Comments on Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-DefenseTypePad2011-05-04T12:52:03ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/05/imminence-unlawful-aggressors-and-proportionality-in-self-defense/comments/atom.xml/4d ultrasounds commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154326183de970c2011-05-18T11:25:00Z2011-05-18T11:25:00Z4d ultrasoundshttp://www.angelprintsultrasound.com/Angel Prints Ultrasound provides 3d ultrasounds aND 4d Ultrasounds for expecting parents in Lafayette and Baton Rouge, LA and other...<p>Angel Prints Ultrasound provides 3d ultrasounds aND 4d Ultrasounds for expecting parents in Lafayette and Baton Rouge, LA and other surrounding areas in Louisiana. For More Visit Must: <a href="http://www.angelprintsultrasound.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.angelprintsultrasound.com/</a></p>Fr. J commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e51587b970b2011-05-06T04:08:47Z2011-05-06T04:08:47ZFr. JCK, let's see: believe a SEAL or believe mass murderers? Hmmm...tough one. But I am going to go with the...<p>CK, let's see: believe a SEAL or believe mass murderers? Hmmm...tough one. But I am going to go with the SEALs. The odds are way in my favor.</p>elena commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e88444e98970d2011-05-06T01:38:33Z2011-05-06T01:38:33Zelenahttp://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201155113345557824.htmlCK, here's a good overview of legal problems related to the discussed events http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201155113345557824.html (many of them have been mentioned...<p>CK, here's a good overview of legal problems related to the discussed events <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201155113345557824.html" rel="nofollow">http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201155113345557824.html</a><br />
(many of them have been mentioned here)</p>
<p>i don't know about you, but to me this site is interesting not because of politics or related to it law, but because here are thoughts about man and truth</p>
<p>you've mentioned the original sin<br />
the person who spoke of it first, said a lot about just war as well (st. Augustine)<br />
</p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e88426e0e970d2011-05-05T16:18:39Z2011-05-05T16:18:39ZDavid NickolCK, I don't expect the first reports of these kinds of events to be perfectly accurate. I am confident that...<p>CK,</p>
<p>I don't expect the first reports of these kinds of events to be perfectly accurate. I am confident that we now know the basic outline. Osama bin Laden was unarmed. "Resistance" in a situation like this is anything short of presenting oneself as a prisoner in a perfectly risk-free manner to the potential captors. Under the circumstances, that was next to impossible. </p>
<p>Nobody has necessarily lied when a first account needs to be modified with more accurate information. </p>
<p>I am not one to overly glorify the military, but these Navy Seals have been described as the "elite of the elite." Somehow, "grunt" just doesn't sound right to me, particularly when you suggest they may be lying. </p>CK commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e8841e38f970d2011-05-05T13:50:33Z2011-05-05T13:50:33ZCK"Now I am confused. As I understand the news accounts, there were only four people in the room when bin...<p>"Now I am confused. As I understand the news accounts, there were only four people in the room when bin Laden was shot—bin Laden himself, a woman (wife?), and two Navy Seals (or grunts, as you seem to think of them). You suggest the "grunts" may be lying about what happened."</p>
<p>Yeah, we're all confused, seeing the White House can't get the story straight. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-final-moments" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-final-moments</a></p>
<p>"Contradictions began to surface when John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism adviser and former senior CIA official, told journalists on Monday that Bin Laden "was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't know". The phrase "engaged in firefight" suggests that Bin Laden was armed and firing back, which now turns out not to have been the case.</p>
<p>"Carney added a crucial detail. "Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed," Carney disclosed. Asked how he had resisted if he had no gun, Carney declined to specify but said resistance does not require a gun."</p>
<p>If these folks can't get the story straight, then how are we to trust the reliability of their information? Are we to be fools (as opposed to being wise as serpents)to just keep blindly believing sources that keep contradicting themselves? Now the facts are that he was unarmed, which is it armed or not? And that resistance does not require a gun, which is true, however, deadly force is not always warranted under any kind of resitance, it must be proportional. Which brings in the issue of whether hard-charging grunts have the temptation to lie about certain aspects of the encounter. I'm not saying that the grunts have lied (although the White House has), I'm just highlighting the real human experience that we all have to take into consideration when evaluating the fog of war. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The first casualty in war is truth." </p>
<p>Finally, regarding the term "grunts" that's a term implying a certain amount of bragging rights, as grunts are hard-charging killers who can hack it, unlike those in-the-rear-with-the-gear or civilians opining on their laptops (like us). </p>Joel Clarke Gibbons commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201543221432d970c2011-05-05T13:35:06Z2011-05-05T13:35:06ZJoel Clarke Gibbonshttp://www.logisticresearch.comDeterrence. That's why we fight, and according ti the Roman catechism it is the justification for fighting. We killed Osama...<p>Deterrence. That's why we fight, and according ti the Roman catechism it is the justification for fighting. We killed Osama to stop al Qaeda from fighting; to convince them that resistance is fruitless.</p>Hank commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4d21c8970b2011-05-05T07:05:53Z2011-05-05T07:05:53ZHankhttp://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/I think that maybe the wrong catagories are being applied. One who commits military type activities could either be a...<p><br />
I think that maybe the wrong catagories are being applied.</p>
<p>One who commits military type activities could either be a common criminal, or a combatant under the Geneva conventions. It is illegal to kill a criminal except in self-defense or as the punishment of a properly constituted court. One can try to kill enemy combatants. In fact one could target individual combatants by name.</p>
<p>Osama bin Ladin was a combatent under the provisions or Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.<br />
- AQ considers itself at war with the US.<br />
- The US is responding with military action.<br />
- The situation is covered by the Law of War not ordinary criminal law.<br />
- Bin Laden was a member of an organization engaged in combat activties.<br />
- He provided direction to those activities.<br />
- He described himself and other in AQ have described him as a commander, ie a combatant. <br />
- He selected and published pictures of himself in military clothing and with military weapons.<br />
Thus he was a combatant. He caould be shot at and even be the intentional target.</p>
<p>The question is was there sufficient military necessity to specify target him?<br />
Were proportional means used to attack him as target?<br />
Was the raid carried out in accordance with the Law of War. Specifically had he clearly surrendered at the point when he was shot. If he had clearly surrendered he would have had to be taken prisoner. ?</p>
<p>That is International Law not Church teaching but even so I think this fall under moral conduct of war not the moral use states authority of deal with common criminals. The operation itself appears to be well within the JWD on the conduct of war, assuming bin Ladin had not clearly surrendered when he was killed..</p>
<p></p>
<p><br />
</p>elena commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4d09c6970b2011-05-05T06:34:37Z2011-05-05T06:34:37ZelenaCK, i don't think those Seals will be forced to lie (or will 'volunteer the truth') - most likely, it'll...<p>CK, i don't think those Seals will be forced to lie (or will 'volunteer the truth') - most likely, it'll be the usual 'don't ask-don't tell'<br />
OBL's wife (shot in the leg allegedly defending her husband) and his 12-year old daughter (who, according to the bbc, witnessed the killing) are recovering in the military hospital and have their stories to tell</p>
<p>it seems to me that talking about human nature, moral law, etc., you're operating in a different realm - how can you fully justify any killing?<br />
an absurdity, yet evil means are being used to reach good goals all the times<br />
and there, sadly, we can only look at the extent of evil to compare (auschwitz vs. carpet bombing of dresden, machine-gunning lines of refugees by franco vs. collateral damage of modern missiles, etc.)</p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4b9c9b970b2011-05-04T22:26:28Z2011-05-04T22:26:28ZDavid NickolCK, Now I am confused. As I understand the news accounts, there were only four people in the room when...<p>CK, </p>
<p>Now I am confused. As I understand the news accounts, there were only four people in the room when bin Laden was shot—bin Laden himself, a woman (wife?), and two Navy Seals (or grunts, as you seem to think of them). You suggest the "grunts" may be lying about what happened. If that is so, we can never know what took place. Formerly, I thought you suggested that that the the "grunts" had been given illegal orders and carried them out faithfully—to capture and *then* kill.</p>
<p>It seems to me if we can't believe the information from the government, and we can't believe the eyewitness testimony of the "grunts" who were there, there is not much to talk about. It could be that they never even found bin Laden at all, or that the captured him and are holding him somewhere secretly, just *claiming* he is dead. Or maybe they captured him alive, flew him to the United States, and Obama himself shot bin Laden in the head.</p>
<p>I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish. </p>CK commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4b7eb2970b2011-05-04T21:51:27Z2011-05-04T21:51:27ZCK"If I have to take someones word for whether it was within the roe (rules of engagement) to shoot Osama...<p>"If I have to take someones word for whether it was within the roe (rules of engagement) to shoot Osama then I will take the SEAL's word over that of the terrorists. Call me crazy, but I believe terrorists lie."</p>
<p>The second sentence does not follow from the first and vice versa. It's not a binary situation. Terrorists may lie, but it does not mean that we should merely take a grunt's word that what he did was within the rules of engagement (or more importantly within the moral law). Human nature being what it is, darkened by Original Sin, it is just as important to recognize that SEAL teams, Marines, Rangers, and other honorable folks can lie too, especially at war, especially with regard to how they handled a borderline situation involving the rules of engagement. </p>Fr. J commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321e4835970c2011-05-04T21:18:27Z2011-05-04T21:18:27ZFr. JPeople are agreeing with me? Maybe I should take another look...but no I think I am right on this one....<p>People are agreeing with me? Maybe I should take another look...but no I think I am right on this one. If I have to take someones word for whether it was within the roe (rules of engagement) to shoot Osama then I will take the SEAL's word over that of the terrorists. Call me crazy, but I believe terrorists lie. I have this image of my mind that we took him prisoner, his minions kidnap some American children and begin beheading them demanding his release, think of that on youtube, and then would we let him go? This whole thing seemed to work out right for everyone. If this was an execution it was quick and proper. He even got a Muslim burial. After the Israeli's executed Eichmann they cremated him and tossed the ashes in the sea with no ceremony at all. Basically if you become a terrorist, kill thousands of people, create mayhem worldwide, then you can expect a bullet in the head at some point. I don't see any reason to agonize over it. Catholicism isn't a pacifist faith.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321e415a970c2011-05-04T21:08:30Z2011-05-04T21:08:30ZDavid NickolI should add that Navy Seals are not CIA agents. My point is that even if Obama actually gave an...<p>I should add that Navy Seals are not CIA agents. My point is that even if Obama actually gave an order to the military to assassinate bin Laden, Bush *delegated* authority to the CIA to kill known terrorists. I suppose it is "partisan" to point this out, but if there are Bush supporters who are criticizing Obama now, I don't think it is wrong to remind them of what they supported during the Bush years. </p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4b54b5970b2011-05-04T20:58:38Z2011-05-04T20:58:38ZDavid NickolCK, You say: "If that delegation is to kill terrorists in combat, then I see no problem, but if that...<p>CK,</p>
<p>You say: "If that delegation is to kill terrorists in combat, then I see no problem, but if that delegation is to just kill anyone labelled "terrorist" (even if the person is actually a terrorist) then I think there are serious moral issues at stake."</p>
<p>I provided the link so people could follow it, but here are the opening paragraphs of the article, which make it crystal clear that Bush gave the authority to the CIA to kill specific individuals on a continuously updated list "if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized."</p>
<p>**********<br />
The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.</p>
<p>The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. ''It's the worst of the worst,'' an official said.</p>
<p>President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the ''high-value target list.'' A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.</p>
<p>Despite the authority given to the agency, Mr. Bush has not waived the executive order banning assassinations, officials said. The presidential authority to kill terrorists defines operatives of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force.</p>
<p>Mr. Bush issued a presidential finding last year, after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, providing the basic executive and legal authority for the C.I.A. to either kill or capture terrorist leaders. Initially, the agency used that authority to hunt for Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. That authority was the basis for the C.I.A.'s attempts to find and kill or capture Mr. Bin laden and other Qaeda leaders during the war in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>The creation of the secret list is part of the expanded C.I.A. effort to hunt and kill or capture Qaeda operatives far from traditional battlefields, in countries like Yemen.</p>
<p>The president is not legally required to approve each name added to the list, nor is the C.I.A. required to obtain presidential approval for specific attacks, although officials said Mr. Bush had been kept well informed about the agency's operations.<br />
**********</p>sean samis commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4b3533970b2011-05-04T20:20:01Z2011-05-04T20:20:01Zsean samisCK, the language is ambiguous and probably was mistaken. It is one of the unfortunate conditions of humans that they...<p>CK, the language is ambiguous and probably was mistaken. It is one of the unfortunate conditions of humans that they are not always clear in their words, and unfortunately in our politics, mistakes are never forgiven. I am sure you have made verbal blunders, I know I have. </p>
<p>There is no clear statement that OBL was captured and then killed only that "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body." Even the author said "You had to be listening extremely carefully the first night to catch that nuance." It is more likely than not that this was just a verbal slip, which was later corrected. Probably the speaker meant to say that "After a firefight, they found they'd killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body." That is an innocent act.</p>
<p>But of course those among use who are themselves perfect and never make mistakes will be inclined to not understand. The rest of us mere mortals understand and can forgive innocent misstatements.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>CK commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321df00d970c2011-05-04T19:36:51Z2011-05-04T19:36:51ZCK"What I said is that your hypos are just that: hypos." Actually, if you read the article linked, the issue...<p>"What I said is that your hypos are just that: hypos." Actually, if you read the article linked, the issue of "Captured and then Killed" is a very real factual issue, since it is what the President himself said with "an operation that resulted in the capture and death of Osama bin Laden."</p>
<p>As such, the issue cannot yet be evaded as a mere hypothetical, and thus, the issues remain whether it is moral, legal (under UCMJ), and even wise to kill a man, no matter who, under custody. I think such an action is not permissible on each of these levels. <br />
<br />
Fr. J states: "This is a war that Osama started and he got killed in it, so I don't think he has much cause to complain." That is true, however, the concern about killing those in capture isn't only for the captured, but concern for the soldiers doing the killing and their own moral integrity. In addition, soldiers should expect the same kind of treatment under capture that we give others. It is by our own example, our own moral leadership and integrity that we show the world the right way to treat the captured, even in proper execution. "Death before dishonor" is a very real concern for all soldiers, Marines, and especially Catholic Priests. There has many a good priest, many a good confessor, in the annals of Christendom that has second guessed what some men have done in combat.</p>
<p>As for partisan concerns regarding who "delegated" the license to kill, I think they are irrelevant. If that delegation is to kill terrorists in combat, then I see no problem, but if that delegation is to just kill anyone labelled "terrorist" (even if the person is actually a terrorist) then I think there are serious moral issues at stake. </p>sean samis commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e883e7925970d2011-05-04T19:14:17Z2011-05-04T19:14:17Zsean samisDavid, indeed. So do I. It is shocking to write so; but Truth is Truth. sean s.<p>David, indeed. So do I. It is shocking to write so; but Truth is Truth.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e4add0f970b2011-05-04T18:44:13Z2011-05-04T18:44:13ZDavid NickolI agree with Fr. J. (I never thought I would find myself typing those words!)<p>I agree with Fr. J. (I never thought I would find myself typing those words!)</p>Fr. J commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e883e31ef970d2011-05-04T18:01:50Z2011-05-04T18:01:50ZFr. JSEAL's are professionals. I don't try to second guess men in combat. They have to make split second decisions. In...<p>SEAL's are professionals. I don't try to second guess men in combat. They have to make split second decisions. In this case one wrong move would have been sufficient. This is a war that Osama started and he got killed in it, so I don't think he has much cause to complain. The object of war is to "kill people and break things." This is what happens in war and it is better that Osama gets shot then he be given the chance to kill more innocents. I don't see anything immoral in what happened. </p>elena commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321d5122970c2011-05-04T16:55:14Z2011-05-04T16:55:14ZelenaCK, did you watch yestrday Leon Panetta's interview to Jim Lehrer? Panetta said that if OBL took a defensive pose...<p>CK, did you watch yestrday Leon Panetta's interview to Jim Lehrer?<br />
Panetta said that if OBL took a defensive pose (hands up, white flag) facing the Seals, they wouldn't have killed him<br />
he did not elaborate, but i guess 'the rules of engagement' assume an immediate threat</p>sean samis commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e883dcc38970d2011-05-04T16:11:35Z2011-05-04T16:11:35Zsean samisCK; What I said is that your hypos are just that: hypos. what-ifs. SOME people are astonished that Obama gave...<p>CK; What I said is that your hypos are just that: hypos. what-ifs. SOME people are astonished that Obama gave this order, but they have no reason to be astonished.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321d22c3970c2011-05-04T16:05:33Z2011-05-04T16:05:33ZDavid NickolCK, Are you saying that Obama gave an immoral and unlawful order that the military faithfully carried out? There's an...<p>CK,</p>
<p>Are you saying that Obama gave an immoral and unlawful order that the military faithfully carried out? </p>
<p>There's an interesting story in The New York Times, December 15, 2002, with the headline: THREATS AND RESPONSES: HUNT FOR AL QAEDA; BUSH HAS WIDENED AUTHORITY OF C.I.A. TO KILL TERRORISTS. It begins as follows:</p>
<p>**********<br />
The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.</p>
<p>The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. ''It's the worst of the worst,'' an official said.</p>
<p>President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the ''high-value target list.'' A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.<br />
**********</p>
<p>People are so astonished that Obama gave this order to capture or kill bin Laden, but George Bush *delegated* the authority to kill terrorists. <br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/world/threats-responses-hunt-for-al-qaeda-bush-has-widened-authority-cia-kill.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/world/threats-responses-hunt-for-al-qaeda-bush-has-widened-authority-cia-kill.html</a></p>sean samis commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321d1ee4970c2011-05-04T16:01:45Z2011-05-04T16:01:45Zsean samisCK; any lawful and moral act can be "what if"ed. These hypos do not put what actually happened in doubt....<p>CK; any lawful and moral act can be "what if"ed. These hypos do not put what actually happened in doubt.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>CK commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321d0f1b970c2011-05-04T15:46:55Z2011-05-04T15:46:55ZCKWhat about if he was captured, and then executed? From what I remember, such conduct is not permitted under the...<p>What about if he was captured, and then executed? From what I remember, such conduct is not permitted under the UCMJ. If the members of Seal Team 6 were given the order to execute him after capture and maintaining positive control of OBL, then that order would be an immoral and even unlawful order which should have been resisted. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/After_not_during.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/After_not_during.html</a></p>
<p>And if that was the situation, we should have given OBL the benefit of law:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MraVxLNkYZk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MraVxLNkYZk</a></p>sean samis commented on 'Imminence, Unlawful Aggressors, and Proportionality in Self-Defense'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20154321cb891970c2011-05-04T14:26:48Z2011-05-04T14:26:48Zsean samisI think it is the case that nothing in the catechism is on point. In cases such as this, moral...<p>I think it is the case that nothing in the catechism is on point. In cases such as this, moral reasoning must consider not only OBL's imminent threat, but his culpability in past events, his long-standing evasion of trial and confrontation, the threat of future action on his part, his role in encouraging others to murder, the risk to those who were attempting to apprehend or kill him, the failure of the government in that area to cooperate with his capture, (assuming it was not complicit in his evasion), etc. Perhaps none of these items alone justifies killing him, but in total they do.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>