It's been 24 hours, and bin Laden is still dead

Ted Kennedy did it once when he was introducing Obama at a rally. It's a bad mistake, but a very easy one to make.

 

To close Gitmo I think they should open all cells and when prisoners try to escape double tap their left eye ball.

 

I wasn't trying to make it political, so no need to invoke Kennedy. I was actually going the opposite direction: I think people sincerely have trouble with it, and I don't get that. I don't think it's an easy mistake to make at all. But I don't think that it is some sort of telling Freudian slip, either.

 

The names are so different. How could anyone make that mistake?

 

Fixed.

 

Mark McGwire has given those hung up on hypocrisy the tool to figure it out. Since that didn't work, I'm going to spell it out, as excruciatingly as possible.

Imagine a matrix where the variables are "supports/opposes the death penalty" and "pacifist/accepts that wars can be legitimate.". So we've got:

Box 1 - pacifists who support the death penalty
Box 2 - pacifists who oppose the death penalty
Box 3 - supporters of legitimate wars who support the death penalty
Box 4 - supporters of legitimate wars who oppose the death penalty

Box 1 is available to be used as longterm storage. Each of the others has plenty of people in it. None of them is guilty of any logical inconsistency and, therefore, not guilty of hypocrisy.

 

How about if they ripped his head off and shit down his neck?

 

I know you ain't talking about ME. Heh heh.

 

: In spite of these epic takedowns of the hypocrisy angle ... the points still stand.
There are inconsistencies (don't want to hurt Dick's feelings).
There is support/opposition to the death penalty. And there is support of OBL's takedown (NOT the war and it's legitimacy).
For the umpteenth time (Hey Mizzou!): I SUPPORT THE WAY THINGS WERE HANDLED!!!!!!!!!

When someone is given the death penalty there is a trial. A chance for the accused to defend themselves and an appeals process.
The U.S. has no standing policy for the assassination of a head of state or political leader. Traditionally we don't just assassinate guys to solve our problems (at least not above board).
The Seals were sent on a kill mission and took out an unarmed OBL. (AGAIN NO PROBLEM WITH THAT). He was unarmed and executed. Without trial and without defense. His death is not the end of terrorism or Al-Qaida (or I missed the mass surrender).
But we were at war .. Yup and when we caught the Nazis - they got a trial before they were executed. Same with Saddam and Noriega.
OBL got no such consideration. No trial. No defense. Just executed. He got less rights than a condemned killer.
AGAIN (Hey Mizzou) I AM OK WITH THIS... NO Probelms here. Standing O and high fives all the way around.
My rub here is the anti-DP opponents are OK with the way things were handled and want to squeal that there is no inconsistencies in their beliefs. I can accept Shockey's and Gee's explanation. But to argue there are no inconsistencies in the thought process to acceptance ???? ????
Thankfully Mark and WT have set me straight. :



I'm done. This time I meant it.
- 30 -

 

Fine. If he were unarmed and attempting to surrender, and that was clear, then I have an issue with killing him. That sound consistent enough to you? What I said - and you are conveniently ignoring - is that you have to try to look at the situation from the point of view of the SEALs at the time they made the decision to shoot. Same as you would a cop. Maybe he seemed to be reaching for something that could have been a weapon. Maybe he was trying to escape. Both grounds for shooting to kill.

Your initial nah-nah-boo-boo post was that "nobody" has talked about this ethical conundrum. You were immediately bitch slapped, since there was a full discussion about that in the initial thread.

 

Evil, your entire argument is just that there are inconsistencies. You beg the question. You still haven't explained *why* accepting assassination of a terrorist threat and decrying the death penalty as part of the justice system are inconsistent. You just state that they are and that's that.

 

bin Laden could have been unarmed, hands behind his head and on his knees begging them to take him alive and not kill him and I would still have no problem with them blowing his face off. Or them ripping his head off and shitting down his neck. Either way works.