Was the order capture or kill or was the order kill?

[Capitalocracy]

And yes, I think the distinction is important.

[sharp_stick]

1. Likely not something

you or I will ever know for sure.

[MineralMan]

2. You'll have ask President Obama.

He hasn't told us here at DU. Good luck with that, then...

[rucky]

16. He told the nation last night.

Capture or kill. It was in his address.

[still_one]

3. I don't, especially based on where he was, and the questions regarding how much cooperation Pakistan

was giving us.

They had very little time to pull this off, and the highest priority should have been to protect the Navy Seals who went in there, not to take unnecessary risks

That being said, we are all entitled to our views

[Capitalocracy]

7. An order of capture, do not kill would be an unnecessary risk.

Capture or kill would not. I would rather see him killed than any of the people that went in after him too, but if they had the chance to get him alive, they should've. Trials are really, really important, and extrajudicial execution is bad even at its best.

[still_one]

12. I understand /nt

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

17. Osama didn't strike me as a type

that would surrender..............

[Capitalocracy]

22. No, definitely wouldn't surprise me if he resisted

I'm just confused because there seem to be two different narratives going around.

[jpljr77]

4. Honestly, probably "kill."

If you really think about it, run through all the scenarios in your head, it really would not have made sense to bring him into custody.

I'm not saying it's right, but that's probably what happened. And yes, he was probably executed (meaning, the room was secure and there was no firefight when he actually received the bullets).

[Capitalocracy]

14. Why would it not make sense?

Do you mean the logistics on the ground, or the hassle of putting him on trial?

[jpljr77]

24. Both. But more the latter.

Do you mean the logistics on the ground, or the hassle of putting him on trial?

I think that it would have taken far more than 30 or so SEALs to bring him alive into custody (obviously, the way it went down, they could have done it, but for planning purposes, you would have needed far more).

But the trial would have been a grotesque spectacle, used by both (or all) sides as propaganda. Also, one of the main reasons you take people into custody is for interrogation. OBL's value as an interrogation subject was minimal. He had not been in the operational loop of the network in quite some time.

So it just didn't make sense, in my opinion.

[Solly Mack]

5. Depends on the headline you read.

U.S. Was Willing to Take Bin Laden Alive

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/05/02/u-s-was-willing-to-take-bin-laden-alive/?mod=google_news_blog

U.S. Team's Mission Was to Kill, Not Capture Bin Laden - U.S. Security Official

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4835439&mesg_id=4835439

[Poll_Blind]

6. Very true. The Reuters story came out first, I believe, but...(?)

:shrug:

PB

[Solly Mack]

10. I'm not even going to speculate.

Confusion isn't uncommon at such times. Confusion can also be a desired effect.

I'm sure there will be a coalescence soon enough.

[Capitalocracy]

11. Or a Wikileak. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Reuters story has an unnamed source...John Brennan stated the actual case publically

at a press briefing. Clearly, one of these is more credible than the other.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. According to many DUers last night and today, the distinction

is 'quaint and obsolete.' This has not been one of DU's finer moments, imho. Atavism knows no particular poltiical loyalties, it seems.

[Capitalocracy]

9. I'm going to stand with my principles on this one...

even though I'm glad he's dead.

I have zero problem with it if they had an order to capture or kill and the guy had a gun. Take him out. But I think trials are incredibly important. Only the true core supporters of an evil terrorist mastermind or fascist dictator or what have you will think they look good after having their crimes picked apart and examined in a courtroom.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. It's posts like yours that keep me coming back to DU. I can't say

I'm 'glad' that OBL is dead. I think everyone deserves a trial in court by a jury of peers before being executed. That belief also seems rather quaint and obsolete around these parts yesterday and today.

[rucky]

15. It depends on whether you believe the President or CNN

that should make things pretty clear

[Capitalocracy]

19. Honestly, I'm not particularly trusting of either one.

So I don't know. I hope Obama's telling the truth.

[davepc]

18. I don't think you undertake a raid like this with the intent of just leaving if he dosent come quiet

Well Mr. President, he wouldn't surrender, and since our orders were to capture him and not kill him we left.

And if he had a weapon and was firing at the SEALs, he didn't even give them an option.

[Capitalocracy]

20. I never said they should just leave if he resisted.

Actually, I think that's pretty clear in my post and the responses here... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you did already know that I wonder what compels you to put those words in my mouth.

[bighart]

23. But the orders have nothing to do with Bin Laden's reaction.

The question is where the orders "capture OR kill" or where the orders "kill DO NOT capture". There is a difference.