Comments on: Osama Bid Laden and Continuing Revelation

By: Vader

Vader — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:12:35 +0000

I’m not an expert on international law, since His Majesty claims rule over everything and thus has not use for international law. But it strikes me that since these folks are engaging in warlike activities, but cannot trace a chain of command to a sovereign against whom we can formally declare war, they fall into the category of unlawful combatants. And thus have little protection under international law. I don’t see the legal problem with targeting them for assassination.

That they are technically U,.S. citizens doesn’t really alter the picture for me. Lincoln’s minions offed rather a large number of folks who he insisted were still U.S. citizens, without trial, and more power to him.

By: Adam G.

Adam G. — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:49:53 +0000

More of the same:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/10/01/obama-warrior-or-assassin/

Mr. Obama acted entirely properly in having this enemy killed. But the precedent is extremely troubling, especially since it IS now a precedent, now that two different administrations of two different parties have both put American citizens on target lists.

The only remedy is a virtuous and engaged citizenry. Best of luck.

Although this does suggest that maybe we need to start tightening up our immigration laws and be more pro-active about stripping people with no real US ties of their citizenship.

By: Martin

Martin — Tue, 03 May 2011 22:23:07 +0000

Adam, you explained very well something I couldn’t, yet felt. Thank you.

By: psychochemiker

psychochemiker — Tue, 03 May 2011 20:31:59 +0000

I’m bored of people bemoaning the loss of evil people in the world. Sorry people, I believe fully in the death penalty. Those who shed innocent blood (murder), death penalty. Hitler, death penalty. Osama, death penalty. Any child molester, death penalty. It’s not blood lust, it’s a recognition that our society is better off without them on this planet than it is with them on it.

By: Howard

Howard — Tue, 03 May 2011 16:04:01 +0000

“I’m uneasy with the principle that nation-states can legitimately execute foreign nationals without trial and without being at war with the foreign nationals’ nation. But the one leads to the other.”

So which do you prefer war an invasion or air attack have you considered the collateral damage? Which is more ethical? Targeted assassination is the cleanest way to take care of the problem.

By: Ben Pratt

Ben Pratt — Mon, 02 May 2011 18:10:50 +0000

Physics and Star Wars in the same joke! LOL

By: Vader

Vader — Mon, 02 May 2011 18:03:14 +0000

Not only are there easier ways, but there are many more effective ways.

I believe the assertino is one of the fundamental gauge particles of the Force.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Mon, 02 May 2011 17:20:16 +0000

There are easier ways to make better moral choices thatn Roosevelt.

I take it that an assertino is one of the standard discussion particles?

By: Vader

Vader — Mon, 02 May 2011 17:05:41 +0000

Your thoughts on continuing revelation are fine. I particularly like the “just to let us know He still cares” explanation, though the others also work in specific instances.

But on the matter of bin Laden, I think we have a couple of situations in the Book of Mormon that are fruitful for analogy. One is the killing of Laban. The other is the killings by Teancum.

In the first case, the killing of Laban was clearly directed by the Spirit, but it was also arguably just under Hebrew law, and in addition it may have been an assertino of Nephi’s kingly rule. Both arguments come from FARMS papers; I am, of course, too busy to look up the precise references. (You think you’re being treated … unfairly?)

The assassinations by Teancum may be more relevant. They were analogous not only to bin Laden but to the assassination of Yamamoto during the Second World War. The latter action has spawned entire symposiums by legal ethicists intent on showing they are smart enough to make better moral choices than Roosevelt.