POSTED BY SEVEN DAYS FREELANCE REPORTER KEVIN J. KELLEY
Add this one to the “Only in Burlington” file:
Two veteran peace activists called a news conference on Friday to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden as an act of “murder” on the part of the Obama administration. The shooting of the unarmed Al Qaeda leader constitutes an assassination that violates standards of international justice as well as the founding principles of the United States, declared Burlington attorney Sandy Baird and Peace and Justice Center cofounder Robin Lloyd.
The two women acknowledged that very few Americans will share their view that bin Laden should have been arrested and put on trial rather than being, in Baird’s words, “summarily executed.” But it’s wrong to sacrifice principle for the sake of popularity, Baird and Lloyd argued.
“We are the only voices that don’t seem entirely gleeful about the assassination of Osama bin Laden,” Baird said, likening the reaction to the killing to “crowds cheering as though it were a sports event.” She criticized Vermont’s three congressional representatives for praising the action carried out by a U.S. Special Forces Team on May 1.
Related Stories
This article appears in May 4-10, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Hey “the other david,” the comment you claim was censored was taken down because it violated our commenting policy.”Ok, if my reaction to Luhrs and Strat123 was too strong, I’ll accept that. But it’s ok for a (coincidentally, left-wing) poster here to say that the President of the United States is “masturbating”? That doesn’t violate your blog commenting policy? At the very least, it’s highly offensive, indecent, and inappropriate.Personally, I think one could make a case that the level of scrutiny 7D’s applies to taking down blog comments does depend upon the political viewpoint expressed.
Frankly I wouldn’t lose sleep if they use Osama’s head to kick off the next Superbowl. BUTBetween the war on drugs and the war on terror, our rights have shrunken significantly. I would hope that we can restore some of our freedoms now that Osama’s dead, but I doubt it.
STRAT123, I don’t understand your illegal argument, especially with the link you posted. The news link from ABC spells out all the reasons you are wrong. Moreover, ONE_VTer already posted where Pakistan gave the US permission. So if you are going to argue that it was illegal then you need to be a bit more specific. This blanket statement without source, reference, or reasoning isn’t going to sway anyone that you are correct in your assessment. Actually the exact opposite, it only serves to strengthen the assessment that like Peggy you are simply perpetuating a talking point. Secondly, what is your purpose bring in right wingers into. They don’t want the gov’t telling them what to do and violating their constitutional right to liberty and that somehow means they can’t support the president as commander in chief in doing his constitutionally authorized job? I don’t get the reference??
“The president considers himself judge, jury and executioner and is greeted with cheers. What an amazing irony for so many right wingers to condemn government intrusion but are brimming with glee when that same government performs assassinations citing classified evidence.”?? The president is judge jury and executioner during military operations. He is the commander in chief. That is his role. Congress gave him that power when the authorized the use of military force, which BTW gave him the LEGAL right to conduct military operations in Pakistan. Moreover, bin laden was a targeted kill, not an assassination. One is permited by international law, the other forbidden.
Not illegal? Are you people serious? Let’s see, violation of sovereign territory, violation of rules of engagement, no notification to the host country of an operation against its citizens, an agreement passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by an illegal dictator in Pakistan….http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-killing-legal-international-law/story?id=13538365&page=2JCARTER – It took you only one post to get my comments wrong. I said the assassination was WRONG on many levels, clearly implying a moral low-point for the U.S. You are welcome to cheer death to your heart’s content – heck, Republicans have been doing it since Bush was appointed to office – but it doesn’t mean every last person needs to go along with it.The president considers himself judge, jury and executioner and is greeted with cheers. What an amazing irony for so many right wingers to condemn government intrusion but are brimming with glee when that same government performs assassinations citing classified evidence.
Exactly, no one knows for sure what would have happened. But I think it’s safe to say that by doing nothing we didn’t help.
“Had the US killed Hussien 20 years ago there would likely be about million more kurds walking this earth.” That’s possible. But it’s also possible that it would have destabilized the region to such a degree that millions of other lives would have been destroyed. It could have emboldened Iran & Syria, thus provoking Israel into a massive war. It could have resulted in a major civil war in Iraq, leading the way for another group to slaughter the Kurds. Or Iran might have resumed their war with the weakened Iraqi state, killing countless numbers. Hussein was a terrible killer. But it really isn’t clear what would have happened if Bush #1 had taken him out in the 1990’s.
Seems appropriate Tyler:”In China, you can make money posting pro-government arguments in comment threads. Ai Weiwei has interviewed a man who says he’s one of these online propagandists. “”In fact, in a single forum you have to play three different roles. One is the leader. Another is the follower. The third is the observer, which is to say the masses ignorant of the facts. So first off is the leader. This is a speaker with relative authority. The leader generally steps into the debate later on, drawing out strong evidence with which to speak. The language from this character is relatively authoritative. Generally, the public will view this sort of person as credible. As to the second, the follower, there are basically two types, two types in opposition. These two characters are constantly debating and arguing, and even name calling, in opposition in the forum. This serves to draw the attention of observers. Then, in the end, the leader steps out, drawing on strong evidence. And ultimately, public opinion is drawn over to this third side [of the leader]. “http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/10/interview-with-a-paid-troll#comment_2278742
Wait, isn’t that a personal attack against the other David? Calling him a jerk? Tyler I think you need to remove your comment. Anywho, One_VTer… you hit the nail on the head. Target killings aren’t ideal, war is not ideal, hindsight is always 20-20. However, as much as some people are adamant that violence is wrong no matter what, sometimes killing another person saves lives. Had the US killed Hussien 20 years ago there would likely be about million more kurds walking this earth. If we had killed bin laden after he bombed the WTC there would definitely have been 3000+ more Americans living in NYC right now. Most of the time inaction leads to more suffering then action.
Hey “the other david,” the comment you claim was censored was taken down because it violated our commenting policy. No personal attacks on other posters. It’s not some conspiracy to promote ultra-leftist revolutionary views. If you’ve got nothing to add except to be a jerk to other commenters, take it elsewhere.Plus, you violated Godwin’s law in the removed comment, which is just bad form.I know you know the rules around here, other david, since I’ve had to take to take down comments of yours before (probably under one of your many other aliases, though). We let a lot slide around here and we let people express a pretty wide range of viewpoints. But we’re not going to allow it if you’re just going to be a jerk to other people. Quite simple, really.Thanks,Tyler MachadoDeputy Online Editor, Seven Days and the Ministry of Truth