Osama bin Laden Killed

[Brant Gaede]

Hmmmm..

I'll admit, when I initially heard the news I was rather happy that he was dead.. However, whilst I didn't like bin Laden nor what he stood for I find it greatly concerning to hear now that he was unarmed at the time of his death. I believe that this requires a full investigation of the facts because if he was no real threat, then surely the value of capturing him would be better for the intelligence and moral victory..

If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.

Otherwise, we're almost as bad or maybe even just as bad as the terrorists themselves..

We're supposed to be better than that.. That's what we say right? In a democracy there aren't arbitrary killings, there aren't kangaroo courts, every person has the right to a fair trail..

That is what is supposed to make us better than them.. Well, at least I thought it did..

Now I'm just not so sure..

Maybe it was just too convenient to just kill him and tie off loose ends..

Or did he know something that the US Government didn't want him speaking about in a trial..

I find this all very concerning..

It was a legitimate act of war, LM, not murder, which is mostly a legal, not a moral concept. It might be proper to call it an assassination. Snipers do that sort of thing all the time. The U.S. targeted and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. Shot him out of the sky with long-range P-38 twin-engined fighters.

It's ironical he was mostly a de facto prisoner in that compound for six years. I read he never left it.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

It was a legitimate act of war, LM, not murder, which is mostly a legal, not a moral concept. It might be proper to call it an assassination. Snipers do that sort of thing all the time. The U.S. targeted and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. Shot him out of the sky with long-range P-38 twin-engined fighters.

It's ironical he was mostly a de facto prisoner in that compound for six years. I read he never left it.

--Brant

You can't compare the two.. He wasn't just an enemy commander..

He was wanted by the FBI and was accused of committing the greatest crime of the 21st Century that justified nations to be invaded and many thousands of people to be killed as a result including our own soldiers..

He deserved a fair trial like any other criminal that perpetrates crimes against another, especially when we use that accusation of a crime for launching wars..

Do you all forget the reaction of the 20th hijacker? Zacarias Moussaoui sometime after pleading guilty and sentenced to 6 life terms in prison for being the so called 20th hijacker? He filed to remove his guilty plea asking for a trial to prove he wasn't involved in 9/11 and stated in an affidavit in 2006:

"At the time I entered my guilty plea, my understanding of the American legal system was completely flawed"... "I was extremely surprised when the jury did not return a verdict of death because I knew that it was the intention of the American justice system to put me to death. I had thought that I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on September 11 but after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence that was presented during the trial, I came to understand that the jury process was more complex than I assumed. Because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors and that I can have the opportunity to prove that I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the Court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the September 11 plot".

Don't you see!? The Islamist narrative is that the US is engaged in a war against Islam, that the so called values of democracy and freedom are conveniently dropped when it suits the US.. That the US has no interest in justice but only wants to oppress Muslims and steal our land and forbid us from living Islamic lives..

The ultimate nail in the coffin of bin Laden's ideology would have been if he was given a fair trial and held accountable for his actions in a court of law, and being given the opportunity to speak for himself and his actions and to have a jury decide.. Everyone would have seen then that his claims about the West and the US were lies.. That he was given every chance to defend himself.. This would have won the war..

Instead, we murdered him and danced and paraded on the street about it, showing those that once only dangled their legs over Osama's side of the fence that he was right..

And it will only create more terrorists..

Great work!

Edited May 7, 2011 by Libertarian Muslim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't see where the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center received a "fair trial," much less fair warning.

I have no sympathy for the rights of Osama bin Laden, nor do I believe they are valid. Since when does American jurisprudence apply to Pakistan?

Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and the world. So he got what he sought.

This guy slaughtered Muslims, too, not just Americans.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

I didn't see where the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center received a "fair trial," much less fair warning.

I have no sympathy for the rights of Osama bin Laden, nor do I believe they are valid. Since when does American jurisprudence apply to Pakistan?

Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and the world. So he got what he sought.

This guy slaughtered Muslims, too, not just Americans.

Michael

Oh please, we've extradited many foreign monsters to US soil to try them for their crimes, we've given them their day in their court.. This should be no different, whether it was 1 victim, 3,000 victims or 3,000,000 victims..

Each person deserves their day in court and to have a fair trial and if they are found guilty based on the evidence and by a jury, then we can execute them because it's been proven, beyond all reasonable doubt that this person is guilty of their crimes.. That is what makes us better.. That is what makes our beliefs more valid and credible than theirs..

This was nothing to do with justice Michael.. It's never been about justice since 9/11.. No matter how much we say it is it'll never be true..

If it was about justice.. We would have given the Taliban the evidence that he was guilty and then they would have extradited him like they promised and avoided 10 years of war, many thousands of lives, losing our rights and spending many trillions of dollars..

But we didn't, we shouldn't have to right? Because we're America and we have all the guns.. Following the law and concepts of justice doesn't matter when it is not convenient for us..

If it were about justice we would have taken him into custody when he was found unarmed and held him accountable of his crimes in a court of law.. But we didn't, because he didn't deserve it.. A president made that decision without a court of law and a jury finding him guilty.. The president said he could be killed..

This has never been about justice, it will never be about justice.. It's about revenge and that is the only thing that it is..

It's like if a snake bites your child, you don't go out there looking for the snake that did it and check the fangs of every snake to see if it has your child's blood on it.. You go out and kill every snake you find..

If the US wants to play that way, then it should never be talking about justice.. It shouldn't even attempt to take that high ground.. It should admit that it was about revenge.. I could respect that honesty at least..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This was nothing to do with justice Michael.. It's never been about justice since 9/11.

LM,

You are not reading my posts, either. You should read them before making a statement like that.

I have been saying--over several posts now--precisely that it is not about justice.

It is about war.

In fact, I have said I am bothered by so many people saying it is about justice. Here's a direct quote from a post just a few before yours:

Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.

Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

You mentioned revenge. Maybe a little, but that isn't what I see.

I see war. pure and simple.

Once the war stops, then justice, revenge and whatnot become important. Until then, war is war.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

This was nothing to do with justice Michael.. It's never been about justice since 9/11.

LM,

You are not reading my posts, either. You should read them before making a statement like that.

I have been saying--over several posts now--precisely that it is not about justice.

It is about war.

In fact, I have said I am bothered by so many people saying it is about justice. Here's a direct quote from a post just a few before yours:

Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.

Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

You mentioned revenge. Maybe a little, but that isn't what I see.

I see war. pure and simple.

Once the war stops, then justice, revenge and whatnot become important. Until then, war is war.

Michael

Michael, I don't believe I was referring to what you said. I was referring to Obama's comments that it was about justice.

And of course it's about revenge.. It's the whole reason for the war and why we're there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

You start a message to me with "oh, please," and say you were actually talking about Obama?

Hmmmmmm...

I'll take you at your word, but I don't understand the reasoning.

Back to point. My understanding about war is not just revenge.

When you are attacked, you have to go in and dismantle the attacker's capacity to continue--infrastructure, military, etc.

If you can demoralize him, even better. Killing the leader and confiscating the leader's intelligence traditionally does a pretty good job of it.

Oh, the fanatics will bluster for a while, but let's see what happens medium-to-long term. In my opinion, Al Qaeda is going the way of the Ku Klux Klan as a major player.

Like I said, revenge is within retaliation somewhere, but I don't believe for a minute that it was the major component driving the USA military campaign against bin Laden and his cohorts. I think neutralizing him for good was the main focus.

(And I fully recognize the stupid bullying and patronizing of bloody dictators America has done in Islamic lands. I do not condone that, but that is beside my point here, which was to characterize war instead of justice.)

Michael

[anthony]

And of course it's about revenge.. It's the whole reason for the war and why we're there.

LM,

Who is this "We", you keep mentioning?

Have you switched allegiances since that protracted argument we had about Israel's right to exist?

When you stated that suicide bombing on civilians had turned out to be no longer 'tactically' effective.

Back then, you stood for Iran's ayatollahs, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Of course, you used 'justice' a lot then, too.

You applied double standards and moral equivocation then, as you are doing, now.

The 'look what the Imperialists have done to us' argument is not going to raise Western guilt for much longer. It has gotten stale.

Time to grow up and face reality.

Tony

(By the way: the 'just' thing would surely have been to kill bin Laden while fighting with a gun in his hand, so he could have had a movie ending - not go out like the craven psychopath we know he was. His "day in court"? "A fair trial"? Don't make me sick.)

Edited May 7, 2011 by whYNOT

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM,

You start a message to me with "oh, please," and say you were actually talking about Obama?

Hmmmmmm...

I'll take you at your word, but I don't understand the reasoning.

Back to point. My understanding about war is not just revenge.

When you are attacked, you have to go in and dismantle the attacker's capacity to continue--infrastructure, military, etc.

If you can demoralize him, even better. Killing the leader and confiscating the leader's intelligence traditionally does a pretty good job of it.

Oh, the fanatics will bluster for a while, but let's see what happens medium-to-long term. In my opinion, Al Qaeda is going the way of the Ku Klux Klan as a major player.

Like I said, revenge is within retaliation somewhere, but I don't believe for a minute that it was the major component driving the USA military campaign against bin Laden and his cohorts. I think neutralizing him for good was the main focus.

(And I fully recognize the stupid bullying and patronizing of bloody dictators America has done in Islamic lands. I do not condone that, but that is beside my point here, which was to characterize war instead of justice.)

Michael

I said 'oh please' to the same old excuse that somehow, the fact that the innocent victims of 9/11 not having a trial gives us the right to then deny it to those we accuse of being responsible for their death.. I also said it to the fact that you said we have no jurisdiction in Pakistan and therefore, laws don't apply.

What I was talking about regarding justice was referring to Obama's assertion that it was about justice.

In terms of killing bin Laden, he hadn't been found guilty in a court of law and he was wanted for committing the crime of terrorism and should have been brought in to face a fair trial. That was the right thing to do.

In addition to that, the intelligence value of having him alive would be profound.

For the life of me I could not understand why they would kill him when he was unarmed and so valuable. Unless of course they had something to hide which they didn't want make public in a trial like his relationship to the CIA and how he was directly trained by them and the British..

Or maybe it's something even crazier.. Maybe he's not dead at all and is locked away somewhere and they're getting the intelligence from him and doing that so that attacks don't happen to get him back.

If it's as transparent as it seems I feel that there is not justice done and that this will only further recruit more terrorists.. It's the perfect way to lose a war.

And of course it's about revenge.. It's the whole reason for the war and why we're there.

LM,

Who is this "We", you keep mentioning?

Have you switched allegiances since that protracted argument we had about Israel's right to exist?

Remember? Suicide bombing is tactically justifiable?

Then, you stood for Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Of course, you used 'justice' a lot then, too.

I didn't trust your double standards then, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It was right to do so, even though I've been proven wrong.

Reading what you have to say here, makes my blood run cold.

Tony

(Oh, yes; and the 'just' thing to do would have been to kill bin Laden with a gun in his hand, so he could have gone out like the hero we know him to be, not like a craven psychopath.)

1. I never stated that suicide bombing was justifiable tactically nor religiously. I've maintained that tactically it's counter productive because it only serves to create hate and resentment in a guerrilla war when support and propaganda is needed to win and I've also stated that suicide bombing is forbidden in Islam.

2. I don't stand with Hamas, nor Iran, nor Hezbollah. I don't condone one particular group or another because that would be condoning all of their actions.. None of them are fault free.. I don't believe in targeting non combatants and I don't believe in breaking Islamic laws to achieve goals. I may state that a particular action was justified but never give condone as a whole an organization, if I've done so in the past (which I don't believe I have) then I have recognized that such views were wrong and have changed my views and am not to proud to admit I was wrong..

If it were the case that I did believe as you assert that I do and have indeed changed my tune, surely I would have thought this would be cause for encouragement to continue on this path rather than what you've just stated.

3. You seem to fail to understand my point. We being the West assert that we are better than bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and if we are indeed better, then we don't kill unarmed people who we believe are guilty of a crime. We bring them in front of a court and give them a fair trial..

I'd have preferred that bin Laden had died fighting not because it would make a martyr out of him, but because it would show that he died when engaged in a firefight in an attempt to capture him, which was unavoidable and the best thing we could say is that we still respected his dead body when Al Qaeda didn't give the same respect to their victims.. That would have been a huge PR win..

Yet then I find out that he didn't have a gun, he wasn't using his wife as a human shield and he was instead shot in the head.. That doesn't sound like they're trying to capture him.. That's why I've called for an investigation, to make clear the facts.. Was he reaching for a gun? Was he doing something else? What level of resistance did he offer and was it necessary to shoot him in the head and kill him to protect the lives of the SEALs?

I find it so disgusting that people have no issue with the the possibility that he may have been executed for a crime that we believe he committed without facing a trial simply because we believe that he wouldn't have given us the right to a fair trial also.. Surely those that sincerely believe in natural rights and freedoms wouldn't give those up just to make themselves feel safer or out of hate or emotion.. Instead we'd stick to the right thing and give him a fair trial..

It's as Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Those that would be comfortable with executing an unarmed man who should have been held accountable in a court of law when there was ample opportunity of doing so are traitors to the ideas of liberty and natural rights.. Those people are the very proof to the radical Islamists that like bin Laden and others have stated in the Islamist narrative, the US doesn't care about standing up for the things they say they do like justice and liberty for all people in situations where it doesn't suit the US' interests..

[Brant Gaede]

War is immorality incarnate. That doesn't mean it is necessarily immoral to fight in a war. In the context of an operation the question of kill or capture is essentially trite unless capture is very important. If kill is very important then forget the capture crap. You cannot put a bow on war and make it pretty. Capture Bin Laden and put him on trial? One Seal looks at another and they laugh out loud. They have to have an operational reason for capturing him--that's the mission. Absent that, sin loi BL. You better arm yourself.

--Brant

the real question is what we--the United States--are doing in Afghanistan?

Edited May 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Richard Wiig]

Justice is the virtue of judging a man objectively and then treating him according to that which he deserves. Putting a bullet in the head of Bin Laden was indeed justice.

[BaalChatzaf]

War is immorality incarnate. That doesn't mean it is necessarily immoral to fight in a war. In the context of an operation the question of kill or capture is essentially trite unless capture is very important. If kill is very important then forget the capture crap. You cannot put a bow on war and make it pretty. Capture Bin Laden and put him on trial? One Seal looks at another and they laugh out loud. They have to have an operational reason for capturing him--that's the mission. Absent that, sin loi BL. You better arm yourself.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

Wm. T. Sherman

Wm. T. Sherman is one of my heroes. Along with Curtis Lemay who burned Japan to the ground, Bomber Harris who made a rubble heap out of Germany. Sherman understood the nature of war and he realized that to fight it successfully one must savage the civilians. Sherman burned Georgia to the ground. He bent their rails, set fire to their crops, wrecked their houses and did not leave a bed for civilians to sleep in.

To this very day, Sherman's name in Dixie is a curse and a byword. They hate him down there after one hundred and fifty years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 7, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

According to the stories I have read, bib Laden was going for his guns that were nearby when he was shot--but he was acting in a confused manner. He also threw one of his wives at a Seal.

You are going on a premise that an unarmed man was executed by the military almost like in a firing squad--and treating this as if it were a fact.

The stories I have been reading and hearing from credible sources contradict that understanding.

Michael

[Guyau]

. . .

If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.

Otherwise, we're almost as bad or maybe even just as bad as the terrorists themselves..

. . .

Mr. [ * ] (self-proclaimed “Libertarian Muslim”),

No, you are not yet a libertarian. And my memory is not so poor as to forget that you are not an American. Your use of “we” is a lie. Your words are . . . . Yes, you succeed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . .

Bob Mac,

I do not think we were under any moral or strategic obligation to refrain from simply assassinating bin Laden, armed or unarmed. We have good and public evidence that he did the deed. We know he did it. We wanted him dead for it. (By we I know I exclude some of our citizens, but the rest of us—the vast majority—wanted done what was done, and we were right to want it.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

While Preparing Invasion – Time 2001

"I think we'll end up paralyzing a big chunk of Afghanistan with air strikes, and then move rapidly to do a decisive takedown," a U.S. Army general tells Time. If that is the game, a nighttime blizzard of cruise missiles and bombs would be followed by U.S. commandos—probably including elements of the 82nd Airborne, backed by élite Army Rangers and Delta Force members—all trying to capture or kill bin Laden. "[bush] won't be taken seriously if he tries to do it all from the air," says an Army officer of his Commander in Chief. "We can do a lot of things with our jets and missiles, but we can't find a specific person. You need boots on the ground to do that."

Getting boots to the right place is easier said than done. For one thing, such an operation doesn't play to the strengths of the U.S. military; 12 years ago, it took 24,000 troops 14 days to find Manuel Noriega in the relatively benign environment of Panama. "We're good at hitting big, immovable things," says an Air Force general. "We don't do so well when they move around and they're small." Both are true of bin Laden. "He is the hardest man ever to get to," says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland. To avoid being spotted by satellites, bin Laden and his associates use human couriers to relay messages, who sometimes travel on foot rather than in cars. He has been extra careful since Chechen secessionist leader Dzhokar Dudayev was blown up by a Russian rocket while using a satellite phone. Though the CIA has often been criticized for its failure to infiltrate Islamic fundamentalist groups, Ranstorp is more forgiving. "The U.S. has expended as much energy and time as it feasibly could to get close to bin Laden. But he's very well versed in counterintelligence and in how to protect himself."

And even if the special forces get to him, what then? This isn't a case, in the sort of language loved by military folks, in which you just cut off the head of the snake and let the body wither.

2001 – Relishing the Deed

2009 – Gen McChrystal

2011 –

Officials described the reaction of the special operators when they were told a number of weeks ago that they had been chosen to train for the mission.

“They were told, ‘We think we found Osama bin Laden, and your job is to kill him,’” an official recalled.

The SEALs started to cheer.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[9thdoctor]

I suspect they had rules of engagement in place geared to insure that no Seals were killed in the operation. Imagine if it got out that they chose to send in the Seals instead of blowing up the building, and one or more were killed as a result.

I doubt we’ll ever know for sure what really happened (people are already joking about the 72 versions), but try visualizing how the people in the house had to act in order to not be shot. Instant submission is my guess. I bet they were particularly concerned that the house itself was rigged with explosives.

If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.

To the bin Laden family? If anyone should be paying restitution, there’s 3,000 plus in the US alone that have restitution coming.

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM,

According to the stories I have read, bib Laden was going for his guns that were nearby when he was shot--but he was acting in a confused manner. He also threw one of his wives at a Seal.

You are going on a premise that an unarmed man was executed by the military almost like in a firing squad--and treating this as if it were a fact.

The stories I have been reading and hearing from credible sources contradict that understanding.

Michael

There's been many reports Michael, each report puts bin Laden as being less and less aggressive.. They initially said he was shooting at the SEALs and so the SEALs shot back and killed him, they then said he was going to grab a gun so they shot him.. The most recent story states that when asked whether he was reaching for a gun or not is not that he was reaching for a gun, but that he didn't surrender.. So they won't even say that he was reaching for a gun now..

I find it very concerning that people would accept that in the 30 minutes of the raid leading up to him coming face to face with the SEALs that Osama bin Laden did not arm himself when he had ample opportunity to do so in that time as there was a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a Makarov pistol in the room with him. If he wanted to grab a firearm then surely he'd have done so long before coming face to face with them, yet he didn't. He peered at them from the balcony and went back inside, they followed him in, they shot his wife in the leg and then shot him in the head and possibly the chest..

I agree that the facts all aren't 100% clear, but this is all rather suspicious..

Nevertheless, I do believe that there should be some investigation as to the circumstances of his death and whether he was reaching for a firearm or not, if he was not then I see no real justification for shooting him as he was not a threat..

It brings into question the White House's claim that they were trying to capture him.. SEALs and in particular this SEAL team, SEAL Team 6 are incredibly well trained in this type of operation and definitely know how to capture people, they're experts at capture and extraction of high value and hostile targets.. If they wanted to do so and he wasn't reaching for a firearm then they'd have done so.. The fact that the reports are now not saying he reached for a firearm but that he was shot anyway indicates to me that their intention was to kill him, not to capture him..

Edited May 7, 2011 by Libertarian Muslim

[George H. Smith]

Stephen,

I read the links and there is something bothering me in spades.

I keep hearing people talk about killing bin Laden as an act of justice. For instance, Journo wrote:

The killing of Bin Laden is a tremendous act of justice — for the victims of 9/11, for all Americans. An overdue act of justice...

There is great danger here--one where we can go around the globe dispensing "justice" as we define it and redefine it to suit other conveniences.

Kelley was more precise, but first a quibble with his view. He claims that the true enemy is "nihilism" I disagree. I believe bullying has more far more weight. But setting that aside, here is what he wrote:

The United States and its allies must cease the policy of trying to counter terrorism by negotiation. Negotiation is an exercise of reason that civilized people use to resolve their differences. We are not dealing with civilized people.

Notice he did not use the term "justice."

Justice is a concept of civilized people and he rejects terrorists as civilized.

I acknowledge that I am extending his statement to a place he may not have, but I believe precision and need for clarity warrant it.

Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.

Killing bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

If you pretend it was an act of justice, you do two things:

1. You weaken the concept of war, and

2. You augment the concept of justice to the point where bullies can use it to intimidate others just like they use religion.

Osama bin Laden was at war with the USA when he first attacked and he was still at war when our soldiers went in and killed him.

We were participating in a de facto war. We were not punishing him according to a scale of different punishments based on his "crimes." We killed him because he attacked us and killed our citizens. We killed an enemy. And we sent a message to the world: Do not mess with us. That's a big honking no no with a hell of a nasty reaction attached to it.

That's not justice. That's showing people that we have a bigger club than they do.

I see nothing wrong with this, too. When an enemy attacks you viciously, you kill him. Especially if he doesn't stop. That's what you're supposed to do. Then you can get back to some kind of system where the word "justice" means something other than a bromide for macho declarations.

I see great danger in muddying the waters here.

War is one thing. Justice is another. There's a small overlap, I agree, but the fundamental principle in this case is that we killed our enemy, not that we brought a criminal to justice. So I suppose the precise manner of saying this is that we killed an active enemy in a de facto war, and, as a result, an eye for an eye form of justice happened. But that's not why we did it. We did it to get rid of him for once and for all--and only after that, worry about where justice fits in.

It scares me that Obama is calling this justice. It scares me even more that so many people are agreeing with him.

I foresee a great amount of injustice that will be perpetrated--by the USA and by others--under this hellish conceptual bait-and-switch.

I dearly hope I am wrong.

Michael

Killing bin Laden was an act of war, and it was an act of justice. There is no incompatibility between the two concepts.

The relationship between bin Laden and American citizens corresponds perfectly to the state of war described by John Locke in Chapter III of his Second Treatise:

Sect. 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Locke's state of nature (i.e, social relationships not governed by a common authority or arbiter) differs from that of Hobbes in two crucial respects: First, the state of nature can be a state of war, according to Locke, but it need not be; it can also be a state of peace.

Second, contrary to Hobbes, Locke argues that the concept justice applies in a state of nature, both in peace and in war. This is so because all rights are ultimately individual rights, and in a state of nature each person has a right to execute (i.e., enforce) the natural law of self-defense, which is a corollary of the right of self-preservation.

To argue, as you do, that "Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law" is to maintain, in effect, that justice is a creation of government. This runs contrary to the entire Lockean tradition, including the philosophy of America's Founders.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

. . .

If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.

Otherwise, we're almost as bad or maybe even just as bad as the terrorists themselves..

Stephen, please edit LM's name out of your post. The reason is so it won't come up on search. This is why his posting name was changed by him and Michael. He is a Muslim in a small country.

--Brant

thank you

Edited May 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Killing bin Laden was an act of war, and it was an act of justice. There is no incompatibility between the two concepts.

George,

Isn't that basically what I said?

I don't know why my meaning is so difficult to get across. I am not talking about exclusionary concepts. I am talking about which one comes first as justification.

If we make a case that going into another country with our military without permission and killing a person there is--primarily--an act of justice and not an act of war, we will deserve the politicians we get--including all the foreign wars that come with them.

To argue, as you do, that "Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law" is to maintain, in effect, that justice is a creation of government. This runs contrary to the entire Lockean tradition, including the philosophy of America's Founders.

If we are going to argue political theory, OK. But I doubt the Seals went over to Pakistan to practice political theory or teach it. And I doubt when Obama says, "Justice is served," with bin Laden's death, he is talking about political theory.

In the public mind, I believe the idea most people hold about bin Laden's death justice-wise is execution as punishment for a crime. A wrong was avenged--and that's what courts and prisons and execution chambers are for. That's what I believe Obama means, too. So I discussed the concept of justice as Obama used it--and how that morphs into propaganda to justify future violent interventions abroad, not how the Founding Fathers used it in political theory.

But if you want to talk about Obama and political theory, that morphing into propaganda is the political theory Obama cares about, and the one I fear. When we can say, "We are invading a country and killing a person, not primarily as an act of war, but primarily as an act of justice," I believe we will be strongly on the road to serfdom (to coin a phrase...).

We can protest against war and get some results, for as little as they may seem. Folks know what war means. But how the hell is anyone going to to protest against justice and pull it off?

Talk about Orwell's revenge!

I don't mind the idea of justice happening as an outcome of an act of war. I do mind justice being used as a surrogate concept for "act of war." I see that as a dangerous package deal concept.

But I admit I have to study the history of the political theory of justice a lot more to argue it with any level of intelligence.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

LM should understand that soldiers are primarily trained to destroy and kill. That's the default. In the context of an operation that's what they usually try to do. They may be given a rescue mission--and kill any who try to stop them. They may be asked to gather intelligence behind enemy lines and avoid fighting, but they'll go in with assault rifles--guess why for. They may be asked to capture, not kill, Bin Laden. Obviously they weren't, but if that were the mission everybody between BL and them would be immediately killed out of hand--no surrenders accepted--until they got their hands on him and had him under their control. Why? So they wouldn't be delayed. The same thing on the way out to the extraction.

After more than 40 years I still have that kill mind-set. It is not the mind-set of a properly trained police officer nor most never-been-in-the-military civilians. Now, this mind-set varies in intensity throughout the ranks and is probably strongest in the Marines, followed by the army. Many military are support personnel and their mind-sets are more pacific, less warrior like. But even those, because of their initial training, can pick up a rifle and blast away if necessary. In fact, those are least capable of doing anything other than kill in combat because their skills are so poor. They aren't sent into combat; combat comes to them, sometimes. They aren't sent to capture anybody. Etc.

If you are a crew-member on a B-29 on the mission to firebomb Tokyo in March, 1945, you know you are going to be part of the killing of tens of thousands mostly civilians, men, women and children, and you're doing it for humanitarian reasons. This is a moral perversion made right by the context of fighting a war that needed to be ended as soon and as expeditiously as possible. The wider context is that the United States shouldn't have been at war with Japan but goaded Japan into it so the US could get into WWII and fight Nazi Germany. There was in turn an even wider context but these contexts, whatever they were, beg the point that the fighting of a war in any just sense of the word means doing what needs doing without equivocation. If I had fought in WWII I could have been the pilot of the B-29 that dropped the big one on Hiroshima. In a way that would have made me a casualty of war, a walking wounded all the way to my eventual grave. Why would I do this? Because somebody was going to fly that plane. Why should I fob it off on somebody else? If there be evil there it isn't just on the plane's crew, but all who participate in the war effort all the way back to the civilians working in the factories making bullets and guns to be placed in your hands with triggers for you to pull. If you don't then pull those triggers, WTF are you doing there?

I think of war as the strongest collective insanity imaginable, so terrible because it is so focused on death and destruction to the exclusion of most else. This is why I so despise Bush II, who, unlike his father, had never seen war but was so easily committed to it, along with his G--Damn draft-dodging VP.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Killing bin Laden was an act of war, and it was an act of justice. There is no incompatibility between the two concepts.

George,

Isn't that basically what I said?

This is not what I understood you to mean, given statements like "Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice."

It is somewhat peculiar even to call the killing of bin Laden an "act of war." This expression is normally used to signify an act that initiates a state of war that did not previously exist, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War, as Locke indicates, is a condition, or state of affairs, not a single act. We should therefore say that the killing of bin Laden was a just act that occurred within a previously existing state of war.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

We can say killing BL was an act of "justice," but you don't send soldiers in harms' way for that. Justice from that is just gravy. That's natural, not legal justice. It was a military operation to make possible further military operations against whom-we-understand-to-be-the-enemy. Right now the DOD is bragging about all the intelligence gathered. I assume this isn't BS and was part of the mission from the start.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

It was a legitimate act of war, LM, not murder, which is mostly a legal, not a moral concept. It might be proper to call it an assassination. Snipers do that sort of thing all the time. The U.S. targeted and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. Shot him out of the sky with long-range P-38 twin-engined fighters.

It's ironical he was mostly a de facto prisoner in that compound for six years. I read he never left it.

--Brant

You can't compare the two.. He wasn't just an enemy commander..

He was wanted by the FBI and was accused of committing the greatest crime of the 21st Century that justified nations to be invaded and many thousands of people to be killed as a result including our own soldiers..

He deserved a fair trial like any other criminal that perpetrates crimes against another, especially when we use that accusation of a crime for launching wars..

The U.S. military is not run by the FBI or answerable to it. The FBI, on the other hand, might do the bidding of the military in some situations as per the instructions of the President, such as being "wanted." It can "wanted" all it wants without those instructions, but if the Seals had captured Bin Laden you won't find the FBI banging on the door of the DOD demanding his custody. Some stupid Federal judge might make such a demand, risking impeachment, but to no effect.

--Brant

he deserved worse than he got

Edited May 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

It was a legitimate act of war, LM, not murder, which is mostly a legal, not a moral concept. It might be proper to call it an assassination. Snipers do that sort of thing all the time. The U.S. targeted and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. Shot him out of the sky with long-range P-38 twin-engined fighters.

It's ironical he was mostly a de facto prisoner in that compound for six years. I read he never left it.

--Brant

You can't compare the two.. He wasn't just an enemy commander..

He was wanted by the FBI and was accused of committing the greatest crime of the 21st Century that justified nations to be invaded and many thousands of people to be killed as a result including our own soldiers..

He deserved a fair trial like any other criminal that perpetrates crimes against another, especially when we use that accusation of a crime for launching wars..

Do you all forget the reaction of the 20th hijacker? Zacarias Moussaoui sometime after pleading guilty and sentenced to 6 life terms in prison for being the so called 20th hijacker? He filed to remove his guilty plea asking for a trial to prove he wasn't involved in 9/11 and stated in an affidavit in 2006:

"At the time I entered my guilty plea, my understanding of the American legal system was completely flawed"... "I was extremely surprised when the jury did not return a verdict of death because I knew that it was the intention of the American justice system to put me to death. I had thought that I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on September 11 but after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence that was presented during the trial, I came to understand that the jury process was more complex than I assumed. Because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors and that I can have the opportunity to prove that I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the Court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the September 11 plot".

Don't you see!? The Islamist narrative is that the US is engaged in a war against Islam, that the so called values of democracy and freedom are conveniently dropped when it suits the US.. That the US has no interest in justice but only wants to oppress Muslims and steal our land and forbid us from living Islamic lives..

The ultimate nail in the coffin of bin Laden's ideology would have been if he was given a fair trial and held accountable for his actions in a court of law, and being given the opportunity to speak for himself and his actions and to have a jury decide.. Everyone would have seen then that his claims about the West and the US were lies.. That he was given every chance to defend himself.. This would have won the war..

Instead, we murdered him and danced and paraded on the street about it, showing those that once only dangled their legs over Osama's side of the fence that he was right..

And it will only create more terrorists..

Great work!

The "affidavit"--I'd bet the ranch--was written by his slick American lawyer.

--Brant

Edited May 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

You are justified in using your "we", LM, if you feel you are now an American, regardless of where you live. Being an American is primarily a state of mind.

Do you think of yourself as an American? If you don't, then "we" is not appropriate here the way you've been using it.

--Brant