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

[Goliath]

You will never make them understand that they are wrong if you continue to do that.

How do you suggest we make them understand that they're wrong?

We can't even make you understand that you're wrong.

In fact--I would bet money that you even think you're winning this argument. At the very least, you seem to be willing to keep on arguing indefinitely, and continue to press your views no matter how many people disagree with you.

What makes you makes you think terrorists are any more willing to change their minds than you are?

 

[Kataaran]

If he hadn't been shot he would have caused more death just by being a rallying call to all his nut-jobs. I frankly couldn't care if they shot him while he was wavign a white flag.

About the sea "burial" though; I read this on Twitter and it made me laugh:

"I did do my homework sir but the dog ate it."

 

[bigdaddy]

I wish Obama would stop lying.

1. There was a firefight.
2. He was using a woman shield.
3. He was unarmed and the woman was his wife.

Come out and just say we went in to kill the fucker, and that's what we did. No one would mind, but now it looks like a cover up.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I don't care. I also don't think that cheering at his death makes someone a bad person. I mean, come on.... Fucking Bin Laden. So they went in to kill him. Good for them.

 

[Admiral2]

Good that everyone is ignoring my question if Japan would have had the right to assault the White House to kill the President to take revenge for Hiroshima. And would the President, being the CIC, be considered a soldier or a civilian?

Fine. I'll address it.

If in 1945 the Japanese had had the werewithal to deploy a strike team across the Pacific Ocean and the Continental United States and penetrate a city protected by Marines and a facility defended by Marines and The Secret Service and managed to kill Harry S Truman over the bombings, then it would have been entirely our fault for being so lax about our security!

Why? Because in wartime it's the responsibility of the forces on either side of the conflict to protect themselves and their commanders. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It's war. We got the enemy commander. If he couldn't protect himself and his people couldn't protect him from us, then it's tough shit on him. Nobody on this side of the conflict was under any obligation to make it easier for him.

And the President Of The United States is not a soldier. He's the civilian Government Official responsible for deploying the nation's armed forces and defining their mission. Yes, that makes him the Commander-In-Chief. Being Commander-In-Chief makes him high-value target. That's why he's protected by the Secret Service and Marines.

And what if Bin Laden had been in Kansas? How would they have captured him? Navy Seals, National Guard, a SWAT team?

The FBI Hostage Rescue Team and Counter-Terrorism Division. They would have gone in with guns and they would have taken out anyone who resisted, which means OBL would be dead anyway. What's your point?

 

[JiNX-01]

If I recall correctly, the SEALS' mission was "don't take him alive."

 

[DarthTom]

As I explained earlier, bin Laden had already voluntarily surrendered his rights by committing acts of war; as did Japan in 1941.

I think from a legal point of view you're 100% correct. I was coming at it from more of a moral one.

Question: How do Christians reconcile Jesus explicit instructions for them to 'love their enemies' with the cheering of the assassination of bin Laden? The two concepts seem to me to contradict themselves.

 

[bigdaddy]

The two concepts seem to me to contradict themselves.

Which is 100% Christian sounding to me.

 

[captcalhoun]

And what if Bin Laden had been in Kansas? How would they have captured him? Navy Seals, National Guard, a SWAT team?

since the Posse Commitatus Act prevents US military assets being deployed in a law enforcement role in the US, the SEALs souldn't have done it. Nor would the Kansas NG since they likely don't have the training for a CQB terrorist take down.

Either an FBI counter-terror unit would do it, OR there would a temporary suspension of the PCA and someone like Delta Force would've done it. same as an airliner hijacking or a bank robbery with hostages.

 

[DarthTom]

Which is 100% Christian sounding to me.

. That true. It's just astonishing to me to hear people like Sean Hannity who supposedly is a devote Roman Catholic cheer on bin Laden's death. In fact yesterday he was upset the President even bothered to observe Muslim religious buriel rituals.

For everyone's reference these passages explicitly tell Christians to love your enemies. I'm assuming loving someone doesn't also meet shooting them in the eye.

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).
We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

 

[Holdfast]

I'm not devoutly Christian (though tick the box on official forms) so I'm not qualified to resolve these theological issues, but my vague memory of the Bible is that there's plenty of fire and brimstone in there (especially in the Old Testament) that would provide more than adequate scriptural support to giving God a helping hand to defeat the enemies of those who believe in him, if one were concerned about such justification.

So as a relative outsider looking in on this point, it seems a trivial non-issue to me, and more a case of looking for a clever debating point that is highly unlikely to convince anyone who hasn't already made their mind up about the people you're criticising, rather than a meaningful theological controversy.

 

[DarthTom]

I'm not devoutly Christian (though tick the box on official forms) so I'm not qualified to resolve these theological issues, but my vague memory of the Bible is that there's plenty of fire and brimstone in there (especially in the Old Testament) that would provide more than adequate scriptural support to giving God a helping hand to defeat the enemies of those who believe in him, if one were concerned about such justification.

So as a relative outsider looking in on this point, it seems a trivial non-issue to me, and more a case of looking for a clever debating point rather than a meaningful theological controversy.

I'm not trying to be 'clever,' per se but rather understand the disconnect between Christian belief systems versus the joyful reaction of shooting an unarmed man in the eye to kill him.

It seems incongruous with Christian beliefs to cheer a mans death in a belief system that preaches peace, love and forgiveness.

And in my opinion is directly related to my original question about whether it was right.

I think you've resolved the issue about if it was legally correct to shoot bin Laden so the natural progression of the conversation is if it was morally correct or not? And America for all of its diversity is a Christian nation.

 

[JarodRussell]

Revenge is wrong. And it leads into a vicious circle. So the USA take revenge because the terrorists took revenge because the USA took revenge because the terrorists took revenge because the USA took revenge because the terrorists took revenge...

 

[Holdfast]

I lack sufficient depth of knowledge of the specifically Christian aspect, though superficially see more than sufficient support from the older bits of scripture to support it, so instead I'll address the wider question of morality, given the legality question is basically resolved in favour of it being legal.

Morality is in my view an essentially self-defined human construct. There is a broad consensus across the entire world and across cultures that people who contravene the socially accepted conventions should be forced to undergo some form of penance, with a similar broad acceptance that the greater the contravention, the greater the penance.

Within that context, Bin Laden certainly contravened social convention to an extraordinary degree so it strikes me there should be an equally severe penance in order that society feels a sense of retributive justice has been done.

Given that Bin Laden certainly wasn't going to voluntarily change his mind and hand himself in, and given that he did not surrender to forces trying to capture him in order that the aforementioned justice could be served, the only other practical option available to his forces was to kill him. That feels pretty morally watertight to me on a personal level, and I think it feels broadly acceptable to a majority of people.

Given my earlier thought that morality is essentially a fairly pervasive and only slowly evolving human construct, if an pretty sizable majority of people and social structures within the system accept the outcome, that gives it its own broader moral validity.

Perhaps the above is too relativist - or realpolitik - a perspective for some, but I feel intensely relaxed about adopting it as my personal viewpoint.

 

[JarodRussell]

Given that Bin Laden certainly wasn't going to voluntarily change his mind and hand himself in, and given that he did not surrender to forces trying to capture him in order that the aforementioned justice could be served, the only other practical option available to his forces was to kill him. That feels pretty morally watertight to me on a personal level, and I think it feels broadly acceptable to a majority of people.

Any criminal who does not surrender can only be shot? I don't know his martial arts skills, but if he was UNARMED, how could he be of any danger to a group of special forces soldiers?

Did they shoot him in the head out of a reflex? Why not both kneecaps and then tackle the guy? I just can't picture the event, that's my problem. How can he be unarmed and still be so dangerous that the only option is to kill him, I don't get it. Was he longing for his briefcase and they mistook it for a weapon, what? Didn't they recognize him, killed an unarmed goon and then recognized "Oh, damn, it's him."? Was the room full with armed henchman, so they just shot everyone to make sure?

 

[Holdfast]

Given that Bin Laden certainly wasn't going to voluntarily change his mind and hand himself in, and given that he did not surrender to forces trying to capture him in order that the aforementioned justice could be served, the only other practical option available to his forces was to kill him. That feels pretty morally watertight to me on a personal level, and I think it feels broadly acceptable to a majority of people.

Any criminal who does not surrender can only be shot? I don't know his martial arts skills, but if he was UNARMED, how could he be of any danger to a group of special forces soldiers?

We've already determined he was an enemy combatant as well as a criminal, so your point is irrelevant on a legal level. On a moral level, if you imagine the scenario unfolding in real time, there really is no way the special forces could have known he didn't have a grenade or whatever else on him, and in a combat situation, if someone isn't clearly surrendering, it's perfectly morally acceptable to kill them.

Applying 20:20 hindsight is rather daft; the soldiers in real-time would not have known he was unarmed even if he didn't have a gun in his hand, and as he did not surrender, there wasn't any other option but to kill. Even wounding him or using tear gas or whatever, would not have guaranteed sufficient incapacitation.

This kill was clean, legally and morally, under any permutation of the available facts, fun though it is to argue it through.

 

[JarodRussell]

We badly need phasers on stun.

 

[Holdfast]

We badly need phasers on stun.

Yeah, that would be good, wouldn't it. Or just a broader stun field across a large area, so the whole compound could have been neutralised instantly. Tasers just aren't as consistently reliable as ST phasers, sadly! Too many things can potentially affect their effective usage.

Having said all that, it is without doubt immensely convenient on a political (and societal) level that Bin Laden was killed, not captured, and I wouldn't wish to appear to be denying that fact with any of my previous posts. It's just that in this case the political convenience of the outcome coincided with ample legal justification and a pretty solid moral foundation. That kind of alignment of the stars is a fairly rare thing, so all the more reason to be grateful.

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm not trying to be 'clever,' per se but rather understand the disconnect between Christian belief systems versus the joyful reaction of shooting an unarmed man in the eye to kill him.

It seems incongruous with Christian beliefs to cheer a mans death in a belief system that preaches peace, love and forgiveness.

I'm a Christian, I do follow those beliefs, and I'm not cheering the situation. Yes, I recognize the necessity, and I'm relieved that a threat has been removed. However, it seems like all the options were bad ones, so I can't endorse any of the options that were available-- and conversely, I can't condemn the choices that were made. (In the field, anyway. Torturing prisoners is another story.)

All we can do is move on and try to gain some wisdom from what's happened... which means NOT using this event as an excuse to mow down the next Public Enemy #1.

By gaining wisdom, I mean recognizing our responsibility in the events that led to 9/11 and other atrocities. They didn't happen in a vacuum. The U.S. and other Western countries dicked with the political and economic systems of the Middle East to their own benefit for most of the 20th century, and this is the result. I would hope that we can show some understanding and repair some of that damage. Sure, fight the terrorists if we have to, but without adopting a "kill 'em all!" attitude.

You do what is necessary and ONLY what is necessary to remove the threat. You do not treat it casually, and you do not celebrate it. And you actively try to keep such things from happening again by trying to understand the other guy and getting him to understand you. That's what it means to "love your enemy."

 

[Admiral2]

Any criminal who does not surrender can only be shot? I don't know his martial arts skills, but if he was UNARMED, how could he be of any danger to a group of special forces soldiers?

He could grab a cell phone and scream for more help. That's threat enough.

Did they shoot him in the head out of a reflex? Why not both kneecaps and then tackle the guy?

Tactical shooters are trained to put rounds in the torso and the head. "Shoot-to-wound" shit like shooting his kneecaps out only happens in Hollywood where metrosexuals with products in their hair are doing the shooting.

I just can't picture the event, that's my problem.

It's only hard to picture if you wish he were still alive. It's easy for me. SEALS fought their way in, they encountered OBL, they said stand down, he didn't, OBL goes bye-bye. Not a difficult concept.

How can he be unarmed and still be so dangerous that the only option is to kill him, I don't get it.

There are lots of innocuous-looking things he could do that would bring a world of hurt onto the team that went in. That's why you tell the target to stand down.

Was he longing for his briefcase and they mistook it for a weapon, what?

Maybe the cell phone was in the briefcase. Maybe there was a catch in the briefcase that triggered a signal to a hidden part of the building where there were reinforcements. Maybe the briefcase held an IED that would take OBL and the SEALS all at once. You don't know, and in that situation, you don't give the bad guy a chance to demonstrate it to you.

Didn't they recognize him, killed an unarmed goon and then recognized "Oh, damn, it's him."?

I'm pretty sure they recognized him better than any of us would without the intelligence briefings. It probably went: "That's him! STAND DOWN!" Negative response, Bam-Bam.

Was the room full with armed henchman, so they just shot everyone to make sure?

Doesn't matter, long as they made sure.

BTW, Jarod, I find it interesting you completely ignored my response to your Japan question after I offered it solely because you complained about nobody responding to it. (sigh) Try to do a guy a solid...