Osama's death was not justified

[Punjabi3]

He didn't deserve a fair trial. A man who masterminds the Mumbai attacks, London bombings all while hiding is dangerous enough imagine 20 years sitting in jail awaiting a death sentence.

Saddam Hussain was given a fair trial. Now go to his grave you find 100s of people worshiping him as a god because he built up so much sympathy for himself during his trial. Its more disgusting to see a man who killed his own people and several others be worshiped as a god, explain to me why Osama wouldn't get the same worshiping as Saddam did.

He deserved death the fact that he put his hands up to surrender is a disgrace, a man who kills thousands and continues to teach others doesn't deserve to live.

My final reason you ever hear of hostages? Al- Qaieda would begin taking in hostages (reporters, soldiers, highly ranked members) and offer to exchange their lives for Osama's, they did it for Saddam Hussain why wouldn't they do it for Osama Bin Laden's. Al-Qaieda would begin executing people over live television and build up enough sympathy from the world for the people which would force the United States to give up Osama. Don't read the conspiracy theories just think about the effects of holding Osama Bin Laden captive. Terrorists won't watch the trial peacefully they will get their way at any cost.

The celebrations aren't right but I'm firmly against letting him live

 

[Pokerking88]

While I am happy that we killed Osama (possibly), I do not believe we should celebrate his death. That makes us just as bad as the extremists that celebrated 9/11 across the world. That being said, since the details have not been released, I don't think we would just shoot him now, because he could be a valuable detainee.

 

[oblivion9032]

Who says anyone has the right to a fair trial anyway, who decided that a fair trial was a human right?

 

[charmander412]

Who says anyone has the right to a fair trial anyway, who decided that a fair trial was a human right?

Oh, just the constitutions of virtually all democratic countries, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[angus07]

exactly oblivion ^^

charmander. just leave this discussion. u dont understand what he is even trying to say. u fail to realize that just because some humans said it doesnt make it a universal law and doesnt mean that its right.

 

[Insidious Insinuations]

exactly oblivion ^^

charmander. just leave this discussion. u dont understand what he is even trying to say. u fail to realize that just because some humans said it doesnt make it a universal law and doesnt mean that its right.

I'd take the word of the UN and those nation's governments (as corrupt as they are) with their justifications over a bunch of teens on a Runescape cheating forum. They have varying forms of authority over us while you have absolutely none.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

The US is NOT, I repeat, NOT at war with anyone. Assasination of political leaders, which Osama was one, is also illegal under US policy (or law). Regardless, the motives of capturing or killing Osama was to seek revenge fir 9/11. Obama said he would capture Osama during his campaign. Why? To make people want to vote for him. If there was a legal footing for killing him (which there isn't), then Obama is corupt and should be impeached.

Definition of war: "War is an openly declared state of organized conflict."
The United States openly declared war on Al-Qaeda and its supporters and harbors, the Taliban, after September 11th, 2001. The US has launched operations, along with NATO and other allies, in Afghanistan, Philippines, and Somalia, along with a joint operation with the government of Yemen in Yemen. Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, a self-proclaimed stateless army. Neither assassination nor capture of soldiers is prohibited during war. In fact, international law gives soldiers the legal right to make arrests. It also gives countries the legal right to kill or capture non-state combatants. Reportedly, the United States Navy SEALs, acting within the boundaries of both the United States Navy rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions, neutralized all threats to themselves and attempted to take Osama Bin Laden as a Prisoner of War. As he reportedly continued to resist, they killed him.

On your statement that Obama should be impeached: As far as we know, Obama sent the SEALs to capture Osama Bin Laden. Even if he did directly order them to kill Bin Laden, there would be no grounds for impeachment for the reason that he previously said he wanted to capture Osama. Believe it or not, it is legal to change your mind.

 

[angus07]

I'd take the word of the UN and those nation's governments (as corrupt as they are) with their justifications over a bunch of teens on a Runescape cheating forum. They have varying forms of authority over us while you have absolutely none.

you hit the nail on the head....but in the wrong way.

"They have varying forms of authority over us while you have absolutely none."

EXACTLY. they have all these forms of authority over us which means they can manipulate people like you to believe whatever they want you to. how can you not realize that?

 

[SuF]

He didn't deserve a fair trial. A man who masterminds the Mumbai attacks, London bombings all while hiding is dangerous enough imagine 20 years sitting in jail awaiting a death sentence.

Saddam Hussain was given a fair trial. Now go to his grave you find 100s of people worshiping him as a god because he built up so much sympathy for himself during his trial. Its more disgusting to see a man who killed his own people and several others be worshiped as a god, explain to me why Osama wouldn't get the same worshiping as Saddam did.

He deserved death the fact that he put his hands up to surrender is a disgrace, a man who kills thousands and continues to teach others doesn't deserve to live.

My final reason you ever hear of hostages? Al- Qaieda would begin taking in hostages (reporters, soldiers, highly ranked members) and offer to exchange their lives for Osama's, they did it for Saddam Hussain why wouldn't they do it for Osama Bin Laden's. Al-Qaieda would begin executing people over live television and build up enough sympathy from the world for the people which would force the United States to give up Osama. Don't read the conspiracy theories just think about the effects of holding Osama Bin Laden captive. Terrorists won't watch the trial peacefully they will get their way at any cost.

The celebrations aren't right but I'm firmly against letting him live

If one is allowed to pick and choose who gets a fair trial, no trials are fair. Osama already has tons of people who "worship" him and killing him is more than likely to make more people feel even stronger for him. You have no right to decide who has the right to live as any person with even the slightest sense of humanity has to agree that every person has a right to life. Al Qaeda will continue to take lives regardless of what happens to their members. Killing someone in self defense is acceptable. Killing in self defense when it is not even clear that you are defending anyone is not.

Who says anyone has the right to a fair trial anyway, who decided that a fair trial was a human right?

Who are you to decide guilt? The purpose of a fair trial is to establish guilt in a non-biased, fair manner, while allowing the accuser and accused to present their sides of the story. It makes logic sense to use "innocent until proven guilty", as I can not prove that I was sleeping alone at home on the night of a murder next door while it is possible to prove I wasn't. Thus, if you need to establish guilt, the only way to do it is through a fair trial where both sides are able to present evidence to support themselves.

exactly oblivion ^^

charmander. just leave this discussion. u dont understand what he is even trying to say. u fail to realize that just because some humans said it doesnt make it a universal law and doesnt mean that its right.

True, but you need to be nicer. However, 10,000 Frenchman believing in something does make it more likely to be true.

Definition of war: "War is an openly declared state of organized conflict."
The United States openly declared war on Al-Qaeda and its supporters and harbors, the Taliban, after September 11th, 2001. The US has launched operations, along with NATO and other allies, in Afghanistan, Philippines, and Somalia, along with a joint operation with the government of Yemen in Yemen. Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, a self-proclaimed stateless army. Neither assassination nor capture of soldiers is prohibited during war. In fact, international law gives soldiers the legal right to make arrests. It also gives countries the legal right to kill or capture non-state combatants. Reportedly, the United States Navy SEALs, acting within the boundaries of both the United States Navy rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions, neutralized all threats to themselves and attempted to take Osama Bin Laden as a Prisoner of War. As he reportedly continued to resist, they killed him.

On your statement that Obama should be impeached: As far as we know, Obama sent the SEALs to capture Osama Bin Laden. Even if he did directly order them to kill Bin Laden, there would be no grounds for impeachment for the reason that he previously said he wanted to capture Osama. Believe it or not, it is legal to change your mind.

The US is not legally at war and thus, it is not at war and any legally binding rules for war do not apply. But, I'l assume, for the sake of argument, that the US is actually at war. The justification of the killing of Osama falls entirely on the purpose of the mission and thus, in the intentions of the person calling the shots. Obama has made it clear through the way in which he reported on the news that he felt that killing Osama was something the US had been actively trying to do and that it should be celebrated. He is using his death as a means of scoring political points which further supports the notion that he had misguided intentions in the use of force against Osama.

He answered the question. Please debate intelligently.

----

The financier and/or mastermind of multiple jihadic mass murders. Both an inspirational warrior for Islamic extremists and the formidable figurehead of terrorism throughout the world. The most wanted man in the world.

Was his death unjustified? Possibly. We as of yet know too little of the chain of events to condemn this as a planned execution, though in the ensuing firefight his death would understandably have been preferable to his escape. Let's not forget that this is a revenge war. Having said that, to see him put on trial would have made me feel proud as a human. To grant him the same thing he refused thousands of people - life - and to have the name of every single victim read out to him... OK, it would make a good film, but wouldn't work in real life. America wanted him dead, and now he's dead. The political bullshit will follow, and idiocy will continue to thrive throughout the world. We just keep on trying...

*edit*

My personal approval of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' is based not on authority but empathy. If I was accused of a crime, I would obviously want to refute the claim. How about you, serial rapist?

You actually can make something make sense. Not much to argue with though, so I'm just complimenting you.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

The US is not legally at war and thus, it is not at war and any legally binding rules for war do not apply. But, I'l assume, for the sake of argument, that the US is actually at war. The justification of the killing of Osama falls entirely on the purpose of the mission and thus, in the intentions of the person calling the shots. Obama has made it clear through the way in which he reported on the news that he felt that killing Osama was something the US had been actively trying to do and that it should be celebrated. He is using his death as a means of scoring political points which further supports the notion that he had misguided intentions in the use of force against Osama.

Legally, the United States is at two wars against Al-Queda. In the First Circuit Court of Appeals case Doe vs Bush, the court resolved that while the Constitution said Congress may declare war, the Constitution did not give the Congress the sole power to declare war. Additionally, it declared any resolution of the Congress as a justification by the Congress for the United States to enter war. Technically, the Iraq Resolution, or Congress' declaration of war on Saddam Hussein, declares war on all members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and their "leadership". Therefore, the United States Congress and President have both declared war on Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, in another resolution http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf, Congress declared War on Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden. Need you more proof?

On your second point, Obama is has continued to legally maintain that the mission was a capture mission, even though one may assume otherwise. Legally, there is no evidence he ordered a "kill" mission. Additionally, Obama was not the person "calling the shots"; the operation was run from the ground. Obama had no say as to whether Bin Laden should have been shot in the moment, nor should he have; he did the right thing and left the mission up to the ground commander, only observing the mission via a streaming camera feed.

On your third point, of course Obama is using the mission to "score political points". Any president would, no matter what his party or affiliations may be. I'm sure Obama's primary focus is that justice has been done, however, if he can also improve his standings among his people for doing such an act, he will try to use the issue to gain as much support as possible. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't be where he is now.

TL;DR: It's legal for now. If you want to question separation of powers, be my guest. However, any change of law or new court ruling would not affect events in the past. Therefore, the attempted arrest and killing of Osama Bin Laden was a legal act in terms of war. Again, it is legal under US, international, and military law. Whether it was a violation of sovereignty/crime in Pakistan is another issue.

 

[charmander412]

exactly oblivion ^^

charmander. just leave this discussion. u dont understand what he is even trying to say. u fail to realize that just because some humans said it doesnt make it a universal law and doesnt mean that its right.

Instead of showing you the erroneousness of your reasoning, I'll instead make a point through example:
Judging by your post, you wouldn't be angry if your family was mass slaughtered, the perpetrators were not punished, and when you spoke out about it you were taken and immediately executed?

 

[SuF]

Legally, the United States is at two wars against Al-Queda. In the First Circuit Court of Appeals case Doe vs Bush, the court resolved that while the Constitution said Congress may declare war, the Constitution did not give the Congress the sole power to declare war. Additionally, it declared any resolution of the Congress as a justification by the Congress for the United States to enter war. Technically, the Iraq Resolution, or Congress' declaration of war on Saddam Hussein, declares war on all members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and their "leadership". Therefore, the United States Congress and President have both declared war on Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, in another resolution http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf, Congress declared War on Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden. Need you more proof?

I am not saying that the war is illegal. That is a debate in itself. I am saying that the US is not at war, legally, since congress has not declared war. Instead, they have simply allowed military action to be taken. I am using law and semantics to further my point even though both are kind of crappy.

On your second point, Obama is has continued to legally maintain that the mission was a capture mission, even though one may assume otherwise. Legally, there is no evidence he ordered a "kill" mission. Additionally, Obama was not the person "calling the shots"; the operation was run from the ground. Obama had no say as to whether Bin Laden should have been shot in the moment, nor should he have; he did the right thing and left the mission up to the ground commander, only observing the mission via a streaming camera feed.

I have read that it was a capture or kill mission. The Seals may have even planned to shoot him from afar to reduce thide risk of suicide bombing. Regardless, the President praised his death, which is the real cause for alarm. If he had ordered a strictly capture mission, he would have been at least partially saddened that he was killed instead. Based on what he has said it is clear that this is not the case and that he did not care whether or not he was killed in the raid. To my knowledge he has not once mentioned the fact that Osama deserved a fair trial and is playing off of people's inhumanity.

On your third point, of course Obama is using the mission to "score political points". Any president would, no matter what his party or affiliations may be. I'm sure Obama's primary focus is that justice has been done, however, if he can also improve his standings among his people for doing such an act, he will try to use the issue to gain as much support as possible. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't be where he is now.

TL;DR: It's legal for now. If you want to question separation of powers, be my guest. However, any change of law or new court ruling would not affect events in the past. Therefore, the attempted arrest and killing of Osama Bin Laden was a legal act in terms of war. Again, it is legal under US, international, and military law. Whether it was a violation of sovereignty/crime in Pakistan is another issue.

Osama's death was not justice. Based on your own logic, his death was simply a part of war. Actual justice would require an actual, fair, trial. I, personally, have lost respect for Obama (and my head of school who is a Quaker) for not valuing human life, no matter how terrible the person may have been.

 

[Feren Silver]

When I first found out that Osama was dead, I was happy. I thought this meant that progress was being made and that the US was closer to pulling out of the middle east. However, this happiness quickly turned into utter disgust. Regardless of crimes committed, he deserved a fair trial. By senselessly killing him, the US is simply stating to the world that they are correct in their judgement without allowing Osama to defend himself. The US acts as if it is infallible, which is just wrong. The celebrations occuring throughout the US because of this death also disgust me. Two wrongs do not make a right. Thousands of wrongs, add one more, do not make a right. The hatred that people have for one another and see past emotions to see the actual truth. By expressing joy for a death, you are expressing hatred, and by expressing hatred you are causing hatred.

Discuss.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

He got his fair trial in 1998. A mass murder doesn't deserve a damn ounce of civility out those that he harmed.

 

[SuF]

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

He got his fair trial in 1998. A mass murder doesn't deserve a damn ounce of civility out those that he harmed.

That's not a trial, simply charges. He was never tried. Be the bigger man and act like a good person towards those you hate.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

I am not saying that the war is illegal. That is a debate in itself. I am saying that the US is not at war, legally, since congress has not declared war. Instead, they have simply allowed military action to be taken. I am using law and semantics to further my point even though both are kind of crappy.

Neither was I saying it was legal. As I stated before, the United States is legally at war against the organization called Al-Qaeda, and therefore with Osama Bin Laden.
Proof: http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf
Proof 2: The Constitution says Congress may declare war, but does not ban the president himself from declaring war without the congress. Neither do any laws.

I have read that it was a capture or kill mission.

Any force acting to arrest or capture someone has the authority to shoot them if the person being arrested poses a threat to the life of the law enforcer.

The Seals may have even planned to shoot him from afar to reduce thide risk of suicide bombing.

I try to remain as objective as possible in my arguments, but this is a sentence of extreme ignorance. To even suggest that Osama Bin Laden would have the courage to blow himself up is ridiculous. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire with little regard for anyone's life except for his own. Just because he dupes teenagers, women, children, and mentally retarded people to blow themselves up for "Allah", who Bin Laden did not even believe in before he founded Al-Qaeda, doesn't mean he's prepared to take his own life.

Regardless, the President praised his death, which is the real cause for alarm. If he had ordered a strictly capture mission, he would have been at least partially saddened that he was killed instead. Based on what he has said it is clear that this is not the case and that he did not care whether or not he was killed in the raid. To my knowledge he has not once mentioned the fact that Osama deserved a fair trial and is playing off of people's inhumanity.

This is an issue of morals, not of laws or of justification. As I stated before, I am not arguing whether it was a moral or ethical act, as that is subjective. I am only arguing it was legal.

Osama's death was not justice. Based on your own logic, his death was simply a part of war. Actual justice would require an actual, fair, trial. I, personally, have lost respect for Obama (and my head of school who is a Quaker) for not valuing human life, no matter how terrible the person may have been.

My logic dictates that we are at legal war with Al-Qaeda. In no way does such logic prohibit me from, let alone that such logic is not relevant to me, saying that killing of Bin Laden was just. I am arguing that legally, the death was just, as the SEALs acting as law enforcement officers, from the information we know, stayed within the law. Whether it was morally is up to interpretation.

Again, if you choose to respond to this, please understand what I have said many times. I will only argue whether his death was legal, not whether it was morally correct. I believe that while subjective arguments can lead to deeper understanding, they do not resolve anything.

 

[Mantitz]

from the reports they asked him to surrender and he wouldn't comply, so what would you do if you know the man who won't listen is the leader of Al Qaeda?
I'd shoot him in the face too

 

[SuF]

Neither was I saying it was legal. As I stated before, the United States is legally at war against the organization called Al-Qaeda, and therefore with Osama Bin Laden.
Proof: http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf
Proof 2: The Constitution says Congress may declare war, but does not ban the president himself from declaring war without the congress. Neither do any laws.

No it is not. You are wrong and it is commonly known that you are wrong. The first bit of evidence just gives the President authority to use military action. The second is just wrong. Declaring war is a power, a right. The Constitution is a document of powers, not lack of powers. If it is not mentioned, the power is given to the states. In this case, the power to declare war is given only to Congress and no one else. The United States has not been legally at war since WWII.

Any force acting to arrest or capture someone has the authority to shoot them if the person being arrested poses a threat to the life of the law enforcer.

Never tried to dispute that.

I try to remain as objective as possible in my arguments, but this is a sentence of extreme ignorance. To even suggest that Osama Bin Laden would have the courage to blow himself up is ridiculous. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire with little regard for anyone's life except for his own. Just because he dupes teenagers, women, children, and mentally retarded people to blow themselves up for "Allah", who Bin Laden did not even believe in before he founded Al-Qaeda, doesn't mean he's prepared to take his own life.

I just stole that point of view from a news source. However, you can not rule it out as suicide bombs are a common tool and the Seals would have been being as caution as they could during the operation.

This is an issue of morals, not of laws or of justification. As I stated before, I am not arguing whether it was a moral or ethical act, as that is subjective. I am only arguing it was legal.

The whole mission was technically illegal since it was in another nation without their approval. I will just assume it wasn't for the sake of argument.

My logic dictates that we are at legal war with Al-Qaeda. In no way does such logic prohibit me from, let alone that such logic is not relevant to me, saying that killing of Bin Laden was just. I am arguing that legally, the death was just, as the SEALs acting as law enforcement officers, from the information we know, stayed within the law. Whether it was morally is up to interpretation.

Again, if you choose to respond to this, please understand what I have said many times. I will only argue whether his death was legal, not whether it was morally correct. I believe that while subjective arguments can lead to deeper understanding, they do not resolve anything.

You are bringing in whether or not the killing was just, which is not the same as legality.

 

[sith kid]

I'm going to assume that this is a propaganda scheme for Obama's upcoming presidential candidature ("He killed Osama Bin Laden, let's vote for him!"). There is no way anybody can convince me that Osama survived a solid decade with the worlds agencies chasing him.

 

Guys fuck off with the spam, I just eliminated 2 pages of useless posts from this thread.

On topic though, I'm personally indifferent, not of his death but of celebration of his death. People, humans specifically, being self-aware, create their own ideologies and images of what they believe to be right, or what they were taught to believe what is right. When you dive deeper though, passed the human value of "life", you see that celebration or not, it's all really pointless. Life is meaningless, useless, and in fact a disease. We, and every other living people, have no natural internal gauge telling us when to stop ravaging, when to stop consuming. So, what is the point in life? To consume. There is no usefulness to life in the least bit. You might find some kind of human point, like to expand into the universe or to cure cancer. But how is that relevant? Universal expansion benefits our resource consumption and accommodates it even further into areas we weren't meant to go. Curing cancer only benefits us as well, to live longer and to know more (which is also pointless). The frame of reference of human productivity is for humans and other living things only. Who gives a shit.

Anyway, where I'm getting with this is what difference does it make if he's dead or not? Just another leech gone 6 feet under. News outlets speak of a global terrorism shake-down, organizations falling, etc etc, but none of that is going to happen, it's all media bullshit. Human nature and our general greediness and need for superiority will always remain, and therefore so will extremism. What do I care if another body of useless flesh dies? Oh, right, because he killed more useless bodies of flesh. That's just called revenge, which is useless since the dead aren't coming back. Hell, they're not even aware of what happened because they're dead.

Call me pessimistic, but that's just my personal logical opinion.

 

[Scottay]

I do not agree about you saying that he deserved a fair trial. In my opinion not everyone deserves a fair trial and after doing the things he has he definitely should not be granted that luxury. I personally am not familiar with the exact circumstances of his death and the incident that lead to him being shot. This being said I am fairly confident that he probably could have easily been taken alive and given a fair trial. However I am glad that he was killed opposed to be taken alive and given a trial. My main reasoning to this is because I believe people that have and are willing to do the things Osama has done, well, deserve to die. Another reason is that if Osama was captured I can imagine how much retaliation there would be, kidnappings, demanding Osama's release as ransom demands by terrorists, and many more attacks. I am surprised that there has not been any retaliation attacks yet, but I still expect there will be some. I am also positive that if he were not killed and that if he were given a trial there would be much more then whats to come.