostage and kill a couple of them to show that they're serious about whatever demands they are making (for the heck of it, let's say that their demands include payment of $100 billion dollars and the resignation of the President of the United States in exchange for the hostages). Let's say that intelligence gathering produces credible evidence that information that would lead to the whereabouts of the hostages and their captors is contained inside a compound occupied by some of the actual hostage takers and their supporters, known to be armed and dangerous.

Should the US do nothing? Should the US send a team in to try to get the information? If that team, after arriving at the location, encounters some armed resistance, would it violate the Constitution to repsond to this resistance by shooting the resisters? What if it was unclear if some of those protecting the information did not surrender but tried to flee. Under the Constitution, what measures could the team use, and not use, to stop the opponent from escaping? What if it was unclear whether the person fleeing was trying to escape or to arm himself and/or take other action that would endanger the team? Would it violate the Constitution to use deadly force to stop him before he could escape and/or obtain a means of harming the team?

[gratuitous]

52. Funny thing about principles

If you hold a principle, you look for applications not exceptions. Because once the template for exceptions is set, it's astonishing how many exceptions begin appearing. After all, because of those unknown unknowns, can we really take the chance that the new situation isn't really an exception? Better act as if it is, because it would be too horrible to be fooling around with those constitutional and treaty considerations and suddenly have hundreds thousands millions of people die. Millions, I tell you!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Yep. "This time it's different" is a piss poor rationalization.

For a long time targeting and killing civilians in war was considered barbaric..until.."this time it's different" came along in WWII and wiping out whole cities full of civilians was considered "necessary".

[EFerrari]

67. That seems to be the Obama strategy.

He's dumped the GWOT and relabeled it "overseas contingency operations". So, every time, it will be different.

[Hannah Bell]

64. i think we should just kill everyone our leaders say broke the law.

we can trust them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. I was in the military and I oppose drone strikes.

I guess I have a really warped sense of morals because I oppose killing and war.

[phleshdef]

71. They represent a fringe minority point of view that America largely disagrees with.

When thats the case, who really cares.

[Forkboy]

74. Like those who were against the War in Iraq?

The large majority was all for it. Were you for the war in Iraq, or were you part of a fringe minority that no one should care about?

[phleshdef]

108. Idiotic comparison.

I was never for the war in Iraq. But for many that were, they supported it because they were convinced that the WMD argument was true. One it was clear that was false, approval for that war went down the drain.

In this instance, there is no "false" to be found. Osama Bin Laden was the leader of Al Quaida and ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has admitted to it on multiple occasions. The only difference between what he did and a country declaring war on us was that he is the leader of an organization rather than the leader of a portion of geographical boundaries. Aside from that, there is no moral difference. This person declared war on us and followed through by killing many Americans. And he has killed even more Muslims than he has Americans. The majority of people in this country will never buy into this attempt to apologize for anything that was done in retaliation to Osama Bin Laden. There are in fact some things that most people can agree on and this is one of them.

[Forkboy]

116. No, it's not idiotic at all. You're playing the appeal to the majority card.

If you weren't for the War in Iraq than you were part of a small minority, and using the logic in your first post the minority must be wrong. Do you feel you were wrong about Iraq just because you were in the minorty, or do you feel that you were right, despite an overwhelming majority of Americans who were for it?

I'm pointing out the tactic you're using, and why it's not a good one. If you want to argue your facts there's better ways to do so, one that doesn't rely on this particular fallacy.

[phleshdef]

119. You are incorrect about what argument I was making in the initial post you are referring to.

I'm not using a "tactic". I'm just stating the way I feel about the people making the bogus claims that the way Bin Laden was handled was somehow illegal. If a larger portion of the nation seemed to be concerned about it, then I would think these critics are more worth answering. But right now, its not a point of view that is going to make any real political waves. Its irrelevant.

You aren't pointing out anything. You are imagining arguments I never made. I never said public opinion dictates the facts or what is right or wrong. I said that there is no reason to be concerned about a fringe minority of the typical whiners trying to again push an invalid grievance against the Obama administration. As someone said on this board the other day, you can't swiftboat the killing of Bin Laden. Its not going to happen.

[Forkboy]

121. I'm very aware of the argument you're making. My point relates to how you're making it.

[phleshdef]

122. No it doesn't. Your point is a rebuttle to a phony argument that I never made.

Which basically means you are arguing with the wall, not me.

[Yavin4]

77. I Have No Moral Qualms Whatsoever About Killing OBL

None. He was the tactical, financial, and spiritual leader of an organization that targeted and killed innocent people the world over. More so, he openly encouraged other Muslims to randomly kill innocent people.

It's not just about 9/11. It's about other attacks on U.S. soil and abroad. In addition, there were attacks that were spoiled.

He's not a criminal. He's an international mad man who uses acts of mass violence as a means to effectuate policy, and putting him on trial here or any where else in the world would endanger the lives of more innocent people, as OBL's compatriots may have resorted to kidnappings and bombings to secure his release.

To those that oppose, enjoy your piety. I, like millions of other Americans, am glad that's dead.

[EFerrari]

81. We don't have the rule of law to deal with people we like and agree with.n/t

[Yavin4]

84. Okay. Cite The Law That Obama Broke

Where is the law?

[EFerrari]

86. I put this link in your thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1083556&mesg_id=1083620

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. What's funny is that Chris Nolan said the film The Dark Knight was a metaphor for the War on Terror

And most young Americans took away from that movie the message that the Joker should have been killed when Batman had the chance.

After all, interrogation is pointless and Pure Evil (tm) cannot be confronted, only destroyed, right?