Are we taking up assassination as a national policy??

[Francis (imported)]

I think that the US is over-reacting and getting into somewhat deep water with the current round of removal of heads of state. Attempts made on Gadaffi, abandonment of Mubarak after he strongly supported us in the Middle East and now the latest killing of Usama bin Laden which whatever you want to call it was an assanation also since he was unarmed and unable to do anything about being collared and hauled off into the helicopters. It is not a good precedent because what goes around comes around. How long before the wheel comes around 180 degrees and US presidents are attacked following the precedent we are setting?

Usama could have and should have been taken alive. Even the worst murderer is given his day in court and wouldn't it have been better to haul him back and run him through a very public legal process and then hang him?? Or put him in a dungeon for life? Whatever was done should have been done with due process which didn't happen. The outcome would have been much the same but justice would have been seen to be done.

About the only sensible things that were done were to bury him at sea and not telling the Pakistanis given the leakysystems they have there. Shooting him in cold blood when he was not armed, front of his wife and daughter, doesn't set well with me. Dont get me wrong, I think he was a dangerous demagogue and needed to be stopped but the way it was done was in fact an assassination and not according to any rule of law that I know of.

[moi621 (imported)]

The difference between targeting Castro back in the day and Usama is a sort of acknowledgment of a state of war with Al Quaida that never existed with Cuba.

Killing Usama was an act of war, not assassination or murder.

And I still want a picture.

Moi

[Riverwind (imported)]

Bin-Laden signed his death warrant on 9/11, no trial necessary. As for shooting him, his son, and one of his wives who happened to be there, that is called Collateral Damage. Oh Well.

It does not matter what other countries think about this action, I don't think any American, right or left has a problem with what took place and as far as we are concerned, the right action was taken. THE SOB is DEAD.

As for a picture, I will send you one of me if that will help you moi?

I agree with the president not to release the pictures, if the president and CIA and our military say he is dead and was feed to the fish that is good enough for me, its time to move on. It keeps his picture out of the tabloids for the next 30 years. They are already posting them and will be called never before seen, and so much more crap. With the president saying they will not be released you know the ones that will be out there are FAKES. Besides, who wants there kids to see that shit, or in my case my grandkids.

One thing that did strike me was that he spent a lot of money to build himself a prison where he could live with at least one of his wives and a faithful son but a prison none the same.

River

[SplitDik (imported)]

I'm against death penalty mainly because of the chance of an innocent person being put to death. However, in this case, not only is it well-known that he was guilty, he admitted it and even relished it and used it to incite people to further acts of violence. So I think the verdict of guilty and the application of a death penalty are fairly sound in this case.

Secondly, sometimes you have to think of the path of least harm. Gadafi is an example -- if he gets taken out, then all the civilians, rebels, and even army guys that are losing their lives will be safe again. It is really easy for heads of state to waste a lot of lives based on some strategic goal.

Thirdly, in cases of war obviously taking out the leader is a primary and legitimate goal. So the key here is to make it clear that it is a war. In case of Gadafi, I don't think it is as clear. In case of Osama, even though he didn't represent a nation, he did represent a group of people that were overtly at war (even though there is not really a process of declaring war on non-nation groups).

Fourthly, does it really matter to the dead person whether they were targeted or not? Think of all the nameless insurgents killed every day in Afghanistan. What is the difference between saying "it is okay to kill Osama" versus "it is okay to kill any insurgent"?

Anyway, my point is that killing an individual like Osama is justified from the perspective of criminal capital punishment, from perspective of solving a social problem with least harm, and from perspective of war principles.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Nicely stated.

River

[Arab Nights (imported)]

While I disagree with Frances' opinion, I am going to leap to the defense.

When working overseas, I try very hard not to get into arguments about politics or religion. I have a job to do, and those are not in the job description. However, a time or two I got pushed and pushed and finally got fed up with somebody ragging about the U.S. In exasperation I asked if they agreed that the reality of life is that there is always is one country in the world that is the most powerful. They agreed to that. Then I asked if the U.S. was so bad, what country would be better at being the most powerful - Russia, France, Iraq, China, what country? Well, the answer is sort of hemming and hawing and in the end there is no answer. The reason I could do that is that we do have people here like Francis always pushing to be morally better and do not let us do whatever without answering some questions.

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

If we had captured Osama the forces of evil would have kidnapped many innocent people to use as ransom, possibly including your mother Francis.

What would you do then, give him back or watch your mother tortured to death on Al Jazera?

We have assassinated plenty of enemies in the past; a Japanese Admiral, the

president of chile, we tried on Hitler. And as I recall Saddam trying to get G.H.W. was what got shrub all eager to get Saddam.

And, if you lived in Pakistan would you want to take credit for helping get Osama? It's better to look like a bumbling idiot than to claim you helped kill the local hero.

[Losethem (imported)]

Usama could have and should have been taken alive. Even the worst murderer is given his day in court and wouldn't it have been better to haul him back and run him through a very public legal process and then hang him?? Or put him in a dungeon for life? Whatever was done should have been done with due process which didn't happen. The outcome would have been much the same but justice would have been seen to be done.

Francis, how would you feel if Osama bin Laden had attacked Australia and taken down famous landmarks such as the Sydney Opera House or the Harbor bridge and while doing so he killed 3,000 of your fellow Australians? I know these are not the only landmarks in Australia, but I think you can see my point.

As for having a trial for OBL, he had a 9 1/2 year trial. In it he gloated about his misdeeds and challenged the world to come get him.

Well, someone came and got him.

Those in the world that are complaining that the United States ignored the rule of law need to shut up. The US gave 9 1/2 years for the rule of law to work, and all that happened was this person went uncaptured, likely being tipped off when the US would share information with Pakistan. I think if Pakistan had made any credible overture to getting this job done, the US would have let them go do it. The fact of the matter is Pakistan kept screaming sovereignty for nearly a decade while at the same time doing little more than paying lip service to getting this job done.

The US got tired of waiting on, and watching, Pakistan harbor a mass murderer.

OBL got what he had coming to him. Justice was done. End of story.

--LT

[Riverwind (imported)]

Assassination is a word that says the person killed did not deserve it, OBL did deserve it so lets call it the US Navy Seals took this asshole out and feed him to the fish. Assassination is to good a word to use on such a scumbag.

Pakistan is all up in arms about what we did, OH WELL, I wonder if they will refuse our aid now?

River

[BossTamsin (imported)]

Ok. Let me preface: I'm completely opposed to the death penalty.

Moving on...

I really have no idea if the UN has a clue about what it's doing in Libya, but it should be noted that the mission is from the UN, not just the US. I do believe the house that was bombed was also being used as a C&C centre for the military, and it was not a direct attempt upon the guy's life. (If the UN were gunning for him, I like to think he'd have turned up dead by now.)

I figure the 'abandonment' of Mubarak was politically about the only thing that could be done. His own people rose up against him, calling for freedom. To have sided with him would have resulted, at best, in an Egyptian version of Tienanmen Square. Therefore, people lined up to 'abandon' him and call for his resignation. Yes, Obama was in the chorus. So was Julia Gillard (PM of Australia), however. Does this mean that Australia is taking up assassination as well?

Now then, for Osama (I refuse to go along with the 'rebranding')...

As much as I would have liked to see a trial, realistically there was no chance in hell of it ever happening. For one, if you think retaliations are going to be bad because of his death, that's nothing compared to the extremes some of his people would go to in attempting to gain his release. Two, no trial was needed, since he'd spent years not only proclaiming his guilt to the world, but carrying out further acts of terrorism, for which he also openly claimed responsibility.

Then I asked if the U.S. was so bad, what country would be better at being the most powerful - Russia, France, Iraq, China, what country?

Of course, there is only one clear answer to this:



Let the Canadian Empire begin!