I have been reading various comments regarding the termination of Bin Laden. The sqawking that is making me the most crazy centers around the idea that he should have been captured and brought to trial. People are suggesting that the premise of justice in our country specifies that one is innocent until proven guilty. I have just a couple of thoughts about that and this particular terrorist.
Bin Laden admitted his guilt so there wasn't any need to prove his guilt. Where exactly would one find a "jury of his peers"? I am pretty sure if we knew where they were they wouldn't be available for a court date. Where would you go to find someone who has never heard or read about Bin Laden? How could you possibly imprison Bin Laden? Some kooky bunch of terrorists would kidnap some hostages and then want to negotiate his release and the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously, folks need to get a grip on the fact that sometimes there are circumstances outside the norm and there is no playbook. There is a war on terror...or so the Bush administration tried to tell us. In war people get killed. It isn't pretty and it isn't "fair". It's war. Our government did what needed to be done.
1 comment:
Not that it matters one way or the other, but I saw several "tweets" or "FB" posts that said, "Who is Osama?"
Yes, there are apparent idiots out there.
(& The "I thought they said Obama...") & bigots...
Post a Comment