I'm undecided on this one, though I'm swaying towards the view that he shouldn't have been killed, instead just prevented from killing others. Was it right to kill him? What are the positives and negatives of his death? 

 

Morally what was the right thing to do? was it a lesser of two evils? 

 

How similar were/are the motivations of Al Qaeda and the US, they are both convinced that they religion is right are they not? 

Tags: 9/11, Al, Bin, Osama, Qaeda, USA, bin, ethics, killed, laden, More…morals, murder, obama

Views: 166

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

nice insight, I don't know how likely hostages would have been, although it was a possibility. Plus, great conspiracy theory!
  1. Of course my spiel was over simplified.  However, I'm not aware of why this would not be murder.
If he was unarmed and not resisting so strenuously that the Seals would reasonably have concluded he was a mortal danger to them, or likely to escape, then it seems to me the laws are quite clear.  He was a suspect and legally should have been apprehended rather then executed.   Having noted this, I probably would have killed him myself if given the opportunity - murder or not.  I'm not complaining about this possible murder,  I'm only noting that it may be murder.  This point is definitional rather than ethical - the ethical consideration comes later.

Of course, writing from the peace and safety of my home with all the time I want to think about things, the conditions are very different than those faced by the Seals.  They were is hostile territory, in great urgency,  and , I presume, about as intense as they could get.  Nevertheless, I'm not aware of any caveats to "innocent until proven guilty", no matter how evil the target is presumed to be.   

As to calling our soldiers murderers, some certainly are. Again it's not a question of good or bad, instead its a technical definition. Numerous US soldiers have been found guilty of murder under the guise of combat.  I don't know the specifics of any such activity today and have not accused anyone personally of murder.  I would like to see an analysis of the Bin Laden situation by a neutral expert legal analyst.  I'd consider that more authoritative than comments by either enemies or patriots.    Meanwhile are we a country governed by law except when the law seems inconvenient?   (A similar question is obviously raised in considering the "enhanced interrogation techniques" we've used. )

[FLAMERS, please note:  I'm not questioning the effectiveness of the methods we may have used, only their legality.  If we should decide that
our laws were inappropriate for certain conditions, the proper road would be to change those laws - assuming one cares if we are a lawful country or
only an expedient one ]

GaryB

I wish this website had a "like" button for comments. I suppose I'll just have to settle for the old fashioned method: I liked your comment.

Bin Laden was fighting a religious war against the United States. And as much as we hate to believe it, he was very successful. His main goal being to have the US in so many conflicts at the same time, that it would destroy the US economy. I believe he should have be captured alive, so the world could see he is just like the rest of us. Just an old man, fragile, clinging on to his beliefs and fighting for his cause. Now don't misinterpret what I am saying. I do not support him or his beliefs. And the acts of mass murder are unforgivable. But the point is he was doing it for what he believed in. I am getting fed up with seeing religion tear down our civilized society. Killing him does not solve anything what so ever. Al Qaeda is still just as functional. Terrorism will still continue. We should have showed we are better than them. That we don't solve our problems by killing.

I agree (Rodney W). Whose to say that his beliefs were less true than that of hundreds of American's who condone his death and believe he will rot in hell. If neither have righteousness over the other, then our aim should be to prevent Osama from killing more people, not necessarily to kill him ourselves. We can only speculate with limited information of what would have happened if he was captured and tried, we do not know for sure it would have led to more deaths, its arguable that his murder could insight more support or hatred from sympathisers. 

However, as always with American the motivation of the President should be taken into consideration. I would not blame Obama for taking a decision when it could be so beneficial for his presidency, perhaps I would do the same in his position.

My one side says that he should have been captured and tried, but my other side says that he got off too easy be being killed. I think he should have been tortured, even though I am against torture, and then publicly humiliated before finding a slow and painful way of killing him, but the bastard deserved what he got.
It probably would have been better and more ethical to attempt to capture him.

I think the alternatives to "rule of law" are ugly.  For example, in numerous third world countries regional warlords organize their own personal armies of thugs to enforce their own personal philosophy and morality.  

 

   The people murdered by Bizmunju will not be restored to life by any punishment we're able to administer.  By imprisoning him at least three goals are accomplished, 1)  He's prevented from continuing his previous behavior  2) others who might imitate him are shown that he did not get away  3) it demonstrates the difference between a lawful society as compared to one organized by terror and force.

 

   Laws, at their best, are good intentioned and honest attempts to formulate a general rule that will apply to a wide range of situations.  Since we are of limited capacity, most and perhaps all laws are imperfect.  The best we can do is to change them when it becomes apparant that they are inadequate.  Since change takes time, this implies that there will be a period where the existing law is unsuitable.    Rational societies have means to deal with these inevitable problems, such as an appeals process and/or a high court that is empowered to "re-interpret" the law until a Legislature can create a new one.  

 

Who wishes to live in a society where the cop with a gun is empowered to decide if he should remit a suspect to the courts or summarily execute him on the spot?

It sounds like that justification could be used for other moral grey areas as well, such as abortion doctors.  If one believes they are truly killing children, it would then follow that such an action would be appropriate in that situation as well.  

As far as comparing him to Hitler and/or Stalin, I'd say that is going way too far.  Obviously thats personal opinion, but nothing he did compares to the scale and planning that was executed by both.  I think thats giving him far too much credit.

How about Koresh and McVeigh? Yes, yes and they screw up the world cohesiveness so YEAH!
Up off your knees or else.

I'm totally okay with killing Bin Laden. It's what needed to be done in the situation we were in. The question I ask is "what got us there?" To me the answer is that we force our agenda on other cultures. Bin Laden never would have gotten all the support he had if we had minded our own business and steered clear of the Israelis, kept the CIA out of Iran, etc. We went into other countries and made them do something they didn't want to do. Then they got really pissed. Go figure.

 

To avoid this kind of bloodshed in the future we should keep our noses clean, and if that means paying 10 bucks a gallon for gas, then so be it.

Don't see the problem with the killing of Bin Laden really. He decleared war on the United States, He was an unlawful combatant under the Geneva Convention. He was also not a head of state. So there for he was unprotected under The Geneva Convention and the Laws of Landfare. As far as the motivations of the United States are concerned, I can not even begin to look at this from a religious stand point. We where dealing with the terrorist commander who was leading the terrorist organization who commited the the most ruthless attack against the United States. Targeting mostly civilians and not Military Personel. The killing of Bin Laden had nothing to do with religion. In my view, it was more to bring a closure to September 11th, and to send a message to Al Qaeda. Also remember, that the Navy Seal who killed Osama Bin Laden could of been a Theist of any Religion or even an Atheist. The US is after all very deverse.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service