Osama bin Laden

[Nin]

For me it's more than not being happy - I think that it is a shame how it was done.

In German I would use the word "unwürdig".

[yovargas]

If the US troops were being shot at, which from the sound of it they were, I strongly disagree with characterizing this as an "execution without trial".

[Lhaewin]

"Unwürdig" is a good expression for what has happened. But only a handful of people would agree. In the German media there was no hint of this notion.

Of course, the US troops were shot at, Yovargas. Bin Laden's guards probably felt that they were ambushed and defended themselves. This might sound like a reverse world, but for once they didn't shoot first.

[Lalaith]

I agree with yovi.

Sure, a trial would've been ideal. But I'm not sure Osama would've allowed himself to be taken alive in any case--even if that could have been possible, which I highly doubt. The military was dealing with a terrorist organization, basically another military organization. They are not going to simply say, "Well, guess you found us. Darn! Here you go," and hand over Osama. They are trained to fight and kill.

I wonder if we'll find out that our military was ordered to take him alive if at all possible and then couldn't in the end. ?? I suppose we'll never know for sure in any case.

[Nin]

Well, none of the US soldiers was hurt, whereas six inhsbitants of the house were kllied, Bin Laden was arrested alive but refused to surrender, in this refusal I see no mention of a threat and it is not mentionned that Bin Laden himself was armed.

This is the article from my main news source, highly reputated German weekly newspaper: http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2011 ... ton?page=2 It is, unfortunately, in German.

For me, the shooting of an unarmed man, whatever he has done before, is at the very least an execution.

[Holbytla]

We can speculate all we want, but none of us were there and we will probably never know how things really happened. Personally I believe there was no way he was going to be taken alive, and even if he were, the result would have been the same.

This saved the world a media circus, another martyr and a boatload of money.
He declared war on the US. He has no right to trial. No more than any other person that gets killed in combat.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Bin Laden went down firing at the Navy SEALs who stormed his compound, a U.S. official said. Brennan said one of bin Laden's wives was used as a human shield to try to protect him and she was killed, too, as a result. Brennan, speaking of bin Laden, said that revealed "the nature of the individual he was."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1LEC0Zv2N

[axordil]

The differences between this and Eichmann's case:

1--The conflict was over when Eichmann was captured. Whatever you call it, the conflict with al Queda is very much open on both sides.
2--Israel captured him with the *intent* of a show trial. Not necessarily a kangaroo court, but a *very* public event. It was the closest they could get to putting the Nazi regime itself on trial.

The similarities:

The remains were disposed of at sea with the express intent to deny the possibility of a memorial being erected or a last resting place site being visitable.

[Nin]

I think we'll just have to agree on disagreeing.

For me one of the highest values of democracy is that every man deserves a trial.

The parallel to death in combat does not fit: soldiers are not criminals. They get killed in combat - but for no other reason than bad luck in comparison to other soldiers.

Bin Laden got killed for who he was and a specific crime. He was a target - rightfully, for sure, but still not just a soldier among others.

I would not say that a death sentence would not have been a rightful verdict on him (and I'm usually opposed to death penalty for all crimes) but I think the media circus, the money and all is worth the vision of the world that I would like to see democracy stand for - and thus mark the complete difference in comparison to terrorism, which calls for murder.

This is just my opinion, and I might be considered an idealist.

[axordil]

I do not think less of you, Nin, because of your idealism. I think less of the world for not making it currently practical.

[Nin]

I'd also like to act that I don't see his death or even his killing as something "bad". I really find it difficult to express in English this idea of "unwürdig": maybe somehting like unworthy, beyond the dignity of a democracy like the US.

Axordil, I thought of Eichmann because of the years of hiding - and also because I can't imagine less deserving a trial than this man. I hesitated to mention the Nürnberg trials in general - and even more the Milosevic trial, because I think that the US would have had the right to judge Bin Laden and not an international trial.

I do have to get some work done now...

[yovargas]

It just seems like it ignores the very real possibility that a trial was impossible in this case. If he could not be captured alive, this was likely the best alternative.

[Dave_LF]

Reports are that the SEALs went in with orders to kill. I don't approve of that. Like I suggested earlier, the best possible scenario would be if they'd gone in with the intention of capturing him and putting him on trial, and he died in the process due to his own actions. And it wouldn't even have been so bad if that had been the official mission, but there was an unofficial understanding that he was not to be taken alive. But to go in with the express intention of killing him, and to publicly boast of that... nope; "unworthy" sounds about right.

[Túrin Turambar]

A trial would have been necessary if he had have been captured alive. As it stands, he decided to die fighting instead, so the whole question seems kind of pointless to me.

And I agree with Dave_LF that I think that we’re often better off if terrorists aren’t captured alive. I recall the way that Black September hijacked a German aircraft (or several, I don’t remember) to force the government to release the perpetrators of the Munich massacre. That risk doesn’t exist now.

[Sunsilver]

I can only imagine what a circus a trial would have been, with everyone frightened of reprisals by the terrorists. Although I would not be against a trial for him, it would have been very, very difficult.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Reports are that the SEALs went in with orders to kill.

That's not true, at least according to Obama's chief counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan (who should know):

Obama aide: We would have taken bin Laden alive

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Reports are that the SEALs went in with orders to kill.

That's not true, at least according to Obama's chief counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan (who should know):

Obama aide: We would have taken bin Laden alive

Here's an interesting tidbit from the link:

- President Obama and aides watched the operation in real time on video screens within the White House Situation Room. "Minutes passed like days," Brennan said. "It was clearly very intense."

The ultimate webcam.


BrianIs AtYou

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, I noted that, too. That's wild.

[Dave_LF]

Reports are that the SEALs went in with orders to kill.

That's not true, at least according to Obama's chief counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan (who should know):

Obama aide: We would have taken bin Laden alive

I hope that is true. Other people are claiming otherwise, and it seems the emerging consensus is that they were hypothetically willing to take him alive, but knew he would never surrerender, so it was effectively a kill mission.

eg:
http://www.newser.com/story/117651/osam ... ation.html

[Holbytla]

As much as I hate to call someone like bin Laden a soldier, (he was much too cowardly imo) how could he be anything else? He was allegedly armed, he trained "troops" he wore a uniform, he declared war, he carried out terrorist acts. If it walks like a duck etc....
That isn't to say that I think the US ever had any intention of taking him alive, but I also fail to see how he should merit a trial, whether we singled him out or not. He was in a fire fight and lost. Not for one second would I put another soldier's life at risk to try and take him alive.

I have heard conflicting accounts of what the actual orders were. Maybe it is spin, but other "officials" have said that he was to be taken alive if he surrendered.

edit:
cross-posted with several people