Osama: Would it have been better to capture him alive?

[druidravi]

Sure he would. We would just put him in solitary and on suicide watch while all the leftwingnuts would complain how we are violating his civil rights with such inhuman and torturous treatment ala how we treated Bradley Manning, and calls for UN inspections to ensure he was being treated right would be the mantra of the day.

etc. etc. etc.

I think this bickering over left and right is why they killed him. Any plus Obama gets for the capture/kill would be lost over daily opinion pieces etc on Osama's treatment . Now he gets bipartisan credit .

 

[Incodcito]

Apparently he was unarmed, so I don't see how the argument that he could not have been taken alive holds water.

However, I don't think taking him alive would have been a good idea either...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Given their apparent rules of engagement, there was little change for bin Laden not to be summarily executed if found. They were actually worried he would turn himself into a human bomb and try to kill a SEAL or two. I guess they've never heard of a dead man's switch, as commonly seen in bad Hollywood movies...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-us-20110504,0,4195504.story

Reporting from Washington— U.S. commandos who attacked Osama bin Laden's compound were operating under rules of engagement that all but assured the Al Qaeda leader would be killed, officials have acknowledged, backing away from an initial account that Bin Laden was armed and used a woman as a shield.

After saying Monday that the American operatives who raided the Pakistani compound had orders to capture Bin Laden if he gave himself up, U.S. officials Tuesday added an important qualifier: The assault force was told to accept a surrender only if it could be sure he didn't have a bomb hidden under his clothing and posed no other danger.

Bin Laden could have surrendered only "if he did not pose any type of threat whatsoever," White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan said on Fox television, and if U.S. troops "were confident of that in terms of his not having an IED [improvised explosives device] on his body, his not having some type of hidden weapon or whatever."

Added a senior congressional aide briefed on the rules of engagement: "He would have had to have been naked for them to allow him to surrender."

With people as paranoid as that giving the orders, there was little chance for him to be captured alive.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Paranoia? Seriously? That's not paranoia, that's just being realistic.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Sure he would. We would just put him in solitary and on suicide watch while all the leftwingnuts would complain how we are violating his civil rights with such inhuman and torturous treatment ala how we treated Bradley Manning, and calls for UN inspections to ensure he was being treated right would be the mantra of the day.

etc. etc. etc.

Manning's treatment at the hands of the state proves how right he was to resist it in the first place. There is no similarity between Manning and bin laden beyond their being human and at odds with US policy. Equating him with a mass murderer is shameful.

 

[emzie]

Given their apparent rules of engagement, there was little change for bin Laden not to be summarily executed if found. They were actually worried he would turn himself into a human bomb and try to kill a SEAL or two. I guess they've never heard of a dead man's switch, as commonly seen in bad Hollywood movies...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-us-20110504,0,4195504.story



With people as paranoid as that giving the orders, there was little chance for him to be captured alive.

What a clever legal loop hole.