Would Obama Take the Shot?

The more Obama talks about things like this, the more he sounds like he’s not ready to be POTUS.

“First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden’s head,” the Illinois senator said at a news conference. “And if I’m president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive.”

Obama’s campaign said he was referring to a classified Memorandum of Notification that President Clinton approved in 1998 — revealed in the 9/11 Commission report — that would allow the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture weren’t feasible.

Obama said he wouldn’t discuss what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended. But he said the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders are an inspiration because the victors acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order.

“What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

1) At the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials, the worst offenders were PUT TO DEATH.  For the people for whom Bin Laden would be a martyr if he were killed, what difference would it make if he’s killed in a firefight or executed after a trial?  Answer… none. 

2) The only purpose for a trial of this sort is to discover the level of culpability.  During the Nuremberg trials, the goal was to find out how much the Nazi individuals knew and how involved they were in war crimes and genocide.  Once that was determined, punishment was meted out.  In the case of Bin Laden, he has frequently and publicly confessed to ordering terrorist attacks around the globe.  Does Obama think that a trial will find anything different? 

3) The executive order to which Obama refers says that killing Bin Laden is authorized “if capture weren’t feasible.” Is Obama saying that if we knew exactly where Bin Laden was but couldn’t feasibly capture him that we should let him go?  For example, what if we know that Bin Laden is in a villa in Pakistan.  He’s surrounded by guards and it would be next to impossible to send in a team to capture him.  If we send in a large unit, he will surely slip away.  BUT, we can kill him with a Hellfire off of a Predator.  Would Obama take the shot?  Sounds like the answer is “no.”

Obama is showing a dangerous naiveté regarding history and world affairs.