osama bin laden is dead

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by WhiteRat

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

Am I naive enough to believe that Osama would have gotten an un-biased trial and that he would have had a fair chance of being found not guilty? No. Am I sick of world leaders talking about justice when they in fact mean a lack of it? Yes.

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

Originally Posted by moi

If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.