Al Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri killed by US Drone Strike

I don't believe justice is necessarily "for" anyone....and in some cases it is for everyone/the greater good.

By your logic should Charles Manson have been imprisoned for life? He "planned it". Or was that just revenge for deaths in the Tate murders and the terror inflicted on society.

Do you feel the Nuremburg trials were revenge and exerting will abroad? What about decades of searching and bringing war criminals to justice....many who just "planned" the atrocities. Would making the families "whole" be an adequate response to the Holocaust?

 

We were determined to end the war quickly so the Soviets didnt get involved, and of course dropping the bomb showed them whats up too, it was a demonstration of power and about setting stage for the post-war hegemony in Asia.

 

Thanks. Just check it out from the library although I have a lot of others checked out at the same time. Hopefully I'll get to it.


I will say the two books that I read generally on the use of atomic bombs would counsel against it. One is by Fred Kaplan



He talks about how the fact that every administration that conducts its nuclear posture review generally ends up coming to the conclusion that any use of atomic/nuclear weapons is pure insanity, and that having a very limited quantity should be more than enough of a deterrent to any rational actor.

And this speculative novel by Jeffrey Lewis, which imagines an inadvertent nuclear exchange between the US and DPRK based upon misreading signals, described what would occur based upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which he is an expert on. It was horrific

 

What greater good was served by the War on Terror? Its torched the constitution, and very much set the course for the erosion of democracy here.

I would say Nuremburg and the Japanese equivalent featured elements of "victor's justice" as well as selective punishment, especially since Paperclip scooped up thousands of Nazis who we thought might be useful to us. How can there be an "adequate" response to historical crimes? Putting someone to death or imprisoning them isnt adequate compensation for losing a loved one either. But restorative justice is certainly less destructive to humanity and society than retributive justice.

 

You are putting words in my mouth....I didn't say a greater good was served by the war on terror, that was for justice in general. But never the less, I'll take the bait.
A properly managed and effective war on terror would serve to mitigate risk of future terror, both here and abroad. Preventing bad actors from committting crimes is a good thing, I don't think that's debatable. That's certainly for the greater good. Now one could argue until the end of time how proper and effective this war on terror has been, or how it might have been better managed....some would argue we made it worse. But that's a separate argument.

As for your post WW2 comments. You accurately, but selectively, identity flaws or incosistencies in the justice system of those events..... but avoid the actual point, which is, should these individuals face justice and punishment for their actions. Are the war criminals to be ignored/exonerated because the response isn't "adequate"? If someone robs your house do you simply want restoration and the burglar a pat on the head and released?
Restorative and retributive justice are not mutually exclusive. Both are important IMO

 

Seems like a false choice between "ignoring/exoneration" vs. conducting public trials based on unprecedented and untried legal theories. After the Civil War, all it took to be back in good standing was swearing loyalty to the government and Constitution. Those that didnt were barred from public life. Only one person was condemned for war crimes, and that was controversial. Not murdering a bunch of people after the war for retribution was probably a good thing, but they certainly bungled the restorative justice part, particularly on behalf of former slaves, seizing land, breaking up large estates and economically disempowering the Southern elite would have been a positive development. "Punishment" does not have to be prison/death, nor does restorative justice not disempower or dispossess the perpetrator(s).

 

Didn't Obama do something similar with Bin Laden and a few others taken out during his reign? SOF forces or drones/airstrikes. I believe Trump had the Iranian taken out too.

 

Hindsight is wonderful. Killing for restorative justice. Right up your alley tough guy.

 

There are some pretty interesting arguments against. Apparently several of the well known generals at the time were against using it. Also there is a school of thought they were more terrified of the soviets and if we worked with them Japan would have surrendered. Along those lines some extrapolate that the bomb was as much for the soviets “benefit” to demonstrate our power.

Years ago I watched Oliver Stone Untold history of the US on HBO

The Untold History of the United States (TV Mini Series 2012–2013) - IMDb

You have to take anything of his with a grain of salt, but it does come at it from a completely different perspective.

 

Real tough guys drone strike from a computer screen hundreds of miles away

 

Trump had the chance to kill Al Qaeda's leader but didn't because he didn't recognize the name, report says

 

The Japanese Emperor, their God, was the decision maker, and he was not going to ever give up. Look at every battle fought in the Pacific and you will see a fanatical enemy that would never surrender. Look at how Japanese soldiers were found still alive on islands, years after the war was over. Look at how pilots would fly their planes into ships, after having been sealed into the cockpit. Never surrender, fight to the death, or kill yourself, were the only honorable options military personnel had. Even the Japanese civilian population was training for an invasion, and that included women and children. Based on the casualties during the island battles and the type of fighting the Japanese soldier was trained for, especially as the Allies got closer to their mainland, Iwo Jima and Okinawa specifically, our military advisors knew an invasion of Japan itself would result in massive casualties. And that would be massive casualties for both sides. Fire-bombing had already been effective against military and civilian targets, but the atomic bombs only required a single device and a single plane for delivery. After that, throw in the fact that Russia wanted to get involved so they could potentially get their hands on Japanese territory, and that is why the bombs were dropped. It was the right decision at the time.

 

Not really the case, the emperor wasn't much of a decision maker in starting or prosecuting the war. And he even proposed ending the war before the bombs were dropped, and tried to reach out to the Soviets to broker it, and then waffled after Potsdam, and then waffled back to peace after the bombs were dropped. The militarists ran the country (after marginalizing or killing people who opposed confrontation) and the emperor more or less just let things play out until the writing was on the wall. Really the emperor was weak, indecisive and easily influenced. Politics in imperial Japan was basically various ministers and military figures making bold gestures or unapproved actions in order to win favor. Manchuria was one of those bold moves! The militarists kept doing crazy things until the emperor basically had to go along with it and appoint Tojo after his hand was forced.

 

Drones?

Trump: "No one knows more about drones than me." (sarcasm)

 

They don’t care either. Remember the guy running for the Republican nomination who said he didn’t care who the president of Becky Beckystan was?

 

Not sure how you have drifted into the Civil War and the disposition of Reconstruction? Not really comparable situation to this discussion....I don't think prosecution (or lack thereof) of soldiers is equivalent to the pursuit and punishment of terrorists. A more apt comparison may be the prosecution and sentencing of the Lincoln conspirators, Surratt's, Powell, etc. War criminals, terrorists, those who commit atrocities are the point of discussion here, not common soldiers.
But you keep drifting from what is essentially our primary disagreement....the question of retributive punishment/justice having a use in the justice system. While I can agree it is sometimes misapplied, it is more often than not "just" and necessary. And as I stated before, retibution/punishment and restoration are not mutually exclusive. You still haven't answered the ultimate question....are you opposed to all "retributive" punishment, and if not where is your line for it being applicable vs not?

 

You might want to check your sources. Hirohito was absolutely a decision maker. The military leaders made no major decisions without consulting him, and that would be the case throughout the entire war. Fact, he approved the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He was directly involved in the decision making with regard to the battles at Guadalcanal, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, The Mariana Islands and Okinawa. He WAS viewed as a God to the common people, who had never even heard his voice until a recorded statement of surrender was played to the masses in August of 1945 after the second bomb was dropped. Interestingly, the word "surrender" was never used in the statement. It was the bomb, more than any Soviet action, that influenced his final decision.