Osama's death was not justified

[1ce]

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.

I have to disagree, I'm sure you feel pain, and if you're arm was being slowly ripped off would you not ask for mercy? Weather it's justified or not, would depend more or less by the person asking the question. If it's being asked by an alqueda terrorist, probably not. If it was being asked by a US citizen, most definitly. Is that not what we've been after for nearly 10 years now?

OT, to answer you're question I will have to do so through that of a US citizen, Yes I firmly believe it was justified.

 

[sofaking]

Depends on what aspects of the situation when you say 'justified'.

In the situation of the raid itself, where there were active shooters firing back at Navy SEALS and them not knowing if Osama was armed or not, the killing was justified. As far as I know and from what I read, he didn't surrender. Also if he even did, the SEALs would have been justified in killing him because he could have been strapped with a bomb or something else. They were sent to kill or capture if possible Osama. In the heat of the moment, his death was justified.

From a legal standpoint, he didn't deserve a fair trial under US laws because he's a terrorist (by our standards) and therefore isn't subjected to the courts system.

From a theological (might not be right word) standpoint, he SHOULD have gotten a trial before his execution (if he was captured). The trial would have been a formality nonetheless because he's openly admitted to taking claim by masterminding plans that terrorized (not in a sense of anti-america terrorize, but cause fear) the world. This in it of itself is cause for the death penalty.

In response to Blupig, the difference in this one death from any other death is that he was the ICON of Al Qaeda. In their history, they've never had a leader. He was their unchallenged leader. His death doesn't equal the death of Al Qaeda, but it severely cripple the organization (which has been terrorizing the world for a while now). So to the world, his death symbolizes the death of terror (in a very broad sense). The families of slain soldiers and those who died in the Sept 11 attacks will receive some closure knowing that the man behind their loved ones' death is no longer breathing.
Also, you have a very pessimistic view on life. You see it as just pointless consuming, but I see it as discovering what the world has to offer. I'm not a happy-go-lucky type of guy, but I don't see life as being that pointless. Everybody's going to be doing something different with their life. Whatever they do, they're gonna make a mark on history. They can cure cancer or just work a day to day job at the factory. Either way, they're leaving their mark and leaving behind a legacy (either by their accomplishments or their kids). Everybody wants to be 'that guy' who did something great, but the reality of it is that they're going to be just be a normal guy. Some accept that fact, some don't.
Basically, I'm saying that humans, as an individual, seek to spend their time on earth making an impact on history (either by discovering something, leaving behind a new generation of humans, etc). 'Consuming' is just a means to prolong their time on earth to achieve their goal(s).

 

[One Poke Ko]

It would have been better if they had captured him to question him about his organization but they had their chance and they needed to take action against him.

If they capturing him alive his organization would go and rescue him. So it better to kill him.

 

[cubfan57]

When Osama planned the 9/11 attacks, he wrote his death sentence. You do something like this and you will get your ass killed. Osama, dont fuck with the USA

 

[The Unit]

Al Qaeda is a whole group that work together, Osama was nothing more than a picture really... Infact, Since Osama has been killed, The hatred will grow stronger agains the Goverment, And they'll even do more attacks..

 

[cowseatcows]

I believe that a fair trial should have been brought forth regardless of who was being charged. The justice system is there to serve us and prevent misconduct by the government; this was why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. However, it is widely known that the justice system is not perfect. There are too many loopholes in the law and too many mistakes to be made without following standard operating procedures. There would have been one of the two verdicts: guilty or not guilty. It is common sense that he is in fact guilty but a sympathetic or corrupted jury might in fact rule in favor of Osama. This would show a major lapse of failure in the justice system and could anger many people. If one were to assume he would be convicted by the jury, he would most likely be executed anyways. The logistics in planning his transportation and protection could be compromised and give him another chance to escape.

On to another point, it has been confirmed that the United States killed Osama even though he didn't have a weapon in hand. There is another notion that Osama was reaching for something which could have been a weapon. This makes it justifiable regardless of not whether he had a trial. Also, since Osama is considered an enemy of war, the United States had the de jure power to kill him.

 

[Guides R Us]

When Osama planned the 9/11 attacks, he wrote his death sentence. You do something like this and you will get your ass killed. Osama, dont fuck with the USA

There is plenty of evidence to go against that, meaning that it was a US planned attack.

Does anyone else smell oil?

 

[1ce]

There is plenty of evidence to go against that, meaning that it was a US planned attack.

Does anyone else smell oil?

There are, but the guy was so vehement that he did it that's I have no problem believing he had a hand in it.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

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.

You proved my own point. The President had authority to use military action against both Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Even though we have now rendered it off topic, my opinion on what defines the United States at war is not "commonly known" as wrong.
By International Law, the United States, through NATO, is at war with Al-Qaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386
By United States Law, the United States is at war with Al-Qaeda. The Constitution says that states may not declare war and that congress may, but says nothing about the president being able to or not being able to.

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.

The United States violated Pakistan's sovereignty. However, the United States is innocent until proven guilty, and Pakistan has praised the US for it's actions.

 

[SuF]

By United States Law, the United States is at war with Al-Qaeda. The Constitution says that states may not declare war and that congress may, but says nothing about the president being able to or not being able to.

No, it is not. You are wrong and I know I am right. The constitution is about what powers groups have, not powers they do not have. Want an example?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Those are all "you can do this". If it mentions nothing about congress being able to take over any ones home at anytime with a 1 person vote, does it mean they have the power to do so? No, it does not. Congress is the ONLY entity allowed to declare war in the US. The President can't, a random Joe can't, the Vice President can't, ONLY congress. All the recent wars have been fought by means of congressional approval (or not) and congressional funding of them, but not an actual declaration of war. The constitution uses the phrasing "declare war" to allow the president to respond to attacks in a quick manner without waiting for a declaration of war. Declaring war means exactly what it says, you declare you are at war. The president can not legally do this, just say it. Congress has never legally declared the US is at war, only allowed the president to use military action against anyone who might have had anything to do with 9/11. Thats different than them passing a law saying we are at war with the terrorists, which would have allowed the president special war time powers, which since we are not at war he does not get.

Also: Nato or the UN can not tell the US it is at war. Its meaningless.

 

[tribbis]

No he didn't deserve a trail.

With the car bombings by Al Qaeda throughout the years on Iraq, England, and multiple other European countries, no member of Al Qaeda deserves to take another breath.

When your only option is to hide in the shadows and inflict pain and suffering on innocent bystanders and call yourself a hero for it, you deserve to be shot.

I know Osama didn't do any of these but he pushed his fellow extremist into doing this and, i dont know, if anyone believe Osama deserved a fair trial, i dont know, im speechless.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

@SuF
That is an understanding, not a law. It is also highly debated.
However, let's accept it as a law for this portion of the argument.
Proof the US is at war under international law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386
Proof the US is at war under United States law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf
While this resolution of Congress does not "declare war" as defined by US law, it does declare war as defined by the definition of war. Either way, it makes military action against Osama Bin Laden legally justifiable.

 

[z Revs]

Plus the circumstances of his capture have not been released. What if they had weapons? What if the enemy in this situation was a potential threat? I'm pretty sure they probably would have preferred him alive because what good is he dead. They can't squeeze information out of him when he's dead. At any rate, it's war.

 

[thea106]

while i agree with you to an extent, I don't think mass murders really need a trial to prove their innocence or lack of. Their actions speak for themselves. And while the celebration of one's death does seem morally wrong, you just can't understand how people feel unless you were to be in their shoes. For example, if the US was to be dominated by a dictator who killed and oppressed us for 20 years, on the day of his death we would all celebrate. I myself didn't celebrate his death, but I think many people have the right to do so.

 

[Needfirecapeonmypure]

Do you think Hitler had the right to a free trial?

 

[R oc K]

The US is at War with what? Nothing as of right now. But it is in the Eastern countries to rebuild and make sure they're stable. On top of all that Bin Laden has done to the US, he is the leader of Al Qaeda, the main group of people attempting to thwart the United State's efforts at peace. The US killing Osama like that is justifiable, and patriotism aside you shouldn't be going out of your way to argue this issue and defend Bin Laden to this extent.

 

[blazinfasstt]

there was no court case because then the events that occurred on 9/11 would actually be investigated and brought back into public eye.

that is the last thing a government that took down their own towers wants to see.
they just want their citizens to be able to say....."well at least that is over"

 

[BARDIA SAEEDI]

he should have been hanged. and tortured.

likes ur balls replacing ur eyes.!

 

[G UNOT]

He did not deserve to have a fair trial. I would have fucking cut his head off with a dull hatchet. He was a horrible person who's intentions were only to kill tons of innocent people. Why the hell would you want that guy alive?

Hehehe, I see what's going on here ~ You, and everyone who's trying to prove they are correct or at least stating their opinions* are mainly either personal thoughts or things they heard on the TV. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't because of the news/(media) no one would have shit to talk about.

News/(media) is known for twisting the facts, and that's what affects all of us and the way we think in the end.

Just to clear things up: -

He was only against those who were corrupt and against Islam, his messages to his followers newer stated to go and kill innocent people (his own people ~ talking from his perspective). USA's army took all these years to take down Al-Qaeda (2) & Taliban, not Osama ~ If they were after Osama, they would have found him in a year or two.

Yes, Al-Qaeda (1) was made by him and his followers (top officials in his clan) but the main message was ruined and disregarded by the people who fought for them and the people who supported those fighters. They used the Al-Qaeda (1) name to scare people and make their living. Without the name, they couldn't do anything and as everyone knows they are young, illiterate, and poor people who can't do anything but follow what other corrupt people told them.

...because of Al-Qaeda (2), Osama is hated so much, otherwise if Al-Qaeda (2) never came into play it would have stayed just like Ku Klux Klan (1). Trust me, if the Ku Klux Klan's (1) members were in the same condition, they would also have many corrupt people who would have just used the name to get the jobs done faster ...but since they live in a developed country, have food and jobs around, their followers would never even think of becoming Ku Klux Klan (2).

------------------------------------

AL-Qaeda
(1 - The main people with one message and target - kill those who won't accept Islam*)
(2 - corrupt people, with only one mission: kill, kidnap and rape innocent people) >> Also trained/formed by USA itself to defeat Russia, during the invasion.
///Taliban - An illiterate group consisted of poor people. Their target was to kidnap (ransoms) and steal from the richer so they could provide food and shelter for their families.

Ku Klux Klan
(1 - The main people with one message and target - kill those who aren't white*)
(2 - corrupt people, with only one mission: kill, kidnap, steal and rape innocent people)

------------------------------------

Also, not forgetting the fact that Afghanistan has been chewed on forever by countries like Russia and USA for it's resources ~ what do you expect in the end? Just think if it was the opposite.

To be honest, all of us have forgotten if Afghanistan was once a peaceful place, and most of us (new generation) are directly injected with crap (by media) which we later carry on.... so whoever that is hating (and think he should have been tortured) without knowing the facts, shut up.

 

[Arab Monkey]

The idea of giving him a fair trial is ludicrous the idea of him even getting one is insane the possibility of him even being found innocent alone would cause a world wide crisis because the united states could not possibly not act if he was for some reason found innocent killing him was the only option when he decided to kill thousands of innocent americans he lost his right to a trial or in any case a fair one.