The Murder of OBL (UBL if you prefer)

[Sean]

And if he did nothing? If he just sat still with his hands in plain view and kept his mouth shut? Would it still be okay to shoot him?

[Crackpot]

I wonder what the standing orders were if he decided to do the Hokey-Pokey.

[Crackpot]

Was it legal?
Strictly speaking? No.

Given the circumstances was it excusable? The vast consensus (exepting those that have a poitical axe to grind) is Yes.

As to his death. He was given as much chance to surrender as was nessessary. Just because he didn't have a gun didn't mean he wasn't dangerous and given the situation there was no reason to wait until threat was assured before acting.

[dgs49]

Sorry for being out of the loop for a while...

Let me clarify: I AGREE WITH WHAT BARRY DID! BUSH43 WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING!

My point is that his actions are 180 degrees out of synch with his own personal views on terrorism, and those of his party, AND NOBODY IN THE MEDIA mentioned it!

He and the other high-profile Dems - going back to WJC - have always taken the position that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, and it is not in any sense a "war." The Republicans hold the opposite view.

When push came to shove, BHO decided, "Fuck It, I'm just going to kill the bastard. A trial in the U.S. would be just tooooo messy."

So much for principle. That's my only point.

And in fact, whether BHO thought he might not be able to get 12 unbiased jurors in the U.S. should play no part in his thinking. That is a practical matter.

[rubato]

It has long been known and acknowledged that the Democrats - and in particular our beloved President - prefer to "deal with" terrorism as a Law Enforcement issue, rather than treating such activities as acts of war. This is the crux of the longstanding disputes about GITMO, "torture," and so on. The Republicans, led by Bush43, Rummy, and Dick Cheney have treated our captured terrorists as quasi-POW's, thus they are entitled only to quasi-Geneval Convention rights (as they are not actually representatives of any signatory sovereign), and decidedly not entitled to the sorts of "protections" afforded by the U.S. Constitution, as it is now interpreted. More poignantly, their terms of confinement are indefinite - until the cessation of hostilities - rather than for a fixed term.
... "

Your need to express hatred once again makes you a pure fool.

Firing 75 cruise missiles into Afghanistan is a "Law Enforcement" tactic? (Clinton, allegedly a democrat) Keeping thousands of troops in Afghanistan is a "Law Enforcement" tactic? (Barak Obama, also allegedly a democrat)

The SEALS were instructed to capture Osama but not to risk their own lives to do so. They appear to have carried out that order successfully. All else is your continual need to express hatred.



yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Obviously, under battlefield conditions, the Law Enforcement mode won't even work for Democrats. The discussion is about those terrorist leaders who can be (or have been) apprehended and returned to US control. The Democrats have consistently stated that these people are "entitled" to trials, with all that that implies. It is only with great reluctance, for example, that they concede GITMO detainees would not be entitled to the full panoply of U.S. "Constitutional" protections.

By the way, there are some politicians that I "hate," and Barry isn't one of them. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a few others...

[Joe Guy]

Taking out bin laden, whether you think it was right or not, certainly prevented a long drawn out drama and world wide forum for the murdering terrorist to stir up his followers and raise the level of paranoia in the U.S.

A bin laden trial would have made the OJ Show pale in comparison - whether it was broadcast or not.

Our military achieved the best possible result in doing what they did in the way they did.

[Lord Jim]

I wonder what the standing orders were if he decided to do the Hokey-Pokey.

Or the Huckle Buck....

And if he did nothing? If he just sat still with his hands in plain view and kept his mouth shut? Would it still be okay to shoot him?

Sean, we can game out different scenario's endlessly...

The bottom line is that if he did anything other than what the seal commander on the scene told him to do, shooting him was fully justified....

Look, we're talking about a master terrorist chieftain in his lair....

Who knows what kind of booby traps he might have pre-positioned to go off in this situation?

It was a great accomplishment not only for Obama for making the call, but also for our military for planning and executing so flawlessly,and for our intelligence services for patiently assembling and testing the intel that made it possible....

Not a victory just for Obama, but a victory for all Americans. And a huge, well justified morale boost for our armed forces and intelligence services....

Kudos all 'round....

The only conceivable criticism I can think of is something Donald Rumsfeld mentioned on one of the Sunday morning news shows last week, and this relates not to the operation, but to some decisions made since then...

Rumsfeld suggested that being so public about all the intel that was gathered in this operation might not be wise, since we shouldn't be telegraphing to the enemy how much we've learned.

I think he may have a valid point there.

But as far as the operation itself is concerned; the planning, the execution, and the whole decision making process....

For that I have nothing but applause.

[Crackpot]

I was wondering that as well though I thought it may have been a "flush out" tactic.

[Lord Jim]

Or it could have been a tactical decision designed to throw them on the defensive....

To make them focus more on trying to protect themselves from discovery then on planning and executing new ops....

If that's the case it makes sense tactically in that it may prevent some pending attacks from going forward, but it could hurt us strategically because it may make them more difficult to find and capture or kill.

It's something that can really be argued either way...

[Grim Reaper]

My point is that his actions are 180 degrees out of synch with his own personal views on terrorism, and those of his party, AND NOBODY IN THE MEDIA mentioned it!

How short is your attention span? Because promising to deal with OBL, even if it meant interfering with Pakistan, was one of his campaign promises. To say it is 180 degrees from his personal views is complete and utter insanity.

So the reason that media hasn't mentioned anything is that there is nothing to mention. He acted as he said he would.





It only took me a few seconds to look up those videos. What is your excuse for denying history? Your position requires that you ignore easily obtainable information that completely discredits your points, why are you doing this? What do you gain from this? Because there is no rational reason to hold your position.

[Gob]

Wonderful thing teh interwebz..

“What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”


Sources:

Second presidential debate: foreign policy, Oct. 7, 2008

So dgs idea goes down the shitter.

[The Hen]

How sad to get the result you want and still try and fight against it.

[loCAtek]

The bottom line is that if he did anything other than what the seal commander on the scene told him to do, shooting him was fully justified....

Look, we're talking about a master terrorist chieftain in his lair....

Who knows what kind of booby traps he might have pre-positioned to go off in this situation?

Exactly, frankly the SEALS were surprised by the intel just left lying around, that wasn't rigged to self-destruct.

Here was our most wanted enemy, I think 'dead or alive' applies due to his highly dangerous nature; in an operation that had to be executed with utmost expediency for the safety of the members of the mission. They already had a helo down, and by the woman rushing, or being pushed, at the SEALS; that had to be construed as an attack. No other justification was necessary.

[dales]

How sad to get the result you want and still try and fight against it.

Yes, assuming D/M wanted Bin Laden dead......who cares if the Prez is dem, rep, or other?

Props for Obama for having the stones to whack the muderous thug.

[Gob]

How sad to get the result you want and still try and fight against it.

Agree, in this case (and people here may know I'm not greatest fan of American foreign policy) I think the ends justifies the means.

[rubato]

I think AndrewD wrote something a while back about a legal principle that would justify these means. Something about how if a person or group were committing acts which made them "an enemy of all mankind" then any government was justified in going after them no matter where they were on the high seas or in another country and no matter whose citizens had been harmed by them. If I recall he said that was the principle used to justify the United States going after the pirates in Tripoli without a declaration of war.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

¡Holy Firjole! Did we all just agree on something!? Somebody pinch me!