For those with no problem how OBL was killed

[quinnox]

Should this be the standard for how we deal with all the terrorists? For example, since they (the terrorists) are not going by the normal rules of warfare, they don't deserve the standards of trials?

I think it would be a dangerous road to go on myself, but when I see so many saying they are happy with the way things happened and don't see any issues of legality then I wonder if this is the new standard which is accepted for justice for terrorist.

Or was OBL such a notable exception, so it was kind of a one time deal you are ok with it, but that you would not be willing to have this applied as a wide standard when pursuing other terrorists?

[JuniperLea]

1. I think it's kind of late to be asking this question...

This is the road we've been on for decades. The horse has already left the barn. The soul has already been destroyed... it all ended when we dropped bombs on Japan.

[Solomon]

17. Why is it always all or nothing with these people?

Oh, since we killed Bin laden, we have to kill them all the exact same way. I don't get it.

[Fuzz]

20. /shrug

[JuniperLea]

21. Like it's something completely foreign, totally new!

The only thing new is a black man gave the mission the order to proceed. That is the only thing new, period.

[Rage for Order]

57. What other enemy leaders have we killed?

Manuel Noriega? Slobodan Milosevic? Saddam Hussein? Khalid Sheik Mohammad?

It looks like you're right: this is something completely foreign, and totally new.

:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

72. "WE" have attempted to kill OBL several times...

BushCo bombed the hell out of his suspected hideouts, collateral damage and all. BushCo has bombed many terrorist hideouts, and killed a few, and posted their damn pictures. I guess memory fails you.

Don't be obtuse.

[dkf]

2. If Clinton had killed OBL in the "aspirin factory" bombing preventing 9/11 would you be upset?

[quinnox]

3. no, for sure not

so you agree that we should kill all the terrorists and we don't have to try and capture them alive for trials.

[dkf]

7. Do what we need to when protecting us please.

I think there is some argument to be had about abridging our own constitutional rights, but for people aboard who wish us all dead, forget it.

Deliberately hurting someone for sadistic purposes isnt necessary though. A clean kill is good along with minimizing the injury to innocent people.

In terms of leads, we probably got more off OBL's hard drives and papers than we would have gotten off him.

[JuniperLea]

Anyone who kills 3000+ people...

And leaves thousands more the victims of his heinous crime, is a dangerous animal. I trust the Navy SEALS to determine the safety level at the scene of capture. And anyone who questions it must surely have a far higher rank than armchair general.

[RichGirl]

If Clinton had killed OBL it would have been incidental.

Without a reliable crystal ball how would we know that he was preventing 9/11?

[RichGirl]

19. In my fantasy...

I would have captured OBL alive...taken him to NYC, up the elevator to the top of the Empire State Building...and forced him to jump off.

I would have made it look like an accident.

[dkf]

46. You wouldn't, but for all those angered know, Obama just prevented the next 9/11.

And they are upset he did so.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

74. They don't want another 9/11. But they don't approve of what is done to prevent it.

I don't see how that is beyond the pale.

This is exactly why I bring up Clinton.

[JoePhilly]

4. Wait, let me get a hankie and some popcorn.

We took out the most wanted terrorist since the 90s. He killed thousands of Americans and bragged about it.

Let's see ... if you are a terrorist, and you kill a few thousand Americans, and then you hide in a foreign country.

Yes, we should go and get you.

Do we do this for every loud mouthed nut, no. But for some one like OBL, absolutely.

[rbrnmw]

5. +1000

[quinnox]

6. so it sounds lke you are more of a one time deal with OBL

but you might have problems with us killing all terrorists without trying to get them alive.

[dkf]

9. Zawahiri too IMO

[Ikonoklast]

10. Give them the chance to surrender and face the music.

If they refuse, they are then fugitives from international justice (As was OBL, we weren't the only ones wanting him) and will be considered armed and dangerous, and will be treated as such when encountered.

OBL could have turned himself in at any time, told his side of the story in a court of law, but I guess he decided to proceed otherwise.

He then reaped what he had sown.

[JoePhilly]

36. all terrorists are not OBL

So I see him not exactly as an exception, but on the top tier in which, if there is no other path, you go get them.

There are many counties with which we have a diplomatic relation such that we can work with them, and together catch, and extradite a terrorist. And so where we have that ability, that would be the preferred method.

But we don;t have that with all countries. Some won't help, and some like Pakistan have such tenuous governments that they often can't help us capture and extradite OBL like individuals.

So you frame this as "one exception" or "kill them all" ... I see it more as a 90/10 or 80/20 rule, 80% or 90% of the time, its a joint effort, governments working in cooperation, extradition so forth. But for some narrow cases, like this, go get him.

I should mention that our relationship with Pakistan does allow for this. Their government has approved "limited" us force activities in Pakistan. The nature of that "approval" is intentionally ambiguous because they know that they do not control all parts of their country completely. So they give us approval to act in this manner, and then also say "hey, that's too much" in a stern letter.

[quinnox]

50. understood

thanks for explaining further, I was guessing a bit on what your position was.

[Amonester]

40. There are a few terrarists in Gitmo

Although many have been (criminally) tortured (this is another subject and the bush admin. members who authorized it must be held accountable one way or another), the terrarists in Gitmo are still alive (last I heard).

So no, 'we' don't kill ALL the terrorists, but it seems only those who 'lead' the pack...

Maybe once all the 'head plotters' are dead, perhaps the stupid ones who will remain will never be able to 'organize' attacks in any effective way.

[RC]

16. How about if you are a Head of State of a world power and you attack a country

that was no threat to you and kill a million civilians, AFTER removing their leader?
Even though you had a good window to replace that leader, but didn't.

[JoePhilly]

39. Bush's invasion of Iraq was stupid, that where you were going?

[RC]

42. So, you are implying that

other peoples terrorists bad, but ours are good. Or at least not as bad?

[JoePhilly]

52. Where exactly did I say Bush wasn't bad?

If YOU want to go try to kill him, go ahead.

Is that your plan?

OBL intentionally tried to kill American citizens on American soil. I'm glad we killed him.

What you want to do about Bush is up to you.

[MrSlayer]

8. Yes, this is how they should be dealt with.

Kill them where you find them.

[justiceischeap]

11. I have no problem but probably not for the reasons you think

I just don't see how we successfully could have held him over for trial without American's worldwide becoming "hostage-type" targets used in conjunction with demanding his release. You take our top guy? We'll just take your people and kill them until you let our guy go. I don't think we were incapable of holding him somewhere until trial but how do you have a trial for this guy that doesn't then become a target for terrorists? How do you hold this guy without putting Americans in danger? I just don't see how the US could have captured and detained him without causing harm to innocent Americans going about their lives and/or vacations.

That said, the US is at war with Al Qaeda--for all intents and purposes he was the leader of AQ, doesn't that make him an enemy combatant? Do you always capture all enemy combatants?

I'm sure there are more top-secrety things going on behind the scenes that drove the US leadership to this decision. I don't think Obama and others said, "Let's kill the guy for shits and giggles," or "We gotta kill this guy so I can get reelected." I just don't see that with an administration that is under constant scrutiny by so many people who want to see it fail miserably. Then again, maybe I'm just that naive.

[quinnox]

14. you make some good points

There is definitely a case to be made for that.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. Glenn Greenwald has said it best:

Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

[Confusious]

55. If you kill a criminal in a standoff

how does it remain confined to him? If you kill an enemy in war, how do you take a surrender of another of the enemy?

It's a stupid question.

[Zhade]

62. 1) Don't kill if you can capture. 2) Who's to say who is a terrorist? The government?

We certainly have seen ours lie before about that. With countries that are at war, it's rather easier to know if the government is lying.

[Confusious]

77. Military rules

1) Shoot first, ask questions later. (That's why Iraq is a boondoggle. They're not trained as police, nor should they be)

2) If the shoot at us, or they take credit for 9/11 it's pretty obvious. They have taken the steps to make themselves combatants. Under the conventions and rules of war, they can be killed.

Bin laden was a declared combatant. The onerous was on him to surrender, not on the soldiers to figure out what his intentions were. I have no problems with the way he was taken out.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. You're completely and utterly missing Greenwald's point. I suggest

you re-read his piece.

[Confusious]

85. Read the piece

My original statement still stands

"Bin laden was a declared combatant. The onerous was on him to surrender, not on the soldiers to figure out what his intentions were. I have no problems with the way he was taken out."

The only other thing I have to say is, if he had surrendered, he should be afforded a trial for their actions, as all the others in gitmo should be. Ad why would they get a trial if they are military combatants? Attacks on civilians. Illegal under the conventions, if they have no military purpose.

But he didn't. It doesn't matter that he was unarmed. An SS officer sipping tea in a french cafe could be shot simply for being. doesn't matter that he was unarmed.

The onerous was on him to surrender. He didn't. case closed.

Glenn Greenwald views it as a civil action. I view it as military action. The rules of action are different for each case.

[Egnever]

86. No offense but Glen Greenwald is an idiot.

[closeupready]

12. No, OBL was a one-time exception.

nt

[hlthe2b]

13. We are a very long way from that Utopian world you envision...

You can strive for it, but reality does kick in. This is a violent world, a complex world and black versus white rarely exists without one hell of a lot of gray shades. I remember having to make personal peace with our history and the decision of Truman to drop not one, but two nuclear bombs on Japan. That was (and is) a real tough one for me. There is nothing "clean" about that decision in hindsight, but decisions are not made in hindsight. Knowing what I know now about WWII--both the European and Pacific fronts and their associated horrors, I can live with that decision. I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent the use of Nukes from ever occurring again, however. In comparison to the horrific and indiscriminate destruction of civilians, the more "surgical" approach to OBL does seem less so.

Do I believe that OBL is the FIRST case--the first instance-- in which our government has assassinated a dangerous target? No, hardly. All I can really do as an individual is hope and pray these actions are exceedingly selective and rare. Can I justify it? Well, if you are a religious person, certainly not. If you are an idealist, yet pragmatic, then perhaps--especially with OBL. The discomfort we are feeling is that we know about it. It is exceedingly public. I dare say no one gives much thought to identifying who else might have been similarly targeted.

That said, some day, I hope we will not need to even have this "conversation," having found far more effective ways to deal with the problem of terrorism. :shrug:

Lest you think I have compromised all my values in the name of pragmatism, I will say that I have always been firmly opposed to the use of torture techniques at all--on anyone. That is one area in which I WILL draw the line.

[quinnox]

18. yea, that makes sense

I liked your thoughts on the WW 2 nuclear strikes, its not easy to form a concrete point of view and think there is no room for argument on that one, its not an easy question.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Name those others, please.

When has the US had the opportunity to capture, but chose to kill instead?

Assassination has been expressly forbidden as a political tool to Americans. Until now.

[hlthe2b]

61. Prove that we haven't

Equally ridiculous, of course. If you re-read my post, your retort is just damned out of place.

Regardless, it does NOTHING to advance a civil, thoughtful discussion. :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

15. As I see it, there's 4 kinds of political leaders.

1. Leaders
2. Asshole leaders.
3. Asshole leaders who may be guilty of killing innocents. These asshole leaders should have a trial if at all feasible and I would not feel comfortable executing them if they surrendered. If they do not surrender, they should be taken by force but killing should be avoided at all costs.
4. Asshole leaders who SPECIFICALLY carefully plot the execution of innocent civilians, confess, and express the desire to do so again. Yeah, a trial would be nice, but in the absolute rarest of circumstances, I'm not going to lose sleep if they are (yes, I'm going to say it) "executed". If the Navy SEALS are at my door, I don't expect a lot of time for considering my options. Bring 'em alive if they'll come, but don't take any shit if they don't.

[quinnox]

25. that all seems reasonable to me n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

22. The method used must be based upon the situation...

Say we did it the legal way.
(1) Officially inform the Pakistan government that we believe a suspected mass murderer is staying at a house across the street form their version of West Point, in a neighborhood full of retired generals, and would they be so kind as to allow us to send in a U.S. Marshal and serve the man with an arrest warrant.

(2) We wait while that government decides whether they wish to honor our warrant of arrest, during which they look at the proof of his crimes, the information placing him at the house,and discuss it with their generals and the ISI, talk to lawyers and their version of the Supreme Court to see if they can extradite the man, or perhaps hold on to him and try him in Pakistan for possible crimes, if any, he has committed.

Keep in mind, there is considerable concern that someone in the government knew that the alleged perpetrator was there.

(3) Assuming, they approve the warrant, agree to grant extradition, and don't simply inform the alleged perpetrator that the Fuzz is coming to arrest his ass, they then send in a U.S. Marshal with a band singing, "Bad Boys, Bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you."

I don't think we should do this with every terrorist. But when the situation requires it, then yes we use this method.

[DevonRex]

23. He chose the manner of his death in choosing the manner of his life. Nt

[JuniperLea]

26. Well effing said!

:applause:

When someone begs for something, others should STFU when they get it.

[DevonRex]

29. Thank you. Your version is pretty damned good, too!

I'll remember that. :hi:

[Uben]

24. Assassination is cheaper and better

By sending elite troops in to do surgical strikes, you get less collateral damage, ie fewer civilian deaths. It's much cheaper than dropping million dollar smart bombs and then paying for the damage they do. So, altogether, I think is much wiser to use these tactics than sending in battallions of troops to be in harms way. I don't have a problem with assassination, it's been done forever. If you don't wanna die from assassination, you better hide real good or kill yourself if the U.S. military wants you. It's just a fact of life.

[alc]

27. I think this is preferable to they way we kill them with bombs

We verified he is the target and attempted to only kill him. With bombs, we are less certain it's really the target and less certain that the kill will work and have a good chance of killing many extra people even if it's not the right target or he escapes.

I'd like to stop both methods, but this should be the standard if we are trying to kill them.

[quinnox]

33. yes, I think that is hard to argue with

if we are going to take them out up close and personal with elite forces is the better course to go rather than dropping some giant bomb on a house or structure that could kill innocent people.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

30. I'm confused... terrorists have been killed in bombing and other attacks

... where they may have been armed or not.

We drone Pakistan and take out terrorists and civilians.

OBL is just ONE terrorist and has been 'taken out' no less or no more than any other terrorist..

.. and yes, we DO capture terrorists...

but WHY SUDDENLY with OBL.. THERE MUST BE A STRICT RULE?

Where is the outrage at the 'murdering' of other terrorist and civilians?

I'm not really getting the moral outrage here.
It seems to be stinking of double standards.

[JuniperLea]

32. Pst... Because a BLACK MAN gave the order...

To go forward with the mission.

That's the only difference.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Right to the refuge, I see. I don't have a problem unless bin Laden was captured and whacked.

Then I don't give two shits what race, gender, or creed the person who ordered the action is, they are in the wrong and a war criminal that scoffs at our values. Killed in a fire fight, the source of direct and present danger to our troops, or whatever is an acceptable kill but if we have a capture and kill then that can't be defined as civilized, much less acceptable.

[treestar]

37. Exactly, I was asking the same about all the #2s that were taken out

2nd in command in Al Qaeda. On DU one would find skepticism and joke about the recurrence of #2 or suspect the same guy was getting killed again. But nothing about how unfair it was to kill him!

And #3 on down certainly did not get trials.

And suicide attacks were their method. When people are willing to do that to attack you, they have a tremendous advantage - it's not like Mohammad Atta is around to try him for what he did. This is a group that doesn't even want a trial or to explain themselves, they just want to cause damage and are willing to kill themselves to do it. How does one reason with that?

[Zhade]

58. They don't want to explain themselves? Where have you been the last decade?

Did you forget about the tapes? You know, the ones purported to be from them, the tapes being used to argue he confessed and thus extrajudicial assassnation (if that's what happened) is okay? People can't have it both ways.

[treestar]

80. I get this feeling you are actually sympathizing with them

Do you expect every soldier on the front to get a judicial ruling before shooting?

Pakistan. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. A war.

They explained themselves quite well on 911.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. By putting OBL on trial, we would be putting his entire movement on trial.

This leaves us with nothing but a corpse.

We could have had a judge bring the gavel down with a declaration of 'Guilty' - and THEN OBL would be nothing more than a convicted criminal, not a religious martyr.

This was stupidly short-sighted.

[foreigncorrespondent]

31. I agree with you...

..and further, I can't help but think how much their words would be different had this happened on Bush's* watch!

[pintobean]

34. I wish we we could have given him a choice

Burn alive or jump from a height of 1000 feet.

[pipi_k]

43. Oh, good one!!!

I wonder how much stark terror he had to endure before he was offed.

Probably not as much as his victims hanging onto window ledges at 1000 feet.

[Zhade]

63. I find the revealing honesty in your post, that this was about revenge and not justice, refreshing.

At least you're being open about it.

[pintobean]

65. It could be both

but why wouldn't I be open and honest about it?

[Zhade]

66. I'm sincere. I detest your sentiment, but I do applaud the forthrightness.

I see too many here lying to themselves that they only wanted justice when their desire for revenge is readily apparent.

[pintobean]

69. What qualifies you to pass judgment on them?

I would think that they know their own thoughts better than you. I'll take them at their word. For some reason, I'm thinking of my born again christian in-laws.

[Zhade]

76. I did state that this is the way I see them, based on their words.

I have no more or less authority than anyone else to make judgements about the things I witness. I did not remark on their character, just on their actions. To me, declaring how dedicated one is to justice while indulging in revenge fantasies tells me that person is expressing their anger and hate -- understandable and honest feelings that deserve acknowledgement -- without thinking. That makes me very nervous.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

81. Indeed. And I would like to have documentary video.

I know, I'm horrible.

[frebrd]

35. "Standards" are a thing of the past in this country......

I believe they're now considered (what's the word?) "quaint".

Political convenience is what matters now.

[Common Sense Party]

38. I believe this IS the way we should be fighting terrorists.

Large scale military occupation is the WRONG method. The last 10 years have shown this.

Spend more on human and electronic intel-gathering and analysis, get the buggers in our sights, and take them out. If all they care about is murdering innocent civilians, they don't deserve to breathe the same air as us.

[cpwm17]

49. Without the inconvenience of an actual trail

because we trust that our government will always get it right.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. God the binary simplicity of your thinking is so starkly aggressive

that I will pass, thanks.

[quinnox]

51. too bad

I would have liked to hear your thoughts, but its your call.

[Richardo]

44. What a moral quandry.

Oh the horror. So conflicted. I shant sleep for days. Weeks, maybe.

[hulka38]

53. At least we all seem to be coming around

to the reality that the SEALS were ordered to execute OBL. Discussions are much better when they're grounded in the same foundation of truth.

[BzaDem]

54. In any war, declared combatants have to prove their intent to surrender (not the other way around).

If a combatant goes out of their way to show an intent to surrender (hands up, white flag, etc), they should be taken alive (in the absence of extenuating circumstances such as the presence of a suicide vest, etc). But the burden is on the declared combatant to surrender, not on the soldier to look for an imminent threat or even an arm. In this respect, the law of war is precisely the opposite of the law of peacetime.

So to that extent, that is how we deal with declared combatants, and is always how any country has dealt with with them (for decades if not centuries). If they want to surrender, then they can surrender. If they don't affirmatively surrender, that isn't our problem.

[Zhade]

64. Soldiers storm a house in Iraq. No combatants. But the soldiers think they are.

Their English is bad since they're terrified, what with the rifles in their faces. So, confusion, no white flag or declarations. They're killed.

Is the family at fault?

When being labelled a terrorist earns you a death sentence, who namechecks to ensure innocent people -- or political opponents, in the case of a republican president -- aren't targeted?

[BzaDem]

88. If a soldier shot and killed a civilian intentionally, and that civilian was not presenting a threat

and the civilian was known to be a civilian (where by civilian I mean non-combatant), that would be a violation of the Geneva conventions (and US military law, etc). So your hypothetical about "political opponents" would be a clear cut violation.

While the scenario you mention (lots of uncertainty about who is a civilian) can obviously lead to tragic outcomes, this is no less true than in any war ever fought by any country. So while I'm not trying to diminish the significance of your question, I'm just pointing out that your question is no less valid in any conventional war. The difference in a conventional war would be that the uniform assists greatly in civilian/non-civilian determinations, but this is not always the case (the other side could violate the laws of war, etc).

The point is that Bin Laden is a self-declared combatant. He doesn't just admit that he is fighting a war against the US -- he proudly admitted it multiple times.

In a case where it is less clear-cut, obviously the decision of the military is much harder. But ultimately it is (in many cases) still the decision of the military. They are strongly disincentived from making wrong determinations about whether or not someone is a combatant, since irrespective of the Geneva conventions, the host country could retaliate for a violation of their sovereignty (especially if they actually weren't harboring a terrorist, because the target was not a terrorist). And as far as within the US is concerned, obviously none of this applies here, due to the protections of the US Constitution afforded to anyone in the US. Outside of the US though, the military makes the decisions, and the consequences of incorrect decisions are military consequences (such as retaliation). This is simply due to the fact that the unelected judicial branch does not have the expertise to oversee wars (whereas the elected executive does).

Note that this has nothing to do with the radical views of executive power that Bush has promulgated (primarily relating to what the government has the right to do once it makes the decision to capture). Everything I am saying here was certainly true during Clinton's presidency, and every presidency before that.

[seabeyond]

56. they bombed a car withknown two terrorists in it. it was not about stopping and arresting

they had info, and bomb them.

how is that any different

[Zhade]

73. That was also wrong. Some of us said so at the time.

There is a consistency to my disapproval over the years, at least.

[RegieRocker]

60. You have to be kidding. Didn't we have a prison full of them?

I don't remember this being a issue until obl. Do you get it? One death of a person who killed thousands of innocent Americans.

[Courtesy Flush]

67. The prisoners who escaped via the tunnel

showed us how easily a captive can slip away. We take that chance sometimes, but not with target #1.

War has its own rules, and its own morality.

[Zynx]

68. Capturing a target alive in the middle of a very hostile area raises the risks to your soldiers.

This was a very dangerous mission where there were a lot of unknowns and attempting to capture bin Laden alive would have significantly added to the complexity of the mission. We would have had to restrain our fields of fire and engaged very cautiously in order to ensure his safety. This would have put the lives of our soldiers at risk. If we had lost so much as a single soldier due to this caution, it would not have been worth it.

[Obamanaut]

70. I can give you my opinion with one of your questions by changing

a punctuation mark.

Your question was "For example, since they (the terrorists) are not going by the normal rules of warfare, they don't deserve the standards of trials?"

My answer is "For example, since they (the terrorists) are not going by the normal rules of warfare, they don't deserve the standards of trials."

Yup, that sums it up for me.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. Because the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that he or she who

does not go by the normal rules of warfare does not deserve the standards of trials . . . NOT! The U.S. Constitution does not make exceptions on enumerated rights, like the right to trial by a jury of one's peers.

But whatever you have to tell yourself to whitewash your embrace of extra-judicial executions is fine by me.

[Obamanaut]

87. Well, how about "You buys your ticket, you takes the ride." nt

[Honeycombe8]

71. OBL was different, ipso facto. He was like Public Enemy #1 on FBI list.

He was the head of an organization that killed thousands of innocent Americans, and he admitted directing that, and further admitted directing other executions of Americans and others, and further admitted that he would continue to do so.

So he was not like the rank and file gangsta....he was the head mobster, the public enemy #1, the Hitler, the Dillinger.

He had expressed that he would never be captured alive. He was a very dangerous person. I am totally okay with a "take him out" order, so that no more Americans would get hurt or killed by him, including the ones ordered to get him.

Besides, we don't know for sure yet if it was a kill order. But I'm okay with it, if it were. I suspect it was a "capture him if he throws his arms up and surrenders, but otherwise, kill him" order. OBL would NEVER surrender.

[Kahuna]

75. We would have invited more trouble for ourselves if obl was taken alive...

I heard a caller on a talk show make the point that if obl had been taken into captivity, Americans all around the world would be targeted as hostages in exchange for obl. Aside from that very good point, I have no problem whatsoever with the way he died. The seals did a good job of disposing of that rat.

[NotThisTime]

79. If OBL did not have an AK47 next to or under his bed he would be the only one in Pakistan without

one, given that fact, if he made one move in the wrong direction it was the duty of our Seals to assume he was going for his weapon. Would it take a dead Seal to find out? No I have no problem with what transpired with him. This is a case by case basis, nothing will convince me otherwise.

[eqfan592]

82. You hit the nail on the head, NT

[bvar22]

89. Good Question.

Personally, I don't believe that we should let The Worst of the Worst set the bar for our behavior.

This country was organized around a set of principles that have been set down on paper (The Constitution).
Discarding these principles in response to a handful of criminals is not an option I can support.