Apparantly he did:
:
This operation was not a capture operation, it was meant to kill him ... We have a long record of violating Pakistani sovereignty, and the Pakistanis squeal and yell - as they rightly should - but it never goes further than that.
|
Michael Scheuer led the CIA's hunt for Bin Lader prior to 9/11 and told the BBC that "absolutely the right decision" to attack Bin Laden without informing Pakistan, as well as it not being a mission concentrating on bring back Osama alive. John Brennan (US counter terrorism advisor) also said that although the SEALs were able and prepared to bring Osama back alive, there were no circumstances where this could be possible.
One of the main reasons, I think, that they killed him on sight was because if they took Osama hostage, there would be a backlash of terrorism (through direct attacks and American hostages being taken and tortured) in order to get Osama back. But there's most likely going to be a backlash of terrorism anyway.
But I did read
somewhere that the SEALs involved were told to assume that Osama was wearing a suicide belt/vest and should assasinate him on sight. And that the only way that they could let him surrender was if he was naked (so that they know there wasn't any explosives about). They were also told to assume that the compound was riddled with explosives.
I think it was probably such a quick decision by the SEALs to shoot him (if they did actually shoot him on sight as the US are claiming) that it would've been difficult to determine whether or not he was resisting.
And a woman who was detained by Pakistani police after the raid said that Osama only moved to the compound 5-6 months ago, which makes me the evidence that the US government have about having an informant in August a little shakey.
- Rexy