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

[LongingSoul]

That sounds a lot like the death penalty to me except that he was put on the fast track.

The ‘death penalty’ as codified within US law, comes under the umbrella condition of ‘legitmate defense’ within Church teaching as do all forms of killing that have the common good of human beings at their core in a ‘double-effect’ sense.

It sounds like the death penalty in so much as they are both legitimate defences.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Do you happen to own a giant hog farm in Indiana? But seriously, we can think of all the vengefully delicious fates for such a person, but then we are acting out of vengeance immorally rather than thinking through objectively and ‘Christianly’ all the realities of such solutions.

 

[livingwordunity]

But there were mistakes in how you said it transpired. There was no ‘kill on sight’ orders,

Then why did the current White House leadership take all the credit for the kill?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Right. What else was supposed to happen?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then why did the current White House leadership take all the credit for the kill?

The commander in chief approved the mission. It was a success, just as capturing him would have been. You know they were looking for him since Bush initiated, ‘dead or alive?’

 

[livingwordunity]

The commander in chief approved the mission. It was a success, just as capturing him would have been. You know they were looking for him since Bush initiated, ‘dead or alive?’

Approval of the mission included permission to kill or they would not have done it.

I don’t see a moral difference between killing in this case and the use of the death penalty since Osama bin Laden was unarmed when they killed him.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Approval of the mission included permission to kill or they would not have done it.

I don’t see a moral difference between killing in this case and the use of the death penalty since Osama bin Laden was unarmed when they killed him.

.

Do you think this mission should not have allowed the navy seals to defend themselves? Why were the seals allowed to take guns? Do you think the president should have sent them in unarmed? This was a capture, or kill, mission, as necessary; according to the navy seal that authored the book.

The moral difference is, OBL was not incapable of inflicting harm. They shot him in self defense, on a mission of defense of innocent people. People in prison are effectively prevented from further aggression. Had OBL been in custody, this would have been different. You know very well, the seals had to fight their way in.

This is not a political incident. The hunt for OBL was initiated by Bush, who said, ‘dead or alive.’ He would have announced, ‘we got him,’ had it happened under his administration. It just so happened that this took place under this administration.

The men of the Church hold each administration accountable when they ‘clash’ with our faith. They also will speak agreement when they see something they can agree with. We should follow their example.

 

[LongingSoul]

Approval of the mission included permission to kill or they would not have done it.

I don’t see a moral difference between killing in this case and the use of the death penalty since Osama bin Laden was unarmed when they killed him.

.

Putting Bin Laden in a US prison would have made the US a target for every jihadist terrorist in the world. The safety and wellbeing of the community makes bin ladens killing the ultimate definition of ‘legitimate defense’. Were there some similar false messiah type figure in the US whose incarceration would attract similar carnage for the general community, a sentence of death would be well justified in accordance with the conditions spelt out in the CCC. Certain sociopathic characters do present and for the safety of the general public, they are best dealt with quickly and unceremoniously. When they are dead, their false powers die with them.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

And no, I do not think he should have been killed, if he could be captured (and it seems pretty evident that he could have been). Life is sacred. We do not convince people of this by acting as if some life is disposable. We do not convince ourselves of this by acting as if some life is disposable. God wills all souls to come to Him: what a statement it would have been, to treat Osama as if his life was sacred, even after the death he caused. Do we not teach that every sin can be forgiven?/FONT]/QUOTE]

 

[livingwordunity]

Putting Bin Laden in a US prison would have made the US a target for every jihadist terrorist in the world.

I thought that the United States already was a target for every jihadist terrorist in the world. Didn’t the Boston bombings remind us of that? The Islamic extremists call the United States “the Great Satan”.

 

[epan]

TypesAndShadows;10900480:

And no, I do not think he should have been killed, if he could be captured (and it seems pretty evident that he could have been). Life is sacred. We do not convince people of this by acting as if some life is disposable. We do not convince ourselves of this by acting as if some life is disposable. God wills all souls to come to Him: what a statement it would have been, to treat Osama as if his life was sacred, even after the death he caused. Do we not teach that every sin can be forgiven?

/FONT]/QUOTE]



How is it evident that capture was possible?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

SAVINGRACE;10902647:

How is it evident that capture was possible?

Capture was always possible. The intent for capture was not.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

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.

If it is a war, then the rules apply. We do not execute enemy soldiers without a trial: we kill them in combat, or we capture them. If it is not a war, then the terrorists are just another category of criminals, who should be pursued, arrested, and tried in criminal courts. There are arrangements for criminals who act across borders. It is entirely possible to extradite such prisoners and lock them securely away.

And no, I do not think he should have been killed, if he could be captured (and it seems pretty evident that he could have been). Life is sacred. We do not convince people of this by acting as if some life is disposable. We do not convince ourselves of this by acting as if some life is disposable. God wills all souls to come to Him: what a statement it would have been, to treat Osama as if his life was sacred, even after the death he caused. Do we not teach that every sin can be forgiven?

I do not know what you think or know about war, but there is no such thing as a Just War. The term Just War exists so as to make some war palatable to some people in an attempt to overcome the lasting effects of the anti-war movement of the Viet Nam era on the United States.
As for the Rules of War, they are largely written by the people who won the last war!
If you think that anyone except rear echelon troops abide by “rules” I think you are terribly naive.
In WW II the only difference between the AXIS and the Western Powers was they had death camps and we (exceept the Russians) didn’t. Killing Civilians? What do you think the bombing of German, Austrian and Japanese cities did? And yes, we killed more POW’s than we incarcerated…especially in the war against Japan. This was neatly covered up by us not putting as many Japanese on trial for war crimes as we did Germans. Even in Korea, we captured thousands upon thousands of Chinese Soldiers. The only reason many of these were not executed on the battle field was that there were too many, and the reprisals by the Chicoms would have been devastating.
Never forget it is only the winning side in a war that gets to write the history and have the heroes.
Unfortunately, thiw may be no longer true, since revisionist (politically slanted and non-factual)history seems to have become the norm in Academia today!

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I do not know what you think or know about war, but there is no such thing as a Just War. The term Just War exists so as to make some war palatable to some people in an attempt to overcome the lasting effects of the anti-war movement of the Viet Nam era on the United States.
As for the Rules of War, they are largely written by the people who won the last war!
If you think that anyone except rear echelon troops abide by “rules” I think you are terribly naive.
In WW II the only difference between the AXIS and the Western Powers was they had death camps and we (exceept the Russians) didn’t. Killing Civilians? What do you think the bombing of German, Austrian and Japanese cities did? And yes, we killed more POW’s than we incarcerated…especially in the war against Japan. This was neatly covered up by us not putting as many Japanese on trial for war crimes as we did Germans. Even in Korea, we captured thousands upon thousands of Chinese Soldiers. The only reason many of these were not executed on the battle field was that there were too many, and the reprisals by the Chicoms would have been devastating.
Never forget it is only the winning side in a war that gets to write the history and have the heroes.
Unfortunately, thiw may be no longer true, since revisionist (politically slanted and non-factual)history seems to have become the norm in Academia today!

I don’t know what you think or know about Catholic teaching, but there is such a thing as just war. And the difference between just and unjust war is the difference between lawful use of state violence and unfettered violence. Humans do terrible things, if they think they can get away with it, especially if they think they’re the goodies: that’s why we have international laws, and nobody is exempt from them. That people break the law is not sufficient reason to abolish the law, or to declare that the law does not apply. That some get away with it is not reason to give up on enforcing it.

 

[kag1982]

Killing UBL was justifiable. In fact, the U.S. opted for a risky Seals raid rather than just using a drone or dropping a bomb. This was to make sure that we got him, but it also minimized innocent casualties… A five year old child is innocent even if his or her father is a monster.

And capturing and jailing UBL would make Americans less safe. I do think the Seals had orders to kill him on site because capturing him alive would have led to mass demonstrations and kidnapping/ terrorist plots in the Arab World. This whole situation is different from a serial killer who could be locked up for life and the key thrown a way.

 

[epan]

epan;10903251:

Capture was always possible. The intent for capture was not.

I am very curious. How do you know that?

 

[epan]

I do not know what you think or know about war, but there is no such thing as a Just War. The term Just War exists so as to make some war palatable to some people in an attempt to overcome the lasting effects of the anti-war movement of the Viet Nam era on the United States.
As for the Rules of War, they are largely written by the people who won the last war!
If you think that anyone except rear echelon troops abide by “rules” I think you are terribly naive.
In WW II the only difference between the AXIS and the Western Powers was they had death camps and we (exceept the Russians) didn’t. Killing Civilians? What do you think the bombing of German, Austrian and Japanese cities did? And yes, we killed more POW’s than we incarcerated…especially in the war against Japan. This was neatly covered up by us not putting as many Japanese on trial for war crimes as we did Germans. Even in Korea, we captured thousands upon thousands of Chinese Soldiers. The only reason many of these were not executed on the battle field was that there were too many, and the reprisals by the Chicoms would have been devastating.
Never forget it is only the winning side in a war that gets to write the history and have the heroes.
Unfortunately, thiw may be no longer true, since revisionist (politically slanted and non-factual)history seems to have become the norm in Academia today!

So, then your take on it, is that nobody should have opposed Hitler? Or do you think that he could have been stopped nonviolently?

Korea was complicated by General MacArthur. He had orders not to approach the Chinese border. Instead he massed his troops at the Yangtze. The Chinese, naturally fearing an invasion (which MacArthur advocated), sent regular troops south to outflank US forces, and counter the threat. If my memory of military history serves me correctly, US casualties exceeded 20,000 because of that failure to follow orders. Chinese and Korean casualties were much higher. President Truman relieved MacArthur, but the damage was done before the President was able to fire him.

 

[Edward_H]

SAVINGRACE;10903281:

I am very curious. How do you know that?

Good question. You won’t get a good answer.

In combat “can” isn’t what matters…it’s how many good lives are you willing to lose to catch one dangerous worthless life.

I once asked a young Marine infantry officer why he chose to call in an air strike on a positively IDd house filled with guys shooting at us, when we could have maneuvered on them and killed them with our organic weapons…and he instantly said what any good Marine would say “those do£¥$@-bags aren’t worth one of my Marines…nope…not writing any more letters to Moms than I have to…”

God bless the clarity of thought and action.

 

[epan]

epan;10906251:

Good question. You won’t get a good answer.

In combat “can” isn’t what matters…it’s how many good lives are you willing to lose to catch one dangerous worthless life.

I once asked a young Marine infantry officer why he chose to call in an air strike on a positively IDd house filled with guys shooting at us, when we could have maneuvered on them and killed them with our organic weapons…and he instantly said what any good Marine would say “those do£¥$@-bags aren’t worth one of my Marines…nope…not writing any more letters to Moms than I have to…”

God bless the clarity of thought and action.

My take on it, is that it was a covert op on sovereign soil. Time was critical to achieve the objective. One helo failed. If OBL resisted, it was a waste of time, and he was not likely to come along nicely. He might have been given the opportunity, and he made his choice. Our guys were at great risk. It was a very sensitive mission, and they risked their lives to minimize potential collateral damage.

BTW, I am a former Marine with combat experience, and I have worked extensively with SEALS. I am in the US Navy now, and I assist an occasional SEAL or other special forces, when they require my particular skills. So, you may detect some bias in my posts.

 

[Edward_H]

Edward H;10906285:

My take on it, is that it was a covert op on sovereign soil. Time was critical to achieve the objective. One helo failed. If OBL resisted, it was a waste of time, and he was not likely to come along nicely. He might have been given the opportunity, and he made his choice. Our guys were at great risk. It was a very sensitive mission, and they risked their lives to minimize potential collateral damage.

BTW, I am a former Marine with combat experience, and I have worked extensively with SEALS. I am in the US Navy now, and I assist an occasional SEAL or other special forces, when they require my particular skills. So, you may detect some bias in my posts.

Epan,

Semper Fi. I just retired last November. 26 years.