Poll: If you were told beforehand there was going to be an assassination squad?

[kentuck]

..that was going to fly into Pakistan and take out Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, would you have been for or against?

[Dennis Donovan]

1. For it.

You can liken this to HST's decision to use the A-Bomb. If we had the knowledge of where OBL was and DIDN'T act on it, the repigs would have impeached President Obama. Same goes for HST. He had a weapon that would end the war. Had he NOT used it, he, too would've been impeached.

Of course, none of this speaks to the International Law aspect, just the political aspects.

[DrDan]

7. acting on it and sending a kill squad are two different things

[TheKentuckian]

2. I don't support our government ever having death squads and no I'm not stupid enough

to think that they just exist for this "special purpose" and now we will resume living our values.

[liberal N proud]

3. The only question to ask:

Will it shorten the war, save American lives and bring our troops home?

[HereSince1628]

16. Perhaps.

Unlike a war between nations, our enemy holds no territory we may capture, has no capital city we may take, has no army which will retire upon orders of a surrendering civilian or military leadership. In this war there are only enemies to dispatch.

To that end, a terrorist leader was terminated. This particular death is a monument to the determination of American revenge. If that discourages other terrorists then perhaps lives are saved.

A terrorist leader was terminated and some of his secrets captured. The organization that he led must reorganize and produce some new leader(s). In it's disarray our enem may be vulnerable to further destruction. If so then that organization will be further reduced in its capacity to wage terror--perhaps lives are saved.

Across the last decade we have shown that in the USA's pursuit of what we see as justice our nation will endure greater wounds than those inflicted by terrorists' provocations. Our leaders and our military are supported by our population; so, we must assume that "We" believe the lesson of the punishment (aka vengeance and retribution) that we have pursued provides a promise of very great value.

But, perhaps--despite our doubts, the terrorist community is educable and will receive the message we intend to send. We do not know for sure.

In this world, we must hope that avenging force can yield peace, and yet, we must be prepared for it to be otherwise.

[RoccoR5955]

4. Violence only begets violence n/t.

[BlueJazz]

5. I voted "For" but about 40 percent of my thoughts on this issue says No.

[The2ndWheel]

6. If the US Government can act outside of any international law

or even against its own laws, it doesn't matter if you're for or against anything. Does it matter if you're for or against Gitmo? For or against drone bombings? None of it matters. For or against dumping a body in the ocean in secret? For or against top secret hit squads that operate under no law, from local to international, at all? For or against going into Afghanistan or Iraq? Our opinions didn't matter before, don't matter now, and will not matter in the future. The US Government will act however, whenever, and against whoever it wishes to, and it doesn't matter what anyone, especially those represented by it, thinks about it.

[leveymg]

8. Isn't anyone curious about what he might have told investigators? Don't you have questions for UBL?

Well, there is now zero chance that they will ever be answered. If they could have snatched him for interrogation and trial, they should have. They clearly had that chance, but chose not to take it. A trial would have been . . . inconvenient.

[JoePhilly]

9. As a candidate, Obama said that given the chance he would "take him out".

Let's go to the tape .... and listen closely at around the 22 second mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZDSJN7mVPo

Or let's try this one ... and listen closely at around the 28 second mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA

What ... did we think Obama meant "take him out" .... "to lunch"???

:shrug:

[TBF]

10. Just because Obama says things, doesn't mean we have to like them

and no it does not mean we like Republican ideas better. So simplistic ...

[JoePhilly]

12. He did exactly what he said he'd do.

Folks acting like this is some sort of surprise and that they had no idea this might happen must not have been paying attention.

[TBF]

13. I'm not at all surprised by the Imperialistic behavior, including Obama's.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

[JoePhilly]

14. If you voted FOR Obama, you approved it.

The question in the OP is "If you were told beforehand ... " ... well, we WERE told.

I mean, if the idea of doing this was so terrible, then Obama making such statements during the debates, certainly THAT should have been enough to cause those who now wring their hands with moral indignation to NOT vote for him. They WERE told beforehand.

If this is such a huge moral outrage, then it should have kept folks from voting for him.

If you watch those tapes, McCain goes after Obama for daring to say it.

[DrDan]

15. arguably McCain would have done the same - so by your logic

anyone against death squads should have abstained from voting.

Is that what you are calling for - either agree 100% or don't vote?

[JoePhilly]

18. A couple points.

First, if you watch the clips, McCain complains about Obama's position, he does not say he supports it. But that isn't the key issue.

Second, the OP asks the question "If you were told beforehand ...?" We were told beforehand. To act otherwise is silly.

And so to respond to your 100% question, no, you don't have to agree 100% to vote for a candidate. However, if you want to claim TODAY that Obama's action on this is totally morally reprehensible, then I don't see how one could have voted for him in 2008 given he said he'd do exactly this.

You don't have to agree 100% with a candidate, but if you are going to claim that an action he took is as terrible as some are now claiming, well, those folks should not have voted for him because he said he'd do exactly what he did.

Their moral indignation should have been raised then and it should have sufficient to cause them to not vote for him then.

[DrDan]

28. his 5/1 statement is fully supportive

"totally morally reprehesible" and "moral indignation" are your words. The OP asks for whether it would have been supported.

[JoePhilly]

29. Check the various threads on this, and you will find such statements.

[Shrek]

25. McCain said he wouldn't do it

John McCain certainly wouldn’t have pulled it off. Asked in July 2008 by CNN’s Larry King whether he’d send U.S. troops into Pakistan if they found bin Laden there, McCain responded, “Larry, I’m not going to go there, and here’s why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation.” Of course, U.S. special forces got bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. They wouldn’t have had the chance under McCain.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/159073-obamas-true-grit

[DrDan]

27. he was fully supportive in his 5/1 statement

"I am overjoyed that we finally got the world's top terrorist. The world is a better and more just place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer in it. I hope the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks will sleep easier tonight and every night hence knowing that justice has been done. I commend the President and his team, as well as our men and women in uniform and our intelligence professionals, for this superb achievement."

[tolucano]

30. It has nothing to do with mccain, he was not elected.

If an elephant fell from the sky and killed bin laden the seals would not have had to go. Mccain was not elected, an elephant did not fall on bin laden.

[DrDan]

31. you missed my point (or I am missing yours)

there were two candidates in 2008 - and if both supported kill squads to deal with OBL, then according to the poster, one could not vote for either if one did not support state-sanctioned assassinations. I was simply taking exception to that position. One should still vote even though one might not agree 100% with a candidate's positions.

[tolucano]

32. Englishg is not my first language

but my point is that comparing mccain is not really a point since he did not get elected. One should not point to what did not happen, but to what is happening.

[TBF]

20. I don't approve any of this ridiculous empire building or murders

committed by the US Gov't (of which there are many). I approve of "voting" even less - it is just a dog and pony show to satisfy the status quo.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. It would seem by this poll that most DUers like this

[TBF]

21. Yes and it is shocking in any society when the majority vote for violence.

Still doesn't make it right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. They do when they feel that it is warranted

[TBF]

24. The question is whether the information they've been given is at all rooted

in reality.

[SoCalDem]

11. Here's a dirty little secret

Political assassinations happen all the time.. state sanctioned ones, as well as the rogue nutcase with a gun, dagger, poison-tipped umbrella, etc.

It makes a lot more sense to eliminate a "bad guy" instead of sending troops in a full scale war, and military leaders/government leaders all over know this..

I suspect that often, "others" end up "hired" to do the dirty work or to arrange "accidents" that serve the same purpose.

[blondeatlast]

34. +1. nt

[Scuba]

17. It was called a war. If war you kill the enemy....

...had this been labeled a criminal action and bin Laden pursued by international law enforcement, then I would have expected different rules of engagement - capture, but kill if necessary to protect lives.

BTW, I've been advocating for calling this a criminal act starting 9/12/2001.

[Cid_B]

23. Can we get an option for...

submit DA 4187(administrative request) to request transfer to that team?

[dizbukhapeter]

26. SEALS aren't death squads

We call SEALS death squads and assassins yet on this same forum bitch about republicans not passing a resolution honoring them.

[TornadoTN]

33. +1 Well said. They aren't "death squads" and Bin Laden had it coming

He was the worlds most wanted terrorist, and the President has said repeatedly that if he was presented evidence of his location, he would take him out. That's exactly what they did - they followed the orders of the Commander in Chief and did so with the utmost bravery and competence.

[Scuba]

35. +1