Kes Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Vipa, in your last post you suggest that 'history is written by the victor' - I agree but that does mean that the LAW, of humanity, the international type or even domestic law has nothing to do with it. I know its easy to sit at home, bang a few keys and set the world to rights, we all used to do it in the pub before computers. I reckon everyone is still entitled to their opinion but in this particular case, I think you may be in a minority (with Elby). Cheers Kes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Vipa, in your last post you suggest that 'history is written by the victor' - I agree but that does mean that the LAW, of humanity, the international type or even domestic law has nothing to do with it. I know its easy to sit at home, bang a few keys and set the world to rights, we all used to do it in the pub before computers. I reckon everyone is still entitled to their opinion but in this particular case, I think you may be in a minority (with Elby). Cheers Kes Don't really care where I sit mate.... everyone should be entitled to the same 'due process.' To do otherwise and to pick and choose who is eligible to it and who os not just leads to corruption on a grand scale. If you can do it for one person then it's easy to do it for anyone you either find the law difficult to apply to or to whome you can't be bothered applying it to. It's only one small step further to decide who gets due process based on the colour of their skin or their sexual or religious persuasion or even whether you like the look of them or not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I get your point but this guy was, I suggest, a little bit exceptional. I know that ideally there should be no exceptions but every rule can be broken, no rules or laws cover every situation or circumstance perfectly. I like the phrase, "rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men". In this particular case, I believe those who try and observe the rules, always suffer at the hands of those who are without concience. To overcome them you have to sacrifice a lot. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 What no rule is "an eye for an eye"? It pre-dates Mosaic law as it comes from first dynasty Babylonian law. The code of Hammurabi circa 18thC BC and was adapted by Moses as at that time retribution for even the smallest slight was massively overblown and they wanted to keep things real, so they set up these laws as opposed to the commandments. The major difference was that slaves were not, to a greater extent, covered by hammurabi. There is no evidence to suggest life was taken for a life never mind an eye for an eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I get your point but this guy was, I suggest, a little bit exceptional. I know that ideally there should be no exceptions but every rule can be broken, no rules or laws cover every situation or circumstance perfectly. I like the phrase, "rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men". In this particular case, I believe those who try and observe the rules, always suffer at the hands of those who are without concience. To overcome them you have to sacrifice a lot. Cheers No... he wasn't exceptional, he was a human being like you or I and at the end of the day would have probably died by lethal injection... BUT... he was still a human being and therefor was entitled to fair trial and due process NOT summary execution. He was as exceptional as the next person we decide to execute without trial. When it comes to the law and the taking of a human life there can be no 'ideally' about it... the law is the law and it is there to protect EVERYONE within a very rigid framework... as soon as that framework becomes flexible, even to a small degree, we are, as a civilisation, corrupt... corruption is insidious and soon we all become corrupt. It doesn't matter if they don't play by our rules... We keep spouting on about the fact that we are better than them and more civilised than them. We criticise them for 'murdering' our own and then celebrating in the streets afterwards and we stand on our pedestal and tell ourselves that they are therefore stuck in the dark ages.... Hang on... I've just described what we did! you say they act without concience... you know this how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houseplant Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I doubt anyone isn't pleased to see the back of him. With regard to the manner of his demise, if it resulted from a snap decision in the heat of the moment, then fair enough. If it was a cold blooded execution, then I suppose it comes down to whether you think extra-judicial killings are acceptable under any circumstances. Personally, I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm sure if the Nazis had won the war, plenty of allied commanders would have been tried for war crimes against germany and 'human rights' violations under their interpretation... Bomber Harris would have been strung up from a lamp-post for sure for Darmstadt, Dresden etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 In this particular case, I believe those who try and observe the rules, always suffer at the hands of those who are without concience. To overcome them you have to sacrifice a lot. Cheers What makes us/the USA "better" than them? What is the basis of America's moral authority? If they set out to murder him, that was wrong IMHO. Capturing/trying OBL was going to be difficult for the USA. On the ground there was a real risk of him wearing a suicide vest (or so we're told), although it now sounds like only one person in the compound was armed... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8496121/Only-one-gunman-in-Bin-Laden-compound-US-officials-admit.html There was also the risk of him becoming a focal point for more jehadists. If they wanted him gone they should have quietly lifted him and made him dissappear. Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Bomber Harris would have been strung up from a lamp-post for sure for Darmstadt, Dresden etc.. ......if they could have found a lamp post that was still standing perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horrocks Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 What an idiot - words escape me. Like Elby says - if this is deemed as "justice", why can't we bring back the gallows for sex offenders, etc.? What an Idiot?! Dr Rowan Williams is a quite frighteningly intelligent and obviously incredibly principled man (as you would hope). Although not a practicing christian (although certainly a member of the CofE 'tribe') I have huge respect for the Archbishop, and he's certainly voicing a slight worry that I had whilst watching Americans mad with joy at the death of this creature. I think Bin Laden deserved to die, undoubtably he did. It also arguably makes more sense to despose of him rather than take him into custody due to the increased threat he would be from inside a cell, with a potential reign of terror to sue for his release. However, due process and trial clearly wasn't done, evidenced by the BBC's referring to Bin Laden as the man 'suspected' of the 9/11 attacks. From a principled perspective, one that might argue the (albeit impractical) fact that one of the things that distances us from terrorists is our sense of lawful justice and due process, that these things will be applied to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Today's Times leader, under the heading, "Justce Served": "As a man of the cloth, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, might be expected to say that “the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling”. Most men and women of the world, however, would beg to differ with the Archbishop. The killing of Osama bin Laden, in either conception or execution, does not leave this newspaper feeling uncomfortable. On the contrary, we believe that it was a legitimate act of self-defence, efficiently and courageously carried out. A state’s first duty is to protect its citizens. Bin Laden constituted a grave threat to American — and indeed most of the planet’s — citizens. In financing and planning lethal attacks on innocent civilians over many years, bin Laden had fulfilled his own directive to kill Americans many times over. He was an extremely dangerous man, dedicated to wreaking destruction on men, women and children for no better reason than that they did not share his extraordinary world-view. Unlike Dr Williams, bin Laden, in his wholly unholy war, would not permit anyone to play the part of a non-combatant. Having located bin Laden, what alternatives presented themselves to the US Government? Its quarry was not within its jurisdiction, and he would not ever realistically be in it again. Should the US then have turned the other cheek to its mortal enemy? That would have been not only to neglect its own security, but also to forgo the opportunity to bring a mass murderer to account. If the Archbishop shies away from the concepts of revenge or retribution, how about the concept of punishment? Does he believe in that? Perhaps the US should have merely have kept bin Laden under surveillance. No doubt that course of action, with its potential intelligence yield, was carefully considered, and yet it was, correctly, outweighed by fear of the prey slipping away once more. Having decided to act swiftly, President Obama ruled out an airstrike. Had he envisaged straightforward assassination, the President would surely have called up a cruise missile. Such an option, involving no risk to American life, must have been attractive. That Mr Obama instead gambled on a raid is to his credit. We do not yet, and may never, know the precise details of bin Laden’s death in his Abbottabad compound. Nor do we yet know the precise orders that President Obama gave to his military before its mission into Pakistan. But the evidence available thus far suggests that those orders took the form of “capture if possible, kill if necessary”. The special forces on the ground judged bin Laden a danger, and so shot to kill. They had no option; shooting to wound is a Hollywood invention. Whether bin Laden was unarmed or blasting away with his Kalashnikov makes no difference other than to the power of his own posthumous myth. This was not a British bobby asking the local rogue to accompany him to the station. Bin Laden may quite justifiably be thought to have posed a threat — through a grenade, a suicide vest or an instruction to an accomplice — even without a rifle visible in his hand. The relative lightness of the firepower that the US Navy Seals employed and the low casualty rate among non-combatants present suggests the special forces acted with restraint rather than the trigger-happy abandon that anti-US propagandists like to assume. In an ideal world, even the worst would receive due process and the Archbishop of Canterbury would never have to feel uncomfortable. But ours is not an ideal world. It is, however, a much better world for Osama bin Laden no longer being in it. Dr Williams says that “it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done”. On the contrary, justice is precisely what has been seen to be done: rough justice, granted, but rough justice is better than no justice at all." A fairly balanced answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 A fairly balanced answer... I think you must have made a typo Surely you meant 'A fairly biased answer...' Your understanding of the word balanced is questionable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm wondering how many more times the US government are going to change their story though! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9631427 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 They had no option; shooting to wound is a Hollywood invention. Curious that they shot his wife in the leg though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) A fairly balanced answer... Remarkably balanced. Edited as I just realised you didn't write it. Edited May 6, 2011 by AVB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) I'm wondering how many more times the US government are going to change their story though! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9631427 why does it matter? you reckon that they did not kill him, but then think how they killed him was wrong? and that we should be above actions like this we are not. The yanks will say what they want when they want, the press will print what they want when they want ( truth and factuality play little part in the average journalists script)lets just draw a line in the sand be glad he is supposedly or factually dead,and start seeking out the next lowlife who needs taking out, and quietly give a little clenched fist YES each time they do, then perhaps just perhaps I wont worry that one day my grandkids will be involved in a barbourous conflict simply to maintain a westernised civilisation,and schools for girls. KW Edited May 6, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Curious that they shot his wife in the leg though thats easy to explain they missed the vitals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Remarkably balanced. Edited as I just realised you didn't write it. Sorry, I assumed a heading of, "Today's Times leader..." would make the source of the article clear to somebody of even the meanest intelligence. I stand corrected and thank you for being that somebody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Sorry, I assumed a heading of, "Today's Times leader..." would make the source of the article clear to somebody of even the meanest intelligence. I stand corrected and thank you for being that somebody. cruel :lol: KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Indeed it was NORAID, wonder how they are doing now? :unsure: They still top up the coffers of the dissidents under the name Irish Northern Aid. Fortunately the tramps spend most of the money on whores and drugs for their 15 year old 'volunteers'. Edited May 6, 2011 by dazza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaybeNextTime Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 In an ideal world, even the worst would receive due process and the Archbishop of Canterbury would never have to feel uncomfortable. But ours is not an ideal world. It is, however, a much better world for Osama bin Laden no longer being in it. Well that's okay. The Times has a list of people who are allowed to live and those who are allowed to be shot out of hand. I wonder who else is on the list? Law is only law if it always applies to everyone. Otherwise we're just back to absolute monarchs and **** that for a game of soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Sorry, I assumed a heading of, "Today's Times leader..." would make the source of the article clear to somebody of even the meanest intelligence. I stand corrected and thank you for being that somebody. Ah so cruel but true. Must stop speed reading things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm sure we all have better things to do now - stick (to) your opinions I'm off to read the Times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Even though we speak the same language there are some subtle differences between America-English and proper English, they say sidewalk, we say pavement, they say pants, we say trousers, They say buried at sea, we say naked and chained to a metal framed bed with electrodes on ya ******** and beaten for answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I had no time whatsoever for bin Laden. The world is a better place without him. I think the Archbishop would have been better just keeping his mouth shut. The bit I have a problem with :- Idiots, in this country, can spout about killing British soldiers. We do nothing. That said, we go into another country and execute a man, without trial. Why is it right to do it abroad, but not here? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.