While the discussion touched on some LOAC issues, it never got off the legal ground since Barrister Burnside set out the framework for the discussion and Soldier Kilcullen is no barrister.

The initial hypothetical (by Julian Burnside, who seems a fairly laid-back individual) is interesting. He had UBL on a dialysis machine in the Tora Bora. Do you kill him or capture him ?

I'd add a few figures to the picture besides UBL, to wit: one of his wives and her female entourage, some children and young adults (the older boys being armed), and his ever-present body guards.

What should you do as "Coalition" commander with full power to decide (no higher micromanagement in the picture) ?

Legally, you first have to decide whether that pastoral picture is a Laws of War (military) or Rule of Law (civilian) situation. That is an important issue for discourse because all Coalition partners in Astan are not on the same legal page. As to the video, it would have been nice to have a barrister presenting the US position - which is based on the Laws of War. I'll spare the legal reasoning; but, to the US, we have Hague, 1949 Geneva and the latter's Common Article 3.

As I see it, compliance with US Laws of War depends on the means on hand that can be used. First, posit direct fires (well-aimed at specific targets). Under CA 3, the women and unarmed children are protected. The armed boys and the bodyguards are lawful targets under Hague & CA 3. UBL is actually an issue - is he rendered hors de combat because of the dialysis ? Possibly not - disconnect the tubes and grab the AK. If he were in a diabetic coma, the answer would be protected status.

Now, let's get back to reality at Tora Bora, where that pastoral picture was not present and indirect fires were the only realistic means at hand (based on "MAJ Fury's" book). What would be likely known is an approximate grid location of combatants (maybe including UBL). So, a bomb or bombs make their descent and hit the target - lawful under Hague if military necessity and proportionality apply, even if some civilians are also killed.

Reality would also include the ROE/RUFs then in place, which may or may not sanction the indirect fires COA - or, the direct fires COA, for that matter.

One could also do a legal analysis of the Rule of Law scenario - looking at the problem from a pure law enforcement standpoint.

The bottom line is that Barrister Burnside's first hypothetical and its variations could span the entire hour of the interview and then some. That would have made a great continuing ed segment for me, but very poor audience TV.

The title ("Does the end justify the means?") is a bit confusing when applied to a military context where ends, means and ways have entirely different meanings and usages from the philosophical question of "end justifying means".