More and more, we are seeing the real feelings of Lefties surface. Now we have Henry Porter at The Guardian (the same paper which initially greenlighted a fantasy about seeing George W. Bush assassinated if he won the 2004 election)
…..Yet the episode has left us with a more than ticklish logical problem, for the conclusion of last week’s events seem to be this: while torture is abhorrent to civilised society and must never be used, storming a house in a foreign country – at night and with overwhelming force – shooting dead an unarmed man, eliminating four others in the process and taking away the target’s body and dumping it in the sea is legitimate, as long as it is not proceeded by torture.
It is impossible to rank such actions as less morally culpable than torture. The extrajudicial killing of an unarmed man is by any standards the same, or worse, and it seems entirely possible that Bin Laden could have been captured alive and put on trial. So, when liberals rejoice at his slaying, along with the hosts of Fox News, they not only display an elementary flaw in their thinking, they shun the principle that justice should be seen to be done. (snip)
I stress that extrajudicial, state-sponsored assassination is wrong and no enlightened moral framework allows revenge to become a synonym for justice. But this sense of a result in a year that is already proving to be epochal is significant, despite the rage of al-Qaida, which gleefully promises fresh barbarities.
Well, he got his talking point about Fox News in. Cause it wasn’t like the liberals at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, et all weren’t celebrating or something.
And then you have Katherine Marsden at the Montreal Gazette calling is murder, plain and simple.
Pretty soon, Liberals will have Osama up on the same pedestal as Mumia and Che. Obviously, since Obama is now a murderer, you can’t in good conscience vote for him, right Lefties?
I have to say that I am a bit uncomfortable if the orders were for the SEALs to shoot bin Laden.
I would have preferred that he be captured or something along those lines. I can live orders that say “dead or alive,” but I am not thrilled with orders that read “kill him.”
It is not that I am weeping or even upset at the death of bin Laden. If we were going to simply kill him, a bomb would have done the same thing without putting more American lives at risk.
I am also uncomfortable with a president ordering the assassination of someone.
However, the Guardian’s hypocrisy is predictable and at the same time astounding.
Well, I can understand your point, especially with this president. But, to put it in perspective, if we want to look at the legalities of it, the Geneva Convention allows for the immediate execution of illegal combatants, ones who wear no uniform and fight for no country. Also, in war, the leaders should be targeted specifically.
Should be interesting to see what liberals are saying in a week or two.
Believe me when I say I am not arguing with you, but I thought that the Geneva Convention allowed for the immediate execution of illegal combatants captured in the act of being on the battlefield or involved in a battle.
That is a hard case to make with bin Laden as he was sleeping or whatever the version the White House wants to put out at this moment.
Once again, I am not disagreeing with the results. And Lord knows if they had captured bin Laden what the followers of the “religion of peace” would have done to gain his release. Furthermore, the Lord knows that Obama and Holder could and wouldn’t figure out what to do with him.
In the long run, I think this was the best result for the country and the world.
I am just uncomfortable with an assassination order on some distant, unknown level.
[…] UK Guardian Not Really Happy About Osama’s “State Sponsored Assassination†Pretty soon, Liberals will have Osama up on the same pedestal as Mumia and Che. Obviously, since Obama is now a murderer, you can’t in good conscience vote for him, right Lefties? […]