May 3, 2011 2:25 PM

How did bin Laden resist Navy SEALs without a weapon?

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Obama Administration

Pakistani police and media personnel gather outside a burnt compound at the hideout of Osama bin Laden following his death by U.S. Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 3, 2011.

(Credit: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images)

Updated 2:56 p.m. Eastern Time

According to the White House, Osama bin Laden was shot to death during a raid on his compound when he "resisted" the raid team.

Also according to the White House, bin Laden was not armed when confronted by the raid team.

Which raises the question: How did bin Laden resist the raid without a weapon?

Asked about this issue at his briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said "resistance does not require a firearm." He declined to elaborate further.

Reporters pressed Carney, who noted that the SEAL team had been prepared to capture bin Laden if possible. (White House Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan said at a briefing Monday that "if we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.")

He then said the team "met with a great deal of resistance," adding that many people in the compound were armed.

Carney said the raid led to a "highly volatile firefight" and said those involved in the raid "handled themselves with the utmost professionalism."

"He was killed in an operation because of the resistance that they met," said Carney, who referred further questions to the Pentagon. "We are trying very hard to provide as much information as we can," he added. 

Carney also said one of bin Laden's wives was in the room with bin Laden when the raid team arrived. He said she rushed a member of the raid team and was shot in the leg -- but not killed. Carney did not provide any detail about the actions taken by bin Laden when the SEALs arrived.

Asked to provide clarity on the issue on Monday, all a senior official would say is that "more details may emerge."

The White House initially claimed that bin Laden used a woman as a human shield and was "firing behind her," but it later changed its account of what took place. 

UPDATE, May 5: The New York Times, citing "administration officials," reported Thursday that "When the commandos reached the top floor, they entered a room and saw Osama bin Laden with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol in arm's reach." There had been no mention of this detail previously, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had said the day before that "he was not armed."

Special Report: The killing of Osama bin Laden


Add a Comment See all 281 Comments
by eiddam May 6, 2011 10:23 AM EDT
Wonder who the poor guy was who was shot, if any at all? This is another Bush Type lie to invade another Country instead of firing drones to kill innocent people. Bush/Obama tactics go back to Germany 1930's leader intentions of conquer countries for the Empire demanded. However the Koch/Palin Tea Party will win out as they wish to practice the same ideas as the one time leader of Germany, especially Palin, who seems to get enjoyment from bloody killings, as the poor animals she has killed.
Reply to this comment
by carolo43 May 5, 2011 4:44 PM EDT
Who cares. How many of those in the twin towers and on the airplanes had weapons to defend themselves?
Reply to this comment
by elocutionist May 7, 2011 4:53 AM EDT
(resp. to sven655):
How would it have been worse to have captured him alive? A trial would have ensued, then an execution, same as Saddam-- without the complaints of an unjust killing.

Thus, it would have been BETTER to have captured him alive. However, I suspect that intelligence was antsy about the prospect of some doomsday button nearby, which could either explode the compound (including the 12 soldiers + data files), or even set off biological weapons in a nearby city killing innocent civilians.

Hence the order, "If he doesn't surrender, don't risk it, don't pussyfoot around, don't pick your nose then text your mom on Blackberry then wait around for a few seasons lounging lackadaisically on the local ottoman as foe fumbles deceitfully for some unseen resource with which to annihilate/discombobulate his foe (YOU) in some unforseen fashion-- SHOOT."
by joelggreer May 5, 2011 4:38 PM EDT
How were the 3000+ Americans killed on 9-11 RESISTING the muslims wanting to establish a world-wide caliphate that were flying the three planes..... without any of the 3000+ dead victims having weapons?
Reply to this comment
by pderoo1 May 5, 2011 4:10 PM EDT
Who cares, he's dead, that's all we needed to have happen. He could have done a hoocheecoo dance for them before they shot him for all I care. Because I don't care whether or not he was armed. WHY is this even an issue?!?!?
Reply to this comment
by elocutionist May 7, 2011 5:10 AM EDT
(resp. to sven655):
Calm down, be patient. The DNA evidence will be published after scientific review (that takes time), and the photos will be made available to a small circle-- and I bet 99 to 1 that they'll be leaked then shown on the internet. If you can wait this long for Bin Laden, you can wait a few weeks for leaked photos.

Do you think Assange and friends are going to take a holiday on something THIS big?

With news this explosive, days seem like months-- but with any bureaucracy, you have to wait, wait, wait, for anything to get done........
by ITSOVERNOW May 5, 2011 4:07 PM EDT
So according to the Obama administration ...waterboarding is illegal, but assasination is fine.
Reply to this comment
by elocutionist May 7, 2011 3:44 AM EDT
Political assassination was illegalized by Gerald Ford in 1976 (Executive Order 11905). That means killing a state official.
And, o putatively-intelligent one, of what state was Osama an official?
Osama was merely a criminal, a dangerous murderer, and as such his killing is no less legal than that of Escobar (1993) or any other of his calibre.
Had no one in the compound been armed, and had no one resisted, it would have been an execution, which would have required a trial.

For example, if a dangerous suspect resists arrest, an officer has the authority to use whatever force he deems necessary, including deadly force. This does happen sometimes-- keep an eye on the news.

So, do you suggest we use more cushy and less forceful methods on Osama than on our own citizenry? If so, you reveal yourself as a member of Al-Qaeda, or the like. As such, the CIA/FBI will want to be tracing your IP and starting a hefty file; look forward to some tax audits and further 'inconvenience' in the future... Unless you're NOT paranoid of the Obama administration, in which case you have nothing to worry about (i.e., paranoia punishes only the stupid, of which classless class you seem to be an exemplary member).

But just in case, you and your vast group of degenerating cowards (thus corrupted by FoxNews paranoia) may wish to change your identity and hide in your survival shelter, sickly fondling your guns/self, perusing the effusely collected WWII memorabilia strewn about in haphazard half-sane predilection (Heil!)... [Do I hear choppers.....?]
by 2ears1mouth May 5, 2011 2:38 PM EDT
I don't get it. The Obama administration kills the most wanted terrorist in the world and some of you want to nit pick this event to death just to take credit away from Obama. You Obama haters remind me of Bush haters who remind me of Clinton haters who remind me of Reagan haters who remind me ....
Reply to this comment
by whatisthetruth May 6, 2011 12:30 AM EDT
You remind me of an everyone hater. You just don't get it. The Founding Fathers did.
by elocutionist May 7, 2011 5:21 AM EDT
At least it's mostly verbal. Without this great freedom of expression, we might become pent up, explosive, then riotous, as in some less free parts of the world.

In a way, this kind of forum is great for keeping real-world peace. The violent crime rate has been falling steadily for 2 decades. (Murder rate is lowest since 1965, etc.)

Could voicing your hatred be in some way healthy/curative? Voicing it RESPONSIBLY and REASONABLY I think could very well be.
by bullsballs May 5, 2011 2:19 PM EDT
didn't happen...
obl paid the potus to disappear and change identity.
that's why he was killed while unarmed but resisting arrest.
if he was dead and his body was in american control, it would be on display, not "buried at sea"...
Reply to this comment
by elocutionist May 7, 2011 6:19 AM EDT
No, no no! The Christmas tree that sheltered sage Sasquatch sapped upon Pottyman's periwinkle, and it wept tears which (via chain reaction) immersed the dewy fields with sublime lament; this deluged the Coachella Valley, thus ramping up CD sales of "Wringin' in the Rain", which inundated the ad rep for bionic hamster hose with a trillion orders from Eurasian trilobytes haply resurrected by photon-guided torpedo radiation (an offshoot of the "Kill Sasquatch" movement to be alluded to later), and thus an industry was born. On the 4th month, Noelclown bit his nose, then tripped on an Eurasian trilobyte, thus his radiohyperactive hose (being bionic) effused his 199-GBq fall with summary glee, tripping the doomsday lever for poisoned shampoo emission (via wind tunnel) which levelled the local monastary with inscrutible goo, iniquitously inducing a tenant to scream "Bejeezoos!"-- and a new band was born. The Bezeezooses hit gold in the summer, then the fall of musical taste worldwide incited Julian Assange to stick a jujubee up his nostril, whereupon it rained in Haiti, and the God of Rectal Dysfunction cancelled his good(?) deed for the milennium-- this caused OBL to enhemmorhoid, which sizable protrusion U.S. derrier-detection satellites scrutinized with amazing resolution. And THAT is how OBL met his demise.
by James_for_Today May 5, 2011 2:08 PM EDT
Here's the deal: The attacking teams gets to make the rules. The only gesture bin Laden could have made to surrender would be to hold his hands up. Everyone who believes he would to this in the presence of Americans please hold your hand up.
Reply to this comment
by DidHeSayThat May 5, 2011 2:02 PM EDT
How did bin Laden resist Navy SEALs without a weapon?

Let me answer that for the communist broadcast network of Never fear, Katie Couric here...


WHO GIVES A HOOT! OBL is dead and gone just like he should be.

MOVE ON IDIOTS.
Reply to this comment
by ACRScout May 5, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
More silliness from the White House team of rookies.

1. "Asked about this issue at his briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said "resistance does not require a firearm."".

2. "Osama bin Laden was shot to death during a raid on his compound when he "resisted" the raid team."


3. "Also according to the White House, bin Laden was not armed when confronted by the raid team."

4. "How did bin Laden resist the raid without a weapon?"

5. "resistance does not require a firearm."

So, in the view of the Obama administration if the police come to your house and you have no weapon, but refuse to allow the police to cart you away, they have the legal right to use their guns to counter your use of hands?

They can shoot you dead for saying "NO".

You gotta love the Obama regime's logic.
Reply to this comment
by actornaught May 5, 2011 12:20 PM EDT
With al qaeda's known use of weapons like exploding shoes and scrotum warmers, how does a Seal NOT assume obl is armed?
by ACRScout May 5, 2011 1:58 PM EDT
I was not commenting on the actions of the shooters, their actions have my approval without reservation. What I question is the honesty of the White House and their B.S. account of events.
See all 4 Replies
See all 281 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...