Bring him in alive, and then what?
Where would you put him on trial?
Good luck finding an unbiased jury.
And then, once he's convicted, then what?
Where would you have him in jail?

Had any of them done what I described above: yes.

Should they be shot in Gitmo? No

Should soldiers be allowed to shoot and kill those that are trying to shoot and kill them?: Yes

This reminds me about the debate that occurred in NI. The question was: What should a soldier be allowed to do if facing a person throwing/about to throw a petrol bomb at them?

Answers:

Can't shoot before they throw - don't know if they will throw it.

Can't shoot after they have thrown - shooting won't do any good - bomb is in the air.

Can only shoot at the exact point when bomb is to be released - only situation where shooting would make a difference.

I suspect that, like many commentators on here, the person that came up with such a policy has never had to face such a situation.

NIMBY eh Alan?

There is sort of a solution to that rather strained conundrum and that is, go home.

I'll tell you what, OBL's No. 2 still appears to be out there somewhere. Go find him and bring him to face trial. It shouldn't be too hard if you are to be believed. Don't forget, no waterboarding, no invasion of privacy surveilance. Just ask him to attorn to the jurisdiction, I am sure he will.

In the meantime, everytime one of his followers murders someone, go explain your position to their family.

While we are not about it, how was OBL "murdered"?

That's pretty easy. America is diverse enough to find a jury - they might all know who he is, but there are plenty of people there who believe in the rule of law and due process. Even some republicans.

Convicted - then punish him to the max extent the law allows. Jail? I assume as he's so obviously guilty he'd be executed.

I see, your position is that one should give in to bullies. Enough said really

OBL OK was Jericos position in this theoretical slide to a Orwellian nightmare, not necessarily mine.

My initial reaction that it was not necessarily an assassination was based on the initial premise that he was killed in a fire fight, while actively posing a threat to those sent to get him. The more "facts" I hear the more it seems like it was never the intention to try and extract him alive, and that raises certain issues for me.


If you take it that the US is at war with al-Qaeda, (which there seems plenty of circumstantial evidence to support), then I have no problem with a military mission acting upon an intelligence reports to take the fight to them and take him out. But its a ropey legal position because the US has not declared war.

My issue is with the transparency over this. There is no hypocrisy in expecting a democratic government to follow the rule of law. Not that putting him on trial would not have been without its problems.

I just think the legal position is badly defined at the moment, are they fighting a war, or were they effecting an arrest?

What do you call it when you kill somebody who is unarmed without them being convicted of anything or a declaration of war?

In other words, you've not really thought this through have you?

How is that not thought through - what I said should happen is the actual law of the US as it should apply to everyone.

- They commit crimes
- They get arrested
- They are put on trial
- They are found innocent - they are released
- or They are found guilty - they are punished. In the US OBL's crimes are such that he would be executed if found guilty.

so you're saying US law should apply to everyone

No. But as 9/11 occurred in the US it is appropriate that US law should apply.

Do all States have the death penalty? What State has jurisdiction?

This is my point.
What crimes did he commit? If he was indeed the mastermind of 9/11, was he even subject to US laws and jurisdiction?
Who's going to arrest him? The Pakistanis? Come on Alan....