[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by WhiteRat

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

Am I naive enough to believe that Osama would have gotten an un-biased trial and that he would have had a fair chance of being found not guilty? No. Am I sick of world leaders talking about justice when they in fact mean a lack of it? Yes.

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

Originally Posted by moi

If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.