Does the assassination of Bin Laden set a dangerous precedent?

Micahweeks · May 4, 2011, 09:33 PM

This got me thinking hard. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former federal judge and self-proclaimed Libertarian, brought up several potential implications of the operation in Pakistan, not the least of which is that our president can now unilaterally decide to engage in military actions in other countries to execute someone he thinks is worthy of such action by public opinion.

I was elated to hear that this coward was found and killed. Still am. But, I now have to consider a line of reasoning I had previously thought to be pretty far-fetched. Gun owners sometimes throw the argument out there that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. This is summarily dismissed by the masses and politicians since the government has never been "out to get us" and because laws, treaties, and the Constitution prohibit such an act. But, I wonder if the Bin Laden situation now provides some validity to that concern. After all, the president did break laws, violate treaties, and ignore a Constitutional restriction for the purpose of killing someone he thought the people would like to see dead.

George Washington called guns the people's "teeth." It is our insurance of liberty and our protection against tyranny. But, only now do I ever find myself wondering if the reason liberal politicians want to disarm America is so they can carry out these types of actions without fear of reprisal. After all, Obama is a lawyer that knows full well the violations he just engaged in and is aware of the unconstitutionality of his anti-gun legislation in his home state. It didn't stop him from ordering a politically popular execution.

Can this government ordered execution be a precedent that justifies the fears of many gun owners? That one day our government may give itself over to the tyrannical practice of taking life for political gain? Is Judge Napolitano right when he asks who is next?

The Judge and his comments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZWcF...e_gdata_player

Jimmy10mm · May 4, 2011, 09:37 PM

AFIC OBL was a combatant. He was an enemy who had engineered mass murder and there was no "assassination." The Seal team sent a message EKIA and that is what it was. Enemy killed in action. God bless our troops and our president.

vranasaurus · May 4, 2011, 09:41 PM

It's a very big leap from unilaterally killing a declared enemy of the United States to instituting summary executions of United States citizens.

kraigwy · May 4, 2011, 09:44 PM

To call the killing of OBL an assassination is an insult to our troops.

It was on the field of battle, we sent troops to capture or kill the leader of Al Quida.........they accomplised their mission.

This is no differance then targeting officers or crew serve weapon operators by snipers. Its not assassination, its combat.

I stayed out of this OBL talk except to say "I can't wait for the book to come out" but I'll not remain quiet while someone calls our soldiers, sailors, marines ASSASSINS.

Micahweeks · May 4, 2011, 09:48 PM

It isn't about whether UBL was a combatant. It's about whether or not it is dangerous precedent that the president unilaterally decided to break laws, American and International, and violate the Constitution for the purpose of popular killing and whether that represents the type of action that the Framers put the 2nd Amendment in to prevent.

Micahweeks · May 4, 2011, 09:52 PM

And Kraig, chill out. I've not called anyone an assassin, although I can't say the term would offend me. I glad the outcome is what it is, and your misplaced patriotism stands to make an adversary out of someone who is just as happy to see him dead and just as proud of our troops as you are.

Eghad · May 4, 2011, 09:57 PM

When Bin Laden supported and assisted in the attack on 9/11 he made himself at war and a combatant with the United States. He made the choice to place himself in harms way. The aim of warfare is to eliminate the enemy or to get him to cease and desist his actions. If Obama had peacefully surrendered himself to a responsible authority he would have ceased to be a combatant. He never took that action. In essence that makes him a legitimate target for our military. There was no assasination. it was a legitimate action between combatants in which Osama was killed.

I think it speaks highly of our Soldiers dedication and training that the women and children were not killed just those considered legitimate combatants.

The big difference between the old days is that now combatants are not necessarily an established country. The stateless enemy is a part of warfare now.

In my view we took out a declared enemy of the United States who has declared he would do harm to us again if given the chance.

If Bin Laden had just been a vocal opponent to the United States then we would not be justified in doing so. He chose to act taking innocent lives in an attack against civilian and military personnel.

kraigwy · May 4, 2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

It's about whether or not it is dangerous precedent that the president unilaterally decided to break laws,

What law was broken????

Would we have broken the law if we killed Hitler?

Would it be better to have used a cruse missle and killed everyone in the neighborhood?

And I don't fear making an adversary of anyone who implies our troops are assassins.

zxcvbob · May 4, 2011, 09:59 PM

OBL (UBL?) was a non-citizen who had basically declared war on the US. I think that makes him a legitimate target; killing him was not an assassination.

If Obama is acting unilaterally, it might be worth watching to see if he does so a second time; then you can start being paranoid. A little paranoid.

Micahweeks · May 4, 2011, 10:04 PM

Well, kraig, if that's what it takes to satisfy you, consider me your adversary, although you'll have to do so knowing that I support every action the troops took. Your choice.

What laws did he break? Well, interestingly enough, Lou Dobbs asked Napolitano that same question. Link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xo9...e_gdata_player

Edward429451 · May 4, 2011, 10:06 PM

Don't anyone mention Waco.

Jimmy10mm · May 4, 2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

It isn't about whether UBL was a combatant. It's about whether or not it is dangerous precedent that the president unilaterally decided to break laws, American and International, and violate the Constitution for the purpose of popular killing and whether that represents the type of action that the Framers put the 2nd Amendment in to prevent.

Ever heard of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of Congo ? President Trujillo of the Dominican Republic ? South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem ? Salvador Allende, the popularly elected president of Chile ? They all have one thing in common. They were assassinated either directly or indirectly with USA involvement. Check out the CIA liaison with the American mafia in a plot to assassinate Castro also operation Phoenix in Viet Nam. We haven't always played by the rules and there is nothing new about killing unfriendly heads of state. Killing a mass murderer of civilian populations like bin laden, OTOH, is highly commendable in my book.

vranasaurus · May 4, 2011, 10:14 PM

Did anyone see if the president was wearing a WWRD bracelet?

Because you know Reagan would have done the same thing. I have no issue with a president making a decision to capture or kill one of america's greatest enemies of all time.

Reagan address ot the nation on airstrikes against Libya

"He counted on America to be passive, he counted wrong."

Bin Laden counted on the same thing and he too counted wrong.

Any president that wouldn't make such a decision would be failing in his duty to defend the United states against it's enemies.

kraigwy · May 4, 2011, 10:25 PM

Micahweeks I can't watch videos on this computer, not that it matters. what I ask was:

What law was broken. Can you give me the US Code?

Also you mentioned Washington; What the differance between what the SEALs did and Washington having his sharpshooters (they didn't call them snipers until WWI) target British Officers?

Unless you can tell us what law was broken, you are just ranting.

Al Norris · May 4, 2011, 10:26 PM

None of this really touches upon civil rights. While it may have something on the order of law, albeit international law, it is at present too political to be a proper topic.

Now if someone can frame the discussion with the relevant laws (domestic or international), it will be allowed.

But not under the pretext of an internal tyrannical conspiracy due to international actions.

May 4, 2011, 09:33 PM	#1
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	Does the assassination of Bin Laden set a dangerous precedent? This got me thinking hard. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former federal judge and self-proclaimed Libertarian, brought up several potential implications of the operation in Pakistan, not the least of which is that our president can now unilaterally decide to engage in military actions in other countries to execute someone he thinks is worthy of such action by public opinion. I was elated to hear that this coward was found and killed. Still am. But, I now have to consider a line of reasoning I had previously thought to be pretty far-fetched. Gun owners sometimes throw the argument out there that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. This is summarily dismissed by the masses and politicians since the government has never been "out to get us" and because laws, treaties, and the Constitution prohibit such an act. But, I wonder if the Bin Laden situation now provides some validity to that concern. After all, the president did break laws, violate treaties, and ignore a Constitutional restriction for the purpose of killing someone he thought the people would like to see dead. George Washington called guns the people's "teeth." It is our insurance of liberty and our protection against tyranny. But, only now do I ever find myself wondering if the reason liberal politicians want to disarm America is so they can carry out these types of actions without fear of reprisal. After all, Obama is a lawyer that knows full well the violations he just engaged in and is aware of the unconstitutionality of his anti-gun legislation in his home state. It didn't stop him from ordering a politically popular execution. Can this government ordered execution be a precedent that justifies the fears of many gun owners? That one day our government may give itself over to the tyrannical practice of taking life for political gain? Is Judge Napolitano right when he asks who is next? The Judge and his comments... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZWcF...e_gdata_player

May 4, 2011, 09:44 PM	#4
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	To call the killing of OBL an assassination is an insult to our troops. It was on the field of battle, we sent troops to capture or kill the leader of Al Quida.........they accomplised their mission. This is no differance then targeting officers or crew serve weapon operators by snipers. Its not assassination, its combat. I stayed out of this OBL talk except to say "I can't wait for the book to come out" but I'll not remain quiet while someone calls our soldiers, sailors, marines ASSASSINS. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

May 4, 2011, 09:57 PM	#7
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	When Bin Laden supported and assisted in the attack on 9/11 he made himself at war and a combatant with the United States. He made the choice to place himself in harms way. The aim of warfare is to eliminate the enemy or to get him to cease and desist his actions. If Obama had peacefully surrendered himself to a responsible authority he would have ceased to be a combatant. He never took that action. In essence that makes him a legitimate target for our military. There was no assasination. it was a legitimate action between combatants in which Osama was killed. I think it speaks highly of our Soldiers dedication and training that the women and children were not killed just those considered legitimate combatants. The big difference between the old days is that now combatants are not necessarily an established country. The stateless enemy is a part of warfare now. In my view we took out a declared enemy of the United States who has declared he would do harm to us again if given the chance. If Bin Laden had just been a vocal opponent to the United States then we would not be justified in doing so. He chose to act taking innocent lives in an attack against civilian and military personnel. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member Last edited by Eghad; May 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM.

May 4, 2011, 09:59 PM	#9
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	OBL (UBL?) was a non-citizen who had basically declared war on the US. I think that makes him a legitimate target; killing him was not an assassination. If Obama is acting unilaterally, it might be worth watching to see if he does so a second time; then you can start being paranoid. A little paranoid. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

May 4, 2011, 10:25 PM	#14
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	Micahweeks I can't watch videos on this computer, not that it matters. what I ask was: What law was broken. Can you give me the US Code? Also you mentioned Washington; What the differance between what the SEALs did and Washington having his sharpshooters (they didn't call them snipers until WWI) target British Officers? Unless you can tell us what law was broken, you are just ranting. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

May 4, 2011, 09:41 PM	#3
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	It's a very big leap from unilaterally killing a declared enemy of the United States to instituting summary executions of United States citizens.

May 4, 2011, 09:48 PM	#5
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	It isn't about whether UBL was a combatant. It's about whether or not it is dangerous precedent that the president unilaterally decided to break laws, American and International, and violate the Constitution for the purpose of popular killing and whether that represents the type of action that the Framers put the 2nd Amendment in to prevent.

May 4, 2011, 09:52 PM	#6
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	And Kraig, chill out. I've not called anyone an assassin, although I can't say the term would offend me. I glad the outcome is what it is, and your misplaced patriotism stands to make an adversary out of someone who is just as happy to see him dead and just as proud of our troops as you are.

May 4, 2011, 10:04 PM	#10
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	Well, kraig, if that's what it takes to satisfy you, consider me your adversary, although you'll have to do so knowing that I support every action the troops took. Your choice. What laws did he break? Well, interestingly enough, Lou Dobbs asked Napolitano that same question. Link below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xo9...e_gdata_player

May 4, 2011, 10:06 PM	#11
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	Don't anyone mention Waco.

May 4, 2011, 10:14 PM	#13
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Did anyone see if the president was wearing a WWRD bracelet? Because you know Reagan would have done the same thing. I have no issue with a president making a decision to capture or kill one of america's greatest enemies of all time. Reagan address ot the nation on airstrikes against Libya "He counted on America to be passive, he counted wrong." Bin Laden counted on the same thing and he too counted wrong. Any president that wouldn't make such a decision would be failing in his duty to defend the United states against it's enemies.

May 4, 2011, 10:26 PM	#15
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	None of this really touches upon civil rights. While it may have something on the order of law, albeit international law, it is at present too political to be a proper topic. Now if someone can frame the discussion with the relevant laws (domestic or international), it will be allowed. But not under the pretext of an internal tyrannical conspiracy due to international actions.