Jill Stein: 'I would not have assassinated' bin Laden

[molova]

Source: USA Today

Jill Stein, the Green Party's candidate for president, said Sunday in Iowa that she would not have assassinated Osama bin Laden but would have brought him to justice for his role in the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I think assassinations ... they’re against international law to start with and to that effect, I think I would not have assassinated Osama bin Laden but would have captured him and brought him to trial,” said Stein.

Bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, was shot and killed by U.S. special forces during a raid at a residence in Pakistan in 2011. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and a failed attack that downed a passenger jet in Pennsylvania, killed nearly 3,000 people. Today, tens of thousands of people have become ill and thousands have died from illnesses attributed to the attacks.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/09/12/jill-stein-against-osama-bin-laden-assassination/90253176/

---

Okkay

[still_one]

1. Jill who?

[GWC58]

4. Oh Jill,

you are a first rate second rate person.😞😮😦

[still_one]

120. I thought you were referring to Jill, of Jack and Jill fame from first grade

[brooklynite]

2. Also, every enemy solider in a war needs to be non-violently arrested...

[cprise]

97. Or violently arrested. Either way,

its preferable to blithely creating martyrs, and you may get valuable information.

[christx30]

104. Hey, that's up to the enemy soldier.

If he throws down his weapon and surrenders, then, sure. A non-violent arrest it is.
People that insist on fighting will die. But it's better than tying the hands of the people sent mu out to stop the bad guys, and getting US soldiers killed.
If Jill has a problem with it, I suggest she join the military, go through training, and put her peaceful solution to dealing with the enemy in harm's way.
I wish her luck. Hope she survives her first mission. She should bring her M-4 along instead of the kittens and balloons.

[Jerry442]

176. Don't fret. No one wanted bin Laden alive to stand trial.

Couldn't have him running his mouth on the witness stand, dontcha know.

[skylucy]

3. Boy, she is stupid.

[GWC58]

5. And that too!

[roody]

130. If you listen to her, you'll find

that she is not stupid.

[skylucy]

133. I've listened to her. She is stupid.

[Loki Liesmith]

161. She is stupid and an anti-vaxxer

She is of no use.

[deathrind]

6. She's right.

They are against international law. It would have been nice to have brought OBL to justice and made him sit in a cell for the rest of his life...but there was too much blood lust for that to have ever happened. So instead was assassinated him and then proceeded to look foolish in front of the world after.

[jonno99]

7. ^^ THIS ^^ nt

[msanthrope]

9. Um, no. It is not against international law to kill someone you

are at war with.

[24601]

27. Interesting question - are we at war? Congress has they exclusive power to declare war and it has

not done so.

It's probably accurate to say that while Al Qaeda declared a state of war with us, we declined to reciprocate and are instead at "Authorized Use of Military Force" with them.

I also disagree that the Bin Laden raid was assassination.

[msanthrope]

32. Yeah....hate to break it to you, but under the WPA and the AUMF of 9/18/2001

we did declare war.

[24601]

39. Break it all you want, but the administration disagrees with you as have previous

administrations.

"In the absence of statutory definition for "war" and "campaign or expedition," OPM considers to be "wars" only those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress. The title 38, U.S.C., definition of "period of war," which is used in determining benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, includes the Vietnam Era and other armed conflicts. That title 38 definition is NOT applicable for civil service purposes."

"Thus the last "war" for which active duty is qualifying for Veterans preference is World War II. The inclusive dates for World War II service are December 7, 1941, through April 28, 1952."

https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/vso/veterans_preference_and_wartime_service.html#VetGuideAppendixA

[geek tragedy]

83. most wars/armed conflicts are not declared by legislative bodies.

Congress did authorize the President to kill bin Laden, and he did so.

bin Laden launched armed attacks against US and never stopped trying to conduct others, so he was 100% fair game. They could have dropped a 2000 lb bomb on him and it would have been perfectly legal.

[24601]

88. Who is saying it wasn't legal? Not me. I don't hold that you must be at a state of declared

war for force to be legal.

But an AUMF is not constitutionally equivalent to congressionally-declared war. Not just my position, but the administration's as well.

[geek tragedy]

89. I agree, but that seems to be relevant to a different argument.

Technically, since AQ has no legal status, no one can be in a technically declared war with it. But, the same rules apply in terms of use of force and when it's permissible.

[msanthrope]

92. That's administrative regs. So what. nt

[24601]

117. Myriad Substantive Laws, well beyond administrative regulations, have springboard provisions upon

declaration of war as articulated in Congressional Research Service RL31133, Subject: Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications, 112 pages. April 18, 2014

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

"With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into
effect numerous standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the
President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications,
manufacturing, alien enemies, etc. In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be
triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force. Most standby
authorities, however, do not require a declaration of war to be actualized but can be
triggered by a declaration of national emergency or simply by the existence of a state
of war. Both declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force waive the
time limitations otherwise applicable to the use of force imposed by the War Powers
Resolution."

"But a declaration of war automatically brings into effect a number of statutes
that confer special powers on the President and the Executive Branch. A declaration,
for instance, activates statutes that empower the President to interdict all trade with
the enemy, order manufacturing plants to produce armaments and seize them if they
refuse, control transportation systems in order to give the military priority use, and
command communications systems to give priority to the military. A declaration
triggers the Alien Enemy Act, which gives the President substantial discretionary
authority over nationals of an enemy state who are in the U.S. It activates special
authorities to use electronic surveillance for purposes of gathering foreign
intelligence information without a court order under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. It automatically extends enlistments in the armed forces until the
end of the war, makes the Coast Guard part of the Navy, gives the President
substantial discretion over the appointment and reappointment of commanders, and
allows the military priority use of the natural resources on the public lands and the
continental shelf."

"An authorization for the use of force does not automatically trigger any of these
standby statutory authorities. Some of them can come into effect if a state of war in
fact comes into being after an authorization for the use of force is enacted; and the
great majority of them, including many of the most sweeping ones, can be activated
if the President chooses to issue a proclamation of a national emergency. But an
authorization for the use of force, in itself and in contrast to a declaration of war,
does not trigger any of these standby authorities."

[msanthrope]

122. Yeah....erm, ok. Unfortunately for you, since the AUMF of 9/18/01 specifically invokes the WPA, it

kinda blows your assumption out of the water. I suggest actually reading the AUMF.

[24601]

143. And I recommend you read the 1973 WPA. It is clear that an AUMF is a vehicle that provides

authority for President to employ, or continue to employ, the Armed Forces without committing the U.S. to a state of war. A particular AUMF may contain language that triggers some, or even all of standby statutes that are effective during [declared] wartime; however, in the absence of that language the standby statutes are not automatically triggered by an AUMF. And they are far more than administrative rules as was suggested.

No good lawyer believes that an AUMF is the same as a Declaration of War.

[msanthrope]

150. Yes. I think your last statement says it all...."no good lawyer."

Thing is...being the excellent attorney I am, I don't engage in the mental masturbation that tells the veterans of the Iraq War that it wasn't a "war."

Parse it all ya' want. But I'd love to watch you tell a Purple Heart recipient they didn't earn their medal in a "war."

[24601]

159. Veterans, including military retirees, as well as current servicemen and women have no

difficulty understanding the distinction between service during war (which for example results certain benefits regardless of where your service occurs) and service during a campaign or expedition which attaches such credit only when deployed to the relevant theater of operations.

If you really are an excellent, or even just a good attorney who has researched the issue, you likely would know that award of the purple heart does not require the injury or death to occur during wartime. And since 28 March 1973, qualifying service includes assignment outside the U.S. as part of a peacekeeping force.

If you want to convince the administration that all the time we spent in service but not assigned during a named campaign or expedition should be re-characterized as wartime service, I'd welcome it. But it's lip service to claim the distinctions are not there.

[msanthrope]

162. As I said, I think any veteran who served in the Iraq war would appreciate your

pedantry on a thread dedicated to discussing the lunatic fringe that Jill Stein represents.

[24601]

170. I don't presume to speak for all veterans; however, speaking for myself and the other combat

vets that I know, the overwhelming majority of us would rather have the same kind of credit for wartime service that was in existence up until 28 April 1952.

I'm sure there are some, but I haven't run across a vet so far that cares one bit about Jill Stein.

[Enrique]

90. i think it is

I think assassinations are also against US law.

[msanthrope]

93. Assassinations, yes. Killing people we are at war with? No. nt

[Sgent]

165. Nopte

they violate an executive order -- which can be reversed by the commander in chief at any time.

[cstanleytech]

98. I find it difficult to find any angst over him being shot and killed regardless of the law though

due to his own decisions that he made in life.

[vdogg]

10. We looked foolish for killing Bin Laden?

Am I misinterpreting what you said or was this the intent of your statement? The man declared war on us and killed thousands of people. As far as I'm concerned he was killed on the battlefield during war. I wouldn't even call this an assassination, this was an enemy KIA.

[leftynyc]

12. In front of the world?

Would you mind linking to anyone - anyone at all - who we look foolish in front of because we killed that swine.

[Mosby]

14. besides, he wasn't assassinated

He resisted arrest and took a hostage.

[Bucky]

166. Was he really resisting... or was he just reaching for his weapon nonviolently like Gandhi?

Jill Stein and I will never know. Oh, if we only could have just given him a hug on 9/10 it all could have gone differently.

[Wibly]

16. America looks pretty foolish to many

Bin Laden had a lot of information. He could have been potentially very valuable as a source. Killing him and burying him at sea, with no way to even track if it was actually him, did not help America. It made Bin Laden a martyr, and it cast a big shadow over Obama and his admin.
America goes on and on about justice for all and international law, but what they did in this case totally violated those tenets.
This is why Sanders became such a threat to defeat Clinton. He was talking about restoring the rule of law, which is something most Americans want.
When you invade another country and act not only as cop, but judge and executioner, you do not inspire confidence in the world at large, or at home.

[leftynyc]

20. LOL

Sorry. Arresting that swine would have made in a martyr and would have made any city of any prison holding him a target. Fuck him - he deserved even worse than he got. They found him, tried to arrest him, he armed himself and he got himself killed. Period. End of conversation. I don't see anyone anywhere in the world whining about the injustice of it all.

[Mosby]

21. he resisted arrest and was shot and killed

He was not assassinated.

Further, the burial at sea followed islamic law, and prevented the creation of a shrine.

[ncjustice80]

132. "Resisted arrest"...ok...

[Urchin]

36. Yes.

Providing the government really did kill him and dump his body in the sea.

With no body to prove he's dead, how can we be sure he's really dead?

[emulatorloo]

43. Please, DU has already reached its Conspiracy Theory max during GD: P 2016

[geek tragedy]

121. Sanders supported the mission to kill bin laden nt

[Dorian Gray]

136. So.....

Give the guy an international soap box to inspire his cohorts to keep action alive against the USA and all their other enemies?

Look, I'm very anti extra-judicial killings but this is just fine by me. The guy murdered 3000 people in NYC and wanted to terrorize the world into accepting his version of Islam. We've been fighting Al Queada for years. We should have killed him years ago (in lieu of the Iraq invasion).

[geek tragedy]

17. Killing enemies is not illegal. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

34. Enemy is NOT an arbitrary term WRT to OBL. nt

[emulatorloo]

45. Yes poor poor poor innocent Bin Laden

Just a regular Joe

[Dr Hobbitstein]

72. You mean anyone who masterminds the destruction of American landmarks

and the murder of thousands of Americans? Never seen someone jump through so many hoops to defend OBL.

[emulatorloo]

41. Welcome to DU, and you scare awfully easily. But geek tragedy is terribly frightening

so I understand.

and Welcome!

[emulatorloo]

47. I'm not laughing. And you know fuck all about me

So stop shoving words into my mouth and calling me unethical. drop your specious false equivalencies between innocents and Bin Laden. Same with your garbage nihilism. We aren't stupid here and you are not half as clever as you think you are.

[emulatorloo]

57. Yes, clearly I am a murderous person who wants to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

Simply because I disagree with your simplistic and false framing and your need to assert your alleged moral superiority over the rest of us craven DU'ers.

Enough, buddy. Have a wonderful day and I mean that very sincerely.

[geek tragedy]

66. MIRT will be cleaning this one up quickly nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

74. Yup, I responded to him, then clicked "view all" again and he's suddenly Name Removed. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

77. I must've missed the stalker exceitment.

Sounds like a real piece of shit. I don't suppose it's the last we'll see of him.

[geek tragedy]

81. he outed himself as the stalker and revealed personal information about another DUer

in the process before he got zapped (won't repeat the info or about whom he was talking)

[Dr Hobbitstein]

82. I saw the mention about that DUer in his post, but didn't read beyond that.

It's a shame that he would stalk her and reveal personal details on an anonymized board such as this.

[emulatorloo]

110. Appalling. Yet somehow not surprising.

[pangaia]

75. Wow.. It doesn't seem, to me anyway, that you understand what DEC is talking about.

1- He/she is not saying you are a murderous person
2- He is not saying you want to kill thousands of people
3- His explanations are NOT simple. THAT is the issue.
4- He is not claiming any moral superiority
5- He is not accusing DU'(sic)ers of being craven

[geek tragedy]

78. that poster was just banned for posting Neo-Nazi and misogynist hate speech in another comment.

He's also the person who's been doxxing and stalking DUers away from DU.

We understood exactly what the banned Neo-Nazi impotently miscreant loser was talking about.

He's just here to hate troll.

[Dorian Gray]

137. A neo-nazi

Osama Bin Laden deserves justice troll? Jeez.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

79. 6. He is a piece of shit

7. He was taken out by MIRT Team 6

[emulatorloo]

112. That's correct, I am the bad guy who just doesn't understand the complex thinking of trolls

[Codeine]

118. You should choose who you defend more carefully.

I can't imagine you actually intended to defend a vile piece of anti-Semitic shit like that, right?

[geek tragedy]

49. the real world isn't a bong-fest in a college dorm

people who willfully murder 3000 people in an act of mass violence can be described as a hostile enemy

[geek tragedy]

59. WtDU; EYSS nt

[sarisataka]

65. Hey, welcome back

... annnd good bye!

[Codeine]

67. Fucking Pinebagger.

[geek tragedy]

48. bin laden massacred 3000 people in my city. any definition of 'enemy' that doesn't include

people like bin laden is invalid

[sarisataka]

51. Who was it that decided

Civilian office buildings were filled with "enemies" and using commercial transportation to attack them was "legal"?

It's not like somebody woke up one morning and decided Bin Laden is a bad guy let's kill him.

[pangaia]

68. Well said.

[geek tragedy]

71. Lol. Great minds think alike?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141570780#post61

[metalbot]

50. Well, in the same sense that killing people in general isn't illegal

Context matters.

I'm not opposed to the idea that we went into Pakistan and tried to grab him. However, it's hard to argue sending heavily armed soldiers into a country that we aren't at war with to storm a compound and arrest someone is "legal". If Turkey were to send a hit squad into the US to grab Gulen, I don't think the US would be shrugging it's collective shoulders and saying "well, he was your enemy, I can totally see why you sent in soldiers when we refused to extradite him".

[geek tragedy]

53. Gulen isn't an international fugitive on the run from the entire international community

and the analogy would be more apt if the USA were pretending to be scouring the country looking for Gulen pretending he's an enemy.

Pakistan was sheltering bin Laden while pretending they were on our side in trying to track him down.

Duplicity often ends in embarrassment.

[metalbot]

60. So what's the line that makes one legal and the other not?

I'm not disputing whether we should have tried to get Bin Laden or not. We absolutely did the right thing. However, "the right thing" is not the same as the "legal" thing.

Could the US, for example, stage similar raids in Pakistan for other wanted fugitives, and that would also be "legal"? Could the US send ground troops across the border into Pakistan to arrest militants who were causing trouble in Afghanistan? Would that also be "legal", or would that be an act of war?

Sending troops into another country without permission is a violation of that country's sovereignty. That's unambiguously a violation of international law. The fact that there's a good reason for it doesn't make it legal.

[geek tragedy]

63. not sure there's a cut and dry answer on the technical legality

Pakistan itself had insisted that bin Laden was an enemy who must be tracked down, so they'd probably effectively waived any right to raise too much of a fuss, given that they'd conceded that bin Laden was a deadly enemy who must be stopped, and having been busted illegally sheltering him.

But at some point, routinely violating Pakistan's sovereignty becomes less defensible and Pakistan has a bigger right to voice an objection.

It's more of a political question than a legal one

[Ilsa]

85. Sure, and have how many attacks

On americans, including hostage-taking to free him?

I'm glad the murderer is dead, not getting three squares a day.

[babylonsister]

100. Who looked foolish? I think most of

the world heaved a sigh of relief.

[trueblue2007]

101. why would we want to spend our tax dollars keeping OBL in jail?

taking him out was better.

[Rustyeye77]

113. Free Jill...

in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran.

Let her enjoy the culture.

[sarisataka]

11. Maybe a warrant for his arrest

And ask Pakistan if they would kindly extradite him to the US for trial.

Not to split hairs, but there is a difference between an assassination and killed in action. I believe it is generally accepted that bin Laden and people around him were armed and had previously engaged in combat against US forces.

[Wibly]

18. Sadly

There is no evidence to support the idea that Bin Laden was heavily guarded at all, or that he was armed when he was killed.

[tonyt53]

29. Uh, there was most definitely a firefight inside of his complex. He was armed.

The firefight alerted the nearby military compound and they arrived very shortly after the US troops had left. That is documented.

[sarisataka]

35. I thought the question of his being armed

Was the still disputed. I see now that it is accepted he did not have a weapon in his possession at the time so I stand corrected. He was however protected by armed guards.

I am not privy to exactly what went on when the seals encountered him. I would have received much more pleasure with a diving tackle and dragging him back to the US then shooting him but there is the possibility that there was a weapon in the room or some other reason which would require firing at that moment. I can understand that the shooter, in retrospect, may consider he made the wrong choice but decisions made in the heat of combat don't allow for reflection before action.

[christx30]

147. If we had done that (asked Pakistan to extradite him),

Osama would have been on the first flight out of the country, courtesy of the ISI. I think Obama was right to not trust the Pakistani government with something this big.
The way that it was done was perfect. Get in, he's killed in a firefight. Get his body and as much intel as you can carry out of there. Would have been good to get him alive, but I'm not going to sweat it. He's no martyr. No one really cares. The people that want to fight and kill because he's dead wanted to fight and kill while he was still alive.

[Wibly]

13. Bin Laden

Would have been far more valuable alive.
Dead, all he did was become a martyr and a recruitment tool.

[leftynyc]

22. Which slime

are using him as a recruitment tool? You can't be thinking of isis, they detest al queda.

[Dorian Gray]

138. Really?

Because alive he would be much more so.

This way... terrorist mastermind is neutralized.

[geek tragedy]

15. Yes, should have read him his rights on the ground in Pakistan and given him

access to a taxpayer-funded lawyer instantaneously. The SEALs who went in should have been equipped with only non-lethal weapons, and we should have apologized to him for existing.

[DinahMoeHum]

19. Forget her, that woo-woo wacko isn't making anything happen.

Neither is that bong-water sucker Gary Johnson.

[mobeau69]

23. Obama already covered this topic responding to Michael Moore's criticism...

Anybody who doesn't think this killer got what he deserved needs to have their head examined. Next topic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. We are either a country of laws or a country of men.

It's easy to be dismissive of the laws when it's your man implementing his will.

Yes, if Bin Laden had surrendered, (the "...or captured" part of the publicly-stated orders given to the seals apparently didn't reach their ears) he should have been brought to trial. That is true of all the prisoners at Gitmo too.

It's unfortunate that I'm in the minority with that view. It's both asinine and a deal breaker to call me a non-democrat because of it.

[msanthrope]

33. If he had surrendered, yes, he should have been brought to trial.

He didn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. It was also unlikely, since the seals understood that capturing him would have been insubordination.

[msanthrope]

94. Bin Laden had 10 years to surrender. He didn't. nt

[Rex]

25. That is fine, you would have sent troops in to restrain him and they would have ended up

killing him anyway. OBL was in a compound armed to the teeth. He was not leaving the place alive.

[hack89]

52. The Pakistanis gave up Khalid Sheikh Muhammad

their intelligence service led the raid that captured him. The Pakistanis were not going to give up OBL.

And his intelligence was not particularly valuable - there was a lot of misinformation mixed in with the true stuff. I think he was tell his torturers what he thought they wanted to hear to stop the pain.

[closeupready]

28. Good for her.

Unlike her, I would likely have followed the same course which we did under Obama, but I applaud her courage in holding to her beliefs, at the risk of drawing the ire of not only Republicans, but those in the political establishment who lie closest to her ideologically (i.e., Democrats). K&R

[stonecutter357]

31. The KGB would disagree with assassinated bin Laden.

[Justice]

37. Bin Laden ain't assassinated. Jill is toast.

[47of74]

42. Dear Ms. Stein, 47 hears ya...

....47 don't care.

[Gore1FL]

46. Ideally, it would have been nice to capture him alive.

I seriously doubt that was possible, however.

[zipplewrath]

86. It was emminately possible

The question was what risk were the SEALs willing to take. There were concerns about him taking suicidal actions in such a raid to kill his attackers. I strongly suspect they were under very strict orders to shoot except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

But in the end we can't kill our way out of this international, nongovernmental terrorism problem. We are going to have to begin taking risks to wage law enforcement instead of war, or the war will never stop.

[EX500rider]

107. "We are going to have to begin taking risks to wage law enforcement instead of war, or the war...

.....will never stop"

How would that look any different?

US Marshals pull up outside a walled compound in Afghanistan, shout "You are surrounded, come out!"
Take fire, return fire, kill the Tangos in a firefight...

[zipplewrath]

116. More like the SEALs tackle him

In hindsight, which is not meant to be a basis for judging the decisions the SEALs made, there was a high probability that OBL could have been physically captured. We've done this before in an international setting with others we considered fugitives. It means taking risks, but of course storming the compound in the first place was a risk. We can (and have) apprehend people and bring them to trial. The closer to the point of capture that these people can be put on trial the better. But ultimately these people need to be brought to justice, and often must answer to the very people they have abused.

[misterhighwasted]

54. Well then Thank God for President Obama!

Shouldn't she be out stumping for Trump?

[Mike Nelson]

56. Death was his choice...

...and quite understandable, in my opinion.

[orpupilofnature57]

62. Too bad suing Saudi Arabia instead of placating them is out of the question, Why again ?

[cprise]

99. The Saudis pump so the US dollar remains

the world's reserve currency. Up or down, whichever is more beneficial to the dollar's influence.

That's why.

[GOLGO 13]

80. 15 yrs ago a fool picked a fight with the American people, he learned that

The American people don't suffer fools gladly.

[Renew Deal]

84. She's a crank

And so are her supporters

[PJMcK]

87. Jill Stein will never be in the position to make such a determination (n/t)

[beachbum bob]

95. this is the problem with novices...she has no f*ckin clue....

[LynneSin]

96. Good, glad you aren't ever going to be elected President

Wasn't your decision. So easy for people to play 'arm-chair quarterback'

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

102. Fuck "Doctor" Jill Moonbat.

That is all.

[left-of-center2012]

103. Not surprising

Stein wants to cut U.S. military spending by at least 50%.
She would close US overseas military bases ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

[Motley13]

105. They would have preferred to take him alive

it just wasn't possible w/o putting the special forces in danger.

[Thinkingabout]

106. He was wanted Dead or Alive, his guards exchanged fire, bin Laden wasn't going alive.

His death was the result of military action in response to an attack ordered by him. This is a big issue difference I have with Jill Stein. She is not ready for the office of president of the US.

[onehandle]

109. This nutcase is giving me warm feelings for Nader.

And I fucking hate that guy.

[Rustyeye77]

111. Thanks Jill for making me miss Ralph.

How anyone can support her is beyond me.

[Puzzledtraveller]

114. In this case they resisted, obviously.

The only thing I did not share with many people was the excitement and happiness about his death. It was all a tragedy and I have never understood celebrating someones deaths regardless of who it is.

[jimlup]

115. Since I don't consider her to have a legitimate chance

I will speak freely

Er eh, she's correct. The assassination of Bin Laden was technically a war crime.

[msanthrope]

128. No. It was not. You are conflating assassination with combatant death. nt

[jimlup]

131. Sorry no

it wasn't a combat death. I mean I don't really want to argue the point right at the moment as we have other issues at hand like stopping the dumpster from gaining the WH but it was an assassination and, in my opinion, a cold-blooded murder. Most of the believable reports which have been substantiated by several indicate that Bin Laden was unarmed. I'm not sure in what universe that becomes a "combat death".

[msanthrope]

139. Bin Laden was a combatant, who chose not to surrender and was killed during a raid.

Combatant death.

[jimlup]

140. Established only in the propaganda world of the American propaganda system

A man asleep is his bedroom is hardly a "combatant". Further, by all accounts he could have easily been taken alive. Sorry your point doesn't follow... Why no international war crimes trial? I think you know if you really think about it.

[msanthrope]

141. Okay....your view is rather elitist. You seem to think only rank and file, grunts are combatants,

but officers, strategists, and leaders are not. That's just not true. Any member of AQ is a combatant.

Bin Laden had a decade to surrender. He didn't.

International war crime? Okay. Let us know how that goes.

[jimlup]

144. So it would not be a war crime

if a member of AQ killed Obama????

[cstanleytech]

146. If you want a real war crime then how about the one committed on Sept 11th 2001?

[jimlup]

154. An eye for an eye

leaves the whole world blind.

[cstanleytech]

156. Nope, not an eye for an eye in this case more of putting down a rabid dog. nt

[msanthrope]

149. Only if you recognize stateless terrorist forces as legitimate entities on par

with nation-states. Which I don't.

[jimlup]

155. Ah so then

All you have to do to murder someone is to declare them to be a "terrorist". No trial, no hearing, no appeal, just declare them to be a terrorist.

This is not the morality nor, is it a legal standard, of which I can approve.

[christx30]

158. So how would you have handled it?

You're the president. People come to you and say they found Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan. Do you contact Pakistan and ask them to get him, risking they will hide him or help him get out of the country? (remember the Pakistani doctor that helped the CIA find him was arrested on treason charges and sentenced to 33 years. Not exactly happy that Bin Laden was found.) Do you send in a team to extract him? Do you arm that team, or send them in with non-lethal weapons?
How would you have handled it?

And Bin Laden's terrorist label isn't just something that was slapped on. He had been a long term thorn in the US's side, since the embassy bombings in 1998. He earned that title.

[jimlup]

163. It is fairly simple actually

There is legal precedent too.

He should have been captured and take to face war crimes trials at the Hague. This was even possible if some of the accounts of the Seal team are correct.

[christx30]

164. Would you have told Pakistan? Or would you have kept them in the dark,

and just sent in the Seal team?

I think it worked out as well as it could have. What if bin Laden had struggled or run while extracting him, and that allowed time for Pakistani military to get there? Remember, their military academy is only .8 miles from the compound in which bin Laden was living. Would a firefight have erupted between the Seals and the Pakistani? No one knows. So it's better that US forces got out of there as quick as they did. And if a terrorist had to die for that to happen, I'm ok with it.
The dude had 10 years to surrender.

[jimlup]

169. No

we could have done EXACTLY the operation that we did and taken Bin Laden alive.

I ask you - Why didn't we?????

The answer is instructive actually.

[ProfessorGAC]

171. So Naive

And sad.

[EX500rider]

160. You don't have to be armed to be a combatant..

....just on the other side.

The US during a war strafes a enemy convoy of fuel trucks and food/ammo killing many drivers/passengers....

Were the drivers armed? If not, is still isn't a war crime, but war.

[Codeine]

119. She has as much chance of being president as I do,

which is to say none. Zero. Zip.

Her opinion is utterly and completely meaningless and nobody should give two tugs of a dead dog's dick what she theoretically would or would not have done with bin Laden.

[Lucky Luciano]

123. Killing the bastard is just fine. nt

[JCMach1]

124. I am pretty much a pacifist, but I would not have hesitated a second in this case

[MelSC]

125. The Green Party is crazy

Defending Osama Bin Laden lol. Could they be more out of touch? They are a joke.

[LenaBaby61]

126. Jill Stein

[hughee99]

127. A great example of why Jill Stein is polling at 2%. n/t

[redstateblues]

129. Scary that 2% of the population supports her

[Bucky]

167. Yeah, but not the scariest percentage I've seen this year.

Not by a ugly orange longshot.

[DawgHouse]

134. Nobody cares, Jill.

[marble falls]

135. Absolutely the only thing Jill Stein says I agree with 100%.

[Odin2005]

142. Complete Loony Toons.

[nolabels]

148. She's is so brilliant and wouldn't it be epic?

Okay, she might not be that brilliant. The thing is that it is worse than torture, sitting in a congressional hearing and them expecting you to answer question rendered by the turtle

[Fresh_Start]

151. I believe Jill...she would have been too busy fighting for anti-vaxxers to care about OBL nt

nt

[UMTerp01]

152. This thing...

?

[PeteSelman]

153. And this buffoon thinks she could be President?

Jesus Christ would have assassinated that asshole.

Jill Trump is a joke.

[beaglelover]

157. She obviously has a VERY high opinion of herself.

What a moron she is. She needs to go back into her hole and STFU about the important stuff a POTUS does to keep Americans safe.

[Rocknrule]

168. She sounds like Colossius at the end of Deadpool

giving that "if you kill him, you will be just like him" speech

[Blue_Tires]

172. And that is why she'd be such a shitty POTUS

[GummyBearz]

173. Anyone who does not agree 100% with Obama is a traitor

She needs to shut up, pledge allegiance, and salute for the national anthem or she can leave this great country

[yurbud]

174. if we captured him alive, he would no longer be a larger than life boogey man

[christx30]

175. Instead, he's dead.

So he was fish food 5 years ago. Now the waste product of that fish has dissipated, so he is nothing.