Bin Laden Was Always "Shoot to Kill"

[Gandalf]

If we could have captured him quietly, interrogated him for six months with nobody knowing? That's clearly the best option. It was also impossible.

Killing him was the best available option, and in my view thoroughly ethical.

This is no different than killing Yamamoto (though Yamamoto was a thoroughly honorable man, not a scumbag like bin Laden).

It's also no different from the failed British attempt to kill Rommel or the Spartan attempt to kill Xerxes at Thermopalye (if that really happened).

Targeting opposition leaders in war is throughly legitimate.

Opposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.

No it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.

And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.

Well, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.

Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.