[Bodah]

With that arguement Gunnair. If he was brought back alive the arguement would of been instead the US had no right going into a foreign sovereign nation in the first place abducting a person.

I would say we do lower ourselves a little to their level when we kill an unarmed man. But I consider this monsters actions with horrors of 911. They are no where near that level yet.

Once I've put that into context like that it doesn't bother me in the slightest that this monster was unarmed when he was killed.

[Gunnair]

Bodah Bodah:

With that arguement Gunnair. If he was brought back alive the arguement would of been instead the US had no right going into a foreign sovereign nation in the first place abducting a person.

I would say we do lower ourselves a little to their level when we kill an unarmed man. But I consider this monsters actions with horrors of 911. They are no where near that level yet.

Once I've put that into context like that it doesn't bother me in the slightest that this monster was unarmed when he was killed.

I get that there is no easy answer, but frankly, I have less issue with them going into Pakistan to get him than I have with him being executed and not being brought back to justice. I would have been very happy for him to rot in a cell for as long as possible.

Hell, throw him into general population for all I care.

[ShepherdsDog]

the lesser evil for the greater good.

[martin14]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I get that there is no easy answer, but frankly, I have less issue with them going into Pakistan to get him than I have with him being executed and not being brought back to justice. I would have been very happy for him to rot in a cell for as long as possible.

Me as well, with bacon and pork chops as the daily menu.

But I think it would not be practically possible.

[ShepherdsDog]

Actually a Muslim told me that it's completely acceptable to eat pork if that is all there is to eat. Starving yourself to death is a bigger sin(a form of suicide) than eating pork. There plenty of lip service Muslims like there are non kosher Jews who eat pork...usually bacon. Besides. it's worth going to hell over.

[raydan]

He's been cooped up in there for years with all his wives.
When he saw the Seals, he ran towards them screaming, "Please, shoot me".

or

They found Viagra in Bin Laden's pharmacy.
Which explains why the Seals thought he was armed when they saw him.

[ShepherdsDog]

multiple wives means multiple sets of in laws...no wonder he was such a twisted bastard.

[Zipperfish]

[PostFactum]

I knew one muslim that was eating pork during Ramadan, he was saying that Allah is in his country and pork is here.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

The point being made by some, and not all of them liberal leftards like you constantly imply, is that the US bypassing international law undermines their ability to call anyone else on. Full stop. If they don't care, then they don't have a say on anyone else breaking the laws.

I agree with you that if Obama is going to so obviously break international law then he's got no business citing it when he's dropping bombs on Libya.

Now I'll also say that the USA ignoring the UN and etc. in matters of international behavior also speaks to the utter lack of credibility those institutions have with us anymore. I mean when we have Syria and Cuba in charge of human rights and Iran in charge of women's rights then as an American I really don't give a flying f*ck about the opinions of the UN...even if they're sometimes right.

[EyeBrock]

The Yanks will be pilloried by external public opinion no matter what they do.

As Bart says, who can blame the Yanks for ignoring international law when it only seems to apply to them and Israel?

And really, is there anybody that any of us could trust in the government or the military in Pakistan?

Remember, Bin Laden had been there 7 years, living next door to a military training school and base. No wonder the Yanks just went in and took him out without knocking first.

[DanSC]

If one reads UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the mission did have some international legal basis.

$1:

Calling on States to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism,

Pakistan can cooperate by letting said mission happen.

$1:

Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,

Pakistan's harboring of Osama bin Laden kept al Quaida functioning with some central control, assisting attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, London, Madrid, etc.

$1:

Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

Passive is the key word here when considering Pakistan.

$1:

Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;

Pakistan is guilty guilty guilty guilty guilty.

[Regina]

Getting back to the original question..............SO?