Osama Bin Ladin killed.

[Ashura]

I gotta applaud the Navy SEALs for a job well-done. It took a little longer than expected, but justice doesn't happen overnight a lot of times. I'm glad to see he got his just desserts

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

American Islamic leaders nod sea burial, while CIA, DoD give details | AHN

I think burials at sea are pretty rare, no matter what one's religious background. However his body was not simply "thrown in the ocean" but followed strict Islamic traditions for such a ceremony, including burial withing 24 hours of death.

Earlier U.S. officials stressed that the sea burial followed Islamic custom. Appearing at a White House briefing, John O. Brennan, Presidential top counter terrorism adviser said, “The disposal of — the burial of bin Laden's remains was done in strict conformance with Islamic precepts and practices," adding, “It was prepared in accordance with the Islamic requirements.”

“We early on made provisions for that type of burial, and we wanted to make sure that it was going to be done, again, in strict conformance. So it was taken care of in the appropriate way," Brennan said.

Earlier at a briefing at the Pentagon, a Senior Defense Official explained the justification saying, “The justification for burial at sea is when there is no land alternative. And as -- according to Islamic teachings and practice, deceased must be buried with proper procedures within 24 hours. And that was the basis for that decision.”

The official added, “There was no available alternative in terms of a country that was willing to accept the body, and we took pains to ensure that we were compliant with Muslim tradition and law, and sought to dispose of the body, using the appropriate procedures and rituals, within 24 hours.”

Oh I see. Thanks for the info.

However, it is still weird they did not take him to the United States and have him executed in US territory, after trial.

Originally Posted by Ashura

I gotta applaud the Navy SEALs for a job well-done. It took a little longer than expected

LOL

(@John: let's take this discussion to the Football thread, when the match's over. I'm off to see the second half!)

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

Oh I see. Thanks for the info.

However, it is still weird they did not take him to the United States and have him executed in US territory, after trial.

A trial would likely take years, and an execution, very likely decades. The cost of security for the Most Wanted Man in America would have been millions upon millions of dollars, making him into an martyr for those of his ilk. So half the people would be trying to kill him, and half would be trying to free him.

Let's put it this way, the mission ended with him dead, and it is considered a success.

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

A trial would likely take years, and an execution, very likely decades.

So what? Any person charged with a criminal offense has the right to a trial by jury. He could have been convicted of crimes against humanity and been sentenced to death. "A trial would have taken years" is no excuse. Justice is a human right everyone should be granted, whatever the crime.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

So what? Any person charged with a criminal offense has the right to a trial by jury. He could have been convicted of crimes against humanity and been sentenced to death. "A trial would have taken years" is no excuse. Justice is a human right everyone should be granted, whatever the crime.

I am not trying to justify it, but he was very open about his role in 9/11, and made threats to continue terrorist attacks. That goes beyond criminal behavior to active acts of war.

I do not know what happened in the moments up to bin Laden's death, but I am not hearing an outcry saying he should have been arrested rather than killed. Are you there?

It isn't dissimilar with the cremation of Hitler and the spreading of his bones to random places, so Nazis would have no shrine to their hero (if that is really what happened).

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not trying to justify it, but he was very open about his role in 9/11, and made threats to continue terrorist attacks. That goes beyond criminal behavior to active acts of war.

Yes, I know. But still, Nazi leaders were tried and put to death after found guilty of crimes against humanity. I think this is the way to go for any person committing any crime. That's how Justice is made. By shooting someone you are just committing a murder and if someone was to put an end to Bin Laden's life it should have been a jury, not some guy with a machine gun.

I'm not saying Bin Laden did not deserve to die. I'm saying he should have been allowed a trial (from which he would have been found guilty, obviously, and most likely sentenced to death). Very different ways to go to get to the very same resolution.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

Yes, I know. But still, Nazi leaders were tried and put to death after found guilty of crimes against humanity. I think this is the way to go for any person committing any crime. That's how Justice is made. By shooting someone you are just committing a murder and if someone was to put an end to Bin Laden's life it should have been a jury, not some guy with a machine gun.

I'm not saying Bin Laden did not deserve to die. I'm saying he should have been allowed a trial (from which he would have been found guilty, obviously, and most likely sentenced to death). Very different ways to go to get to the very same resolution.

Hitler was never put on trial. And those who were properly tried for war crimes were tried after the war was over and done with.

Again, we don't know what happened in that room when bin Laden was shot, so we cannot say if it justified in the moment, or not.

That being said, governments have engaged in "shoot to kill" missions all over the globe. Are these never justified? Is a clear shot at Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, or other not "suspected" but "known" war criminals not justified?

I cannot say I know the answer 100% either way, but it is an interesting topic.

[ModusOperandi]

Originally Posted by Suki

So what? Any person charged with a criminal offense has the right to a trial by jury. He could have been convicted of crimes against humanity and been sentenced to death. "A trial would have taken years" is no excuse. Justice is a human right everyone should be granted, whatever the crime.

Media outlets have repeatedly been claiming that he was given a chance to surrender but resisted. So a trial in this case is impossible.

On the other hand --to your merit -- the latest news on this particular topic is that there are rumors claiming Osama was not armed at all. So you could also be right if this turns out to be true.

My 2 Cents:Morality/Social protocol aside, doesn't really matter whether or not he got a trial. His death was universally understood to be guaranteed since, at least, the Clinton years. If you ask me, I'd actually consider him lucky to have died right there and then in the field. Being captured would have probably led him to a slow and painful death (torture and interrogations).

But of course, we are yet to receive any proof of his death (Apparently they may or may not release pictures of him dead). So any and everything is speculation.

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

Hitler was never put on trial.

Hitler wasn't put on trial because they didn't have a chance to capture him. If the Soviets had reached the bunker he was hiding in before he shot himself dead, they may have made him prisoner and handed him over to the authorities.

Originally Posted by MMM

That being said, governments have engaged in "shoot to kill" missions all over the globe. Are these never justified? Is a clear shot at Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, or other not "suspected" but "known" war criminals not justified?

Do you not believe in Justice?

Originally Posted by ModusOperandi

Media outlets have repeatedly been claiming that he was given a chance to surrender but resisted. So a trial in this case is impossible.

On the other hand --to your merit -- the latest news on this particular topic is that there are rumors claiming Osama was not armed at all. So you could also be right if this turns out to be true.

And even if he was armed, he could have been taken down. And I agree with you, dying a quick death is better than being held captive, and tortured and sent to jail to never come out of it again, but we're not discussing which would have been a better outcome for him but what would have been the right way to go about it, according to Justice.

[ModusOperandi]

Originally Posted by Suki

And even if he was armed, he could have been taken down. And I agree with you, dying a quick death is better than being held captive, and tortured and sent to jail to never come out of it again, but we're not discussing which would have been a better outcome for him but what would have been the right way to go about it, according to Justice.

Of course a trial is the correct way to go with these things and I don't dispute that. That's why I stated "Morality/Social protocol aside..." But of course, there are shades of gray everywhere, especially with this specific case.
There aren't any tears shed on my end, I'll tell you that much, especially for an outcome as obvious as this one might have brought via trial.