Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207604)

I just started listening. Glenn isn't the only person on the planet who isn't overjoyed that OBL was killed. There's at least one other, me. I don't feel overjoyed by anybody dying.

For me it's not about legality, though. I'm personally happy that he was killed on the spot rather than being put through the ludicrous US "justice" system. And, unlike Glenn, I don't really care about how it looks. I'm sick of "show trials" in some effort to make it all look better.

Why is David thinking we're obligated to feel happy or else there's something wrong with us. He can feel happy if he wants.

I think it's tragic that OBL misguidedly went the way he did in his life, caused all the misery he did, and ended the way he did, except his ending was better than any alternative I can think of. It's not something to feel happy about.

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)

This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

Originally Posted by operative (Post 207608)

Tbh the fact that OBL died doesn't bother me. I'm not fully comfortable with what was pretty clearly an extrajudicial execution order (I imagine that a President Bush or McCain would've done the same thing). If OBL had been armed and died in a shootout, I likely would've had no qualms at all (so long as none of our SEALS were hurt). I have no problems at all recognizing OBL as an existential evil force that has been vanquished from the world.

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)

This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207611)

The "evil" thing kind of depends on your perspective. Personally, I think any killing of innocents is wrong in the name of any cause. I do recognize the difference between "targeting" civilians and "collateral damage" and I'm a big believer in just war theory, especially as Michael Walzer explains it. All the same, not everybody sticks as close to that principle as I would. PS, I do believe in the different value of causes too, but that's something else. For that you have to know a lot about what a particular cause entails.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)

We can -- and should -- do both. You're right that there should be discussion of the elections in Canada. But I don't agree we should not talk about our huge victory in the ongoing war against the organization that trapped thousands of innocent people inside burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)

We can -- and should -- do both. You're right that there should be discussion of the elections in Canada. But I don't agree we should not talk about our huge victory in the ongoing war against the organization that trapped thousands of innocent people inside burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)

This whole Osama story has gotten tedious.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)

The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207622)

I don't think anybody is sticking up for OBL. Any survey I've seen anywhere shows there's no, or minimal support, for his ideas.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207622)

It's more like defeating some rag tag group of seriously wrong minded people who never had a chance anyway...

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)

One thing every American should have learned on 9/11 is that there are people in this world who will commit any crime on any scale in the name of their ideology. If Osama had nuclear weapons, he would not have hesitated to detonate them in New York or Washington or London or Paris.

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.

What's particularly offensive and shocking is the suggestion that the Navy SEALS should have increased the already incredible danger facing them by arresting bin Laden instead of killing him.

Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)

Furthermore, if we had injured bin Laden and then taken him into custody, we would have had to administer medical treatment before loading him aboard a helicopter. This would have delayed egress from the compound by several minutes, during which bin Laden or Pakistani reinforcements could have arrived on the scene, putting the lives of all of the SEALS involved in the mission at risk. One man with a SMAW could have brought down 2 or 3 helicopters before they could escape. Bin Laden's life simply isn't worth that level of risk to our SEALS, and its the height of arrogance to suggest that they had some kind of obligation to take that risk.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)

Maybe because they care about the reputation that comes with following the rule of law.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)

Iraq managed after Sadam

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)

Europe managed it after Nazism

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)

yet America can't after Bin Laden?

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)

...
Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)
...

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)

If we really are at war with an combatants rather than criminals, then they have a right to use nuclear arms don't they?

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)

As for your hypothetical it seems rather fanciful and we know that the events you outlined didn't even come close to happening.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)

...we know that the events you outlined didn't even come close to happening.

Originally Posted by piscivorous (Post 207632)

That is somewhat different from what I actually said but I would not argue with it either if it contained a caveat about not shooting dead the target if capturing that target is the mission objective.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)

Oh, I agree. But when your reaction to his death is to wring your hands about how wrong it was, how sorry you are that he was killed, and how Navy SEALS should have put themselves in greater danger to give the far left the satisfaction of seeing him arrested and placed on trial, you give the appearance of sticking up for Osama bin Laden, and you will strike most people as, basically, crazy. (If you go back and look at look at what I said it was that the hand-wringers risk "appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden." I realize, they aren't actually sticking up for him, but rather principles of law and the humane treatment of criminals, but to most people, who are unambiguously (and properly) delighted that bin Laden has been killed, it looks nuts to be playing the role of Osama's defense lawyer. And it's not just a tactical mistake; it's a strategic mistake: People are now more likely to dismiss everything else they say because their judgement on this question is so bad.



Rag tag?

David, of David & Goliath fame, wore rags. But armed with a single stone and sling, he was able to defeat a giant. Firearms have been called "equalizers" because with them, small, weak, even prostrate individuals can kill the tallest, strongest man. And with airplanes filled with fuel, Osama and his ragtag band of murderous fanatics were able to kill thousands, and change the course of history.

One thing every American should have learned on 9/11 is that there are people in this world who will commit any crime on any scale in the name of their ideology. If Osama had nuclear weapons, he would not have hesitated to detonate them in New York or Washington or London or Paris.

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.

What's particularly offensive and shocking is the suggestion that the Navy SEALS should have increased the already incredible danger facing them by arresting bin Laden instead of killing him.

Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)

Furthermore, if we had injured bin Laden and then taken him into custody, we would have had to administer medical treatment before loading him aboard a helicopter. This would have delayed egress from the compound by several minutes, during which bin Laden or Pakistani reinforcements could have arrived on the scene, putting the lives of all of the SEALS involved in the mission at risk. One man with a SMAW could have brought down 2 or 3 helicopters before they could escape. Bin Laden's life simply isn't worth that level of risk to our SEALS, and its the height of arrogance to suggest that they had some kind of obligation to take that risk.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)

Do they, as an army, have the same right as the Allies did in 1945?

Maybe they have more of a right, seeing as Japan was no longer occupying foreign soil in 45, where as the US is today - surely the Taliban have a right (that's assuming they were the legitimate government in 2001).

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)

They had been under surveillance for months

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)

...and I am not sure how the speed of the Pakistani response helps your argument.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)

There is a much more reasonable hypothetical for shooting on sight, and that would involve the potential use of the suicide vest.

In England, just after the 7/7 attacks, a Brazilian guy was gunned down by armed police. The country was outraged and an enquiry held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_o...les_de_Menezes

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)

I didn't say most of the things you mentioned, so maybe you don't mean me personally.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)

I wasn't sorry he was killed. I wasn't concerned about it being legally wrong, and I don't think it was, as far as the president's authorization was concerned, and not, so far as I know, in the execution. OBL declared war on the US, and was no doubt still conducting that war in some sense, so it was within its right to kill him, as I would see it. I also think killing him on the spot was better than a show trial at Gtmo, from any point of view.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)

I see him as a murderer because he targeted civilians, but I wouldn't see him as one of the greatest murderers in history

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)

though, but I guess that depends on your point of view. I don't find anything to celebrate about any of it, so I guess we just feel differently and I think you can't tell people how they should feel.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207639)

Okay. Let's test your belief in this theory.

Suppose you're on a subway train in Manhattan and encounter a jihadist about to detonate a nuke. You have a pistol and a cell phone. Do you shoot him in the head? Do you call the cops? Or do you tip your hat and not interfere with what you are calling his right to destroy New York City?

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207641)

.....Not in terms of his own body count, but he did light the fuse that led to the catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which many hundreds of thousands have died, and many tens of millions have been harmed. Indeed, there's an argument that the spending on the wars contributed to the global economic meltdown of 2008, meaning that bin Laden indirectly harmed hundreds of millions of people. So, one of the greatest monsters in history is certainly a fair characterization, in my opinion, but of course he had help (of a kind) from Bush and Cheney (in that they reacted exactly the way bin Laden wanted them to react).....

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)

This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207604)

I just started listening. Glenn isn't the only person on the planet who isn't overjoyed that OBL was killed. There's at least one other, me. I don't feel overjoyed by anybody dying.

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 207661)

And you're not the only additional person unable to feel overjoyed here.

I can intellectually understand, justify, accept and even prefer OBL's death considering all circumstances.

But at an emotional level, I don't rejoice on his death. I think it's sad that we're still such a brutal, violent species that these kinds of acts are necessary.

On the other hand I wouldn't blame those who were more directly affected by his acts and feel the need to celebrate his death. I'm sure that to some degree, or at least momentarily, it can bring a sense of closure.

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 207659)

Enjoying the conversation. Glenn is one of the only people in any media I've heard use the phrase "begs the question" correctly, so if for no other reason I would like to nominate Glenn and David to the Bloggingheads A Team.

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)

I didn't say most of the things you mentioned, so maybe you don't mean me personally. I wasn't sorry he was killed. I wasn't concerned about it being legally wrong, and I don't think it was, as far as the president's authorization was concerned, and not, so far as I know, in the execution. OBL declared war on the US, and was no doubt still conducting that war in some sense, so it was within its right to kill him, as I would see it. I also think killing him on the spot was better than a show trial at Gtmo, from any point of view..

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 207668)

Exactly. As I pointed out elsewhere, if OBL had been killed soon after 9/11, either by assassination or by some other means, his death would have been considered an act of war and justified as such. No one would have talked about "human rights," for the plain and simple reason that there are no rights, human or civil (though perhaps divine.....) when there is a state of war between individuals or states. Soldiers on the battlefield have no rights vis a vis the enemy.....until they surrender. It is only when they lay down their arms that the so-called humanitarian "laws of war" come into play....and often not even then. (This is also the basis for Hobbes' theory of the state: the state comes into being when all men give up their right to self-defense and surrender it to the "sovereign").

Al Qaeda, obviously, is neither a state nor an army; it is more like a band of pirates ("enemies of mankind" in the European tradition of jurisprudence going back to Cicero and the Romans). As far as I know, when pirates on the open sea take hostages or kill passengers who are citizens of a sovereign state, the state is under no obligation to treat the pirates as anything other than enemies. There have been several incidents in recent years. (It is interesting that Grotius, the father of international law, began his career as a jurist with a treatise on piracy).