[AnthonyKing]

I vote to arrest and then kill.

What would it take to push someone to leap to their death ? People such as those trapped inside the twin towers, knowing they where 100 stories up and would surely die.

I would love to have seen OBL put in that same position, force his ass to leap to his death. I would paid to go see it.

[HitAttetlyTek]

I think you've misunderstood my question as well. My question was if the mission was not about "surrender or die" but simply "Die!". I have the impression it was the latter.

I think it was about "Die", there was an option to take him alive, but there wasn't much of a chance that he would be taken alive. "Die" was success.

[eEwbYjOH]

I think it was about "Die", there was an option to take him alive,

Was there?

I have pretty little doubts that if they had given catching him alive a priority they could have done so easily without endangering their own men excessively. If you want to stop a person in order to catch him alive, you don't shoot him in the head you'll target anything else first before you'll target the head. I don't believe in accidental headshots. Not when the elite of the elite is conducting the mission.

[ChyFDjfed]

I think you've misunderstood my question as well. My question was if the mission was not about "surrender or die" but simply "Die!". I have the impression it was the latter.

My thought is that the mission objective was for a kill unless he was already on his knees with his hands on his head when they got to him. If he was trying to use a woman as interference and was in arms reach of a weapon as the reports indicate that was cause for a kill.

[unioneserry]

My thought is that the mission objective was for a kill unless he was already on his knees with his hands on his head when they got to him. If he was trying to use a woman as interference and was in arms reach of a weapon as the reports indicate that was cause for a kill.

I don't think he had mind control over his wifes. Nor did he (or his wife) have arms in proper reach to be a big danger according to what I have read. The woman wasn't shot dead either, was she, even though she was doing much more to attack the soldiers than he did.

Sorry, but this all makes no sense.

[unsamiSlini]

I think you've misunderstood my question as well. My question was if the mission was not about "surrender or die" but simply "Die!". I have the impression it was the latter.

Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA said almost a week ago in more than one interview that, “the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously under the rules of engagement, if he in fact had thrown up his hands and surrendered and didn’t appear to represent any kind of threat then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.”

That was from his interview on PBS.

I don't know how much clearer it needs to be for some people, or where some of you get your news, but this is no longer an open question to anybody who reads or follows the news.

I can't wait for the day when we see some of the video footage taken where they get to Bin Laden, and he says something like "Allah Akbar!, Allah Akbar!" and a Navy SEAL goes "Sorry, I don't understand Arabic" and then, click-click-BANG!!! Right in the eye.

Case closed.

No military tribunal. No endless debate and stupid insight from neo-cons about what to do with him. No prolonged court case. And on and on and on.

Great thing they did by killing him; great thing. Imagine just one week after this what kind of fiasco would be going down in America with Trump and every other chickenhawk on the right acting all macho and stupid. I don't even want to think about that.

The guy's dead; awesome.

[Krruqgwt]

I don't think he had mind control over his wifes. Nor did he (or his wife) have arms in proper reach to be a big danger according to what I have read. The woman wasn't shot dead either, was she, even though she was doing much more to attack the soldiers than he did.

Sorry, but this all makes no sense.

The most consistent reports I've heard involve bin Laden shoving a woman at the man who shot him and that that woman is not the one who was shot. If I had to imagine what happened I'd say the American got the woman out of the line of fire and hit bin Laden immediately once he had a clear shot.

That's just based on what would make sense in that situation though, not any detailed reports.

[fiettariaps]

Whenever you committee a crime in America the victims and the victims family have a right to face the person that did harm to them or their family. They should get the right to be there the moment, if the death penalty is on the table and in the case of OBL it would be, they should be able to watch him take his last breath. Everyone would have gotten closure, and no one would be able to doubt the fact that it was really OBL that died.

[wmzeto]

The most consistent reports I've heard involve bin Laden shoving a woman at the man who shot him and that that woman is not the one who was shot. If I had to imagine what happened I'd say the American got the woman out of the line of fire and hit bin Laden immediately once he had a clear shot.

Never heard of that claim before. Do you have a source? How do you evaluate the consistency of a report? I don't think one can trust any account btw. In a way its all pure speculation.

Lets suppose its correct. You can push a person only at one target. I don't think there was a lone guy conducting this mission. If they were unarmed, I fail to see where the risk should derive from. If he would not surrender immediately they could still shoot him in the leg or something. This would stop him certainly.

But thats not the point. Has Obama told us what the precise objective of that mission was? Was it, "catch him alive", was it "catch him alive or dead" or was it "assistant him". I am not asking for excuses why he needed to be shot, but asking for the objective of the mission.

[Soassesaisp]

My exposure to the twenty four hour news cycle is pretty limited, I only regularly watch O'Reilly and Maddow, but I've heard that version several times on Fox and CNN.

[WhiliaStelt]

No, actually I haven't. Just read some articles and I didn't find any reference there about admission that it was a mission to kill. Maybe I missed something, thats why I've asked.

He made it clear that it was a military operation. In combat, the primary objective is to kill the enemy unless he surrenders first. I mean, you simply have to put two and two together, I suppose. I don't know how they do things in Austria, but U.S. soldiers aren't tasked with delivering arrest warrants.

What about the rumors that they arrested Bin Laden first and killed him later when he was already under their control? Has the White House discarded them or rather refused to comment? I'm not aware of any such question even being asked.

Ok, but you sure, know at least after the mission is over whom of those in the house actually had weapons for example. I mean you know t at least afterwards.

I have the strong impression the white House simply tried to sell a "we really wanted to arrest him but he conducted armed resistance so they had to shoot him in self defense" story but then figured out that they will not be able to maintain that story and gradually adapted it to things they didn't want to deny anymore. Thats not how you earn any trust in the story you tell. Perhaps you're right; it always causes problems down the road, IMO, to pander. So, they shouldn't be getting caught up in the resistance aspect. On the other hand, it seems amusing to me that we've got people getting bent out of shape about whether Mr. bin Laden was read his Miranda rights when there were four other people shot dead in the operation, and no one seems to give a damn about them. One has to rise to the level of the most notorious terrorist in the world, I suppose, before people begin thinking you've got a right not to be "arrested" as opposed to killed in war.

I'll agree that based on all the hue and cry over taking captives -- some of it by Candidate Obama himself -- capturing these fellows is no longer a good option. They simply need to be taken out. I assume that was the mission objective, and I approve.

[JOR4qxYH]

Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA said almost a week ago in more than one interview that, “the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously under the rules of engagement, if he in fact had thrown up his hands and surrendered and didn’t appear to represent any kind of threat then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.”

Hm, this sounds like they wanted to have him assassinated but didn't want to call it that way.

Did the soldiers actually demand him to surrender in Arabic and gave him sufficient time to do so? Before shooting him in the head of course.

No military tribunal. No endless debate and stupid insight from neo-cons about what to do with him. No prolonged court case. And on and on and on.

Great thing they did by killing him; great thing. Imagine just one week after this what kind of fiasco would be going down in America with Trump and every other chickenhawk on the right acting all macho and stupid. I don't even want to think about that.

The guy's dead; awesome. I am happy about not being able to conduct any forms of terrorism anymore. I won't celebrate the death of a human though. Revenge is a force of evil.

[Babposa]

He made it clear that it was a military operation. In combat, the primary objective is to kill the enemy unless he surrenders first. I mean, you simply have to put two and two together, I suppose. I don't know how they do things in Austria, but U.S. soldiers aren't tasked with delivering arrest warrants.

My take on it is the following. It was an assassination mission. But as this was labeled a military operation, they had to pretend as if he had a chance to surrencer (which they made sure he had not).

Part of which war precisely was this military campaign btw? Just because I am curious.

I'm not aware of any such question even being asked. Maybe not. Those media reporting on these rumors should have asked indeed.

Perhaps you're right; it always causes problems down the road, IMO, to pander. So, they shouldn't be getting caught up in the resistance aspect. On the other hand, it seems amusing to me that we've got people getting bent out of shape about whether Mr. bin Laden was read his Miranda rights when there were four other people shot dead in the operation, and no one seems to give a damn about them. One has to rise to the level of the most notorious terrorist in the world, I suppose, before people begin thinking you've got a right not to be "arrested" as opposed to killed in war. You are right. These questions apply as much to those other individuals killed in this mission as to Bin Ladens death.
I'll agree that based on all the hue and cry over taking captives -- some of it by Candidate Obama himself -- capturing these fellows is no longer a good option. They simply need to be taken out. I assume that was the mission objective, and I approve. I doubt the US has the guts to openly admit that like Israel is doing for example.

[xochex]

My take on it is the following. It was an assassination mission. But as this was labeled a military operation, they had to pretend as if he had a chance to surrencer (which they made sure he had not).

Mr. bin Laden has had nearly ten years to surrender. Actually, more than that ... The U.S. has been after him since the '90s.

Part of which war precisely was this military campaign btw? Just because I am curious. The war between the United States and al Qaeda (geez, where have you been?), which was declared (and started) by none other than Mr. bin Laden himself. In fact, Mr. bin Laden famously stated on American television that he drew no distinctions between uniformed American soldiers and civilians -- every Muslim has an obligation to kill them all. He knew that "arrest" was not in the vernacular of the particular game he had chosen to play. He sought no quarter, and he certainly gave no quarter. He simply ran and hid.

You are right. These questions apply as much to those other individuals killed in this mission as to Bin Ladens death. They're all legitimate targets; the questions apply as little to bin Laden as they did to his less famous colleagues who took bullets for him. I guess that Mr. bin Laden is somehow a more sympathetic figure in some people's eyes. It's a bit like audiences cheering along happily while Luke Skywalker and Han Solo indiscriminately kill stormtroopers and then pausing to ask whether they should lay off and arrest Darth Vader. Comical, really.

I doubt the US has the guts to openly admit that like Israel is doing for example. Some do and some don't, I suppose; but that's politics for you.

[TNgqZhLR]

Since Osama was not a US citizen and was not on US soil, he had no legal rights under American law. Had he been captured and held for a show trial, every jihadi on the planet would have been out there taking hostages all over the world, demanding Osama's release in exchange for the lives of the hostages. How many unjustified deaths would that have caused? All the panty wetting over this issue is self-serving nonsense by either Obama haters who will condemn whatever Obama does or sanctimonious liberals trying to look noble on the cheap. None of it is worth the time of day.

[Ebjjrxrd]

Since Osama was not a US citizen and was not on US soil, he had no legal rights under American law.

Human rights apply to everyone. Of course, the US is free to ignore them if it feels it does not give shit about them. In which case I would suggest to stop considering the US to be part of the western world.

Had he been captured and held for a show trial, every jihadi on the planet would have been out there taking hostages all over the world, demanding Osama's release in exchange for the lives of the hostages. He could have been delivered to the International Criminal Court. Where he actually belonged to for crimes against humanity. He would have faced a fair trial not a show trial and you would not have to be concerned for terror risk as that court is way outside of the US.

But if the US would not have liked that idea they were free to conduct a fair trial by themselves.

And as far as it comes to hostage taking. This is nothing new, its happening in my areas no matter if theres a Bin Laden imprisoned or not.

How many unjustified deaths would that have caused? All the panty wetting over this issue is self-serving nonsense by either Obama haters who will condemn whatever Obama does or sanctimonious liberals trying to look noble on the cheap. None of it is worth the time of day. I know human rights are considered by some something exclusively for "sanctimonious liberals trying to look noble on the cheap" but I thin these very human rights are the difference, or at least should be the difference between us and these terrorists.

[alanamosteller]

Mr. bin Laden has had nearly ten years to surrender. Actually, more than that ... The U.S. has been after him since the '90s.

This makes no difference. Unless you want to suggest that as soon as a war or an arrest warrant lasts 10 years, it gives you the right to shoot the enemy unlike before.
The war between the United States and al Qaeda (geez, where have you been?), which was declared (and started) by none other than Mr. bin Laden himself. Are you referring to the "war on Terror(ism)"? This "war" does not meet the international criteria for being a war. Moreover even if it would, the US refuses to comply with the rules of war fare.

There have been many criminals and terrorists who called their actions part of a "war". They were still criminals and treated as such.

In fact, Mr. bin Laden famously stated on American television that he drew no distinctions between uniformed American soldiers and civilians -- every Muslim has an obligation to kill them all. Splendid material for certain conviction of being guilty of crimes against humanity.

[Iphone]

I can't wait for the day when we see some of the video footage taken where they get to Bin Laden, and he says something like "Allah Akbar!, Allah Akbar!" and a Navy SEAL goes "Sorry, I don't understand Arabic" and then, click-click-BANG!!! Right in the eye.

Here's the video footage of UBL getting shot in the head.

[ChicasCams]

This makes no difference. Unless you want to suggest that as soon as a war or an arrest warrant lasts 10 years, it gives you the right to shoot the enemy unlike before.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. His options would be to surrender or remain a target. :: shrug ::

Are you referring to the "war on Terror(ism)"? No.

There have been many criminals and terrorists who called their actions part of a "war". They were still criminals and treated as such. Indeed. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts; hence, the term "war crimes." Ordinarily, combatants in war have what's called combat immunity, which means that their combat actions normally incident to war (like killing, bombing, etc.) are not punishable as crimes. One can lose this protection by exceeding the scope of normal combat and committing war crimes. It would be absurd to suggest that by taking combat to the level where one commits war crimes (e.g. genocide, rape, etc.) he has achieved protected status such that he must be arrested rather than shot. It would have the effect of incentivizing crimes against humanity. This is nowhere near the prevalent view, but you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Splendid material for certain conviction of being guilty of crimes against humanity. I hardly think popping off in an interview about one's murderous intentions, alone, would lead to certain conviction for crimes against humanity. It's a niece piece of evidence though, to be sure. And, by the way, Mr. bin Laden has been under indictment in New York since 1998 (fat lot of good it did).

[pGJLweEw]

I tend to agree with those that suggest if Bin Ladan were captured we can only imagine the disaster that would have ensued on what to do with him. Everything from where he would be, to how he would be questioned, to how he would see "trial" would be an absolute disaster. I voted "kill Osama" almost on this thought alone, just the mess that would have existed if he were captured alive.