There is an old legal defense in Louisiana (and Texas I'm told). It's called the He Needed Killin' defense. It is based on the common sense idea that some folks are so guilty, so incorrigible that a public trial would serve no useful purpose. Jury nullification soon followed when the defense was successfully entered.
Adolf Hitler comes streakingly to mind. As a defendant, he would have been worthless. As a suicide in an underground bunker, he showed the world what he was made of. Mussolini was made of the same stuff, and suffered an ignominious death at the hands of partisans as he was trying to escape.
I see that the BMEWS is covering Saddam's trial. This defendant is so well known that we don't need to establish his identity with a last name. The former dictator of Iraq, the guy who promised to die in defense of his regime. That same guy who let his sons take him at his word, then when he was finally cornered, surrendered meekly to American soldiers.
Yeah, that Saddam. I wondered when we captured him, why we captured him. Some people don't deserve a trial. Some folks just need killing. The trial can have no useful purpose. The people of Iraq can't let him live. His fate is sealed. Saddam is going to die. We all know that. The question is how? The answer is: It doesn't matter.
One pundit said that when we found him in his septic tank, we should have installed a toilet and served the 82nd Airborne nothing but Taco Bell till the tank was filled, then announce to the world that Saddam had died. I always thought that we should have dropped a couple of grenades down his hidey-hole, then taken out just enough DNA to verify death.
Osama is the same type fellow, and he has vowed not to be taken alive. So be it. The commanders at the scene can quietly give the order that he is not to be taken alive. If he surrenders, then the surrender is to be taken as a ruse. A trial of Osama will serve no useful purpose. I can only hope he stands by his word.