Comments on: Killing Osama bin Laden: Assassination, War Casualty or Criminal?

By: FrankNorman

FrankNorman — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:12:51 +0000

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.

By: Carolina Don

Carolina Don — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:39:08 +0000

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!!!

By: RhondaRobinson

RhondaRobinson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:18:44 +0000

"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.

By: RhondaRobinson

RhondaRobinson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:17:33 +0000

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.

By: RhondaRobinson

RhondaRobinson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:59:05 +0000

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.

By: Ron Livaudais

Ron Livaudais — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:16:02 +0000

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.

By: Doubleblack4

Doubleblack4 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:54:33 +0000

You are absolutely correct according to Dennis Prager. It is thou shall not murder. End of story.
Shame on Robinson for being so ignorant.

By: 9-11 Infidel

9-11 Infidel — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:51:22 +0000

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.

By: PrudentMan

PrudentMan — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:30:59 +0000

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.

By: 9-11 Infidel

9-11 Infidel — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:28:35 +0000

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.

By: FrankNorman

FrankNorman — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:44:34 +0000

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.

By: RhondaRobinson

RhondaRobinson — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:12:18 +0000

Thanks Dave—well said.
As I said, mainstream America has no problem defining who, and what he is and how to deal with him.