>> this is "bbc news night." funding for this presentation is made possible by -- the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, and union bank. >> union bank has put its global

expertise to work for a wide range of companies. what can we do for you? manthe world's most wanted is dead. how does this change america's fight against terrorism? the capture of osama bin laden has been the main international business of the united states for nearly a decade. with him gone, but now of the so-called war on terror? the white house backtracks on its accounts that the al qaeda leader was alarmed when shot, and the u.s. offers more details of the raid to prove its legality. we will discuss with legal advisers. >> if he obviously had his hands up and was a rendering, to shoot him would be legal, improper,

immoral. >> president obama op visit to ground zero with his popularity riding high, but can he build on that politically? >> it haunts just about every democratic president, how to be strong on national security. the question is, how do you build on that? >> and why the clamor for photographic proof. what is it about the capture and death of heroes and villains that demands a visual record? after almost 10 years of trying, the united states of america finally got its most wanted man this week, osama bin laden. he was found in a heavily afteried acompound president obama ordered the go- ahead for a highly secretive mission. with the top terrorist target out of the way, what does it

mean for america's campaign in the other theaters of war like afghanistan? >> even if the u.s. government has shied away from talking about the war on terror, the fact remains that huge resources are still being pitched against islamic extremist groups around the world. the strike against osama bin laden offers a counter terrorist people to strike further blows in that struggle. >> the coup of capturing bin laden creates opportunities. there will be a lot of material collected at the site, phones, laptops, media that will be exploited. we will learn a lot of clues about what is happening next. and also i think it will probably set off a certain fraction and argument in al qaeda about where they're going

next, a struggle with leadership and future strategies. all of those things are good for us. >> the compound where the al qaeda leader was killed has already become a local attraction. pakistani forces had raided it in 2003. a war of words now rages about whether they did or did not help america. western intelligence officials insist pakistani agencies did not, and they're likely to exploit this failure in their private battle with those organizations. >> we have seen in the last few weeks the issue of raymond davis, the cia contractor being arrested, used by isi as a way to try to close down see a unilateral operations that were not happy with -- to close down cia unilateral operation that there were not happy with. this turns the tables to a significant degree.

>> what about the struggle against the taliban and afghanistan? the white house denied that bin laden's death could have any effect on the planned drawdown of u.s. troops, but downing street was keen to stress this may offer a chance to push forward with this engagement. >> our strategy toward afghanistan is straight forward and has not changed. we want and afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces. we should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the taliban, now is the time to separate themselves from al qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process. >> what politicians do not to miss an opportunity, professional al qaeda watchers worry about everything, from retaliation to movements to their own budgets. what some politicians and bean counters may get the idea at this is the perfect opportunity

did declare game over on the so- called war on terror, the world's key intelligence and counter terrorist organizations are determined to resist that kind of argument. they need to protect their establishment and budget, but even allowing for the fact they may suffer cuts in the coming years, their view is that afghanistan and pakistan will continue to be their prime focus. >> i think the focus will remain very much on pakistan and afghanistan. we need to bear in mind is not just al qaeda, there are lots of groups in both pakistan and afghanistan that have the potential to cause problems. it is important to say that is really only al qaeda itself that has shown the disposition on a serious and sustained basis to try and undertake terrorist operations outside of their immediate theater. >> in pakistan, there were those

who turned out to mourn and honor osama bin laden. this militant group staged a prayer isn't. inevitably, the copter terrorist agencies will fight their corner -- the counter terrorist agencies will fight their corner against those who say it is time to move on. >> i don't think there will be any serious effort to cut back on top counter-terrorism. there is a richer appreciation for the fact that bin laden may be dead, but al qaeda is not. >> the abundance of continued threats and opportunities mean there will be no let up soon and the struggle against terrorist groups. but longer-term, the mission is bound to lose focus and perhaps resources now that they have lost their bogeyman. a somber and silent barack obama stood at ground zero

thursday commemorating the victims of the september 11 attack. he traveled to kentucky to think some of the u.s. personnel involved in the operation that resulted in the death of bin laden. it is the circumstances of the raid and the changing accounts from the white house that has everybody concern from the u.n. to the archbishop of canterbury. it to discuss this, i have two people. john robinson, is there any doubt in your mind at all that what the u.s. did during that raid might be illegal? >> i don't have any doubts about the legality. it is easy to assume this compound had been bombed by b-52 bombers or drawn strikes, we would have gone to it -- we would have gone in without the permission of the pakistani government because they were unwilling or unable to address

the threat. it is quite possible that bin laden would have been unarmed. the legal analysis would have been the same and the moral analysis is the same, but because we went into the compound directly, it is a more direct operation, more vivid details and images. >> no qualms with the fact he was not armed? the archbishop of canterbury was concerned that justice was done. >> sure i have qualms if he had his hands up and he was obviously surrendering, to shoot him would be illegal, improper, immoral. but we should put ourselves in the minds of those babies seals operating under great stress out. they have advanced technology, but they did not know if the laden or people are reaching for arms, they don't know of the compound is booby trap, they don't know if other people will arrive. it is very easy for us and

safety of the studio to look back at what happened in that situation. >> let's on pac that. first of all, would britain have undertaken a route rate like that without pakistan's knowledge? >> there are separate questions. one is attacking an enemy commander in the field and the other issue is a pakistani knowledge and consent. on the whole, the u.k. may have taken a different view with relations, except in certain circumstances of belligerence or hot pursuit we would not go into a country without the consent. pakistan is at a difficult country always to be sure to know what is going on. >> in your view, if osama bin laden was not armed, and in the heat of the moment the seals are there and train for that, if he was not armed, is that

tantamount to assassination? >> there are two legal principles. one is normal self-defense when you think somebody's going to attack, cause harm, suicide bomb, and they are unarmed, it does not matter. the u.s. attorney general talked about this as being a an act of national self-defense, which is one of the justifications for military action and to directly target an enemy commander in the field. >> we may be more aggressive in the united states in this theory about national defense that other countries, but it is not unreasonable. it also reflects the difference in the approach in dealing with the problem of terrorism. in the united kingdom, you tend to view this as a law- enforcement problem. we view it as a military problem. >> you are shaking your head. >> we would argue the invasion of afghanistan on a national

security basis, which is the same view, this was an act of national self-defense. that is not an issue. that is why we are in afghanistan. the issue is what was going on. we don't have the evidence, and as i have said, this could well be justified on the basis of an act of self-defense, but we take a different view on what he do in other people's territory. >> if the united kingdom had the intelligence on bin laden, would you have given that to be americans? >> often we would have. we did have problems with circumstances where intelligence would be used for torture. that would never have happened. >> it became clear that president obama's decision to act as he did instead of authorize a massive bombing was bold. for president who has faced accusations of passing on foreign policy, how much will this proved to be a turnaround?

>> watch the chin. barack obama reluctantly inherited his predecessors were. for the first time, he has felt like a warrior president, savoring the moment, however brief. >> i am sure there were people inside the white house who were skeptical of the president making a decision to execute this plan. >> president bush's chief of staff told him on 9/11 that america was under attack. having tried and failed to capture osama bin laden all those years, he appreciates the risks and rewards of what just happened. >> it went well, thanks to great planning and great intelligence and analysis, but there are things that still could have gone wrong. that is what the president has

to do, make tough, courageous decisions, and he made tough courageous decision that went well. >> even barack obama would admit that he had to show his leadership. then there was the whole mess of guantanamo bay, first wants to close it down, then forced to keep it open. the killing of osama bin laden, ordered by him, gives him something that even his critics have to admit this president can take to the bank. >> my fellow americans. that this is president obama, the night before the raid, in black tie, at the annual white house correspondents' dinner, cracking jokes at donald trump's expense and a small for his audience. at this stage, the president had already authorized the operation. had it ended in failure, his presidency may have never wrote recovered.

no wonder he and everyone else looked nervous. this is the situation room, and the bows of the white house, watching the race live on the screen. a top-secret reality show. you can practically feel the intake of breath. >> after a firefight, they killed osama bin laden and took custody of his body. >> these high school students grew up in the shadow of 9/11. it has been discussing bin laden's death and obama's presidency. that is usually -- >> it is hugely symbolic to this country. >> he reiterated the fact that 9/11 was an event for all americans. i believe it will have political impact, but for this moment, it is a moment for americans first. dad, to buryis

him within a day. at belmont on conservative talk radio in maryland, this listener set the tone for the day. many have not been converted to the man who ordered the slaying of osama bin laden. am i think president obama did the right thing. i think he did exactly what any president has served in that office would have done. it does not make me want to vote for him anymore. i think we still have a long way to go in this country to get things turned around. >> history offers plenty of cautionary tales for the warrior president. remember george h. w. bush? then there was the other george w. bush. >> the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us since! >> this will be his finest hour. george bush found his voice in

the rubble of the twin towers, just as president obama found his voice sunday night. it may define how they will be remembered. to talk about this, jeremy paxton it spoke with columnists from the center of american progress. >> has this transformed the president? >> i think this is big news for him politically, and across the political spectrum, but whether or not a transforms his presidency, how he has received a long-term, remains to be seen. >> what is your reading of it? >> i think there are two aspects that will live beyond the short- term but that he will get from the killing of osama bin laden. first is the courage that it took to make this decision, to not send in a bomb but actually

send in a navy seal team 6 with all the inherent risks that entailed. the second is that it was a very confidently, competently executed mission. stretching back a number of years, the united states has not had a lot of success, from the war in iraq, but mishandled response to katrina, to the financial crisis, so to be able to execute a very complicated mission, pull it off, and have the foresight to know what to do in the aftermath i think will serve this. well over the rest of his tenure. >> one has to wonder if obama has what george bush did not have. >> i think he had actionable intelligence. when you think about how long this took to unfold, this is the work of not just to precedents but three. we have been seeking osama bin laden for a long time, and i think president obama greatly deserves praise but as he would happily acknowledge, this is

something that took a long time and that he cannot claim sole credit for. >> i think the clear evidence is that this president put renewed emphasis on tracking down bin laden. it was president bush that shut down the bin laden unit in 2005 at the cia because they could not devote all of the resources because they needed th for the ongoing war in iraq. it was this president that told leon panetta to come up with an action plan in advance so that in picking up the disinformation they would know what to do with it. it took a long time to get the information, but it was this president who opupped the ante. there have been six times the amount of karon strikes. yes, it is a long stretch in operation, the credit goes mostly to the president in office right now. >> will be the political impact

of this? >> that is hard to say. one critique of president obama, the idea that he is in a factual, the idea that he is president carter again, that has largely faded. it also suggests that the critique of president obama is likely to change. i think this will probably be a longer-term advantage for his critics. that allows them to shift to other grounds of criticism, for example relating to the economy, his handling of the unemployment problem, etc., and i think those are areas that would be much more constructive to have the debate. i think those are areas where republicans are likely to have more success, provided they craft better policies. at that it raises the interesting question for the republicans about the sort of person they would choose to run against president obama, given he has had this very conspicuous executive action as

president. what do you think about that? >> it is clear the president has had his commander in chief moment, and that is a bar that any contender from the republican party will have to measure against. certainly, as he said, this is an election campaign that will be fought largely on domestic issues. but one thing the president was able to do with this mission was conveyed to the american people that he has guts, courage, that he is willing to take the hard decisions. that if it goes wrong, it may have grave consequences, but if it goes right it will work to the benefit of the united states. they now know they have a fighter for themselves in the white house. that will be tough to measure up against that yardstick. >> thank you both very much indeed. the white house has made the decision that will not make public the photos of the dead osama bin laden. they say it would inflame public

anger and put american lives at risk. why was the idea out there in the first place? why is there any perceived need to see evidence of death? to discuss this, and jeremy spoke with an author and photographer. >> this is a new thing. >> absolutely not. there is great historical for the bodies of the defeated to be displayed by the victims. richard iii, defeated by henry vii, stripped naked and dragged through the streets. henry vii of what it richard to be seen like that, shoring up his own positions. james iv was killed, henry viii used a bloodstained

cloak as evidence of the death. bodies and death are powerful and important. >> there is a well-established pattern? >> yes. >> it is surprising to me, your photographer, you must have taken lots of photographs. why should this not be made public? >> i think we are not at the battle, we are in the modern age. i think it should not be made public for two reasons. one is practical, the other is moral. on the practical level, the only reason for making it public seems to be as evidence of some kind, that this has taken place. i think we know that. i think photography has lost its credibility as syphilis carrier of truth -- as a full list carrier of truth. there will be hundreds of fake

photographs. it put in and out there does not prove it. which is one reason for doing it. the second is it is not necessary. i think obama made a very powerful and dignified speech about the process that had happened. we believe obama. the other thing is putting up the photographs could come back to bite them as well. when shea was killed -- >> we have his photograph on the more to worry slab. >> that is one of them. >> that is not the kind of iconic image emblazoned on t- shirts. >> what is the point about that? >> the point about shelling that was to show this terrorist had been killed -- the point about showing that was that this terrorist has been killed, but

he evolved into one of the top euros despite this -- the top here rose despite this intention to dismiss him. >> what about laurent gbagbo, he was alive when this photograph was taken. is there something about the photograph of a dictator or tyrant in his underwear that is incredibly effective politically? >> absolutely, it is critically important in life and death. to be seen it and a shabby, a humiliating fashion, powerless, it is very important. i would take issue with perhaps what he said. bin laden was so elusive in life, and allowing him to be elusive in death and control the damage. there are countless kinds of images. >> it is the repelling human

appetite, is it not? i think it is. that is the moral point. just because we have done it in the past, we used to hang, drawl, and quarter people. and then displayed the body in public. nobody is suggesting that is a good idea. you are well aware of the power of images. the lasting image of bin laden, otherwise, it is this guy with a beard and turban and a k-47 either in his hand or propped up behind him. is that the image that we one of them? >> well, it it an image of him. i think the more attention you pay to this, the more you create new controversy and the bigger the image of bin laden becomes. that cannot be any bigger than at not being released. >> i think can c, and putting a

cap on it and saying, no, let's move on. they have plenty of other things to do. as obama s doino . t better things to do. >> that is set for this week. from all of us, goodbye. >> funding was made possible by -- the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, and union bank. >> union bank has put its global expertise to work for a wide range of companies.

what can we do for you? >> "bbc news night" was presented by kcet, los angeles in