Should Osama bin Laden have been brought to trial?

Yes - James Clough

But the secretive manner of his death means that he, and al-Qaeda, retain their air of mystery. Bin Laden is now a martyr for the cause. Imagine if America had captured bin Laden. They could have demonstrated their victory publicly, humiliating him without having to kill him. They would still have seen all the benefits of killing him: removing his capacity to assist and direct al-Qaeda, emasculating a former inspiration for prospective suicide bombers, and proving that al-Qaeda could not outsmart the West, but there would have been further benefits to capturing bin Laden and giving him a trial.

He could have been questioned, and there is a possibility that he could have provided invaluable information. Demonstrating the capability to capture such a prized target would have provided a much greater deterrent to potential terrorists than killing him; most of them are happy to be killed for their cause, whereas decades in a foreign prison is a much less appealing prospect. Imprisonment would have provided a greater punishment for bin Laden than death, and seeing him suffer this punishment would have given families of his victims a greater sense of closure.

We must also consider the justice of bin Laden’s assassination. Though it is easy to say that he deserved to be killed for the murders he committed, by retaliating in kind America only reinforced the narrative spread by militant Islamists: the West are unjust oppressors. If America really believes it is fighting the good fight, it cannot act in the same way as its enemy. It must openly and publicly behave in a more just, legal and measured way than the people it is trying to tell us are the bad guys. In a war of ideas, it cannot afford to compromise on the liberal Western values it claims to fight for, else it will lose legitimacy at home and abroad. Even if we believe that America was morally justified in its killing of bin Laden, we must admit that if this conflict is to end it will not be because we kill every single terrorist; it will be because they won’t have a reason to be terrorists any more.

Perhaps it would have been more difficult to capture bin Laden than to kill him, but it is reasonable to believe that it would have been possible to arrest him and bring him to trial; and in any case, given that bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, it seems that capturing bin Laden was never an option America were willing to consider.

Bringing bin Laden to trial would have been more just, legal and impressive. It would have humiliated al-Qaeda with a public defeat. It would’ve shown the whole world the difference between the West and al-Qaeda, it would’ve been a more effective way to help win the War on Terror, and it would’ve sent the strongest possible message that the West are the good guys. If America had captured bin Laden, they could have given him the death sentence, giving us the same end result. But because they killed him there and then, the opportunity to do the right thing has been lost. Bin Laden would surely have preferred death to capture. This, as much as anything, tells us that America made the wrong choice, and that bin Laden was able to have the last laugh after all.

No - Ed Middleton

We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” These words spoken by Thomas Jefferson fittingly describe the quandary faced by the Western world when fighting the War on Terror; and let us be clear about this, we are indeed fighting a war. The nature of warfare has changed since the days of soldiers standing in an open field wearing their nation’s banner. In the age of globalisation, war is fought over great distances by splinter cells comprised of anonymous soldiers. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war on the Western world and in 2001 George Bush reciprocated. Osama bin Laden was a soldier in that war and his death was one of the many casualties. Here I will show you why the death of Osama bin Laden was justified as an act of war, and why the alternatives made this the only viable option.

When fighting against an opposition comprised of splinter groups and isolated cells, the chain of command that links and organises these cells becomes a very significant strategic target. Osama bin Laden was also pivotal in uniting al-Qaeda, recruiting new soldiers and funding a number of their operations. It was for these reasons that he was killed. The United States discovered the location of a high-value target (HVT), crucial in the running of al-Qaeda and had it removed, as you would any other military target. There have been no calls to bring the countless al-Qaeda soldiers fighting in Afghanistan to trial, so why should Osama bin Laden be different? People often cite examples such as Adolf Eichmann and Charles Taylor, where those implicated in war crimes were tried in an international court. However, in both these instances the conflict had ended and the individuals provided no strategic advantage in an on-going war. As such, they were not counted as valid military targets.

Now we will look at the alternative to killing Osama bin Laden: trial. This already assumes that an alternative was possible – that he could and would allow himself to be taken alive. Resistance was encountered by the US SEALS who sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and it may not have been possible to capture him without giving him ample opportunity to escape or take his own life. Many people claim a trial would have been a far better outcome than killing him. The purpose of a trial is to identify the level of involvement and guilt of a party in a crime and provide an opportunity for the event to be analysed and investigated publicly. A trial of Osama bin Laden would be redundant on both these counts. Firstly, not only is there irrefutable evidence condemning Osama bin Laden, but he has also confessed to the atrocities listed against him. Secondly, the chain of events surrounding Osama bin Laden’s crimes is already well documented. If this has not been done to a satisfactory level then there is still an opportunity to lead a public investigation or put him to trial ‘post-mortem’.

Any case that opposes the killing of Osama bin Laden on the grounds that he should have been put to trial does not appreciate the fact that the War on Terror IS a war and one that is on-going. Osama bin Laden was killed as a soldier in that war. Bringing the War on Terror to a conclusion as swiftly and bloodlessly as possible is a greater priority than acting out a trial for mere show purposes, while endangering the lives of more innocent civilians the world over.