Would you have preferred that Osama bin Laden had been brought to trial?
Posted at 5:00 AM on May 3, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(68 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Religion/Ethics
Some readers and listeners have told us they wish U.S. forces had been able to capture Osama bin Laden so he could have faced trial. Today's Question: Would you have preferred that Osama bin Laden had been brought to trial?
Comments (68)
What I wanted was a viable explanation for how the operation was handled, an explanation that assumed Americans have a brain in their heads and can understand political actions. If the operation was an act of war, then please explain what our laws permit and why, and what international laws applied and how they were interpreted. My first response was to question why OBL was killed in the manner he was, and, if war criminals in the past have received trials, why didn't he have to stand trial? But then I thought about human nature, and how we have so many examples of killing enemies in order to protect and defend our own, and how it is natural in some situations in the animal kingdom. I remain open-minded to understanding what actions were taken and why, in terms of legal issues. But please don't assume I'm going to accept explanations that are expressed at the 4th grade level, because I'm an adult and I want a mature, reasonable explanation.
It is a case of larger country's government making the decision between a moral code and a lawful action. I believe that even the most heinous of crimes should stand trial, because we are a country that has choosen to honor democracy; however, I can understand the situation of wartime, and making quick decisions in order to keep the peace. I just ask that the United States would not go around parading the death of another, because then we do appear as a country of revenge; and not all of us claim to stand for that. Let us have respect for the many people around the world who have died in this war only for money, power, and respect. And let us think twice on our actions and words to be used in such a serious situation. Our country has choosen a path that will be recorded into the history books. thattAnd is hostory has taught us anything, it is no country, nation, or culture has remained great and in power forever.
Why was unarmed Osama not kidnapped?
Why was an unarmed Osama bin Laden assassinated? This is a questions that arises in many minds. The US should have been abducted and brought him to the United States to stand trial.
What is the difference between justice and revenge is an issue that confuse and confound the law abiding people.
After all Americans say bin Laden was unarmed. The 80 American commandos could have simply kidnapped him, Eichmann-style, and brought him back to the United States alive rather than tossing his body irreligiously and disrespectfully into the ocean?
Examine the treatment of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of 9/11, who awaits a military commission in Guantánamo Bay. Most people would agree that bin Laden should have received similar trial not revenge. This is difficult to be reconciled with the system of justice that prevails in the egalitarian and enlightened West.
Take the case of Eichmann and Saddam Hussein. Did they receive true justice by appearing in courts of law and were they sentenced to death under the international rule of law? Was not Osama bin Laden unceremoniously treated to a revenge killing for his unproved crimes on 9/11 by meeting a violent and summary end without ever receiving his day in court? Many murderous leaders with an incalculable and un-washable amount of blood on their hands, and yet some received conventional justice, while bin Laden met his fate from a swifter and more wrathful style of biblical vengeance. Double standard is the order of the day.
Is the world we live in a moral universe or an oppressed one? In the moral universe, justice and vengeance are mirror images of one another. There can be no justice unless victims feel avenged, and revenge is never just unless it is proportionate. In cases of mass murder, retaliating "measure for measure," an "eye for an eye," "tit for tat," is admittedly more difficult, but retaliation is still very visible as we in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. The sense of proportion is imprecise, regardless of what form it takes.
Osama might have given the names of many American co-conspirators.
And how do you know that "fact," Raoul? Were you there?
Are people aware that the info leading to BinLaden's capture/killing was from a CIA prison in Europe where KSM revealed leads after water boarding or that it was BUSH who put into place the systems, the Homeland Security dept. and the extra funding so that this event could eventually occur? people need to send a note of thanks to President Bush.
The international War crimes trial was the logical course if taken a live. Not some criminal court trial. he declared war on the USA..case closed.
Fact: Bin Laden was not armed. SEALs could have easily wrestled him down, knocked him out instead of shooting him in the head...seriously, so the logical conclusion is that the order was to take him out, avoid war crimes trial and avoid Bin Laden talking about how Pakistan protected him while we give that barbaric country billions every year; total donations of 18 billion over ten years span.
Years back the liberals and mainstream media screamed to have our soldiers coffins shown coming home, they cried to have Bush allow the pictures of mistreatment at Abu Grab. Now the liberals worry??? that BinLaden's photos will be insensitive to Muslims? But, many Muslims across the Mideast are calling for the photos..so?
I can see from the responses that my comment
(23) is in a small minority. I wonder how those who said that the killing was appropriate because Osama fought back feel about the news this evening that the White House is now saying that Osame was unarmed. Unfortunately this is getting worse.
Of course, when I wrote of the respect of the world, I was not referring to terrorists. Terrorists are a tiny minority of the world's 6 billion people. I am concerned that we lose the respect of law abiding people the world over when we engage in gangland style killing and do not live up to our finest traditions.
If we wish to promote justice in the international community and the rule of law, then yes, he should have been brought to trial. However, most countries including the United States ignore international law when it suites them. I prefer to be a realist. It was much easier, and surer to kill him outright, than to put him through leagthy international or U.S. court procedeings.
As an American, a Veteran and a human being, I can live with that.
He died of natural causes.......acute lead poisoning.
Absolutely not! Osama bin Laden was a terrorist and killed many innocent people for his beliefs and causes. I believe Osama bin Laden carved out his own fate and knew the consequences. He had over a decade to give himself up to the US authorities. It has been over a decade that we have been searching for this criminal and finally we found him.
He declared war on America in many statements and then, when he admitted he took responsibility for 9/11. He lost his right to trial as he was at war with the USA. When at war you stop the threat in any manner possible.
He did not end his war against America, and surrender.
He died as he lived his life...killing people was his way of life....well it just came back to him...he was treated as he treated others.
To bring him to trail would be farce and a waste of money and time… We do not put on trial a criminal that confesses…. He confessed he was responsible 9/11… and being at war with the USA... he was shot as anyone at war should have been.
No one cried when Hitler died. And no one should cry for a even lower level human that declares war after he attracts us.
When I heard of his death….my reaction was…
Hallelujah….
And thank God for President Obama, the Man that got it done!!!!
Cheers,
Steve
Glad they killed him on the spot. Because now that we know some of the info that lead us to him was extracted thorough water boarding, there would have been a torture debate on his trail adding unnecessary cost. He’s not worth the two bullets that killed him; we should levy his bank account and get the money back for.
No! I believe that he would have been little more than an expensive liability. Yes we do have an obligation to uphold our ideals regarding a fair trial but what fairness did his followers exhibit toward the innocent people they killed on 9-11?
Had he been taken captive, whether he is still a key figure in al Qaeda or not, he would have been a catalyst for more bloodshed and violence.
He should have been been put on a very small island with a hungry lion... and a TV crew:-)
Much has been said about the supposed miscarriage of justice our "failure" to apprehend Bin Laden alive represents. The facts available to us say that he was lawfully indicted, pursued, and found. Those who attempted to apprehend him had a plan for doing so either alive or dead. He, predictably, chose to resist apprehension by using deadly force. He was, therefore, lawfully killed. The country that we entered to apprehend him has, at least publicly, stated that they wanted him found and brought to justice. He was brought to justice as surely as any mobster or gang leader who pulls a gun on an arresting officer and is killed is brought to justice. It is a side of our justice system we prefer not to think about, but it happens.
Kudos to the Obama administration for a) making it possible to construct the above narrative, b) showing far more sensitivity to Bin Laden's religion in handling his remains than any of his victims got at his hands, and c) making sure no more geography is turned into "Holy Ground," we have too much of that stuff already.
I think it would have been nearly impossible to capture bin Laden alive. I am glad that he was not captured, giving him a trial would have opened up too many possibilities for him to weasel out of things and would have given him more attention than he deserves. Way to go Obama for giving the go ahead on the operation!
No. I'm glad he's dead. Rather than from "natural causes," I'm glad he died from fatal gunshot wounds to the head at the hands of US Navy SEAL Team Six. Furthermore, I hope he's in hell and being hoisted above a cauldren of molten lava and hanging next to his new friends, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, and Charles Nelson Reilly. Why is Charles Nelson Reilly in hell? I don't know.
If he had been captured and brought back it would have turned into a political circus with the media sharks swimming around foaming at the mouth for more blood in the water, ie political grandstanding and more partisan bickering, not to mention that he would have been a hero that needed to be rescued by other terriorists. We can''t seem to have any agreement on the Gitmo detainees, bin Laden would become the ultimate trial joke. I don't think he should have been given any opportunity to take center stage again and give speeches in his defense that would have re-invigorated terrorists. The world is better off with him having been killed. Let's not forget how many peoples blood, Aerican Muslim and others, were on his hands. Obama did the right thing.
No. He would never have allowed them to take him alive anyway, so it's kind of pointless to even talk about it.
I think this was handled in exactly the right way. Obama proudly admitted to killing thousands of Americans. A trial would have cost our country millions. Bin Laden deserved exactly what he got. Our president acted with courage and showed great leadership.
While I think it would have been preferable from a standpoint of showing that the US does value justice over retaliatory killings, I can see dozens of reasons why it ended the way it did.
Including: He was going to be taken alive, they didn't want to give him the opportunity to use court to pound his ideological drum in front of media cameras, less chance for other terrorists to say 'look at the US trying him in kangaroo court!'
Whether these reasons are more important than true serving of justice at the hand of a court instead of the jacket of a bullet, I can't say. I can't say if taking him alive was even an option he would have left them, or if he would have committed suicide to keep from being taken alive.
Unfortunately, though, bringing him to court wouldn't have given many people the closure they're looking for. He never would have said sorry, or given them the explanation for 'Why?' that they've been looking for all these years. The 'why' is just that he was a tiny, tiny man, looking to pretend he was top dog for one minute.
It is always preferable to put to trial.
Show case the wrongs.
But it was clear this guy was not going to leave peaceably.
It would be my expectation the Seals wanted to take him alive, but based upon on the ground situation took the next best course given them. Dead or alive, they would take him or take him out.
Even Bin Laden admitted he was behind the attack, on his own release video, along with the evidence gathered. There was little doubt, and a given confession, that he had done it.
Now if he gave himself up, let justice take its place, instead of hiding out, maybe it would have been different. But he made his choice.
Morally - No matter how we feel, OBL is still a child of God.
Strategically - Killing when capture was possible will never give the U.S. the chance to interogate and learn.
Tactically - Taking him alive may or may not have been an option - we will never know.
In any event, posting photos or video would only serve to agitate or disgust.
The Navy Seals involved should hold a detailed & graphic closed door de-briefing for the full House and Senate. These politicians could then confirm or debunk.
Anyone that could look one of these Navy Seals in the eye and claim the killing of OBL is a fraud is either extremely brave or foolish.
This was the best possible outcome. A trial would have cost US tax payers a significant amount of money, increased the risk of a terrorist attack, and the outcome would have been the same, death. The President did the right thing by not bombing the complex, yet killing Bin Laden. There is no doubt this way. My support for the President has been wavering since the Health Care debate, this restored some of my faith he can make decisive decisions and get the job done.
I know there are many MLK quotes going around about non-violence, but in this case, I prefer the Malcolm X quote, "By any means possible."
Obama nabbed alive.
Imprisoned at an undisclosed location (Dick Cheney's ranch?)
The year is now 2018.
2.3 billion dollars have to date been spent...
...and the perp still has yet to appear in the dock.
Best that he was taken dead, not alive.
Ah yes Pollyanna in your idealistic world all the bad guys play by your rules and are bad according to generally acceptable guidelines for being bad. They turn them selves in after their bad acts. They don’t resist arrest. They don’t shoot at policing agencies when they come to apprehend them for their bad acts. They don’t hide behind children and women. They don’t bring innocent civilians into their disagreements.
Sadly, at some point since we don’t have your perfect world, pragmatism has to enter the equation for these really bad people. That is exactly what Obama did: he weighed the pros and cons of a tough decision and made the right choice. This is not moral corruption but rather acting to stop a very bad person. Idealist, take off the rose colored glass and get a grip on reality.
As for invading another country in this case Pakistan, well one of two mutually exclusive states could exist: the Pakistanis are incredibility stupid or they were willfully hiding OBL. In the first case US action is actually protecting the Pakistanis from their stupidity by preventing OBL from killing more innocent Pakistanis. In the case that they harboring a world criminal who has perpetrated heinous crimes against humanity and even his own people, well if they want to be respected world citizens, be part of the solution.
No Trial for Osama Bin Laden. A trial would cost too much money, in which he, I feel is not entitled to.
No.
To generalize beyond what has been a very successful outcome, I think trials perplex those around the world who essentially exist as the property of their rulers. And when these people witness an unexpected example of due process, they question their own regimes.
I would have prefered if he had died of natural causes after a slow, painful, lingering illness, his last photo showing him to be pitiably frail and feeble, and been forgotten, relegated to the dust heap of history. Killing him gave him more of the attention he craved.
No....because he took great pleasure in admitting that he was the one who planned the attack and it's on tape so he's admitted guilt (eventho he thought his actions were
vIrtuous) I'm so happy for our President that this mission was successful.
Not at the cost of another single American life. Especially in light of the ridiculous circus a trial would have been. Better he disappeared in ignomy.
No. I take the Administration at their word that if OBL would have given himself up they would not have killed him. However, OBL threatened law enforcement and suffered the same fate of any American who threatens law enforcement with lethal force. That's far more justice than he's entitled to.
yes and no i thinks circumstances went bad and he went down-but the usa intention was to capture/trial-but the other comment is right we were not invited, whats for another country to do the same?
yes i think they should have capture/trial we were uninvited into the country-whats for another country do the same?
This is not a man who would let himself be captured. Do I wish it hadn't been necessary to kill him? Yes. I also wish the moon was closer and summer in Minnesota was 3 months longer, but those things aren't going to happen either. I think it's in unbelievably poor taste that people are cheering and acting like drunk college students over this. But was it necessary? Yes.
"Would you have preferred that Usama bin Laden had been brought to trial?"
If possible without putting the lives of our fighting men and women at risk, then yes.
If we're going to win this "War on Terror" it won't be by killing their leaders. The only way to beat them is to invalidate their assumptions. The only thing we proved in his death is that we can be merchants of death as much as they can. I find it hard to believe that people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves would be deterred with the barrel of a gun. No, the only way to win is to prove we're not the "Great Satan". One way to do that is by the American criminal courts.
In this country our standard is "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Proven guilty in the media, or in the court of public opinion isn't good enough to dispense "justice", and does nothing to elevate our position abroad.
The only way to prove that our system is better is by not setting aside our ideals when they become uncomfortable or inconvenient. Our Pledge of Allegiance includes the words "Liberty and Justice for all". It doesn't say "all Americans" nor "except people we REALLY don't like".
Our system is better, but only when we hold true to our ideals.
I would argue that Bin Laden would not have allowed himself to be captured even if the US tried. The man clearly was a mastermind at hiding and avoiding capture for a long time. Given the reports that Bin Laden and his associates fought back against the soldiers who completed the raid, its probably safe to assume that he would not have surrendered even if given the opportunity.
The only purpose a trial would have served is to show that we uphold our ideals. But I have significant doubt that an "arrest" and trial would have had any value in this particular case. I watched Sadaam's dog-and-pony show, and do not feel that it made one iota of difference to the universe's grand moral compass. In fact, I think Sadaam was essentially put through months of extreme mental torture, all so that we could provide some modicum of ethical cover for his eventual death. Osama bin Laden would have tried to turn the trial into a show, would have been excluded from the courtroom, and his detention very likely would have put the lives of others at risk. And all for what? In the end, his conviction and death were a foregone conclusion.
In any event, it is not as if bin Laden had no choice in the matter. I suppose he could have submitted to capture, but he did not. He fought, he died. That is a choice outside of American control. As a threatened police officer shoots a suspect, our troops shot him. It is actually a fairly common end for a desperate criminal.
Absolutely not. The wheels of justice in this country turn slowly (by design). Turning him over to the Hague for trial in an international court would be unthinkable for the American people after we've spent so much time, blood and treasure looking for him. 9/11 commission already delivered the verdict. SEAL Team 6 delivered our justice. Thank you SEALs!
"Those who choose to not respect us have already come to that deciscion."
Yup. Post-WWII US foreign policy has certainly ensured that. Bin Laden's assasination is just another chapter of that sad story.
re: J W Halley
I stay awake at night wondering if I've earned the terrorist's respect.
Judging from the "cleansing" being done in the mid.-east and Africa, I don't think we have to worry.
Those who choose to not respect us have already come to that deciscion.
(cartoon bubble - the POTUS standing in front of the UN, "You like me! You really, really like me!")
Nope. He doesn't need to be placed into celebrity status.
No, absolutely and unequivocally. Arresting him and detaining him until trial would only have given him a heightened public profile and would have enabled him to raise his status as a martyr for the entirety of the time until his trial and eventual execution. He worked very hard to earn his bullet to the head, and he got it. Case closed. I don't believe in capital punishment generally. But for some people, I'm willing to err on the side of the bullet to the head. Good riddance.
I'm glad MPR has brought this question up. It apparently occurs to very few Americans that a gangland style killing of an enemy leader is a poor way to gain the world's respect. Our reputation as a nation of laws is not enhanced and future prospects for civilized enforcement of international law are not improved. The various difficulties associated with conducting a trial do not provide an excuse for avoiding a trial with an assassination. We don't
excuse lynching and gangland killing on that argument domestically and we shouldn't do so internationally. The US behaved admirably when it captured the German leadership and tried them for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg after World War II. We should strive to live up to that example.
No, I think the politics, costs and dangers if he were captured alive would be too great. Perhaps if he was to be tried in international court and never brought to U.S. territory, otherwise no, definitely, no. Even that would put the nation that held him in danger of attack, so no.
When bin Laden and his co-horts refused to back down, they chose their own demise. Bringing bin Laden back here for any sort of trial carried too many risks to the U.S. His loyals would have had a reason to bring terrorism back to our country in an effort to free him and take him back to the middle east. Would the nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 and their families have wanted it done differently?
Seriously..who would be dumb enough to think a mass murder with a burning hatred for the West would sit in a court room and do nothing more than stir the psychopath followers that he has. The only way to deal with rabid animals is to put a bullet through their heads. Bin Laden was mad and needed to be put down...Go NAVY!!
He would never have allowed himself to be taken alive. Even if we could have captured him, do we really think bin Laden would have been safe on US soil? There are plenty of nutjobs right here in the US who would have gone after him. Is there any prison in the world that would have been safe? Where the prison guards could have been trusted not to torture him or kill him themselves? There are plenty of jihadists who would have stopped at nothing to set him free. And does anyone honestly think he could have gotten a fair and unbiased trial? I think his death was the only possible outcome.
We could have looked forward to Eric Holder bringing him to NY for a civil trial . . .
With the controversy of Guit. Bay, our troops have no interest in holding prisoners. A result of the controversy and the present attitude towards our prisoners, it is much easier, quicker, more convenient to simply kill them on the battle field and not have to face them again in court or on the battle field when they have been released.
Dead is the positive outcome. He has taken too many lives and too much money and time from the USA as it is. One down - more to come.
Dead is the positive outcome. He has taken too many lives and too much money and time from the USA as it is. One down - more to come.
Of course he should've been taken alive. If the US is able to enter another country without permission and kill someone, what's to stop other nations or regimes doing the same?
American exceptionalism needs to stop otherwise we're in no position to complain when others follow our lead.
Absolutely not. A trial would have meant months or more of controversy about where, when and how to try the man, leading to nothing more than distraction from more pressing issues and fodder for critics. Having bin Laden in custody would have likely provoked greater reaction from his followers as they protested his imprisonment, and allow him to persist as a living martyr.
No, I think this is the very best outcome. The trial would take forever and probably stir up a greater chance of terrorism.
"Your negativity is not welcome here."
On the contrary. Everyone has a right to one's own ridiculous opinion. I'm always amused by the irony of people exercising their free-speech rights to express thier displeasure with the ACLU.
I would prefer he be sent to live with the head of the ACLU or perhaps a nice house in Berkley as a neighbor to other haters of America.
your negativity is not welcome here.
No! I'm happy it turned out as it did.
It doesn't matter what any of us would have prefered. It wasn't up to us. When he decided not to go peacefully, he opted out of getting a trial.
A more interesting question to me is why GWB allowed him to get away. I have to wonder if he didn't think bin Laden was more useful to him alive than dead. Fear-mongering is easier if you have a name and a face to focus on.
Yes. I would prefer he be sent to live with the head of the ACLU or perhaps a nice house in Berkley as a neighbor to other haters of America.
Yes, We might have found out the truth about 911.
For example:
How do you get a 99.9% DNA positive on a dead man within 6 hours?
You issue a press release.
nope. To have him dead and gone, and his body beyond the ability to recover and erect a shrine over is much better than the alternative. It's sad to see a human life who's sole existence seemed to be for hate and destruction, so we are better off without him. we can move on.
+1 to Zeke's comment:
To bitter republicans: If you couldn't it done in 8 years, it's your god damn problem.
Yes and No. He was worth more alive for information so yes. But the second he and his buddies were shooting at our SEALS, then No. He is not worth even a sliver of one of our best!
Yes...despite the nauseating and endless media circus, our constitutional process of justice culminating in a jury trial can never be regarded as too high a price to pay for justice, even for someone as detestable as Osama Bin Laden.
No, I would have been a long drawn out deal, if he would have died in our custody it would have been even worse as far as conspiracy, he would have been made a saint. No, its done, move on another evil leader is already in place
No. simply because of folks just like the previous poster. To conspiracy theorists: it's getting boring. To bitter republicans: If you couldn't it done in 8 years, it's your god damn problem.
Nope, because the Obama Regime would have tried him in a civilian court and made a mess of it. It would be a big joke.
| May 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock