If you kill someone who is pointing a gun or shooting at you it is NOT execution or assassination.

OBL might have believed he would never have been taken alive, but the moment he pointed a gun at a Navy Seal his fate was sealed and ultimately it was his choice. It really takes a birther type of fool to believe that OBL was not armed and would not have killed anyone he could when caught.

but I'm inclined to believe he would shoot back. He seemed to enjoy playing with AK-47s on video. I'm sure he thought he was freakin' Rambo.

A reporter asked John O. Brennan today if UBL was holding a gun, and Brennan said, “He was engaged in a firefight.”

That doesn't answer the question.

there was a firefight and he was killed.

The Mission was to bring Osama out. If they could capture
without killing, great. If they had to kill, they would.

They knew Osama would never go down without a fight so
the kill order was in place.

Putting up a fight could mean the actions of his bodyguards.

an execution or assassination?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502

Is this a legal/lawful order?

I suspect this was not a big concern for the team that was sent.

in modified form by Reagan, expressly forbade the use of U.S. intelligence assets to assassinate foreign leaders.

Not an attorney so don't know whether 11905 applies here (or even whether it is still in force after Bush eviscerated the rule of law).

I sure hope someone in the chain of command considered the question, since the last time I checked the U.S. Constitution forbade bills of attainder. Again, though, not an attorney so don't know whether the ban on bills of attainder applies here, since it it Congress that would have to pass said unconstitutional bill of attainder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

OBL was not a foreign leader. He wasn't the president or prime minister of any country.

EO 11905 would not apply to OBL. But again, I hasten to add, I'm not an attorney nor a historian of the Church Committee's output and legislation (like FISA) and EOs it inspired.

The question before us that you posed is whether the order to kill OBL was a lawful order. I was supplying what little legal material I am aware of that pertains to the question.

I know that some DUers on this thread and others today have said this was a 'clean kill,' although I'm not sure how grounded in the law such an assertion is.

Just so you're clear on where I'm coming from, I never bought the need for military action in response to 9-11, seeing it as primarily a matter for law enforcement and due process of the law. That may seem 'quaint and obsolete' in these times.

BIn Laden had extensive combat experience against the soviets.

He could kill as easily and professionally as anyone in the room.

If I am going in against someone like that he'll be looking to die unless he is prone and naked.

Unless he surrenders, he is fair game.

home/compound etc doesn't mean it isn't assassination to kill them, ie their death was the point/plan. Capture could have taken other forms but we don't know what options were presented and as of yet I don't think we have the information to say for sure the goal was to kill him.

Initially I heard the plan was to kill him, later I heard no they wanted to capture him so I don't know what the truth is. I'm not of the opinion it was necessarily assassination in the usual sense people mean it but from a technical POV it seems to fit.

What kind of gun was bin Laden using? Single shot or fully automatic? It seems strange to me that in a "firefight" every last one of the bad guys was killed, but none of the good guys sustained so much as a hangnail. I mean, if this were a Hollywood script, you'd walk out, but the military's thrilling account can't be wrong, and now we have an eyewitness. More details, please!

Guess my source was wrong

What kind of gun was it?

which was the right decision in my view. The difficulties associated with that would have been enormous. I understand though, why they might have to claim that they would have captured him if possible, but no way that was ever going to happen.

the intent of killing them and they shoot at you first, it is still assassination - they just got the first shot off.

then it is possible that he had a gun.

I'm just saying that if he got the shot off first it is mute if the orders were to shoot on sight.

and used their inside voices.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

"Candygram."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in a heavily fortified compound issuing death threats...

Oh never mind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"If you kill someone who is pointing a gun or shooting at you it is NOT execution or assassination."

If a cop tells you to "freeze" and you reach for a gun and you are shot and killed, it is not execution or assassination. It is foolish to believe otherwise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in doing that. US Navy SEALS in Pakistan? Highly doubtful.

and was being pursued for almost ten years by the military.

Trying to give OBL a trial somewhere would have made the circus surrounding KSM's proposed trial in Manhattan seem tame by comparison. Better to take care of these issues in the field rather than taking these shitbags into custody and attempting to bring them to court.

Note the last sentence

"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties.
After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

Their job was to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, and they fulfilled their mission. OBL decided to go down fighting, so the SEALs obliged him.

We invaded his home and killed him. That is either execution or assassination. Please dont try to make yourself feel better by your rationalization.

After all, we're at war, are we not?

your government didnt lower themselves to assassinating? We assassinated him and he deserved it, why is that so hard to admit?

And what the hell do you mean, we are at war? Are you talking about the war on drugs? What the hell is your definition of war? George Bush wanted the American people to think that we were at war with terrorists. How absurd. When did it start? Or has it been going on forever?

I guess rationalization is the key to some peoples happiness.

Assassination is assassination. I'm glad he's dead, but when you execute or assassinate others, how can you condemn it when others wish to do the same?

the claim that OBL was armed?

And the woman was caught in a crossfire.

One big one is the burial at sea? So his grave wont become a shrine. What? With that belef wouldnt his grave be a terrorist magnet of sorts and the u.s. could just round up all of the terrorists as the visited it?
Is Saddam Hussein's grave a shrine? He had way more followers and foreign leaders that backed him than Bin Laden could ever dream of.
Something isnt right about this thing. But it really doesnt matter as the u.s. has the biggest guns so that makes them right!!!!