The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Doom Shepherd]

There are people in power who must be positively salivating to observe the bullshit that people will put up with in the name of some illusion of safety and there's no way they'll stop pushing and telling us what to be afraid of.

Yeah, that's why I don't vote for Democrats.

Now please, don't misquote Franklin at me.

Something I think is missing in many of the conversations is that it's perfectly legitimate to question what happened. In fact, it's absolutely what *should* be done by responsible citizens.

Yes... but have you ever noticed that much of the time when people are saying "question X" what they're really saying is "agree with ME!"

So yeah, I questioned it, I'm fine with it, and I look forward to something similar happening to Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Osama declared active war on the US with an illegal and undeclared act of terrorist aggression. The US raid on the compound was a legitimate act of war against a military leader. A leader whose forces are engaged in active warfare against another nation.

He was a standard casualty of war, albeit a high value target.

[David Panzer]

I wasn't talking about Pakistan. I was talking about the United States. Democracies do not assassinate.

That's the official position.

[Marsden]

Wow, really? A person resisting arrest and potentially arming themselves can not be subdued? Or you might be saying ok to subdue but he was just shot outright without opportunity to whatever. He might have not been trying to arm himself somehow even though most previous pictures showed him with an assault rifle nearby. ok.


BTW, a big difference with the Nazis than this other situation, they surrendered.

[Jonas]

Wow, really? A person resisting arrest and potentially arming themselves can not be subdued? Or you might be saying ok to subdue but he was just shot outright without opportunity to whatever. He might have not been trying to arm himself somehow even though most previous pictures showed him with an assault rifle nearby. ok.

Wow, really? Subduing someone means killing them?

What's with all this binary thinking? The world is not divided only into hugging your enemies or killing them. It's not really that radical to ask the United States to obey its own basic principles - if only because that would prevent everyone in the rest of the world from seeing them as a lawless aggressor nation.

[David Panzer]

I've never seen the mission against Bin Laden as the actions of a "lawless aggressor nation"

[Jonas]

I've never seen the mission against Bin Laden as the actions of a "lawless aggressor nation"

That's not what I said, though, is it? The ends do not always justify the means; and the proclaimed ends are not always the real ones.

[David Panzer]

In this specific instance, the SEAL mission against Bin Laden, was just.

[Jonas]

In this specific instance, the SEAL mission against Bin Laden, was just.

It was carried out illegally, and he was assassinated. That he was a criminal does not excuse criminal methods. You cannot do anything you please simply because your cause is just. It ceases to be just when you behave in the same way as the people you oppose.

[Marsden]

I'm sorry if I implied subdue = kill. I think going back to the old rules about priates sums up my position, basically, they were not to be killed but brought back for trial if possible but if they were killed resisting arrest then that was to be expected as they were by definition armed and dangerous. I don't know all the facts of what happened in the house so I can't say anything more specific, and I am not seeking to pass my opinion of as a fact. I think an assasination(or an attempt at such) took place when NATO bombed Ghaddafi's compound and killed several of his family members, but no one really seems to bothered about that and it was done by "democracies". I remember when they put a missle in Slobadon Milosivec's bedroom, I thought that was very questionable, but he was not home at the time.


There is a lot of injustices in the world, but I don't think this current topic is one of them.


Just for further information, I did not celebrate, I really wasn't that plussed by the news at all. I've actually been avoiding reading too much into it because it's way too "buzzy" right now and would like to see some final information after the blather has died down before making any firm judgements.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. If I could ask for more clarification about how this was an illegal mission? Really, I don't understand and I know tone of language is lost in written text but I don't mean the slightest disrespect nor sarcasm in this and I'm sorry if my "wow, really" was insulting as I was just a bit amazed at what I read. I blame my lack of understanding at this point as I'm interested to have a better understanding of your view. And it's not to rip it down or tear it apart, only to possibly understand why you feel that way.
Thank you.

[lotjx]

For the last time, he was not assissinated. He would have to be a head of state or part of a government to be assissinated. He was a leader of a terrorist organization who got killed during a military action. He was killed in action. If you can't get that straight then I don't know what to tell you. It was also not illegal. He was living in Pakistan illegally,the Pakistans can cry all they want over sovergien this and sovergien that, but at the end of the day, he was an illegal alien and had no rights. Also, if I were Pakistan, I would keep my mouth shut. Yes, they are an important ally with nukes, but if somehow India wanted to expand their giant population, who do think they will crying to first. Not to mention the billions, yes billions of dollars we gave them to help us fight the war only to have Osama living an hour away from their capital for almost six years. They look like idiots or traitors, take your pick.

[Jan]

For the last time, he was not assissinated. He would have to be a head of state or part of a government to be assissinated.

You've said that a couple of times now and it's not even a little bit true. The dictionary definition is:

to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

Whether the military action was murder or not is part of the discussion. It was certainly premeditated and bin Laden was absolutely a politically prominent person.

Jan

[Doom Shepherd]

You've said that a couple of times now and it's not even a little bit true.

I think what he means is that the US's RULE (Executive Order) against assassinations only applies to heads of state of other countries. There's absolutely nothing in the rulebook agaainst assassinating enemy fighters. (It's usually called sniping.)

Just like the definition of "illegal" is NOT "I don't like it," no matter how often it gets misued that way.

[Jan]

I think what he means is that the US's RULE (Executive Order) against assassinations only applies to heads of state of other countries. There's absolutely nothing in the rulebook agaainst assassinating enemy fighters. (It's usually called sniping.)

While Wikipedia is hardly an impeccable source, from this article, it's apparent that the original Executive Order has been considerably watered down from the first version which is what I was familiar with which ruled out assassination - period.

Jan

[Jonas]

I think an assasination(or an attempt at such) took place when NATO bombed Ghaddafi's compound and killed several of his family members, but no one really seems to bothered about that and it was done by "democracies".

Eh, a lot of people are very bothered about that.

I remember when they put a missle in Slobadon Milosivec's bedroom, I thought that was very questionable, but he was not home at the time.

The entire story of what happened to Milosevic is highly questionable.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. If I could ask for more clarification about how this was an illegal mission?

It was illegal in multiple senses. The assassination occured within Pakistan, but without the permission of Pakistani authorities. And it was an assassination - a mission clearly intended to kill, in which a criminal was killed despite being unarmed.

He was killed in action.

Incorrect. According to the White House, he was unarmed and there was very little resistance from any of his people.

He was living in Pakistan illegally,the Pakistans can cry all they want over sovergien this and sovergien that,

Spoken like a true bully. Who cares about their rights, eh? Well, then, who cares about your rights?

but at the end of the day, he was an illegal alien and had no rights.

Whoa. No rights? Since when does being an illegal alien keep you from being human? Sure, he may not have had the right to vote, or to work, or to own land, but international law, as well as American law, holds that all human beings share basic rights - including the right to a fair trial.

If we follow the logic behind all this hatred to its conclusion, it must be perfectly legal for Afghanistan or Iraq to assassinate Obama and/or Bush (and any number of European leaders).

[Doom Shepherd]

It was illegal in multiple senses. The assassination occured within Pakistan, but without the permission of Pakistani authorities. And it was an assassination - a mission clearly intended to kill, in which a criminal was killed despite being unarmed.

Now that our trip to Idealistic La-La land is over, let's point out That OBL was living in a Pakistani military-controlled town. The idea that their intel service did not know he was there is so far-fetched as to be on the order of believing that the US faked the Moon landings, as far as tinfoil-hatitude is concerned.

Any reasoning being should be capable of concluding that had the Pakistani government been notified of the raid, OBL would not have been there to be found.

Not that the "mission clearly designed to kill" doesn't come with it's own bit of foil.