Is anyone morally culpable because of Osama's death?

[WayCoolAtheist]

Is it actually a sin to have ordered his execution as the President did? Was it a sin to carry it out, as the seals did? Basically, is anyone going to hell because of this?

 

[Rence]

The only one morally culpable for Osama’s death is Osama. The Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty, especially when the person being executed is a continued threat to others and cannot be reigned in or controlled so that they are no longer a threat. Osama was a threat to many people, and executing him was for the protection of the people. What the Pope is saying is that it is sinful to rejoice in Osama’s death. It’s never okay to rejoice in the execution of another person. But the Church acknowledges that sometimes it is necessary to protect others.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

The operation was indeed planned as an execution from the start. If they actually had the ability to arrest him and chose to execute, does that make a difference?

 

[Shoshana]

But I can think of one another person who was executed under VERY self-aggranisement motives…

But with Osama, no. Saddam, yes.

 

[wild_thing]

And here is a link to another thread about this- it’s an article about Osama Bin Laden’s death and what the Catholic Church said about it- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=558237

 

[Love_Divine]

Is it actually a sin to have ordered his execution as the President did? Was it a sin to carry it out, as the seals did?

I dd a quick review of the CCC, and I can’t see it being sinful. He was responsible for the killing of many innocent lives. What other options were realistically available? Keeping him in jail for the rest of his life? I don’t think that would last very long with his number of followers.

Basically, is anyone going to hell because of this?

Osama, perhaps, unless he repented and converted at the last possible moment and was saved by God’s mercy.

 

[Big_Ro]

I’m not saying I agree or disagree, but I think it could be jsutified because it was essentially an act of war. Your thoughts.

 

[kimmielittle]

The operation was indeed planned as an execution from the start. If they actually had the ability to arrest him and chose to execute, does that make a difference?

Reference please

 

[Waiting]

The operation was indeed planned as an execution from the start. If they actually had the ability to arrest him and chose to execute, does that make a difference?

As I understand it, Bin Laden was given the chance to surrender, but chose to be killed instead.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

ndtv.com/article/world/the-last-48-hrs-after-obama-signed-kill-osama-order-102850

reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/binladen-kill-idUSN027979420110502

 

[Rence]

The operation was indeed planned as an execution from the start. If they actually had the ability to arrest him and chose to execute, does that make a difference?

No, I don’t think it makes a difference because, say the operation was planned as an execution from the start…Osama was still a threat to many others from the start. Even from prison he would be able to cause harm by directing his followers, who were ready an willing to do his bidding. And I am not confident in their ability to arrest him, since he was always in hiding and on the run, and the mission to find him was a long one.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

Now the administration is telling the media this isn’t true:–

swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/official-bin-laden-mission-was-kill-or-capture-not-just-kill/

 

[kimmielittle]

The operation was indeed planned as an execution from the start.

Your source for this statement, please.

Edit: I see your sources now.

I’ll hold judgment.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

Your source for this statement, please.

Or Are you just trolling?

Read above:

ndtv.com/article/world/the-last-48-hrs-after-obama-signed-kill-osama-order-102850

reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/binladen-kill-idUSN027979420110502

But now (as in the last 20 minutes) they’re denyign this to Time

swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/official-bin-laden-mission-was-kill-or-capture-not-just-kill/

 

[markomalley]

Is it actually a sin to have ordered his execution as the President did? Was it a sin to carry it out, as the seals did? Basically, is anyone going to hell because of this?

This was a military action, not an action of jurisprudence.

That brings up whether our engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan qualifies as a “just war.” From the CCC:2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
But, there is one little wrinkle here: we are not in a state of war (declared or undeclared) with the State of Afghanistan or the State of Pakistan. Granted, we were in a state of war (undeclared) with the former government of the State of Afghanistan (a/k/a the Taliban), but does that state of (undeclared) war exist anymore since the Taliban are no longer in power? Instead, we are in a state of war (undeclared) with the non-governmental organization Al Qaeda.

This brings up two important points:

1. • Is it possible for a nation-state to be in a state of war with a non-governmental organization?
   • If it is possible, does that give the US government carte blanche to go into any State where suspected members of Al Qaeda reside?
   If the answer to either of the two above questions is “no,” then this act would not be morally licit and the individual who ordered the act would be morally culpable for it.
   
   If, on the other hand, the answer to the two questions above is yes, then we have another issue. Per Reuters, the mission was to kill Osama vice capture. This brings up one other question: is a targeted assassination a licit military tactic? In a standard military example, would it be morally acceptable to kill a General Officer with a sniper…particularly when this “hit” would be done away from the field of battle? Also, if the mission is to “hit” the General Officer, is there any culpability with causing collateral damage (the general’s driver, his aide, his wife)?
   

   ---

   Those who talk about recourse to the death penalty are citing a non-sequitur. This was not an act of jurisprudence. It was a military act. As such, it needs to be evaluated based upon the rules of war, not upon the moral liceity of a juridical act.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

I also remember CNN having a headline saying

Operation targeting Osama bin Laden designed, executed to kill him rather than take him alive, U.S. official tells CNN.

I don’t know if they were just copying reuters or if this official told a bunch of agencies this.

 

[JHow]

…Is it possible for a nation-state to be in a state of war with a non-governmental organization?..

Where in just war theory does it say that the agressor has to be a foreign government?

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I have no military or police experience so if anyone has experience in these fields please correct me but…

I fail to see how it would have been possible for the Navy Seals in this situation to be able to take Bin Laden alive…this mad man’s main method of attack for his minions was to blow themselves up…he refused to surrender and had stated numerous times in the past that he would NEVER be taken alive.

If you were one of the most hated people in the western world and trapped in a corner by the US military, wouldn’t you choose death over capture? I know I certainly would if I had been Bin Laden.

If you are a Navy Seal or any trained combatant for that matter, and had a crazed terrorist shooting an AK-47 at you and refused to surrender after being given a chance, your training tells you to eliminate and stop the threat as quickly as possible in order to PRESERVE LIFE. That’s the lives of you and your comrades and anyone other bystander involved. If that results in the death of the assailant then so be it, but you cannot sacrifice the lives of your comrades in order to capture a criminally insane terrorist alive.

Do you think you would try to carefully wound him in order to take him alive or would you eliminate the threat as quickly as possible to defend yourself and your buddies the way you’re trained to do?

For our brave men in uniform… it’s a no brainer, muscle memory… take him out.

Our brave Navy Seals did the whole world a huge favor. God bless them for their courage and sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[markomalley]

Where in just war theory does it say that the agressor has to be a foreign government?

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged**. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime**.

- Summa II-II-40-1
​

The two pertinent questions are:

1. 
   *]Can an NGO be in a state of war with a State?
   *]Can a State be in a state of war with an NGO, when executing that state of war would require the violation of other States’ sovereignty?

 

[markomalley]

I have no military or police experience so if anyone has experience in these fields please correct me but…

I fail to see how it would have been possible for the Navy Seals in this situation to be able to take Bin Laden alive…this mad man’s main method of attack for his minions was to blow themselves up…he refused to surrender and had stated numerous times in the past that he would NEVER be taken alive.

If you were one of the most hated people in the western world and trapped in a corner by the US military, wouldn’t you choose death over capture? I know I certainly would if I had been Bin Laden.

If you are a Navy Seal or any trained combatant for that matter, and had a crazed terrorist shooting an AK-47 at you and refused to surrender after being given a chance, your training tells you to eliminate and stop the threat as quickly as possible in order to PRESERVE LIFE. That’s the lives of you and your comrades and anyone other bystander involved. If that results in the death of the assailant then so be it, but you cannot sacrifice the lives of your comrades in order to capture a criminally insane terrorist alive.

Do you think you would try to carefully wound him in order to take him alive or would you eliminate the threat as quickly as possible to defend yourself and your buddies the way you’re trained to do?

For our brave men in uniform… it’s a no brainer, muscle memory… take him out.

Our brave Navy Seals did the whole world a huge favor. God bless them for their courage and sacrifice on our behalf.

The only way that a uniformed member would have any culpability for this type of scenario is if he or she operated in violation of the Rules of Engagement for that specific operation. Those ROEs, generally developed at the Theater Commander level, would be thoroughly vetted by the staff Judge Advocate General. If they even came close to coming in conflict with existing policy, the ROE would be sent up to the Joint Staff or the National Command Authority (a/k/a the President and/or Secretary of Defense) for their chop.

That is standard procedure for any operation.