Osama bin Laden Killed


Recommended Posts

The ultimate nail in the coffin of bin Laden's ideology would have been if he was given a fair trial and held accountable for his actions in a court of law, and being given the opportunity to speak for himself and his actions and to have a jury decide.. Everyone would have seen then that his claims about the West and the US were lies.. That he was given every chance to defend himself.. This would have won the war..

This wouldn't have made the least bit of difference.

Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. long before 9/11, and he openly conceded and bragged about his role in 9/11. He was a prime enemy combatant, and he was dealt with properly.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Noam Chomsky is none too happy.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noam Chomsky is none too happy.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

http://www.guernicam...reaction_to_os/

Without reading this s___h___, we can assume he'd be very happy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he has an argument.

"Was the killing legal or did it violate the international and human rights law? It depends on whether bin Laden can be considered as an enemy combatant.

The U.S. government said the killing was legal, justified, proper and 'an act of national self-defense.'

'Let me make something very clear,' Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Wednesday, 'the operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way. He was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that conducted the attacks of Sept. 11. He admitted his involvement.'

Holder said it's lawful to 'target an enemy commander in the field,' just as U.S. forces did during World War II when it shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto.

Bin Laden was 'by my estimation, and the estimation of the Justice Department, a lawful military target, and the operation was conducted consistent with our law [and] with our values,' the attorney general said.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.c...m#ixzz1LhKdv89O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not what I understood you to mean, given statements like "Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice."

George,

I could have been clearer, I suppose, but within the context of me repeating several times that justice and war overlap, etc., and my propensity to avoid conceptual oversimplifications, I imagined people would understand a statement like that to mean "what is being sold to the public," or something like that.

I see I need to be clearer about these things.

It is somewhat peculiar even to call the killing of bin Laden an "act of war." This expression is normally used to signify an act that initiates a state of war that did not previously exist, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War, as Locke indicates, is a condition, or state of affairs, not a single act.

Peculiar?

Dayaamm!

Do you mean something like the invasion of Normandy was not an "act of war" because the USA did not "initiate" the war? Your words are conveying this to me. Is my understanding of your meaning correct?

But let's look at the US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, § 2331 (as published by Cornell U here):

(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of—

( A ) declared war;

( B ) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

( C ) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; ...

I prefer to keep to this definition of "act of war." And the reason is not even theoretical.

My concern is with the practicality of how we are going to change this stuff around. The public understands definitions a bit differently than we do in our little subculture bubble. If we are to persuade the public, we cannot ignore this. We must either find a way to inject a different meaning in the public use of language (for a term like "act of war"), or we need to use the words as the public understands them and persuade in that dialect.

This last is my approach.

We should therefore say that the killing of bin Laden was a just act that occurred within a previously existing state of war.

OK.

Do you think Obama and his cohorts--and their propaganda machine--are going to agree?

I don't.

I think they are going to keep repeating that we administered justice by killing bin Laden in the manner the Seals did--after all, we are not officially at war according to them in dealing with these "man-made disasters"--and dream up new ways of doing more until all hell finally breaks loose in the world.

I prefer to say--on that level--that bin Laden made war on us, so we made war back and killed him. I think the public can understand that a lot easier than going around in circles about Locke.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is somewhat peculiar even to call the killing of bin Laden an "act of war." This expression is normally used to signify an act that initiates a state of war that did not previously exist, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War, as Locke indicates, is a condition, or state of affairs, not a single act.

Peculiar?

Dayaamm!

Do you mean something like the invasion of Normandy was not an "act of war" because the USA did not "initiate" the war? Your words are conveying this to me. Is my understanding of your meaning correct?

Any violent action that occurs within the context of a war is technically an "act of war." This applies to the killing of bin Laden as well. My point was that this is so obvious that it seems peculiar to call attention to it. When U.S. soldiers engage in firefights with members of the Taliban, these are not normally reported as "acts of war." This is understood as part of the context.

So what does it mean to say that the killing of bin Laden was primarily an act of war rather than an act of justice? I don't understand the basis for the comparison. The killing of bin Laden, since it occurred in the context of a state of war that has been in effect for a decade, would have been an "act of war" regardless of whether it was just or unjust.

You object to the selling of the killing as "an act of justice," because you view it primarily as an act of war. Maybe you mean that justice was not the primary motive of those who authorized and implemented the attack. I don't know one way or the other, but I suspect that the Navy Seals who participated in the attack viewed it principally as "payback" -- i.e., retribution -- which is a type of justice.

I prefer to say--on that level--that bin Laden made war on us, so we made war back and killed him. I think the public can understand that a lot easier than going around in circles about Locke.

I cited Locke because he provides an excellent framework for distinctions that are vital to libertarian theory. Whether we should attempt to educate the public about Lockean theory in this realm is a judgment call. It is also irrelevant to the point I was making. I cited Locke in the course of suggesting how libertarians should view the killing of bin Laden.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any violent action that occurs within the context of a war is technically an "act of war." This applies to the killing of bin Laden as well. My point was that this is so obvious that it seems peculiar to call attention to it.

George,

I mean this in a good way (not as a put-down, but as a simple fact)--I think you are oblivious to the double-speak that is being engineered into the modern American culture.

These violent acts might be obvious as "act of war" to you, but take a look around here in the USA. Do you see gobs of people saying bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial? That maybe the USA did a no-no? Take a good hard look at the young and tell me what you see.

These people mean it. They do not consider what we did as an act of war. Instead, they think of it as an act of an Ugly American bully unjustly seeking revenge. Obama's double-speak is to convince them that when other people do this stuff (especially Bush), these are the Ugly American bullies, but when he does it, it is justice.

The whole focus is wrong. Obama's double-speak is to blur the meaning of war so he can deploy forces and resources at whim. Bush did the same thing, too, but in a different manner (his flavor was called "war on terrorism").

We are de facto at war with the people who attacked us and those who give support to them.

We are not the enforcers of justice throughout the world.

Do you see what the propagandists are doing?

You should see the school curriculums that cause fertile ground for this "justice" message to easily take root in the minds of the young. The following was on the news--1 in 5 people who searched for the term "Osama bin Laden" on Google on the day Obama announced he had been killed typed in the question:

Who is Osama bin Laden?

These are teenagers. They didn't know who bin Laden was!

They just didn't know. TV reporters interviewed several teenagers just to be sure and they really didn't know.

Hell, they didn't even know that we are at war with Al Qaeda.

Is it no wonder that they are saying we should have captured and tried bin Laden instead of murdering him in cold blood? Is 9/11 such ancient history that it has to be excluded from schools? I mean, it's all of 11 years ago.

And do you know where the "justice" meme (really meaning "act of war") goes next in terms of public persuasion?

It goes here: Let's forget all about this silly stuff of different nations and let's put hostilities all under the umbrella of one World Court of Law.

You may not like the USA system as it exists, but would you be comfortable with a sitting judge from North Korea or Venezuela or Iran on such a court passing sentence on Americans?

So once again, the "acts of war" you think are too obvious to mention are obvious to you and to me. They are not obvious to gobs of people out there. Those poor folks are being engineered to believe otherwise from the ground up.

(And, btw, they all vote...)

I cited Locke in the course of suggesting how libertarians should view the killing of bin Laden.

We crossed signals.

My message was not addressed only to libertarians, nor was it addressed to the public to suggest how libertarians should think.

I was calling it as I see it.

And don't get me started on this thing about what others in any given group "should view" or "should think." When I see that phrase, my mental warning bells go ding-dong in overdrive. If I were a cat, my fur would be standing on edge.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way or another teenagers will get educated eventually, not from books but from the world they live in. It may not be a good education for their lack of interest and critical thinking skills, but they're going to have to ratchet it up to lecture the likes of me or count for much. They don't know this and they don't know that, welcome to American education. 50 years ago when I was a teenager they didn't know much or care much either. There were only a few Jewish boys around worth talking with.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know what the big deal is here. There's bin Laden. Spray him with bullets, grab his videos and git.

--Brant

call it what you want; I call him dead, dead, dead and good riddance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM should understand that soldiers are primarily trained to destroy and kill. That's the default. In the context of an operation that's what they usually try to do. They may be given a rescue mission--and kill any who try to stop them. They may be asked to gather intelligence behind enemy lines and avoid fighting, but they'll go in with assault rifles--guess why for. They may be asked to capture, not kill, Bin Laden. Obviously they weren't, but if that were the mission everybody between BL and them would be immediately killed out of hand--no surrenders accepted--until they got their hands on him and had him under their control. Why? So they wouldn't be delayed. The same thing on the way out to the extraction.

After more than 40 years I still have that kill mind-set. It is not the mind-set of a properly trained police officer nor most never-been-in-the-military civilians. Now, this mind-set varies in intensity throughout the ranks and is probably strongest in the Marines, followed by the army. Many military are support personnel and their mind-sets are more pacific, less warrior like. But even those, because of their initial training, can pick up a rifle and blast away if necessary. In fact, those are least capable of doing anything other than kill in combat because their skills are so poor. They aren't sent into combat; combat comes to them, sometimes. They aren't sent to capture anybody. Etc.

Perhaps you should understand that the mission of SEAL Team 6 is not only to destroy and kill.. That may be the role of a regular infantry soldier but when it comes to SEAL Team 6 their role is far more complex and they are a highly trained unit that has a history of being tasked to go and capture and extract hostile high value targets.. They did this in Bosnia and were very successful.

Now you may have a kill kill mindset.. That's fine.. But the SEALs aren't trained to just kill.. They don't spend that much money on training them for something a regular grunt could have done..

The U.S. military is not run by the FBI or answerable to it. The FBI, on the other hand, might do the bidding of the military in some situations as per the instructions of the President, such as being "wanted." It can "wanted" all it wants without those instructions, but if the Seals had captured Bin Laden you won't find the FBI banging on the door of the DOD demanding his custody. Some stupid Federal judge might make such a demand, risking impeachment, but to no effect.

--Brant

he deserved worse than he got

No, but the whole justification of attacking Afghanistan and staying there for what will be more than 10 years is the criminal acts of 9/11 of which Osama bin Laden was blamed. It was about us trying to get justice and hold him accountable..

Obama himself stated that they were trying to capture Osama in the operation, so then it brings the question..

If there was ample opportunity to capture him, which it seems more and more likely as each new report comes out.. Then why was he killed? If he was killed when he could have been captured then why are they saying they were trying to capture him..

The "affidavit"--I'd bet the ranch--was written by his slick American lawyer.

--Brant

I have experience with Islamic Extremism, I've seen it not only in terrorist suspects held in prison but also with Islamists in several different countries in the world.

What the affidavit states is what Islamists believe..

You are justified in using your "we", LM, if you feel you are now an American, regardless of where you live. Being an American is primarily a state of mind.

Do you think of yourself as an American? If you don't, then "we" is not appropriate here the way you've been using it.

--Brant

I suppose I do see myself as an American now that you mention it.

This wouldn't have made the least bit of difference.

Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. long before 9/11, and he openly conceded and bragged about his role in 9/11. He was a prime enemy combatant, and he was dealt with properly.

Ghs

It would have made a huge difference.. It would have won the war because the majority of the Islamists believe in the same narrative which has just been reinforced because Osama bin Laden was not given the chance to have a fair trial like our values state a criminal like him should have, they believe we are hypocrites when it comes to the application of our values and of justice, that we will discard these values when it suits us and apply them when it is beneficial for us to do so.. We proved them right in killing an unarmed Osama bin Laden.. I believe without exaggeration that act has lost the war for us..

I'll tell you what would have happened if Osama bin Laden were to have been given a chance to face a court for his actions and be held accountable in a fair trial..

If he were found guilty, he probably would have been executed.. And no one could say we were hypocrites..

I might also state this..

You talk about Osama bin Laden declaring war on the US.. A state can declare war and a war can ensue, but a group can not as they are not acting within the laws of a particular nation and have no authority as a sovereign state to declare war.. So who are they representing?

In such a case, their actions, not representing a sovereign nation were in fact a criminal action breaching the laws of the state where the crime was committed (the USA).. Therefore, as a suspect in a crime Osama bin Laden should have been indicted, charged with and gone to trial for the attacks on 9/11 and not subject to extrajudicial execution..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

The way I read the comment is that Obama is carrying out the Bush policies which is vindication for Bush, since he was one of Bush's loudest critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, LM, my understanding of US military special operations is fairly knowledgeable and sophisticated without claiming the status of an expert. If the mission was to capture BL they would have done their best to capture him. If they were told it was optional it is likely they would have killed him. If to kill, not capture, that's not a mission I could go on. In the case of Admiral Yamamoto in WW II they had to kill him or let him go--that is, there was no option possible exercisable in the field. That choice was purely made higher up--to shoot him down. I could have gone on that mission, albeit with some regret.

--Brant

not regular infantry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, LM, my understanding of US military special operations is fairly knowledgeable and sophisticated without claiming the status of an expert. If the mission was to capture BL they would have done their best to capture him. If they were told it was optional it is likely they would have killed him. If to kill, not capture, that's not a mission I could go on. In the case of Admiral Yamamoto in WW II they had to kill him or let him go--that is, there was no option possible exercisable in the field. That choice was purely made higher up--to shoot him down. I could have gone on that mission, albeit with some regret.

--Brant

not regular infantry

Brant, that's my point.. It doesn't sound right..

The fact is that the Obama administration has stated that the SEALs were ordered to capture him if possible. I however, don't believe that they were ordered to capture him and if they were ordered to do so, there needs to be a full investigation as to why they couldn't capture an unarmed Osama bin Laden which is common practice if I understand it correctly.

If instead the Administration ordered him killed in the Rules of Engagement for the mission even if there was ample opportunity to capture him then that should be made public. If that was indeed the case then I believe that it was completely wrong to do so because not only was he not able to be held fully accountable in a US Court for the crimes that he was accused of which would have subsequently won the war on terror..

But I also think in terms of intelligence value it was a waste because there is no doubt, that he would be the real treasure trove of information for the things that weren't written down.. The intelligence value of him would be far more than anything taken out of the house..

If however they were afraid he would release some very uncomfortable truths about his relationship to the CIA and the Bush family then it would make more sense to have killed him without a trial. But then that makes me even more suspicious about what they're hiding..

The last option which I believe is a real possibility is that he was indeed captured and is still alive and is being interrogated as we speak for information relating to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and they don't want to make it public because they're afraid of the terrorist attacks that might take place to get him back..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is so incompetent, everything he says about this should be discounted.

The capture and interrogate is possible, but witnesses were left behind.

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was indeed the case then I believe that it was completely wrong to do so because not only was he not able to be held fully accountable in a US Court for the crimes that he was accused of which would have subsequently won the war on terror..

Is that some kind of a joke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was indeed the case then I believe that it was completely wrong to do so because not only was he not able to be held fully accountable in a US Court for the crimes that he was accused of which would have subsequently won the war on terror..

Is that some kind of a joke?

Not at all.. The war on terror can't be won with bombs, it has to be won by removing the initiative of the enemy to fight.. When that enemy believes that dying from this war gives them paradise it encourages them to fight even if they will die..

If you instead remove the reasons for them to fight, such as the Islamist narrative that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it then you destroy the Islamist narrative and then the islamists won't be able to get people to fight for them as easily..

Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPR chimed in with their opinion on whether it is proper to celebrate Bin Ladin's death here.

"And the question remains: Is there moral philosophical justification for rejoicing over the demise of someone like bin Laden?

"Most people believe that the killing we do in war is justified as the only way to disable an enemy whose cause we believe to be unjust," says Christine Korsgaard, a philosophy professor at Harvard University. "And although it is more controversial, many people believe, or at least feel, that those who kill deserve to die as retribution for their crimes."

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

If a single SEAL had died in the operation, what would people be saying? If the building had been rigged with explosives, and numerous SEALs died, just imagine the scandal. It makes sense to me that they went in with itchy trigger fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.

Or we might win by killing billions of people. We shall see. We will see if Allah can do sh*t to stop us.

Ba'al Chafatz

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

The Islamist narrative that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it . . . .

The Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt, lose the war on terror.

You wish.

Vile words. Forked tongue.

. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

Elsewhere, Mr. . . . reports:

I'm half Greek and half Turkish born and raised in Australia but currently living, studying and working in . . . . I’m a very passionate person, driven by my want to make a difference in this world. It motivates me to work to make a change. It takes alot to get me angry, I am a very patient person in most cases, and very goal orientated and focussed. Currently I'm studying at university, doing a BA in Conflict Resolution/Criminology. I love Movies, Cafes, Photography, Reading, Writing (poetry and politics), Airsoft and Martial Arts, and lots of food! I also love doing . . . community work and am very active in the many different community projects including prison chaplaincy and youth work. . . .
Finding and killing bin Laden was alot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PPS

Formerly, Boydstun (1/2/10):

By the way, Mark, it appeared to me that you were being too hard on Mr. . . . The fit he tries to finesse between religion and legal system used to be common, and classical-liberal religious people like that were good partisans for the cause of personal and economic freedom . . . .
Not such a partisan. Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

If a single SEAL had died in the operation, what would people be saying? If the building had been rigged with explosives, and numerous SEALs died, just imagine the scandal. It makes sense to me that they went in with itchy trigger fingers.

My taken out of its context quote refers to the war policies of the Obama administration and the administration that proceeded it.

If the residents of the compound felt a need to rig it with explosives they would have evacuated it. One big reason Castro was never killed was he kept moving around. You don't want to live in a place rigged with explosives; an insider might decide to blow you up or the waiting-to-happen accident might happen. You'd not sleep well. Consider that the alternative considered was to drop some bombs on him. There is no real defense against a serious American assault except the Americans not knowing where you are.

SEALs don't have "itchy trigger fingers." Their training and experience thoroughly seasons them. They thoroughly prepared for the operation.

The stupid ten-year war goes on.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My taken out of its context quote refers to the war policies of the Obama administration and the administration that proceeded it.

There wasn’t much context there; I thought you were making a critique on the premise that they could have captured him and didn’t try to. And maybe they didn’t try to, we may never know what the orders were.

SEALs don't have "itchy trigger fingers." Their training and experience thoroughly seasons them. They thoroughly prepared for the operation.

By “itchy trigger fingers” I meant the orders were such that there was no likely scenario where bin Laden would be captured alive. I didn’t mean to suggest unprofessionalism on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now