So we kill him then?

Interesting logic.

 

I'm just saying no outcome would have been deemed "acceptable".

Ultimately, the only alternative to "death" would have been to lock him up for life.

Can't see how that would have worked.

I'm just saying no outcome would have been deemed "acceptable".

Ultimately, the only alternative to "death" would have been to lock him up for life.

Can't see how that would have worked.

 

I can see why you rarely get involved in debate given your dangerous views on basic human rights and freedoms, Mark. Too much Daily Mail methinks. Are you for the death penalty under certain circumstances?

 

Locking him up for life would have been much better. Give the torture thread a read. Whilst centred around torture, plenty of people have given their insights into the way those in authority should behave, and the rights everybody has to actual justice.

 

You have to go through your own laws, so simply by saying 'no outcome would be deemed acceptable' and that locking him up for life wouldn't have worked does not justify anything that has been done. It is the law that you try and achieve that, and even if people don't agree with your law, if you are the people acting on the matter, you should follow the law and then answer to criticism later. In America they have the death penalty, so if he was found guilty then I think that is what would have happened, like with Saddam Hussein (another thing I don't see as justice, incidentally, because of my views on the death penalty).

 

It's an unsettling precedent to have set, if they did not have to kill him, which I feel should be investigated. I'm sure other terrorists would rather be shot that be put in prison for life, as it's a much quicker route to their reward. It could be more inspiring to budding terrorists to have acted in this manner.

I can see why you rarely get involved in debate given your dangerous views on basic human rights and freedoms, Mark. Too much Daily Mail methinks. Are you for the death penalty under certain circumstances?

 

Locking him up for life would have been much better. Give the torture thread a read. Whilst centred around torture, plenty of people have given their insights into the way those in authority should behave, and the rights everybody has to actual justice.

 

You have to go through your own laws, so simply by saying 'no outcome would be deemed acceptable' and that locking him up for life wouldn't have worked does not justify anything that has been done. It is the law that you try and achieve that, and even if people don't agree with your law, if you are the people acting on the matter, you should follow the law and then answer to criticism later. In America they have the death penalty, so if he was found guilty then I think that is what would have happened, like with Saddam Hussein (another thing I don't see as justice, incidentally, because of my views on the death penalty).

 

It's an unsettling precedent to have set, if they did not have to kill him, which I feel should be investigated. I'm sure other terrorists would rather be shot that be put in prison for life, as it's a much quicker route to their reward. It could be more inspiring to budding terrorists to have acted in this manner.

 

As I've already stated, no outcome would have been deemed acceptable, as there would always have been a vast number of people who wouldn't have been satisfied.

In America they only have the death penalty in certain states, so - assuming any trial would have taken place there (and this is by no means certain) - there would always have been a dispute as to where it should have taken place, waged between pro and anti death penalty campaigners.

I'm sure there are many people out there who would argue that the death penalty is justified in the case of mass murder/terrorism, even if they are generally against it.

Dismissing such an opinion, just because you don't agree with it, is equally wrong.

As somebody said on Question Time a few days ago, did bin Laden care about the "human rights" of those killed on 9/11 and in other terrorist attacks?

No.

As I've already stated, no outcome would have been deemed acceptable, as there would always have been a vast number of people who wouldn't have been satisfied.

In America they only have the death penalty in certain states, so - assuming any trial would have taken place there (and this is by no means certain) - there would always have been a dispute as to where it should have taken place, waged between pro and anti death penalty campaigners.

I'm sure there are many people out there who would argue that the death penalty is justified in the case of mass murder/terrorism, even if they are generally against it.

Dismissing such an opinion, just because you don't agree with it, is equally wrong.

As somebody said on Question Time a few days ago, did bin Laden care about the "human rights" of those killed on 9/11 and in other terrorist attacks?

No.

 

So effectively what you're saying is...

 

1. People are always going to be against it, so that means he might as well be killed.

2. Bin Laden is a monster who doesn't care about human rights so therefore we can become monsters and not care about his human rights.

 

 

I have no problem with you believing that him being killed may have been necessary. It indeed may have been, but an investigation should take place so the truth can be outed. This you agree with, but are sceptical about, which is fair enough. I do not understand your reasoning behind the two points above however.

So effectively what you're saying is...

 

1. People are always going to be against it, so that means he might as well be killed.

2. Bin Laden is a monster who doesn't care about human rights so therefore we can become monsters and not care about his human rights.

 

 

I have no problem with you believing that him being killed may have been necessary. It indeed may have been, but an investigation should take place so the truth can be outed. This you agree with, but are sceptical about, which is fair enough. I do not understand your reasoning behind the two points above however.

 

All I'm saying is, there are so many complexities surrounding the legalities of any action taken against bin Laden, the outcome was probably the best one, assuming he wasn't summarily "executed" on-the-spot.

Otherwise the only "winners" would have been the fat-cat lawyers, as usual.

 

Somebody has even questioned how anything could actually have been proven against him legitimately, anyway.

 

Maybe there should be some clarification via international law regarding the human rights of mass murderers/terrorists. This might simplify matters, though I very much doubt this will ever happen, as I'm sure agreement would never be reached on this issue, either.

All I'm saying is, there are so many complexities surrounding the legalities of any action taken against bin Laden, the outcome was probably the best one, assuming he wasn't summarily "executed" on-the-spot.

Otherwise the only "winners" would have been the fat-cat lawyers, as usual.

 

Somebody has even questioned how anything could actually have been proven against him legitimately, anyway.

 

Maybe there should be some clarification via international law regarding the human rights of mass murderers/terrorists. This might simplify matters, though I very much doubt this will ever happen, as I'm sure agreement would never be reached on this issue, either.

 

Whether it was the 'best' scenario or not, it should be investigated to see whether it was legal as everyone is bound by law and thankfully so.

 

Haha, fat cat lawyers? Yeah, we'd all rather see a man dead than them getting any money :confused:

 

The human rights of mass muderers and terrorists are the same as any other human being when they are not posing a threat to somebody. There won't be any clarification on it since none is needed.

 

Like I said, it may have been best to kill him in that situation, but simply saying 'we'll never know' or 'let's not go through the legal system or fat cat lawyers will make money' or 'who cares about his human rights?' isn't what anybody with any form of emotion would be suggesting.

 

The human rights of mass muderers and terrorists are the same as any other human being when they are not posing a threat to somebody.

 

It could be argued that his sheer existence posed a threat to thousands of innocent people worldwide, based on the continual terrorist plots he was undoubtedly involved in.

You might disagree, but I would argue that if you have had a hand, either directly or indirectly, in the deliberate deaths of thousands of innocent people, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequence, as happened in bin Laden's case.

If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.

I'd rather save mine for all the countless innocent people killed, maimed and beareaved as a result of all the terrorist atrocities over the years.

It could be argued that his sheer existence posed a threat to thousands of innocent people worldwide, based on the continual terrorist plots he was undoubtedly involved in.

You might disagree, but I would argue that if you have had a hand, either directly or indirectly, in the deliberate deaths of thousands of innocent people, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequence, as happened in bin Laden's case.

If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.

I'd rather save mine for all the innocent people killed, maimed and beareaved as a result of all the terrorist atrocities over the years.

 

Nobody in this thread is shedding tears over it as far as I am aware (and if they are then that is their prerogative, albeit a very unusual stance to take), and that in itself is a very interesting tone to take Mark. An apology, if you will. Several posters in this thread, and the torture thread are simply dismayed at the potential lack of legal grounding for these actions and the precedent that this may have set. It may have been the safest way to go about things, but the request of evidence to back it up is not something which should be frowned upon. If there was no legal backing, then I feel something should be done, as in the future this could be used against people who aren't actually guilty.

 

Simply trying to make people feel guilty for taking an interest in why he was actually killed is quite bizarre, Mark, and it won't help you in honest debate. This is not the Daily Mail letters page, it's a free thinking discussion regarding the potential problems towards others that these actions may lead to, after it appears a clear precedent has been set.

 

Do you understand this, Mark? Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters around who can spell it out for you.

It isn't every day that I'm accused of shedding tears over terrorists. You're lucky I'm an adult about these things and won't be reporting the post, as you often do to other people, Mark.

Nobody in this thread is shedding tears over it as far as I am aware (and if they are then that is their prerogative, albeit a very unusual stance to take), and that in itself is a very interesting tone to take Mark. An apology, if you will. Several posters in this thread, and the torture thread are simply dismayed at the potential lack of legal grounding for these actions and the precedent that this may have set. It may have been the safest way to go about things, but the request of evidence to back it up is not something which should be frowned upon. If there was no legal backing, then I feel something should be done, as in the future this could be used against people who aren't actually guilty.

 

Simply trying to make people feel guilty for taking an interest in why he was actually killed is quite bizarre, Mark, and it won't help you in honest debate. This is not the Daily Mail letters page, it's a free thinking discussion regarding the potential problems towards others that these actions may lead to, after it appears a clear precedent has been set.

 

Do you understand this, Mark? Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters around who can spell it out for you.

 

By being sarcastic, trying to dictate your views, and continually bringing up publications which have no relevance to this discussion, your arguments start to lose credibility IMO.

 

Bin Laden's killing may well have set a precedent, which is why I suggested the situation/human rights regarding mass murderers should be clarified in international law as soon as possible.

I'm sure that many people will agree a different rule should apply in such extreme cases. In other words, if mass murderers happen to be taken out by an army or government-sanctioned "hit squad", so be it. They brought it upon themselves.

By being sarcastic, trying to dictate your views, and continually bringing up publications which have no relevance to this discussion, your arguments start to lose credibility IMO.

 

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:

Unbelievable.

Bin Laden's killing may well have set a precedent, which is why I suggested the situation/human rights regarding mass murderers should be clarified in international law as soon as possible.

I'm sure that many people will agree a different rule should apply in such extreme cases. In other words, if mass murderers happen to be taken out by an army or government-sanctioned "hit squad", so be it. They brought it upon themselves.

 

No, they know the laws, it should be looked into whether they followed the laws. It doesn't need to be clarified, they merely have to prove they didn't break the law. Human rights apply to all, just like if they had captured him they could have either imprisoned him or activated the death penalty if they felt that was legal too. That would have been following the law.

It isn't every day that I'm accused of shedding tears over terrorists. You're lucky I'm an adult about these things and won't be reporting the post, as you often do to other people, Mark.

 

If you read carefully, you will see you weren't accused of anything. I believe I made my position clear in my previous post regarding your comments.

If you read carefully, you will see you weren't accused of anything. I believe I made my position clear in my previous post regarding your comments.

 

If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.

 

Say what now?

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:

Unbelievable.

 

I agree. I thought we were meant to be having a serious discussion. It seems I was wrong. In the circumstances, I reckon we should end it there before it gets out of hand.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree. I thought we were meant to be having a serious discussion. It seems I was wrong. In the circumstances, I reckon we should end it there before it gets out of hand.

 

Fine, if you want. Or you could just be a mature adult and debate.

Fine, if you want. Or you could just be a mature adult and debate.

 

As far as I'm concerned I was. It was unnecessary to bring up the Daily Mail.

Why? Those are very 'Daily Mail' views you hold, and you appear to read the Daily Mail. Bringing that up doesn't change all that much. Just justify your points.

You don't appear to think that mass murderers or terrorists deserve human rights. One of the most volatile statements I've seen on here in a long time.

Why? Those are very 'Daily Mail' views you hold, and you appear to read the Daily Mail.

 

That is another incorrect assumption. It is merely a news source, like any other (including Al Jazeera, for example).

 

You don't appear to think that mass murderers or terrorists deserve human rights. One of the most volatile statements I've seen on here in a long time.

 

You're entitled to your opinion on that score. I could just as easily say the same about some of yours. However, as I said, I don't see any point in continuing with this.

It won't achieve anything.

That is another incorrect assumption. It is merely a news source, like any other (including Al Jazeera, for example).

 

Take note of my use of the word 'appear'.

 

You're entitled to your opinion on that score. I could just as easily say the same about some of yours. However, as I said, I don't see any point in continuing with this.

It won't achieve anything.

 

Thank you for allowing me to hold my opinions. You are entitled to yours, but don't throw your toys out of the pram when asked to justify them. I don't mind ended it here, everyone can have a giggle when they read the last few pages.

I wonder who would carry out the investigation. America might want to carry one out, Pakistan might, is there a global war court too (forgive my ignorance)?

 

Yes, there is the International Criminal Court. It wouldn't have been possible to judge it in America, as in regarding american laws. Therefore there is no wonder about whether or not the death penalty would have apply. It would have been judged regarding international law. This court was created quite recently for huge matters such as people condemn for crime against humanity so it would have been "perfect" for Bin Laden.

Yes, there is the International Criminal Law. It wouldn't have been possible to judge it in America, as in regarding american laws. Therefore there is no wonder about whether or not the death penalty would have apply. It would have been judged regarding international law. This court was created quite recently for huge matters such as people condemn for crime to humanity so it would have been "perfect" for Bin Laden.

 

Thanks Alice, I knew there would be something!

Fuck, I edited my post. I meant International Criminal Court.

 

You're welcome :)

I have really strong doubts that they'll do any kind of prosecution against the US on that matter, afterall they've gotten away with a lot of things in the past.

 

In terms of shooting Bin Laden I could understand doing it if he was armed and threatening the soldiers

but yeah he should've had a fair trial, much as how the Nazis as well as Saddam did.

 

To be honest though, if he was captured I have strong doubts of see him making it to the US alive. I'm sure some soldier or person would have disobeyed orders and killed him at some point.

I have really strong doubts that they'll do any kind of prosecution against the US on that matter, afterall they've gotten away with a lot of things in the past.

 

In terms of shooting Bin Laden I could understand doing it if he was armed and threatening the soldiers

but yeah he should've had a fair trial, much as how the Nazis as well as Saddam did.

 

To be honest though, if he was captured I have strong doubts of see him making it to the US alive. I'm sure some soldier or person would have disobeyed orders and killed him at some point.

 

As I said before, I can't see how any person accused of "crimes against humanity" could ever really be guaranteed a totally fair trial, as you're never going to be able to find an impartial "jury".

And I really can't believe that anyone can really have any sympathy regarding the nature of bin Laden's death after his undeniable involvement in terrorist atrocities.

The only possible exception could be if it could be proven without a doubt that he was killed inhumanely.

I don't think there's been any suggestion that he was made to suffer (i.e. tortured or anything like that).

If the general consensus happens to be that this should be investigated, then no problem.

 

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? Did any of them get a fair trial, or even deserve being tried for anything in the first place? How quickly people forget.:dozey: