The Church has for a long time recognised a government’s right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. I’m aware recently the United States Bishops have challenged that.The killing of Osama bin Laden was essentially the death penalty. If it was wrong, how wrong? I want to hear the opinions of the Catholics on here who believe strongly that the death penalty should be universally abolished.
Osama bin Laden had terminal diabetes and died many years ago. He was not killed by the United States; that fiction was rolled out at a weak and dangerous juncture in Obama’s political career. Our government can fake ANYTHING and fool the vast majority of Americans to some degree or other.
He died in December, 2001 of complications from diabetes. It is very easy to confirm with a little effort on line, that he spent time in a US military hospital on dialysis. He, and his family who were flown out of the United States days after 9 11 when air space was off-limits, were never enemies of the Bushes. To not spend much more time off the topic of this thread, won’t put more in here to prove that, but there is TONS of proof.
The Navy Seals helicopter blew up because a lot of them understood the truth. The “Situation Room” photograph we saw with Hillary with her hand at her mouth WAS STAGED.
I like those conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, they really make you laugh. But I need to ask you, What in heavens name are talking about?
I like those conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, they always give you a great laugh, but I must ask you this:What in heavens name are you talking about?Osama bin Laden had terminal diabetes and died many years ago. He was not killed by the United States; that fiction was rolled out at a weak and dangerous juncture in Obama’s political career. Our government can fake ANYTHING and fool the vast majority of Americans to some degree or other.
He died in December, 2001 of complications from diabetes. It is very easy to confirm with a little effort on line, that he spent time in a US military hospital on dialysis. He, and his family who were flown out of the United States days after 9 11 when air space was off-limits, were never enemies of the Bushes. To not spend much more time off the topic of this thread, won’t put more in here to prove that, but there is TONS of proof.
The Navy Seals helicopter blew up because a lot of them understood the truth. The “Situation Room” photograph we saw with Hillary with her hand at her mouth WAS STAGED.
That was later admitted by the White House!
Still, it’s a good topic. Because, did you know that the “NDAA” National Defense Authorization Act allows the government to use drones and poison and a lot of other methods to kill United States citizens? So… is this good, or not? Is it OK for the government to have the capacity to kill anyone who it casts as an enemy? Without trial? Without accusation? Without defense?
If it is actually a war, legally declared as one, then the rules of war apply. The Geneva convention must be followed, and the principles of a Just War. Osama would have been an enemy combatant, and there are rules about how these must be treated. But nobody has declared war, because they would have to follow these rules if they did so. Therefore, the rules of civilian engagement still apply, and Osama bin Laden was executed because it played better than capturing him. Those responsible treated life as cheap.Have you not heard of the U.S. War on Terrorism? The killing of Bin Laden has nothing to do with the death penalty. It was an act of war. Bin Laden declared war upon not only the United States, but on almost every Western (Christian) country, getting any number of Imams to justify his acts of terrorism as Jihad (Holy War).
We also have killen quite a few Islamic Terrorists in Yemen as well as Pakistan using stealth drones. These are not assinations, but acts of war, using military devices.
In war, there are no judges or juries. Just military people fighting it out.
In civilized warfare, the military does not go after civilians as their main target.
In this war on terrorism, the Islamic terrorists do not wear uniforms, and they do not seek out military targets as their main objective. They target civilians, so as to terrorize their governments to accede to their wishes. They justify their actions by misinterpret parts of the Koran that justifies killing non Moslems in order to convert others.
So, all of you can rave and rant all you want to about the death penalty. It has absolutely nothing to do with the War on Terrorism.
One last thing. Neither we nor any of our allies started this. It actually started in the 19960’s when islamic terrorists started setting off bombs in Europe, especially in France and West Germany. We did not get involved until after the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. Almost 3000 Americans were killed there!
I am generally against the death penalty, but honestly, in this case, capturing him would have spawned countless terror attacks and kidnappings in an attempt to have him released, which would have cost many innocent lives. Killing him may have been the only way to mitigate the number of innocent casualties. Now, whether or not this was morally acceptable, I leave to the moral theologians.The last I knew (yes, I’m pulling from memory here) the Holy See did not recognize our war in Iraq, Afghanistan, on terror as a “Just War”.
I also believe that it would have been preferable to capture Bin Ladin alive and try him in a military court and then let him live out his life in a 8x8 windowless room.
I do not believe in the death penalty. I do believe in the return of hard labor for anyone convicted of even the smallest crime. No more TV, basketball courts, fitness centers, etc.
Archaic yes, but the current system of punishment/counseling/coddling is not working.
Catholics need to uphold life in every aspect.
Exactly. If it was moral for the soldiers to enter the OBL compound, and if people were shooting back at them during the raid, then it would be reasonable to have an itchy trigger finger. If OBL was on the beach in the Bahamas with no bodyguards and the soldiers snuck up and shot him, that would be a much different story.From all reports, I don’t know that there was a ‘shoot to kill’ order. Those involved stated there was no such order. If true, that removes this killing from falling under the teaching on the death penalty.
The killing of OBL seemed to come under the auspices of the self defense qualifications listed in the Catechism. Those men that went in were the legitimate authority, defending themselves, at the time, and the general public, from the head of a network of people who have openly stated actions dangerous to innocent people.
really???osama bin laden had terminal diabetes and died many years ago. he was not killed by the united states; that fiction was rolled out at a weak and dangerous juncture in obama’s political career. Our government can fake anything and fool the vast majority of americans to some degree or other.
He died in december, 2001 of complications from diabetes. It is very easy to confirm with a little effort on line, that he spent time in a us military hospital on dialysis. He, and his family who were flown out of the united states days after 9 11 when air space was off-limits, were never enemies of the bushes. To not spend much more time off the topic of this thread, won’t put more in here to prove that, but there is tons of proof.
The navy seals helicopter blew up because a lot of them understood the truth. The “situation room” photograph we saw with hillary with her hand at her mouth was staged.
That was later admitted by the white house!
Still, it’s a good topic. Because, did you know that the “ndaa” national defense authorization act allows the government to use drones and poison and a lot of other methods to kill united states citizens? So… Is this good, or not? Is it ok for the government to have the capacity to kill anyone who it casts as an enemy? Without trial? Without accusation? Without defense?
You want the death penalty “completely abolished” but with exceptions. That’s a contradiction.I’m not Catholic but*** I do believe that the death penalty should be completely abolished.
But I don’t think that killing Bin Laden was the same thing. He was a dangerous man in a foreign nation who was actively leading a group of anti-western extremists. A criminal eligible for the death penalty is safely in custody and can be confined to a secure cell and monitored. There is no good that can come or any evil that will end by taking their life. The world will not be made safer. The same cannot be said for a terrorist leader outside of our custody.
Now, if Bin Laden had surrendered to the US and had been taken into military custody I would have strongly opposed killing him because I don’t believe in needless killing and I wouldn’t want to risk making him a martyr for other extremists.
no, it wasn’t the “death penalty” handed down in a court of law so DP analysis makes absolutely no sense. he died in a military action.The killing of Osama bin Laden was essentially the death penalty. If it was wrong, how wrong? I want to hear the opinions of the Catholics on here who believe strongly that the death penalty should be universally abolished.
According to news reports, Osama bin Laden was unarmed when they killed him. The US Navy SEALS would not have killed him without prior approval to do so from the president of the United States. So it was essentially the death penalty that was carried out. So would you say that this is one of the exceptions when you think the death penalty was justified?From all reports, I don’t know that there was a ‘shoot to kill’ order. Those involved stated there was no such order. If true, that removes this killing from falling under the teaching on the death penalty.
The killing of OBL seemed to come under the auspices of the self defense qualifications listed in the Catechism. Those men that went in were the legitimate authority, defending themselves, at the time, and the general public, from the head of a network of people who have openly stated actions dangerous to innocent people.
This killing was really no different than the man in Alabama who took a young boy hostage, with the exception of the number of innocent people targeted by the aggressors.
No Easy Day reveals bin Laden was unarmed when troops rushed into his room in the Abottabad, Pakistan compound
Ex-Navy SEAL claims he was shot in the head when he peeked out of his room. SEALS then pumped his body full of bullets as he twitched
Author says commandos knew Obama would take credit for the mission
Joe Biden told 'lame jokes' like 'drunken uncle' at Christmas dinner
Pentagon, CIA and White House among the agencies who have not seen the book, written anonymously by a SEAL Team Six member
Author could face federal charges if classified information is revealed in book
Will hit bookstores on September 4 -- a week earlier than the original releaseI think you are splitting hairs with legal semantics. According to reports, Osama bin Ladn was unarmed when he was killed. And they wouldn’t have killed him without prior permission from the president of the United States. The point of this thread is to find out how sincere the ones are who call for an absolute abolishing of the death penalty. I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here.no, it wasn’t the “death penalty” handed down in a court of law so DP analysis makes absolutely no sense. he died in a military action.
your assertions are so twisted that its impossible to give a straight answer.