The
announcement by President Obama that Osama bin Laden was killed
by U.S. Navy Seals on May 1 has raised a number of questions.
First is the question of
why
he was killed. One official said the Seals were on a “kill
mission.”
Why wasn’t there a plan to take him alive
(the Seals initially shot at him as he looked out of his room)?
Of all the terrorists, he is the one most important to try to
take alive and interrogate because of his comprehensive
knowledge of the individuals, planning, operations, and funding
of al Qaeda.
Why weren’t stun grenades used?
If the Seals were concerned about explosives on his or his
wife’s body, why did they even enter their bedroom, allow his
wife to approach them violently, and then still deliver a
non-lethal shot to her leg?
Why
after this
did they deliver a kill shot to bin Laden even though he was
unarmed and did not react as threateningly
toward them as had his wife? Why not a disabling shot to his
shoulder?
Of course, the main reason for ordering the Seals to go into the
compound and NOT kill people who weren’t firing at them was we
weren’t even sure bin Laden was there! After they shot him, one
of the Seals actually measured his body to see if he was the
right height!
Why did they feel it was all right to kill unarmed people
(e.g., a woman, one of Bin Laden’s sons, etc.) and ask questions
later? Think of the international repercussions, the calls for
President Obama, the Seals and others to be brought before a War
Crimes tribunal, etc. if we had attacked a compound of
Pakistanis who weren’t guilty of anything! What would President
Obama say: “Oops, sorry about that”? The questions go on and on,
but the press and media don’t seem interested in asking them.]