Talk about loaded ambiguous questions...
Whether killing him was acceptable or not is completely dependent on the circumstances of the raid, which we know sweet bugger all about.
If there was a risk of him escaping or causing harm to someone, then shooting him was probably justified, though would have been preferable to wound him. Summarily executing him, as some alleged happened, then no. Human rights apply to every human, regardless of who they are and that includes the right to fair trial.
Besides, surely he would have been more valuable as a prisoner than dead? What about the propaganda victory or the interrogation value?
As far as killing him goes if he was found guilty via proper trial (wouldn't envy the defending lawyer on that one), it depends entirely on whether keeping him alive or not would be more effective in reducing terrorism - potential rehabilitation and possibility of wrongful accusation being extremely unlikely.
Some have argued that killing such high profile prisoners is safer, preventing attempted rescues and kidnappings to have him freed, but others have argued killing them creates martyrs, whereas letting him rot in jail would gradually erode his legacy. I'm not qualified to assess the risks, but seems to me keeping him alive could be more valuable if the risks could be managed.
Posted: 6 July 2011 - 7:32pm — GYoung
We know enough about the raid that we can argue that it breached international protocol. Firstly it is recorded by the FBI that Osama Bin Laden can not be linked by evidence to the World Trade Centre attacks, and secondly, I defy any man in his 60's to seriously threaten Navy Seals.
Interested in supporting St James Ethics Centre by volunteering with us? Learn more about current volunteering roles available at the Centre.
Support our work!
St James Ethics Centre is a fully independent not-for-profit and relies heavily upon financial and in-kind support from individuals and organisations. If ethics matters to you, please support our work.
Read about ethics
Want to learn more about ethics and read about ethics-related issues? Visit our Ethics Articles section, where you'll find hundreds of articles about a very diverse array of topics. Read more.
latest ethics poll
Comments
Talk about loaded ambiguous questions...
Whether killing him was acceptable or not is completely dependent on the circumstances of the raid, which we know sweet bugger all about.
If there was a risk of him escaping or causing harm to someone, then shooting him was probably justified, though would have been preferable to wound him. Summarily executing him, as some alleged happened, then no. Human rights apply to every human, regardless of who they are and that includes the right to fair trial.
Besides, surely he would have been more valuable as a prisoner than dead? What about the propaganda victory or the interrogation value?
As far as killing him goes if he was found guilty via proper trial (wouldn't envy the defending lawyer on that one), it depends entirely on whether keeping him alive or not would be more effective in reducing terrorism - potential rehabilitation and possibility of wrongful accusation being extremely unlikely.
Some have argued that killing such high profile prisoners is safer, preventing attempted rescues and kidnappings to have him freed, but others have argued killing them creates martyrs, whereas letting him rot in jail would gradually erode his legacy. I'm not qualified to assess the risks, but seems to me keeping him alive could be more valuable if the risks could be managed.
Posted: 6 July 2011 - 7:32pm — GYoung
We know enough about the raid that we can argue that it breached international protocol. Firstly it is recorded by the FBI that Osama Bin Laden can not be linked by evidence to the World Trade Centre attacks, and secondly, I defy any man in his 60's to seriously threaten Navy Seals.
Posted: 29 July 2011 - 4:24pm — Brian Forster