Were you for killing Bin Laden?

[colmywaykurtz]

A fellow I know, pondering the proposition of capturing and incarcerating bin Laden without terminating him, came up with the following scenario. It presupposes an advanced level of technology in the area of robotics—but not so advanced it’s not feasible in the near future; it might be possible to do this if another such person arose in the world of Islamic jihadism in the next few years.

Once his location became known, “cheetah robots,” like the one that recently made the news could perhaps stealthily (or swiftly) make their way to the location, grab him and hold him immobile while others of their kind, packing heavy-duty firepower, could hold off any likely attack for a few hours. Overhead, predator drones could create a wider zone of safety for that same time period.

American servicemen, in swiftly-flying VSTOL aircraft, could come and land and pick him up, and order the cheetahs and drones back to their staging points as they lifted off.

But it would be a complex operation, prone to mishaps, and expensive in political terms if it failed. He’d move someplace much safer afterwards, perhaps so safe we’d never find him again, and his movement would make big political hay out of the failure of the operation.

If he pulled off another 9/11-level success later, there’d be a lot of aggrieved people blaming the armed forces for not offing him when they had him in their grasp.

Would it really be worth it to try to nab him alive? It’s not as simple a question as it sounds.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, a righteous kill can only occur when there is absolutely no other way of dealing with the situation. You haven’t in anyway shown that the death of Bin reflects such a situation.

Not that I in any way agree with your statement I thought I would share that the state of New York did issue a warrant for is arrest for at least 9 offenses. The warrant didn’t get much ground though

To say that somebody is simply a continuing threat is not by itself grounds to invoke a merciless death.

Indeed, I would agree that’s not sufficient justification. There are many a “continuing threat” that are not being hunted down for arrest or termination. Though being in the classification of “continuing threat” was not the only motivation/justification provided for his termination. The bin Laden story isn’t well defined in that the only information available has come through a relatively small amount of sources; I personally wonder how much of it happened the way it was described.

There are other individuals beyond bin Laden that were targeted killings of USA forces. They fall into a bit of a gray area in International Law. When some of these laws were created it was in a time before capabilities like the predator drones and so the scenarios aren’t addressed by International Law very well.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

In Bin Laden’s case, the death penalty was certainly justified. Whether the SEALs were the appropriate authority to issue it is a matter of debate, but at the very least it is arguable. In any case, the case against Bin Laden is so ironclad that I doubt anybody can reasonably disagree with a death sentence.

“Right to a fair trial” is a Western concept. In Bin Laden’s case, I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for his lack of a trial.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

“Right to a fair trial” is a Western concept.

It is. Additionally I don’t think that “right” is extended to areas that are not under International Law.

 

[Actaeon]

I understand perfectly the principle of a just war. I understand there are situations where an imminent threat can only be dealt with by death.

However, a righteous kill can only occur when there is absolutely no other way of dealing with the situation. You haven’t in anyway shown that the death of Bin reflects such a situation.

I am confused, because you say that you understand just war theory, and then you say something that intimates that you think in a just war that a soldier can only fire at a valid target if that target represents a direct threat to the life of the soldier firing. Such is simply not the case.

Offensive action may be taken in a just war, provided that it meets the requirements of just war doctrine. A military ball-bearing factory poses no direct threat to the bomber pilot who targets it, and yet it is a valid military target.

To say that somebody is simply a continuing threat is not by itself grounds to invoke a merciless death.If Bin shot at soldiers after being told to stand down, then a soldier has a right to defend his life; and even then one should not think that humility does not apply. For example if there is a possibility of taking somebody down without taking their life, then a soldier ought to act accordingly.

bin is not capitolized in a name. It means “son of”, and is not a name.

I’m not into second guessing the decisions of the SEAL team in this case. They were in the middle of a country that would NOT be friendly to their presence, located a few miles away from one of said country’s military bases. They had lost a helicopter, drastically reducing their ability to carry and load payload safely. The crash also alerted locals to their presence, causing a dangerous and short timed event. Furthermore, according to one of the SEALS, bin Laden was shot as he leaned into a hallway the seals were coming down from the cover of a door. The Geneva Convention does not provide that peeking into a hallway is an act of surrender on the part of an opposing force, ergo bin Laden was still a valid military target at the point at which he was shot. All I know is that the SEAL team determined that they couldn’t apprehend him, and I’m not prepared at all to question that decision.

But I will say this: neither the Geneva Convention nor the Just War Doctrine require a soldier to risk their own lives in order to ensure that they are PERSONALLY in danger before engaging an enemy target.

Secondly, Bin is not the be all and end all of terrorism. Its not as if you can kill Bin and that is the end of any threat against America.

No one person is the end-all of any movement. Even Hitler had a chain of command that would have been followed had he been taken out by a sniper/assassin. Defeating a movement involves systematic elimination of the movement’s leadership and means of carrying out violence (whether that be elimination of troops, equipment, production facilities, communications, or command and control nodes).

Just because destroying any one valid target will not end a just war does not mean that no targets should ever be destroyed. The question is not whether bin Laden was the end all of terrorism, but whether or not he was part of the ongoing threat.

People are not entirely convinced that the events that lead up to the bombings and the falling of the twin towers was unprovoked, as if America is an innocent victim that does not participate in unjust wars, murder, genocide, propaganda, and the illegitimate occupation of countries against the will of its people.

And those people are brutal morons. No act of war justifies an attack on innocent civilians… ever. Even in discussing valid reprisals the Geneva Conventions forbid the practice of carrying out reprisals on forbidden targets (as the civilians on 9/11 were). Furthermore, the act of reprisal requires prior notice by the reprising party to the convention-breaking party, and an act of reprisal must be made for a specific act, made swiftly after that act, and be for the sole purpose of attempting to force the receiving party to follow the convention laws.

 

[Actaeon]

In Bin Laden’s case, the death penalty was certainly justified. Whether the SEALs were the appropriate authority to issue it is a matter of debate, but at the very least it is arguable. In any case, the case against Bin Laden is so ironclad that I doubt anybody can reasonably disagree with a death sentence.

except, as according to the SEALs and the whitehouse, the SEALs were not sent on an assassination mission… they were sent to apprehend bin Laden, but he poked his head out of a doorway as the seals were approaching and the “point man” felt that could be a potential threat and fired.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

Bill Maher and many others simply do not understand the turn the other cheek philosophy.

It applies to individuals. Individual people are not to seek vengeance on their own. They are not to harbor ill will against their enemies. This has nothing to do with society as a whole. Society has an obligation to protect it’s members.

+1

In any case, Bin Laden was a threat. The measure of force used against him was commensurate with the threat. As I understand the operation didn’t go smoothly, they were supposed to be in and out quickly. When the chopper crashed they ended up grounded for a lot longer, and there was no certainty that any of them would have gotten out alive.
I believe once extracting Bin Laden alive was no longer a certainty, killing was justified.
He was an ongoing threat, and while an international, and public trial would have been preferable from a propaganda point of view, do not for one second think that it would not have been at the expense of hundreds if indeed not thousands of lives. We see how people react to some cartoons and a dodgy homemade video. Not even an ambassador was safe.
Also,lets call a spade a spade, Bin Laden was hiding down the street from a major Pakistani military installation, for all intents and purposes around the corner from their intelligence community. Wether it was approved from the top or not, he was being protected by those within the Pakistani government/military.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

except, as according to the SEALs and the whitehouse, the SEALs were not sent on an assassination mission… they were sent to apprehend bin Laden, but he poked his head out of a doorway as the seals were approaching and the “point man” felt that could be a potential threat and fired.

If they felt he could be a potential threat all the more justification for shooting him.

 

[ReapReason]

In Bin Laden’s case, the death penalty was certainly justified. Whether the SEALs were the appropriate authority to issue it is a matter of debate, but at the very least it is arguable. In any case, the case against Bin Laden is so ironclad that I doubt anybody can reasonably disagree with a death sentence.

“Right to a fair trial” is a Western concept. In Bin Laden’s case, I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for his lack of a trial.

I can’t agree with you. I don’t agree with the death penalty if other means of protecting society are available. Secondly, even if there is a case where the death penalty is legitimate for lack of an alternative, I don’t believe in revenge killings, where people sit in a booth to watch their enemies (their brothers and sister in God) die; which is in my opinion what the death penalty ultimately comes down to in America. Also if there is a possibility or opportunity of reconditioning prisoners, then that is always a greater good than the death penalty. There are people that have killed, and yet have changed; but because of barbaric laws they have been sent to die like a dog regardless.

If you cannot see how your attitude does not reflect well on the idea of loving your enemies, then I don’t have much sympathy for you, let alone terrorists.

You should be praying for Bin laden’s Soul; not celebrating his death.

Bin laden is your brother whether you like it or not.

If you only love those who love you, you can forget about Heaven: you are not going there.

 

[ReapReason]

except, as according to the SEALs and the whitehouse, the SEALs were not sent on an assassination mission… they were sent to apprehend bin Laden, but he poked his head out of a doorway as the seals were approaching and the “point man” felt that could be a potential threat and fired.

Because he poked his head out the door; that justified him being shot?

:dts:

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

except, as according to the SEALs and the whitehouse, the SEALs were not sent on an assassination mission… they were sent to apprehend bin Laden, but he poked his head out of a doorway as the seals were approaching and the “point man” felt that could be a potential threat and fired.

Several members of the US Government have stated that Operation Neptune Spear was a kill mission and not a capture mission. I made several references to those in Post #20. So, really, only the single SEAL has stated that it was a capture mission and not a kill mission, and not both the SEAL and the White House.

 

[Actaeon]

Because he poked his head out the door; that justified him being shot?

:dts:

Poking one’s head out of a door when one is a combatant is not an act of surrender. As I already stated, Just War Doctrine is plainly different from the principle of self-defense, and a troop fighting in a just war does NOT need to wait for an enemy combatant to become a clearly direct threat before engaging a target. Reconaissance (such as peaking your head into a hallway during a raid) is still considered “being in action” and therefore renders a combatant a valid target. Geneva conventions dictate that surrendering enemy combatants MUST be given quarter, but in order for that element of LOAC to apply, the enemy combatant must actually surrender (not poke his head out to survey the approaching force)

You are confused because you are conflating the Just War Doctrine with the Principle of Self Defense, when they are not the same thing at all.

 

[Actaeon]

Several members of the US Government have stated that Operation Neptune Spear was a kill mission and not a capture mission. I made several references to those in Post #20. So, really, only the single SEAL has stated that it was a capture mission and not a kill mission, and not both the SEAL and the White House.

No they haven’t, and if they have then they are gravely mistaken… but you yourself selectively quoted from your own source, which included the following statements:

“If he had waved a white flag of surrender, he would have been taken alive,” the official added. But the operating assumption among the U.S. raiders was that bin Laden would put up a fight – which he did.

and later…

“U.S. forces are never in a position to kill if there is a way to accept surrender consistent with the ROE (rules of engagement). That said, I think there was broad recognition that it was likely to end in a kill,” the administration official said.

There is a major difference between an operation which anticipates resistance rather than surrender and an operation which is specifically instructed to kill anyone regardless of whether or not they surrender. The former is completely legal and the latter is a war crime.

 

[djames99]

Rules in war, that’s new.

No one is measuring if standards are being followed. No “Battleship” game on the Christmas shelf for this new style. It would seem the new war style is sporadic and non predictable.

Well, lets see. I know there is 5 tons of Cesium 137 missing in that part of world, the boarder services admit they can only patrol 2% of the boarder, there’s no shortage of suicide volunteers over there, and a pound of the stuff can devastate Manhattan with radiation sickness and cancer. Added to these facts the US likes to red face nations with impunity, the same ones that hold to generational wars, and allys itself with a nuclear spoiled brat right in their midst.

MMmmmm. My guess all these are harbingers of more building demolition, in the least, maybe even when no one remembers except the decimated families over there, and parents of toddler cancer victims here.

All the facts are in, your not an asset to my children or future grand kids, but a liability.

We need peace keepers and good diplomacy.

“Fort Apache the Br…, errrr US”

30 Inf, 3rd Div

BTW: I believe even agreeing to the killing of Bin Laden constitutes capital sin by implication. No one can desire to have someone killed, or be pleased by it either, since this is insincerity. God demands complete adherents to the substance of His principles. Approaches to reasoning are not democratic, ie “I’ll just go along with it even if I don’t agree” (Sin: New Advent)

 

[ReapReason]

Geneva conventions dictate that surrendering enemy combatants MUST be given quarter, but in order for that element of LOAC to apply, the enemy combatant must actually surrender (not poke his head out to survey the approaching force)

You are confused because you are conflating the Just War Doctrine with the Principle of Self Defense, when they are not the same thing at all.

I don’t care about human man made principles of combat. I am talking about moral law.

Popping your head out of a door, regardless of what one has done, is not moral grounds to shoot somebody; unless it is clearly evident that they intend to shoot you.

 

[Actaeon]

I don’t care about human man made principles of combat. I am talking about moral law.

Well, it’s a good thing that the Geneva convention borrowed heavily from St Augustine in establishing criteria for Jus in Bello (justice in war) and that the same sentiment is expressed in the Catechism of the church in stating:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

Obviously, the catechism likewise states that we have an obligation to follow international law and treaties.

And again, legitimate defense for individuals and legitimate defense by military force (aka, just war doctrine) are two very different moral codes of the church, and cannot be confused as you are doing here.

Popping your head out of a door, regardless of what one has done, is not moral grounds to shoot somebody; unless it is clearly evident that they intend to shoot you.

Again, if someone is a combatant and has not surrendered, then they are a valid military target (even under the catechism) until such time as:

1. They surrender
2. They become wounded beyond means of fighting or become wounded and do not continue to show aggressive action
3. They become non-combatants (such as by deserting their military force)
   Since surveying an approaching enemy force (even “sticking your head out of a door”) is NOT an action which is universally recognized as a sign of surrender, Osama bin Laden remained a combatant, was able to fight, and did not surrender… ergo he was a valid target even by the standards of Catholic teaching in the Catechism.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I can’t agree with you. I don’t agree with the death penalty if other means of protecting society are available. Secondly, even if there is a case where the death penalty is legitimate for lack of an alternative, I don’t believe in revenge killings, where people sit in a booth to watch their enemies (their brothers and sister in God) die; which is in my opinion what the death penalty ultimately comes down to in America. Also if there is a possibility or opportunity of reconditioning prisoners, then that is always a greater good than the death penalty. There are people that have killed, and yet have changed; but because of barbaric laws they have been sent to die like a dog regardless.

If you cannot see how your attitude does not reflect well on the idea of loving your enemies, then I don’t have much sympathy for you, let alone terrorists.

You should be praying for Bin laden’s Soul; not celebrating his death.

Bin laden is your brother whether you like it or not.

If you only love those who love you, you can forget about Heaven: you are not going there.

1. You make a lot of assumptions about how I feel about bin Laden’s soul and revenge that are really unsubstantiated (although in fact, I DO believe inb the limited Thomistic version of revenge).
2. When it comes to the death penalty, I agree with Dr. Feser: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/justice-or-revenge.html#more

I’m in favor of it. I highly suggest reading the article. Most relevant, easy to understand, and informative.

For somebody who’s shown himself to be a Thomist you sure are pretty rude to those who agree with St. Thomas’s theories on capital punishment.

If wrongdoers do deserve punishment, and if punishment ought to be scaled to the gravity of the crime (harsher punishments for graver crimes), then it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle. Even if it were claimed that a single murder would not merit it, it is not difficult to imagine crimes that would. Ten murders? Ten murders coupled with the rape and torture of the victims? Genocide? If wrongdoers deserve punishment and the punishment ought to be proportional to the offense, then at some point we are going to reach a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate at least in principle. To claim that no crime could justify capital punishment—to claim, for instance, that a cold-blooded genocidal rapist can never even in principle merit a greater punishment than the lifelong imprisonment inflicted on a bank robber—is implicitly to give up the principle of proportionality and, with it, any coherent conception of just punishment.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No they haven’t, and if they have then they are gravely mistaken… but you yourself selectively quoted from your own source, which included the following statements:

“If he had waved a white flag of surrender, he would have been taken alive,” the official added. But the operating assumption among the U.S. raiders was that bin Laden would put up a fight – which he did.

and later…

“U.S. forces are never in a position to kill if there is a way to accept surrender consistent with the ROE (rules of engagement). That said, I think there was broad recognition that it was likely to end in a kill,” the administration official said.

There is a major difference between an operation which anticipates resistance rather than surrender and an operation which is specifically instructed to kill anyone regardless of whether or not they surrender. The former is completely legal and the latter is a war crime.

The fact still remains that several people inside Obama’s administration have publicly stated that it was indeed a kill mission, and not a capture mission. Stating that he was to be captured alive in the case that he did actually surrender is not equivalent to a just action in his murder. You are going out of your way to justify the murder.

 

[ValPal]

I am not for or against it. People reap what they sow, so it is no surprise that bin Laden’s life ended this way.

 

[ReapReason]

1. You make a lot of assumptions about how I feel about bin Laden’s soul and revenge that are really unsubstantiated (although in fact, I DO believe inb the limited Thomistic version of revenge).
2. When it comes to the death penalty, I agree with Dr. Feser: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/justice-or-revenge.html#more

I’m in favor of it. I highly suggest reading the article. Most relevant, easy to understand, and informative.

For somebody who’s shown himself to be a Thomist you sure are pretty rude to those who agree with St. Thomas’s theories on capital punishment.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/

I am not a Thomist if that means blindly agreeing with everything a Aquinas thinks; and it would simply be an act of ignorance to assume that all Thomists agree on how Aquinas is to be interpreted. Few if any on this forum seem to be aware that there are two different schools of Thomism: Transcendental Thomism and Existential Thomism.

As for the death penalty: It is not an intrinsic evil. I have not said that there is no possible circumstance where the death penalty is not justified; However we simply disagree on when it is justified. There is a difference between arguing against the Death Penalty and arguing against Americas reasons for using the Death Penalty. This is essentially about context.

As for Fesser; the assumption here of course is that there is an act of evil that intrinsically deserves “physical death” and that the government automatically has in principle the unconditional right to take human life when ever we find out that somebody has committed this great evil. Most importantly Fesser is distorting the conceptual function of proportionality by placing the measure of moral consequence in the same context as being and potentiality. None of this has been defended rationally; it has merely been assumed from the beginning. This is not to say that proportionality doesn’t apply, but the moral context changes the extent to which does.

Also there are different kinds of punishment with different motivations behind them. There is a difference between defending the common good by locking people up so that they do not bring harm to society, and inflicting death as a revenge for loss of human life. These are two different kinds of punishment; one is a necessary and intrinsic consequence of losing ones freedom, and the latter - “the American form of the death penalty” - is a malicious act born out of hatred toward a personal-being, rather than a desire to protect the common good. Law is essentially about protecting the common good; this is what justice in the context of governing human society is about. Deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die is nothing more than playing God.

It is not at all evident that the nature of love demands the death of those who commit genocide. It demands spiritual death and it also demands that the law prevents further genocide by imprisoning the threat. The death penalty is only justified when no practical alternatives are available. The possibility of moral Rehabilitation is always a greater good than the Death Penalty.