Was killing Osama bin Laden the right or wrong thing to do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
livingwordunity said:
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?

‘Osama Bin Laden was unarmed and ALREADY DYING when Navy SEALs burst into bedroom’: Shocking claim by retired soldier that threatens to debunk official story of raid
Code: 
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 release
By Associated Press

PUBLISHED: 00:01 EST, 29 August 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 29 August 2012 Read more
Click to expand...
As Fair pointed out, this was not a death penalty, handed down by a court. So essentially, it was not a death penalty as addressed by the Catechism. It comes under the legitimate authority’s grave responsibility to protect, themselves and the public.

I saw a report that interviewed the seal that wrote the book, describing the incident. He stated it was dark, and night vision was being used. He stated the lead man shot OBL when he peeked around the corner. He stated they shot him again as they entered the room, not sure if he was armed or not. There was no presidential order to endanger their own lives, and he stated they did not have ‘kill on sight’ orders.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
As Fair pointed out, this was not a death penalty, handed down by a court. So essentially, it was not a death penalty as addressed by the Catechism. It comes under the legitimate authority’s grave responsibility to protect, themselves and the public.

I saw a report that interviewed the seal that wrote the book, describing the incident. He stated it was dark, and night vision was being used. He stated the lead man shot OBL when he peeked around the corner. He stated they shot him again as they entered the room, not sure if he was armed or not. There was no presidential order to endanger their own lives, and he stated they did not have ‘kill on sight’ orders.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is he was killed because he was considered so dangerous that even if he were incarcerated he would still be considered a threat to the public which is no different than the argument for why we can’t say that the death penalty must be universally abolished. Weren’t you arguing in the other threads for an absolute and universal end to capital punishment? But now you are trying to justify the ordered killing of an unarmed man. It seems like you have contradicted yourself.
 
livingwordunity said:
The bottom line is he was killed because he was considered so dangerous that even if he were incarcerated he would still be considered a threat to the public which is no different than the argument for why we can’t say that the death penalty must be universally abolished. Weren’t you arguing in the other threads for an absolute and universal end to capital punishment? But now you are trying to justify the ordered killing of an unarmed man. It seems like you have contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...
It is not the same as the death penalty. You seem to want to make it that way, so we can remain on opposing sides. I am for the abolition of the death penalty, as are the three most recent Popes. That doesn’t change this situation, which falls under the premise of self defense, as qualified in the Catechism.

You say it was an ‘ordered’ killing of an unarmed man. The navy seal that wrote the book said there was no ‘kill on sight’ orders, and the shots, after the first, was because they didn’t know if he was armed or not. Even if there had been an order to kill him on sight, no one would have known in advance whether he was armed or not. Let’s not forget there were other people in the dark room, and they had to kill combatants on the way in. They made the call to protect themselves, and that wasn’t personal, it was in the interest of innocent people they had legitimate authority and a grave duty to protect.

The contradictions are your insistence to make this the same as a court ordered death penalty, and that he was known to be unarmed, which was not court ordered and it was unknown whether he was actually armed or not… It seems the contradictions are yours.

It is no more than speculation of what his disposition would have been had he been captured alive, and had it been so, I would have been against the death penalty if our government could have rendered him harmless.
 
livingwordunity said:
You want the death penalty “completely abolished” but with exceptions. That’s a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Not at all. When someone is captured and tried I find the idea of a group of people deciding whether or not the government will be allowed to systematically take a life that poses no threat to anyone else to be repugnant.

A military action taken against someone who is out of our custody and who does pose an immediate threat is different. It is not morally or legally the same thing as the death penalty.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Not at all. When someone is captured and tried I find the idea of a group of people deciding whether or not the government will be allowed to systematically take a life that poses no threat to anyone else to be repugnant.

A military action taken against someone who is out of our custody and who does pose an immediate threat is different. It is not morally or legally the same thing as the death penalty.
Click to expand...
👍
 
livingwordunity said:
Okay then. Let’s take it step by step. Why are you against the death penalty?
Click to expand...
Because the aggressor has been rendered harmless against society, as qualified by the Catechism. It allows for a natural end to life, and opportunity for redemption on the part of the aggressor.

What reasons are you for the death penalty?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Because the aggressor has been rendered harmless against society, as qualified by the Catechism. It allows for a natural end to life, and opportunity for redemption on the part of the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Are you for an absolute universal ban of the death penalty? If so, why?
Prodigal_Son1 said:
What reasons are you for the death penalty?
Click to expand...
My position on the death penalty is it depends on how physically dangerous the person is. Sometimes murderers escape from prisons and kill more people. Or they are let out on good behavior and then kill again. This has happened even in the United States because of an overcrowded and imperfect prison system. If a priest is made available for administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation then they have an opportunity to repent and be saved just before the execution.
 
Thousands of innocent Americans murdered for no good reason.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans sent away from home and loved ones to find him and his minions.

Trillions of dollars spent on the deployment of American fighting men (and women) to find him.

Hundreds of Americans made extremely sick because of inhaling dust/debris/toxins from collapsed World Trade Center. Many will never recover.

Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on security upgrades to try to prevent something else like September 11, 2001 never happens again.

vs.

The life of a VERY VERY VERY evil man who would murder each and every one of us and everyone we love if he had the chance.

I don’t know… 🤷 Was it the right thing to do?

YES!!!
 
livingwordunity said:
Are you for an absolute universal ban of the death penalty? If so, why?My position on the death penalty is it depends on how physically dangerous the person is. Sometimes murderers escape from prisons and kill more people. Or they are let out on good behavior and then kill again. This has happened even in the United States because of an overcrowded and imperfect prison system. If a priest is made available for administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation then they have an opportunity to repent and be saved just before the execution.
Click to expand...
I answered your question. To go further, the Catechism states:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Click to expand...
Then the Catechism goes on to say:
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Click to expand...
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Click to expand...
These are the qualifications taught by our Church.

Perhaps you can share with us the number of people that have escaped death row, who were not eventually executed, and murdered during their escape. Then we can weigh it against Pope John Paul’s words, "Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Even after weighing the results, we are bound to the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I answered your question. To go further, the Catechism states:

Then the Catechism goes on to say:

These are the qualifications taught by our Church.

Perhaps you can share with us the number of people that have escaped death row, who were not eventually executed, and murdered during their escape. Then we can weigh it against Pope John Paul’s words, "Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Even after weighing the results, we are bound to the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism.
Click to expand...
I agree with the Catechism that the death penalty should be rare.
 
livingwordunity said:
I agree that it should almost be nonexistent. And actually, I think it should be banned in Muslim countries since they use it to kill Christians.
Click to expand...
I agree, but we cannot exclude the qualifications as taught by the Catechism, globally.
 
I thought that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a perfect example of the qualifications for appealing to legitimate defense as per the CCC. The way the US government carried it out too… expediently and without point scoring fanfare… was in keeping with the Church’s meaning. It was not an opportunity for rejoicing though as the Vatican Statement said at the time…

*“Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions to this end,” said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, who released a brief written statement reacting to the news.

“In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.”*

There was no other alternative here. If the Govt. were to capture and incarcerate him it could not have been done on US soil and to set up an overseas purpose made prison for such persons could never have worked as Gitmo proved.
 
LongingSoul said:
I thought that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a perfect example of the qualifications for appealing to legitimate defense as per the CCC. The way the US government carried it out too… expediently and without point scoring fanfare… was in keeping with the Church’s meaning. It was not an opportunity for rejoicing though as the Vatican Statement said at the time…

*“Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions to this end,” said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, who released a brief written statement reacting to the news.

“In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.”*

There was no other alternative here. If the Govt. were to capture and incarcerate him it could not have been done on US soil and to set up an overseas purpose made prison for such persons could never have worked as Gitmo proved.
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot like the death penalty to me except that he was put on the fast track.
 
livingwordunity said:
That sounds a lot like the death penalty to me except that he was put on the fast track.
Click to expand...
But there were mistakes in how you said it transpired. There was no ‘kill on sight’ orders, according to the navy seal that authored the book, and it was unknown whether he was armed, until after he was shot. This was a ‘capture’ mission, that required shooting for the safety of the team that went in. Again, according to the navy seal that authored the book.

Can you show us any man of the Church that referred to this as a ‘death penalty?’

This took place under the qualifications of the Catechism, in reference to defense.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Click to expand...
Does that not sound like the mission we’re discussing?
 
LongingSoul said:
…There was no other alternative here. If the Govt. were to capture and incarcerate him it could not have been done on US soil and to set up an overseas purpose made prison for such persons could never have worked as Gitmo proved.
Click to expand...
There was most certainly an alternative … He could have easily been detained for the rest of his life in a cell on a giant hog farm in Indiana. No chance of escape for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top