What if we hadn't killed OBL?

[Cail]

So you're OK with the concept that the president can just up and decide that someone needs killing? That's not justice.

[TheFallen]

I think it was a huge mistake not to take him alive. Aside from the possible intel we could have gotten from him, a trial would have been a good thing.

Did he give the 3,000+ at ground zero a trial? Most Americans feel the way I do, and it would've pissed them off to see him get a media circus or platform to speak. I'm glad he got one in the head, personally. More humane death than many of his victims.

I wasn't aware that the US government was going to hold themselves to the standards of a Saudi expat and a self-proclaimed terrorist. I kinda figured we'd stick with that Constitution thingy.

Exactly. I know it's nigh on impossible to keep the emotional response out of things and the deep-seated need to see natural justice done, BUT as a few have said, isn't it the rule of law and the support of universal human rights that's meant to make the "enlightened" West different?

LF, are you sure you're intellectually okay with such "eye for an eye" vengeance that's apparently illegal against the very laws and constitution of the the nation that sanctioned it, standing in place of legal process and the rule of law - no matter how justifiable on a purely emotive level? Isn't it a very dangerous road, when we start to mould our absolutes into conditionals, purely based upon the non-judicial judgement of circumstance?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think the Rorshach quote from the movie version of Watchmen sums it up quite nicely: men get arrested...dogs get put down.

Terrorists, like pirates, do not respect national laws, international laws, human rights, or basic standards of human decency. They have through their actions declared themselves to be rabid dogs and should be treated accordingly. I am almost ready to group "drug cartel thugs" in that category, based on the actions of Los Zetas.

[TheFallen]

I think the Rorshach quote from the movie version of Watchmen sums it up quite nicely: men get arrested...dogs get put down.

Terrorists, like pirates, do not respect national laws, international laws, human rights, or basic standards of human decency. They have through their actions declared themselves to be rabid dogs and should be treated accordingly. I am almost ready to group "drug cartel thugs" in that category, based on the actions of Los Zetas.

So... who gets to define who's a man and who's a dog? The POTUS alone? That's medieval - the power of life and death residing in one man's judgement. Isn't that what we have courts for?

[Worm of Despite]

LF, are you sure you're intellectually okay with such "eye for an eye" vengeance that's apparently illegal against the very laws and constitution of the the nation that sanctioned it, standing in place of legal process and the rule of law - no matter how justifiable on a purely emotive level? Isn't it a very dangerous road, when we start to mould our absolutes into conditionals, purely based upon the non-judicial judgement of circumstance?

So you want a symbolic trial for UBL despite America already killing tens of thousands of Muslim civilians in the Middle-East in this decade?

Spinning around words and questions gets nothing done and would've kept him alive much longer than Sunday. I'm saying he was a threat and killing him was a satisfactory byproduct. If he hadn't resisted they might have taken him but this is a man who knocked down two of towers in New York, yet you want to make yourself feel good by giving him a trial?

I don't think we're opening the door for anything except similar responses to high-level threats, and in this case there are very few like UBL.

So you're OK with the concept that the president can just up and decide that someone needs killing? That's not justice.

If he decided to kill Larry, the guy who works at Taco Bell, then I see what you mean. Otherwise I’m OK with killing a person who could potentially kill more men, women and children and continually gives a morale boost to every terrorist Dick and Nancy out there by just existing.

Surely that’s a tad reasonable?

[Cail]

No it's not reasonable, because Larry could potentially fuck up my gorditas.

As a nation, we (supposedly) operate by the rule of law. Having a president decide who gets targeted for execution without any oversight is a danger to our way of life.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So... who gets to define who's a man and who's a dog? The POTUS alone? That's medieval - the power of life and death residing in one man's judgement. Isn't that what we have courts for?

I didn't say that I like the solution...but then reality isn't always nice and pretty.

The people who target innocent civilians under some sort of misguided political agenda or who hijack a boat at sea don't recognize the authority of any court and the certainly don't care about respecting laws or rights. Why should they deserve that same treatment?

This isn't a case of "an eye for an eye"; rather, it is a case of "live by the sword; die by the sword". You want to spend your life blowing up shopping centers or killing people on the open seas? By all means, go ahead and do so...but don't be shocked or upset when someone comes gunning for you in the middle of the night.

[Cail]

So... who gets to define who's a man and who's a dog? The POTUS alone? That's medieval - the power of life and death residing in one man's judgement. Isn't that what we have courts for?

I didn't say that I like the solution...but then reality isn't always nice and pretty.

The people who target innocent civilians under some sort of misguided political agenda or who hijack a boat at sea don't recognize the authority of any court and the certainly don't care about respecting laws or rights. Why should they deserve that same treatment?

Because that's who we are and what we do. We don't let our principles be defined by criminals.

This isn't a case of "an eye for an eye"; rather, it is a case of "live by the sword; die by the sword". You want to spend your life blowing up shopping centers or killing people on the open seas? By all means, go ahead and do so...but don't be shocked or upset when someone comes gunning for you in the middle of the night.

Could you point me to the section of the Constitution or the US Code that enshrines the "live by the sword; die by the sword" principle. It doesn't seem to exist in my copies.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes, I realize that what I am saying is betraying my normally Libertarian beliefs. However, terrorists and pirates do not play by any set of rules and it is therefore impossible to defeat them by continuing to play by the rules. If you know--or even suspect--that I cheat at poker are you going to play a few hands against me?

If the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens of the United States, then why would it apply to terrorists who are non-citizens of the United States? If an American citizen goes overseas and acts like a terrorist then you grab him and bring him back for trial.

On this one topic, I simply must err on the side of "realism" rather than Libertarianism. As I have noted, reality isn't always nice and neat.

[Worm of Despite]

As a nation, we (supposedly) operate by the rule of law. Having a president decide who gets targeted for execution without any oversight is a danger to our way of life.

I don't think anything bad's going to come of this. That simple. Every time I hear a "they do this and that lets their foot get in the door" it usually begins and ends on the comments page on YouTube.

For me here's why: UBL was an exceptional (only terrorist like him in our history), exceptional case. And while he wasn't a hostile nation he was head of a hostile group, and that fact alone makes it amorphous enough to make us feel bad for engaging him in the same way we'd engage (and rightfully so) an aggressor nation.

Again; someone who’s killed 3,000 of our people should be taken dead or alive. I think that's within law.

[Vraith]

Because that's who we are and what we do. We don't let our principles be defined by criminals.

I agree with this. But, as I said just a little bit ago, slightly differently...
Did we have the right/authority to go after him at all? I think it is clear that we did...though maybe someone could make an argument that we didn't.
So it isn't an issue of violating our principles...it's a question of whether lethal force is justified by the actions of the criminal we are after. It seems to me that it was...even in the last room, where he was found, AFAICT, our people were under attack/at risk.

[Worm of Despite]

What we should have done is add to the two-dozen Navy Seal force a Kevin's Watch debate team in the middle of the firefight and see how their ideals play out then.

[rdhopeca]

As I mentioned in the other thread, OBL declared war on us, openly, by issuing a fatwa and engaging in jihad. Once that was done, he openly attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

He's not a head of state. He's not a head of a network. He's an enemy general in command of his troops and as such is a legal, ethical target for our military. As Commander-in-Chief, the president is well within his rights to order the target eliminated.

This is not an assassination.

[Tjol]

So you're OK with the concept that the president can just up and decide that someone needs killing? That's not justice.

I think it's ok for soldiers to have guns, and bullets, and to use both.

I don't think the president should restrain them in the middle of combat.

I don't see any injustice.

Yet we managed to capture Saddam Hussein.

I believe our military, especially our SEALs, are competent enough to capture someone.

And Saddam was hung, without a consultation with the Hague or the US Court system.

[Zarathustra]

Could you point me to the section of the Constitution or the US Code that enshrines the "live by the sword; die by the sword" principle. It doesn't seem to exist in my copies.

Which part of the Constitution says that we can't kill combatants who attack our country?

We don't let our principles be defined by criminals.

It's interesting that you use the word "criminal" to describe OBL. This sounds like candidate Obama. From a perspective of Obama contradicting himself (yet again) and violating his own principles, you're right.

But what law was violated by this mission? I didn't think that unlawful combatants who resist on the battle field (or in this case, within fortified positions inside cities) had the same rights as common criminals. This isn't a law enforcement matter, but part of the war on terror. OBL wasn't your typical soldier, who wore a uniform, displayed a flag, openly displalyed his weapons, refrained from attacking civilians, etc. I don't even think he'd be protected under the Geneva Convention, would he?

In any case, since OBL resisted, all bets are off. I don't think there's a law in any country, much less ours, that forbids a mass murdering terrorist from being killed under any possible circumstance. Surely the circumstance of his resistence and failure to surrender in combat overrides any "rights" he might have, such as due process or his day in court. As someone said elsewhere, you have to surrender to the process to receive due process.

[Cail]

What OBL did was a crime. By nature of the fact that he was an individual, not a nation, he can't declare war against us. What he can do is violate our laws, which he did. As such, it's our obligation to bring him to justice. As far as what parts of the Constitution back this up, how about the 4th and 14th Amendments for starters?

Saddam was tried and convicted in an Iraqi court for crimes against Iraqis. Different thing entirely.

But notice that the Iraqis felt that it was important to try a mass murderer in the courts while y'all are arguing that we shouldn't.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Saddam Hussein was still the leader of a country, thus according him a different status. The proper treatment for such a person is "detain them then hold a trial".

Osama bin Laden was nothing but a gang leader, much like the marauders from The Road Warrior. The proper treatment for him is "shoot on sight".

He wasn't even a foot soldier in an established army, for whom the proper treatment is "detain then release after the conflict has ended".

[Cail]

Saddam Hussein was still the leader of a country, thus according him a different status. The proper treatment for such a person is "detain them then hold a trial".

Osama bin Laden was nothing but a gang leader, much like the marauders from The Road Warrior. The proper treatment for him is "shoot on sight".

He wasn't even a foot soldier in an established army, for whom the proper treatment is "detain then release after the conflict has ended".

Again I ask, can you please show me where this Road Warrior policy is spelled out in the Constitution or the US Code? I see an awful lot of stuff about due process and the rights of the accused, yet nothing about shooting people the president deems our enemies by whatever yardstick he chooses.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Wow, the two threads are merging into only one.

As I note there, exactly which laws (that normally apply only to citizens of the United States) should have applied to Mr. bin Laden? Is he a citizen of the United States? Then why should our laws apply to him?

If our laws should apply to him, then why shouldn't our laws apply to any other person in the world? Wouldn't this turn everyone into citizens of the United States?

If our laws apply to him, then are national laws transitive--do the laws of some other country apply to me? If so, which ones? All of them?

The Constitutional protections you describe, as lovely as they are, apply only to citizens of the United States. We will simply have to disagree on this one fine point.

[Cail]

Answered in the other thread, though I suspect you know it's a bad question with faulty logic. He broke the laws of the US by committing a crime here. That means that US criminal law applies to him.


Everyone, and I mean everyone has human rights including the right to due process.