KM, one of the SEAL teams included interrogators... so there was an option for capture. BUT the SEALs thought he was tring to reach a weapon or something. NO ONE in the world can say it's justified or not, except the 2 SEALs in the room ! One would have to witness the incident to make ANY call. This is like trying to call a play in baseball or football or soccer match without even watching the game...

Any other activity is just "mental mastrubation"!

Given that you apparently don't believe anything the government says about this, how do you know he's even dead? ;-)



Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious, though, that they weren't willing to accept casualties to the SEALs in the name of getting bin Laden alive. Since there's no complete, detailed narrative currently available to the public, it's mere speculation at this point wether Osama was deer-in-the-headlights when they finally got to him or, say, reaching for a bomb.

One thing he didn't do, apparently, is throw up his hands and surrender, which I'm guessing is pretty much the only scenario that held a chance of bin Laden coming out alive.

But again, pretty much all speculation since none of us knows the details of what actually happened ...

That's what's been said but we don't know whether it's true. There'd never be a single criminal prosecution if we started with the assumption that what the suspect says is true.


No that's wrong - the question whether someone is guilty of an offence is never entrusted to the suspect but to a duly constituted court.

km

A reply to Mr. Chomsky's reaction ...

Rather than misunderstanding the law I think that Mr.Holder merely holds the opinion that given the threat bin Laden had proven himself to be to the United States, shooting him wasn't an excessive use of force.

I gather you disagree, but that doesn't mean Mr. Holder misunderstands the law =)

That, and his legal justification isn't based on the offering or not of surrender but that "international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders."

Merely holds the opinion? He either misunderstands the law or is misstating it. The question whether the soldiers used excessive force is determined by reference to the situation they were in when they shot him dead - not whether the victim had posed a threat to someone else before they got there. Sending planes over to New York with specially trained crew is not the same as standing bearded and unarmed in a concrete compound surrounded by soldiers. Holder misunderstands the law if he believes that a victim's willingness to surrender in that situation determines the response permitted by those soldiers - and unfortunately for him that's what he implied.

km

Which point? That he was, possibly, unjustly murdered.. or a court to decide if he was guilty of terrorism?

True. I agree. However, a bomb within reach or in any other way has not been mentioned.

You could be right. He could even have had his hands behind his back when the commandos appeared.

That is true. As you say, this is all speculation.


I'm just pointing out that he should have been taken alive. I can't accept any of the justifications given up to now for not taking him alive, and i suspect foul play.

What i see here, as i wrote before, is (IMO) the wrongful death of a valuable prisoner that should have faced trial in front of the World.

Well, a dead person cannot be put on trial so I'm arguing for the prosecution of persons still alive who are suspected of murder.

km

I'm simply positing that this mission was successful as planned.