Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
No need for a trial. Just a waste of more money and time for something that will inevitably result in his death sentence. Go for the kill and get it over with.
You are saying that our morals and standards are on par with Osama Bin Laden, which I disagree with. He organized a massive terror attack that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I'm not willing to put the US's morals on that level because we killed our biggest terror threat and the man who organized the killing of thousands.
You may value every human life as precious and equal, but I don't. Luckily the government doesn't either and we were able to assassinate OBL.
|
A government that willingly dispenses with the whole notion of a justice system (lawyers, courts, due process) is one to be feared, not applauded.
The justice system is there to protect all of us, Dirty. When any government creates situations in which to ignore due process, then we should not overlook that violation, in my opinion. I understand it can be emotionally difficult to want to give someone a fair trial when you have reason to hate and fear that person...but I believe all accused people deserve a fair trial, whether or not they are U.S. citizens.
I don't fault the U.S. for wishing to hold Bin Laden accountable for his role in terrorist actions. But I *do* fault the U.S. for killing him without trying to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3
I don't think we ought to fear becoming barbarians, and I do think we should question who really is innocent. I assume in the later case you meant the woman who was killed. Why, exactly, is she innocent? Was she unaware that Bin Laden had killed thousands? And whos to say that barbarism is subpar in some capacity. The implication there is that we're an uncivilized mongrel nation.
|
Why, exactly, was the woman who was killed in the crossfire innocent, Big3?
Because people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even being proven guilty in a court of law doesn't ensure a person is *truly* guilty of some crime...but it is better than killing her first and asking questions later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3
Killing might be wrong. It goes against our human instincts. But it is primal to believe that, if this individual remains alive, some of us may not. All too often we see Murder as a crime, therefore all murder is a crime. But the root-reason murder is a crime is because its often considered a punishment too severe for anyone action. As a civilized society, we have created pathways for resolution, we've built a code of interaction. When this is compromised by indiscriminate murder, its in our interests to eliminate this aberration.
And thats the point. There are countless ways to address a grievance in the West, and even when conducting business with the West. It may be laborious and slow-moving, but there are ways. Death prohibits all of these things. And because of this, we view death not only as the elimination of a life, but as a direct attack on things like democracy, separation of powers, the judicial system. We see it this way because we've agreed as a society that there are plenty of ways life can be unjust. As such we've created a process for resolution. And I happen to believe its a damn good system.
But death is finite and shouldn't be so easily forgiven. Should the US have killed Bin Laden? That depends on how you look at it. But I think the Obama Administration had every interest in keeping him alive first, and killing him second, and I do think he's an individual who values fair play in these matters more than he's given credit for.
We're free to disagree. But I would like to think that if my prerogative, upon our disagreement, was to kill you over that disagreement, they would visit upon me the same fate. It is certainly, in both instances, illogical. But it does return a balance of logic to a system created to sustain civility.
|
I agree with what you say in bold.
Did the U.S. value fair play, however, in its handling of Osama? Should fair play involve a court system even when a person is accused of a heinous crime and may continue to use his life to kill others while he is free?
In my opinion, fair play should involve a court system process and a fair trial, and the U.S. did *not* value fair play while attacking and killing Osama bin Laden.
If you were to kill me over our disagreement, Big3, I would *still* want you to live and get a fair trial and be found guilty, if you were. Killing you without a trial would not create more balance but just add to incivility. Killing you *after* the trial would also add to incivility. My hope would be that you would spend a long, long life in prison where you might eventually realize what a wonderful person you had snuffed out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paloma
...it kind of irritates me this "Oh gawd that woman with Osama, what kind of person must she have been to be with him gawd!!!"
|
Agreed, Paloma.