Bin Laden dead?

[Captain Seafort]

He's better off tried as a common criminal and locked up in my opinion. No martyrdom, no glorious death, just rotting in a jail cell until his kidneys take him out. He dies like a common criminal. Alone in a jailcell largely forgotten.

Heartily seconded. Few things irritate me more than those who describe bin Laden and his ilk as "enemy combatants". He wasn't. He was a crook who got shot resisting arrest, and no more.

Still, water under the bridge. We just have to hope that no idiot decides "bin Laden's dead, ergo we can all go home". There's still a big job to be done in Afghanistan, one in which the death of one man is utterly irrelevant.

[Mikey]

I'd like to know exactly how Bin Laden could have been treated like a "common criminal." If he were captured rather than killed, it would obviously have been by Americans. However, The U.S. can't arrest him, arraign him, indict him, and try him like he was an American caught breaking the law, because he wasn't. Either he's an enemy combatant, in which case he then becomes a POW; or he's not, in which case he becomes a foreign national being held by the internal law of a foreign (to him) nation.

Even if all the bounds which would need to be broken in order to arrest and try him were bypassed... let him sit in jail? Really? Being a prisoner in an American jail would be a handful of virgins short of heaven to him. It's a pretty safe bet that a prisoner of that sort would be protected from the GP. He'd get better medical care, including his dialysis, on a more regular basis than he could have ever imagined while "free." Perhaps most importantly, as to which GK alluded, the maxim "where there's life, there's hope" doesn't only apply to us.

OK, then, you might say: arrest him, arraign, him, indict him, and try him (if any of such things were possible within the international community) and then execute him. Well, you've an exponentially greater chance of making him a martyr for his cause by letting him swing from the gibbet than the way things actually played out - shot in the head during a firefight by enemy (to him) soldiery rather than crucified by the government of the Great Satan.

[Captain Seafort]

If he were captured rather than killed, it would obviously have been by Americans. However, The U.S. can't arrest him, arraign him, indict him, and try him like he was an American caught breaking the law, because he wasn't.

The minor issue of him being an accessory to several thousand counts of murder committed on US soil would give the US jurisdiction.

let him sit in jail? Really? Being a prisoner in an American jail would be a handful of virgins short of heaven to him. It's a pretty safe bet that a prisoner of that sort would be protected from the GP. He'd get better medical care, including his dialysis, on a more regular basis than he could have ever imagined while "free." Perhaps most importantly, as to which GK alluded, the maxim "where there's life, there's hope" doesn't only apply to us.

And so...what? Was there a point to this statement beyond explaining the situation he'd be in?

OK, then, you might say: arrest him, arraign, him, indict him, and try him (if any of such things were possible within the international community) and then execute him.

No, imprison him. I've stated before that I'm opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, so why would you expect me to make an exception for OBL?

[Mikey]

The minor issue of him being an accessory to several thousand counts of murder committed on US soil would give the US jurisdiction.

You say that now, but the UKoGBaNI would most likely be one of the nations decrying the "evil, maverick U.S.A." were we to have done so.

And so...what? Was there a point to this statement beyond explaining the situation he'd be in?

Absolutely. Perhaps you'll notice that people besides yourself have posted in this discussion. It had been mentioned that someone would have preferred to let him rot like a common criminal until his kidneys gave out. Obviously the intent was to indicate that he should be made to suffer in prison, when such suffering is both unlikely and not nearly appropriate to the crime.

No, imprison him. I've stated before that I'm opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, so why would you expect me to make an exception for OBL?

WTF are you on about? I don't care about your stance on the death penalty, nor was this directed at anything you in particular had said. This was distinctly and patently a pre-emptive follow-up to the first bit I'd mentioned about the relatively easy go he'd have as a legal prisoner. The natural response for an American proposing his arrest and trial, once his incarceration had been decried, would be to suggest the same arrest and trial and execution in lieu of said incarceration. Following that, I expanded my statement to cover this next step in the reasoning.

[Captain Seafort]

You say that now, but the UKoGBaNI would most likely be one of the nations decrying the "evil, maverick U.S.A." were we to have done so.

Why? We're doing nothing of the sort regarding the exact same charges against KSM.

Absolutely. Perhaps you'll notice that people besides yourself have posted in this discussion. It had been mentioned that someone would have preferred to let him rot like a common criminal until his kidneys gave out. Obviously the intent was to indicate that he should be made to suffer in prison, when such suffering is both unlikely and not nearly appropriate to the crime.

I'll let Tyyr explain his reasoning further if he wants to, but I see it as simply not allowing him to become a martyr as would have happened had been executed and as may happen given the actual manner of his death. Just let him fade away. A fading that would have been likely to his kidneys giving out.

As for suffering appropriate to the crime, I would call keeping him locked up, unable to further contribute to his organisations crimes or gain the martyr's death he would probably have wanted when push came to shove, to be ample punishment.

WTF are you on about? I don't care about your stance on the death penalty, nor was this directed at anything you in particular had said. This was distinctly and patently a pre-emptive follow-up to the first bit I'd mentioned about the relatively easy go he'd have as a legal prisoner. The natural response for an American proposing his arrest and trial, once his incarceration had been decried, would be to suggest the same arrest and trial and execution in lieu of said incarceration. Following that, I expanded my statement to cover this next step in the reasoning.

Fair enough, although the standard arguments against the death penalty continue to stand, in addition to the ones you mention as specific to OBL's case.

[Mikey]

Why? We're doing nothing of the sort regarding the exact same charges against KSM.

#1 - Khalid Sheih Mohammed isn't nearly as high a profile a case as Bin Laden on which to piggyback invective.

#2 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being held as, and has been charged as, a military prisoner - a case which was not mentioned at all in the proposals of "what ought to have been done" with Bin Laden.

I see it as simply not allowing him to become a martyr as would have happened had been executed and as may happen given the actual manner of his death. Just let him fade away. A fading that would have been likely to his kidneys giving out.

As I mentioned, I believe potential martyrdom is far less of an issue with what occurred than it could have been had he been arrested.

I would call keeping him locked up, unable to further contribute to his organisations crimes or gain the martyr's death he would probably have wanted when push came to shove, to be ample punishment.

No doubt you would. I wouldn't, thus the disagreement.

Fair enough, although the standard arguments against the death penalty continue to stand, in addition to the ones you mention as specific to OBL's case.

Fair enough as well - as you say, I believe that what happened is far preferable to arresting him then executing him. As far as arguments against the death penalty in general, this isn't the forum - we're not discussing a case of internal treatment of criminals.

[Captain Seafort]

#1 - Khalid Sheih Mohammed isn't nearly as high a profile a case as Bin Laden on which to piggyback invective.

And? The fact remains that there have been no complaints whatsoever about the idea of trying him for his role in the 11th September attacks.

#2 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being held as, and has been charged as, a military prisoner - a case which was not mentioned at all in the proposals of "what ought to have been done" with Bin Laden.

Since when? Last I heard he was to be tried in a civil court in New York, unless they've changed it again.

As far as arguments against the death penalty in general, this isn't the forum - we're not discussing a case of internal treatment of criminals.

Yes we are, albeit hypothetically.

[Tyyr]

Leaving someone to rot in prison is a colloquialism that tends to indicate they will be tossed in prison without hope of being let out. Essentially the door is kept shut even after they die letting their bodies "rot in prison." Additionally given his condition the guy's probably going to die of something kidney related.

I am fully aware that he'll receive regular dialysis in prison. He'll get three square meals a day, his legally required hour of sunshine, and he'll have to be kept in isolation so he doesn't get beaten to death.

And he won't be a martyr. Works for me.

[BigJKU316]

Leaving someone to rot in prison is a colloquialism that tends to indicate they will be tossed in prison without hope of being let out. Essentially the door is kept shut even after they die letting their bodies "rot in prison." Additionally given his condition the guy's probably going to die of something kidney related.

I am fully aware that he'll receive regular dialysis in prison. He'll get three square meals a day, his legally required hour of sunshine, and he'll have to be kept in isolation so he doesn't get beaten to death.

And he won't be a martyr. Works for me.

Yeah, capturing him would have been best, but he was basically resisting arrest and got popped for it. While I wish they would have captured him I am not going to tell a military squad to take a chance on losing one of their own people to make it happen. That would have been ideal. This is not a bad second option. Much better than blowing him apart with a smart bomb and never knowing for sure.

[Tyyr]

No, what's happened happened and that's the end of it. I do agree that this is vastly preferable to a bombing.

[Mikey]

Update: David Cameron gets tough! (as long as it doesn't bother anyone)

Cameron demanded to know why Islamabad wasn't more forthcoming with information which they must have had, even in limited form - echoing U.S. Senator Carl Levin statement of "It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that" by saying, "Those are questions we have to ask, those are questions we will want answered and we will be asking that question of everyone in Pakistan and the Pakistani government." Unfortunately, almost in the same breath Cameron added, "We could go down the route of having some massive argument, massive row with Pakistan, but I assess our relationship with Pakistan and it is my very clear view that it is in out interests to work with the government and people of Pakistan to combat terrorism, combat extremism and help development in that country."

Oh, for the days of Thatcher or Major.

[BigJKU316]

Update: David Cameron gets tough! (as long as it doesn't bother anyone)

Cameron demanded to know why Islamabad wasn't more forthcoming with information which they must have had, even in limited form - echoing U.S. Senator Carl Levin statement of "It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that" by saying, "Those are questions we have to ask, those are questions we will want answered and we will be asking that question of everyone in Pakistan and the Pakistani government." Unfortunately, almost in the same breath Cameron added, "We could go down the route of having some massive argument, massive row with Pakistan, but I assess our relationship with Pakistan and it is my very clear view that it is in out interests to work with the government and people of Pakistan to combat terrorism, combat extremism and help development in that country."

Oh, for the days of Thatcher or Major.

There really is not a good practical choice here. The government (by which I mean the President basically) works with NATO to the best of its constraints but have to fear getting killed by the lunatics over there. Parts of the military are going to lean towards NATO, other parts towards China.

The real bad players here are the ISI guys and the box the west is in is that just telling the political or army groups to piss off because they are not doing a good job (which is true) probably pushes the nation into control by the ISI and their supporters which is worse that what is going on now.

[Mikey]

Yeah, the position suscks. And, I can't fault Cameron for either statement - on its own. Unfortunately, demanding answers from Islamabad can't effectively be juxtaposed with trying to mitigate one's stance or mollycoddle Zardari.

[Graham Kennedy]

Quote of the day, from Pat Condell on youtube :

"They shouldn't need photographs to prove this guy is dead. They should have kept the body, they should have brought the son of a bitch back to New York, pickled him in alcohol and mounted him on top of the Ground Zero Mosque with a pork chop in his mouth and a fireman's axe up his arse."

[Captain Seafort]

Just when you think people can't possibly be any more stupid...