bin Laden not armed - was it right to shoot him anyways?

[Naira]

I know that most Americans will hate me for this, but I don't believe it was right to shoot him. No human being should decide that another must die.

From what I understand, his death is "justified" because many people on this planet believe it was right. I don't have a strong opinion about this but let's assume that it was. We can't kill people because the general opinion thinks it is right. How can we rule out the possibility (in our time) that the general opinion has been mislead by the media?

I am not saying anyone was mislead in this case, I am just saying it is possible and, for this reason, I believe that anyone deserves a trial and the right to speak for himself.

 

[Amaris]

I know that most Americans will hate me for this, but I don't believe it was right to shoot him. No human being should decide that another must die.

Yet he decided that thousands of people should die, and he executed that decision. He was still integral to Al Qaeda, which means he was planning on more innocent people dying.

From what I understand, his death is "justified" because many people on this planet believe it was right. I don't have a strong opinion about this but let's assume that it was. We can't kill people because the general opinion thinks it is right. How can we rule out the possibility (in our time) that the general opinion has been mislead by the media?

I doubt the nearly 3,000 people who went to their deaths, just in the United States alone, at his hand were being misled by the media.

I am not saying anyone was mislead in this case, I am just saying it is possible and, for this reason, I believe that anyone deserves a trial and the right to speak for himself.

A trial for what, though? He admitted that he was behind their deaths. He reveled in it, planned on doing it again, even said so, that more people would die, that lives would be destroyed. I am generally against the death penalty, but to preserve the lives of future innocents, I believe he had to die. A prison cell would not have stopped him. Only death could stop him from killing more innocents.

(And no, I don't think anyone would hate you for speaking your mind. I certainly don't.)

 

[Deckerd]

I am not saying anyone was mislead in this case, I am just saying it is possible and, for this reason, I believe that anyone deserves a trial and the right to speak for himself.

He's already had his chance to speak. Sad little dilletante rich boy whose empty life caused the world to turn against each other.

 

[Naira]

Yet he decided that thousands of people should die, and he executed that decision. He was still integral to Al Qaeda, which means he was planning on more innocent people dying.

I agree, I don't think he was a good guy fighting for some great cause. He was a murderer and he planned many deaths. He should pay.

I doubt the nearly 3,000 people who went to their deaths, just in the United States alone, at his hand were being misled by the media.

I don't think I get what you mean... What I meant to say was that, unfortunately, I have the feeling that many things are staged. Economic and war decisions are made a priori by those in power, and then people are guided by the media into thinking that those decisions are right.

This is another topic and I don't think I should start a conversation about it in this thread, but this was what I meant. I personally always have some second thoughts about what the public opinion believes and that is why I don't think that public opinion alone should ever justify such decisions.

A trial for what, though? He admitted that he was behind their deaths. He reveled in it, planned on doing it again, even said so, that more people would die, that lives would be destroyed. I am generally against the death penalty, but to preserve the lives of future innocents, I believe he had to die. A prison cell would not have stopped him. Only death could stop him from killing more innocents.

Agreed. Still, I would prefer his killing to be decided by some international court and not by a military team.

(And no, I don't think anyone would hate you for speaking your mind. I certainly don't.)

Oh, I do!
It would be great if we as a society were better than this, but in real life many people can be hostile and hateful just because they don't agree with what you say...

 

[captcalhoun]

1. he was a terrorist
2. he was behind the murder of innocent civilians in 1993, 1998 and 2001. he was also behind an attack on a US military asset in 2000 (the USS Cole)
3. he inspired attacks in 2002, 2003 and 2005 in Indonesia, Spain and Britain.
4. he was therefore directly or indirectly responsible for mass murder and an out-right act of war.
5. motherfucker had to die.

seemples.

 

[Amaris]

I agree, I don't think he was a good guy fighting for some great cause. He was a murderer and he planned many deaths. He should pay.

Agreed.

I don't think I get what you mean... What I meant to say was that, unfortunately, I have the feeling that many things are staged. Economic and war decisions are made a priori by those in power, and then people are guided by the media into thinking that those decisions are right.

This is another topic and I don't think I should start a conversation about it in this thread, but this was what I meant. I personally always have some second thoughts about what the public opinion believes and that is why I don't think that public opinion alone should ever justify such decisions.

Ah, I may have misunderstood. I do agree that mob rule alone should not override human rights, and it is true that various media outlets prefer to foment unrest to boost ratings.

Agreed. Still, I would prefer his killing to be decided by some international court and not by a military team.

Sometimes I have to put my trust in my nation's leader. Looking at his track record, I trust Obama enough that if he made the decision to kill, then it was an intelligent and well thought out decision.

Oh, I do!
It would be great if we as a society were better than this, but in real life many people can be hostile and hateful just because they don't agree with what you say...

There are those, but I don't think you'll find them here. Hating someone for merely having an opinion? That's absurd (not directed at you, just in general).

 

[Trekker4747]

I know that most Americans will hate me for this, but I don't believe it was right to shoot him. No human being should decide that another must die.

Oh, we're cool then since bin Laden wasn't a human being but a monster bent on the killing and destruction of Western Civilization.

 

[JarodRussell]

I know that most Americans will hate me for this, but I don't believe it was right to shoot him. No human being should decide that another must die.

Oh, we're cool then since bin Laden wasn't a human being but a monster bent on the killing and destruction of Western Civilization.

Did Truman become a monster when he ordered the death of 150,000 - 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Can't argue morality or legality as if it were an absolute, because each side has their own views on that.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Yeah, just ask the Koreans about the poor, pitiful Japanese. Tenoheika Banzai!

 

[Australis]

Naira said:
Agreed. Still, I would prefer his killing to be decided by some international court and not by a military team.

I understand that, but sometimes... the legal system has a way of tying things up and not bringing about true justice. One of the generals from the Balkans, can't recall which, is an example.

Lawyers have been saying it should have gone to court, but they seem to have two reasons: one, not wanting to see the basis of their career ignored; two, the absolutely astronomical fees, not to say publicity, such a high profile career would attract.

Yes, I'm cynical. And, for the most part, so are they.

 

[Tom Servo]

I know that most Americans will hate me for this, but I don't believe it was right to shoot him. No human being should decide that another must die.

Oh, we're cool then since bin Laden wasn't a human being but a monster bent on the killing and destruction of Western Civilization.

Did Truman become a monster when he ordered the death of 150,000 - 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Can't argue morality or legality as if it were an absolute, because each side has their own views on that.

That was a decision to end a global war, one that had already cost millions of lives, and one that would have cost thousands more of American soldiers had the US decided to invade Japan. The situations are not even remotely comparable. Hell, even in the better comparison of using Pearl Harbor, atleast the plan was to destroy military assets, not kill civilians.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh, we're cool then since bin Laden wasn't a human being but a monster bent on the killing and destruction of Western Civilization.

Did Truman become a monster when he ordered the death of 150,000 - 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Can't argue morality or legality as if it were an absolute, because each side has their own views on that.

That was a decision to end a global war, one that had already cost millions of lives, and one that would have cost thousands more of American soldiers had the US decided to invade Japan. The situations are not even remotely comparable. Hell, even in the better comparison of using Pearl Harbor, atleast the plan was to destroy military assets, not kill civilians.

200,000 civilians vs. thousands of soldiers? That's really an ugly calculation.

I know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Shock and Awe. But so was 9/11. And one could also argue that an attack on the Pentagon and the financial district of New York City is a valid military strategy in a war against the United States. "But its purpose was solely to kill civilians, and that's gruesome and unacceptable and makes him a monster"? Well, that's Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too.


See, that's the problem. Morality and legality are not absolutes in today's world. They could be, though. If the countries would finally start to abide their own laws, that would be a start.

Instead, we sell weapons to everyone to make sure they can easily kill themselves. We sell weapons to both the dicators and the rebels. We support them in wars against our enemies, and then we ditch them like hot potatoes, and then we're upset because they're upset. We kill people as we please and then hide behind "it's war" or "they're outcasts". But if our enemies do that, we don't accept that. That's hypocritical. And as long states are hypocritical, there will never ever be peace with anyone.

Then you can continue to kill terrorists, thousands, millions of them, for thousands of years. But you will never ever be able to stop them.

If the police randomly shoots people, if judges randomly sentence people, why should the people ever abide the laws?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Yes, I do have a problem with it, but not because he was unarmed and not because it's not right. I don't want to comment on whether it's right or wrong because there's too much unpleasant details involved, and I'm certainly not the least bit sorry that this person is now gone. Most likely the world is much better off without him.

There's a greater issue. I think that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are nothing. Their attempts to bring hell in the Western world have been pathetic. Almost every natural disaster that has happened recently has put them to shame. The only thing they've achieved, and that's very bad, is scare us, and make people play their game. They are full of hatred, they want the world to fear them and they preach and welcome violence.

And the problem is that we're only helping them. Not only are people throughout the world fearing terrorists and changing their lives because of that fear, but the US is involved in big military operations focused on killing a single Mr. Nobody, and then people are celebrating his death, by which they are only giving him and his legions more credibility. It's taking part of his game of violence, and inciting even more hatred in al-Qaeda and their followers.

And then there's the presumption of innocence. Sure, legally it doesn't apply here, this is war, and this is a military operation. Morally, you could still say it's OK. But in the eyes of the people, this wasn't just a military operation, this was an assassination because of the atrocities he's committed, it's a sentence and it's a form of revenge. I can't deny that even though I'm not from the USA, I'd hardly resist to put a bullet through his head. So, in a sense, that's an execution for a crime, and one that's made an example of. And we accept it like that, without a proper trial. In my opinion, this undermines the whole concept of the presumption of innocence, and the idea that no matter what a person has done, he has a right to the fair trial before a sentence is given. In a war situation you don't have the luxury to do this, but this is an exception in that it will be central in all news right after it happens. Mr. Nobody doesn't deserve to have a central news broadcast about a state-approved execution dedicated to him, no matter how legal or justified it was.

So, in short, I don't like what happened. I'm not saying I have an alternative I prefer, I just don't like what happened. There was a huge part of me that would prefer to live in a world that's a bit more principled, even if that means one more crazy guy full of hatred alive somewhere.

That said, there was also a part of me that was happy when I heard the news.

 

[Deckerd]

I agree killing terrorists is not the way to stop them. However killing their ideological figurehead is a good way of giving them pause. Bin Laden was a coward who sent gullible twits to do his killing for him. There are others out there and now they're wondering how safe they are.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yes, I do have a problem with it, but not because he was unarmed and not because it's not right. I don't want to comment on whether it's right or wrong because there's too much unpleasant details involved, and I'm certainly not the least bit sorry that this person is now gone. Most likely the world is much better off without him.

There's a greater issue. I think that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are nothing. Their attempts to bring in the Western world have been pathetic. Almost every natural disaster that has happened recently has put them to shame. The only thing they've achieved, and that's very bad, is scare us, and make people play their game. They are full of hatred, they want the world to fear them and they preach and welcome violence.

And the problem is that we're only helping them. Not only are people throughout the world fearing terrorists and changing their lives because of that fear, but the US is involved in big military operations focused on killing a single Mr. Nobody, and then people are celebrating his death, by which they are only giving him and his legions more credibility. It's taking part of his game of violence, and inciting even more hatred in al-Qaeda and their followers.

And then there's the presumption of innocence. Sure, legally it doesn't apply here, this is war, and this is a military operation. Morally, you could still say it's OK. But in the eyes of the people, this wasn't just a military operation, this was an assassination because of the atrocities he's committed, it's a sentence and it's a form of revenge. I can't deny that even though I'm not from the USA, I'd hardly resist to put a bullet through his head. So, in a sense, that's an execution for a crime, and one that's made an example of. And we accept it like that, without a proper trial. In my opinion, this undermines the whole concept of the presumption of innocence, and the idea that no matter what a person has done, he has a right to the fair trial before a sentence is given. In a war situation you don't have the luxury to do this, but this is an exception in that it will be central in all news right after it happens. Mr. Nobody doesn't deserve to have a central news broadcast about a state-approved execution dedicated to him, no matter how legal or justified it was.

So, in short, I don't like what happened. I'm not saying I have an alternative I prefer, I just don't like what happened. There was a huge part of me that would prefer to live in a world that's a bit more principled, even if that means one more crazy guy full of hatred alive somewhere.

That said, there was also a part of me that was happy when I heard the news.

That is about my point.

I agree killing terrorists is not the way to stop them. However killing their ideological figurehead is a good way of giving them pause. Bin Laden was a coward who sent gullible twits to do his killing for him. There are others out there and now they're wondering how safe they are.

The Romans probably thought the same about Jesus.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't think these guys are especially concerned with their own safety.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Once again (I thought this thread would have died by now) - he may have been unarmed but was *not* (by his own repeated declarations over the years) a noncombatant, therefore so long as he didn't openly surrender then according to every international law/accordance/set of rules of engagement from the Geneva Convention onwards, it's perfectly OK for soldiers doing their duty in combat to shoot him.

End of.

 

[Gaith]

I know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Shock and Awe. But so was 9/11.

As in everything, context is key. Both Britain and Germany bombed each others' cities and civilians during WW2, so the Japanese had no reason to expect any different treatment. Why aren't you bringing up the equally leveled Dresden? Because the A-bomb attacks were more iconic. Anyway, there's a strong argument to be made that Truman should have demonstrated the effects of the A-bomb on far less inhabited areas first, but the fact remains that it was but the last salvo in an ongoing declared war between two states, whereas 9/11 was a largely out-of-the-blue mass murder from a fanatical group without any civil society worthy of the name.

Your historical comparison is, in short, rubbish.

And one could also argue that an attack on the Pentagon and the financial district of New York City is a valid military strategy in a war against the United States.

We throw around phrases like "war against al Qaeda", but al Qaeda isn't a formal military, and it doesn't have a state. It's a bunch of fanatics in caves who randomly murder people in all sorts of countries, which has never been valid in any civilized legal sense.

You might be a total pacifist, and that's fine, but you clearly have no grasp of the international laws of war.

"But its purpose was solely to kill civilians, and that's gruesome and unacceptable and makes him a monster"? Well, that's Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too.

No, it isn't. That sort of wild conflation of anything would get you a failing grade in any college history course worthy of the name.

200,000 civilians vs. thousands of soldiers? That's really an ugly calculation.

Remember Q's words to Picard:

If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

We kill people as we please and then hide behind "it's war" or "they're outcasts". But if our enemies do that, we don't accept that. That's hypocritical. And as long states are hypocritical, there will never ever be peace with anyone.

Very few of us would argue that the US is perfect, and many of us would like to see it reform itself in broad and significant ways, but saying "if we don't insist on perfection, we're no better than the worst of humanity" is both morally asinine and counter-productive to your own goals of thought-provocation. Libel of an entire nation is not likely to start meaningful debates, though it may get you lots of personal attention. Which are you really after, here?

If you want to start a substantive debate, find a recent instance of a US policy you feel is genuinely harmful to internation stability, and start a thread on that. Please don't be a Glenn Beck of the left; we don't need any of his kind.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I am not saying anyone was mislead in this case, I am just saying it is possible and, for this reason, I believe that anyone deserves a trial and the right to speak for himself.

But he did speak for himself, many times. He gave a complete confession. And implicit in that confession was permission to kill him.

Oh, we're cool then since bin Laden wasn't a human being but a monster bent on the killing and destruction of Western Civilization.

So you've completely dehumanized him then? Nice of you to hand him victory in defeat.

 

[JarodRussell]

Gaith, I talk a real world event, and you quote fictional characters and feel smart by doing so. And I'm not the only one who draws 9/11 parallels. Heck, the term Ground Zero originated in the Manhattan project!

But he did speak for himself, many times. He gave a complete confession. And implicit in that confession was permission to kill him.

Boy am I glad that the laws in my country are different.
And I'm still wondering why the FBI didn't want him for 9/11.