Several points I'd like to make: The operation was not an assassination, it was a capture gone bad or dosen't anyone remember the helicopter crash. Maybe ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball knows how to crash a helicopter to cover an assassination and make it look like a capture operation. We have the testamony of seal team 6 and the support team all saying it was a capture operation. Agin ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball disagree. 50+ people who were there plus everyone up the line to the president vs. ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball. Where was chip at the time? What is his phisic record? Was this a war situation or not? bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. Congress no longer declares was, it has passed that athority to the president. Treaties take presidence over U.S. law. We were fighting bin Laden under treaty to the U.N. which the president has the full athority to support in warfare aginst bin Laden and his terrorism endevors. Therefore bin Laden was an armed battlefield combatant and totally valid as a target. Please explain under what circumstances he is entitled to a trial while hostilities are continuing!<br />
And how many lives of US soldiers/sailors should the U.S. be willing to sacrifice to ensure that bin Laden was captured rather than killed. The place was heavily armed and well fortified, deep in a country where our military did not have the presence afforded to bin Laden's forces. Fifteen or maybe twenty lives? if not the failure of the whole mission? Just about everything Obama has done, he has done poorly. Give the man credit for one of the few he got right. Americans accused of terrorism no longer have the right to a trial before execution, why give up American lives to afford that right to foreign terrorists? You're sure asking a lot of the 1% who voluntarily suspend their constitutional rights and put their lives on the line for you other 99%!

Best Answer

I don't recall asking for anything other than opinions. It appears that your country has sacrificed more that military resources. You have lost your right to the presumtion of innocence. How sad that the US is no longer the icon of freedom it used to be. Any idea why no effort was made to capture Bin Laden in the many years that passed between the crime and the construction of his fortress ?

Best Answer

I agree some of what you say. However, isn't it a strange thing to be so well prepared (drones) for something they claim was an arrest plan ? I don't believe their intention was ever to capture him. I respect that you believe otherwise. After all, neither of us has enough info to know, definitively either way.

Best Answer

I don't understand what you are saying! The drones are of no use in a capture plan. Why do you keep using policing terms like "arrest" in a war context? Do you think using law enforcement terms somehow makes this subject to civil jurisdiction? Is that the basis for your desire for a trial? Fighting terrorism with police and courts is sheer folly! A new form of combat (probably similar to terrorism) needs to be developed. P.S. We are losing terribly and don't even know it!

Best Answer

It was an assassination, plain and simple. No different than the use of drones to take out the enemy in this war. The only reason it was done close-up and personal was we wanted to make sure it was him that was killed--otherwise a missile strike would have sufficed.

Best Answer

I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect that you call things what they are. I think this is the best answer.

Best Answer

Compared to your attempts, yes, pretty sure. And you should be damned glad the French listened to me or you'd be speaking German now!

Best Answer

I enjoy your comeback! Sorry the thinking comment was meant for iguanachips. I wish replies would stay where they were put. I was referring to her disagreeing with your opinion, which to me, matched hers perfectly and then saying it was the best answer. Your logic did not make sense, her disagreement when you were saying the same thing did not make sense, and then her saying your answer with these inconsistencies did not make sense! I wonder where EP will put this reply!

Best Answer

iguanachips, You think, are you sure it's thinking?

Best Answer

I can say, Yes, she was thinking. We had quite a long discussion about it last night and she has some very well-reasoned thoughts behind her opinions.

Best Answer

ChipmunkErnie, You know this how? Very weak reasoning! Raids over enemy occupied territory have a very poor record, The drones have an excellent record, Were you a strategist for the French in WWII?

Best Answer
3 More Responses

The fishies were hungry and could not wait.

Best Answer

lol

Best Answer

I feel for the fishies, of course. But no trial.....when did that become acceptable ?

Best Answer

The dude had to die for what he did. A trial would have been a waist of time.

Best Answer

Why is that ? Surely information could have been gained and a worthy precedent set before he got the death he so richly deserved. Why cheapen your own justice system for him ?

Best Answer

It's war. He was an enemy combatant in an ongoing war. Justice for the people who deserve it.

Best Answer

I respect that point, and I might even agree with it if war were declared. Without law and principles, we are no better than animals. I think this degradation of justice works more in favour of terrorism than against it.

Best Answer

True to certain point. But i don't think the justice system desigened for someone that has no rights not even human rights.

Best Answer

It's designed to protect the rights of all. When you dehumanise one person, no matter how evil their actions, you pave the way for the degradation of all human rights. I believe the American people deserve better than this.

Best Answer

Several points I'd like to make: The operation was not an assassination, it was a capture gone bad or doesn’t anyone remember the helicopter crash. Maybe ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball knows how to crash a helicopter to cover an assassination and make it look like a capture operation. We have the testimony of seal team 6 and the support team all saying it was a capture operation. Agin ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball disagree. 50+ people who were there plus everyone up the line to the president vs. ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball. Where was chip at the time? What is his psychic record? Was this a war situation or not? bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. Congress no longer declares was, it has passed that authority to the president. Treaties take residence over U.S. law. We were fighting bin Laden under treaty to the U.N. which the president has the full authority to support in warfare against bin Laden and his terrorism endeavor. Therefore bin Laden was an armed battlefield combatant and totally valid as a target. Please explain under what circumstances he is entitled to a trial while hostilities are continuing! iguanachips lending your credibility to ChipmunkErnie makes me wonder if all your praise is really tong in cheek. because you have put forth no evidence, but readily reject that put forth by me. What game is afoot?

Best Answer

Several points I'd like to make: The operation was not an assassination, it was a capture gone bad or doesn’t anyone remember the helicopter crash. Maybe ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball knows how to crash a helicopter to cover an assassination and make it look like a capture operation. We have the testimony of seal team 6 and the support team all saying it was a capture operation. Again ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball disagree. 50+ people who were there plus everyone up the line to the president vs. ChipmunkErnie and his crystal ball. Where was Chip at the time? What is his psychic record? Was this a war situation or not? bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. Congress no longer declares war, it has passed that authority to the president. Treaties take precedence over U.S. law. We were fighting bin Laden under treaty to the U.N. which the president has the full authority to support in warfare against bin Laden and his terrorism endeavor. Therefore bin Laden was an armed battlefield combatant and totally valid as a target. Please explain under what circumstances he is entitled to a trial while hostilities are continuing! iguanachips lending your credibility to ChipmunkErnie makes me wonder if all your praise is really tongue in cheek. because you have put forth no evidence, but readily reject that put forth by me. What game is afoot?

Best Answer

This is a slightly paranoid response, in relation to my choosing Chipmunk Ernie's answer as the best. I am quite capable of respecting a person's views and the way they present them even if I do not agree with those views. I have no intention of explaning my choices to you whilst you react so emotionally. Calm down and be respectful and I would be happy to discuss anything you'd like, within reason. Peace, Ig xx

Best Answer
8 More Responses

What disgusts me is, the bankers in the 2007 recession. They walked away with huge retirement packages, maybe they should be shot without a trial aswell. Oh sorry there was no investigation by the government for those people. Id like to see them bleed to death too.

Best Answer

Ha ha. Who wouldn't ? But I guess it's a good example. How much better if the bankers were all tried for high treason (as they wrecked your economy) then executed in front of their customers ?

Best Answer

You see this as an OWS issue?

Best Answer

What ?

Best Answer

Related to tori1164's comment, not your's, iguanachips. It's a U.S. cause thing where everything wrong is the bankers' fault. OWS stands for occupy wall street.

Best Answer

Ask the people that lost there jobs, houses, and futures.

Best Answer

I see now, I thought you were talking to me. :o)

Best Answer

I think I agree with you....

Best Answer
4 More Responses

Hmmm. That is an interesting point. Maybe the people in charge evaluated how the Saddam thing went down and said, "Next time we're in this kind of a situation, just kill the b*stard."

Best Answer

I think that's exactly what happened. Its so sad that he not only murdered tens of thousands of people, but now he has weakened your sense of justice as well.

Best Answer

Iraq was a conventional war, only becoming urban counter-insurgency after evolving into an occupation, totally different methodology! Staying after the third month was 1st mistake. Staying after Saddam's execution was the 2nd. Staying until the U.S.election was the 3rd.

Best Answer

If this was really the case, the U.S. would have withdrawn from the U.N. as a matter of honour and law, before defying their ruling not to invade.

Best Answer

You think he was innocent then??

Best Answer

No I don't. This is my point. Due process would have led to his death, and strengthened the authorities ability to deal with terrorists. Assassination comprimises this authority.

Best Answer

No one was assassinated . Terrorists have no qualms about killing you or me, so why should we show anything different to them. They are the ones who seem to want to lay the rules down, you think if the boot had been on a different foot they would put some one on trial before shooting them, I don't.. If you make the bed you must be prepared to lay in it.

Best Answer

There was an assassination, Deb. What was done meets the definition. A legal execution would have killed him just the same, only the US would not have sacrificed it's principles.

Best Answer

Whats weird is noone seen his dead body...

Best Answer

It was done the way it should have been done.

Best Answer

Not a fan of civilised justice, then ?

Best Answer

Related Questions