Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

Originally posted by ka119


Personally, I know that had I been a member of SEAL Team Six and was the first one in the room, I would have shot him too. The thing we don't always realize as civilians is that in combat, adrenaline is surging like never before, when you actually see and acquire your target a whole new burst is let through your bloodstream. Im sure whether we like to admit it or not, the majority of us would have shot him on the spot as well.

Which is precisely why you are NOT a member of SEAL team 6,I really would have liked to have seen the military heirarchy's reaction had I ever eliminated a target I wasn't supposed to due to a surge of adrenaline!

No we are trained better than that (well in the UK anyway!)

reply to post by nake13


Let me explain that a little better, I knew I'd get a reply like this sooner or later.
Since Bin Laden was considered extremely dangerous they would not of put the hold on his shooting, meaning there would be no reprimanding if they had shot him on sight (which they said they did)
Psychologically speaking, when we are given the option to complete a task resulting in different outcomes (but both acceptable, though keeping him alive may have been preferred) we subconsciously will approve of the first initial reaction falling in these boundaries previously given. To normal citizens given a gun and a fast paced, high octane mission, this will usually result in shooting anything in sight. However through military training (as you know) we are taught to use split second decisions to determine if the person is hostile or not. Now given the intensity of the Osama mission, and the order to shoot anything that can get in the way of the mission, shooting him absolutely may have been on accident. They may have bust into the room, used the split second scanning to see that he is dressed as the others, and shot him. Or, another plausible possibility is that the SEALs, knowing how ruthless Osama is, may have shot on sight intentionally, expecting him to have some hidden means (bombs, escape routes, etc) to further the chase.
Of course I wouldn't go into a normal mission guns a blazing, but when you are after the worlds most wanted terrorist, nerves are going to be high.

I agree ka119...and we will never know the true scope of the mission whether it had been a planed assassination, a justified hit, or a capture with the intent to prosecute. Those on the scene made split decisions on the spot and that is that. Could he have had a fair trial? I don't have that answer, most of the "Civilized" world had already formed an opinion of guilt....and by the way to the conspiracy theorists out there, even though yes it was the same company that was later killed in the helicopter shooting most of those involved in the actual raid on OBL were not on that craft.

Originally posted by ka119
reply to post by nake13

 

Let me explain that a little better, I knew I'd get a reply like this sooner or later.
Since Bin Laden was considered extremely dangerous they would not of put the hold on his shooting, meaning there would be no reprimanding if they had shot him on sight (which they said they did)
Psychologically speaking, when we are given the option to complete a task resulting in different outcomes (but both acceptable, though keeping him alive may have been preferred) we subconsciously will approve of the first initial reaction falling in these boundaries previously given. To normal citizens given a gun and a fast paced, high octane mission, this will usually result in shooting anything in sight. However through military training (as you know) we are taught to use split second decisions to determine if the person is hostile or not. Now given the intensity of the Osama mission, and the order to shoot anything that can get in the way of the mission, shooting him absolutely may have been on accident. They may have bust into the room, used the split second scanning to see that he is dressed as the others, and shot him. Or, another plausible possibility is that the SEALs, knowing how ruthless Osama is, may have shot on sight intentionally, expecting him to have some hidden means (bombs, escape routes, etc) to further the chase.
Of course I wouldn't go into a normal mission guns a blazing, but when you are after the worlds most wanted terrorist, nerves are going to be high.

The most likely scenario would have been that SEAL team 6 were on a shoot to kill mission,these guys are too well trained to act on the spur of the moment should that particular act run contrary to their mission objectives.

Likewise,had their orders been to take Bin Laden alive,that is exactly what they would have done.

reply to post by nake13


"The most likely scenario would have been that SEAL team 6 were on a shoot to kill mission,these guys are too well trained to act on the spur of the moment should that particular act run contrary to their mission objectives. Likewise,had their orders been to take Bin Laden alive,that is exactly what they would have done. "

Shoot to kill mission = team of assassins.. who supposedly killed an un-convicted man at the behest of politicians.. known for virtue and honesty..lol

The Nazis sent out hit teams too, they too saw trials as trivial.. enemies of the home fatherland must die die die!!!

reply to post by ka119
In war, the only "trial" you get is a round from an M4A1.
To think other-wise is foolish and naive.

*shakes head*

Sorry, I have to say it...

Suppose Bin Laden isn't dead? Having him killed in a 'firefight' would certainly be something the Seals wanted to avoid. The intel that could be obtained from his interrogation was too valuable. I would think that there were plenty of secret locations where he could be kept locked up away from public view... Dumping his body at sea just sounds way too convenient. That being said, had he gone to trial it would bring to much credence to the terrorist cause and ignite further sentiment from radical groups.

I'm not an Obama hater (rare these days, I know), nor am I a staunch supporter, but I seem to remember either an interview or some kind of press statement he made over a year ago where he basically said, "...we're going to find him, and we're going to kill him." Meaning Osama Bin Ladin.
No mention of capture. No thought for intelligence he may have. Kill him. I wish I could find the clip. No mention of a trial.

Regardless of involvement in any terrorist activity in which he (OBL) may - or may not - have had any involvement, he had been tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. By whom? If that had been any American and another nation had said/done that, there would be riots. Everyone deserves a fair trial regardless of the crime. Otherwise there is no justice. The US does not have a justice system - only a legal system (whoever knows the most law wins). There was nothing legal about this assassination. Nothing. It was an action designed to kill him. No capture was considered.

I'm not being a 'terrorist' apologist, merely showing that this was a political move rather than a move for justice.

The last thing TPTB needed was for someone with OBL's influence stating calmly before the world that he had nothing to do with certain 'terrorist' actions. They couldn't take that chance; so he's dead. Think of all the questions that would raise! Think of where the blame would be pointed!

Whether he was dead prior to that is speculation. He's dead now. No mercy shown. I think that says more about the US foreign policy than it does about OBL. That was a black day for American foreign policy. Whatever you think of OBL and his actions, this was a simple assassination. This brought little comfort to the families of victims of 9/11 and other actions accredited to OBL. It just left a lot of questions unanswered. Probably best, given current US foreign policy. The less questions asked/answered the better.

Sleep well. That could be you. Doesn't really matter what your crime is, you no longer have the safety of the rule of law to protect you. If TPTB want you dead, you will be. If you even look like you'll spoil their fun you can be killed. "But I'm an American" will get you nothing anymore. Who makes the rules? You? No. You don't. You live or die based on policy.

Look at some maps, and see what it took to 'bury' him at sea. Not exactly convenient.

what are you people complaining about

he got a trial by fire gun fire and guess what he lost

sucked being him now that said

yeah lets put bin laden on trial so the 24 7 media can talk about to infinity and then not a chance in hell you could ever find a impartial jury and then waste billions of dollars of american tax payer money on something that a 1 dollar bullet took care off didnt have to pay the service men anything to do that job

so really figure in the cost of jet fuel i say we come out fine since this country is broke as hell

its easy to take the high ground for this topic but it aint so easy to face any 9-11 family member with that tripe

I thought he was on the "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters you see at the post office. Doesn't that mean what it suggests? Pretty sure it don't mean he "deserves a trial."

reply to post by queenofsheba


But who made that decision? Why was he wanted dead? Remember that he wasn't accredited with 9/11 by the FBI due to lack of evidence.

Originally posted by Badgered1
reply to post by queenofsheba

 

But who made that decision? Why was he wanted dead?

I would hazard a guess that the US Fed's put him on that list. Public Enemy Number Ones typically are....especially with sworn enemies of the US.

Really?

reply to post by Badgered1


yeah well theres a lack of evidence bin laden is dead

just saying

reply to post by neo96


You're absolutely right.
More questions. But you'd best not ask any or you'll be branded as unpatriotic.

reply to post by ka119


The question should be "Was there ever a real person called Osama bin Laden?" "was there ever an Al-qaeda?" or were both just a fiction of the CIA's imagination? Were the twin towers levelled and all those innocent people murdered by George Bush and his shadow government to cover up the billions that were found to be 'missing' from the US government's budget??

Most people have come to realise the truth by now. But there's still a few 'hardcore patriots' who want to believe in the fictional terrorist group created by the CIA called Al-qaeda. Would it surprise the believers of the official story to learn that the 'terrorists' from Afghanistan have never even heard of Al-qaeda??

Research 'Bush and Bin Laden family joint financial organisations". The two families have financial ties going back decades. But hey, if it makes people feel better to believe that some 'terrorist' organisation came over from a cave in Afghanistan and 'stole' 3 planes and flew them precisely into two towers, and that a 3rd building imploded for no good reason at all in a controlled demolition sequence, then believe the official story. Santa Claus will be arriving late this year as Al-qaeda bombed his sleigh and stole the reindeer!!!!!!!

Originally posted by eNumbra
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

Nazis were members of a political party. Some of them were combatants, others were not.

They got trials.

Not the combatants, no. They were targeted and killed. Some of those who were rendered hors de combat by capture or the cessation of hostilities were tried. But no one has ever suggested that Nazi combatants who were killed in the field deserved trials.

one nation, hopelessly divided, with liberty and justice for some.

If the 9/11 Official Story is true then there would be no reason not to have a trial. Show the evidence to a jury and the verdict is easy. But then again, if it is not true and bin Laden can't be counted on to keep quiet about what he knows, well, then a trial would be out of the question.

reply to post by ka119


Did he deserve a trial? Yes, considering we give trial to those most of us deem unworthy. However, it wasn't let to happen, nor would it have ever been. We should have seen it coming that he would be killed on site, or something other and never let into a court. The question shouldn't be, were should the court be held but what would have come out of it?

He worked with the U.S government and they didn't want people to know the truth so why give him the chance if we would ultimately lock him up for life or give him the death sentence. Don't you think he would squeal if he was put to trial? So tell everyone he is dead, or tell everyone your looking for him while he is really dead, and don't reveal anything. No pictures, no video, and then release a book about seal team six shortly after; followed by their death.

Seems to fishy

Maybe Osama did not give the USA an option either. He most likely fought til the end. But if he had of surrendered, then yes he deserved a trial just like anyone else would. 9/11 was a tragic day, but remember, Osama lived after that event, he was not in the planes. Apart from money, what else did he actually do apart from fight for a US funded taliban against the red army in the 80s?

Bush should get the same treatment Osama got......his legacy is still killing people today.