Originally Posted by Oink (Post 9345892)

Its not naivety its called the rule of law and due process with in it. As with any unlawful act a state must, no matter what is alleged, guarantee such due process. Innocent until proven, I believe is the term. Otherwise the state is acting in an unlawful way. Obama should be prosecuted for ordering the murder of bin Laden, however distasteful people found him.

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 9345903)

Is that a wind up?......I think you need wake up and to smell the coffee....:cool:...Welcome to the real world!

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 9345903)

Is that a wind up?......I think you need wake up and to smell the coffee....:cool:...Welcome to the real world!

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9345918)

So let me get this straight. You think the state should be able to kill people without trial?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9345995)

In armed conflict, yes, otherwise you would have to cart 12 good men and true to every theatre, it would be way too expensive:p

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9346003)

I accept there are rules of engagement. Maybe you are right, and people in the military are just pussies. So much so that so-called top commandos can't even take one unarmed man alive lest he looks at them funny and gives them post traumatic stress.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9346009)

I thought we were talking about Navy Seals:p

They wouldn't have given a flying monkey's about whether he was armed or not, or what he had hidden. They would have reacted to what they were presented with and wouldn't not care about what armchair commentators said at a later date.

A bit like the Iranian chap at Prince's Gate in the early 1980s with 90 odd rounds in him. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9346020)

It doesn't matter what they thought on the ground - they were ordered to assassinate bin laden. I'm not going to lose sleep over it in this case, but lets accept it for what it is - an extra-judicial killing (as Novo said above) ordered by the US government. Such things shouldn't really be allowed in a democracy.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9346023)

I bet they weren't, otherwise it would just have been a bomb jobby.

I bet they were ordered to take him, but not to concern themselves too much if he resisted.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9346028)

I suspect that they were not. Him being dead is quite a bit more expedient for them than having to parade him around and give him a trial. I know we won't know for sure - but this is the US government we a talking about.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9346158)

Killing him by smart bomb would have been way less risky for the US Forces. If they wanted him dead full stop, this is what they would have done.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9346158)

Killing him by smart bomb would have been way less risky for the US Forces. If they wanted him dead full stop, this is what they would have done.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 9346211)

Imagine the reaction to the US smart-bombing a posh residence outside of the capital of Pakistan and it turned out to be the Foreign Ministers lovenest or summat.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9346219)

They didn't have to be mutually exclusive. Now get that image out of your head.