Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[Ryumast3r]

I think one thing that a lot of people fail to see is that he did declare war on the United States. He's not just a mass-murderer or whatever, he is actually an enemy combatant. I haven't heard any reports saying he openly surrendered yet or waved a white flag, so, under rules of engagement in a war, perfectly fine to shoot him.

 

[turbo]

If this killing had happen a couple of years ago, W and Shooter would have been chest-thumping and high-fiving. US citizens would be glad that OBL was gone, and we would be largely spared the prattling about whether the killing was legal.

If one has followed the news in the last couple of weeks, it would be evident that Musharraf had agreed with the US government years ago that if we had actionable intelligence on bin Laden's location in Pakistan, we could take him out, and then the Pakistani government would protest the raid as a violation of their sovereignty as a means of providing credible deniability to the populace. Things have worked out exactly according to that plan.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/09/Report-US-Pakistan-had-bin-Laden-deal/UPI-29781304970130/

 

[amwest]

To the question of who/where to try UBL it could have been done the same way NAZI war criminals were tried, I'm wandering if this might not have been a better route to try and take. Pure speculation, i was on a CQB team for 2 years, and am NOT questioning the SEALs. Dynamic entry is a ***** where you usally expect to take 40% or more casulties.

 

[WhoWee]

To the question of who/where to try UBL it could have been done the same way NAZI war criminals were tried, I'm wandering if this might not have been a better route to try and take. Pure speculation, i was on a CQB team for 2 years, and am NOT questioning the SEALs. Dynamic entry is a ***** where you usally expect to take 40% or more casulties.

Can you imagine the SEAL's reading Bin Laden his Miranda Rights, then on board the ship interrogators following the Army field manual, then possibly Attorney General Holder questioning him with an ACLU lawyer present - then the whole trial process with Bin Laden testifying in his own defense? I'm really glad he's dead.

 

[amwest]

Can you imagine the SEAL's reading Bin Laden his Miranda Rights, then on board the ship interrogators following the Army field manual, then possibly Attorney General Holder questioning him with an ACLU lawyer present - then the whole trial process with Bin Laden testifying in his own defense? I'm really glad he's dead.

we did manage to do it during WW2 many times. Shoot we only exiled the emperor of Japan for starting the pacific war! I do admit the trial would have been a circius. The only aspect of the whole idea that i was originaly thinking about was, would we be more respected geo-politicly by taking the legal route as opposed to the military route. Yes I'm sure we're feared around the world but how respected are we?

 

[WhoWee]

we did manage to do it during WW2 many times. Shoot we only exiled the emperor of Japan for starting the pacific war! I do admit the trial would have been a circius. The only aspect of the whole idea that i was originaly thinking about was, would we be more respected geo-politicly by taking the legal route as opposed to the military route. Yes I'm sure we're feared around the world but how respected are we?

I think your concern should be redirected to Pakistan. The people in Pakistan that knew where he was hiding are responsible for his death. They could've had him arrested - correct?

 

[redpenguin]

When you have a 'dead or alive' bounty on your head... an assassination is not entirely out of the question.

EDIT: Looking at the FBI list.. it just says information leading to an arrest. I think very few people would have sympathy for killing a suspected terrorist as high of a profile as bin laden.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Mr. Bin Laden, did you or did you not direct the attack on the World Trade Centers?

one of three responses:

"Yes I did you f***ing idiot! Have you been living under a rock all these years? Of course I f***ing did it!"

or

"No sir I didn't, and you'll find I have an alibi. I was at a dinner party in my mansion at the time."

or my personal favorite:

*Breaks out into song* *Lawyer speaks up for him: "My client would like to plea insanity."*

 

[BobG]

If we broke the treaty with Pakistan, they also broke it by housing the terrorist a couple blocks from a major military training facility.

Maybe they had direct orders to kill, but maybe those orders assumed he'd be armed?

Also, do we try OBL here in America where he never set foot in before, wasn't here where he committed the crime, or do we try him in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (his home country), or do we try him in Afghanistan? Or, even still, do we try him in the world court for crimes against humanity/etc/etc.

Do we try him in all the countries? What if he gets the death sentence in one or two or three and only life in prison in the others?

Given the choice I would make the same decision the SEALs did and just kill him.

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?



Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

If we'd captured him, a trial would have definitely been problematic, so I think there was definitely a preference to kill him rather than capture him.

I think that approach was set up from the very beginning by calling this a "War on Terror" instead of treating it as trying to apprehend a criminal (international laws about killing a commander in the field are very different than the laws for apprehending an unarmed criminal). And it was equally important to consider bin Laden a field commander vs a government official (not to mention that bin Laden had no government to be an official of), so the assassination definition would fit even worse than the international criminal definition would.

I think one could validly raise questions over how bin Laden could be considered a field commander, yet captured detainees treated as unlawful combatants or criminals instead of POWs. There are some inconsistencies in how we've handled the whole issue of al-Qaeda (not to mention in how we've handled those that were fighting for some other reason, such as against what they perceived to be an invading force, etc.).

As more details slowly come out (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml), it appears pretty consistent with the idea that bin Laden was to be considered an enemy field commander and shot the same as any other enemy combatant unless he surrendered. The way things played out, he didn't have much time to surrender. SEALS shot at him on a stairway landing outside his bedroom as soon as they saw him, he retreated back inside his room, only to have the SEALS come bursting into shoot him seconds later. I doubt bin Laden had much time to do much thinking about whether to surrender or shoot it out.

I think violating the sovereignty of Pakistan by conducting a military raid in their country definitely could be considered an act of war against Pakistan, just as our routine drone raids against al-Qaeda in Pakistan could be. For that matter, Turkey's raids on Kurds in Northern Iraq could have been considered an act of war against Iraq, and during a time when the US was still responsible for Iraq's security and the security of its borders. They're a bit of a grey area in that they're not an actual invasion of the violated country, nor are they an attack against that nation's general populace or forces (so they're not exactly like Japan bombing US Navy ships at Pearl Harbor).

I think the violated country would be within rights to consider it an act of war. Doesn't mean it's always in their best interest to do so. It's not in Pakistan's best interest to decide the US raid was an act of war since US raids against al-Qaeda aren't nearly as serious a threat to Pakistan as India is and it would be very counter productive to lose the military aid the US has been giving Pakistan. Likewise, it wasn't in the US interest to consider Turkey's bombing of Kurds in Iraq an act of war because, at that time, we had enough trouble maintaining peace between Sunnis and different factions of Shiites without having a border war on top of everything else.

Personally, I think this is what we should have been pushing towards all along. When Musharraf proclaimed that Pakistan was as committed to fighting terrorism as the US, Europe, and most of the rest of the world, we should have been holding his feet to fire, pressuring him to provide some tangible results, or to step out of the way and let us pursue al-Qaeda wherever that path led (in fact, that's the same choice we offered the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is why Musharraf was so eager to be an ally in the war against terror).

We had too many years of being strung along by an unwilling "ally" that always spent the majority of the money we sent them on fortifying the Pakistan-India border and paying mere lip service to the idea of pursuing al-Qaeda operatives within their borders. I think the change in our attitude toward Pakistan has been very positive with the bin Laden raid being just one of the positive results.

 

[russ_watters]

Bob, great post and I agree with almost everything except the last paragraph. Though they strung us along and continue to do so, I don't think we've had a change in attitude. The attitude has always been: 'Thanks for your help, but if we see something in your country that needs to be attacked, we're not going to ask permission to go after it.' We've been 'violating Pakistan's sovereignty' this way for years. Here's an example from 2008 and the wiki on the subject says we've been doing it at least as far back as 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7611287.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

 

[SamirS]

Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.

Without judging on the actual legal grounds for this operation, I hope you do see that with this opinion, you only have the choice to a) be a complete hypocrite or b) allow every other sovereign country in the world to do the exact same thing on US soil. I don't want to create a straw man and slip in that you would oppose to b), so I hope you do have a coherent answer to this.

Don't say the US wouldn't do this. It is possible that similar examples with less direct victims exist, and I'm certain this point can be discussed on a theoretical basis.

I actually also happen to have an example I'm involved. Yes, UBL was directly in charge of killing a large amount of Americans. I had members of my family killed by operations where Karadzic was directly in charge (in the Balkans war) and yes, I wouldn't personally shed a single tear if the operators that caught him would have killed him on the spot. However, I still would have been against the killing, and I'm glad that nobody took this in their own hands out of public sight. He's now answering before a court, and this is the only way it has to be handled.

So my opinion on UBL is quite clear - if it wasn't in any way possible to capture UBL alive (and the capture was the actual target of the mission), the killing ought to be justified. If it was an actual targeted killing, it should not be justified. I won't handle the point if the actual raid itself was justified or could be considered an act of war because I have not yet made up my mind due to lack of information so far.

 

[Al68]

Without judging on the actual legal grounds for this operation, I hope you do see that with this opinion, you only have the choice to a) be a complete hypocrite or b) allow every other sovereign country in the world to do the exact same thing on US soil. I don't want to create a straw man and slip in that you would oppose to b), so I hope you do have a coherent answer to this.

Those are not the only alternatives. a) is incorrect, because our killing of UBL in Pakistan is not equivalent to allowing another country to perform a similar raid in the U.S. without our involvement. All sovereign nations are not equal in that regard, and even if they were, the U.S. President represents the interests of the U.S., not the interests of each sovereign nation equally.

It's simply not hypocritical to expect a nation's leader to represent the interests of his own nation at the expense of others. That's not what the word hypocritical means.

 

[russ_watters]

There is nothing hypocritical about that and it most certainly does not mean we should allow other militaries to operate in the US. Heck, that's the main reason countries have militaries!

 

[pergradus]

Bob, great post and I agree with almost everything except the last paragraph. Though they strung us along and continue to do so, I don't think we've had a change in attitude. The attitude has always been: 'Thanks for your help, but if we see something in your country that needs to be attacked, we're not going to ask permission to go after it.' We've been 'violating Pakistan's sovereignty' this way for years. Here's an example from 2008 and the wiki on the subject says we've been doing it at least as far back as 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7611287.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

I'm not sure the drone attacks are the same thing. Even though public official are usually silent on the subject or even denounce them, the word is that in private Pakistani officials are kept well informed about targets and have given the U.S. permission to conduct the drone operations.

Obviously for political reasons, they can't admit this to their own people though.

 

[SamirS]

How is that not hypocritical? A sovereign country is a sovereign country, and one country is not more sovereign just because it is a world power or has a stronger military power.

I fail to see how the position "we should be allowed to extend our national laws and powers onto another sovereign country's soil, but they shouldn't be allowed to do so" is not hypocritical. I'm aware of the fact that, in practice, the US doesn't handle it like this, however, you should also try to see how the rest of the world perceives this, and as mighty as the US may be, it is not alone on this world.

This position is NOT what the self-perceived leader of the free world should hold, but the point is that he does, hence the reputation of the US in the rest of the free and non-free world.

Stating that "my country is better than yours so I can do what I want" (even if you rephrase it into "not every sovereign country is the same") is not a valid argument. It only becomes "valid" through (possibly indiscriminate) use of sheer power. Did you think of the point that every other person in the world could come to the same conclusion from a different point of view and act on it, if that maybe already happened and which results could happen or already happened?

Please note that this doesn't have anything to do with Pakistan giving or refusing authorisation to kill or arrest UBL.

@russ watters: to be honest, I see your point, or what I believe to be your point, as actually valid. It is the point of a military. What I fail to see in Al68's statement is the realization that every other country (and military) holds the same idea. Al68 tries to justify US action through patriotic means, and that the US is basically allowed to do this but denies the same "right" to others. I wholly agree to the point that ANY (legal) military in the world is for defense first.

 

[russ_watters]

How is that not hypocritical? A sovereign country is a sovereign country, and one country is not more sovereign just because it is a world power or has a stronger military power.

I fail to see how the position "we should be allowed to extend our national laws and powers onto another sovereign country's soil, but they shouldn't be allowed to do so" is not hypocritical. [emphasis added]

It's not hypocritical because the part in bold is your erroneous assumption as it is not part of my equation. To me, Pakistan is welcome to try the same thing if they think they can get away with it and the target is important enough to take the risk. I don't think the US is special because I think any country in the world would have made a similar choice given similar circumstances. The US does not hold special legal status and this action doesn't imply we think we do.

This position is NOT what the self-perceived leader of the free world should hold, but the point is that he does, hence the reputation of the US in the rest of the free and non-free world.

You [and others] are misinterpreting the situation. The US is the most powerful military in the world and therefore most capable of doing something like this. That's why we did it. It isn't because we think we have some special legal/ethical/moral status: any country in the same position would/should do the same thing.

Stating that "my country is better than yours so I can do what I want" (even if you rephrase it into "not every sovereign country is the same") is not a valid argument. It only becomes "valid" through (possibly indiscriminate) use of sheer power.

Isn't that a contradiction? Obviously, it's a reality that because we're powerful we can sometimes do things other nations can't, right? So it really is true, assuming you mean "stronger militarily" when you say "better" (which is too vague to have a clear meaning).

Are you perceiving that to an American, "stronger military" = "moral superiority"? That would certainly be arrogant, but it is a mistake to assume that that's how we think.

Did you think of the point that every other person in the world could come to the same conclusion from a different point of view and act on it, if that maybe already happened and which results could happen or already happened?

Yes. Again, that's why we have a military.

@russ watters: to be honest, I see your point, or what I believe to be your point, as actually valid. It is the point of a military. What I fail to see in Al68's statement is the realization that every other country (and military) holds the same idea. Al68 tries to justify US action through patriotic means, and that the US is basically allowed to do this but denies the same "right" to others. I wholly agree to the point that ANY (legal) military in the world is for defense first.

Granted - I jumped somewhat into the middle here (though the word "hypocritical" was applied to me earlier) so my opinions don't necessarily match Al68's and I haven't necessarily read through all of his.

[edit: caveat to all of this: I'm not convinced the US did something illegal (Pakistan has obligations here too), but I'll assume we/they did for the sake of this "hypocrisy" discussion.]

 

[SamirS]

Well, russ, as I agree to your points, I only want to make clear that the hypocrite thing and basically everything except the part where I address you directly was a direct response to Al68's statements. I feel that you think I targeted you, however, I actually don't ;) .

You are arguing in terms of practical superiority (the wording "better than yours" was directly meant for Al68 as he stated that not all sovereign nations are of the same "sovereignity"), which the US obviously holds in terms of military power (and political influence, too) - one can't disagree with that. The ambiguity of the word "better", which I used, stems from the fact that I find the idea of different levels of sovereignity quite ridiculous. Either a country is independent on its own soil (no other country forces them to do something - this excludes for example the EU, as the EU forces things on their members but you are not threatened by military action to actually stay in there), or it isn't.

However I still think that in legal terms, the US laws are certainly not "higher" on the soil of another country than that country's own legislature, which is basically the definition of sovereignity ("Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory", taken from Wikipedia). If however, as Al68 stated, not all countries have the same sovereignity, and I can only assume that he thinks the US has the higher or highest one, well, I don't agree with that. Nor would any other country in the world agree with that, and the US wouldn't agree with it if another country stated that, and that's what I call hypocritical.

I'm perceiving that some individuals think that the US has a generally higher morality, and that this coincides with a high military power, which gives the US authority to do whatever they want. Note that I do not say that you specifically, or the USA in general has this opinion, but certain individuals have - which is also true for ANY country.

So as the final word: basically every point of my argument is directed at Al68, and I can't disagree with you (russ) because your stance is logical.

 

[issacnewton]

I am glad Osama is dead. SEALS did a great job. huraaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

 

[Al68]

You are arguing in terms of practical superiority (the wording "better than yours" was directly meant for Al68 as he stated that not all sovereign nations are of the same "sovereignity")

I didn't say that at all. I said all sovereign nations are not equal, not that they didn't have equal sovereignty. Which means not equal in terms of trustworthiness in this case. The reason we didn't ask or inform Pakistan of our strike on UBL was because we didn't trust them, not because they are not sovereign.

All nations are not equal in a relevant sense in this regard, even under an "equal sovereignty" assumption.

 

[issacnewton]

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

 

[WhoWee]

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

Also, do we REALLY know what was discussed with Pakistan? How do we know that Pakistan wasn't allowed to position themselves as being unaware of the mission - given the protests in the streets that have resulted. Surely the Pakistani's knew there would be protests if they were involved. Please label - IMO.

 

[SamirS]

I didn't say that at all. I said all sovereign nations are not equal, not that they didn't have equal sovereignty. Which means not equal in terms of trustworthiness in this case. The reason we didn't ask or inform Pakistan of our strike on UBL was because we didn't trust them, not because they are not sovereign.

All nations are not equal in a relevant sense in this regard, even under an "equal sovereignty" assumption.

Well you wrote this:

...because our killing of UBL in Pakistan is not equivalent to allowing another country to perform a similar raid in the U.S. without our involvement. All sovereign nations are not equal in that regard, and even if they were, the U.S. President represents the interests of the U.S., not the interests of each sovereign nation equally.

Without knowledge if Pakistan actually allowed this or not (and if not, if they will keep their feet still for the sake of their ally), you are saying here that the US raid in Pakistan would not be the same as a Pakistani raid in the US, and in this regard, they are not equal. The actual concept of sovereignity involves exactly this fact, and even if you did not mean they are not equal in sovereignity, your statement amounts to exactly that.

It is of course true that not all sovereign nations are trustworthy. However, people outside the US hardly think of the US as "trustworthy". See the protests about European data being given to the US or giving the US access to (SWIFT for example). Transparent governing and legislature is needed because governments aren't trustworthy. As a side note, I wouldn't rank most European countries as trustworthy either, with all the (needless) data crawling.

concepts like sovereignty are useless while dealing with somebody like bin laden. these
terrorists don't play even. neither should their enemies. simple

Well they may be useless regarding UBL, however, two points:

1. There are very few places where someone effectively could live that are not somewhere inside the borders of a nation. Concepts like sovereignity are at least important for the country where the action happens.

2. Nevertheless, UBL is a human, and all humans have rights. And legitimate states* have to act inside a legal frame legitimated by a democratic government and on the basis of a constitution. What do you think UBL thought about the rights of the US citizens he killed? Not much I guess. So if we start doing the same, what does that make us?

*I know, there are many countries not working on this basis. However those are not far away from tyranny and terrorism or actually embody it.

 

[DR13]

Nevertheless, UBL is a human

Not anymore :P

And legitimate states* have to act inside a legal frame legitimated by a democratic government and on the basis of a constitution. What do you think UBL thought about the rights of the US citizens he killed? Not much I guess. So if we start doing the same, what does that make us?

*I know, there are many countries not working on this basis. However those are not far away from tyranny and terrorism or actually embody it.

We were perfectly within our legal rights. OBL was an enemy combatant ever since he declared war on the US. We are allowed to kill enemy combatants.

Also, please do not compare the actions of the US to those of OBL. He killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11. We killed a mass murderer who declared war on us. They are completely different

 

[Al68]

Without knowledge if Pakistan actually allowed this or not (and if not, if they will keep their feet still for the sake of their ally), you are saying here that the US raid in Pakistan would not be the same as a Pakistani raid in the US, and in this regard, they are not equal. The actual concept of sovereignity involves exactly this fact, and even if you did not mean they are not equal in sovereignity, your statement amounts to exactly that.

No, it certainly doesn't, that's faulty logic. The fact that sovereignty could be a basis for a lack of equality doesn't mean it is the only possible basis, or the particular basis being referred to by another.

It's analogous to claiming that since poodles are dogs, and you claim to have a dog, then that's the same thing as your claiming to have a poodle, even after you point out that your dog is a greyhound. Because poodles are dogs, dammit, and you said you had one.

 

[russ_watters]

While directed at you, my last response was as much a response to others who said similar things a couple of weeks ago that I never responded to. I meant to, I just never got around to it. I realize you weren't arguing against me except coincidentally.

I'm perceiving that some individuals think that the US has a generally higher morality, and that this coincides with a high military power, which gives the US authority to do whatever they want. Note that I do not say that you specifically, or the USA in general has this opinion, but certain individuals have - which is also true for ANY country.

I do believe the US has a moral superiority over most nations. As it applies to this case, it includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. But to analyze the common phrase "might makes right", I wouldn't say that our might makes us right but rather gives us the ability to act based on our judgement of the morality of a situation. Might makes right in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense: true moral superiority is not arbitrary, it comes from a highly developed set of moral principles that are arrived at by logic and practice (testing). That we also have that actual "right" (high quality morality) is just coincidental - and frankly, fortunate for the world. If the US had failed and the USSR was the only superpower today, the world would be a dark place.

It is of course true that not all sovereign nations are trustworthy. However, people outside the US hardly think of the US as "trustworthy". See the protests about European data being given to the US or giving the US access to (SWIFT for example).

The US takes a lot of flak, for sure, but I think that's just backlash against the guy in charge. People always complain about the boss, even if he really is a great boss. There's always someone who thinks the boss is an arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than me but isn't. I'd never claim the US is perfect or the best possible sole superpower (or even the most moral nation on Earth or best potential world leader given the existing choices), I merely believe we're the best world leader the world has ever seen.

 

[SamirS]

No, it certainly doesn't, that's faulty logic. The fact that sovereignty could be a basis for a lack of equality doesn't mean it is the only possible basis, or the particular basis being referred to by another.

It's analogous to claiming that since poodles are dogs, and you claim to have a dog, then that's the same thing as your claiming to have a poodle, even after you point out that your dog is a greyhound. Because poodles are dogs, dammit, and you said you had one.

That's not analogous. You are either shifting your point now or didn't mean what you wrote first. On its own soil, a country has sovereignity if it is a sovereign country, and that means exactly that: no other country has the right to raise their values, laws etc. over theirs. The case was different with the Nazis, because they violated the sovereignity of others and threatened the sovereignity of others in the incarnation of a state. If Pakistan did not authorize the US mission to kill UBL, it was an act of war. I understand your point as that it was not an act of war because the US is allowed to do so no matter what the Pakistani say, and that other countries are not allowed the same regarding the US. This is hypocritical viewed from a neutral stance. It is only not hypocritical from US point of view if you define that US law has superiority over foreign law on the soil of the foreign state. However you open yourself to the idea that you legitimate other countries, or, as happens more often, individuals or individual organizations (= terrorism) to the same thought.

To clarify, I say that no state is allowed to do this without authorization, and this is also what most of the sovereign world says, too, which is the reason that wars are seldomly started by countries in a legitimate organization without authorization.

While directed at you, my last response was as much a response to others who said similar things a couple of weeks ago that I never responded to. I meant to, I just never got around to it. I realize you weren't arguing against me except coincidentally. I do believe the US has a moral superiority over most nations. As it applies to this case, it includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. But to analyze the common phrase "might makes right", I wouldn't say that our might makes us right but rather gives us the ability to act based on our judgement of the morality of a situation. Might makes right in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense: true moral superiority is not arbitrary, it comes from a highly developed set of moral principles that are arrived at by logic and practice (testing). That we also have that actual "right" (high quality morality) is just coincidental - and frankly, fortunate for the world. If the US had failed and the USSR was the only superpower today, the world would be a dark place. The US takes a lot of flak, for sure, but I think that's just backlash against the guy in charge. People always complain about the boss, even if he really is a great boss. There's always someone who thinks the boss is an arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than me but isn't. I'd never claim the US is perfect or the best possible sole superpower (or even the most moral nation on Earth or best potential world leader given the existing choices), I merely believe we're the best world leader the world has ever seen.

Well, I'll take a pragmatic stance here and say yes, the US is the best world leader we have seen so far, judging from the historically long period of peace with regards to the amount of nations involved.

What makes me sad is that the US was the greatest leader in history and together with the European Age of Enlightment, shaped our free society, in which I like to live. I feel however that the US is shifting away from this target of greater good for all towards more and more individual, economic and power-oriented motivations. And, mind you, not only internationally!

@DR13: please, this argument you make is just childish, because you only see your position. What about innocent people who never had anything to do with AQ etc. getting killed as "collateral damage"? How do those people think?

You are allowed to kill enemy combatants, yes. You are not, however, allowed to do it outside of a war or, as folllows, declare a war on a concept and then just treat anything and any region of the world as a war zone. Also, at the time UBL was killed he was a living human. Dehumanization of the enemy is the basis for the most gruesome massacres of human history.

How hard is it to see that when even I who I am the direct victim of a war and closely related to fatalities of a war on exactly this basis, can see that - that even my worst enemy is a human and is entitled to the same basic human rights (even though my personal opinion might be more violent, I wouldn't act on it)? What does the number of victims have to do with this? Look up the number of victims of the Balkans war. If not anything else, think about this: someday, someone else with enough power might regard YOU as the enemy. You certainly want him to treat you like a human!

 

[Dale]

What does Bin Ladin being human have to do with anything? Of course he was human, and he was treated as a human should be treated. Part of being human is being held responsible for your actions.

 

[russ_watters]

Some people believe the individual right to life trumps all other considerations and can't be revoked for any reason. While I respect the sensitivity, I find it impractical, particularly when dealing with an active mass murderer.

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, I would have preferred they also BLOW UP the entire compound after the SEAL's departed - to punish the owner for harboring the world's most wanted terrorist and send a clear message of the consequences - a nice big 2,000 pound bomb perhaps?

 

[Al68]

That's not analogous. You are either shifting your point now or didn't mean what you wrote first.

I mean exactly what I said to begin with, unequal sovereignty is not the only sense in which nations can be unequal in a relevant way. That is too obvious and has been made far too clear to keep saying over and over.

I understand your point as that it was not an act of war..

I said nothing resembling that. Are you confusing me with someone else? That would certainly explain a lot.

This is hypocritical viewed from a neutral stance.

I was not referring to a neutral stance. I was referring to the duties and loyalties of the U.S. President. The U.S. President is not neutral, being neutral would be treasonous.