Killing Osama bin Laden: Assassination, War Casualty or Criminal?
Thou shalt not kill. That is not only one of the Ten Commandments; it is central to any civil society. Politicians and pundits alike are quick to say that we live under the rule of law.
Everyone can agree on those two points, at least on the surface. It’s defining what that means where the differences lay. It’s becoming quite obvious that the leftist idea of justice is not the same as mainstream America. There are a lot of mixed messages on what “the rule of law” means, and how it applies in war time.
On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews, who once called West Point the enemy camp, and guest Bob Baer, former CIA and Time.com intelligence columnist, discussed the fate of Osama bin Laden.
The subject started by Matthews commenting on Eric Holder dismissing the idea of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice in a courtroom, stating we would never be able to take him alive.
Baer explained that Holder was right. We will kill bin Laden. Sooner or later someone will make a mistake, and we will take him out.
Matthews:
“So your view here is forget the jurisprudence here, and whether we should be talking about knocking people off here before we bring him to trial—is probably right.”
Baer:
“It’s probably right but we shouldn’t talk about it. I mean we are a nation of rule of laws, we shouldn’t talk about assassinating people.”
The mixed signals here; we can and will kill him, but we shouldn’t talk about it because we shouldn’t talk about assassinating people.
Had bin Laden been simply some leader in a foreign country, he’s right. We don’t just assassinate people. However, that is not the case. This is a sworn enemy, who has taken credit for the deaths of thousands of Americans, he is at war with us-and we with him and the small army he leads-al Qaeda
In a war, enemies kill one another. It’s that simple.
What bin Laden is, by the laws we live by, determine how he is treated; we don’t assassinate political figures that we are not at war with, nor do we execute criminals without a trial. We can, and should kill an enemy that seeks to kill us first.
By not using the correct terminology, we look as though we are saying we live by the rule of law, but we don’t–and we make it okay by not discussing it in public. We fail to rightly define the issue.
Have politicians manipulated our language to the degree that we don’t understand our own vocabulary? Or is it that they are afraid to say what what they really mean?
We'd have to mirandize bin Laden if we caught him, so we'll have to drone him. No hypocrisy there.
I don't think so.
just dopey…the Mosaic legislation "thou shall not kill" prohibits UNLAWFUL KILLING, which includes murder and other forms of unjustifed..within the context of the Law, there are provisions for capital punishment by the CIVIL authorities, and this is reiterated in Romans 13 by Paul's statement that it is legitimate for the state to use the SWORD, i.e. killing certain lawbreakers. assassinating Bin Laden is a perfectly legitimate use of force by the state, since he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. If captured, he should be tried in military court and then executed….
Henry,
Exactly. I agree, and find that the problem is those on the left do not understand lawful killing ie death penalty or taking out an enemy such as bin Laden without giving him a "fair" trial.
For lawful killing to be lawful, we have to define him correctly–enemy we are at war with. Not simple criminal or a head of state.
The war on terror's battlefield exists wherever there are Americans or our allies. Bin Laden himself defined this battlefield. In combat, snipers have long aimed for leaders on the battlefield. Today, our snipers kill from the sky by remote control. There is no difference between this and a traditional sniper, except that the range is extraordinary.
Thanks Dave—well said.
As I said, mainstream America has no problem defining who, and what he is and how to deal with him.
People on America's political Left seem not to understand the concept of "War" – or at least to pretend not to understand it. A terrorist captured in Afghanistan should be treated as a Prisoner Of War, because that is what he is, regardless of whether the politicians choose to call it that. If country A sends a military force to invade and occupy country B, "war" is the proper word for what they are doing. Sometimes making war is a necessary evil. Sometimes its the other side that chose to start making war against you.
Wanting to treat them as if they were civilians arrested on criminal charges is absurd. For one thing, the US Government has absolutely ZERO authority to "arrest" anyone outside of its own sovereign territorial borders. Do your people think Washington DC rules the whole world? If you catch Bin Laden inside your country doing something that's illegal there, then by all means arrest him, read him his rights, give him a proper civilian trial, etc etc. But if he's in a cave in Pakistan, only the Pakistani govt can lawfully "arrest" him.
The US government has all the authority it needs to destroy Bin Laden, and by any means necessary. So you are wrong. Precedent for killing such enemies was set in WWII, not just by the US, but by the world. Nobody bitched about going after Hitler, Himmler, Tojo or any of the others who committed acts of terror against the world then. As far as reading Bin Laden his rights: He is an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. He has the right to be tried by military courts-martial and shot the next morning. Or killed by a drone strike or a sniper's bullet. Those are the only rights he has. Bin Laden and his ilk have given up their life cards by virtue of their terrorsim against the US and the West. He's earned his one-way ticket to Hell.
Yes. We are really screwed as a nation when a navy seal is facing many years in prison for supposedly punching an enemy terrorist in the stomach while in a war zone!!!
Infidel, there is no need to be so ill-mannered. And I suggest you improve your reading-comprehension, as it is obvious that the point of what I was saying flew right over your head.
Let me say it over: Bin Laden is the leader of an organization that has been "making war" against the USA. Catch him in a cave with a killer-robot and blow him away? Go right ahead. Dealing with people like him is part of the military's function. It is NOT the function of the civilian criminal-justice system, with its police, courts, etc. Oba^H^H^HOsama bin Laden is NOT a criminal – he is an enemy combatant. That is why wanting to give him a civilian trial is absurd.
Thou shalt not kill? My study of Hebrew says that the passage is actually "Thou shalt not murder". The exegesis is found in another passage that says "There is a time and a place to kill…" One of those places is combat. The distinction between killing and murder is a moral one. Every nation has the right to defend itself and to kill its enemies in war. No less so in this war. Whether our enemies are killed by a drone strike or a sniper's bullet, the moral justification for doing so, is a valid one and is justified in that exegises.
You are absolutely correct according to Dennis Prager. It is thou shall not murder. End of story.
Shame on Robinson for being so ignorant.
Doubleblack4,
Yes, shame on me. I used the version I grew up on, which was The King James Version, which says Thou shalt not kill. How foolish of me to not consult the Dennis Prager version first.
Without a doubt, you're right– that is what it means. I did not mean to imply I believed any different.. You hit the mark, which is there is a distinction between killing and murder. Which was my point; the need to rightly define ObL. If he is an enemy we certainly can take him out with whatever means works. These two were saying we can't "assassinate" him which would be considered murder. And that we shouldn't talk about it. The Left asserts that these terrorists need a trial–as if he were a criminal–not an enemy of war.
Charles is right. Killing bin Laden, even if he were tied up and handcuffed as a prisoner, would be the "moral" thing for those on the Left who have no morals, rather than having a trial and showing the idiocy of political correctness.
Sociopathic egomaniacs like Obama and Holder have a tendency to put their butts in a corner that can only be supported by those clueless to their sophistry. Obama and Holder, in their arrogance, actually believe they know what is right and those with greater experience and accomplishment are beneath them. Being privileged to get a free ride at those prestigious prep schools and universities apparently clouds reality and being told you are superior makes one believe it is true when it is not. A road to disaster. Wall Street is filled with Crony Capitalists so afflicted.
As an aside, Obama never was a constitutional professor. He was an adjunct professor at the U of Chicago's Law School and never had scheduled classes. This was a plumb arranged by Valerie Jarrett to build his weak resume.
"As an aside, Obama never was a constitutional professor. He was an adjunct professor at the U of Chicago's Law School and never had scheduled classes. This was a plumb arranged by Valerie Jarrett to build his weak resume. "
Well, that explains a lot.
Even Jesus said that those who go to war must consider the cost. You must have the logistical
and tactical/stradegy in defeating your enemy, besides the money to finance it. If Jesus had
such a rigid, myopic way of looking at killing, why would he mention the idea of going to war. People
get killed in wars. The only difference in their killing and someone killing out of revenge or avarice, is
that it's not murder in war like it is on an individual basis.