Thread: Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Originally Posted by Invader

And could you imagine what it would have been like to give the guy a trial? A live, televised trial, even IN the United States? How many nay-sayers would there have been in this alternate scenario? His body, right there for everyone to see, alive, no risk of uprising for showing him dead, and we would not have simultaneously thrown the idea of "inalienable rights" down the porcelain pee-hole.

I don't think the American government cares that much whether people think he's dead or not. The important thing is that he can't continue to operate as the leader of a terrorist network. The Americans cleaned out his house, tons of hard drives and papers and what have you, I'm sure they have all the proof they personally need.

Originally Posted by illidan

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I didn't say Obama killed him personally if that's what you mean.

Would you have felt better if Obama explicitly forbade the soldiers to kill Bin Laden?

To assume that the US president, or any politician for that matter, has only, or even just primarily, in mind the duties of his office and not any upcoming elections and his political career would be more than just a little naive. And by the way, it's not about the fact that Obama continued the search for Bin Laden, but about the way it ended.

So if this was Obama's second term do you think he wouldn't have bothered looking for Bin Laden at all?

The official position of the government (now) seems to be that it was a capture-or-kill operation. However, there are several things that cast doubts on this version of the story: the claim of one national security official that it was a "kill operation", the president's wording ("… killed after a firefight …", "… captured and killed …"), the fact that Bin Laden was unarmed and other details that suggest that he was not killed during the firefight. Having said that, it's probably unlikely that we're ever going to know for sure, so it's pointless to argue about it.

If the plan was all along to kill and not just capture him, I'm pretty certain that this would be a violation of international human rights law. But even assuming that the US doesn't give a damn about international laws (which, I'm sure, is at least partly true) or if one maintains that the US is not bound to such laws, it still does seem a little bit like hypocrisy and a betrayal of self-imposed principles, as such a kill operation is, I believe, a violation of United States Presidential Executive Order 11905 and 12036, which ban US involvement in assassinations (the principal aim back then, I think, was to prevent the activities of certain three-letter-agencies from getting out of hand):
"No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." (EO 11905)
"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." (EO 12036)

I wouldn't call this an assassination any more than any targeted raid of an insurgent compound in Afghanistan which happens every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if the soldiers had orders to kill anybody that showed the slightest bit of resistance. Here's the deal:

Safety. In a combat operation, things happen fast. They knew there were weapons in the compound (obviously, they were being fired on) and just like your local police department would do in the same situation, they shot first and asked questions later at the first sign of hostility. Lets not forget that the people of this area are famous for laying booby traps and blowing themselves up when they're not happy. I personally would've shot him at anything short of him getting on his knees with his hands on his head.

Certainty. Bin Laden was a high value target, probably the highest value of anybody the US was looking for. They missed him MANY times before, which led to both great embarrassment and the continued danger of having this guy on the loose. Now that they finally found him after 10 years, they sure as hell weren't going to slip up again and lose him. So much more could've gone wrong by taking him alive, with almost nothing to gain. A helicopter went down during the operation, can you imagine if something similar happened to the helicopter that Bin Laden would've been riding in and then they lost him? Maybe he had a well-rehearsed escape plan and could've made an easy getaway. Put yourself in the government's shoes, could you afford to lose the guy?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Would you have felt better if Obama explicitly forbade the soldiers to kill Bin Laden?

That's not really to the point. I think it should go without saying that no one is to be killed unless it is absolutely necessary. The question in dispute was whether or not that was the case.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So if this was Obama's second term do you think he wouldn't have bothered looking for Bin Laden at all?

Of course, he has the duties of his office in mind, just not "only" or "primarily". It's simply not a top priority for most politicians. Public opinion of themselves, of their party, upcoming elections etc. are more important to them. But that does not mean that they don't perform their duties at all. So, to answer your question: he would have bothered, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I wouldn't call this an assassination any more than any targeted raid of an insurgent compound in Afghanistan which happens every day.

That last paragraph you quoted starts with "If the plan was all along to kill and not just capture him …", so I was arguing on the premise that it was a kill operation (i.e. assassination). As I've stated earlier, we can't really know for sure if it was.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Safety. […]

Certainty. […]

I agree with you on the safety part. If it was a matter of self-defense or if it was otherwise absolutely necessary to kill him to ensure the safety of the soldiers, then it was certainly justified to shoot him.
I disagree about the certainty part, though. Certainty is not worth a human life and Bin Laden is not really that dangerous anymore.

---

I also wanted to comment on the role of al Quaeda today. Ever since the occupation of Afghanistan they lost the main ground they were operation from and now they are scattered all over the world, in fact, they're not much of a network anymore. They're more of a franchisor these days and rely on "Open Source Jihad" more than organizing terror attacks themselves. They publish this magazine called Inspire, trying to … well, 'inspire' young eager jihadists to take the initiative to perform a little terror attack on their own. A lot of little attacks instead of few big attacks (like 9/11) seems to be the their new approach.

In light of this, Bin Laden's death is not all that significant. Considering that a lot of jidhadist are rather keen to avenge him now, I'm not even sure if his death is going to be a net positive. Maybe in the long run.