Yesterday I was talking to a friend whose politics make mine look thoroughly leftist about bin Laden’s death; he was adamant that shooting an unarmed man is always wrong. He was unconvinced by any argument of the possibility of a concealed suicide belt or that, in the heat of the moment, the safe thing to do was shoot first.
No doubt a live bin Laden would have provided useful intelligence when interrogated but, according to this, if the US had captured him, they wouldn’t have known what to do with him. Ironically, liberals who want to treat terrorists as criminals have contributed to a don’t ask, don’t tell, shoot first policy:
Apparently the possibility of capturing him was an afterthought, and understandably: We have so hamstrung our ability to interrogate and then expeditiously try and execute terrorists that bin Laden would have been a liability almost as soon as the euphoria over his capture passed.
Bizarrely, when it comes to high-level terrorists, our policy isn’t “to shoot first and ask questions later”; it’s to shoot precisely so we don’t have to ask questions. If we had custody of bin Laden, we literally wouldn’t know what to do with him. Everyone would have to live in fear of Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcing a scheme to make him a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed–style showcase for our civilian justice system. In 2009 congressional testimony, Holder notoriously waffled on whether bin Laden would be read his Miranda rights upon capture.
In an ideal world, the Navy SEALs would have been given the order to take bin Laden alive, if possible. He would have been taken to a secret location for interrogation and waterboarded if necessary to break him quickly. Every possible lead would have been wrung from him and hunted down. When he was no longer of use, he’d have been put before a military commission and executed.
Obama isn’t stupid, just ideological.
UBL alive would have been given the “Holder treatment”: Miranda rights, attorneys paid for and a public trial. All of which would enrage the majority of US citizens. Dead, UBL represents an Obama foreign policy victory.
Quite simply, UBL was worth more to Obama dead than alive.
So, the author of your quote thinks the end justifies the means. Do you agree with that, David? Is torture ok as long as you are a “good guy”?
I wonder what your friend’s views, and actions, might have been if he had been standing before bin Laden (who, indeed, might have had concealed explosives, etc.)? And – I’ve been wondering a lot – what are these famed “navy SEALs”? – some kind of special forces I suppose (don’t the army & air force have any?). And just who is this Miranda chick? Is she another that does BDSM (oh … I seem to have strayed in from another story …)
You have the right to remain silent, BLAM! ok problem solved.>
Operative note is CIA, Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges. The CIA picked up lots of intel withounecessityessity orderlyoderly arrest and interview.
If I was in the position to blow OBL away I would do so in a heartbeat.
…a team of 40 CIA-led Navy SEALs, 24 on the ground, successfully completed an operation to kill Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.
Whew…! I thought it was in Abbotsford.
Steve L
The make-up of the assault team is still a bit of a mystery. Seal Team 6 has gotten the public attention, but there were Army Rangers there and CIA or CIA/Contrac
ters.
It makes no sense to me how one (or two) defenders could have held off an entire Seal Team for 20 minutes. It also makes no sense to me why they didn’t have a Predator Drone flying top cover. If they had, one missle would have solved their Stealth Helicopter disposal problem.
Eventually we’ll get the whole story.
According to Wiki (no Leaks):
20 minutes is not a long time especially when you have no idea how many guns or booby traps face you.
Seems Monday Morning Quarterbacks have a Special Ops qualification.
Steve L
Even if you were JTF 2, you weren’t there.
That makes you just another opinion and a snide one at that.
snide asides are my specialty, ask Warren.
On a more serious note, I’ve been thinking about Kate’s earlier comments.
I believe that our starting point should be that human life is a gift from God.
It seems to me that there are many things we do to others that damage our souls. Even if one believes that a very mild form of torture like water boarding is necessary for the protection of the many, it still requires the perpetrators to “harden their hearts” to the pain of the detainee.
In the same vein, soldiers being required to kill bear a burden on their souls for the rest of us.
In my own case, I am easilly caught up in the chess board of the operation to the exclusion of respecting the sanctity of life. For this I pray for forgiveness.
I think you’ve made some really good points.
I think that there is a fundamental difference between torturing a prisoner, a captive, and killing someone in a battle. Jesus never told the Roman soldiers to stop being soldiers, and I do believe that there are some things worth fighting, or dieing for. I don’t think that there is ever a justification for inflicting torture on a defenceless prisoner.
Steve L – Thanks for the info on MIRANDA. Jim M refers to the burden on the souls of soldiers who kill; and I’ve often thought that a pacifist can be a person who is ultimately concerned with self. Suppose I’m a pacifist, and a violent terrorist comes into the room intent on killing a defencless person – you. I’m also there, and able to grab his weapon, kill him, and save you from death. But I refuse to do this, because of my pacifism, and the knowledge that the purity of my moral state would be corrupted if I killed the terrorist. Basically, I’d be saying that my moral purity – my moral “virgo intacta” state, if you like – is really much more important than your life, because things to do with me (say, my relationship with God; I might be a Christian pacifist) are all that matters. That’s why I personally could not be a pacifist when such situations could occur (and feel for the soldiers who have to kill). I have no right to put considerations related to myself before other peoples’ lives; better to do wrong, save other peoples’ lives, such as yours (God might have a plan to do great works through you, in the future), and rely on God’s forgiveness.
What “pacifism” has to do with any of this discussion completely eludes me – but, whatever.
Thus saith the archetypical wanderer in the wilderness located 200 parsecs from the the original topic.
Not that I mind in the least.
200 Parsecs? OK, makes perfect sense, but I thought he was much further out.
Very witty; you’ve been honing your ad hominem knife.