I was expecting a moral dilemma. I am surprised it hasn't surfaced.

[Stinky The Clown]

I am a strong supporter of certain concepts.

The Rule of Law.

Justice

Humanity

The value of all human life - all life, actually.

The presumption of innocence. Due Process. The right to face one's accusers. And So Forth.



I expected to have a moral dilemma regarding the recently reported notion that the Seal team had a "kill" order rather than a "capture or kill" order. I find that dilemma never materialized. The fucker's dead.

Good.

[thereismore]

1. I am right there with you. nt

[gratuitous]

2. If you find exceptions so easily

It could very well be argued that you, in fact, do not support concepts of the rule of law, justice, humanity, the value of human life, the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to face one's accusers, and so forth. If those concepts don't apply to those you deem a "fucker," then they don't apply to anyone, because anyone could become a "fucker."

[Hosnon]

3. Osama bin Laden can hardly be characterized as an "easy exception". Seems to me he

is the very epitome of what an exception to the OP's principles would be.

[gratuitous]

35. Let's go behind that a little bit . . .

Why would bin Laden be an exception? Because he's really, really bad? Or because he scared us really bad? Or because of what some people have said he did? To my knowledge, and I admit that this hang-up on "evidence" and "testimony" is a personal shortcoming, we don't know that he was the "mastermind" or the "architect" of the 9/11 attacks. Certainly the Bush administration promised a white paper that would lay out the case for all to see, but in the hectic rush to push through the USA PATRIOT Act, start a couple of wars against Afghanistan and Libya, and all the other foofaraw, perhaps it just slipped everyone's mind.

Bin Laden has certainly been accused over and over again of being the man behind the dastardly deed, but accusations aren't evidence. And our system is meant to ferret that stuff out. But that's getting stuck on that "due process" thing again.

I really must get over this attachment I have to the Constitution. After all, others have sworn actual public oaths to preserve, protect and defend it, and they don't appear to have any difficulties with taking shortcuts through it when it suits them, so why should I?

[pnwmom]

40. Because he declared war on us. Because he urged his personal little army

to kill Americans everywhere, in a videotape that he disseminated throughout the world. And because he chose to resist when the soldiers arrived.

The fact that he didn't restrict himself to planning attacks from the boundaries of one particular country doesn't mean he wasn't engaging in acts of war.

He had his chance for due process. All he had to do was turn himself in to the UN or an intermediary country at any time during the last 10 years. Instead, he chose to take his chances and continue issuing threats and planning attacks. Instead, when the Seals arrived, he resisted arrest. His choice.

[Hosnon]

54. Because it is nearly universally acknowledged that he was behind the deadliest attack

on U.S. soil ever. So, yeah, that puts him in a unique position atop a pretty infamous pyramid.

And, to my knowledge, the Constitution never contemplated providing Due Process to war belligerents. Hell, the phrase wasn't even in the original document (albeit, it is in the Fifth Amendment, which was substantially contemporaneous - but that amendment has an explicit exception for war). Despite what many people seem to think, war hasn't changed much in the last 250 years, including a distinction between perfect and imperfect war.

I'd wager that most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers and constitutional experts throughout our history would agree that no principled damage has been done to our ideals generally, or the Constitution specifically.

[gratuitous]

59. So, what will be the next "universal acknowlegment"?

Or did we get it out of our system with the bin Laden murder? And, while I know this is totally impossible and would never, ever happen, what if bin Laden wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks, but simply gave his post hoc approval?

While "due process" isn't in the original articles of the Constitution, it's been a part of the amended document for nearly 150 years. That would seem long enough to have the concept penetrate the governing consciousness. I freely acknowledge my own shortcoming in my fealty to such quaint concepts in our oh-so-modern world. I really think that due process, the right to trial, the right to face one's accusers and such like used to set the United States apart from those we deem terrorists or dictators. Episodes like this tend to blur that distinction, and provide aid and comfort to our enemies and detractors.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. "what if bin Laden wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks"- ah, there it is.

Yes, and what if unicorns shit leprechauns? Ah, indeed, 'tis a quandry.

But here in reality, he did it, we know he did it, and that is the basis for saying that occassionally, VERY rarely, some people deserve this sort of justice.

Fuck him.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. To all on DU who have been trying to white-wash an extra-judicial

execution, I have been offering the following Modest Proposal:

Be it resolved henceforth that anyone accused of a capital crime shall enjoy no right to trial but, upon the simple affirmation of the monarch, be put to death immediately, in the interests of saving money, efficiency, making people feel better, indulging people's blood lust, or simply because we can.

You really do need to get over your attachment to the Constitution. "Due Process" is so 20th Century.

(But I'm with you.)

[virgogal]

4. Right on ! Selective justice is not justice.

[EFerrari]

7. Yep. You don't treat evil men decently because of who they are.

You treat them decently because of who you are. In a way, it's a form of self-respect.

[Heidi]

13. Exactly. (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

62. That is so eloquent and so true. My wife plans to cite your

post anonymously on her Facebook page for the edification of the people on her list. (I'm an old fart and don't know Facebook from Facebutt :)

Positively Lincoln-esque. Thank you.

[Solly Mack]

15. ...

[GaYellowDawg]

23. Well...

You don't find a lot of people who have been ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands - so I wouldn't call it an easy exception.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. You don't?

You can't swing a dead cat in the Pentagon without hitting one.

Seriously, AQ killed thousands - US armed forces killed over a million in the same time frame.

You gotta be careful with your exceptions.

[pnwmom]

33. OBL is the rare exception, not the rule. He was the one to declare war on the U.S.

And to wage it, with his personal little army.

If he had wanted a trial, facing his accusers, etc. -- all he had to do was turn himself in to an intermediary like the UN. He's had 10 years to do that, but he chose to go down fighting.

[bobbolink]

38. Amen. Very, very well said.

:applause:

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

[Stinky The Clown]

52. I don't find exceptions easily. Which is why they're exceptions.

As the OP says, I fully expected to not feel good about this. All the circumstances known thus far indicate to me, inside my own head, that I would not feel okay with this.

But I do. Not so much cheering about it as accepting of it.

I'm sorry you can't accept my personal nuance. I'm sorry you can't accept my human flaws.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Isn't Bush a fucker?

I sure as hell think he is.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. Please explain further what you're driving at.

I'm happy to discuss this with you, but I have no idea what you're getting at.

Yes, Bush is a fucker.

No, Bush and bin Laden are not the same because I used the same adjective to describe them.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. Sorry....I misunderstood your post. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

5. You give up easy.

[DevonRex]

6. Happy to KnR this. Nt

[HereSince1628]

8. I'm just wondering how to file it.

It was a death by human cause so it's a form of homicide. Based on popular support and public sentiment...justifiable homicide.

But within our form of government what was this? Is there a named category that serves this action?

Was it a Mark and Reprisal? M&R seems to have usually been about property.

The determination came from the C&C. So it surely involved an Executive Authorization or Executive Order

When a court makes a ruling without a trial it's Summary Judgment. Was this an "Executive Judgment?"

This will surely serve as precedent, what name will it get?

[EFerrari]

14. I think the term is "targeted assassination". n/t

[HereSince1628]

18. Certainly it was, Is that already part of the legal lexicon?

I'm just wondering.

Considering what I've heard about different nations' covert actions it seems that this is a known commodity. I just wonder what it is known as...besides "Justice."

[EFerrari]

19. I don't know. It's a good question.

But I remember it from the time that the Israelis started doing it and from the ensuing debate.

[pnwmom]

36. They say he resisted arrest. If he was shouting out orders or reaching

for a weapon, he was a threat to every soldier there. They were within their rights to shoot him.

If he'd wanted a trial he should have given himself up to the UN long ago.

[EFerrari]

37. I'm not attacking Obama. The poster wanted the term. n/t

[HereSince1628]

41. Sorry about getting you into that.

Maybe it's too soon to deal with such a question.

[EFerrari]

44. Oh, it's okay. n/t

[canoeist52]

9. Relative Morality...Wow! Burn the Witch!

[elias49]

10. I share your moral principals...

and I think that the reason I'm not more outraged over extrajudicial killing is that I haven't cared much about OBL in several years.
He simply hasn't been on my radar.

Now if we could find a way to shoot the Patriot Act in the head, well then I'd be dancing in the streets.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. Rule of law? Due process?

By the book, we probably should have petitioned the Pakistani police to detain him while the Pakistani legal system reviewed our petition for his extradition.

Rule of law and due process would have gotten us nowhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. I would contest that there was a kill order

There is yet to be a claim that he was lined up against a wall and shot. Resistance was expected and no additional risk to the SEALs was considered acceptable. Short of abject surrender (again not claimed) that he would be double tapped was quite rightly expected.

[EFerrari]

17. McChrystal is the one who developed the assasination program at JSOC

Jeremy Scahill is the reporter that has been covering it for several years now. It's pretty hard to believe that asset wouldn't be used in this case, isn't it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. There have been assasination programs in the Special Ops community going back to Vietnam

That said, no US solider should accept such an order, and I strongly doubt any SEAL would.

OBL wanted to die a martyrs death. The current statement of resistance seems both logical and probable. Under those circumstances double tapping him was the correct response under a military ROE. It was a military operation, not a police raid.

[EFerrari]

25. Yep, there have been others. But McChrystal developed this one.

This very one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. So you, Scahill or someone has credible evidence that a kill order was given?

If not, what separates those who make such claims from the birthers?

[EFerrari]

29. That isn't what I said, is it?

I pointed out that we have that asset which is nothing like those lunatics, thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Oh my, go back to WW II

Vietnam if you insist on JSOC.

McChystal did not invent this.

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Uh, yeah. Phoenix Program executed 20-30,000 NLF cadre in its

day. And its head (Colby?) went on to head the CIA.

Plus ca change . . .

[pintobean]

16. Rec. n/t

[LooseWilly]

20. Like shooting an unarmed man, in Unforgiven...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccqdEhytKOk

Only thing is... is Clint Eastwood's character likenable to the SEALs who shot unarmed Bin Laden?... or the outlaw Bin Laden "shooting" 3k people in the WTC (who presumably also "should've armed themselves"?)

Or maybe nobody's really innocent in the game of global neo-colonialism & exploitation & extremism... and we all better arm ourselves for when our time comes...

You make the call.

[Hannah Bell]

21. you don't support the rule of law then.

[GaYellowDawg]

24. Aah, I love absolutes. Nothing like a zero tolerance rule for principles. n/t

...

[pnwmom]

39. The rule of law allows all the soldiers there to protect themselves.

The fact that he wasn't armed doesn't mean he wasn't dangerous. If he made a move toward a weapon, or even shouted orders to the other fighting men, he was a risk to the soldiers there.

If he wanted a trial he should have turned himself in to the UN years ago.

[Hannah Bell]

50. pfft.

[Bragi]

27. No you aren't

You began your post with: "I am a strong supporter of certain concepts."

Based on a reading of the rest of your post, I think I can assure you, that you are NOT actually a supporter of those concepts.

Just thought you'd want to know

[EFerrari]

31. I think that's too harsh.

This is a complicated death. It brings up everything we've all been through since 9/11.

People are going to have complicated reactions and even those will wind up being a process and not really one event, imho.

[Bragi]

46. I agree it's complicated

My impression was that the OP was not posted to spark a discussion of the complicated moral dilemmas here, but was just creating a new thread for pro-death fist-pumping and rhythmic chanting. I think I deduced this from the fact that no thoughtful points were made describing the dilemma and how it was resolved.

If I've misjudged the intent, however, then yes, I was overly harsh, and I'm sorry for that.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Thanks for setting me straight.

You must be most fortunate to be without nuance. Life is far simpler that way.

By the way, I am deeply sorry that I have flaws.

Here's something to think about: Should we apologize for what we think? It seems to me that what we do with we think is far more important.

[JohnnyLib2]

30. Yup, we are finding our 'moral lacunae.'

Not a comforting time.

[blondeatlast]

32. Stinky, you should be ashamed of yourself for being human.

Even the Dalai Lama isn't condemning what happened; there's a thread in GD about it--and and a "malaria" reference you might find interesting.

[Little Star]

34. The fucker's dead.......

I've been trying to figure out how come I am not upset with this kill. I am a supporter of all those same concepts you mention.

I have come to the conclusion that, for myself, I see this as an act of war. It should never have been a war. It should have been a police type endeavor like John Kerry said it should but none the less it is a war.

I think Obama did a really good job of this from beginning to end.

[99th_Monkey]

42. What might give you pause

.. it did me ... during one of the flurry of interviews on TV news, one of the "inside experts" involved in "the kill" indicated that these
kinds of Spec. Op maneuvers "go on all the time in Afghanistan, like 2-3 per night" .. gave me chills.

We need to get the fuck out of these ME wars.

[lunatica]

43. Sometimes the moral thing to do is to do what's best for everyone

In this case the world truly is better off without Osama. He even gathered supporters to commit suicide for his cause. Everyone is better off. Especially innocent people who never lifted a finger against him.

[MasonJar]

45. I think we all believe that some very brave men performed a necessary

job for the welfare of the world. Now it is time to cease these fruitless wars and concentrate on peaceful solutions to the world's problems. We need to back off all the military spending and invest in our citizens and their well being, like the other nations of the developed world. If we do NOT take this opportunity to move in a new direction we are FOOLS.

[cliffordu]

48. Right there with you, Stinky.

:applause:

[mmonk]

49. Shook those notions off, eh?

I think you're allowed to these days except life in the womb.

[Fire1]

51. I'm just proud as punch that OBAMA got him!!! n/t

[Carni]

55. Agree and +1

I am very glad they got him!

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. Says more about the flexibility of your morals than anything

Revenge is not justice. And killing an unarmed man rather than capturing him, even if he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, is not justice either. The rule of law means something, or it should. I'm not sorry that Bin Laden is dead, especially, but neither am I especially comfortable with the actions that led to it.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. Which is really what the OP says.

But thank you for insulting me. Says more about your refusal to think before speaking.

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. No, the OP says "I expected to have a moral dilemma, but I don't"

so you're clearly not too much bothered by it. I did think before speaking; if you're bothered by the nature of this extra-judicial execution, then you clearly do have a moral dilemma; if you're not, then at what point do such actions become repugnant? Should the Allies have simply shot Hermann Göring, and the rest of the Nazi leaders, on capture rather than bothering to imprison and try them, for instance?

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Thank you for the scolding

Maybe someday we can have an actual discussion. Until then, peace.

[Bragi]

71. So is this your MO?

So what's the plan. You post an OP suggesting you have something serious to say about a difficult moral choice, and then you desacribe your alleged beliefs, and then just say "the fucker's dead" and walk away with no further explanation. Then you attack anyone who says there is a moral dilemma here to think about.

So what's your point? If you have an argument to make, make it.

[Stinky The Clown]

73. Actually, I have no argument to make

I didn't when I posted this. I simply said I failed to have a moral dilemma that I expected. You can take from that what you wish. I am happy to discuss the human condition that leads us to inconsistencies of thought.

That's what I faced today. I was surprised by it and I mentioned it here. It really is that simple.

[Curmudgeoness]

64. I support those same concepts. But if someone

were to kill my child, I would not feel bad to hear that this person was killed outside of these concepts.

OBL killed a lot of people's children. OBL was a dangerous man who would have been even more dangerous as a captive. This was really the only thing we could have done.

[Snoutport]

67. yup...me too. i'm pretty much a pacifist + self defense...

[Ohio Joe]

68. I am ok with it as well

Perhaps if the guy had not slaughtered so many innocents around the world and then bragged about it I might feel different.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. Right On, Stink.

Pretty much share the exact same sentiments and lack of dilemma.