- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,267
- 126
Same thing as the person convicted for planning the original WTC bombing. And whatever information he has to offer, without torture, that much better.
The people like you arguing 'couldn't be done' might remember even the people who did it disagree - this was not a kill order but a kill or capture order.
If he had surrendered, he was to be taken into custody.
I don't know the nature of the order and it may have been an option to capture. Let's assume that's true. It's been said that Bin Laden was unarmed and removing him would have been a relatively simple matter. If that's the case why was he shot? Either the team which was on camera from my understanding disobeyed the order or live extraction wasn't possible. Assuming the SEALs were competent and aware and had this option, what basis do those who weren't there have for insisting that removing OBL was merely a matter of choice?