As Geoffrey Robinson comments in the i paper, Bin Laden should have been put on trial.
Even I, in my cynicism, listened to Obama's speech and wondered if the American version of mission accomplished was intended to be death. When he ordered the millitary make locating Bin Laden a priority, did he in fact mean the death of Bin Laden is a priority.
It is clear from Obama's speech he ordered capture or death, but this is (relatively) easy to state retrospectively.
Osama Bin Laden's death could be viewed as an appropriate ending, he started a 'war' with slaughter and it ended with slaughter.
But a trial, whcih Robertson argues would have put more nails in the coffin of Al Queda, would have been farcical at best. There is no objectivity to be had, and it would have inflamed the West and the East as the dance was played out.
Of course Osama could not be found innocent, by any judge. But by having him proclaiming fundementalist justification, he would have increased his messaniac range and sparked more support, extending the end of the decade of terror.
This is largely what happened with the trial of Saddam, and his death at the end simply provided further martyrdom.
However, I would still prefer justice in court to a video camera death, which still leaves a nasty taste in my throat as America rejoices.
Sent from my mobile device