TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Sending in an assassin team to a sovereign foreign nation to kill the man in cold blood in the middle of the night makes us no better than the likes of him. Which is why i find it strange so many are cheering for such lawless actions by our oath takers. And I mean all of them.
The Soldier's Creed states: "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and DESTROY the enemies of the United States in close combat." It doesn't say anything about bringing them to face trial. Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the United States who had engaged in open warfare against us. His fate has nothing to do with revenge. It's about defending ourselves.
Well, it appears that in order to make this work favorably for military action across the entire globe in the war on terror, we would have to consider Bin Laden an enemy combatant. Though it is interesting that the federal government dropped a mountain of felony cfharges (which would mean he is a criminal) in a court motion in 2011.
The trouble is that while I am not in favor of terrorists, the word really can be applied across the board in several instances that we currently deem it unnecesary. For instance, drug cartels/gangs aren't much different when it comes to arming, training and using violence against both law enforcement and civilians at our borders and within them. But we do not deem these individuals or the head figure a terrorist. The actions are the same, but the difference in approach is different. We trerat these as criminals, even if their intents are the same.
So it appears that the government wants it both ways to cover their asses. Then there is the question as to whether or not killing an unarmed enemy combatant criminal is justified under the rules of war. It seems the line is now forever smeared through this whole war on terror. The problem is that line drew important distinction in actions going forward. Now that there is no line, there is really no distinction.
It is my opinion that Bin Ladin was a criminal and should have been taken into custody to face trial and the rule of law. Because it imports a significant impression in the world that the US actions in the middle east have justification based on law. As opposed to simply exacting "justice" from which ever angle they wished to make it and deem it legitimate.
It's only my opinion. And the oath of enlist or the presidents oaths are not the same as soldier creed. That whole thing everyone likes to dodge about upholding the constitution.