• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

ReverendHellh0und said:
yes, as one who has done just that, I can tell you, sometimes, you are dropping bombs on a lot of unarmed folks.


they targeted the leaders, the fact that one is a couple 5.56, and the other a couple 500lb jdams, really makes it different for you? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. When dropping bombs on a target, often with fire coming back at you, it is part of war. Once you have a man, and you shoot him, that becomes something very different. That's plain ass murder.

Now, you can bomb places that cross the line. Dresden comes to mind. Civilian populations with no military objective would cause pause. Even our dropping the atomic bombs were questionable decisions that could be rightly questioned. But even they would not be the same as just shooting an unarmed man.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it does. When dropping bombs on a target, often with fire coming back at you, it is part of war. Once you have a man, and you shoot him, that becomes something very different. That's plain ass murder.
Click to expand...

so Obama is a murderer? yes or no.


Now, you can bomb places that cross the line. Dresden comes to mind. Civilian populations with no military objective would cause pause. Even our dropping the atomic bombs were questionable decisions that could be rightly questioned. But even they would not be the same as just shooting an unarmed man.
Click to expand...

What if we bombed the compound in pakistan, that would not be "murder" like the assassination to you was?
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it does. When dropping bombs on a target, often with fire coming back at you, it is part of war. Once you have a man, and you shoot him, that becomes something very different. That's plain ass murder.

Now, you can bomb places that cross the line. Dresden comes to mind. Civilian populations with no military objective would cause pause. Even our dropping the atomic bombs were questionable decisions that could be rightly questioned. But even they would not be the same as just shooting an unarmed man.
Click to expand...

I just got on this thread Boo, but it seems you are suggesting that the SEALs murdered OBL.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I just got on this thread Boo, but it seems you are suggesting that the SEALs murdered OBL.
Click to expand...

If there is a crime, it is not them I would prosecute. They acted under orders. I'm saying that assassination is illegal. Assassination by definition is killing political leaders. If the SEALS just decided on their own to kill someone, unarmed, they would face charges. Under orders, as I suspect here, I would blame the order giver.

That said, just as with Bush, I don't believe either will ever face charges. I believe Bush broke the law, and have not argued for impecahment or prosecution. Only agree he broke the law and I would be fine if he were chraged. He won't be. The same is true of Obama.
 
Boo Radley said:
If there is a crime, it is not them I would prosecute. They acted under orders. I'm saying that assassination is illegal. Assassination by definition is killing political leaders. If the SEALS just decided on their own to kill someone, unarmed, they would face charges. Under orders, as I suspect here, I would blame the order giver.

That said, just as with Bush, I don't believe either will ever face charges. I believe Bush broke the law, and have not argued for impecahment or prosecution. Only agree he broke the law and I would be fine if he were chraged. He won't be. The same is true of Obama.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Administration had its ass covered on this one. They had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. They could demonstrate that OBL was an imminent threat to the security of this country, and that he was a legitimate military target, armed or not. I think the only situation in which criminal prosecutions would be in order is if OBL had raised his hands up to surrender, and was gunned down anyway.

Edit: as for whether an airstrike is equivalent to shooting an unarmed man - I think the situations are very similar, I'm actually with Rev on this one. What exactly is the moral/ethical divide between taking out OBL with a 5.56 to the head, and taking out Moussaoui's compound in Iraq with an airstrike when we couldn't even tell whether he was unarmed or not?
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
so Obama is a murderer? yes or no.




What if we bombed the compound in pakistan, that would not be "murder" like the assassination to you was?
Click to expand...

You're trying to make it more complicated than it is. I've given you clear examples. If the compound was a miltiary compound it woudl not be the same as shooting an unarmed man.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Personally, I think Administration had its ass covered on this one. They had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. They could demonstrate that OBL was an imminent threat to the security of this country, and that he was a legitimate military target, armed or not. I think the only situation in which criminal prosecutions would be in order is if OBL had raised his hands up to surrender, and was gunned down anyway.

Edit: as for whether an airstrike is equivalent to shooting an unarmed man - I think the situations are very similar, I'm actually with Rev on this one. What exactly is the moral/ethical divide between taking out OBL with a 5.56 to the head, and taking out Moussaoui's compound in Iraq with an airstrike when we couldn't even tell whether he was unarmed or not?
Click to expand...

They may have had their ass covered. This is why I use word likes if and possible. However, I do think the law forbids assassintion.


As for the differences, in war, if I know a compound is an emey compound, I can bomb it or invade it. both would be acceptable. But once you have a man, unarmed, and you assassinate him, that is quite different. It oucld be argued the compund was armed, they were frinig back. It was part of the fighting. but once you have him unarmed, you can't make such a claim.
 
Boo Radley said:
If there is a crime, it is not them I would prosecute. They acted under orders.
Click to expand...

Agreed

If you have orders to kill someone, you obey the order because you are acting "in good faith". You have to assume your superiors have a valid reason for issuing an order to terminate someones life.
 
Boo Radley said:
They may have had their ass covered. This is why I use word likes if and possible. However, I do think the law forbids assassintion.


As for the differences, in war, if I know a compound is an emey compound, I can bomb it or invade it. both would be acceptable. But once you have a man, unarmed, and you assassinate him, that is quite different. It oucld be argued the compund was armed, they were frinig back. It was part of the fighting. but once you have him unarmed, you can't make such a claim.
Click to expand...

Apparently bin Laden had an AK and a Makarov pistol within arms reach when the SEALs arrived. In such a situation, it would be entirely possible to "resist" while being unarmed, IMO, and I don't think such a killing would go against the laws of war.

Alright, I'll give a hypothetical in conventional war terms. If you came across a uniformed enemy, but he was unarmed, would you be obligated to not shoot him just because he was unarmed? Let's say the individual in question refused to surrender and was attempting to flee. Shooting him in the back might not be nice, but I don't think it's illegal.
 
Boo Radley said:
If the compound was a miltiary (sic) compound it woudl (sic) not be the same as shooting an unarmed man.
Click to expand...

if?

you STILL don't know what went down sunday?

LOL!

why do you talk so much about opinions when you don't have the facts, chairman?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Apparently bin Laden had an AK and a Makarov pistol within arms reach when the SEALs arrived. In such a situation, it would be entirely possible to "resist" while being unarmed, IMO, and I don't think such a killing would go against the laws of war.

Alright, I'll give a hypothetical in conventional war terms. If you came across a uniformed enemy, but he was unarmed, would you be obligated to not shoot him just because he was unarmed? Let's say the individual in question refused to surrender and was attempting to flee. Shooting him in the back might not be nice, but I don't think it's illegal.
Click to expand...

Apparently?????
 
StillBallin75 said:
Apparently bin Laden had an AK and a Makarov pistol within arms reach when the SEALs arrived. In such a situation, it would be entirely possible to "resist" while being unarmed, IMO, and I don't think such a killing would go against the laws of war.

Alright, I'll give a hypothetical in conventional war terms. If you came across a uniformed enemy, but he was unarmed, would you be obligated to not shoot him just because he was unarmed? Let's say the individual in question refused to surrender and was attempting to flee. Shooting him in the back might not be nice, but I don't think it's illegal.
Click to expand...

And that would make a difference. As I said frm the begining, it depends on the details. If as Rev suggests, the man was unarmed, secired, and we shot him, I believe that would be illegal. If the SEALS were ordered to do that, than I would blame the person giving the order, . . .Obama.
 
Boo Radley said:
I would blame the person giving the order
Click to expand...

few care whom you would or wouldn't blame

the facts are the facts

gitmo, detention, wiretapping, assassination...

barack the killer has become quite the neocon

he appears to like it, too

ask al awlaki, an american CITIZEN
 
Boo Radley said:
If there is a crime, it is not them I would prosecute. They acted under orders. I'm saying that assassination is illegal. Assassination by definition is killing political leaders. If the SEALS just decided on their own to kill someone, unarmed, they would face charges. Under orders, as I suspect here, I would blame the order giver.
Click to expand...


We had a duty to refuse illegal orders, if you think the order was unlawful, you would have to hold those who engaged in the activity liable.


That said, just as with Bush, I don't believe either will ever face charges. I believe Bush broke the law, and have not argued for impecahment or prosecution. Only agree he broke the law and I would be fine if he were chraged. He won't be. The same is true of Obama.
Click to expand...


Sad panda?
 
Boo Radley said:
And that would make a difference. As I said frm the begining, it depends on the details. If as Rev suggests, the man was unarmed, secired, and we shot him, I believe that would be illegal. If the SEALS were ordered to do that, than I would blame the person giving the order, . . .Obama.
Click to expand...


So, tell me if I am wrong here, but do you believe that OBL has rights? If so, what rights do you give the mass murderer?

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
You're trying to make it more complicated than it is. I've given you clear examples. If the compound was a miltiary compound it woudl not be the same as shooting an unarmed man.
Click to expand...



Qadaffi's home was no more a military compound than Obama's bungalo. :prof
 
StillBallin75 said:
Apparently bin Laden had an AK and a Makarov pistol within arms reach when the SEALs arrived. In such a situation, it would be entirely possible to "resist" while being unarmed, IMO, and I don't think such a killing would go against the laws of war.

Alright, I'll give a hypothetical in conventional war terms. If you came across a uniformed enemy, but he was unarmed, would you be obligated to not shoot him just because he was unarmed? Let's say the individual in question refused to surrender and was attempting to flee. Shooting him in the back might not be nice, but I don't think it's illegal.
Click to expand...




Even if the only thing he had in his hand was his blood engorged member..... just sayin.
 
Boo Radley said:
And that would make a difference. As I said frm the begining, it depends on the details. If as Rev suggests, the man was unarmed, secired, and we shot him, I believe that would be illegal. If the SEALS were ordered to do that, than I would blame the person giving the order, . . .Obama.
Click to expand...

You also said, "IF it was a military compound" What constitutes a military for you?

j-mac
 
The Prof said:
few care whom you would or wouldn't blame

the facts are the facts

gitmo, detention, wiretapping, assassination...

barack the killer has become quite the neocon

he appears to like it, too

ask al awlaki, an american CITIZEN
Click to expand...

Agreed....Every freaking time Obama looks himself in the mirror knowing well that he is an extension of what he criticized and abhorred in the past

Obama is a phony and a hypocrite
 
j-mac said:
So, tell me if I am wrong here, but do you believe that OBL has rights? If so, what rights do you give the mass murderer?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Rights? Who gives rigths? Man? A nation? God? remember this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they (Everyone and not just US citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Charles Manson was a mass murder. As have been others, who we have chrged, prosecuted, and punished. Isn't that what we do? What exactly suggest to you that what God has endowed is only for the choosen? If we excuse unlawful and evil behavior, what moral ground do we stand on? What core value to we hold regardless of circumstance?

I'm not as willing as some to say the law only applies to some and is completely subjective, to only use when we feel like it.
 
j-mac said:
You also said, "IF it was a military compound" What constitutes a military for you?

j-mac
Click to expand...

It incorporates a lot of possibilities. A headquarters, a staging area, a training area, a depot, housing wepaons and / or soliders.
 
Boo Radley said:
Rights? Who gives rigths? Man? A nation? God? remember this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they (Everyone and not just US citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Charles Manson was a mass murder. As have been others, who we have chrged, prosecuted, and punished. Isn't that what we do? What exactly suggest to you that what God has endowed is only for the choosen? If we excuse unlawful and evil behavior, what moral ground do we stand on? What core value to we hold regardless of circumstance?

I'm not as willing as some to say the law only applies to some and is completely subjective, to only use when we feel like it.
Click to expand...


If your edit was accurate, then why the 14th amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom