Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate committee Wednesday that the shooting of Osama bin Laden was “justified as an act of national self-defense.”
Well, Ron, it would appear that Holder is not even carrying on the illusion that Bin Laden resisted or that the SEAL's lives were in danger. He speaks of "national self-defense", which means that the orders were to kill Bin Laden, regardless.
Your conclusion does not follow, Mike. It requires a wild leap.
This does not mean that orders may not have been given to kill rather than to capture the man. I have no idea. I have a dislike for the mission itself, which makes the outcome a likely one, doesn't it?
I would be against the mission either way.
It appears that you are only against the mission and the death of Bin Laden because it makes the possibility of the reelection of President Obama more likely rather than because it is morally objectionable. It is morally objectionable in my opinion. It is not, as I understand it, illegal by United States law, even if the President had specifically ordered the seals to go in and shoot the man down where he stood because he felt — as President of the United States — that the man presented a danger to the welfare of the country. That, as I understand the present United States law, is enough to take the shooting out of the realm of murder.
I happen to think of it as murder, personally, but then nobody consulted me about the matter; and my point of view doesn't carry any legal weight. You don't think of it as murder, for that matter, near as I can tell. [Edited - Ron]
Am I missing something here?
I would not have pulled the trigger. I am against this sort of thing. One of the reasons I'm not very good at martial arts, despite my enjoyment of them, is that I'm unwilling to break anybody in any kind of a serious and definitive way. The best I can do is restraining people.
[Edited - Ron]
What am I missing here? I feel like I loose in a world of fun-house mirrors...
I suspect that the rage on the Right here is that President Obama has done something typical of the Republicans and is getting the sort of benefit that Republicans typically get from this sort of move, undeserved adulation and support. The right seems to find this unbearable. They find it so unbearable, in fact, they thety find themselves criticizing actions that they would otherwise applaud
I think the rage is because the President has increased his electoral odds for 2012 more than anything else; and the Right has gone into a completely spastic and disorganized response;.
I should only be so lucky as to hope that the Right would develop an aversion to unnecessary war and violence at the behest of any political party. I may call what happened to Osama Bin Laden murder; and so may much of the rest of the world. I haven't seen Mike specify which law in the United States says it is, though, and that The President hasn't followred legal process in having the man killed.
That was the purpose of Mr. Holder's statement, by the way. It lays the justification for the legal process by a finding might be issued against Osama bin Laden, and I do believe it takes President Obama off the hook for the Charge of Murder. I don't like it, but it is to be expected; and I don't expect that it carries actual moral weight. For the legality, it is enough, I'm afraid.
[This message has been edited by Ron (05-15-2011 10:17 PM).]