Re: Question to Trumble
I'm glad you have made yourself clear but I disagree with your post.
As you are quite entitled to do. Thank you for being polite in doing so!
First, the US would have been able to obtain valuable intelligence from this man. This may have lead to other suspects being arrested, may have prevented further attacks and he could have commented on other attacks, like the London or the Madrid Bombings.
They might have been able to obtain it, true. But like most else I've got to say on this subject, it's a matter of practicalities. I hardly think OBL was the 'talking' type, at least voluntarily. He was neither a personal coward, nor stupid. Any attempt to get him to talk by other means would have almost certainly prejudiced the trial beyond salvation, and any sort of plea bargain would have been totally unacceptable politically. And what bargain would OBL seek? If it was life without parole or death (as a martyr, as he and others would perceive it), undoubtably he would have chosen the latter. In short, I doubt there would have been much to add to the documents and tapes etc found in the compound.
Second, he is, technically, still innocent. He has not been put on trial. He never claimed to have been behind 911, though he did support it. Now, we will never know who was truly behind the attacks, other than the 19 hijackers. No matter how much some people hate this man, you will never know whether he was behind these attacks. Do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
I do, yes.
One does not justify the other (see below) but also do not share your doubts as to his guilt regarding 9/11.
He was unarmed when his house was attacked, so arresting him may have been possible.
He, personally, was unarmed, true and it may well have been possible, yes.
I find it worrying when some people start supporting the killings of some individual suspected of committing a crime, without a full trial. If some people support this, then the government can be at an advantage and kill certain individuals without trial. Do you know what this can lead to?
Yes, I do. However, although I mentioned a few seconds, I have considered the matter for rather longer, and consider this case to be unique. Firstly, my concern regarding more death and injury was not for the SEALS. Had they been ordered to capture OBL they would have attempted to do so; they are professionals, they know their job and they know the risks. But think of the consequences if OBL HAD been captured? Does anyone seriously think no attempt to get him released would be made? Obviously actively 'springing' him was unlikely, but how many people would be kidnapped as potential exchanges? A 'dirty bomb' set off, with the threat of another is he wasn't released? A suicide bomb a day until he was released? Who knows. If he was convicted, the process would just continue for years even the event of a death sentence (which tends to take a while to be carried out in the US). And how, if he was was executed, would his 'martyrdom' have been marked around the world? My opinion, and its only that, is that many more would have died that way. Principles are all well and good, but the consequences of following them cannot always be set aside, and sometimes they may be 'trumped' by others. In this case, I think that applies to the right to life of potential future victims.
Then again, if Osama was captured, it is likely he would have been tortured to give a false confession and the trial would not have been fair.
I don't think there is the remotest chance he would have been tortured. As nobody would believe a confession was genuine anyway unless it was given in full public view at the trial, it could only prejudice the trial in OBL's favour. Plus, just because you can get away with 'water-boarding' someone suitably anonymous in Guantanamo doesn't mean you can with the highest profile prisoner since Rudolf Hess. Confessions have minimal significance in (Western) courts these days anyway. The slightest hint they were obtained by duress and the judge will throw them out, and if somebody IS actually guilty there is no need to 'confess' at all. Just plead guilty. Their only real use is in saving police time and clearing up loose ends.
