theodorelogan wrote:I've decided on a new standard for my posts. I think people, safely behind their keyboards, post things that they would neve actually say in real life. I'm going to start using the real life test...if I wouldn't say it to your face I won't say it on the internet.

See, this is why I've always said, no matter how crazy he is, he's a hell of a decent guy.

Guapo wrote:1. Whether he is a Holocaust denier or not is immaterial to the facts of Hiroshima. If the facts are there, you must go by that.

Sorry here Jeff, but it is entirely material. It shows that he is not a serious historian. That he takes what he claims to be "historical facts" and interprets them completely out of context to prove a point that is completely false. It shows that he is intellectually dishonest.

Guapo wrote:2. Whether or not the Japanese offer was "serious" is immaterial, as well. The point is that there was SOME movement on Japan's part toward peace. The author of the article I linked calls them "overtures". That completely contradicts what Sassafras said, and what I responded to.

Again, it is completely material. If an offer of surrender comes from someone likely to be shot for bring it up in a cabinet meeting, it is not idicative of a desire to surrender. Further, historical fact shows it to be false. For example, even after the 2 atomic bombs were dropped and the Japanese Gov't decided to accept the unconditional surrender, members of the Japanese military attempted a failed coup to stop it. This was after the bombs had been dropped.

Guapo wrote:There were many signs that Japan was coming to the realization that their war was ending, and that is historical fact.

This is one of your more fun comments. The Japanese always knew they could not "win" the war. From the day they launched the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese Government knew they would end up suing for peace. Their over all plan was to expand to what they wanted to control, then fight a series of high casualty battles that would force the Allied gov't into a negotiated peace where they would be able to keep most of what they had. Even at the end, when they knew the war was winding down, they wanted to instigate a massive casualty battle so they could get better terms then were being offered in the Potsdams Declaration (which by the way are the terms finally agreed to).

Another thing you have to understand is that the Allies knew all of this. The Japanese were trying to get the Russians to stay out of the war and act as neutral arbiters for surrender negotiations. By 1945, the Allies had completely broken the Japanese diplomatic codes and were intercepting, decoding and reading every communique about the conversations. The people actually in control of the Japanese Gov't were insisting on surrender terms that were completely unacceptable to the Allied powers and the Allied powers knew it.

An excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's 'The Osama bin Laden Exception':

Here was the very first paragraph uttered by lead Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson when he stood up to deliver his Opening Statement:

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

And here was the last thing he said:

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law

.

I actually believe in those precepts. And if those principles were good enough for those responsible for Nazi atrocities, they are good enough for the likes of Osama bin Laden. It's possible they weren't applicable here; if he couldn't be safely captured because of his attempted resistence, then capturing him wasn't a reasonable possibility. But it seems increasingly clear that the objective here was to kill, not capture him, no matter what his conduct was. That, at the very least, raises a whole host of important questions about what we endorse and who we are that deserves serious examination -- much more than has been prompted by this celebrated killing.
____________________

Since a number of you have drug WWII into this thread, maybe we could look at the precedent of Nuremburg and compare that to what Obama choose to do with Osama.

neal

But it seems increasingly clear that the objective here was to kill, not capture him, no matter what his conduct was.

Just yesterday another drone took out Taliban hiding in Northern Pakistan. I suspect the only difference in choosing Seals was the import of knowing 100% that they had killed Osama. A drone might have left doubt?

The major difference between Nuremberg and assasinating terrorists is that the nation state of Nazi Germany was a recognized entity that had a government that behaved illegally and immorally. Those persons within the govenrment that were successfully arrested were available for trial. Po Pot was similar. So are the Serbian and Croat criminals.

Securing nationless terrorists who hide in countries where the governments attempting arrest do not have free access makes the use of arrest and seizure more difficult. This reality, and the reality that a group that organizes terror is fundamentally different then a government that commits crimes against humanity makes the choice of assasination acceptable at times.
Perhaps an arrest would have been more desirable if a trial could have provided an illustration of the madness behind Al Queda. But I'm not so certain a trial is essential to demonstrate this fact. Nor that those few who might sympathize with Osama would be swayed. Where a demonstration of the power of law to provide justice even where a nation's government has been seized by genocidal criminals is important to demonstrate to all who govern that they are not immune because they govern ....the demonstration that terror is subject to legal restraint is probably less important. Terrorists know full well that they exist outside the laws of man. Whle, those criminals who rule nation states attempt to use their nationality as both protection and justification.The trial of these people is also important becasue it differentiates between the criminal regimes and the nation state that they leave behind. All of Germany wasn't on trial at Nuremberg.
Whats most important with the use of assasination in Pakistan against Al Quedar is that the terorists understand they are never out of reach of retribution for their acts.

I think you may be confusing 'targeted killings' of terrorists (where they are not in our custody) with assassination:

An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." An additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."

Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge for perceived grievances, a desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition), a wish to form some kind of "relationship" with the public figure, a wish or at least willingness to be killed or commit suicide in the attack.

It's a bit strange to say he is guilty as a criminal if you have no willingness to put him on trial. Are you suggesting that if our feelings are intense enough we can set aside our rational responsibility to justice? There seems to be adequate recognition of the fact that OBL could have been or was taken into custody. Therefore it's clear Obama ordered OBL's death in a premeditated manner.

Another big difference was that by Nuremburg the Nazi's were a defeated force. Holding the leaders for trial would not have caused further issues. Holding bin Laden would have caused no end of problems with other Islamist taking hostages and doing terroristic acts to get bin Laden free.

Neal Anderth wrote:IIt's a bit strange to say he is guilty as a criminal if you have no willingness to put him on trial. Are you suggesting that if our feelings are intense enough we can set aside our rational responsibility to justice? There seems to be adequate recognition of the fact that OBL could have been or was taken into custody. Therefore it's clear Obama ordered OBL's death in a premeditated manner.

Didn't he admit guilt?

Rolls wrote:Wow, an OBL thread turns into a pissing contest about the Japanese?

Japan got what they deserved..... and so did OBL.

my 2¢

Amen, I see that 2¢ and raise 2¢

Neal Anderth wrote:...Therefore it's clear Obama ordered OBL's death in a premeditated manner.

My sense is President Obama did just that, one of the few instances I've found reason to give him an "atta-boy"

Something that could have been accomplished a decade ago with a simple marque and reprisal

neal

It's a bit strange to say he is guilty as a criminal if you have no willingness to put him on trial. Are you suggesting that if our feelings are intense enough we can set aside our rational responsibility to justice? There seems to be adequate recognition of the fact that OBL could have been or was taken into custody. Therefore it's clear Obama ordered OBL's death in a premeditated manner

Its really not about "feelings", its about the context of his crimes, his residency and his assumed status.
And since he accepted responsibility, and a number of times publicly "declared war" on the *United States" and other western nations I don't think he's just a criminal. He's not being sought for ordinary crimes, but rather acts which he described as "acts of war"

Al Queda was and is a politically motivated organization. Therefore I think assasination is an apt term. But I won't quiblle if there is a better term. And I agree with you that apprehension and a trial might have been a more noble act. But I'll go with expediency ...

Osama bin Laden lived by the sword and he also died by it. Somehow I can't bring myself to give a damn about the fact that he didn't get a fair trial before inevitably being out to death.

Agreed. Of all the people on Earth who have or could have been executed, assassinated, murdered, or whatever-you-want-to-call it, debating the moral niceties of this mo-fo's skull ventilation is a complete waste of pixels.

rickyp wrote:Its really not about "feelings", its about the context of his crimes, his residency and his assumed status.
And since he accepted responsibility, and a number of times publicly "declared war" on the *United States" and other western nations I don't think he's just a criminal. He's not being sought for ordinary crimes, but rather acts which he described as "acts of war"

Al Queda was and is a politically motivated organization. Therefore I think assasination is an apt term. But I won't quiblle if there is a better term. And I agree with you that apprehension and a trial might have been a more noble act. But I'll go with expediency ...

Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that has been arguing for years that War on Terror should be treated as a criminal investigation? As a serious question, how do you reconcile that argument with the above stated position.

NA, it's an interesting thought, but I think there is a key difference between Osama's killing and the Nuremberg trials. The Nazis had surrendered. The Nuremberg trials followed. If al qaeda surrenders, then we can hold trials. Until then we are at war.

Similarly,had the US had the capability to kill Hitler and/or his inner circle prior to VE day, that would have been a reasonable course of action.