Osama bin Laden has been killed in a mansion within a multi-building complex in Pakistan near Islamabad by American Navy Seals.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden
Comprehensive coverage is at:
http://news.discovery.com/history/osama-bin-laden-killed-110502.html
Tags: Jubinsky, Laden., Osama, bin
Permalink Reply by Meddlesome on May 4, 2011 at 7:55am
Permalink Reply by Aiden on May 3, 2011 at 8:50pm does that give us the right to kill him when he posed no immediate threat to those sent to get him?
Yes. Yes, it does. And shooting him, unarmed or otherwise, wasn't overboard. In fact, I don't think it would been overboard to keep him alive so we could televise feeding him to wild pigs during halftime of the next Super Bowl.
Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 7:50am
Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on May 4, 2011 at 7:53am Pot = Kettle...
He should have been put on trial - even Sadam got that.
Permalink Reply by Meddlesome on May 4, 2011 at 7:52am
Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 7:48am
Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 10:17am The fact that he is dead I think is for the better. But I'm uncomfortable with a policy of assassination instead of trial. He wasn't a official of a nation, he was a criminal. I know a lot of people think he can't be treated like a criminal and must instead be treated like an enemy, but I'm not one of those people.
It was a complicated issue, and with the information available, I'm not clear on it at this point. If he did have a human shield and was resisting a SEAL team, then shooting him was probably the only real option. The question is, how did it play out.
The question is, did we really ever consider taking him prisoner?
Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 10:51am Im hoping that the "capture" option was briefly discussed because that would have been the rational thing to do. And I hope it took the President about 2 mins of conversation to throw it out. This would mean the President had already weighed that option prior to locating Bin Laden..which any intelligent leader should do.
Your use of the word "assasination" may be helpiing to fuel that "moral" quandry you seem to be having about killing and ENEMY COMBATANT.
Permalink Reply by Joseph P on May 4, 2011 at 11:14am Yeah, it doesn't matter whether he was a foreign official or not. He had declared war on us, whether he had the official backing of a nation or not. That means shooting him in the head is a perfectly acceptable option.
One of the things I've heard fundy, right-wing radio criticizing Obama about was that he waited 14 hours after receiving intelligence that bin Laden was there. I'm sure Obama spent a good chunk of that 14 hours figuring out the best possible way to handle the situation, sorting through the likely results of either choice. I think the best choice, politically, is not having him covered by the American and international media during his trial. The fallout from the assassination will almost certainly be far less than the results of bin Laden's preaching from the witness stand.
Permalink Reply by Aiden on May 3, 2011 at 8:44pm
Joseph P replied to The Big Blue Frog's discussion Gum Chewing and Talking In Class in the group Winning Arguments!
Meri Weathers replied to The Big Blue Frog's discussion Gum Chewing and Talking In Class in the group Winning Arguments!
Meri Weathers replied to The Big Blue Frog's discussion Gum Chewing and Talking In Class in the group Winning Arguments!
Tom Sarbeck replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Edward Snowden: War on Whistleblowers "Only Builds Better Whistleblowers" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
Sentient Biped commented on Claire Donnelly's group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

