54 is elderly?
Are you serious in opposing that someone who got his start by fighting the USSR got his? Seriously? How did you feel about him 20 years ago?
I think so, yes, but it’s a purely subjective label, and not one that is actually relevant to the analysis in the first place.
To be sure, I approved neither of bin Laden nor his overarching ideology, but that is not reason enough to celebrate his cold-blooded killing. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that states should be held to a relatively high standard and ought not to be in the murder business. Such cowardly extra-judicial killings are illegal and unconscionable. I would say that this was a miscarriage of justice, but it’s really more of an abortion.
It’s time for the US to contemplate its barbaric techniques and perhaps take tentative steps towards becoming a nominally civilized nation.
As if states have ever not been in the “murder business”!
Well, you’ve mentioned it twice, anyway, that he was elderly, when in fact he was at the lower end of the prime age for management.
How did you feel about the USSR killing the leaders of Afghanistan? How do you feel about the USSR/Russia killing the leaders of the Chechnyan rebels?
May I call you elderly?
So do you condemn the slaughter of Cossack “White Russian” prisoners by the USSR after World War II? Do you condemn the intentional liquidation of the kulaks?
I keep mentioning his advanced age only to emphasize the egregiousness of his murder. It could, perhaps, be possible to imagine a scenario in which an unarmed yet strapping young man posed a real danger to armed soldiers, thus justifying his shooting in self defense. In this situation, however, it is impossible to imagine an unarmed disabled man of advanced years posing much of a risk to anyone. Thus, his killing cannot be called anything but cold-blooded murder.
It depends on the circumstances; generally speaking, I have no problem with killing dangerous criminals in situations where it is not otherwise feasible to take them alive.
For instance, the Chechen terrorist mastermind Dzhokar Dudayev was reportedly killed in a masterful operation wherein the Russian intelligence services hacked his cell phone signal and homed in on it with a cruise missile. I applaud this justifiable killing, for the terrorist posed an imminent threat to millions of Russian civilians, and there was no apparent way to take him alive.
Clearly, in this situation, the killers could have taken bin Laden alive. Instead, they chose to channel Judge Dread while dishing out barbaric street “justice.” Not acceptable.
I condemn all killings committed by state actors where the victim was not afforded a trial, where it is otherwise feasible to detain the victim without killing him, and where there are no exigent circumstances that make the extra-judicial killing justifiable.
This test cannot be applied to entire categories; instead, you would need to engage in case-by-case consideration to determine which killings were or were not justified.
“Unarmed and elderly…”
I’m surprised you didn’t say " Unarmed, elderly hide and seek champion".
Only a fraction of war events give people a chance to surrender before being blown to pieces whether armed or not. The rights we extended to our citizens don’t extend to our enemies.
R
NASA would finally have a decent budget…
I didn’t know NASA was a private contractor that funded various Republican campaigns.
News reports this AM are saying there are “home movies” that will be released. Are we going to learn that ObL loved dogs and little children?
Watching the videos now. He looks like a pathetic old man (and he really isn’t that old) watching the kind of TV a kid would have in his room in the US about 40 years ago. Can’t a terrorist get a nice flat screen around here???
You may be shocked to learn that the US does, in fact, have certain obligations under international law when it comes to the treatment of its non-citizen “enemies.” Let’s bust out the Geneva Convention I, shall we? [All bolding mine].
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1)** Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely**, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…
Article 12
Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created…
Article 17
Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.
Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.
They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. For this purpose, they shall organize at the commencement of hostilities an Official Graves Registration Service, to allow subsequent exhumations and to ensure the identification of bodies, whatever the site of the graves, and the possible transportation to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country.
I’ll grant you Article 17.
Well he had lots of kids. And lots of wives.
They grew Marijuana at the compound. So he was probably a doper.
I’m curious about a couple of things now. Various news reports have quoted someone referring to bin Laden as “the Sheikh.” Also, the news reports have mentioned that bin Laden was seen “in clerical robes.” Now, it’s my understanding that bin Laden was not a cleric. So, what authority did he (or his followers) claim for (a) wearing clerical garb and (b) issuing a fatwa?
Sunni tradition doesn’t really have the same sort of ordination practices as Christianity (or Shia). Most Sunni clerics are essentially laymen (particularly Qutbists), and bin Laden reportedly preached a lot.
ETA: Sheikh means wise man or honored man, and does not necessarily denote an Islamic scholar.
AQ has not laid down their arms. They have not surrendered before nor after he has been killed. He was a legitimate target of war. He was not sick, he was not wounded, he was not detained. He was an enemy hiding and still managed AQ by courier to authorize more attacks throughout the world. Article 3 does not apply.
ObL was not a prisoner of war, nor was he wounded or sick, therefore Article 12 does not apply.
You might have something there, but even this article has not been proven to have been violated as of yet…but, there may be some legitimate concerns here.
BTW: If people can live TWICE the age of 54, then I doubt that you can seriously call a 54 year old “elderly”.
For the purposes of a treaty discussing the treatment of prisoners of war, who are likely to be in their twenties (and in their forties at most), you probably can.