May 4th, 2011
04:33 PM ET

Should the United States have tried to take Osama bin Laden alive?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If they had taken Osama bin Laden alive, there wouldn't be a debate about releasing these pictures. Hindsight is always 20/20. But reasonable people may disagree on whether or not it would have been a good idea to bring this guy back alive.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/04/art.obl2.jpg caption=""]
Depending on which account of the mission you believe, it sounds like it might have been possible. At first, we were told he had a gun, he resisted, he used his wife as a shield and the impression was the Navy SEALs had no choice but to kill him.

But then the story changed. He didn't use his wife as a shield. He wasn't armed. But he did resist. One account even said he looked like he was reaching for a gun.

You could also engage in a hypothetical discussion about whether shooting and killing an unarmed man is a good idea even if it was Osama bin Laden. In his case, I happen to think it was a great idea.

Returning him as a prisoner would have presented monumental security issues and putting him on trial would have cost this country a great dea l– financially, emotionally and psychologically. Tossing his body into the sea was also a good idea. No grave site that becomes a shrine for his demented followers.

Here’s my question to you: Should the United States have tried to take Osama bin Laden alive?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Al Qaeda • Obama Administration • Osama bin Laden
May 4th, 2011
04:16 PM ET

What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?


A Pakistani shepherd walks past the Abbottabad hideout where Osama bin Laden was killed. (PHOTO CREDIT: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There was a line in the "The Godfather, Part II": "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." When it comes to Pakistan, which are they?

Osama bin Laden was living in a $1 million compound surrounded by 12-to-18-foot high walls topped with razor wire. It was in the middle of a quiet suburban town filled with retired Pakistani military officers. It was just yards away from the Pakistan Military Academy, which is basically that nation's West Point.

The compound was reportedly called Waziristan Mansion, after the tribal mountainous region of Pakistan where bin Laden fled after the September 11 attacks. There was no television and no phone lines. Instead of putting their trash out for collection, the people living with bin Laden burned it.

Come on.

If Pakistani officials didn't know who was living there, the neighbors likely did.

Neighborhood children even suspected something was up. They were not allowed to get a ball if it was accidentally kicked or thrown onto the property. Instead, they were given $2 to $3 to buy a new one. Other kids were invited to play with pet rabbits on the compound but noticed security cameras everywhere.

Ray Charles probably could have figured out who lived there. My guess is the Pakistani government wasn't looking very hard. And it's not because they didn't have the means to do so. The United States has given about $20 billion dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan over the past eight years - money meant to help combat terrorism. And as long as bin Laden remained at large, it was pretty easy to make the argument for that money.

Here’s my question to you: What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Al Qaeda • Osama bin Laden • Pakistan