This is why all you mofos should be happy Usama's dead

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When US troops landed in Normandy in WW2 they didn't arrest and try Nazi soldiers they ran into. They shot them. That's what you do when at war.

Some of you seem to have no understanding of this at all. Bin Laden was not a common criminal. He waged an act of war on the American people and has now become victim of the war he started.

Germany, under the Nazis was at war with the US etc.

Historically, wars are between countries and governments.

Going to war with individuals and decentralised paramilitary organisations (independent of the government's in whose countries they operate in) isn't really the same thing. This is something entirely new.

Edited May 4, 2011 by fishdude

[IndigoSkies 168]

We certainly shouldn't be in the business of bypassing the court system. In Bin Laden's case I think its entirely plausible that the guy was shot because the soldiers were taking no chances - of him either fighting back, or running the risk of him escaping . When you're dealing with the most dangerous man alive, it's not really surprising that they'd shoot first and ask questions later.

Would it have been possible to try Bin Laden? Sure, but I think it would have been a global media circus, especially if he were tried in the US. For a start they'd have to do it behind closed doors (a public trial gives the guy publicity and a platform for his views) and if you remember that the secret trials of 3rd rate Al Qaeda folks were extremely controversial, it's difficult to imagine what it would be like to try Number 1 the same way.

So you are saying we shouldn't bypass the court system. But when the person being tried is one of the most wanted man in the world, we should just bypass the whole court thing. Ok. I get it again.

[^_^ 5,021]

Germany, under the Nazis was at war with the US etc.

Wars are between countries and governments.

Going to war with individuals and decentralised paramilitary organisations (independent of the government's in whose countries they operate in) isn't really the same thing.

In 2011 that's precisely what we are at war against. Times change. Step outside the box.

[IndigoSkies 168]

I understand Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed and possibly hiding behind a woman. It was entirely possible to arrest him. It was possible to put multiple bullets in his body without killing him. He would have to stand trial from ICU.

I don't like this whole "we'll use court when it's convenient and we won't when it's not." It's like people who cry Constitution when it befits their views and reject it when it doesn't. It's also like terrorists using Qur'an when it serves their purpose and tossing it aside when it doesn't. It's also like Christians using parts of Bible that serve their purpose and setting aside anything else. Everyone should be afforded "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law even if they themselves claimed responsibilities for atrocious acts like 9/11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you are saying we shouldn't bypass the court system. But when the person being tried is one of the most wanted man in the world, we should just bypass the whole court thing. Ok. I get it again.

No I don't think you do get it. It comes down to whether you believe the soldiers could have captured and extract Bin Laden without exposing themselves to additional risk. The account that has been provided suggests he made a threatening gesture toward the soldiers. The fact that he was the most wanted man in the world would surely make it more likely that they wouldn't take chances with him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 2011 that's precisely what we are at war against. Times change. Step outside the box.

In 2011? Where were you during the Bush administration? In 2001-Present that's what the US was/is at war against.

Perhaps you don't remember when the Bush Administration coined the 'war on terror', a phrase that seemed almost deliberately nebulous - as if to justify a state of perpetual war against almost anyone the administration took a dislike to under the justification of national security. Let's not forget it's the reason the US went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq (at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives).

Edited May 4, 2011 by fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I understand Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed and possibly hiding behind a woman. It was entirely possible to arrest him. It was possible to put multiple bullets in his body without killing him. He would have to stand trial from ICU.

I don't like this whole "we'll use court when it's convenient and we won't when it's not." It's like people who cry Constitution when it befits their views and reject it when it doesn't. It's also like terrorists using Qur'an when it serves their purpose and tossing it aside when it doesn't. It's also like Christians using parts of Bible that serve their purpose and setting aside anything else. Everyone should be afforded "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law even if they themselves claimed responsibilities for atrocious acts like 9/11.

There's no way you can know any of this unless you were in the room when it happened. Just how would the soldiers have determined that the guy was unarmed? Did they search him and cuff him before they shot him?

If you can't answer those questions, you can't be sure (at all) of what exactly happened.