About the killing of OBL and the wish to see him on trial:

[SmileyBoy]

I really haven't been on this site at all in the past few years. I joined this site shortly after 9/11 and was a frequent poster up until about 2008. (This was before DU was affiliated with blogs and journals and twitter/facebook, and it was JUST the discussion forums) I came to this site today to read what DUers are saying about this news.

I have seen an argument come up here that we "should" have took Bin Laden alive and brought him to trial. This idea however fails to recognize the actual events that took place.

When you have a suspect or target that you are trying to capture, and you engage them initially, you are giving that target the opportunity to turn themself in. The moment that the target/suspect decides to actually FIRE SHOTS at the enforcing officers (whether it's local police or Navy SEALS) and make an attempt to HARM those arresting officers by engage in a gun battle, the suspect/tagret in question has AT THAT POINT, with THOSE ACTIONS, told the arresting officers (or military personnel) that they are not willing to give themselves up and surrender. Therefore, legally (and this is true with even local police and some lone nut firing a gun at one officer) the arresting officer has the RIGHT to institute deadly force against the suspect.

The special ops going into that mansion probably knew that Bin Laden was not going to drop his gun and put his arms behind his back. And I mean, honestly, is that something you really think Bin Laden was going to do??

By going out guns blazing, Bin Laden was LEGALLY giving the arresting officials the go-ahead to use deadly force. This is the same shit as if a state trooper stopped a drug smuggler on the freeway, and the trooper found drugs in his car and had cause right there to arrest him, and the smuggler starts firing at the officer. The officer is NO LONGER LEGALLY LIABLE FOR THE SMUGGLER'S DEATH IF HE DIES FROM THE GUNFIGHT.

Authorities have the legal right to use deadly force on a suspect if that suspect is putting that authority's life in immediate danger. It's common knowledge.

Now actually, one CAN start the debate over if Obama was originally wanting to take him dead or alive (in the event of arms being dropped), or if they wanted to go in there and kill him no matter what happened. I personally cannot say. All I know that is the chance of the man actually willing to drop his arms and come peacefully and quietly with the SEALS is, well, I don't even want to say miniscule. I cannot envision a scenario where that occurs. I suppose if by some miracle Bin Laden chose to surrender, they might have brought him to trial, but what a lot of "pro-trial" people on this board fail to understand is that THE GUY WOULD NOT SURRENDER PEACEFULLY. To shout for a trial is to assume the guy would give up, and that's not the kind of guy he was, or the kind of ideology he had.

That's all I have to say. I did my best to explain it...

[originalpckelly]

1. Except that the most recent reports say Osama didn't fire.

"U.S. officials have said a small U.S. strike team, dropped by helicopter to bin Laden's hide-out near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad under cover of night, shot the al Qaeda leader dead with bullets to the chest and head. He did not return fire."

[tekisui]

3. There has been at least one report form Pakistan saying OBL's bodyguard

shot him.

[originalpckelly]

6. Huh?

No, I don't think so.

There is videographic evidence of it. Why do you think Obama was so solemn.

[tekisui]

8. Well, sure. But the video would also show if there was resistance.

Unless the video is made public, we will all be going on the word of the WH.

I'm not saying it was a guard, just what I read in DAWN.

[pnwmom]

12. So you found one quote. Funny you didn't put a link with that.

And it wouldn't matter if he returned fire if he was giving orders to others to fire.

[Abq_Sarah]

2. The SEAL team wasn't there to serve a warrant

They were there to kill him.

[pnwmom]

13. To kill or to capture. But Bid Laden has had 10 years to give himself up.

Who could be surprised that he didn't do so when the Seals stormed in?

[jp11]

4. I'll argue there are situations and scenarios, few and limited ones that might

just might have allowed a special forces team to surprise him and take him, if that is what they wanted to do/were ordered. If your only method is guns drawn in a assault style raid then no, there is very likely no chance of him dropping his weapon and surrendering. When you send in an assault team to raid a compound as opposed to trying to lure him out, or sneak in under cover, etc you practically eliminate any chance at taking the target unarmed.

I'd further add that while I'd like to have seen the man rot in a jail for the rest of his life I wouldn't suggest our troops take more risks to ensure he was taken alive. Plans could be made to try and if they couldn't do it, he was always armed, no way to 'sneak' in etc, then so be it and they fall back to taking out the threats to their lives and/or him. I don't know the intel they had, I don't know the plans they discussed, I don't know the way things went, etc but it seems that attempts to take him alive through stealth were not an option/possible or not considered. Sending two choppers to let troops repel down is not how you try to sneak into a location.

[pnwmom]

14. HUH? How could the Seals have gotten in there without guns drawn?

With that imagination, you should be writing novels.

[jp11]

27. Glad you focused on one thing I said an completely took it out of context.

Way to hold a discussion.

[EFerrari]

5. Welcome back, SmileyBoy.

[flvegan]

7. I'm not one to second guess Navy SEALS. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

9. I think many are confusing the laws and rules of engagement for terrorists in Pakistan with those in

New Jersey or Iowa.

All this talk about "arrest warrants" and "bringing him to trial" and even "innocent until proven guilty".

This is a war, and unconventional war, and Osama was a menace to us and to his own people, and we were there to confront him and take him dead or alive.

Job well done, less damage done than had we left him alone.

Good job, Mr. President.

:patriot:

[coalition_unwilling]

10. You might want to read this piece from Reuters:

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

If the Reuters report is to be believed, OBL was not 'resistng arrest,' because the SEALS were not there to arrest him, they were there on orders to kill him.

Nice try though.

[pnwmom]

15. One unconfirmed report by an unnamed official.

Nice try, though.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Excuse me, are you attempting to impeach Reuters, impeach

the unnamed official, impeach me or some combination of all 3? What's your real agenda here?

[pnwmom]

20. No agenda. Just pointing out that an unconfirmed anonymous report

is just that -- an unconfirmed, anonymous report. Not something to put much weight on.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. OK. But Reuters imho is usually a pretty reliable journalistic source.

Reuters does not make stuff up the way FOX News does. Reuters actually publishes facts.

[pnwmom]

23. Reuters doesn't make stuff up, but they made it clear

that this was just one anonymous source. If someone wants to be anonymous, the standard procedure is to get someone else to confirm it. They don't indicate this was done.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. Yes, all that you write is indisputably true. However, I think it is safe

to conclude that an unnamed U.S. security source did tell Reuters that the mission was to kill OBL. There's nothing unusual in his (or her) choosing to remain unnamed and, I submit, Washington would cease to function normally if leaks not for attribution stopped.

I don't know why Reuters did not get a confirming source, even without attribution (except that DC today was probably a journalistic nightmare). In fairness to your posts, I did see one DUer earlier today cast some doubt on the bona fides of the journalist who wrote the Reuters story. However, try as I might now, i am unable to locate that skeptical remark which goes to the reliability of the material. His quibble with the Reuters journalist was couched in rather vague terms, IIRC.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SmileyBoy]

19. What I was hearing on CNN was different.

There was a firefight and shooting back from Bin Laden's group.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. I've been seeing this "OBL was resisting arrest" rationalization

tossed around all day today unquestioningly. But if the Reuters story can be believed, there's no way OBL was 'resisting arrest' since the SEALs were sent to kill him, not arrest him.

Just because there was a firefight and shooting back from OBL's group does not necessarily mean that OBL was resisting arrest.

[pnwmom]

11. You did a great job explaining rationally.

Unfortunately, that won't be enough for some people.

[backscatter712]

17. What were the SEALs supposed to do? Use harsh language? n/t

[alarimer]

25. Any trial would have been a meaningless show trial.

The outcome would never have been in doubt.

[Cherchez la Femme]

26. Probably not

But we couldn't even attempt to practice what we preach?