Is it legally stickier to have killed OBL or to have removed and kept him in our custody?

[dkf]

I say the latter. At least with the former it's a done deal. The latter and everyone argues over jurisdiction.

[ixion]

1. Murder is easy for a government, because all they have to do is say 'oops, sorry'

and all is forgiven.

[digonswine]

2. This has already been spun

seven ways from Sunday. If in custody, this would be more of political football for years to come, giving the other side much more to spout about until the next election and beyond. They create the message. No matter how one feels personally about his killing--it is for the best he is not around.

[pnwmom]

6. Not only to spin -- to attempt to extort his freedom.

One of the original bombing attempts was a reaction to an Imam being imprisoned here.

[digonswine]

7. Yes-good point.

Luckily-I think-this will die down soon and we can refocus.

[digonswine]

3. And legally,

there seems to be no way to try the big names. The politics surrounding it all seem insurmountable. He would be held in custody for eons.

[JoePhilly]

4. I would have been interesting watching the GOP trying to take a position

on where he should be put on trial.

The American people would have wanted to see it, like the OJ trial.

The GOP would have been arguing for "secret military trial".

But here is a better game .... what if we caught or killed OBL before Bush invades Iraq???

Do the American people still think we need to invade Iraq? Do they buy the lies?

[Pholus]

5. Irrelevant. It's done.

Move along. Let's finish this so we can have our rights back.

[KittyWampus]

8. There was nothing legally "sticky" about killing OBL.

[dkf]

9. Tell that to the UN.

[TheKentuckian]

10. That would depend on the how. It is probably no issue but if he was captured and killed then we have

War crimes.