US get O.B.Laden?

Sometimes it is better to act.

History will judge the action of the Allies at the Nazi trials at Nuremburg as being finer I suspect ...

Gung-ho and muddling the story with false initial reports is not something to be pleased by in my humble opinion, however much the gut feeling of some may feel that right has been done. I am sure due process would have produced a similar outcome for Bin Laden, but it would have been a method that would have commanded historical respect ...

Of course that is less important for some than others.

The US special forces were apparently able to remove Bin Laden dead, so they could well have removed him alive, ready for a proper trial ... I don't think any thoughtful person is entirely happy with the "lunch-mob" mentality in the long run. Just think of those who have made and continue to make it their prefered method, and the company is not comfortable.

George

Well said George. I'm starting to moderate my views on this, based on what you and others have said. On the one hand, I guess for me and others there was a pent up demand to just take him out once found. In hindsight, for many of the reasons you mentioned, and more, perhaps it would have been better to follow due process. And thus achieve a better measure of closure.

Dave

TomK,

.

"So the American Army is a Christian fundamentalist terrorist organisation and the CIA was responsible for 9/11? You're either a wind up merchant or a complete wacko. In either case I see no point in discussing this further".

"Not for the first time I'll ask Paul when the ignore function is going to be reinstated".

Show me where I said the the American Army is a Christian fundamentalist terrorist organisation and the CIA was responsible for 9/11 and  I will buy you any single piece of Naim equipment of your choice. Ignoring the challenge I set and pretending  I said things I did not is an infantile act. You need to grow up.

George -

None of us were there, and this is an assumption.   The details of that day, so far at least, have only partially come out.   All the white house press secretary has said was that OBL "was not armed, but did resist arrest", whatever that means.   You can all read into it whatever you want, but until someone who was there comes forward with the blow-by-blow details, and until that account is corroborated, we cannot know what really happened.

For the record, I agree with you.  I, too, would have liked to see OBL forced to face the people whose lives he ruined.   I would have loved to see him forced to hear day after day of damning evidence of his crimes against humanity.   The only downside is we would have had to wait years for his execution, and during all that time, we would have had to listen to the Al Qaeda PR machine drone on about OBL's "legal rights".  Nevertheless, you are right, it would have read better in the history books.

But more importantly, I would have preferred to see him captured alive so that he could have been interrogated.   A chance may have been lost to extract a great deal of information about Al Qaeda's organization and plans.   Or, at the very least, to get additional details about his many previous accomplices and atrocities.

Maybe the plan all along really was simply to assassinate him.  On the other hand, perhaps the mission was privately deemed a failure because he wasn't captured alive.   If the goal was assassination, why not capture him first, secretly interrogate him, and then dump the body?   Perhaps one of the Navy SEALs thought he saw a weapon.  We may never know.

I will say this:  if my choice was between OBL still being at large, protected by the Pakistani intelligence services, versus dead by a US bullet...I'll take the latter.

Hook

George, this is one of the best typos that I've seen in ages: heavily armed men crash into the house and ask for a chicken vindaloo with popadoms, pilau rice and all the trimmings!

Dear Graham,

You will know for certain that nobody was pretending to be me and posting with such a howler!

ATB from George