Was it appropriate to have killed Osama bin Laden, or would it have been better to put him on trial?
"Trial?" LOL
If he had surrendered peacefully, then yes. Unfortunately, he was shooting back at us and using his mistresses/wives as human shields. In addition, there was also the fear that he had rigged himself with explosives. That makes it impossible to take him alive.
Plus, he probably would've been tried by a military tribunal which is pretty much a joke and only delivers the answer that the military wants it to.Posted by: Dr.StrangeloveYes.
Is it appropriate to capture every enemy we ever fight and give them a trial or just kill them? If they're attacking us, we can respond by killing them.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouYES ALL THE WAY
Imagine yourself walking in the twin tower’s rubble the day after 911. You leave footprints in the ashes of not only the building, but people who were burned to death. You step through the debris, littered with limbs and strips of flesh- not to mention dead bodies. Puddles of blood collect around the countless mutilated corpses, blown apart by hatred. And you wonder… How many of the 2,000 killed were dearly loved? How many of them were mothers and fathers struck dead for earning their own keep? How many sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, and friends died that day? How many? How many families are now scarred, left naked in the dark suffering and destitute.
All of this goes back to one man; one criminal mastermind whom since he can remember has chanted, “Death to little Satan, death to big Satan.”
Due to him a little boy will never know his father. A young girl whom was close to her brother will never see him again; nor will her family be able to collect his remains and mark his place in this world.
His death was a small comfort to the thousands, even millions who are marred by this horrific event..... And by the way the goal was to capture Osama, but his followers opened fire on the nave seals and capture turned to kill.Posted by: AnonymousHe would have been executed anyways anyways.
Or been in his own personal cell on Gitmo for life, with an off chance he could escape or continue to support his cause from inside, considering how stupid some people get about human rights. No, I believe we never intended to capture him. Too messy to deal with, much simpler to just double-tap him. The trial would have been merely a gesture anyways, considering he admits to funding/planning the attacks.
Posted by: OberHerrYes.
So a sham trial in which he would most likely receive life in prison or capital punishment versus killing an international criminal...kill him...
Posted by: THEBOMBIts good we killed him
hell its taken more than 10 years to prosecute the actual terrorists who carried out 9/11, I feel much better knowing Osama is dead and not sitting in a jail cell anywhere in the US.
Posted by: imabenchIf I remember correctly
The Seals were in the middle of a firefight when he was killed. They had no other option. Capturing him was an option, for sure.
Posted by: Mr_AnonIt was appropriate to kill Osama Bin Laden because he was a terrorist on the run with no intention of changing his ways.
While it sounds like a good idea to capture Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial, the man had evaded authorities for years. He caused great harm with every action, and he had no intention of changing his ways. Most thought that he would never be found and caught, and all the sudden there was intelligence information about his location. One must also consider that he most likely wasn't going to go down without a fight and force was necessary.
Posted by: ToyMattYeah, capturing him would have sparked madness
Think about it, if we captured Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda would have attacked so many of our embassies in the Middle East, Americans would have been taken hostage until he was returned. While in theory it would have been nice to take him in, try him and execute him, there would have been so much more at stake for the safety and security of Americans, better that we killed him on May 2nd, 2011.
Posted by: msaka33
This is a moment in history that we will look back on with utter shame.
Violence has been inflicted by people on both sides of this confrontation. Al-Qaeda and the armies of the west are each guilty of their own atrocities. And now, to add to the war crimes of the west, we have lost whatever faint, false right we have to call ourselves just. The hypocrisy is now looming over the heads of those who have the power to end all this violence, but choose not to for reasons kept from us. Osama Bin Laden's death was drastically unnecessary and barbaric. What kind of sick people celebrate death, even if he was a war criminal. Those who killed him and certainly those who were happy of his death, are guilty of crimes against peace. When thousands of people celebrate a murder, one must surely begin to question what kind of good can come from such a species.
Posted by: AnonymousHear what he had to say
Isn't anyone else curious about what he would have had to say? Isn't his testimony important? There is so much that is unclear about this whole situation. Of course it would be better to have him in custody and to have his version on record. Also, Bin Laden is considered a hero in some parts of the world. Why make him a martyr?
Posted by: rrossZero Dark Thirty
Just saw this movie and I found it unsettling and ironic. As an American, human and woman, I'm ashamed how our government has behaved in the name of "public safety and peace." It's clear we were operating on hypocritical principles of revenge, judgment and war. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hopefully, when you know better, you do better.
Posted by: AnonymousBah
I don't believe we killed him.
Posted by: DontTreadOnMeI disagree with the killing of Osama Bid Laden, because it made us no better than the terrorists.
I do not believe that the government should have killed Osama Bid Laden. Taking his life does not bring back all of the lives he took by backing the terrorist attacks. I, personally, do not rejoice in the death of any man, regardless of the crimes that they have committed. I believe that, by killing him, it makes America no better than the terrorist groups.
Posted by: EducatedAlfonsoNo.
We are hypocrites, by doing that. Have you ever thought what would have happened if he was armed, how many people would have been killed in the standoff? Oh no, you guys don't care. Only Americnas have feeling, right? "America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization." -George Clemenceau
Posted by: sculmer2It was appropriate to kill Osama bin Laden, since he was posing a threat to the Navy Seals.
Upon being found, Osama bin Laden took out a gun and started shooting at the Navy Seals who found him. He even used his wife as a shield to prevent himself from being killed. He had a child close by. To prevent more lives from being killed, the Seals were forced to kill him. Arguably, it was in self-defense. It was better to kill that one person, than to let four die in the attempt to take him away.
Posted by: FiveJasper49No
I think we should stand behind our assertions of patriotism and not become what we hate. I mean we have had terrorist in our own back yard commit mass murder for what ever reason and they were tried and justice prevailed.
Posted by: Justice787One man allowed to order death
I don't agree with the death penalty, nor do I agree with the decision being made by one man, namely the American president. Why should he have the power to override international law? Where's the justice without a separation between government and judicial systems? Where is the line drawn? What other international laws can he bend?
Posted by: AnonymousWe should have put him on trial....
.... in order to balance the flow of information about the intelligence methods used to capture him. This isn't about whether he deserved to die, or if it's moral for him to have been executed pre-trial. This is about the "skeleton in the closet" surrounding the intelligence community and the entire establishment of the Al Qaeda regime. The amount of information that would have become public is worth keeping him alive to face trial.
The benefit outweighs the consequence.Posted by: HeinekenIt was an attrocity
If the United States continues to make everything "us vs. Them" there won't be anymore "us" and there won't be anymore "them." Hate breeds hate and all people deserve to have protection under the law. If a person is a citizen who kills people, we afford them a trial. It shouldn't make any difference whether the person is a citizen or not.
Posted by: AnonymousThere should have been a trial...
I think that he should have been tried, if possible. He probably would have been given the death penalty anyway. I think that way would have been more humane and left the U.S. with a better reputation. He had a family too. Sure, the guy was pretty twisted, but he had family who cared about him and probably would have appreciated a formal trial.
Posted by: Anonymous