Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Laminations · 04-05-2011 07:46PM

gandalf wrote: »

So lets recap.

According to the Americans initially Osama opened fire on the assault team. That now turns out to be a lie.

He used his wife as a human shield and she died. Another lie, she rushed the troops who stormed the room and was shot in the foot.

He was armed. Another lie they now say he was unarmed.

They say he "resisted" but gave no details of said resistance. Bin Ladens 12-year-old daughter has now told Pakistani security officials her father was captured alive and shot dead by US troops during the first few minutes of the raid. She was left behind and is in the care of the Pakistani authorities.

Yesterday the Head of the CIA said they would release the pictures showing Bin Laden dead, today the US authorities say they won't. Their lame excuse is "that is not who we are".

I am at a loss on how the US authorities can mess this up even more. At this stage they have handed Islamic extremists a media coup they only could have dreamed of months ago. The recruiters will be hard at work based on this farce.

So if America were 'lying' who told us the truth? The Americans have revised the sequence of events etc as info has come in. Liars usually aren't in the business of holding up their hands with new updates the very next day. They simply got info wrong.

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 07:50PM

Laminations wrote: »

So if America were 'lying' who told us the truth? The Americans have revised the sequence of events etc as info has come in. Liars usually aren't in the business of holding up their hands with new updates the very next day. They simply got info wrong.

Well why not wait until all the facts were fact and not just.... well lies. The whole thing has gone pear shaped now and what version is true. A PR disaster.

gandalf · 04-05-2011 07:54PM

Laminations wrote: »

So if America were 'lying' who told us the truth? The Americans have revised the sequence of events etc as info has come in. Liars usually aren't in the business of holding up their hands with new updates the very next day. They simply got info wrong.

They lied initially, they did not tell the truth. The truth now is nearly a flip side of what they announced to the world on Sunday night/Monday morning.

The main issue I have with this whole situation is simple. Is this the behaviour that we should expect from the so-called self anointed Policeman of the World? No of course it is not. I would expect them to arrest any wrongdoer and put charges against them in a court of law. Only when they are found guilty do I expect punishment to be meted upon them.

I don't mourn Osama Bin Laden he is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and caused untold misery to their families. I mourn the damage that has been done to the rule of law. I mourn the fact that mob rule appears to permeated even the nation that has self pedestalled itself as the bastion and defender of democracy.

Laminations · 04-05-2011 07:57PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well why not wait until all the facts were fact and not just.... well lies. The whole thing has gone pear shaped now and what version is true. A PR disaster.

Your assuming it was done for PR and not an American sense of justice. I'd imagine if this was milked for PR it'd be seen as distasteful. People were demanding details, the world wanted to know how it happened. I suppose the Americans rinitially reporting 9/11 as an accident was a PR disaster? Details drip out slowly and the picture is put together, but in this case there'll be no picture. Why would they change their 'story' when there were no witnesses to tell a different version of events? They updated their version of events as details came in, commonplace in frantic situations

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 08:02PM

Laminations wrote: »

Your assuming it was done for PR and not an American sense of justice. I'd imagine if this was milked for PR it'd be seen as distasteful. People were demanding details, the world wanted to know how it happened. I suppose the Americans rinitially reporting 9/11 as an accident was a PR disaster? Details drip out slowly and the picture is put together, but in this case there'll be no picture. Why would they change their 'story' when there were no witnesses to tell a different version of events? They updated their version of events as details came in, commonplace in frantic situations

You believe what you want. Who is the US to dish out justice around the world without a trial or any charges laid. Who should dish out justice to the US for all the atrocities it has perpetrated? That is what international law and courts are for not just summary execution to whoever the US decides is deserving. What a world to live in....it defies justice and logic.

Just to add, you say updating as things come in 180 degree swing in most of the things..eg woman dead, no not dead, armed, no not armed. Only an idiot would make such mistakes

Laminations · 04-05-2011 08:07PM

gandalf wrote: »

I don't mourn Osama Bin Laden he is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and their families. I mourn the damage that has been done to the rule of law. I mourn the fact that mob rule appears to permeated even the nation that has self pedestalled itself as the bastion and defender of democracy.

When you act far far outside the boundaries of the law I don't think you can expect to be protected by the law. Are you saying that there was any chance it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama was guilty?

I'd have preferred a capture but I don't really care. I don't mourn him and I'm not in the business of celebrating death but then again I might feel different if the man was responsible for the death of my family members. I'm not going to use a slippery slope to assert that because they've done this 'no trial killing' to Osama that they'll be doing the same to ordinary citizens. Gitmo disturbed me far more than this and Obama is moving in the right direction there

sink · 04-05-2011 08:10PM

gandalf wrote: »

They lied initially, they did not tell the truth. The truth now is nearly a flip side of what they announced to the world on Sunday night/Monday morning.

The main issue I have with this whole situation is simple. Is this the behaviour that we should expect from the so-called self anointed Policeman of the World? No of course it is not. I would expect them to arrest any wrongdoer and put charges against them in a court of law. Only when they are found guilty do I expect punishment to be meted upon them.

I don't mourn Osama Bin Laden he is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and their families. I mourn the damage that has been done to the rule of law. I mourn the fact that mob rule appears to permeated even the nation that has self pedestalled itself as the bastion and defender of democracy.

I think you may have fallen for the myth of the civilised war, there has never been one in all history. A major component of war is propaganda, and smoke and mirrors. The victors write the history books.

If American soldiers shot Osama while he was unarmed, it really is just business as usual. The only surprising thing is that they came clean about it, that I don't understand.

Laminations · 04-05-2011 08:12PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Just to add, you say updating as things come in 180 degree swing in most of the things..eg woman dead, no not dead, armed, no not armed. Only an idiot would make such mistakes

Yes 180 degree swing can happen. 9/11 went from accident to terrorist attack. Asian tsunami went from a few hundred dead to hundreds of thousands. SITREPS change dramatically and often rapidly, which was what happened yesterday

jrochie · 04-05-2011 08:15PM

I wrote a short blog on his death today. Its
here for those who may be interested. I personally think its such a unique case that has such far reaching consequences that they did the only thing that could be done. I've explained my reasons in the blog, which is a bit to long to post here, so if anyone is interested then feel free to have a read

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 08:16PM

Laminations wrote: »

Yes 180 degree swing can happen. 9/11 went from accident to terrorist attack. Asian tsunami went from a few hundred dead to hundreds of thousands. SITREPS change dramatically and often rapidly, which was what happened yesterday

Well then they should have waited to be sure of all the facts. OBL was not going anywhere and they had plenty of time to set the whole news story up. did they do that? It certainly does not look like it.

Laminations · 04-05-2011 08:21PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well then they should have waited to be sure of all the facts. OBL was not going anywhere and they had plenty of time to set the whole news story up. did they do that? It certainly does not look like it.

Modern news media doesn't wait.

Sierra Oscar · 04-05-2011 08:23PM

Laminations wrote: »

Modern news media doesn't wait.

Thats for sure, the events were being tweeted live afterall . . .

I also suspect Obama wanted to be the one announcing the success of the operation himself, instead of a leak to the press occurring.

gandalf · 04-05-2011 08:24PM

Laminations wrote: »

When you act far far outside the boundaries of the law I don't think you can expect to be protected by the law. Are you saying that there was any chance it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama was guilty?

Firstly I am not a judge. Secondly a trial is about a lot more than just finding someone guilty, it is about a civilised closure to crime based on the rules of your society for your society. It is not for the benefit of the accused but for the benefit of your society.

It is showing that you have ideals that are better than the criminal who carried out a crime.

I'd have preferred a capture but I don't really care. I don't mourn him and I'm not in the business of celebrating death but then again I might feel different if the man was responsible for the death of my family members. I'm not going to use a slippery slope to assert that because they've done this 'no trial killing' to Osama that they'll be doing the same to ordinary citizens. Gitmo disturbed me far more than this and Obama is moving in the right direction there

We hope, Gitmo was supposed to have been closed down in his first year as President.

As for the slippery slope why not examine this. What illegal activity will be excused by the infamous "National Security" get out of jail card next

sink wrote: »

I think you may have fallen for the myth of the civilised war, there has never been one in all history. A major component of war is propaganda, and smoke and mirrors. The victors write the history books.

If American soldiers shot Osama while he was unarmed, it really is just business as usual. The only surprising thing is that they came clean about it, that I don't understand.

Well you see I wouldn't call this operation part of a war at all. It was an assassination operation when a man who carried out crimes of the worst order could have easily had been captured and according to one narrative was captured and then shot.

The total ineptitude in releasing the information for what was an extremely well planned black bag operation is unbelievable. It looks like the actors in this farce from the political side lost the run of themselves in all the "excitement" after the kill shot.

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 08:26PM

Laminations wrote: »

Modern news media doesn't wait.

It could have in this case, as the source was the US Government and as the source it could have sat on it forever if it wished before releasing it to the press, instead it released confusing statements that are totally ambiguous.

hmmm · 04-05-2011 08:32PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There will always be those who will not believe photos anyway unless they see the body and other evidence. The wise thing to do IMO is to not publish photos and leave it at that as the people who need to know he is dead already do.

Who doesn't believe OBL is dead? A bunch of conspiracy forum types who are given to fantasies anyway - it's not worth endangering US troops by releasing photographs to try and convince the 5% of loudmouthed Internet cranks. I'm delighted to see that an adult decision has been made not to indulge these people.

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 08:40PM

hmmm wrote: »

Who doesn't believe OBL is dead? A bunch of conspiracy forum types who are given to fantasies anyway - it's not worth endangering US troops by releasing photographs to try and convince the 5% of loudmouthed Internet cranks. I'm delighted to see that an adult decision has been made not to indulge these people.

If you look at my post you will see I am against releasing of such photos. It is not just the US troops who get killed its usually far more innocent people from bomb attacks... but hell they don't matter as they are not American?

sink · 04-05-2011 08:41PM

gandalf wrote: »

Firstly I am not a judge. Secondly a trial is about a lot more than just finding someone guilty, it is about a civilised closure to crime based on the rules of your society for your society. It is not for the benefit of the accused but for the benefit of your society.

It is showing that you have ideals that are better than the criminal who carried out a crime.

The law is really just an instrument that allows society to function, there are no ideals, just what works and what doesn't.

gandalf wrote: »

We hope, Gitmo was supposed to have been closed down in his first year as President.

As for the slippery slope why not examine this. What illegal activity will be excused by the infamous "National Security" get out of jail card next

It's very hard to make an accurate determination prior to receiving the facts, which is what Obama prior to the election. It was a promise he never should have made

gandalf wrote: »

Well you see I wouldn't call this operation part of a war at all.

Pretty sure soldiers on the ground getting shot at and blown up daily would disagree with you there.

gandalf wrote: »

It was an assassination operation when a man who carried out crimes of the worst order could have easily had been captured and according to one narrative was captured and then shot.

Initially the news reported that soldiers were given shoot to kill orders, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. US and international law allows for targeted killing (i.e. assasination) of combatants, just not heads of state. There would be many undesirable consequences of capturing Osama alive e.g. public media circus surrounding trial, efforts by his followers to free him by taking hostages, giving Osama a platform from which to spread his vitriol.

There are two points that you have to contend to convince me that the killing was wrong, 1 Osama is not a legitimate combatant, 2 there is no war.

gandalf wrote: »

The total ineptitude in releasing the information for what was an extremely well planned black bag operation is unbelievable. It looks like the actors in this farce from the political side lost the run of themselves in all the "excitement" after the kill shot.

This I would agree with, no information would have been better than multiple corrections.

RandomName2 · 04-05-2011 08:42PM

sink wrote: »

I think you may have fallen for the myth of the civilised war, there has never been one in all history. A major component of war is propaganda, and smoke and mirrors. The victors write the history books.

If American soldiers shot Osama while he was unarmed, it really is just business as usual. The only surprising thing is that they came clean about it, that I don't understand.

Well up to a point.

But by that logic you can say that no war is just, and no participant in war has ever behaved honourably.

This patently is not the case.

When America set itself the objective to bring Osama to justice they categorically were in the right. If Osama resisted with a firearm they would have been well within their rights to shoot him. Otherwise he should have been apprehended and brought to trial, after which they would be well within their rights to execute him if found guilty (which he should).

Assassination is only justifiable when there is no option but assassination. But if assassination was the intent, and collateral damage was not of great concern, why not just drop a missile on the house? The assassination of al-Zarqawi (through two 500-pound guided bombs; GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38) was obviously the right decision from both moral and pragmatic reasons.

sink · 04-05-2011 08:51PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well up to a point.

But by that logic you can say that no war is just, and no participant in war has ever behaved honourably.

This patently is not the case.

When America set itself the objective to bring Osama to justice they categorically were in the right. If Osama resisted with a firearm they would have been well within their rights to shoot him. Otherwise he should have been apprehended and brought to trial, after which they would be well within their rights to execute him if found guilty (which he should).

Assassination is only justifiable when there is no option but assassination. But if assassination was the intent, and collateral damage was not of great concern, why not just drop a missile on the house? The assassination of al-Zarqawi (through two 500-pound guided bombs; GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38) was obviously the right decision from both moral and pragmatic reasons.

The reason behind sending in the troops as I understand it, was that Obama wanted certainty he was dead. They already said they were only 60% sure he was even there. If they dropped a bomb they would have no way of knowing if they got their target. Plus there was the added risk of collateral damage in a town full of Pakistani military brass, that would have been disastrous.

But say Obama took the decision to drop the bomb instead, would we be all arguing over whether it was morally justifiable? Is killing by 2000lbs of explosives dropped for several thousand feet somehow more ethical than two bullets to the head up close and personal.

Laminations · 04-05-2011 08:59PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Assassination is only justifiable when there is no option but assassination. But if assassination was the intent, and collateral damage was not of great concern, why not just drop a missile on the house? The assassination of al-Zarqawi (through two 500-pound guided bombs; GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38) was obviously the right decision from both moral and pragmatic reasons.

. They didn't know for certain bin Laden was there. Evidence was circumstantial based on possible matches of family members. They needed eyes in the ground. Those eyes just happened to have big guns and did the job of a bomb

Eliot Rosewater · 04-05-2011 09:07PM

sink wrote: »

The law is really just an instrument that allows society to function, there are no ideals, just what works and what doesn't.

I disagree. What partly makes the law function is its apparent fairness, and much of its fairness is based on higher ideals like due process.

gandalf · 04-05-2011 09:12PM

sink wrote: »

The law is really just an instrument that allows society to function, there are no ideals, just what works and what doesn't.

So basically mob rule is the way forward. Whoever has the biggest gun makes the rules. Charming....

It's very hard to make an accurate determination prior to receiving the facts, which is what Obama prior to the election. It was a promise he never should have made

So Monday/Sunday is not the first time this administration have broadcasted falsehoods

Pretty sure soldiers on the ground getting shot at and blown up daily would disagree with you there

.

I was talking about the action on Sunday/Monday which was an assassination operation which I had the impression under the Fourth Geneva Convention that specifically targeted assassinations were prohibited?

Then again this is a war where the US are making up the rules as they go along.

Initially the news reported that soldiers were given shoot to kill orders, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. US and international law allows for targeted killing (i.e. assasination) of combatants, just not heads of state. There would be many undesirable consequences of capturing Osama alive e.g. public media circus surrounding trial, efforts by his followers to free him by taking hostages, giving Osama a platform from which to spread his vitriol.

So to summarise because it was difficult the easy dubious way was the better one. The way that will be used to justify actions of militants all over the world now.

Of course the trial would have been a major media event given the events that this man planned. Again because it is difficult does not mean that you drop your ideals and values and lower yourself to the level of the terrorists that you are fighting.

There are two points that you have to contend to convince me that the killing was wrong, 1 Osama is not a legitimate combatant, 2 there is no war.

No the only question here is could he have been taken alive. It is quite obvious now that answer is yes. Again if you believe one of the narratives out in the wild now he was captured and then killed.

southsiderosie · 04-05-2011 09:19PM

sink wrote: »

If American soldiers shot Osama while he was unarmed, it really is just business as usual. The only surprising thing is that they came clean about it, that I don't understand.

To be honest, if this had been a raid on a crack house on the west side of Chicago, I think the same thing would have happened: if the squad gets shot at going in, they are going to shoot to kill at anything moving in the rest of the house because they have no idea if people are running for a weapon or what.

That said, I think the Obama administration has handled the release of information quite poorly. Regardless I think the conspiracy theorists would have been out in full effect, and the way they have handled this will only feed the frenzy.

Hannibal · 04-05-2011 09:24PM

This is the body of Che Guevara whom was executed by the CIA/Bolivian special forces, his body was put on display then his hands chopped off as proof with his body dumped into an unmarked grave under a disused airstrip for 30 years until it was discovered.
Guevara was executed while held in captivity but at the time the official line was he was killed in combat and it took 30 years for the truth to emerge. Now whatever the Americans done to Bin Laden, whether he was captured then executed or shot on sight.. what is the point of these photos except to feed peoples curiousity.
I'm not comparing Guevara as a person to Bin Laden on any level or in any way but their deaths could be similar.
They have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in custody to face charges so why not do the same to Bin Laden? Bin Laden was only a figurehead for al Qaeda and was largely irrelevent for the last 10 years. If they track down al-Zawahiri or Mullah Omar will they kill them or arrest them? This type of kill on sight will only make people more hostile to US forces and makes it easier for propaganda against them

gandalf · 04-05-2011 09:29PM

I agree btw with the decision not to release photos of the dead Bin Laden. It will serve no purpose now but to feed a ghoulish curiosity for some and as a catalyst for violence for others.

The conspiracy theorists will have a field day though.

Hannibal · 04-05-2011 09:40PM

gandalf wrote: »

I agree btw with the decision not to release photos of the dead Bin Laden. It will serve no purpose now but to feed a ghoulish curiosity for some and as a catalyst for violence for others.

The conspiracy theorists will have a field day though.

The conspiracy theorists probably think he's living on the same island as Elvis and John Lennon though

sink · 04-05-2011 09:40PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I disagree. What partly makes the law function is its apparent fairness, and much of its fairness is based on higher ideals like due process.

Fairness is a subjective term, what one society on the whole deems fair, another will not, what one individual deems fair, another will not. Laws are made to fit the society not the other way round.

sink · 04-05-2011 09:59PM

gandalf wrote: »

So basically mob rule is the way forward. Whoever has the biggest gun makes the rules. Charming....

All rule is to a certain degree mob rule. The reason peaceful societies develop is because mutual co-operation is often more beneficial to the majority of parties than conflict.

gandalf wrote: »

So Monday/Sunday is not the first time this administration have broadcasted falsehoods

I would be very surprised if there is any administration in the history of politics that has not.

gandalf wrote: »

I was talking about the action on Sunday/Monday which was an assassination operation which I had the impression under the Fourth Geneva Convention that specifically targeted assassinations were prohibited?

I'm not well read on international law so I can't say definitively, but I was under the impression that only certain persons are protected e.g. diplomats, heads of state etc,.

gandalf wrote: »

Then again this is a war where the US are making up the rules as they go along.

Just like all wars. It has never been the case where all belligerents get together before a conflict and agree to a set of rules. Strategies and tactics of war are constantly evolving to meet the situation, it is rarely known before a conflicts starts by what methods the conflict will end.

gandalf wrote: »

So to summarise because it was difficult the easy dubious way was the better one. The way that will be used to justify actions of militants all over the world now.

The easy way would have been to drop a bomb. Whatever is way is most effective is usually the way the way that will be chosen.

gandalf wrote: »

Of course the trial would have been a major media event given the events that this man planned. Again because it is difficult does not mean that you drop your ideals and values and lower yourself to the level of the terrorists that you are fighting.

The average American voter is not going to be judging Obama too harshly for the action taken, in the end that's all that matters to a political leader.

gandalf wrote: »

No the only question here is could he have been taken alive. It is quite obvious now that answer is yes. Again if you believe one of the narratives out in the wild now he was captured and then killed.

No the only question is what benefits America.

Liam Byrne · 05-05-2011 08:21AM

hmmm wrote: »

Who doesn't believe OBL is dead? A bunch of conspiracy forum types who are given to fantasies

Interesting stance.

Completely dismissing and generalising in relation to people who request proof versus known liars prone to starting illegal wars?

I don't recognise myself in your version of the description But I know which camp I'd prefer to be in.

Eliot Rosewater · 05-05-2011 09:02AM

sink wrote: »

Fairness is a subjective term, what one society on the whole deems fair, another will not, what one individual deems fair, another will not. Laws are made to fit the society not the other way round.

Fairness is subjective, but we're not talking about the laws themselves, we're talking about the context in which those laws operate. And I think it is easier to get a broad consensus on how one can make that context fair, subjective though it be.

I don't many people are annoyed that Bin Laden was actually killed. People are annoyed at the manner in which it was done - that the US President decided he should be killed, and so he was killed. I think most people who disagree with this killing would be happy if Bin Laden was caught and put in front of a court, convicted of murder and then executed. That would conform to the commonly held notion of equality before the law and due process.

If the US President decides Julian Assange should be killed for treason against America, will the supporters of the Bin Laden killing be supporting the Navy Seals parachuting into Assange's residence? If we deny Osama Bin Laden equality before the law, why not anyone else?

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments