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?
I'm sensing that the crux of our disagreement is that I think there's times when it's necessary to kill people in instances other than direct self-defense (like when the other guy is pointing a gun at you), and you don't. I admire your adherence to your beliefs, but I don't see that as practical.
I'm pro-gun control and anti-death penalty, but all of my beliefs are in the interest of an orderly and just society.
Both our solutions would serve us better than what we currently have, but unfortunately neither will ever be implemented.
I understand that what you're objecting to is hypocrisy, and that there's no shortage of it in our foreign policy. The issue is whether this specific killing was warranted, and I'm saying it was. You've got me on the issue of legality, but I believe it to be just. This guy was personally responsible for killing thousands and got killed. No, he didn't get a trial, but the president and military saw a narrow window of opportunity to accomplish the original objective of the Afghan war, and took it. Had this happened as part of the original invasion of Afghanistan few would have bothered with this question.
I like the U.S., but I'm no blind nationalist. I thought from day one that our foreign policy caused this mess in the first place.
As far as precedent, my hope would be that people who kill others in the thousands at one fell swoop could know that they could be killed in cold blood. Maybe it's the thin end of the wedge leading to killings like this in less justifiable circumstances. I hope not.
It's worth noting though, that where there was widespread public outcry over imprisonments at Guantanamo Bay, there's been very little said in this guy's defense.
Getting him out? they took his body anyways, whether it was limp because it was unconscious or limp because it was dead, he was still removed.
I seem to remember other, much more murderous and calculating individuals who declared war on the world getting trials. I think they were held in Nuremberg.
I'm glad to see here that people justify bypassing due process because of difficulties in carrying it out properly, or because of the attention it would receive. I'm glad we never have those problems in the States.
Jim, do I understand where you are coming from? yes. Do I think its a justification? yes. Do I think its valid? no. it comes down to silencing Bin Laden's viewpoint and dealing with the media. thats the reason we have terrorists~ it comes down to hypocrisy. If America's viewpoint were truly justified, it wouldn't matter what Bin Laden said, the view would stand on its own. Hell, it could even be useful to corrupt his followers. Point is, they are mostly vaporous~ even Saddam Hussein, who was a much more 'evil' person [and responsible for killing many more of his own people] got a trial~ or is it that Americans are just that much more important?
I guess I just hope that no one on here (except for a few of my libertarian friends, J/k) ever is put in a situation where their due process is negated because its "inconvenient."
oh, and @Allen, here's a pic so you don't have to 'take it on my word.'
Ps Yes, I am that awkward looking in real life and No, I am not that blurry lol
I notice that you have problems with hirsutiny. What next - baldness?
p.s. I agree with you otherwise.
p.p.s. You're just jealous of el binladino's magnificent hursutness.