Like Tree139Likes

Bin Laden Found Dead?

Reply
Page 14 of 46 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 ... LastLast
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    It is pretty clear Bin Laden was murdered - even the White House this morning is confirming he was unarmed but "resisting". There is no call in any lawful country to shoot someone twice in the head if they are just "resisting arrest" but are unarmed. It's also pretty obvious why it was necessary - if he's remained alive no doubt his followers would have moved heaven and earth to get him out, risking many more lives in the process; he would have remained a figurehead capable of insiring more death and destruction. On balance, they did the right thing. I don't think it should be commonplace, but this was not a "common" situation. Bin Laden put himself in the firing line and smiled doing it. He got what was coming to him. Live by the gun; die by the gun.
    But by creating a martyr out of him, aren't we doing precisely creating a situation whereby more deaths and destruction would occur?
    By showing the world of how the law truly operates in a an open democracy would be 100 times more powerful than showing that all we want is revenge and hell bent on wars.

  2. #132

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat:
    You can't really deny that despite the best efforts of Osama's wife's body, that he was murdered. Two shots in the tete.

    What do you call it?
    Um, no. "murder" is a legally-defined term. He was "killed".

  3. #133

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    It is pretty clear Bin Laden was murdered - even the White House this morning is confirming he was unarmed but "resisting". There is no call in any lawful country to shoot someone twice in the head if they are just "resisting arrest" but are unarmed. It's also pretty obvious why it was necessary - if he's remained alive no doubt his followers would have moved heaven and earth to get him out, risking many more lives in the process; he would have remained a figurehead capable of insiring more death and destruction. On balance, they did the right thing. I don't think it should be commonplace, but this was not a "common" situation. Bin Laden put himself in the firing line and smiled doing it. He got what was coming to him. Live by the gun; die by the gun.
    While that is an interesting argument - I am surprised. I thought that you were a lawyer? If you want to go down this path, perhaps the word 'assassinated' would be more appropriate. I don't think anyone (except someone rather ignorant) would argue that killing Bin Laden was an illegal act.

  4. #134

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by HKITperson:
    By my logic it is wrong for any civilised country to kill anyone.
    OK. In your brilliant universe, there would be no contries, and no civilization.

  5. #135

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by HKITperson:
    So you have resorted to personal insults when you can't win an argument. Pathetic specimen you are!
    What happened to Ghadaffi's son and grandkids when Nato bombed? Bin Laden may have been unlawfully killed or murdered. Democratic Governments cannot do revenge extrajudicial killings but justice... in this case justice has not been done because he has not been brought up into a court of law to answer for his crimes.
    Isn't the whole basis of democracy built on justice and the rule of law?
    I'M RESORTING TO PERSONAL INSULTS BECAUSE YOU WERE RESPONDING TO A POST OF FOOTBALL'S. THE POST YOU WERE RESPONDING TO IS NOT MINE.

    IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS STUPID DISCUSSION, PLEASE DISPLAY SOMETHING THAT I WROTE, NOT FOOTBALL.

    By the way, this entire issue was dispensed with on Monday - please review the old posts. You simply don't know when to admit that you have no argument. It's done.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Freetrader:
    Um, no. "murder" is a legally-defined term. He was "killed".
    Yes Freetrader.

    The definition of murder is roughly:

    - where a person of sound mind
    - unlawfully kills
    - another human being
    - with intent to kill

    On the face of it, it is pretty clear that Osama was murdered. The mandate was clear: to (1) capture him, or, if he resisted this (2) kill (murder) him.

    I can pre-empt you saying that this was a lawful killing. How? Under Pakistani law I am sure that murder is illegal. I am fairly sure that a law was not enacted to permit the killing of Osama Bin Laden either.

    Not that it is relevant, but in the States I cannot locate any law that purports to permit the lawful killing of Osama either. Just the President's order.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of murdering murderers and I appreciate your sentiment. I wish capital punishment was brought back in the UK actually. But don't try to justify what the Americans did with semantics. They murdered Osama in revenge. Thems the facts.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Freetrader:
    I don't think anyone (except someone rather ignorant) would argue that killing Bin Laden was an illegal act.
    Meeee! Me! Me! I am arguing just that! :-)
    Freetrader likes this.

  8. #138

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat:
    Yes Freetrader.

    The definition of murder is roughly:

    - where a person of sound mind
    - unlawfully kills
    - another human being
    - with intent to kill

    On the face of it, it is pretty clear that Osama was murdered. The mandate was clear: to (1) capture him, or, if he resisted this (2) kill (murder) him.

    I can pre-empt you saying that this was a lawful killing. How? Under Pakistani law I am sure that murder is illegal. I am fairly sure that a law was not enacted to permit the killing of Osama Bin Laden either.

    Not that it is relevant, but in the States I cannot locate any law that purports to permit the lawful killing of Osama either. Just the President's order.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of murdering murderers and I appreciate your sentiment. I wish capital punishment was brought back in the UK actually. But don't try to justify what the Americans did with semantics. They murdered Osama in revenge. Thems the facts.
    Sorry luckycat, it is not illegal in any way. The president has the authority to order military action, etc., etc. It was a military action. I'm going back to work now.

  9. #139

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Kowloon
    Posts
    98

    I find it strange to hear he was unarmed. If I was one of the worlds most wanted men, I'd probably keep a gun or two nearby. I know he had guards downstairs, but fat load of good they did. News reports are saying he maybe went for a weapon when the navy seal entered the room and thats why he was shot but with 4 choppers flying around the compound and gunfire downstairs I think he might have been slightly more prepared than that...

    Seems to me there was a kill order. The legality of it is a bit questionable. Seems shooting an unarmed man should be illegal no matter how much of a mass-murdering evil tyrant he is.


  10. #140

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    IF the man was in custody and someone walked up to him and put two in the head, that's just plain wrong. It doesn't matter who the person is... However, if he was posing any kind of immediate threat and he somehow got two in the head. That's just the way the cookie crumbles... we'll likely never know the exact situation.

    Same goes with the NATO bombing though there seems to be more and more grumbling about that one and it is starting to look more like an attempt at regime change than the defense of lives. Not that it would be a great surprise... In any case, there can be all the yapping in the world... Might is right and no one has the means to really do anything about the actions of the US and its allies and it all comes down to political power plays.

    Seriously, who would stand up to defend Bin Laden except the fanatics... However, I don't believe that offensive actions like bombings are necessarily productive in the long run. It feeds the fire of hatred and only helps in digging deeper trenches between cultures. I understand revenge on an individual basis but it would be nice(though very naive) to see the state rise above that particularly when said states pretend to cloak themselves in mantles of freedom, democracy, rule of law etc...

    Anyway, I've always felt that these principles apply far more to their own citizens and ALL nations are quite happy to take shortcuts when it comes down to protecting their own interests even if it's at the expense of people of other countries. Very simply put, an innocent american life is worth a lot more than an innocent libyan life in the eyes of America and you can substitute pretty well any nation in this sentence and it will still be fairly accurate.

    Last edited by gilleshk; 04-05-2011 at 10:36 AM.

Reply
Page 14 of 46 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 ... LastLast