Should the US have tried to capture and interrogate Bin Laden?

[Prometheus Bound]

The Goal Was Never to Capture bin Laden
By Yochi Dreazen, Aamer Madhani & Marc Ambinder
May 4 2011, 9:26 AM ET Comment

The Navy SEALs knew their mission was to kill the al Qaeda leader, not take him alive

....The SEALs' decision to fatally shoot bin Laden -- even though he didn't have a weapon - wasn't an accident. The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive......
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/

14 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, they should have tried to capture and interrogate him.
	5 (36%)
	No, they did the right thing.
	9 (64%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rfranklin]

1. NO, that would have put the Bush crime family in an embarassing position...

particularly if Osama took a plea bargain and turned state's evidence.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Pass

Capturing and interrogating would have been great but I'm good with him being dead as well.

[quinnox]

3. yes, of course

but I understand why they wanted to kill him, it probably would have been very inconvenient if bin Laden had been taken alive and started talking, who knows what he might have said or revealed. Same thing with Lee Harvey Oswald for example, a very convenient death.

[raccoon]

14. You got that right. nt

[Solomon]

4. Had they taken him alive we'd have seen American

hostages taken and tortured all over the world in attempts to trade for his release. He was a sworn enemy. I'm glad he's gone.

[leveymg]

8. What, you think al-Qaeda needs an excuse to take hostages and blow stuff up?

Like they don't, anyway. That's a BS excuse for declining to capture someone who knew too much about too many people involved in terrorism in several countries.

[CherokeeDem]

10. While I agree that al Qaeda doesn't need an excuse to kidnap and kill...

I do think that Bin Laden alive and in American hands would have served to make him a martyr and provided a rallying cry for terrorists. The factions seem to be very disjointed and a focus on Bin Laden could have brought them together again.

As for Bin Laden giving up intel about other terrorists, somehow I doubt he'd would tell all.

[leveymg]

16. It was just simpler for everyone involved to kill him.

I understand the decision process that went into this, all too well.

Those who had the most to lose by capturing him argued that we already know everything we need to know about the UBL network -- which may well be true -- so, why go to the trouble?

[quinnox]

9. that is interesting logic

So your scenario didn't happen after we killed him, I guess the terrorists were ok with that? After all, you would think killing him they would swear revenge and your scenario would be more likely to happen. But I guess they would have been really miffed if we had taken him alive instead and then we would have had Americans being taken hostage all over the world. Ok....

[Solomon]

35. Well, I disagree. I think his death demoralized

al queda, he had mythical status, while his capture would have inflamed them and become a rallying point.

[Romulox]

13. That's Bin Laden's argument: They MADE us do it. nt

[Ian David]

21. That was my thinking, too. No American traveling abroad, anywhere, would have been safe. n/t

[mucifer]

5. Only if it would have been an advantage for the republicans

[madokie]

6. The whole premise of what you're saying is bullshit

Their mission was to capture him if possible, kill him if not.
Who is this high ranking military officer anyway, I suspect it is someone someone pulled out of their ass.

[Prometheus Bound]

12. The fact that he was killed while unarmed lends some credence to the premise.

[hack89]

24. In an age of suicide bombers I am not sure "unarmed" still means what it use to do.

is it unreasonable to think that he was still dangerous even if his hands were empty? If you were one of those SEALs, would you be willing to take that chance?

[madokie]

32. The possible chance that this is propaganda carries a lot of weight

I stick with what I said earlier, sorry

[leveymg]

7. More coverup of the worst crimes of the century.

Of course they capped him. Who knows what he might say?

[Scuba]

11. I'll pass. There is no right or wrong answer.

[Arkana]

15. If they thought they had any chance at it, perhaps,

but every member of SEAL Team 6 knew that bin Laden wouldn't have allowed himself to be taken alive.

[leveymg]

18. That's complete nonsense. All they had to do was grab him instead of shooting him.

It would have been easier than having to lug his dead corpse down those steps.

[JoePhilly]

25. A corpse can't resist ... can't call out for help.

I get a kick out of folks second guessing a seal team that nearly died in a helicopter crash, while flying at night into Pakistan, landing in an armed compound, and claiming the mission was easy.

[hack89]

26. In an age of suicide bombers, would that necessarily be the smart thing to do?

what if they grabbed him and he detonated an explosive device?

[leveymg]

31. UBL wasn't the suicide bomber type.

Too much vanity and self-importance. No problems if others do themselves in for him, of course. The same can be said for a lot of top management.

They didn't find any explosives inside the compound.

[mmonk]

17. Yes.

He was there for the taking.

[HappyMe]

19. No. They did the right thing.

[lacrew]

20. Moot Question?

I believe the intent was indeed to capture him.

If that wasn't a concern, a stealth bomber could have simply bombed the compound, and killed him.

I understand that this may have left some doubt as to the success of the mission, so another scenario would be for the SEAL team to do the raid, but in a much more violent manner...i.e. clearing rooms with hand grenades.

The fact that they got close enough to Bin Laden to actually shoot him makes me believe the SEAL team was trying to capture him....not for humanitarian reasons, but so he could be interrogated.

[Ian David]

22. If you ever capture James Bond, you just shoot him. Same with OBL. n/t

[JoePhilly]

23. Capturing OBL from mommy's basement is easy ... doing it in Pakistan is a little harder.

I love these articles describing how easy it was to capture OBL.

I like how the authors say the Seals weren't in "immediate danger" when they killed OBL ... nah ... no danger ... just landed in Pakistan, inside a walled compound with guards.

They also tend to ignore that early in the raid, one of the helicopters nearly crashed. Its kind of a dangerous mission, from start to finish.

But from the comfort of an air conditioned office, apparently its not all that dangerous.

Here's an idea ... if you send troops into Pakistan, and then you find OBL ... if OBL even blinks funny, you close both his eyes permanently.

Do not risk the possibility that any of your team gets killed. Drop him.

[riderinthestorm]

27. Am I the only one who wonders if they really did kill him?

Nobody else has the tiniest doubt??

[quinnox]

29. As someone "cursed" to be born with a mind that questions things

and thinks for myself instead of always swallowing whatever the official story may be, there are always doubts. That is as far as I will go, because this is not an appropriate place for discussion of things of this nature.

[NCTraveler]

30. Is there any proof he wasn't captured?

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. This depressing poll shows just how little hope we have anymore. n/t

[RZM]

34. Oh please

Think this through for a minute.

The raid as it happened was a close-run thing. Turning it into a capture mission would have introduced too many dangerous variables.

1) If successful, it draws out the Bin Laden story for years and creates sympathy for him.
2) It places the lives of military personnel at risk. While the compound wasn't rigged to blow, it certainly could have been.
3) A protracted siege/standoff creates thorny problems with Pakistan. They were angry enough that the raid happened at all. What if it were a 12-hour standoff with an armed Bin Laden holed up in his room and the Seals trying to coax him out. What happens when the Pakistani army and police show up?
4) You could easily end up with the same outcome anyway if Bin Laden is determined not to be taken alive (he didn't strike me as somebody who was willing to be captured).

A kill mission was easier, safer, and more politically expedient. It was the right call, IMO.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. Obviously it is easier and more expedient. And just as obviously you haven't thought this through

to its inevitable conclusion.

What makes/made the U.S. different from other nations? Principles. The supremacy of Individual liberty, being a nation of laws, not people, etc.

When we abandoned those distinctive principles, we became less, and as we venture farther and farther down that road we become more and more like those we claim to be superior to. Looking at these poll results just shows how far down that road we've already traveled. A clear majority that are happy to exchange their liberty for the illusion of safety. We are a nation of cowards even as other parts of the world that saw the value of "the American way" and adapted it.

OBL is dead, but he won.

[jillan]

36. I think that would have been preferable BUT impossible to do without any members of the Seals

getting killed.

[Poll_Blind]

37. He would have been...problematic...for the Obama administration, alive.

We don't really do the capture and torture thing, anymore. Too many "loose ends", too many "questions". Just "easier" to kill them.

It's Hellfire Diplomacy whether or not it's executed by a flying drone or not.

PB