Thread: Why shoot OBL?

Originally Posted by Inspector Gently

Like most people, the first news I heard of OBL death didn't actually include much detail. It was just a few sentences.

But it's come out today that he was unarmed at the time, no real clear reason, to me, why they would shoot instead of arrest and try him legally.

A number of international leaders are raising the point that governments shooting unarmed people willy nilly is highly illegal. And while certainly noone would care enough about OBL to make an issue out of it (myself included, I am willing to make exceptions when it comes to Pakistan and the Taliban), I am still wondering...

why shoot?

It seems to me a tiral and execution a la Saddam / Nazis / Milosovich / Noriega and every other bad guy would be the normal way to do it. If they're planning the mission for months why not plan to bring him out and find out everything he knows, try him legally, and hang the fucker? I'm pretty sure he had a whole crapload of names and places and plans it would have been nice to know.

Why shoot? Was there a reason? Has anyone given one?

A Few Points:
1. Whether or not OBL actually had a gun is immaterial. The Seal who shot him was fresh from a firefight with OBL's bodyguards, in fear for his life & in an incredibly stressful situation. Anything short of obvious surrender would justify his shooting.
2. No one who was not in that room can say for sure what apparently threatening moves OBL made that may have looked like he was reaching for a weapon.
3. Press Sec. Carney should have passed the question of whether or not OBL was armed to the DOD. Carney was not in the room...The Seals were. (Carney may well have been wrong & should never have made such a statement. I think he should be fired!)
4. I'll go back to my theory that terrorism is a foggy area somewhere between war & law enforcement & dealing with it cannot be thought of as fitting neatly into either model. OBL admitted to ordering he 9/11 attack & deserved to be killed on sight in any case. (Since he was a confessed mass murderer/enemy of this country, killing him outright was preferable.... to me.... than bringing him to a "show" trilal)

I agree with D505.

In addition, I'd say it's entirely possible that OBL had a suicide vest, booby-traps, etc. that posed a danger to the SEALs. The desire of some people for a trial is not worth the risk to the lives of the SEALs.

I'd also say that, by eliminating the chance of a trial and the world-wide media frenzy that would result, killing OBL will prevent further loss of life.

I think if he could have been given a trial, he should have. That's how the law works, even if we all know he is guilty as sin.

One reason I can think it's a bad idea is that it's always possible for him to break out or to be broken out especially if held at a prison in the Mid East. It would be a risk to hold him and there would be no benefit to it (I doubt he'd talk about any plans in production or other top ranking AQ officials). In this instance, which is a rare time I would agree with it, I think assassinating him was the most responsible choice.

Also, if I were one of the men sent to capture him I would have a very hard time not just shooting him. As a fairly large pacifist I feel guilty saying that but I can simply understand.

Originally Posted by JoJoGunne

I agree with D505.

In addition, I'd say it's entirely possible that OBL had a suicide vest, booby-traps, etc. that posed a danger to the SEALs. The desire of some people for a trial is not worth the risk to the lives of the SEALs.

I'd also say that, by eliminating the chance of a trial and the world-wide media frenzy that would result, killing OBL will prevent further loss of life.

I agree with Jo.

Plus, there was the time constraint. Surely as soon as the bullets were flying, the pakistanis were aware that something was up.
The quicker the SEALS got out, the better their chances of avoiding any confrontations with the pakistani police or military.

Yepp, the kill order was the right one.

Another comment:

In respect to any intel that might have been gained from capturing him alive...I don't think we would have gotten much. Besides, it appears we got a trove of intel anyway...without the risk of trying to capture him.

Originally Posted by Inspector Gently

Like most people, the first news I heard of OBL death didn't actually include much detail. It was just a few sentences.

But it's come out today that he was unarmed at the time, no real clear reason, to me, why they would shoot instead of arrest and try him legally.

A number of international leaders are raising the point that governments shooting unarmed people willy nilly is highly illegal. And while certainly noone would care enough about OBL to make an issue out of it (myself included, I am willing to make exceptions when it comes to Pakistan and the Taliban), I am still wondering...

why shoot?

It seems to me a tiral and execution a la Saddam / Nazis / Milosovich / Noriega and every other bad guy would be the normal way to do it. If they're planning the mission for months why not plan to bring him out and find out everything he knows, try him legally, and hang the fucker? I'm pretty sure he had a whole crapload of names and places and plans it would have been nice to know.

Why shoot? Was there a reason? Has anyone given one?

There were weapons in close proximity & he evidently was perceived as resisting & possibly a danger to the Seals.
No one who wasn't in that room has any right to second-guess the decision to shoot, imo.