[G0atmaster]

There was far, far more than enough cause to believe he, and anyone else in that compound, may have been booby-trapped.  In a combat situation, this was the perfect way to deal with that threat.

Remember that marine that shot a wounded enemy combatant a while back, and was tried for murder?  His entirely legitimate defense was that he wasn't sure the man wasn't booby trapped.  This, after numerous squads had been killed by combatants they had wounded pulled pins on closely-held grenades.

I realize I'm not articulating my argument properly, so I will close with this:  That was a dangerous situation to be in.  "Conspicuously surrendered" is one thing, but in a combat situation, how are you to be sure that the man who is surrendering, isn't packing explosives in his underpants? You aren't, until he's either dead, or it's too late to do anything about.

[zookeeper]

Hope someone is about to lose their clearance and job after this got published.

Well, assuming the story is true, I guess that should be Brennan and everyone else who knowingly lied.

[karajorma]

I'm quite happy to see him dead. He'd willingly admitted to carrying out 9/11. He's guilty beyond the doubt of anyone but those with only the most tenuous grasp of reality. World's a better place without him in it.

What I dispute however is this guy's story. Notice the claim they didn't want "detainees" To claim that they wanted Osama dead - believable. To claim that they planned to kill everyone there rather than make some attempt to gain new sources of information - pretty hard to swallow.

[NGTM-1R]

Besides, this...doesn't actually say anything new.

The article says that they went to kill him.

The administration has said that while they would have liked to capture him, the rules of engagement prohibited it in all but the most unlikely of favorable circumstances.

I'm not seeing a serious difference in those narratives. The people who were shooters on the mission and who are being used as sources wouldn't either. The orders were never "take him alive if practicable".

[Scotty]

Even if their orders had been very specifically to kill him in any conceivable situation, that'd be hardly surprising.  The world was his judge, he was his own jury.  Seal Team Six was just the executioner.

[karajorma]

The administration has said that while they would have liked to capture him, the rules of engagement prohibited it in all but the most unlikely of favorable circumstances.

I'm not seeing a serious difference in those narratives. The people who were shooters on the mission and who are being used as sources wouldn't either. The orders were never "take him alive if practicable".

Well the source is allegedly claiming that they said "Don't take him alive" which would be a big difference from "Take him alive only if.....". Of course the possibility exists that the reporter doesn't have a clue about the difference between the two.

And we are ignoring the possibility that the administration said "take him alive if........" and the source was an idiot who after listening to all the things that made it impractical assumed they meant "Don't take him alive"

[NGTM-1R]

Well the source is allegedly claiming that they said "Don't take him alive" which would be a big difference from "Take him alive only if.....". Of course the possibility exists that the reporter doesn't have a clue about the difference between the two.

And we are ignoring the possibility that the administration said "take him alive if........" and the source was an idiot who after listening to all the things that made it impractical assumed they meant "Don't take him alive"

Perhaps, but my point was more "take him alive if you find a Muslim man standing nude in the middle of an empty room" which is what was supposedly ordered and "don't take him alive" which is the new claim aren't going to result in different outcomes. The people the reporter talked to would know that and might not consider distinguishing between them meaningful.

[FireSpawn]

In my opinion it was better they killed him there and then. As stated before, if they had captured him it carried the very large possibility of creating an even larger terrorsit ****storm then we had previously and have now. Everyone knows what would have happened with the trial, he would be found guilty within a week and most likely slated to be executed, and having him formally executed rather than stating he was "Killed In Action" would cause more grief than it was worth, anyway at least with the way it went down he had a home-cooked last meal (meaning the tax payers didn't foot the bastards bill).

Besides the man was a wack-job, he probably had anthrax canisters concealed within his ball-bag or something.

[Dragon]

Killing Bin Laden was indeed somewhat safer than capturing him. Who knows what could he have done if he didn't went down fast, explosives could have been in places where nobody would ever thought to look for them. Also, his trail would most likely cause terrorist attacks, and him being a wealthy person, who knows what he could use that money for, even while in prison.

[Luis Dias]

If anything, this issue just increases Obama's admin's poll, painting as a BA.

That is, until Fox news finds a way to spin this against him...

[Nemesis6]

They should have captured him. Much bigger value in having the leader of holy warriors rotting in a jail as opposed to dying a martyr.

[Luis Dias]

...and running the risk of him speaking to his fans? No thanks. Simple is good.

[Mongoose]

More importantly, I'd like to know how anyone would go about staging a public trial for him without someone flying a plane or driving a car bomb into it.

[Kolgena]

Pretty much. With him dead, it's less likely that his fanatics would go all fanatical to bust him out or die trying (mostly just die and kill a bunch of innocents though)

Also, it's not like an international trial would make the US look any better. Just look at Saddam.


But hell, why not make a big deal out of this? Let's question the crap out of the Obama administration, since the election's coming up.

[Klaustrophobia]

If anything, this issue just increases Obama's admin's poll, painting as a BA.

That is, until Fox news finds a way to spin this against him...

i don't see how this should relate to obama at all, one way or the other.  the only involvement he had was being in office at the time and doing the formality of signing/issuing a general order that said something to the effect of 'get osama'.

[Scotty]

You'd think so, but this is the American general public we're talking.

[Dark Hunter]

I think that if there's one thing both the major American political parties can agree on, it's that it's a good thing that Bin Laden's dead.