Bin Laden has been killed

[Zarathustra]

Looks like the same conversation in multiple threads ...

Cail, is there any legal way to have killed OBL? What would have been necessary to make it legal?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It's never OK. That's the problem. Because this was done to such an unsympathetic target, public opinion is with the president.

This is a really dangerous precedent.

The point Cail is making--and this is the point with which I agree--is that allowing the President to decide who becomes the subject of a kill order by himself, with no accountability whatsoever, is extremely dangerous.

Unlike law enforcement agencies, the military doesn't need proof that you are a "bad guy". All they need is an order of "shoot on sight" and you are dead. Yes, military personnel are required to disobey illegal orders but what if there is reasonable doubt about whether an order is illegal?

[Tjol]

It is an impeachable offense. No one will push it though, as it'd be political suicide Impeaching the man who ordered the death of OBL.

Should a president, with congress's approval be able to declare war? If you think so, what is the distinction between government approving violence that may result in deaths plural and government approving violence that may lead to a death singular?

It's never OK. That's the problem. Because this was done to such an unsympathetic target, public opinion is with the president.

This is a really dangerous precedent.

The point Cail is making--and this is the point with which I agree--is that allowing the President to decide who becomes the subject of a kill order by himself, with no accountability whatsoever, is extremely dangerous.

Unlike law enforcement agencies, the military doesn't need proof that you are a "bad guy". All they need is an order of "shoot on sight" and you are dead. Yes, military personnel are required to disobey illegal orders but what if there is reasonable doubt about whether an order is illegal?

If the military could have captureed Osama Bin Laden, why wouldn't they have? Who ever it was that fired the kill shot is never going to see any glory for it, because his or her name will never be known.

Are we really suggesting that Obama said bring him back dead, rather than bring him back dead or alive? It's not enough to save Obama politically, this isn't Clinton bombing an aspirin factory to distract attention from lewinsky-gate, why would Obama give the order to bring him back dead or not at all... what purpose does it serve for Obama?

[Vraith]

It's never OK. That's the problem. Because this was done to such an unsympathetic target, public opinion is with the president.

This is a really dangerous precedent.

The point Cail is making--and this is the point with which I agree--is that allowing the President to decide who becomes the subject of a kill order by himself, with no accountability whatsoever, is extremely dangerous.

That's a valid point/concern. Now show me a "kill order." And show me no accountability. Because everything about the situation AFAICT, falsifies both of those as actual facts.

[Cail]

It is an impeachable offense. No one will push it though, as it'd be political suicide Impeaching the man who ordered the death of OBL.

Should a president, with congress's approval be able to declare war? If you think so, what is the distinction between government approving violence that may result in deaths plural and government approving violence that may lead to a death singular?

Of course I think so, but that's not what happened is it? "The government" didn't approve this, Obama said, "kill this guy", and sent the SEALs out to deliver his justice.

That should send a chill down everyone's spine. The fact that it happened to such an unsympathetic target makes the bitter pill much easier to swallow.

Z - I don't know. I'd feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if there had been a warrant issued, Congressional approval, or something other than the president putting out a hit on the guy, and having the military carry it out.


Vraith - Good enough for you?

On April 29, he authorized a Navy SEALs air raid on a compound in northern Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden, opting for a risky ground operation rather than a safer attack from the air specifically so that bin Laden could be physically identified as being killed.

[Zarathustra]

Z - I don't know. I'd feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if there had been a warrant issued, Congressional approval, or something other than the president putting out a hit on the guy, and having the military carry it out.

From the other thread:

“There are targeted killing issues where the legal background is complicated,” says Brookings fellow (and New Republic contributor) Benjamin Wittes. But, as it turns out, “[t]his isn’t one of them.” One week after the September 11 attacks, Wittes explains, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-40, in which Congress authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” No one fit this description more closely than Osama bin Laden. (By contrast, the NATO missile strike in Tripoli that allegedly killed Muammar Qaddafi’s son Seif Al Arab and three of his young grandchildren this past weekend has elicited greater controversy, because the U.N. resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, among many other differences from 107-40, did not include an authorization of force against Qaddafi or his family.)

link

Looks like this did have Congressional approval. It seems so obvious to me that we can kill members of Al Qaeda who planned 9/11, that I can't believe it's even controversial. Seems like Obama bashing to me.

Don't get me wrong, if it's illegal, I'd love to see Obama impeached. But I just can't fathom our laws preventing us from using deadly force to defend ourselves against terrorists, much less the most wanted terrorist on the planet.

[Cail]

Killing OBL in his bedroom is emphatically not "using deadly force to defend ourselves against terrorists".

That law you keep posting shouldn't pass constitutional muster.

[Ur Dead]

Obama had no choice in this matter. He had to order the action.
If he didn't, he would have dug his own grave, got into the coffin, dropped
himself into the hole and buried himself as far as a try at a second term. That
info would have gotten out that he did nothing. (It took only one guy to expose four plumbers)

As far a declaring him dead. It believable. It political suicide to say one thing and find out you were wrong. Especially with Washington politics. They made sure with photos, one wife's id'ing the body and DNA.

Dropping the body in the drink, well thats dam good stragety. We buried the body according to islam. Plus we make the statement.. He's fishbait and we're going after the new #1.

Eric Robert Rudolph took 8 years to capture and he was hiding in the US all that time. Not bad considering that OBL wasn't hiding in the US.
And as far as shooting him, well I preferred they shoot him.
Better than having a a frenzy feeding circus of media, political wranging and international speculation. Plus 2 bullets cost a lot less.

He's dead Jim...

Now it time to have the new OBL/UBL drink..
2 shots with a splash of water.

[Zarathustra]

Killing OBL in his bedroom is emphatically not "using deadly force to defend ourselves against terrorists".

He was a terrorist. Killing him defends us against any additional terrorism from him. What am I missing? Which room should he have been in for this to be national defense? You don't think he can plan attacks in his bedroom? He can only do that in a cave? Must he be caught in the act of planning another 9/11 at the time we're killing him? Or is that not enough, either? He must be lighting a fuse or flying a plane? What would it take for this to be national defense?

That law you keep posting shouldn't pass constitutional muster.

In your opinion. However, it's the law, so enforcing it is by definition legal. We have a process for determining the constitutionality of laws, and as far as I know the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it, one way or the other. Until then, it's the law.

Why would it be unconstituional for Congress to authorize the President to use force against those who attacked us? Isn't that exactly how it's supposed to happen (and why Obama's Libya war isn't legal)?

[Vraith]

Vraith - Good enough for you?

On April 29, he authorized a Navy SEALs air raid on a compound in northern Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden, opting for a risky ground operation rather than a safer attack from the air specifically so that bin Laden could be physically identified as being killed.

That is their summary of it. Though I agree the reason to go with ground troops was to be certain of identity, everything everyone important has said indicates that capture was a mission option.
He wouldn't be dead if the defenders didn't fight. [or maybe he would, and then I'd be arguing the same as you].
And really, taken to the very end, this would mean EVERY mission is an assassination/kill order. Every ordinary arrest warrant issued here is, too...your job is to get them, if they shoot at you, you are authorized to kill them.

[Tjol]

It is an impeachable offense. No one will push it though, as it'd be political suicide Impeaching the man who ordered the death of OBL.

Should a president, with congress's approval be able to declare war? If you think so, what is the distinction between government approving violence that may result in deaths plural and government approving violence that may lead to a death singular?

Of course I think so, but that's not what happened is it? "The government" didn't approve this, Obama said, "kill this guy", and sent the SEALs out to deliver his justice.

That should send a chill down everyone's spine. The fact that it happened to such an unsympathetic target makes the bitter pill much easier to swallow.

I don't see Obama making a 'Kill that guy' command. I see him making a 'go ahead' command or perhaps a 'yes if he resists capture, you may fire at him' command.

Much like I differentiate capital punishment from murder, I differentiate between a president attempting to capture a leader of a rogue military force and a president randomly having US citizens assassinated. (For moral relatavists, capital punishment is in response to an illegal action, murder typically is not... only exception are those killings that society doesn't sanction, but that are in fact a response to a crime)

Because I make that differentiation, which I don't see any reason not to, it doesn't send a chill down my spine. They aren't the same thing.

[Avatar]

Even Fox News is calling the operation illegal.

Of course they will say this--it is the job of Fox News to oppose Obama by any means necessary.

That was what I thought when I read the post too.

I do notice today in the media that a lot's being made of OBL's being unarmed (although he was "resisting capture") - I cannot understand for the life of me why this fact has been made public? Surely the publicising of this is just adding more oil to what is potentially already a very dangerous fire... why weren't such details suppressed? I'm not asking to be actively lied to, but you'd have thought that this sort of information should have been kept under wraps and just not mentioned.

Because there were witnesses. Including his 12-year old daughter, who is saying that he was captured, and was then executed in front of her.

Osamas Daughter Watches Unarmed Father Killed

The claims, reported by the al-Arabiya network, contradict early statements from the White House that the al-Qaeda chief was killed trying to resist capture.

But they came as Leon Panetta, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, admitted that the Navy Seals who raided Bin Laden's compound in the town of Abbottabad in the early hours of Monday made no great effort to persuade him to surrender.

"The authority here was to kill Bin Laden," Panetta told PBS television. "Obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him," Panetta said.

Panetta later told NBC television that the opportunity to capture Bin Laden alive "never developed".

There have been conflicting accounts from Washington on the details of the operation, raising suspicions that the Seals had indeed been on a shoot-to-kill mission.

The White House said initially that Bin Laden had used his wife as a human shield and had been armed. But, in fact, a woman killed during the operation was not his wife and the al-Qaeda chief was not carrying a weapon.

Al-Arabiya reported that Safia was one of eight women and children taken from the high-walled compound only a few hundred metres from Pakistan's premier military academy.

It said that Safia and her mother, who is thought to be Bin Laden's fifth wife, had been taken to the garrison town of Rawalpindi for medical treatment and to be debriefed by Pakistani intelligence.

The girl's account differed from the official White House version in other ways.

Safia reportedly told her interrogators her father was shot dead at the start of an operation that took 40 minutes, slightly longer than expected, after one of the Seals' three Black Hawk helicopters crashed to the ground because of a technical fault.

Al-Arabiya reported that Bin Laden was dragged to a helicopter after being shot dead. He was buried at sea a few hours later from a US warship.

Captured with members of the Bin Laden household was a Yemeni woman who Pakistani officials think might have been Bin Laden's personal doctor. The 54-year-old al-Qaeda leader suffered from kidney problems.

A Pakistani official challenged the US account of a gun battle at the compound, telling Al-Arabiya. "Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers," he said.

Security officials said they did not recover any arms and explosives during their search of the compound and the 13-room house on Monday and Tuesday.

"There was no bunker or tunnel inside the house and that's why I don't understand why the world's most wanted man would have decided to live here," a senior official said.

Pakistani leaders rejected suggestions that Bin Laden had been given sanctuary by the country's powerful security apparatus.

But the Afghan government said Pakistan must have known he was living in Abbottabad, echoing international suspicions about Islamabad colluding with its supposed enemy.

"Not only Pakistan, with its strong intelligence service, but even a very weak government with a weak intelligence service would have known who was living in that house in such a location," said General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a Defence Ministry spokesman.

Officially, the US has yet to decide whether to release a picture of Bin Laden's corpse, but Panetta said he had no doubt that a photograph would be released.

^ ^ Except he was wrong...Obama has decided not to release the photos.

Regardless of the made-up "War on Terror" label, a nation cannot be at war with a behavior, an ideology, or an individual.

Agreed.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Germany and Austria would have started WWI sooener or later anyway even without FF being assassinated.

Well, Austria was definitely heading that way with all the ethnic tension, and Germany joining in by default because Russian and France were allies . . . but you are correct in spirit.

[Cail]

Killing OBL in his bedroom is emphatically not "using deadly force to defend ourselves against terrorists".

He was a terrorist. Killing him defends us against any additional terrorism from him. What am I missing? Which room should he have been in for this to be national defense? You don't think he can plan attacks in his bedroom? He can only do that in a cave? Must he be caught in the act of planning another 9/11 at the time we're killing him? Or is that not enough, either? He must be lighting a fuse or flying a plane? What would it take for this to be national defense?

He's a terrorist, so that makes it OK? In no way is killing an unarmed man in his pajamas national defense. It was a revenge killing, plain and simple. You of all people should be horrified that the president has assumed this power.

That law you keep posting shouldn't pass constitutional muster.

In your opinion. However, it's the law, so enforcing it is by definition legal. We have a process for determining the constitutionality of laws, and as far as I know the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it, one way or the other. Until then, it's the law.

Why would it be unconstituional for Congress to authorize the President to use force against those who attacked us? Isn't that exactly how it's supposed to happen (and why Obama's Libya war isn't legal)?

Congress can authorize force, I'm all for that. But there's a standing Executive Order that prohibits any government official from engaging in assassinations. I don't see your law overriding that. Would it be OK if the SEALs raped his kids in front of him to get him to talk? That's neither necessary nor appropriate, and neither is assassinating the guy.

This stinks to high heaven because of the unsympathetic target. If Bush had Jaques Chirac assassinated for not helping us in Iraq (remember, if you're not with us, you're against us), would that have been cool? Why not?

[Loredoctor]

Keep up the great posts, Cail. I know this post of mine adds nothing to the debate, but I am in complete agreement with you.

[Vain]

I don't understand the problem. If the POTUS declares war on a country and then the army proceeds to blow the crap out of thousands of people, that's cool. Who gives a rats about this piece of human waste?

I personally couldn't have cared less if they shot him while he was praying.

But on the other hand, the White House is rapidly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on this one...globally

[Zarathustra]

Regardless of the made-up "War on Terror" label, a nation cannot be at war with a behavior, an ideology, or an individual.

Agreed.

--A

And where does it say that in the Constitution? We can only go to war with official state governments?

Communism is an ideology. We went to war to stop the spread of that. Bombing Pearl Harbor is a behavior. We went to war against that. Hitler was an individual. We went to war against him.

It was a revenge killing, plain and simple. You of all people should be horrified that the president has assumed this power.

Pretty much our entire reason for getting into WWII was revenge for Pearl Harbor. "Revenge killing" on a massive scale, even against individuals who didn't do that bombing. Should I be horrified by that, too?

[Cail]

Regardless of the made-up "War on Terror" label, a nation cannot be at war with a behavior, an ideology, or an individual.

Agreed.

--A

And where does it say that in the Constitution? We can only go to war with official state governments?

Communism is an ideology. We went to war to stop the spread of that. Bombing Pearl Harbor is a behavior. We went to war against that. Hitler was an individual. We went to war against him.

So you believe that we were in the right in going to war in Korea and Vietnam, and you believe we were in the right interfering as we did all over Central America? I find that surprising, as there were no American interests involved. We went to war with Japan after we were attacked by Japan, there's no moral conflict there at all. We went to war with Germany and the Axis powers, not with Hitler personally.

The Constitution is very clear about the president's role with the military. He's the commander in chief, he cannot unilaterally declare war, that's the purview of the Congress. The Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to put hits out on people.

It was a revenge killing, plain and simple. You of all people should be horrified that the president has assumed this power.

Pretty much our entire reason for getting into WWII was revenge for Pearl Harbor. "Revenge killing" on a massive scale, even against individuals who didn't do that bombing. Should I be horrified by that, too?

Apples and oranges Z. Japan (the nation) attacked Pearl Harbor with their military. It was an action sponsored by, authorized by, and carried out by a sovereign nation. That's not what happened with the USS Cole or on 9/11. Those were criminal acts carried out by a group of multinationals.

Strip away the emotion here, and what we have is the POTUS authorizing a hit on an individual and sending the military into a sovereign nation without their advice and consent. That's just counter to American ideals on so many levels that it's frightening.

What if the Iraqis (or the Saudis, or whomever) decided that Pat Robertson was guilty of something and sent their military to Liberty University to kill him? Would that be legitimate as well?

You're crossing lines here that shouldn't be crossed simply because OBL was such a bad person. What happens when Obama or anyone else decides that someone you don't feel as strongly about gets labeled as a bad person?

[TheFallen]

Regardless of the made-up "War on Terror" label, a nation cannot be at war with a behavior, an ideology, or an individual.

Agreed.

--A

And where does it say that in the Constitution? We can only go to war with official state governments?

Communism is an ideology. We went to war to stop the spread of that. Bombing Pearl Harbor is a behavior. We went to war against that. Hitler was an individual. We went to war against him.

It was a revenge killing, plain and simple. You of all people should be horrified that the president has assumed this power.

Pretty much our entire reason for getting into WWII was revenge for Pearl Harbor. "Revenge killing" on a massive scale, even against individuals who didn't do that bombing. Should I be horrified by that, too?

Z, it looks as if you're confusing factual congress-approved action with motivation.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the US has never declared war on an ideology or an individual. In the case of Communism as you'll be aware, the US declared war on the nation state of North Vietnam - as well as being the lead protagonist in the earlier UN action to support South Korea. The US didn't declare war on Hitler. It declared war on the nation state of Japan, following the latter's act of aggression at Pearl Harbor, closely followed by subsequent declarations of war on the nation states of Germany and Italy, followed by Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, presumably because of their Axis alliance with Japan. In the case of Japan, war was indeed declared because of a behaviour, but the behaviour of a nation state, not an individual. I didn't note your claiming that the US went to war against Hirohito...

Should you be horrified at the brutality of war? I'm quite sure you are anyway - irrelevant of the justification of that war. For example, any right-thinking person is going to be horrified when considering Hiroshima or Nagasaki, regardless of whether these two acts ended up saving more lives than they cost.

[Zarathustra]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the US has never declared war on an ideology or an individual.

For the third time:

President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-40, in which Congress authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Congress authorized force against those persons who planned 9/11. Bin Laden was one of those persons.

In the case of Communism as you'll be aware, the US declared war on the nation state of North Vietnam - as well as being the lead protagonist in the earlier UN action to support South Korea. The US didn't declare war on Hitler. It declared war on the nation state of Japan, following the latter's act of aggression at Pearl Harbor, closely followed by subsequent declarations of war on the nation states of Germany and Italy, followed by Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, presumably because of their Axis alliance with Japan. In this latter case, war was declared because of a behaviour, but the behaviour of a nation state, not an individual. I didn't note your claiming that the US went to war against Hirohito...

So you and Cail are arguing that it's morally and legally preferrable to go to war against millions of people, but going to war against a few people is wrong and illegal? As long as the scale of killing is massive enough, it's okay?

So you believe that we were in the right in going to war in Korea and Vietnam, and you believe we were in the right interfering as we did all over Central America? I find that surprising, as there were no American interests involved.

That's a political question. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with those wars. The question here is whether Congress had the right to authorize them--whether they were legal. I assume they were, right?

We went to war with Japan after we were attacked by Japan, there's no moral conflict there at all.

So why is there a moral conflict with going to war against Al Qaeda after we were attacked by Al Qaeda? Are you going to say with a straight face that dropping two nukes on civilian targets in Japan involves no moral conflicts, but killing the one man who planned 9/11 does?

Going to war against a state apparently means you can indiscrminately kill 1000s civilians with no "moral conflict," but you can't go to war against an individual because that doesn't fit some definition you have in mind. Therefore, moral conflict. That's bullshit, Cail. Forget the definitions for a moment and look at what you're saying.

The Constitution is very clear about the president's role with the military. He's the commander in chief, he cannot unilaterally declare war, that's the purview of the Congress. The Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to put hits out on people.

You keep posting things like this as though I haven't already shown that issue to be moot. For the fourth time:

President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-40, in which Congress authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

This *was* authorized by Congress. It's not "putting a hit out." That's an emotional decription used to draw upon the connotations of organized crime to describe a legal, Constitutional, function of our Congress. You might as well describe a formal declaration of war as "putting a hit out on a bunch of people."