Bin Laden dead

[mmajunkie]

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." - Dostoyevsky

The man was just trying to lash out at the prison system after being sentenced to death, but instead then exiled and incarcerated. Bias.

[Pali]

The man was just trying to lash out at the prison system after being incarcerated himself. Bias.

Perhaps - as far as I can tell the quote is only tenuously credited to him anyways. Who says it isn't the point - I agree with the message.

[KRins]

Bin Laden wasn't an anarchist... he believed in an Islamic Afghan state.

By the way, aren't you guys mostly Christians? Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek, love your enemy, all that jazz?

Bro... flying a couple planes into some of the most iconic buildings in a country is basically the perfect way to sow some anarchy. Just because he wanted one Afghan nation under the Taliban or Al Qaeda or whoever doesn't mean it would function as a society. You do not have to even attempt to be openly destructive of society to forgo the Social Contract as I recall the theory. When you violate one of the two tenets of the Social Contract (1. Do not harm others. 2. Keep any agreement made.) you are removing yourself from society and returning to a state of nature. Society is bigger than the desire of a fringe group, as such... they cannot claim they are just trying to modify society. It is exactly what it is based on the collective daily actions of conforming persons. Any attempts to act in a manner damaging to society is a return to a state of nature. Do you think lions think about the morality of eating a gazelle? It happens because the lions are physically capable of eating the gazelle and are unconstrained by the Social Contract. When you return to a state of nature, you damn well better be the baddest boy in your hood... because any Social Contract philosopher is going to laugh when people say you catching your death however you went about it is a bad thing.

I am a proud Catholic... I am also a proud American, born a proud New Yorker, born and raised in New York City, and a hater of the unjust. There may have been some real scumbags on those planes or in those buildings that died... but there is no way everyone deserved to have to decide on burning to death or jumping 50+ stories to their doom. We Christians do seek to forgive our enemies, but we aren't perfect in anyway. Whether Catholic or Protestant... both sides don't play that mess... we will start a Crusade on you, we will start an Inquisition on you... we will damn you to hell via excommunication. Just because we SHOULD TRY to always forgive doesn't mean we are just going to meekly accept our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers... or just co-people killed in a cowardly, secretive way. I would have less death desire if he stood up like a man and fought instead of using nefarious plots and cronies to do his dirty work. At least then I could respect him as someone who stood up for what he believed in... now I can just view him as I do any gang leader, a recruiter of the lost and a deceiver.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Bro... flying a couple planes into some of the most iconic buildings in a country is basically the perfect way to sow some anarchy. Just because he wanted one Afghan nation under the Taliban or Al Qaeda or whoever doesn't mean it would function as a society. You do not have to even attempt to be openly destructive of society to forgo the Social Contract as I recall the theory. When you violate one of the two tenets of the Social Contract (1. Do not harm others. 2. Keep any agreement made.) you are removing yourself from society and returning to a state of nature. Society is bigger than the desire of a fringe group, as such... they cannot claim they are just trying to modify society. It is exactly what it is based on the collective daily actions of conforming persons. Any attempts to act in a manner damaging to society is a return to a state of nature. Do you think lions think about the morality of eating a gazelle? It happens because the lions are physically capable of eating the gazelle and are unconstrained by the Social Contract. When you return to a state of nature, you damn well better be the baddest boy in your hood... because any Social Contract philosopher is going to laugh when people say you catching your death however you went about it is a bad thing.

I am a proud Catholic... I am also a proud American, born a proud New Yorker, born and raised in New York City, and a hater of the unjust. There may have been some real scumbags on those planes or in those buildings that died... but there is no way everyone deserved to have to decide on burning to death or jumping 50+ stories to their doom. We Christians do seek to forgive our enemies, but we aren't perfect in anyway. Whether Catholic or Protestant... both sides don't play that mess... we will start a Crusade on you, we will start an Inquisition on you... we will damn you to hell via excommunication. Just because we SHOULD TRY to always forgive doesn't mean we are just going to meekly accept our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers... or just co-people killed in a cowardly, secretive way. I would have less death desire if he stood up like a man and fought instead of using nefarious plots and cronies to do his dirty work. At least then I could respect him as someone who stood up for what he believed in... now I can just view him as I do any gang leader, a recruiter of the lost and a deceiver.

*applauds*

Well put.

[Twinblades713]

He got the real justice system, karma, golden rule whatever. You kill a bunch of people, expect someone to want to kill you back. I wouldn't have cared if he went to trial for a hasty death penalty or got killed in his own country like hussein was. That garbage gets filtered out quick. All you want is a couple of hoops jumped through before we kill the guy back? He didn't get those planes going on accident... I'm also catholic and I believe in protecting the safety of anyone who doesn't deserve to be terrorized. Dude continually promised horrible things. Shrug, he mighta been sorry. ROFL.

[Pali]

Bro... flying a couple planes into some of the most iconic buildings in a country is basically the perfect way to sow some anarchy. Just because he wanted one Afghan nation under the Taliban or Al Qaeda or whoever doesn't mean it would function as a society.

Whether it would function or not is irrelevant - his motive was not anarchist in the sense of attempting to bring about non-governance. His motive was to create an Islamic world. The US's motive is to create a democratic world, apparently, and we're willing to kill plenty of people and destroy plenty of buildings to accomplish it, and we have no guarantee that it would work either... so we're anarchist as well by your logic?

You do not have to even attempt to be openly destructive of society to forgo the Social Contract as I recall the theory. When you violate one of the two tenets of the Social Contract (1. Do not harm others. 2. Keep any agreement made.) you are removing yourself from society and returning to a state of nature.

Here is my problem with this: in essence, you are saying that when someone acts without civility, then we are therefore justified in treating them without civility. In the simplest terms, I view this as sinking to their level. I cannot condone it. We should be better than that.

Society is bigger than the desire of a fringe group, as such... they cannot claim they are just trying to modify society.

Uh... yes, they can. Whether society wants to or can be modified is one thing... whether the group is trying to change society or destroy it is another. Al Qaeda is NOT an anarchist group - they are a theocratic group.

It is exactly what it is based on the collective daily actions of conforming persons. Any attempts to act in a manner damaging to society is a return to a state of nature.

So, revolutionaries that are willing to completely disrupt society with the goal of creating a new, better society are returning to a state of nature? One should have informed the Founding Fathers that their summary executions by the British would've been viewed as morally justified by future Americans because they completely disrupted colonial society.

Do you think lions think about the morality of eating a gazelle? It happens because the lions are physically capable of eating the gazelle and are unconstrained by the Social Contract. When you return to a state of nature, you damn well better be the baddest boy in your hood... because any Social Contract philosopher is going to laugh when people say you catching your death however you went about it is a bad thing.

Lions lack reasoning faculties. Humans do not, and we are therefore not justified in acting as they would. What are you saying here, that because we're capable of killing someone who wants to kill us because they consider our actions to be evil and we disagree, it is therefore morally justified?

We Christians do seek to forgive our enemies, but we aren't perfect in anyway. Whether Catholic or Protestant... both sides don't play that mess... we will start a Crusade on you, we will start an Inquisition on you... we will damn you to hell via excommunication.

So... Christians are supposed to forgive their enemies and treat them well, but they don't and never have. This is not news to me, but I'm glad that you're at least willing to admit it.

I would have less death desire if he stood up like a man and fought instead of using nefarious plots and cronies to do his dirty work.

As he did against, say, the Soviets when he was a much younger and more physically capable man? I mean, seriously, when is the last time you can think of a political leader actually being on the front lines while he is the political leader? If you can name a single one during the entire 20th century I will be happy to learn about this person, because I certainly can't.

All you want is a couple of hoops jumped through before we kill the guy back?

Did I not just make an entire post about why trying someone through the courts, even the most vile and clearly guilty of us, is a worthwhile endeavor? Putting someone like him on trial before executing him is not just jumping through hoops - the purpose is to ensure that he is being sentenced to death by laws, not by people who may be emotionally motivated to desire his death. Mob rule is something I have no desire for... part of why I'm glad that the US is a republic rather than a democracy.

[abghoul]

Poor anarchism.

Just means absence of MonarCHISM, OligarCHISM even DemokratISM.

The absence of control does not equal the presence of terror.

As a political system it wont work, of course.

But its us human people that are to be blamed for that, not anarchism.

[mmajunkie]

nicely done

[Pali]

It also means the absence of theocratism - something bin Laden was fully in favor of.

[mmajunkie]

He may have support to the latter option in this -

"....anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society."

[Pali]

He may have support to the latter option in this -

"....anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society."

I have yet to see any reason to think that he would have supported this as an ultimate goal (he may have viewed creating anarchy as a means to the end of theocracy, but again, I have yet to see evidence of that... however, his goal of drawing the US into a quagmire in Afghanistan seems to have gone off quite well, so I do have to give him props on that bit of strategic planning).

Frankly, I'm curious what you guys consider to be actually anarchist about his actions rather than anti-US. The simple fact that he was willing to destroy buildings and kill people does not make him an anarchist by any definition of the term that I am familiar with - WHY he was willing to do such MIGHT have made him an anarchist, but I have never seen any reason to suspect that a lawless society was his goal. I thought it quite clear that a society governed by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law was his goal.

EDIT: I also find it a historical irony that the only nation that has ever nuked cities is now justifying extra-judicial execution for killing civilians. You say he was at war with us... well, our justification (not our actual reasons, but our justification) was being at war with Japan... should Truman have been executed for it?

[KRins]

Considering the near brainwashing of the Japanese people at the time, their willingness to die before giving up even an inch of territory... I'd have to say showing them we could sink the Japanese Islands if we really wanted to, showing them we had a technological superiority that could quite literally erase all of Japan from the face of the earth, and not using conventional weapons on essentially cities made out of wood that would have just become giant conflagrations all strike me as fairly humanitarian acts towards legitimate war enemies. That's just me though.

As far as morally right or wrong, you can split hairs all night long. I think it is morally right via personal opinion and my selected philosophical theories. You disagree for your own reasons. Fact of the matter is he put himself in a position to be considered an enemy combatant without a uniform. Throughout history... being a combatant without a uniform has always gone badly. Look at how the Nazis treated the French Resistance. Bad times. If you decide to wage a factional war and said faction isn't a country... you are gonna have a super bad time if you should lose or be captured. If you throw down with someone in the bar or something... you SHOULD know full well that dude might pull out a gun and shoot you in the mouth. If you start something... be prepared to finish it and ALWAYS be prepared for the absolute worst consequence if you lose. When you step outside the law... regardless of reason or philosophy... you are no longer under the laws protection. The fact the United States and numerous others countries offer legal process to everyone, regardless of obvious guilt or heinousness of the act, is an act of pure good will. The fact we can even sit here and debate whether or not this was right is an act of pure good will by the government. They could have worded the Patriot Act in such a way that we could have been straight up executed for speaking against the government. It has happened in many different places in a variety of different times.

To boil it all down: Whether it was 'right' or 'wrong' in your eyes, my eyes, or random passerby's eye is of debatable worth. The fact a clear and present danger to our lives, our society, and our sense of security has been eliminated... regardless of the method... will ALWAYS work for me. If you attack me, I am going to be going right back at you H.A.M. The punishment suits the VARIETY of crimes. If you kill us, we will kill you back. I honestly don't even dwell on the morality of it. It's a damn fact... if you mug me once and I just meekly give you my wallet and take a beatdown, you are gonna try it again if you catch me in a similar situation. I believe a SEAL team strolling to your house and putting a whole variety of hurt on you and your cohorts is the exact opposite of meekly accepting the crimes committed against us. So yeah... you can disagree with the morality all you want. I honestly couldn't care if you do, even if you paid me to. Fact of the matter is... the next time someone considers blowing up a building in this country they are going to think "I might end up with a squad of some of the baddest men on the planet coming to take my face OFF. I might end up hated the world over to the point I can't even be buried on land and get dumped into the ocean as high grade shark chum." I believe in deterrents... and knowing we will kill the absolute **** out of you regardless of where you hide and regardless of how long it takes us seems to be a pretty powerful little deterrent.

[Twinblades713]

Pali is one of the bad guys. D:

Say it isn't so! :eek:

Edit: i can see it coming... /joke

[Pali]

KRins... you missed my point entirely regarding nuking Japan. The point isn't to argue about whether or not it was justified - the point is that there are situations where we will decide that killing civilians is justified, and yet we are condemning people as irredeemably evil and not worthy of due process for making that very same call. Do you not recognize the hypocrisy here? The larger point I was making is that we aren't nearly as different from someone like bin Laden as we like to think we are. I'd be willing to bet that he would say similar things about our civilians as you did about the Japanese about how we're brainwashed or evil or whatever it is we tell ourselves so that we can ignore that we are killing kids. We are great at condemning the killing of civilians - except when we're the ones doing it.

Also, KRins, please tell me that you can understand my discomfort at governments being considered justified in killing people without a trial in the name of national security.

When you step outside the law... regardless of reason or philosophy... you are no longer under the laws protection. The fact the United States and numerous others countries offer legal process to everyone, regardless of obvious guilt or heinousness of the act, is an act of pure good will.

Uh, actually, it's an act that is legally required by the Constitution and by numerous international treaties. Hell, I step outside the law every day whenever I smoke weed... do I no longer deserve its protection?

It's this black and white, with us or against us, we're right and they're wrong thinking that worries me.

The fact we can even sit here and debate whether or not this was right is an act of pure good will by the government.

No, actually, it's an act that is legally required in that government's charter. The government loses its legal authority when it violates that charter.

They could have worded the Patriot Act in such a way that we could have been straight up executed for speaking against the government. It has happened in many different places in a variety of different times.

Yes, it has. You seem remarkably unconcerned about the possibility of it happening again here.

P.S. I also agree that deterrents are useful - they are one of the few good justifications that exist for punishing criminals. That said, we shouldn't be stepping outside our legal system to create deterrents.

[KRins]

I find a huge difference between smoking a joint and killing people. By making that choice though, you do forfeit some rights. You can't sue someone for not hiring if you fail a drug test... but you can if they don't hire you based on skin color.

Regarding us killing Japanese civilians compared to bin Laden's actions... We were at war with Japan. They knew full well we would be knocking on the doors of Kyoto in the very near future. Whether or not the government did or did not know anything about 9/11, the people on those planes or in those buildings didn't have reasonable expectations of a faction of Islamic extremists starting a war. We, as a country, don't respond well to being sneak attacked. Ask Japan. I totally understand your discomfort at someone being executed without a trial... if that person is willing to stand trial. By spending months and months on the run, producing anti-US videos, and essentially patting terrorists on the back for murder... I stopped viewing him as a human being. If you behave like an animal (via a return to a state of nature like I said before), I will treat you like an animal. If a dog gets out of hand and bites someone... you put it down.

Regarding the different Constitutional guarantees... at the time of the Constitution's drafting... FEW countries even pretended to give their citizens such rights. As such, I consider that a real act of good will by the drafters. Speaking against monarchs in other countries around that time basically ended up in getting executed. Seems like an act of good will to extend such a guarantee to the people. I am terribly concerned about government overstepping their boundaries... but I am also just as concerned about the United States and its ability to defend itself and crush enemies into a fine powder. I see no issue with the way Osama was treated. If you came into my house trying to kill me... I would only need the time to decide which gun was closest to be trying to kill you back.

[Pali]

I find a huge difference between smoking a joint and killing people. By making that choice though' date=' you do forfeit some rights.[/quote']

True - but I am still treated as existing under the law's jurisdiction, no matter how far outside it my actions are. At no point should it be legal for some person to just walk up and kill me.

Regarding us killing Japanese civilians compared to bin Laden's actions... We were at war with Japan. They knew full well we would be knocking on the doors of Kyoto in the very near future. Whether or not the government did or did not know anything about 9/11, the people on those planes or in those buildings didn't have reasonable expectations of a faction of Islamic extremists starting a war.

Their ignorance is no more bin Laden's problem than a Japanese child's ignorance is our problem.

You keep making my point for me - you are justifying the killing of civilians.

We, as a country, don't respond well to being sneak attacked. Ask Japan.

We're emotional beings that don't respond well to a lot of things. That is why justice is carried about by the law acting through courts, NOT by individual mandates. EDIT: When we start carving out exceptions for things we personally find abhorrent, we set an incredibly dangerous precedent of dismissing the law when it is sufficiently desired. At that point, the law ceases to be more important than who it happens to be that gets to do the desiring - and that's bad.

edit: And by the way - we responded to Pearl Harbor the rational, legal way: having Congress give a formal declaration of war against Japan. We responded to 9/11 the emotional, illegal way: swearing vengeance before we even knew who we were swearing it on and occupying countries without ever formally declaring war on them.

I totally understand your discomfort at someone being executed without a trial... if that person is willing to stand trial. By spending months and months on the run, producing anti-US videos, and essentially patting terrorists on the back for murder... I stopped viewing him as a human being. If you behave like an animal (via a return to a state of nature like I said before), I will treat you like an animal.

Except that he was not an animal (in a non-biological sense). He was not incapable of rational thinking. He was an ideologue, a man convinced of the righteousness of his cause, that the ends justified whatever means were to be used... but as far as I can tell he was NOT insane by any clinical definition of the term.

This is my problem here: you keep justifying the US's killing of civilians, while saying that this guy thinking that his killing of civilians was justified makes him not just wrong, but an "animal" or "evil". Do you not see the bias in your thinking here? EDIT: You have already granted the premise that situations may exist where the killing of civilians is an acceptable act. The question then is what those situations are. You cannot condemn the entire category of people willing to kill civilians as animals or evil or whatever without including yourself.

There are plenty of mass murderers that have been resisted arrest and yet been captured alive, and plenty of times where the capture attempt was resisted and the only choice was a kill shot - my problem stems from the mission apparently not having the goal of capture at all. This was a targeted killing. I have a problem with any government performing such missions under non-imminent threat conditions.

Regarding the different Constitutional guarantees... at the time of the Constitution's drafting... FEW countries even pretended to give their citizens such rights. As such, I consider that a real act of good will by the drafters. Speaking against monarchs in other countries around that time basically ended up in getting executed. Seems like an act of good will to extend such a guarantee to the people.

I would say it was as much self-interest as anything - these people had just fought a war to gain rights they desired for themselves, and I doubt they'd see any logic in turning around and creating a new country that could also take those rights away from them.

[KRins]

Bro... the fact he killed our civilians made him a combatant. You can't claim he was a civilian at all. He was functioning as a leader of a paramilitary organization. If you pick up the banner of war, be prepared to carry it to victory or death.

[Pali]

Bro... the fact he killed our civilians made him a combatant. You can't claim he was a civilian at all. He was functioning as a leader of a paramilitary organization. If you pick up the banner of war' date=' be prepared to carry it to victory or death.[/quote']

We were not in an official state of war (especially not with Pakistan), nor was this any sort of open combat situation. This was a bunch of American soldiers busting into a house without warning. If we'd burst into German barracks during WW2 and opened fire in such a way, it'd have been called a war crime. EDIT: By the way, I never said he was a civilian - but there are rules for how we treat soldiers, mercenaries, and other sorts of civilian combatants, and none of them call for extra-judicial execution.

And, historically, countries tend to capture and try paramilitary leaders rather than assassinate them - at least, civilized ones do anyways. We are not justified in assassinating people. Attempting a capture that failed and led to his death I am fine with - directly ordering his death I am not. I hope you can understand why I'm drawing that line.

[KRins]

I dig why you are drawing that line. In my mind... he was no longer a person. He disqualified himself from such a lofty classification long ago in my mind. I don't see anything wrong with killing a cow without a trial... I don't see anything wrong with killing Osama without a trial. Maybe I'm irrational or bloodthirsty... but in my mind... he had to go ASAP.

[Pali]

In my mind... he was no longer a person.

And this is exactly why we need to ensure that it is a system of laws that determines a person's punishment for their crimes rather than the desires of the people he has wronged.

Don't get me wrong - I don't blame you for feeling how you feel either. I understand it perfectly, but it's also an emotional reaction rather than a rational one, and it clouds your thinking on the subject. It's why it can't be one person or a bunch of people simply deciding "you deserve to die" - it has to be a legal system making that determination for it to remain fair, and we can't just start carving out exceptions whenever we want to.

[KRins]

I would tend to totally agree with you... I am a creature of emotion... which is rather depressing being a male. I cry when I feel like it, and I DEFINITELY have a lot of HATE when I feel like it. He fell into my hate category. Perhaps I use my philosophical argument to make me feel better about something fairly psychopath like desiring the death of another person... but for whatever reason, I cannot make myself feel bad about it.

[Pali]

Oh, I'm not saying anyone should be sad the guy's dead... I'm certainly not. I just don't like the idea of our govt. using kill squads rather than our justice system. While in this case I agree that the target was worthy of eradication, I view accepting such in any instance to be setting up a dangerous precedent.

[Ex-D&Der]

I don't want to rehash the whole debate over the Geneva Conventions. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the whole distinction of unlawful versus lawful combatants was specious, and the Geneva Conventions are binding upon the United States as a signatory, no matter who it is fighting against. That said, if you don't agree that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, there's still murder, even if the person you are dealing with is a fascist, or a terrorist, or a Ted Bundy. If someone is surrendering, and does not present any kind of threat, bullets are not flying, it's totally clear to everyone involved that a surrender is being attempted and there is no danger, and you still kill him, I think that's murder. Now I'm not saying that was the case here. Shots were fired, and these guys I have no doubt had very narrow rules of engagement for using lethal force, as they should have. It would have been very difficult for bin Laden to surrender under these circumstances. If he wanted to surrender, he would have had to negotiate it in advance in all likelihood, not try to surrender to a combat team sent to kill him (which is not illegal, if he was a combatant--you can target specific people, even officers, without breaking any laws). But given all that, if they guy wanted to surrender, and could have done so safely, then no, I would not be in favor of just killing him. He should get a trial, just like Milosevic, and Eichmann, and all the other mass murderers in history who were captured and put on trial. It has been this process that has established international law, and the precedent of crimes against humanity, in the first place.

[Pali]

The official story seems to have solidified into the team being fired upon by one person while entering, they took out this person, and they weren't fired upon again for the rest of the mission. The terms of engagement were basically that if Osama wasn't on his knees begging for his life when they busted in, lethal force was authorized for him... and when they found him he was on his feet with weapons nearby. One of his wives rushed the US troops and was shot in the leg, bin Laden was then shot in the head.

As far as I know, that's pretty much how it went down.