http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-un-experts-idUSTRE74545Q20110506
Pretty interesting article if you haven't had the chance to read it, and some of the views are ones I've expressed myself.
The likelihood that there were ever any plans to capture bin Laden is fairly small, and I've said before that I believe the mission to have been one of pure assassination. I believe the so called "threatening actions" of bin Laden could easily have been dealt with by wounding rather than killing the terrorist organization leader.
This poses the question as to if even bin Laden, the number one most wanted man in the world, deserved a trial. We gave a trial to Saddam Hussein and the WWII German and Japanese leaders, so why not Osama? Some would argue that the others surrendered before the time of capture while bin Laden did not, but was bin Laden ever given the chance to surrender to the US ops team?
Regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty (which I think there is not much to debate over), complying with international law is especially important when we are the main country seeking to enforce it worldwide.
Bradford Dewitt
No comments:
Post a Comment