Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[SamirS]

Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.

Without judging on the actual legal grounds for this operation, I hope you do see that with this opinion, you only have the choice to a) be a complete hypocrite or b) allow every other sovereign country in the world to do the exact same thing on US soil. I don't want to create a straw man and slip in that you would oppose to b), so I hope you do have a coherent answer to this.

Don't say the US wouldn't do this. It is possible that similar examples with less direct victims exist, and I'm certain this point can be discussed on a theoretical basis.

I actually also happen to have an example I'm involved. Yes, UBL was directly in charge of killing a large amount of Americans. I had members of my family killed by operations where Karadzic was directly in charge (in the Balkans war) and yes, I wouldn't personally shed a single tear if the operators that caught him would have killed him on the spot. However, I still would have been against the killing, and I'm glad that nobody took this in their own hands out of public sight. He's now answering before a court, and this is the only way it has to be handled.

So my opinion on UBL is quite clear - if it wasn't in any way possible to capture UBL alive (and the capture was the actual target of the mission), the killing ought to be justified. If it was an actual targeted killing, it should not be justified. I won't handle the point if the actual raid itself was justified or could be considered an act of war because I have not yet made up my mind due to lack of information so far.

 

[Al68]

Without judging on the actual legal grounds for this operation, I hope you do see that with this opinion, you only have the choice to a) be a complete hypocrite or b) allow every other sovereign country in the world to do the exact same thing on US soil. I don't want to create a straw man and slip in that you would oppose to b), so I hope you do have a coherent answer to this.

Those are not the only alternatives. a) is incorrect, because our killing of UBL in Pakistan is not equivalent to allowing another country to perform a similar raid in the U.S. without our involvement. All sovereign nations are not equal in that regard, and even if they were, the U.S. President represents the interests of the U.S., not the interests of each sovereign nation equally.

It's simply not hypocritical to expect a nation's leader to represent the interests of his own nation at the expense of others. That's not what the word hypocritical means.

 

[russ_watters]

There is nothing hypocritical about that and it most certainly does not mean we should allow other militaries to operate in the US. Heck, that's the main reason countries have militaries!

 

[pergradus]

Bob, great post and I agree with almost everything except the last paragraph. Though they strung us along and continue to do so, I don't think we've had a change in attitude. The attitude has always been: 'Thanks for your help, but if we see something in your country that needs to be attacked, we're not going to ask permission to go after it.' We've been 'violating Pakistan's sovereignty' this way for years. Here's an example from 2008 and the wiki on the subject says we've been doing it at least as far back as 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7611287.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

I'm not sure the drone attacks are the same thing. Even though public official are usually silent on the subject or even denounce them, the word is that in private Pakistani officials are kept well informed about targets and have given the U.S. permission to conduct the drone operations.

Obviously for political reasons, they can't admit this to their own people though.

 

[SamirS]

How is that not hypocritical? A sovereign country is a sovereign country, and one country is not more sovereign just because it is a world power or has a stronger military power.

I fail to see how the position "we should be allowed to extend our national laws and powers onto another sovereign country's soil, but they shouldn't be allowed to do so" is not hypocritical. I'm aware of the fact that, in practice, the US doesn't handle it like this, however, you should also try to see how the rest of the world perceives this, and as mighty as the US may be, it is not alone on this world.

This position is NOT what the self-perceived leader of the free world should hold, but the point is that he does, hence the reputation of the US in the rest of the free and non-free world.

Stating that "my country is better than yours so I can do what I want" (even if you rephrase it into "not every sovereign country is the same") is not a valid argument. It only becomes "valid" through (possibly indiscriminate) use of sheer power. Did you think of the point that every other person in the world could come to the same conclusion from a different point of view and act on it, if that maybe already happened and which results could happen or already happened?

Please note that this doesn't have anything to do with Pakistan giving or refusing authorisation to kill or arrest UBL.

@russ watters: to be honest, I see your point, or what I believe to be your point, as actually valid. It is the point of a military. What I fail to see in Al68's statement is the realization that every other country (and military) holds the same idea. Al68 tries to justify US action through patriotic means, and that the US is basically allowed to do this but denies the same "right" to others. I wholly agree to the point that ANY (legal) military in the world is for defense first.

 

[russ_watters]

How is that not hypocritical? A sovereign country is a sovereign country, and one country is not more sovereign just because it is a world power or has a stronger military power.

I fail to see how the position "we should be allowed to extend our national laws and powers onto another sovereign country's soil, but they shouldn't be allowed to do so" is not hypocritical. [emphasis added]

It's not hypocritical because the part in bold is your erroneous assumption as it is not part of my equation. To me, Pakistan is welcome to try the same thing if they think they can get away with it and the target is important enough to take the risk. I don't think the US is special because I think any country in the world would have made a similar choice given similar circumstances. The US does not hold special legal status and this action doesn't imply we think we do.

This position is NOT what the self-perceived leader of the free world should hold, but the point is that he does, hence the reputation of the US in the rest of the free and non-free world.

You [and others] are misinterpreting the situation. The US is the most powerful military in the world and therefore most capable of doing something like this. That's why we did it. It isn't because we think we have some special legal/ethical/moral status: any country in the same position would/should do the same thing.

Stating that "my country is better than yours so I can do what I want" (even if you rephrase it into "not every sovereign country is the same") is not a valid argument. It only becomes "valid" through (possibly indiscriminate) use of sheer power.

Isn't that a contradiction? Obviously, it's a reality that because we're powerful we can sometimes do things other nations can't, right? So it really is true, assuming you mean "stronger militarily" when you say "better" (which is too vague to have a clear meaning).

Are you perceiving that to an American, "stronger military" = "moral superiority"? That would certainly be arrogant, but it is a mistake to assume that that's how we think.

Did you think of the point that every other person in the world could come to the same conclusion from a different point of view and act on it, if that maybe already happened and which results could happen or already happened?

Yes. Again, that's why we have a military.

@russ watters: to be honest, I see your point, or what I believe to be your point, as actually valid. It is the point of a military. What I fail to see in Al68's statement is the realization that every other country (and military) holds the same idea. Al68 tries to justify US action through patriotic means, and that the US is basically allowed to do this but denies the same "right" to others. I wholly agree to the point that ANY (legal) military in the world is for defense first.

Granted - I jumped somewhat into the middle here (though the word "hypocritical" was applied to me earlier) so my opinions don't necessarily match Al68's and I haven't necessarily read through all of his.

[edit: caveat to all of this: I'm not convinced the US did something illegal (Pakistan has obligations here too), but I'll assume we/they did for the sake of this "hypocrisy" discussion.]

 

[SamirS]

Well, russ, as I agree to your points, I only want to make clear that the hypocrite thing and basically everything except the part where I adress you directly was a direct response to Al68's statements. I feel that you think I targeted you, however, I actually don't ;) .

You are arguing in terms of practical superiority (the wording "better than yours" was directly meant for Al68 as he stated that not all sovereign nations are of the same "sovereignity"), which the US obviously holds in terms of military power (and political influence, too) - one can't disagree with that. The ambiguity of the word "better", which I used, stems from the fact that I find the idea of different levels of sovereignity quite ridiculous. Either a country is independent on its own soil (no other country forces them to do something - this excludes for example the EU, as the EU forces things on their members but you are not threatened by military action to actually stay in there), or it isn't.

However I still think that in legal terms, the US laws are certainly not "higher" on the soil of another country than that country's own legislature, which is basically the definition of sovereignity ("Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory", taken from Wikipedia). If however, as Al68 stated, not all countries have the same sovereignity, and I can only assume that he thinks the US has the higher or highest one, well, I don't agree with that. Nor would any other country in the world agree with that, and the US wouldn't agree with it if another country stated that, and that's what I call hypocritical.

I'm perceiving that some individuals think that the US has a generally higher morality, and that this coincides with a high military power, which gives the US authority to do whatever they want. Note that I do not say that you specifically, or the USA in general has this opinion, but certain individuals have - which is also true for ANY country.

So as the final word: basically every point of my argument is directed at Al68, and I can't disagree with you (russ) because your stance is logical.

 

[issacnewton]

I am glad Osama is dead. SEALS did a great job. huraaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

 

[Al68]

You are arguing in terms of practical superiority (the wording "better than yours" was directly meant for Al68 as he stated that not all sovereign nations are of the same "sovereignity")

I didn't say that at all. I said all sovereign nations are not equal, not that they didn't have equal sovereignty. Which means not equal in terms of trustworthiness in this case. The reason we didn't ask or inform Pakistan of our strike on UBL was because we didn't trust them, not because they are not sovereign.

All nations are not equal in a relevant sense in this regard, even under an "equal sovereignty" assumption.

 

[issacnewton]

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

 

[WhoWee]

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

Also, do we REALLY know what was discussed with Pakistan? How do we know that Pakistan wasn't allowed to position themselves as being unaware of the mission - given the protests in the streets that have resulted. Surely the Pakistani's knew there would be protests if they were involved. Please label - IMO.

 

[SamirS]

I didn't say that at all. I said all sovereign nations are not equal, not that they didn't have equal sovereignty. Which means not equal in terms of trustworthiness in this case. The reason we didn't ask or inform Pakistan of our strike on UBL was because we didn't trust them, not because they are not sovereign.

All nations are not equal in a relevant sense in this regard, even under an "equal sovereignty" assumption.

Well you wrote this:

...because our killing of UBL in Pakistan is not equivalent to allowing another country to perform a similar raid in the U.S. without our involvement. All sovereign nations are not equal in that regard, and even if they were, the U.S. President represents the interests of the U.S., not the interests of each sovereign nation equally.

Without knowledge if Pakistan actually allowed this or not (and if not, if they will keep their feet still for the sake of their ally), you are saying here that the US raid in Pakistan would not be the same as a Pakistani raid in the US, and in this regard, they are not equal. The actual concept of sovereignity involves exactly this fact, and even if you did not mean they are not equal in sovereignity, your statement amounts to exactly that.

It is of course true that not all sovereign nations are trustworthy. However, people outside the US hardly think of the US as "trustworthy". See the protests about European data being given to the US or giving the US access to (SWIFT for example). Transparent governing and legislature is needed because governments aren't trustworthy. As a side note, I wouldn't rank most European countries as trustworthy either, with all the (needless) data crawling.

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

Well they may be useless regarding UBL, however, two points:

1. There are very few places where someone effectively could live that are not somewhere inside the borders of a nation. Concepts like sovereignity are at least important for the country where the action happens.

2. Nevertheless, UBL is a human, and all humans have rights. And legitimate states* have to act inside a legal frame legitimated by a democratic government and on the basis of a constitution. What do you think UBL thought about the rights of the US citizens he killed? Not much I guess. So if we start doing the same, what does that make us?

*I know, there are many countries not working on this basis. However those are not far away from tyranny and terrorism or actually embody it.

 

[DR13]

Nevertheless, UBL is a human

Not anymore :P

And legitimate states* have to act inside a legal frame legitimated by a democratic government and on the basis of a constitution. What do you think UBL thought about the rights of the US citizens he killed? Not much I guess. So if we start doing the same, what does that make us?

*I know, there are many countries not working on this basis. However those are not far away from tyranny and terrorism or actually embody it.

We were perfectly within our legal rights. OBL was an enemy combatant ever since he declared war on the US. We are allowed to kill enemy combatants.

Also, please do not compare the actions of the US to those of OBL. He killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11. We killed a mass murderer who declared war on us. They are completely different

 

[Al68]

Without knowledge if Pakistan actually allowed this or not (and if not, if they will keep their feet still for the sake of their ally), you are saying here that the US raid in Pakistan would not be the same as a Pakistani raid in the US, and in this regard, they are not equal. The actual concept of sovereignity involves exactly this fact, and even if you did not mean they are not equal in sovereignity, your statement amounts to exactly that.

No, it certainly doesn't, that's faulty logic. The fact that sovereignty could be a basis for a lack of equality doesn't mean it is the only possible basis, or the particular basis being referred to by another.

It's analogous to claiming that since poodles are dogs, and you claim to have a dog, then that's the same thing as your claiming to have a poodle, even after you point out that your dog is a greyhound. Because poodles are dogs, dammit, and you said you had one.

 

[russ_watters]

While directed at you, my last response was as much a response to others who said similar things a couple of weeks ago that I never responded to. I meant to, I just never got around to it. I realize you weren't arguing against me except coincidentally.

I'm perceiving that some individuals think that the US has a generally higher morality, and that this coincides with a high military power, which gives the US authority to do whatever they want. Note that I do not say that you specifically, or the USA in general has this opinion, but certain individuals have - which is also true for ANY country.

I do believe the US has a moral superiority over most nations. As it applies to this case, it includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. But to analyze the common phrase "might makes right", I wouldn't say that our might makes us right but rather gives us the ability to act based on our judgement of the morality of a situation. Might makes right in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense: true moral superiority is not arbitrary, it comes from a highly developed set of moral principles that are arrived at by logic and practice (testing). That we also have that actual "right" (high quality morality) is just coincidental - and frankly, fortunate for the world. If the US had failed and the USSR was the only superpower today, the world would be a dark place.

It is of course true that not all sovereign nations are trustworthy. However, people outside the US hardly think of the US as "trustworthy". See the protests about European data being given to the US or giving the US access to (SWIFT for example).

The US takes a lot of flak, for sure, but I think that's just backlash against the guy in charge. People always complain about the boss, even if he really is a great boss. There's always someone who thinks the boss is an arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than me but isn't. I'd never claim the US is perfect or the best possible sole superpower (or even the most moral nation on Earth or best potential world leader given the existing choices), I merely believe we're the best world leader the world has ever seen.

 

[SamirS]

No, it certainly doesn't, that's faulty logic. The fact that sovereignty could be a basis for a lack of equality doesn't mean it is the only possible basis, or the particular basis being referred to by another.

It's analogous to claiming that since poodles are dogs, and you claim to have a dog, then that's the same thing as your claiming to have a poodle, even after you point out that your dog is a greyhound. Because poodles are dogs, dammit, and you said you had one.

That's not analogous. You are either shifting your point now or didn't mean what you wrote first. On its own soil, a country has sovereignity if it is a sovereign country, and that means exactly that: no other country has the right to raise their values, laws etc. over theirs. The case was different with the Nazis, because they violated the sovereignity of others and threatened the sovereignity of others in the incarnation of a state. If Pakistan did not authorize the US mission to kill UBL, it was an act of war. I understand your point as that it was not an act of war because the US is allowed to do so no matter what the Pakistani say, and that other countries are not allowed the same regarding the US. This is hypocritical viewed from a neutral stance. It is only not hypocritical from US point of view if you define that US law has superiority over foreign law on the soil of the foreign state. However you open yourself to the idea that you legitimate other countries, or, as happens more often, individuals or individual organizations (= terrorism) to the same thought.

To clarify, I say that no state is allowed to do this without authorization, and this is also what most of the sovereign world says, too, which is the reason that wars are seldomly started by countries in a legitimate organization without authorization.

While directed at you, my last response was as much a response to others who said similar things a couple of weeks ago that I never responded to. I meant to, I just never got around to it. I realize you weren't arguing against me except coincidentally. I do believe the US has a moral superiority over most nations. As it applies to this case, it includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. But to analyze the common phrase "might makes right", I wouldn't say that our might makes us right but rather gives us the ability to act based on our judgement of the morality of a situation. Might makes right in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense: true moral superiority is not arbitrary, it comes from a highly developed set of moral principles that are arrived at by logic and practice (testing). That we also have that actual "right" (high quality morality) is just coincidental - and frankly, fortunate for the world. If the US had failed and the USSR was the only superpower today, the world would be a dark place. The US takes a lot of flak, for sure, but I think that's just backlash against the guy in charge. People always complain about the boss, even if he really is a great boss. There's always someone who thinks the boss is an arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than me but isn't. I'd never claim the US is perfect or the best possible sole superpower (or even the most moral nation on Earth or best potential world leader given the existing choices), I merely believe we're the best world leader the world has ever seen.

Well, I'll take a pragmatic stance here and say yes, the US is the best world leader we have seen so far, judging from the historically long period of peace with regards to the amount of nations involved.

What makes me sad is that the US was the greatest leader in history and together with the European Age of Enlightment, shaped our free society, in which I like to live. I feel however that the US is shifting away from this target of greater good for all towards more and more individual, economic and power-oriented motivations. And, mind you, not only internationally!

@DR13: please, this argument you make is just childish, because you only see your position. What about innocent people who never had anything to do with AQ etc. getting killed as "collateral damage"? How do those people think?

You are allowed to kill enemy combatants, yes. You are not, however, allowed to do it outside of a war or, as folllows, declare a war on a concept and then just treat anything and any region of the world as a war zone. Also, at the time UBL was killed he was a living human. Dehumanization of the enemy is the basis for the most gruesome massacres of human history.

How hard is it to see that when even I who I am the direct victim of a war and closely related to fatalities of a war on exactly this basis, can see that - that even my worst enemy is a human and is entitled to the same basic human rights (even though my personal opinion might be more violent, I wouldn't act on it)? What does the number of victims have to do with this? Look up the number of victims of the Balkans war. If not anything else, think about this: someday, someone else with enough power might regard YOU as the enemy. You certainly want him to treat you like a human!

 

[Dale]

What does Bin Ladin being human have to do with anything? Of course he was human, and he was treated as a human should be treated. Part of being human is being held responsible for your actions.

 

[russ_watters]

Some people believe the individual right to life trumps all other considerations and can't be revoked for any reason. While I respect the sensitivity, I find it impractical, particularly when dealing with an active mass murderer.

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, I would have preferred they also BLOW UP the entire compound after the SEAL's departed - to punish the owner for harboring the world's most wanted terrorist and send a clear message of the consequences - a nice big 2,000 pound bomb perhaps?

 

[Al68]

That's not analogous. You are either shifting your point now or didn't mean what you wrote first.

I mean exactly what I said to begin with, unequal sovereignty is not the only sense in which nations can be unequal in a relevant way. That is too obvious and has been made far too clear to keep saying over and over.

I understand your point as that it was not an act of war..

I said nothing resembling that. Are you confusing me with someone else? That would certainly explain a lot.

This is hypocritical viewed from a neutral stance.

I was not referring to a neutral stance. I was referring to the duties and loyalties of the U.S. President. The U.S. President is not neutral, being neutral would be treasonous.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I would have preferred they also BLOW UP the entire compound after the SEAL's departed - to punish the owner for harboring the world's most wanted terrorist and send a clear message of the consequences - a nice big 2,000 pound bomb perhaps?

I thought the owner was killed in the raid?

 

[WhoWee]

I thought the owner was killed in the raid?

Considering it's been deemed a "mansion" - why let it stand?

 

[turbo]

Considering it's been deemed a "mansion" - why let it stand?

It is very large and fortified, but hardly a mansion given the sparseness of the amenities and furnishings. Why not let it stand? After the SEALs gathered as much of the low-hanging fruit as possible in their limited time, why not let Pakistan's security forces have access to the place? If they can glean more information about al Qaida and will willing share it without intelligence community, all the better. We've got the hard drives, thumb drives, written materials, etc. Maybe there is more valuable info left in that compound. Why destroy it?

 

[DR13]

@DR13: please, this argument you make is just childish, because you only see your position. What about innocent people who never had anything to do with AQ etc. getting killed as "collateral damage"? How do those people think?

You are allowed to kill enemy combatants, yes. You are not, however, allowed to do it outside of a war or, as folllows, declare a war on a concept and then just treat anything and any region of the world as a war zone. Also, at the time UBL was killed he was a living human. Dehumanization of the enemy is the basis for the most gruesome massacres of human history.

How hard is it to see that when even I who I am the direct victim of a war and closely related to fatalities of a war on exactly this basis, can see that - that even my worst enemy is a human and is entitled to the same basic human rights (even though my personal opinion might be more violent, I wouldn't act on it)? What does the number of victims have to do with this? Look up the number of victims of the Balkans war. If not anything else, think about this: someday, someone else with enough power might regard YOU as the enemy. You certainly want him to treat you like a human!

First off, don't call me childish. You are trying to invalidate all of my points by name calling.

The innocent people who died in Afghanistan were either killed deliberately by AQ or accidently in the crossfire of war. Obviously the US did not want any civillian deaths and we did what we could to keep them to a minimum, but they are unavoidable in war. Should we never go to war?

And I don't get how you can say that we killed OBL outside of a war. He declared war on us and continued to propogate that war by recruiting new terrorists and plotting new attacks. Just because he is not on a battlefield does not mean he isn't at war. He was never going to be on a battlefield for the rest of his life (too risky). Should we have just let him live until he died a natural death?

Also, don't compare the killing of OBL (a mass murderer) to "the most gruesome massacres of human history" in which innocent people are killed. They just aren't in the same ballpark.

And yes, it is true that someday someone may regard me as an enemy. However, it would not be because I killed people. I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I will try to reply to your point with a true story: My grandpa was a boy in Poland during WWII (we are jewish). To avoid the camps, my grandpa and his family hid in the wilderness with a large group of people (just like in the movie Defiance). The Nazis labeled them as enemies for no good reason. When they captured a Nazi, do you think they treated him with the respect that they wanted to be treated with? Do you think they conveyed their feelings through words? I'll let you use your imagination for the rest of the stoty. Actions have consequences.

 

[WhoWee]

It is very large and fortified, but hardly a mansion given the sparseness of the amenities and furnishings. Why not let it stand? After the SEALs gathered as much of the low-hanging fruit as possible in their limited time, why not let Pakistan's security forces have access to the place? If they can glean more information about al Qaida and will willing share it without intelligence community, all the better. We've got the hard drives, thumb drives, written materials, etc. Maybe there is more valuable info left in that compound. Why destroy it?

Reports valued it at a $1 million investment. Why blow it up - how about spite?

 

[turbo]

Reports valued it at a $1 million investment. Why blow it up - how about spite?

Blowing it up would endanger neighbors and would not impoverish Osama, so "spite" is hardly a good reason. What if Pakistan's security forces discovered floor-safes, and other hidey-holes with some valuable intelligence? I'll bet that they are scouring that compound very thoroughly. Now, whether they would share any intelligence that they gather is rather problematic, given their past cooperation with anti-US forces in Pakistan. Still, it's best not to throw away that possibility just for spite.

 

[WhoWee]

Blowing it up would endanger neighbors and would not impoverish Osama, so "spite" is hardly a good reason. What if Pakistan's security forces discovered floor-safes, and other hidey-holes with some valuable intelligence? I'll bet that they are scouring that compound very thoroughly. Now, whether they would share any intelligence that they gather is rather problematic, given their past cooperation with anti-US forces in Pakistan. Still, it's best not to throw away that possibility just for spite.

We aren't certain the Pakistani's didn't allow the Chinese to view our helicopter - what makes you think they would share anything with us now? On the other hand, maybe you're right? Instead of a 2,000 pound bomb then and without notice - we should inform them we're going to blow it up now with a smaller device.

 

[SamirS]

Some people believe the individual right to life trumps all other considerations and can't be revoked for any reason. While I respect the sensitivity, I find it impractical, particularly when dealing with an active mass murderer.

If you meant me, you misunderstood me. I think that UBL should have been tried before a court, and if the death sentence applies (though I'm not a proponent of the DS in general), then he should've been executed. This is not because I value UBL's life so preciously, but to preserve this right for humans in general. Either all humans are such, or not, and the point being, you never know if somebody else who might someday have more power turns that back to you or me.

I mean exactly what I said to begin with, unequal sovereignty is not the only sense in which nations can be unequal in a relevant way. That is too obvious and has been made far too clear to keep saying over and over.I said nothing resembling that. Are you confusing me with someone else? That would certainly explain a lot.I was not referring to a neutral stance. I was referring to the duties and loyalties of the U.S. President. The U.S. President is not neutral, being neutral would be treasonous.

Well then I misunderstood you. The president shouldn't be neutral, that's for sure.

First off, don't call me childish. You are trying to invalidate all of my points by name calling.

The innocent people who died in Afghanistan were either killed deliberately by AQ or accidently in the crossfire of war. Obviously the US did not want any civillian deaths and we did what we could to keep them to a minimum, but they are unavoidable in war. Should we never go to war?

Well I called your point childish, not you. Also, it is not about what the US tried or didn't - the civilian deaths caused by US actions, from the point of their relatives etc. don't care about that. And no, war has a purpose and is sometimes needed, that is out of the question for me.

And I don't get how you can say that we killed OBL outside of a war. He declared war on us and continued to propogate that war by recruiting new terrorists and plotting new attacks. Just because he is not on a battlefield does not mean he isn't at war. He was never going to be on a battlefield for the rest of his life (too risky). Should we have just let him live until he died a natural death?

Not outside a war. Outside a war zone, where rules of war don't apply. Look up the definitions etc. of a war - you actually can't declare a war on individuals nor on a concept. What I say, and I'll repeat that from an earlier post, IF the raid was legitimate, then the raiding unit should've done everything possible without endangering their lives overtly (endangering their lives for a mission is, in the end, part of their job), they should've captured him alive and tried him before a proper court (refer to my first paragraph in this post).

Also, don't compare the killing of OBL (a mass murderer) to "the most gruesome massacres of human history" in which innocent people are killed. They just aren't in the same ballpark.

And yes, it is true that someday someone may regard me as an enemy. However, it would not be because I killed people. I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I will try to reply to your point with a true story: My grandpa was a boy in Poland during WWII (we are jewish). To avoid the camps, my grandpa and his family hid in the wilderness with a large group of people (just like in the movie Defiance). The Nazis labeled them as enemies for no good reason. When they captured a Nazi, do you think they treated him with the respect that they wanted to be treated with? Do you think they conveyed their feelings through words? I'll let you use your imagination for the rest of the stoty. Actions have consequences.

I feel with you, even more than you might think, because I'm a Bosniak and it is pretty well known what the Serbs have done to us. I also understand that your ancestors wouldn't treat a captured Nazi humanly. I know that my relatives wouldn't and didn't do; the same in our case.
The Serbs attacked us also for actually no good reason, because there was not much to gain, and for the people actually involved in combat, the reasons were incited hatred, nationalism and racism. They had actual concentration camps, too, some of them were called rape camps by the guarding soldiers themselves. Some of my near relatives spent time in a concentration camp, some where killed in combat, and some where plainly executed because a Serb patrol found them.

My point is, the Serbs are, in the end, humans. Some of their combatants fighting against my relatives personally where our neighbors next house for 40 years before. Why was that possible? Because of dehumanization. They ceased to view Bosniaks as humans. In turn, Bosniaks reacted the same. The Nazis specifically degraded the Jews, calling them subhuman etc. In turn, a captured Nazi wasn't a human anymore, he was only a Nazi pig that could be killed for revenge. That is the point I'm trying to bring forth. What should've been done? A proper trial. Like the Nuremberg trials. I wouldn't protest a second if such a proper court sentenced the worst of them to death. However, a fair trial should be granted.

Now if someday some enemy turns on you, it doesn't matter what you personally did or did not do. You are part of the enemy mass for them and won't count as a human anymore. I suspect it doesn't matter for you if they shoot you because you killed someone on their side or because you happen to be what you are (Jewish, and probably American, and/or of Polish descent? Can't make an assumption here)? Dead is dead.

Call me a dreamer if you want, but also view back through history. We've come pretty far, seeing what people did many decades and centuries before, because such do-gooders had dreams about how humans should act ethically.

 

[russ_watters]

If you meant me, you misunderstood me.

No, I wasn't referring to you.

I also understand that your ancestors wouldn't treat a captured Nazi humanly.

While it's possible soldiers at the front might not treat a captured enemy (any enemy) humanely, the US is who the Nazis - and anyone else - most wanted to surrender to because they knew they would get treated best by us.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, I wasn't referring to you. While it's possible soldiers at the front might not treat a captured enemy (any enemy) humanely, the US is who the Nazis - and anyone else - most wanted to surrender to because they knew they would get treated best by us.

they certainly wouldn't want the russians to get ahold of them, that is for sure. russians even raped women in the concentration camps. but my friend's dad was among those who liberated dachau, and what i am told second hand is that we did allow prisoners there to get revenge on their captors. there was quite a bit of disgust for what they found, and geneva was not always followed.

 

[turbo]

A dear friend of mine escaped Latvia during the Russian invasion, as a child. He and his mother and aunt were refugees, trekked their way across Europe for well over a year, picking wild foods and gleaning fields whenever they could. The Russian army was not provisioned and they raided farms in the Baltic states for food, and killed anybody that resisted, including all the older males in my friend's extended family.

As a result, when the Nazis made their drive toward Russia, many Latvians, Lithuanians, etc volunteered as shock-troops. They didn't care so much about the ideology or politics - they just wanted the chance to kill Russians. No humane treatment or capture expected or given.

 

[russ_watters]

...but my friend's dad was among those who liberated dachau, and what i am told second hand is that we did allow prisoners there to get revenge on their captors. there was quite a bit of disgust for what they found, and geneva was not always followed.

Yes, I've also heard that captured prison guards were treated pretty badly.

 

[heroinveins]

Killing Osama was not legal, & was not right.
He was not the only one involved, & if the government was behind it, like evidence shows then why did the US government kill Osama? That does not make any sense.
So no, I do not think that is was legal whatsoever. A single person should not be taking the blame for something that major. No one deserves to die. Bin Laden didn't, neither did all the 9/11 victims. Simple as that. **** happens.

 

[WhoWee]

Killing Osama was not legal, & was not right.
He was not the only one involved, & if the government was behind it, like evidence shows then why did the US government kill Osama? That does not make any sense.
So no, I do not think that is was legal whatsoever. A single person should not be taking the blame for something that major. No one deserves to die. Bin Laden didn't, neither did all the 9/11 victims. Simple as that. **** happens.

Welcome to PF heroinveins. What specific Government involvement are you citing?

 

[amwest]

Welcome to PF heroinveins. What specific Government involvement are you citing?

Yes welcome to PF! as WhoWee hinted at, people at PF prefer to debate with facts and specified ideas. Links are welcome as we love to educate ourselves!