[Above: OBL house in Pakistani suburb outside Islamabad. Just another house? Note the massive, high walls, barbed wire, elevated central monitoring structure. This raised no questions whatsoever?]
Details are coming fast and furious following the killing of Osama bin Laden by a unit of US Navy SEALs.
More and more, the question that seems to be on the tips of media and Middle East pens is: why wasn’t OBL captured instead of killed outright?
New CIA Director Leon Panetta said:
The authorities we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then– they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed.”
Please click on the above link and watch the RCP video.
New information indicates that OBL did not have a gun; that he did not use a wife as a shield. Therefore, was this not nothing more than a naked assassination?
The White House itself said that OBL resisted, and “resistance does not require a firearm.”
Question:
Should OBL have been captured rather than killed and — later — subjected to intrinsic and pointed interrogation techniques? Some are saying that there is an inherent satisfaction that could have been achieved by an arrest, trial and public display.
Further, however, is this not an abrogation of EO 12333 and Ford’s EO 11905?
I know my answer; what is yours?
In finality, OBL should have been wrapped in bacon and kicked off the fantail by the lowliest rating aboard ship, with as much pomp and circumstance as is reserved for medical waste.
As indicated below. Thanks to TF for the photo.
BZ
