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

[SAVINGRACE]

SAVINGRACE;10903281:

I am very curious. How do you know that?

I know because President Obama and his advisors ordered the Seal team to kill him. That was always the intent.

Now there was always the possibility of capture because Osama did not resist and was unarmed, one of his wives did resist and was shot in the leg.

It’s public knowledge.

 

[epan]

epan;10906251:

I know because President Obama and his advisors ordered the Seal team to kill him. That was always the intent

.

Now there was always the possibility of capture because Osama did not resist and was unarmed, one of his wives did resist and was shot in the leg.

It’s public knowledge.

Ahh… excellent source that, “public knowledge” of presidential orders and covert ops. Technically, it was a CIA operation, with the military members being transferred for temporary duty to the CIA, for legal reasons. We all know that the CIA, JSOC and DEVGRU publish their orders for public perusal.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know because President Obama and his advisors ordered the Seal team to kill him. That was always the intent.

Now there was always the possibility of capture because Osama did not resist and was unarmed, one of his wives did resist and was shot in the leg.

It’s public knowledge.

Not according to the seal that wrote the book. I saw him on an interview and he stated there was no ‘kill on sight’ orders. I am open to correction if you can provide the source.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

According to the Catholic Church…Wrong thing to do. Killing bin Laden was not going to have any effect on the Holy War inspired terrorists stopping what they are doing. It is in direct violation of God’s will and Church teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

According to the Catholic Church…Wrong thing to do. Killing bin Laden was not going to have any effect on the Holy War inspired terrorists stopping what they are doing. It is in direct violation of God’s will and Church teaching.

If there was no ‘kill on sight’ order, and this killing was truly in the self defense, or defending those they are responsible to protect, I disagree that it’s in violation of Church teaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

The government probably has to be prudent in explaining what went down out of common sensitivity, but this was not a normal situation calling for a standard reaction. Capturing Osama alive was simply untenable. It had to be expedient execution or nothing. St Augustine mentions occasions like this along with the death penalty justification…

“The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.”

I doubt we’ll ever see it discussed or defended publically. I can fully understand the lack of specifics on the part of the Govt.

 

[Edward_H]

According to the Catholic Church…Wrong thing to do. Killing bin Laden was not going to have any effect on the Holy War inspired terrorists stopping what they are doing. It is in direct violation of God’s will and Church teaching.

No…you won’t see the “Catholic Church” come out and say one way or the other definitively…you might get some bishops, cardinals…maybe even a pope but it won’t be done authoritatively.

What you will see is reminder of teaching and principles.

With OBL…maybe this

Last resort? Had all other REASONABLE means been tried and found wanting? (yes)
Authority to act? (Yes)
Intent (yes…to remove him from influence, further harm to others…not out of vengeance, etc)
Proportionate means? (Yes)
Reasonable chance of success (yes)
Discriminate between combatants and non combatants (yes)

ERGO. A just act, OVERWHELMINGLY!

 

[epan]

epan;10906318:

Epan,

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

Always Faithful, brother.

 

[Holly3278]

I think that this part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would very important to take in to consideration:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
**
2264** Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

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.
**
2266** The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
**
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.

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.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263

 

[Spyral]

It made no difference, but hey drone attacking civillans on a daily basis to preserve zionism is ok so why not shoot a terrorist in cold blood.

If the taliban had illegally entered the US, went to the white house and point blank shot Obama (aside from millions rejoicing) it would be called ‘terrorism’. How is it different to what the americans did?

 

[livingwordunity]

If there was no ‘kill on sight’ order, and*** this killing was truly in the self defense***, or defending those they are responsible to protect, I disagree that it’s in violation of Church teaching.

You don’t appear to have a concept of how the military works. “Kill on sight” was authorized by the president or it would not have happened. It’s very interesting that someone who is so strongly opposed to the death penalty would be so strongly in favor of killing Osama bin Laden who was*** unarmed when killed***.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You don’t appear to have a concept of how the military works. “Kill on sight” was authorized by the president or it would not have happened. It’s very interesting that someone who is so strongly opposed to the death penalty would be so strongly in favor of killing Osama bin Laden who was*** unarmed when killed***.

I served and do know how the military works, so what appears to be an ad hominem statement fails.

The facts cannot be whatever you want them to be, or do we only believe those things from the navy seal that wrote the book when it benefits our argument?

This was a military special mission. The navy seal that wrote the book stated it was a capture or kill, as necessary. Would you want these people sent in without guns? Would you want it so the team would not have been allowed to return fire? Also, in a dark house, where combatants were shot on the way in, what was the guarantee that he was unarmed? It was unknown. As they had to shoot their way in, they saw a head peek around the corner. They did not know, in the dark through night vision goggles, that it was OBL. The lead seal shot the subject in the head. As they entered the room, they shot the body, not knowing if he was only wounded, and armed! I watched the interview with the seal that wrote the book. That was his description of the incident. You refer to his book, but ignore certain facts.

OBL was behind the 9/11 attack on America, and he made many videos over the years calling for more attacks on Americans. It seems you are willing to overlook this simply because you dislike the present administration. Noticeably, you failed to address Bush’s attempts to get OBL, with more than an elite team. Both presidents allowed drone attacks, where innocent people were killed, with some attacks trying to get OBL.

OBL held this country hostage, from a far. It was no different than a gunman holding hostages and being taken out by snipers, an action allowed by the defense definition in the Catechism. OBL did not stand convicted, and sentenced to death, by a court. This was not a death penalty, and you know it.

Be specific in your response to support the fact that OBL was known to have been unarmed, and that it was his head that peeked around the corner.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

SAVINGRACE;10907566:

Ahh… excellent source that, “public knowledge” of presidential orders and covert ops. Technically, it was a CIA operation, with the military members being transferred for temporary duty to the CIA, for legal reasons. We all know that the CIA, JSOC and DEVGRU publish their orders for public perusal.

Oh please, with the CIA’s dubious record of keeping orders secret amongst other activities, you expect me to believe that?

It was a kill mission. An insider, a special operations officer “deeply involved with the bin Laden raid” has confirmed it.

That means it was public knowledge except for you apparently.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8676157/Osama-Bin-Laden-mission-was-to-shoot-to-kill-from-the-start.html

 

[epan]

epan;10907944:

Oh please, with the CIA’s dubious record of keeping orders secret amongst other activities, you expect me to believe that?

It was a kill mission. An insider, a special operations officer “deeply involved with the bin Laden raid” has confirmed it.

That means it was public knowledge except for you apparently.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8676157/Osama-Bin-Laden-mission-was-to-shoot-to-kill-from-the-start.html

I do know a thing or two about military special operations, and I can tell you from first hand experience that newspaper and other media accounts are often inaccurate. In fact, they are often grossly inaccurate, even when quoting “reliable” sources who claim to have first hand knowledge. The reason I know this is because I have had the experience of reading the news about events of which I have had first hand knowledge. Family members have also been involved with highly classified operations and information at high levels, and have had a similar experience. My experience in that regard was not unique.

The CIA and the military do kill people who are deemed to be enemies of the US, and Bin Laden was at the top of the list. So, I would not be surprised to learn that the goal was his extermination.

Depending on the exact relationship of the person to the operation who is making these claims, there is a potential of criminal prosecution, if they are actually privy to the facts. Anyone who was actually involved generally signs an oath of secrecy, with the penalty of criminal prosecution for violating the oath. Therefore, it is unlikely to see them publicly identified for an interview. It is not unusual for people who claim to have first hand knowledge come forward for interviews, who have not been close to secret ops at all. I would suggest some skepticism while reading or listening to anyone who claims to be revealing such information to the public media, particularly when it is shortly after the event.

The SEAL who went public was a very rare event, indeed. Normally, SEALS don’t talk at all about what they do, and they don’t appear in public media at all, other than in a few documentaries about them. He probably only dared to publish his book after it was reviewed, and he was probably also told what he could or could not say in interviews.

Web sites like the Telegraph are not exactly known for their accuracy or investigative quality. I would be very wary of single source information, such as an alleged officer offering information to the public about secret operations. That, in itself, sounds suspicious.