The reason you're so desperate to extrapolate my beliefs to everyone else is because my beliefs about bin laden make total sense. Most people want bin laden dead no matter what. You can't argue that point, so you're trying to argue a completely different point with different people.
if you were president, would you have ordered to kill kim jong un or would you have tried to make peace at a peace summit?
There was no standing "Kill" order given for Osama Bin Laden.
If Bin Laden walked up to you and surrendered, regardless of who you are, Military or Civilian, you would be obligated by law to detain him (or refuse) and lead/point him toward an authority that could detain him, Alive.
Even on the night he was killed... the Seal Team's rules of engagement for the mission clearly stated that if he surrenders and presents himself as non-threatening, he is to be captured alive. There was no "Shoot on Site" orders given. Only if he posses a threat and endangered lives was he to be killed with prejudice.
I would do a better job at the peace summit, or just not have one at all. It doesn't make sense to give the north koreans huge propaganda victories at home in return for nothing.
That doesn't make it morally correct, and also why I'm not arguing against it. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you don't seem to grasp that. The point is, if you're willing to murder someone who is surrendering because you think they're bad enough to deserve it, what are the circumstances you (or the mob) require to meet your standards for whether they deserve it. You've said you would murder Kim Jong Un at a peace conference. You've said you would murder Bin Laden if he surrendered. Now you're saying it's justified because people would agree with you.
I'm saying it's a morally reprehensible attitude. You're not denying it as morally reprehensible. You're rationalizing it by saying other morally reprehensible people would do it too. That's not a counterargument. So again, what's your cutoff? Are you ok with the police shooting unarmed criminals who have killed people before?
jfc triple icard2: it's like you're missing multiple chromosomes
It was not immediately clear why Cohen was looking for new representation, which sometimes happens for financial reasons or because of a change in legal strategy. ABC News, which first reported Cohen’s plans to change lawyers, said the longtime Trump associate was likely to cooperate with federal investigations.
...
Trump and his outside advisers have been worried for months that Cohen could be susceptible to cooperating with federal prosecutors to avoid a lengthy jail term.
“That’s what they’ll threaten him with: life imprisonment,” Alan Dershowitz, a liberal lawyer and frequent Trump defender, told POLITICO in April. “They’re going to threaten him with a long prison term and try to turn him into a canary that sings.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/michael-cohen-legal-team-trump-mueller-643665