[JohnTClark]

I always wonder, when they catch this kind of criminals, why not shoot them on sight like they did Pablo Escobar or Osama? Special forces officer: "it was low light operation and we thought that he had a weapon so we shot him." and thats that.

[dragonwriter]

Because the sanctifying aura of procedure is a cornerstone of the State’s monopoly on *legitimate violence.

And because, in many cases, that procedure actually reflects real values to which the leaders of government have actual commitment even beyond the pragmatic motivation to be seen as committed.

[RHSeeger]

People sometimes forget that, even though there are bad actors in law enforcement, there are many good actors. Those good actors are likely trying to do the right thing most of the time.

[gehsty]

Always better to humiliate them in court than make a martyr.

Shooting them is what the cartels do, justice would be that he is tried by a jury and sentenced under law.

I can see how there could be a net benefit to shooting them on site, but you can't say for sure that the witnesses etc lives would then be safe.

[chrisweekly]

site -> sight

Teaching, not nit-picking: "shoot on sight" is the idiom here, meaning shoot as soon as target is visually confirmed. Whereas "on site" relates to location.

[gehsty]

This has made me chuckle. Thank you for the lesson. I need a context aware spell checker :) (it was a spelling mistake, not a lack of understanding)

[pas]

He can be tried and sentenced in absentia. (The problem is, as long as the profit is so insanely high, and the risk is relatively low, thousans will try to take his place.)

[gehsty]

I think it is the pictures of a former king pin being tried sitting in a court that prosecutors want, it sends a message that no one is above the law. Being tried in absentia doesn't really tick that box.

[michaelt]

Also, you'd imagine witnesses (and maybe juries, judges and prosecutors) would be relatively more confident/cooperative if the guy was in custody.

[ajbetteridge]

"it sends a message that no one is above the law." apart from politicians, bankers, etc...

[pas]

Representative democracy can be done right. An independent Anticorruption Agency with investigatory and prosecutory powers irrevocably granted by the constitution, but with narrow scope, can work wonders.

Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.

[BslSJDIz1gqWxXq]

I think he should be used by the governments as a sockpuppet.

[timavr]

Due process and presumption of innocence.

As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent.

It is always better to try people in court then kill them, because it limits the chances that someone innocent can be killed.

[TheOtherHobbes]

I don't support the death penalty, but I'll play devil's advocate here - because it seems the trade-off in cases like this is one not-innocent-to-six-sigma person being killed, versus quite a few innocent witnesses being killed.

And the nightmare for witnesses will continue after the trial, because they're never, ever, going to be safe.

It's not a problem with an easy answer.

[timavr]

They still will hunt down the informants or anyone who might be one in case of the assasination. It is not like informants will give out the info in return for nothing. They will probably want money, witness protection and one way ticket to the USA.

Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families.

Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo.

The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses.

In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law.

The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework.

In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.

[i_am_nomad]

“In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.”

Oil is legalized in the US, yet a cartel has until recently dominated that market, and OPEC’s members certainly use violence to maintain their control. The only thing displacing OPEC now isn’t a free market, it’s local production.

[dredmorbius]

Oil has been cartelised, in one form or another, for virtually its entire modern history.

Standard Oil, the Seven Sisters, the As-Is agreement, Texaas Raialroad Commission, National Producers, OPEC.

There are economic reasons.

[moftz]

Except we don't have bodies hanging off bridges and school buses full of dead children because the oil companies want to show who's boss.

[i_am_nomad]

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the handiwork of the House of Saud, or Vladimir Putin. Both of them have a very high body count and list of atrocities done in the name of oil revenues.

[bigpicture]

> As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent.

Osama bin Laden was tried and convicted for the first WTC bombing

[swarnie_]

> presumption of innocence.

I know this is the cornerstone of all law in western countries but its a really difficult thing to argue for in this case.

[timavr]

It is the best system invented.

Like maybe someone learned mind control and made El Chapo do it. But when he is not under mind control he is 100% law abiding citizen.

It will be a crazy defense, but it will be up to jury determine if that is the case.

Or another scenario is that El Chappo had no choice because rogue officials in the US demanded him smuggle drugs to the US or his family will be killed.

[supergirl]

except you can’t have a fair trial in the US anyway. so presumption of innocence is just a mythical phrase (same as freedom of speech). money wins trials in the US. in this case the defense has to outspend the US gov. plus all high profile trials become media circuses that influence the outcome.

[Digit-Al]

It's the cornerstone of law for a very good reason. As soon as you start making exceptions you have to have some agency who can decide who are the exceptions. You then have an agency that can summarily execute anyone they wish with no recourse. This is not a situation any sane person should desire.

[pas]

Probably to send a message to the populace, to milk the trial as a show of justice.

Even if the whole thing is useless in the big scheme of incentives.

[maxlybbert]

There are countries that are so enlightened that they don’t officially have capital punishment, but the police are rumored to not try that hard to capture certain criminals alive (not all countries without capital punishment are like this). I don’t consider that progress, but not everyone agrees with me.

[wbl]

They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.

[mhjas]

As far as I know that is exactly what they did.

> ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of...

A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.

[bluedevil2k]

How was Obama a hypocrite? And why was this a defining moment for the US? The US has been killing foreign nationals for decades, think of all the CIA operations in the past. Obama ordered 540 drone strikes during his 8 years in office. I think the OBL operation was an expected response after finding his location. And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?

[mhjas]

Whether Obama is a hypocrite or not is certainly a matter of opinion. The defining moment was the missed opportunity to end, or begin to end, the war on terror.

Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit.

> And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?

Probably not, which is sort of the point.

[wbl]

Notice what Osama did not do: put his hands up and shout "I surrender". Osama is a bad case because of LOAC. Most criminals are not engaged in acts of war.

[adventured]

> It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.

That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?

Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now.

China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.

[stef25]

> Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?

The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.

[drexlspivey]

In what sense is it legal to send a covert SEAL team to enter a sovereign allied country and arrest/kill somebody? US has no such jurisdiction in Pakistan.

[adventured]

That's pretty simple. bin Laden's organization was a direct threat to the US. Pakistan was protecting him. The primary responsibility of the US President is not to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, it is to ensure the security of the United States and its people. For the US President, respecting Pakistan's sovereignty sits below ensuring the security of the people of the US in their job description.

Besides that, international legality is defined solely by the countries with the biggest sticks. That will always be true, without exception. The UN and all global bodies of justice and rule setting derive their authority and possess capability solely at the permission of the most powerful nations.

The world isn't run by the UN, international legality isn't defined by 195 nations, it's all run by six or seven countries (which control the majority of all economic activity and by far have the most powerful militaries). The UN is a lever for those powerful nations to keep order in dealing with all the others. It's a means to herd cats.

There's a quote by a rather vile heiress named Leona Helmsley, paraphrasing: taxes are for the little people. Respecting sovereignty is only a fixed rule for the little countries. Why? Because of how consequences work and who can dish them out. I'm not advocating that, mind you, I'm saying that's actually how the world works and always will. You see it with every empire that has ever existed, you see it with the US, Russia, China, etc.

[bluedevil2k]

I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States when they were knowingly harboring the world's most wanted terrorist.

[madeuptempacct]

And who funded both the guy they were harboring and the country during the Soviet-Afghanistan war?

[bluedevil2k]

I don't see your point here. The US funded Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war? What's that have to do with the US's decision to kill the world's most wanted terrorist in a country giving him safety?

[madeuptempacct]

My point is that betraying the sovereignity of allies and claiming the higher moral ground is mutually exclusive. You can't be someone's friend and then punch them in the face when it's convenient. Pakistan is a shitty country, with shitty practices, but it IS an ally. Note that Saudi Arabia is a VERY shitty country, and is currently a strong ally.

"I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States"

"Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States...

Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.

[drexlspivey]

Allied in the sense that it was not at war with the US. You don't just invade countries you are not at war with.

[exolymph]

> Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.

Agreed, but governments do plenty of abhorrent things.

[peteretep]

I think if you're in the business of violence you might well find the thought of sitting in a prison cell for the rest of your life scarier than dying in a shoot-out with the police

[pimmen]

Because he never gave people a trial before he ordered them killed. We need to be better than him if we want to judge him.

[stef25]

One of the few things that scares those type of criminals is being jailed by los Yankees.

In their home country they probably assume they can always use relentless bribing for more favourable conditions and a possible release. In the US, forget it.

[weberc2]

That reminds me that this exchange happened: https://mobile.twitter.com/mchooyah/status/10381406460565012...