What about 7/7 and the Spanish train bombings?

The UK and Spain?

In essence you agree with Wikileaks. All of that top secret information belongs in the public domain...........

Yes.

ANd Bali too- weren't alot of Australians blown up in OBL's name.

Just trying to figure out whose democracy he should've been tried under.

He could have be tried in all of them. What's your point?

But, not wanting to repeat myself, who was going to arrest him?
The Pakistanis?

I'm posting this as I don't recall anyone else mentioning it on this thread (apologies if it was already stated but I missed it). They're labeling the killing as "justified as an act of national self-defence".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13302479

http://africa.ibtimes.com/articles/1...lf-defence.htm

Can just see the "fair trial of asama bin ladan now"

A jury who would be un bias. Not likley

All the hours of video shown showing him ranting on about killing the westerners and jeehad on all non muslims.

The be heading in thw name of osama you tube movies.

What would the defence say on his behalf? "he was a good little boy who was brain washed and missled by a book."

It would never have had a good outcome either way.

Good ridence to a very bad bastard. Years overdue, he had a longer life than all the poor soles he had a hand in killing.

I suppose the short answer is "Because its in line with the law as laid down in the USA, where the actual deaths occured."

Of course, in practical terms its a non starter as it would raise immediate red flags regarding the legality of his arrest, the absence of extradition proceedings etc etc etc, so legally it would perhaps have resulted on an aquital on a legal technicality.

Ive no problem with his death, Ive no problem with it having been ordered by the president, but I do have a problem with the fact its all been dressed up as something its wasnt.

Im not at all convinced that what happened was actually legal. Its the rule of law that gives a government the moral high ground, the rules are laid out in advance for all to see. Surely it would have been possible to frame the conflict with AlQuada and its named representatives in such a way that this would have simply been, as A-C states, a shooting in combat?

All these people keep referring to the US constitution.

The guy was an enemy of democracy full stop- all the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who he slaughtered whilst they were going about their daily lives were not just in the US.

Whether war was officially declared or not (And I remember Bush declaring war on terror in a speech) this man was at war with all of us.

His actions of war and his own declarations of war as far as I am concerned are in line with the Law of Contract where if someone behaves like there is a contract then there is one.

He knew he was wanted dead or alive and he had 9 years to surrender but instead kept ordering his own kill missions with no regard for anyone.

In the end he himself was killed swifly and with little regard- he died by the sword he lived by. It is rediculous to assume that the most wanted man in the world was unarmed or would not have gone for a weapon had they not shot him.

The world is a better place now he is dead and I am grateful that a message has been sent to his brothers of Jihad (or what ever they call themselves) that they are marked men.

The man was guilty with no remorse and every intention to keep killing- there is a point where even the most politically correct do gooder needs to understand that some people are just psycopathic.

Here we go again.

So it's kind of back to the Assange thing again. You're demanding the right to know what the millitary does but let me guess, you wouldn't be happy for the public to know what you do and the choices you make and your income and what kegs you wear etc etc

They aren't Teletubbies, they are soldiers; specifically, they are soldiers trained for operations that are perceived to be too difficult for regulars.

I suspect that, if you asked them, they would say that they did what they had to. Maybe, you would prefer it if one of them had "bought it" to justify their action. They will be sleeping in their beds without regret.

The whole thing is analogous to the Rock of Gibraltar incident involving the Regiment.

Unfortunately and rarely, such action is required. If those bent on mass murder would paint themselves with a big red target, refuse to hide among civilians, put down their weapons when requested to do so and operate within the law that they expect to be applied to themselves, such action would not be required.

Here is a question for the hand wringers amonst us: Would it have been OK to shoot OBL had he been armed? Why?

If the democratically elected leader decided it was in the nations interest to go after OBL in the light of intelligence gathered, and he was acting within the law of the nation, what justification is there for not spelling that out?

If he ordered his death, then he should say so, and explain the legal justification if its in question. He should in short be accountable

If he didnt order his death, then there should be accountability for what happened.

I dont care about the nitty gritty classified details of the operation, but the actual orders given and the justification for them should be clear at least.

In short, there should be accountability, thats the difference between the actions of a democracy, and the likes of OBL.

Let's be honest Iain when have the United States ever been held accountable for anything????

But then it's easy to sit up here in Canada "The World's Peacekeeper" and be critical when it's known that big brother down south really deals with the problems.

Too many people on this forum have been hanging out with cradles too long.

Here's a thought: Maybe intelligence came to the powers that be indicating where OBL was. The top levels of Government decided to task their armed forces to try and "arrest" him. The top brass called in their specialist unit and tasked them to do so. The senior people in specialist unit tasked a number of individuals to attempt the mission, leaving decisions as to how to do so to the team. The team on the ground reacted to what happened.

Some people, that had no real idea as to what happened, then start stating that this and that happened, all the while, the people that know aren't even questioned.

Bored people on internet fora come up with lots of flowery theories about what happened and get into petty arguments about who is correct ...