Has anybody in the obama admin explained why they were told to kill and not capture?

I'm not complaining, I'm glad he's dead. I'm just curious.

ones more recently) said that they should kill unless he unambiguously surrendered (which is precisely in accordance with the laws of war).

You're correct.

Would it have been better if a law-enforcement operation was feasible? Yes, it would have. But it wasn't feasible, so I have no problems with military rules of engagement in that case.

Which I tend to think it was, but most likely because of the hassle on what to do with him. Either way, I'm not losing sleep over it.

and stop milking what is no longer news.

They were told to kill UNLESS he was clearly surrendering.

Feel better now?

There has been speculation, but I haven't heard anything on the news from the administration about it. The speculation has been varied...

1) Military trial versus Regular...(no need for those discussions)...kind of a doomed conversation politically either way
2) Didn't want to make a hero out of him
3) Didn't want to have to throw out a case later, because of information received from torture

yada, yada...

In a way, now the story is quite short....he was shot dead and dumped overboard. Fewer questions asked.

He could have been stark naked waving a white flag in the middle of an empty room and they still probably would have killed him.

Let's not beat around the bush.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502

He wasn't naked, and weapons were found in the room.

If you have to drop in a SEAL team to get some one, and you want those SEALs to all come back alive ... when they find the target, if the target blinks funny, they should take him out.

Not a single SEAL was injured.

I'm not sure what the point of your reply to me was.

But if he gave any resistance, killing him was fine.

It was a kill mission.

I'd go with the Reuters view too ... if they had a person dropping into the compound with the SEALs.

Lacking that, I don't really care what they think.

it was a kill job and dispense job. most demoralizing. Hostage taking might still happen but the big prize is gone. it is a nasty world. in this case i think they did the right thing.

on trial would have been perceived as weak and "liberal" (can't have that)! Think about it; most of the popular TV shows and movies feature bad guys who are over-the-top evil and the big payoff at the end is that "they get theirs" by getting killed in some gruesome fashion. People just eat it up. Certainly Osama and all of his fundie misogynist buddies are awful people, but putting him on trial for the 9/11 attacks might have been illuminating...and maybe not in the way the government wants. Even at this late date I don't think that the FBI has ever pegged OBL as the mastermind of those attacks. Now that he's dead that discussion will probably never come up. Killing him is a win-win: Obama gets top ratings and no one questions the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks.

I don't remember it being a planned operation.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030728-465944,00.html

And it was always dead or alive... always.

to ask questions...

If OBL had been put on trial, where would he, and the trial, have been held?

Does anyone here actually believe he'd have gotten a totally fair trial? And if he couldn't have had a completely fair trial, that would mean it would be a sham. Where is the higher morality in holding a sham trial in which the outcome is already known as opposed to just shooting him and dispensing with the faux "justice"?

There isn't a judge or a jury that's been under a rock... or in a cave... that long that they could be completely unaffected by what we've heard about this man over the years.

Even the Dali Lama is cool with putting OBL down... but not some DUers! We are so much holier...

I'd bet it was indeed capture or kill but that the understanding was 'kill' was fine.
That is this guy would be a clear danger and especially not having armed guards around the place they'd assume there was a lot of inside ways to attack if they ever came for him. It wouldn't take much movement besides arm up to think he could be going for a button that would detonate something or a weapon in his sleeve or under pillow, anything. It would be dumb to take that chance too

On Sunday TV some 'expert' brought up something I hadn't thought of as a very bad thing about capture. He spoke of the likelihood of hostages being taken by his supporters with demands he be released and some things like that
I had only thought of the political and ideological ones and how really stupid we'd look since Congress has decreed justice for scary Muslims can't happen in United states, barring the trials here. Well since he wasn't at Gitmo not sure current law would ban it...
but it was horrifying when they banned granting or using existing funds to close Gitmo or transfer detainees when we had the big majority back in spring 2009. Senate passed that amendment 90 to 6! Republicans kept saying scarey things about terrorists freed on our streets, oh noes!

Oh that got off topic and I am pretty sure 'kill' wasn't ordered just to prevent a ridiculous fight with Congress about being able to hold his trial. Just was sad to imagine how badly it might have gone.

his followers would have incentives to plan attacks and or take hostages to try to gain his release. It would have been a very ugly and dangerous situation.

I've said much the same thing you have here.

I've asked questions of the people who think OBL should have been captured and put on trial, and, as far as I can see, nobody has answered.

What would be nice is for at least one person who thinks he should have gotten a trial to give some of those questions some thought and then answer them.

Like the very first problem...where would he, and his trial, be held.


In their hometown? I bet they'd say, "NO WAY!!! Not in MY hometown!!" Let someone else deal with it. Let someone else put up with the possible disruption and violence. People want what they want but they don't want to deal with the consequences.

Just like with prisons or halfway houses. People agree there's overcrowding and that newer, better facilities need to be built. But not in their neighborhoods...

Not to mention, if capturing him and putting him on trial would uphold the rule of law, what would a circus trial show? What would that say about our justice system?

...."where would he, and his trial, be held."

Answer; The International Criminal Court.


The big question comes down to morality vs. legality. At least that is my understanding.
Morally, considering the methods used by OBL and his followers and possibly his couriers, it seems that some if not many people agree that it was appropriate.
It is still up for discussion legally for some if not many law makers. This is something that will have to be reviewed by experts. My guess is that since this
is a case of terrorism on a huge scale there are not many precedents to refer to and there may be either new laws adopted or loopholes from old laws
that may be challenged if this question of legality is ever investigated.


I am no expert by any means and I might be waaaaayyyy off here but this is just a shot at giving you some answer to a question that you have not received a reply on.


ON EDIT: Seems that the ICC could not have housed the trial;

"Bin Laden could not have been tried at the International Criminal Court because its jurisdiction runs from 2002 but an ad hoc tribunal could have been set up in The Hague by the UN Security Council, presided over by international jurists."

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38328

I'm the kind of person who always likes to have a Plan B, you know?

What if the people in the Netherlands didn't want OBL anywhere near their country?

Also, security measures for everyone involved in the trial...

And how would the court find people who could, or would be willing to, forget 9/11 so OBL could have a "fair" trial? Would a sham trial be any better than just getting rid of him like they did?

I think all these are valid questions and concerns, and would probably take a real long time to resolve...if they ever could be at all.

Meantime, the people holding OBL are worrying about their own lives and possible retaliatory attacks.

I dunno...I think maybe the Big Guys had hashed all this out over and over so many times they couldn't come up with any better solution than what they did...

:shrug:

in my edit on my original post. They are used to dealing with high profile figures, security, etc. As I mentioned I was playing devils advocate and just taking a stab at it.

The legality of this operation seems a bit complicated and it looks like international law coupled with the 2001 resolution for terrorism were used in informing the decision to "capture or kill". I don't know if that is a fact or not though. The debate seems to be full-steam amoung scholars and law professionals.

people to try to obtain his release??? Don't you think they would do anything to try to gain his release?

I thought it was a good question and I didn't see any answer, doesn't mean one wasn't posted somewhere but I did not see it at the time of the posting.

Are you just asking this question as a point of discussion or are you under the impression that I am taking a stance?

I'm not taking a stance. As a point of discussion it is a difficult question for sure. I assume it would be handled in ways that other well known figures have been handled in the past.
Those threats would have been addressed or planned for but I wouldn't go as far to say that those plans are/were foolproof.

:eyes:

:shrug:

Would be my guess. Of course we have no way of knowing what the order was that came down...none of us were there.

It seems clear that an easy capture involving unambiguous surrender would have resulted in a live bin Laden in custody.