Quote:
Originally Posted by Suki
Legally justified or morally justified?
|
The US is at war. Osama bin Laden was Enemy #1. I think the killing of bin Laden can be arguably legally and morally justified being in a state of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suki
I don't see the point in shoot-to-kill missions unless there's no other way to get a hold of the person they are after. If Bin Laden was fighting back then sure, it's only right to defend one's self and the shooter could claim he was only shooting cause he was being shot at. But I'm afraid this was not the case. Why do you kill someone you can put on trial and let a jury judge the evidence against him? Did President Obama say he wanted him dead rather than alive? Because if they were able to shoot him dead, they would have been able to overpower him and take him out of the country for him to be properly tried and punished according to US laws.
|
Again, we do not know all the details of what happened in the moments before bin Laden was shot and killed. What we do know is that he was using one of his wives as a shield, and she was shot. He was resisting arrest (which implies an arrest was attempted) and that he was not armed with a firearm.
Pres. Obama did not say he wanted him dead, rather than alive, but he wanted him dead or alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suki
Yeah, I'm not arguing that! I'm saying WHY kill a criminal when you have the chance to capture him and have him tried in court?
|
I guess my answer would be, is there a difference between a suspected criminal (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) or a war criminal, who publicly lauds his own acts of war with pride during a time of war?
If there is no difference, then how is any death during wartime justifiable? How can any attack ever be planned or executed if no deaths can justifiably happen?