[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Kentl

Link to where it says he was not armed? Everything I read said he was armed, and he fought back.

Let me google that for you

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Kentl

Hmm So I'm torn
while it is true someone should have a fair trial
Does not him taking all the credit the same as saying "I'm guilty"

Who gets to decide that? Why can't the same logic be used to kill basically anyone?

Yea. He did it. Yes, he'd pretty certainly have been executed after a trial. But this is a bit scary.

[JerryLove]

The newer statements from the WH are saying that, though the team was fired upon from the guest house (and returned fire killing a man and a woman), they encountered no armed people in the main house, and received no fire (though they killed three anyway).

The orders seem to have been "kill all men on site", and while it was stated that a surrender needed to be accepted; there also seems to have been a "make sure they don't get a chance to surrender".

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The newer statements from the WH are saying that, though the team was fired upon from the guest house (and returned fire killing a man and a woman), they encountered no armed people in the main house, and received no fire (though they killed three anyway).

The orders seem to have been "kill all men on site", and while it was stated that a surrender needed to be accepted; there also seems to have been a "make sure they don't get a chance to surrender".

Do we think it's possible that the orders might have been capture him but the guys going in think 'lets not let him out alive'? or have I seen too many bad movies!

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

Do we think it's possible that the orders might have been capture him but the guys going in think 'lets not let him out alive'? or have I seen too many bad movies!

That would be thinking that the people selected for an operation to capture Osama were unprofessional soldiers unwilling to perform the task assigned... which seems unlikely.

It also fails to address the execution of every other male in the main house.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That would be thinking that the people selected for an operation to capture Osama were unprofessional soldiers unwilling to perform the task assigned... which seems unlikely.

It also fails to address the execution of every other male in the main house.

Yes, hopefully we can place some faith in our most elite special forces and that they did not execute everyone needlessly, but I think we need to be careful about analyzing their thought processes and the situation before an official official report is released

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And that's the concern.

It is less that Osama was killed. We all know what he's done' but rather the principle as to whether the PotUS can simply order people executed. How do we possibly regulate such powers other than to not allow them?

Exactly, and I don't care which side of the aisle or party it comes from, this is scary stuff. I don't want democrats or republicans playing judge and jury. I am not sure I should say my thoughts post-patriot act about the implications of this and Afghanistan.

IMO, (not so humble all too often) if they came to kill, rather than capture, that would be simple assassination. My guess is, as good as seals are, this was in all likelihood, a surprise. I am not an international terrorist, but I doubt he would have just happened to be armed when the seals attacked. If so, that would have been foolhardy for a capture mission. And again, I think seals are pretty dang slick at sneak assaults.

I would also guess they followed orders. I have known a couple seals as acquaintances and frankly, they follow orders.