My understanding is that in WW2 they wanted Hitler alive.

[howard112211]

One can argue back and forth over whether or not it was possible to take Bin Laden alive, or whether or not he was armed, fighting back etc., and I think these discussions are pointless for one because we will probably not get any reliable facts about what actually happened any time soon, but also because, and I think this is the main issue, they are a distraction from the much more interesting question: Given a choice, is this outcome the preferred outcome, or would having him alive been better?

My understanding is that during World War Two, from the point on where killing Hitler by some means had no longer any strategic value in deciding the war, it was seen by many as preferential that he be captured alive, so that he could be put on trial. And his suicide in the end was viewed as a "less than ideal" outcome because in some sense it means that he "escaped justice". Also, allowing him to "die like a soldier", i.e. in battle, would have been not as good as having him "die like a criminal", after being convicted by a court.

I just wonder when this shift of paradigm happened.

Another thing which I wonder is when the perception of "the scope of our standards" changed. We wanted to put Hitler on trial, amongst other reasons, to demonstrate that our standards are universal.

It seems like Americans used to be more ambitious.

I worry about the "Palinization" of the perception of our values. When she said "those who are fighting to destroy our constitution are not worthy of it", below the tough chest thumping rhetoric lies the implication that "Our way of handling things is only good within our borders. What happens outside is not our problem and our values do not apply.". In some sense this is a direct invitation to other powers to ignore what we see as our standards. So ultimately, it is a downsizing of the scope of our worldview.

[dkf]

1. In all honesty we are probably too afraid of further attacks to do a trial.

That is what I think.

I also think a straight kill is more honorable than putting a guy in shackles and parading him in front of the world.

[shoutinfreud]

2. I wonder if they weren't so paranoid about being the guys who "Saw Bin Laden and let him escape"

That the guys in the actual assault team weren't a little too anxious to make sure they shot him before he jumped out a window.

[leveymg]

3. The orders were to kill bin Laden. It would have been highly inconvenient to interrogate him

What the man might have said about a whole bunch of highly-placed benefactors, funders and associates around the world, only G-d (and his benefactors, funders, and associates) now they alone know. So, the orders were to kill him. One in the head. One in the heart. Don't believe me? See, http://www.nationaljournal.com/for-obama-killing-not-capturing-nobr-bin-laden-nobr-was-goal-20110503

[emulatorloo]

5. Hard drives and flash drives

EOM

[leveymg]

8. A whole lot less information than was inside the man's head. That data can't be restored.

But, gathering and preservation of evidence from high-value targets has rarely been the point of the GWOT.

[emulatorloo]

11. I disagree. Perhaps there was more info in his head. But a flash drive is more likely to give up

its secrets.

In addition, for example, I doubt Osama carried all the bank account numbers in his head. Could well be on a hard drive though.

[NYC Liberal]

10. He wouldn't have said anything.

If you think he was going to talk, I have some great oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

[Posteritatis]

4. I rather imagine in the war they wanted Germany defeated, and the specifics were less important.

I don't think comparing the Second World War to any even vaguely contemporary conflict (except maybe the Second Congo War) is very useful.

[steve2470]

6. Roosevelt allowed Stalin to take Berlin, where Hitler was in his bunker

I don't think Stalin would have allowed him to live. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary ?

[Robb]

7. This. (nt)

[spanone]

9. we couldn't even try the gitmo boys, NO ONE would allow a bin laden trial in their state

it would end up a military trial that would have only inflamed the middle east and been years of political bullshit

[Generic Other]

12. I suspect at times even our leaders are reactors not actors

They make split second decisions based on chance and opportunity. They weigh all the angles and decide which of a variety of hazardous outcomes should be chosen. A crapshoot. And sometimes they may or may not have chosen the best route.

The trial would have been a hideous spectacle and would bring daily threats to the US of retaliation. It might have been the right thing to do, but it might have brought more harm in the end. The possibility is that there wouldn't even be a strong enough case to prosecute because one must prove he masterminded the events to convict. That means establishing a chain of evidence directly linking OBL to the hijackers through phone calls, emails, direct contact, etc.

A quick kill is cleaner in some ways. The threat of retaliation is still there but the daily reminder disappears. The argument that he is an enemy combatant can be argued with merit. If he doesn't put up his hands and literally wave a white flag, he is a target. It is war after all.

The other possibility is to do nothing as happened in the Bush years. Use OBL as the object of hate and justification for a war on terror.

I don't think men who declared war on the US have any rights where our military is concerned. That is just a fact. None of us would expect to be spared the full force of the law if we launched an attack against our government. And we might very well expect to be burnt to cinders in their effort to apprehend us.