bin Laden not armed - was it right to shoot him anyways?
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Once you accept the essential moral validity of sending an assassination squad into a sovereign country's territory, the little detail of whether the target happens to be armed or not is a mere trifle. The moral bottleneck, so it speak, is already navigated before you get to that stage.
I didn't have a problem with assassinating Bin Laden before I knew he was unarmed, so I don't now that I know he was unarmed. He signed his own death warrant when he declared war on the West and waged it through force of arms.
I didn't have a problem with assassinating Bin Laden before I knew he was unarmed, so I don't now that I know he was unarmed. He signed his own death warrant when he declared war on the West and waged it through force of arms.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGTrWlzK3Ho[/yt]
Honestly, armed or not, he was a threat. And frankly, he had to be taken out that way.
This. For me, it's slightly bothersome to me that Obama said the order was capture or kill, and our people just killed him. However, I'm glad this is the story of how they killed him, not the story of how he got away because we asked Pakistan for permission first and he escaped, or we tried to take him alive and it took too long so he got away when Pakistani military showed up to confuse the situation. He was a bastard. He asked for it. He's dead. Good.
I said it elsewhere. If he could have been captured, he would of been (and possibly still reported as killed to avoid a legal circus and nutcases coming out of the woodwork for his release).
As for the methods of his death, does anyone really care? He wasn't coming out alive either way (in the long run) and he had it coming.
I think they said He was upstairs with a woman and the people downstairs had already been taken out....Considering the high priority of the hit, I'm sure any resistance whatsoever, weapon or not, was considered enough provocation to shoot.
As for the methods of his death, does anyone really care? He wasn't coming out alive either way (in the long run) and he had it coming.
I think they said He was upstairs with a woman and the people downstairs had already been taken out....Considering the high priority of the hit, I'm sure any resistance whatsoever, weapon or not, was considered enough provocation to shoot.
Yeah, once you send a strike (assassination) squad, I don't see the difference if he was armed or not. This is not Schwarzy's Predator, you know.
I disagree with the death penalty, not only on ethical ground, but also because I don't think a state should have a right to kill its own citizens. As for assassination of foreign nationals, that's extremely poor form on the diplomatic side, and it usually leads to much more unpleasantness (escalation and war). But Osama bin Laden was essentially a stateless terrorist, whose only allegiance was to his own organization. So, no problem on that ground.
Also, speaking from a practical point of view, there are instance where capturing the bad guy opens so many problems and troubles than there is no advantage to that. Taking him alive and putting him on trial would have only be a problem of giant proportion, and it would make a spectacle of his martyrdom. So, no thank you.
All considered, a quick death and an unidentified grave in the middle of the ocean was the best and simplest solution.
I disagree with the death penalty, not only on ethical ground, but also because I don't think a state should have a right to kill its own citizens. As for assassination of foreign nationals, that's extremely poor form on the diplomatic side, and it usually leads to much more unpleasantness (escalation and war). But Osama bin Laden was essentially a stateless terrorist, whose only allegiance was to his own organization. So, no problem on that ground.
Also, speaking from a practical point of view, there are instance where capturing the bad guy opens so many problems and troubles than there is no advantage to that. Taking him alive and putting him on trial would have only be a problem of giant proportion, and it would make a spectacle of his martyrdom. So, no thank you.
All considered, a quick death and an unidentified grave in the middle of the ocean was the best and simplest solution.
Yeah, hm... was Kirk right to kill Nero in Star Trek? 
The guy was directly responsible for the death of thousands.. it may have been better to catch him and put him on public trial and deconstruct him but if he made even the slightest aggressive move or an attempt to escape these kinds of soldiers are trained to kill.. better safe than sorry.
Torturing him for information would have been a) a lot more deserved and b) a lot more valuable.
Yeah, hm... was Kirk right to kill Nero in Star Trek?
To be fair, Bin Laden probably wasn't about to be sucked into a black hole at that particular moment.
Seriously, I think capturing Bin Laden and taking him back to the US would have posed too great a threat to security. In Bin Laden's case, with him being an openly admitted mass murderer with a fanatical following, due process would have been nothing more than ticking the boxes, quite possibly at the expense of lives.
I said in the other thread, we'd start seeing the "legality" questions...
The correct answer is: "who gives a fuck so long as the cunt's dead"
The correct answer is: "who gives a fuck so long as the cunt's dead"
Well none of the people in those planes were armed but they were incinerated by that asshole anyway. So who gives a fuck if he was armed? He deserved to die and he did. I'm happy.
Nope. Long as he's still fish food I'm still good with it.
He declared war on the United States, so he brought it on himself.
This is not being dismissive of legality. He is a confessed mass murderer and enemy of the state.
This is not being dismissive of legality. He is a confessed mass murderer and enemy of the state.
One of the many cases where the US will just shrug it off with some "the end justifies the means" stuff. Other countries do it regularly, too. Nobody can do anything about it, the whole idea of "public international law" or "rules of engagement" are silly anyways.
So the judicial system somehow expires in these cases? In what cases actually? Where does it begin, where does it stop?
So the judicial system somehow expires in these cases? In what cases actually? Where does it begin, where does it stop?
Wrong again, MSNBC... he had at least two arms on him. Hence, the well deserved headshot.
Was it right? No idea. I wasn't there.
Was it legal? Doesn't matter. The United States did this, and if any one ever tried to take the US to the Hague for either the shooting of bin Laden, or even the larger issue of the US practically invading Pakistan it would be met by the simple defense of "We're the US. Either play ball, or we'll pull support for the court and international law as it exists today would collapse".
Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. The US has spent a lot of money and blood for such immunity.
Was it legal? Doesn't matter. The United States did this, and if any one ever tried to take the US to the Hague for either the shooting of bin Laden, or even the larger issue of the US practically invading Pakistan it would be met by the simple defense of "We're the US. Either play ball, or we'll pull support for the court and international law as it exists today would collapse".
Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. The US has spent a lot of money and blood for such immunity.
Similar threads
