BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 11 - 05:14 PM

Don, thank you for that post. I feel it rather echoes what I have seaid, although I have no interest in US domestic law which may not run outside its borders.

Keith, I am reasonably confident that I have nowhere on this thread confused law with justice. If I have I would wish to correct such an impression. Your view on UK law is flawed. It turns first on having lawful authority (a still slightly moot point here) and second reasonable cause (a very moot point here) and is not a matter of international law nor relevant when there is an issue as to the existence of a state of war or a combatant role or otherwise. Few people wish to defend the met's barber shop (doing Brazilians for nothing) and while I am not inclined to rush to judgement on that issue I am concerned at your continued advocacy of shoot on sight and to kill policies.

No, I have not been on the Libya thread. It is increasingly obvious that illegal regime change was the be-all and end-all of the US NATO and UK (etc) operation. The operation was excused by a false assertion as to what Gadaffi threatened. It was very arguably ultra vires NATO or the UN. The attack on CG's family was transparently in terrorem.

My concern is to make it plain that the fact that the US has at present the biggest guns does not give it the lawful right to rule the world, nor to kill people outwith its jurisdiction. As Bob Dylan said "If God's on our side, then we'll start the next war". Invade my country, USA, and I will be in the hills as long as my legs can carry me. You do not rule the world, and the rest of the world will oppose you.


By the way - Gaddafi and ObL were both nasty shits. But I'd rather they lived than that the USA might claim precedent to assert that it could invade the UK or without UK due process kill people in the UK.

Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:31 PM

Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults. His stuff on the music threads is pretty good. On the basis of that, I really thought better of him.

Just got this in my e-mail this morning. It's a bit long, but I think it's well worth reading and some people might actually learn something by doing so and thinking a bit about what it says. Nobody knows anywhere near as much as they think they do, and they're basing their attacks on their own prejudices rather than any actual knowledge.

So why don't you read it, then shut up until you actually KNOW something?

Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Legal?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on May 11, 2011, Printed on May 12, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150911/was_the_killing_of_osama_bin_laden_legal

A notably vitriolic debate has broken out in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Prominent progressives including Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have all questioned whether the al Qaeda leader could have been taken alive, and, if the order was given to kill him, whether that would be a legal action. They have, in turn, been pilloried to varying degrees by most of the liberal establishment.

It's a debate that has generated lots of heat but yielded little light on the subject – an almost religious dispute between people who have formed unyielding views based largely on their own emotional responses to the raid.

The discussion has been marked by two fundamental flaws. First, we don't know precisely what occurred in the final moments of Osama bin Laden's life in that compound, and the details are crucially important – absolutely necessary, in fact – for determining the legality of the raid.

Second, there's been a lot of cross-talk because what we consider to be "legal" arises from various sources of law, and we've been treated to a mish-mash of assertions about the raid drawing on various aspects of that canon without much attention to how they overlap, and in some cases, conflict.

What Do We Actually Know?

All other considerations aside, if Osama bin Laden attempted to surrender and was shot down, then it is an open-and-shut case: even in war, protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the killing of anyone who is hors de combat (out of the fight), attempting to surrender. Similarly, a strong argument can be made that the U.S. was acting within the law in apprehending the al Qaeda founder, and if bin Laden had resisted that assault force in any way, his killing would have been an equally clear case of self-defense.

According to the administration's account, the SEAL team encountered no resistance once inside the building where bin Laden was located. There, they encountered a 64-year-old suffering from renal failure, clad in pajamas, and killed him.

The administration says that bin Laden either lunged for a weapon or retreated into a bedroom. Bin Laden's daughter claims he was taken alive and then executed. Neither claim is backed by any hard evidence, and both the administration and survivors of the raid have a vested interest in portraying events in a certain light. In the end, a small number of Navy SEALs, bin Laden's youngest wife, now in Pakistani custody, and a handful of senior military and administration officials know precisely what transpired.

It is likely that historians, rather than journalists, will provide the information necessary to defintively judge this question. Classified information is eventually declassified, people retire and recount their exploits, and eventually, even the most sensitive state secrets are laid bare. But so far, accepting that a given narrative is indisputably true is an act of faith, not reason.

That hasn't stopped people from confidently drawing conclusions based on what they believe happened in Abbottabad. So, legal scholar Marjorie Cohn wrote of the "targeted assassination" of Osama bin Laden, based on the assumption that those SEALs were ordered to kill him on sight:

Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.

Cohn has no idea that bin Laden didn't go for a weapon when confronted by those special forces operators, but writes as if that is an established fact.

Similarly, the American Prospect's Adam Serwer penned a piece (responding to a post by Salon's Glenn Greenwald) titled, "Killing Osama bin Laden Was Legal," in which he cites international and domestic law to argue that it was a slam-dunk case. But his argument falls apart on one key sentence: "Killing bin Laden was legal based on what we know now." But we don't know anything now; a more accurate statement would be that it was legal "based on what we've been told."

What Do You Mean by Legal?

The other major problem with the debate is that people are throwing around assertions about what is and isn't legal without reference to the framework on which they're relying. Depending on which source of law one relies on, it's easy to come to dramatically different conclusions.

Natural Law

As an American and a New Yorker who grew up in the shadow of the World Trade Center, I am, despite some qualms, quite pleased that the U.S. was able to finally get bin Laden. That's the mainstream view; 80 percent of the American public has no problem with shooting bin Laden in the face.

Whether they know it or not, they are applying natural law to this question. Wikipedia defines it as "the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning 'man-made law'....) of a given political community, society, or nation-state...."

Those who claim that killing bin Laden was indisputably legal would be better served relying on natural law to make their case. It is difficult to argue that it was not justified on those terms. Unless you believe Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with dastardly acts of terror – and that's not limited to those perpetrated on September 11, 2001 – then he clearly "had it coming." The righteousness of the killing perceived by the overwhelming number of Americans is not wrong, but it may not be justified by positive law – the laws of nation-states.

Domestic Law

As far as domestic laws go, the raid – and the possible assassination of bin Laden – also appear to be legal. But here again, it is not an open-and-shut case.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) gives the president wide authority to pursue terrorists associated with Al Qaeda to the far ends of the earth.

It gives the executive branch power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

But AUMF doesn't end the debate. It authorizes "appropriate" force, and more importantly, the Supreme Court has pushed back, to a limited degree, on the blanket powers it confers. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the court denied the Bush administration's assertion that AUMF allowed the president to detain U.S. citizens without due process.

Whether it in fact allows the assassination of foreign nationals residing in allied territory hasn't been tested in a court of law. Executive order #12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, states that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination," but doesn't define the term "assassination."

International Law

Noam Chomsky wrote that "it's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged toward them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial."

Adam Serwer took to Twitter to mock Chomsky, claiming the phrase, "'established norms of international law'... is word salad for 'I have no argument'." But that's a misunderstanding of international law. There is no global government passing a discrete, enforceable civil code – international law consists of commonly accepted norms of international behavior and a hodgepodge of treaties. There are limited institutions enforcing it, and then under limited circumstances.

Not all of those sources of international law carry the same weight. Serwer puts a lot of emphasis on "U.N. Resolution 1368, passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, [which] explicitly supports 'all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001'," but UN resolutions do not in any way exempt a nation state from its treaty obligations. A UN security council resolution cannot be taken as an authorization to ignore the Geneva conventions, for example; clearly, "all necessary means" doesn't include genocide or crimes against humanity.

Ultimately, the nebulous nature of international law lends a lot of noise to the debate. Chomsky and Serwer are simply making arguments on very different terms.

Where International and Domestic Law Overlap

According to the United States Constitution, a treaty, once ratified by Congress, is second only to the Constitution itself in the hierarchy of the law. Congress can withdraw from a treaty, but failing that, it cannot pass simple legislation overriding our treaty commitments.

That's the law of the land, and it is an important point. In any instance where AUMF conflicts with those treaties – including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions and the UN charter – our treaty commitments prevail.

As I mentioned above, protocol 1 of the Geneva convention prohibits the use of force against individuals who are "out of the fight," regardless of whether AUMF authorized such an action. The Hague Convention states that "the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and makes it illegal for states "to declare that no quarter will be given," or to "kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered." Parties to the convention are also prohibited from declaring, "abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party."

Some have claimed that ordering bin Laden killed – again, a fact that hasn't been established – would be legal under Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which grants states broad leeway to act in self-defense. The problem with that assertion is that the UN Charter is a treaty governing the actions of nation-states, and al Qaeda is a non-state entity; the assault took place not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. Article 2 says that member states, "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

This is where things get shaky: Article 2, section 7, leaves some wiggle room, stating, "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures" outlined in Article 51.

A common argument is that Pakistan proved unwilling or unable to apprehend bin Laden, having "sheltered" him for all these years. There are three problems with that claim. First, it hasn't been established as fact. It is widely assumed (by this writer as well) that the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad, but it is not uncommon for wanted fugitives to evade capture. Second, al Qaeda big-wigs including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, Musaad Aruchi, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani and Abu Faraj al-Libi were all captured in Pakistan, by Pakistani forces, using intelligence and law enforcement developed in partnership with the U.S. Finally, the principle of state sovereignty outlined in the UN charter does not come with a caveat reading, "unless you don't trust a government."

The Laws of War

This is where things get especially murky, and notably subjective. It is obviously the case that the language of war has been used to frame the fight against international terrorism – it's been called a "war on terror" after all. And many commenters have drawn parallels between ordering bin Laden killed and the targeting of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II.

But war is a conflict between nation-states, and there is significant debate about whether this war is a legal or rhetorical one. We have also declared a "war on drugs," and a "war on poverty," but nobody seriously maintains that those labels give the government the right to employ the laws of warfare in executing those campaigns.

Yamamoto was the commander of hostile forces, but it's unclear whether Osama bin Laden retained any operational control over al Qaeda fighters at the time of his death. It would not have been legal for the U.S. to kill Yamamoto after his retirement.

We don't necessarily need to be at war, however, for the killing to pass muster. In 1989, Defense Department lawyers issued a memo on the use of force against individuals, concluding that the "overt use of military force against legitimate targets in time of war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to United States citizens or the national security of the United States, as determined by competent authority, does not constitute assassination or conspiracy to engage in assassination, and would not be prohibited by the proscription in EO 12333 or by international law."

But this assumes that bin Laden posed "an immediate threat" to the U.S., another fact that hasn't been established. It has long been believed that bin Laden, once in hiding, served as a figurehead rather than an active commander of hostile forces. Officials are now disputing that claim based on intelligence gathered at bin Laden's compound. Whether or not that's true is another important question.

So, what does this all mean? If the president did, in fact, order bin Laden killed, was it legal? According to natural law, yes. Otherwise, it's a question without a clear-cut answer – it requires a full and reliable set of facts. The devil is certainly in the details.

What's clear is that people on both sides of the debate have had an emotional reaction to bin Laden's death. They're embracing as fact whatever claims support their reactions, and selecting only those sources of law that lend credence to their previously held assumptions.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/150911/

I wonder how many people actually got this far. Some folks can't wait for the facts to come out. Fed by their biases, they feel impelled to start popping off right away. All heat. No light.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:30 PM

Considering all the torture techniques we have used in Abu Graib and secret cia prisons over the last 10 years I dare say that we have out done the Nazis. Much of what we did was not even for intelligence but to punish demean and destroy individuals.

I was a student of all the techinques used and most of them far exceeded the cruelty of our version of water torture now known as water boarding.

Shall we illuminate the uninitiated to the all the torture techniques we employed? Shall we list them here?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:12 PM

I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears."
Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!

You and Lox would not accept what Michael kept telling you, but you both also failed to produce any example as he kept requesting.
That is because it was and is a lie.

Obeying orders?
Under LOAC obeying unlawful orders is no defence.
And it is no offence to quote LOAC on here Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 03:16 PM

"As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread,"
And as most of the other contributors on that thread kept telling you, yes you did, and the fact that you keep raising the subject is an indication that you're quite proud of it.
"I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears."
Oh - come on - you made Henry Irving sound like a method actor - anybody can read your disgusting display; just go to the point where you gloated over finding even more raped children and follow your nose. I certainly have no intention of re-opening that slimeball of a thread, but it's there for anybody with a strong stomach to do so - 'Muslim Prejudice', you can tell it by the smell.
"It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage."
As I said, some of us have a life beyond the keyboard.
Gadaffi is facing a long overdue revolution, as are a number of African dictators. It was interesting that up to the point he started slaughtering non-combatants, the rebels insisted that there should be no outside interference. Gadaffi's son was killed as an outcome of the fighting, not a catch-all massacre, as the US had intended as their plan B.
"I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done"
"We were only obeying orders - heil whoever!"
I have to admit, you are consistent from thread-to-thread - your distaste for Pakistanis on the previous one and your disregard for their sovereignty here; your willingness to use raped children to get your racist message across and your indifference to the possible slaughter of women and children here.
"Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April."
Perhaps if you paid more attention to what you write rather than monitoring what others have to say, yoy wouldn't make yourself such a pillock.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:34 PM

(Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April.)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:03 PM

It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage.

It would be illegal to assassinate Gaddafi, so NATO denies trying, but there is little doubt that they are trying to kill him.

2 days after ObL was killed Gaddafi's compound was bombed.
His son and three grandchildren under 12 were killed.

Why no outrage?
Because Gaddafi had long ceased to be an enemy of the West?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:19 PM

Jim,
" peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line"

As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread, I never posted anything to justify that slur.
Neither did I express anything I did not feel.
I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears."

On this thread you have expressed far more concern for the unharmed children in the compound than you did for actual child victims.
I find that odd.

I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done and what you say was planned.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:39 PM

Jim Carroll: "How do you account for that Jim?
Reverse racism?"

I think there is a difference between being 'racists' and not liking assholes who fly planes into buildings, killing over 3000 people! Nope, the race thing is far too worn out, and is a VERY LAME subject to even broach. Frankly, maybe it used to work, to some degree, but now, naw..it shows people who can't address anything of substance.
If someone, criticizes the President, for his dumb agendas, some clown inadvertently jumps up and announces "Racism!!"..Its the convenient way of saying, "Hey you're right, but I'm too stupid and brain-locked to offer an intelligent rebuttal!"

So, let's keep the discussion more intelligent, and informative, OK? ..because there is some good stuff on here, not to detour it into simplistic bullshit!

That being said, I think Jim has offered stimulating posts in this thread.

GfS


..and at that, I'm done, for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:23 PM

"Jim, these children came to no harm."
The fact that the US was prepared to bomb the compound if bin Laden attempted to escape meant that they were prepared to carry out a pre-meditated massacre of non combatants (between 12 to 17 womwn and children)- the fact that you refuse to condemn or even address this means that you are prepared to support mass murder.
I've heard of people wrapping themselves in the flag to excuse the behaviour of their governments, but it's not often you come across somebody who wraps themself in another country's flag - well done that man!
"with the cold lack of concern that you showed..."
On the contrary, I was concerned that you did not use the abuse of children to peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line, and my contempt was for your gloating at having found even more examples to use for your racist message, followed closely by a disgusting amaturish hand-wringing display of crocodile tears when you were twigged.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:59 AM

Jim, these children came to no harm.
The emotion and outrage you express for them contrasts starkly with the cold lack of concern that you showed in recent weeks for the hundreds of English children, who suffered brutal gang raping, pimping, and in at least one case being literally butchered.

Indeed, you ridiculed me when I expressed human compassion for them.

How do you account for that Jim?
Reverse racism?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:34 AM

"Well, you sure could've fooled me!"
And now you now are reduced to theatrically using your own dead to excuse a stunt that is quite likely to create more 9/11s and kill more innocents in America and elsewhere - shame on you Don.
Somebody's fooled you - I think it's you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:21 AM

Or the Stockwell shooting.
In good faith, the police officers believed he was a combatant.
No crime.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:10 AM

Richard, a policeman shoots an armed man after all the correct warnings etc.
It transpires the weapon was a harmless replica.

I remember a case when the gun turned out to be a chair leg in a bag.
As long as the officer acted in good faith, he is OK.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:07 AM

Teribus: "Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it."


...unless you're a mega-global conglomerate corporation..then you make them your pet!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:48 AM

"Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun.

On occasion it very much does, on others people believe that it does ask the Taliban and those who support the view that they were ever the "legitimate" rulers of Afghanistan.

It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist.

Really? They (the terrorists) too adhere to their "principles" and their "laws" as they see them. Being involved in the legal profession you mistake law for justice, I can buy law to escape justice if I have enough money and the right connections (There have been numerous cases that demonstrate that the world over)

You seem to want to be a terrorist.

That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not?

Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:02 PM

700, GfS? I don't know whether congratulations or condolences are in order.

"DF, do you really not get it?"

Oh, I get it all right! I can recongnize a double standard when I see it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:39 PM

OHHH...and 700!

GfS

bye....

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:38 PM

Taking a quick break..can't stay long....

Don Firth: "P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it.

And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its—    Well, forget it! "

I was only referring to battling it out here, on the forum. Actually, I've played music with Brits, on occasion..and one well known British icon, not that very long ago!

Anyway, keep it going..yer' doin' good!

Teribus, also a good post....

gotta go..I just snuck out of the studio for a quick one...and, jeez..ended up here again!!

Regards All!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:51 PM

DF, do you really not get it? The fact (which I will take as so for the purpose of this post only) that some Islamists do not recognise international law has no bearing on whether the actions of the US were lawful under international law (considerable parts of which the US does not recognise either).

On cultural imperialism the US has widely and intentionally demanded legal changes, for its own purposes, in other jurisdictions. The threats about Australian copyright are well known, as are the machinations of the US computer giants in European directives and regulations, and WIPO and GATT. Its "long arm" jurisdictions are notorious. The UK/US extradition treaty is a very sore case in point, as is US refusal of reciprocal enforcement of UK judgments. I and many others resent this and do not trust the US with the power to interfere in other jurisdictions. Its tendency to do so appears to be increasing - while the UK's has decreased, is decreasing, and probably (if right wing twerps like Cameron get the chop) will continue to decrease.

Keith - necessity (if there was necessity) is not the same as legality. Further, I shall be most surprised if the belief that someone remains a combatant is equivalent to whether he actually is a combatant.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:50 PM

I rather liked this:

Well somebody is lying

Version 1:
According to various "witnesses" judged to be reliable by the Pakistani military (i.e. their own men) and totally believed by Pakistani politicians (Benizir Bhutto) Osama bin Laden died in the mountains of Tora Bora late 2001. No body was ever found presumably as it was buried beneath thousands of tons of rock. The report of this version was never confirmed or denied by Al-Qaeda primarily because it did not suit their purposes.

Version 2:
According to the current US Administration Osama bin Laden was killed during a raid mounted by US Special Forces on a compound in the Pakistani City of Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was shot and his body was removed from the scene samples having been taken for DNA analysis, his body was then hastily buried at sea.

Common thing with both Versions is that neither can be independently verified or confirmed. The clever thing about Version 2 is that it forces somebody from the other side to react and that reaction came in the form a statement announcing that Osama bin Laden was dead (PS: It does not matter whether he died in 2001 or 2011)

Now we come to "purpose & timing" - May 2011

1. It obviously helps Barack Obama's re-election campaign in that no Democrat is going to be stupid enough to run against the "Man who shot Liberty Valance", but that only helps selection, to ensure making Barack Obama a two-term President this should have happened in 12 months time.

2. Helps get Barack Obama out of a pickle with regard to troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. When he reluctantly and criminally belatedly agreed to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops Obama, to appease Joe Biden, slipped in a rather poorly and inaccurately reported time line, that those "surge" troops would begin to be withdrawn in July 2011. In real terms that means that Barack Obama could bring back one single soldier and honour his promise, unfortunately that is not what the "MEEDJA" think having entirely misrepresented what the President had said - They expect thousands to be withdrawn. Well now that Al-Qaeda have announced that Osama bin Laden is dead President Barack Obama can immediately withdraw from Afghanistan the 17,000 to 23,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan as part of US- Operation Enduring Freedom + 1 soldier "surged" into Afghanistan to serve the ISAF mission - And having done that Barack Obama becomes a "man-of-his-word" and a hero.

Reality:
- As far as Afghanistan goes Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been a total irrelevance since 2001;
- His death puts nobody any more at risk now than they were before or indeed at any time since 1970;
- It is in short a total non-event, about which nobody really gives a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:42 PM

"Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it."

9/11 cost us 67 dead.
The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism.
52 dead on 7/7.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM

Pakistan may be humiliated at not being informed, but the people within ISI who keep leaking the name of the CIA head would also leak the news of an attack.
ObL would have escaped again.
He was taken completely by surprise, secure in the belief there would be no attack without a warning from his friends in ISI.

Pakistan knew this and so agreed in advance that it should happen without their knowledge or consent.
They have expressed concern.
There could have been an incident.
There has been not rebuke, no change in relations, no diplomatic response, nothing.
They are grateful.
30 000 civilian dead and 5 000 military dead.
Grateful.

"military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination"
Your opinion Jim.
Does any government in the world share it.
List them please.
Not Pakistan obviously, or they would not be so glad he is dead as to call it "proper justice."
They clearly understand that it was necessary.
Are you better informed Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM

"Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists. . . ."

Well, you sure could've fooled me!

You and one or two others seem to totally disregard the young woman who stood there at a shattered window in the World Trade Center that morning and tried to decide whether she preferred to jump out and die when she struck the pavement forty stories below or stay there and burn to death. Or be crushed to death when the building collapsed—and the 3,000 plus other people she was with. Or the firemen who died trying to rescue people and fight an impossible holocaust at the same time. Or the families of those who died that morning, or later as a result of injuries or inhaling asbestos and other building materials released.

Not to mention the personnel in the various embassies around the world that bin Laden masterminded attacks on prior to 9/11.

What manner of justice did Osama bin Laden grant them?

Or, for that matter, the people whose deaths he would continue to mastermind had he NOT been taken out as he was?

Unworthy of me? I DON'T THINK SO!!

I was just stating what should be obvious to everyone!.

####

Apparently Hawaii was far too remote to be exploited by the European counties that tried. Portugal, England, France—and Russia, among others.

On February 10, 1843, Lord George Paulet, on the Royal Navy warship HMS Carysfort, entered Honolulu Harbor and demanded that King Kamehameha III cede the Hawaiian Islands to the British Crown. Under the guns of the frigate, Kamehameha stepped down under protest and surrendered to Paulet on February 25,

Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance, secretly sent envoys to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions. The protest was forwarded to Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, who arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin. Thomas repudiated Paulet's actions, and on July 31, 1843, restored the Hawaiian government.

The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar (from sugarcane) into the United States beginning in 1876. This promoted sugar plantation agriculture. In exchange, Hawaii ceded Pearl Harbor, including Ford Island (in Hawaiian, Moku'ume'ume), together with its shore for four or five miles back, free of cost to the U.S.

This treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawaii as a sovereign nation.

During the next decades, there were several internal squabbles and revolutions among would-be Hawaiian monarchs, until finally a group of European and American residents—and native Hawaiians—began the political machinations to become a territory and protectorate of the United States. This took some time, spanning a couple of presidential administrations, but eventually—and I point out that this action was initiated by Hawaiians themselves, NOT the American government—Hawaii was "annexed" as a United States territory and protectorate.

There were some—NOT Hawaiians, incidentally—that tried to claim that this was the United States venturing into "imperialism," despite the fact that, as I said, the move was requested by Hawaiians themselves, hoping that this would resolve the rash of internal disputes. Which it did.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act on March 18, 1959 which allowed for Hawaiian statehood. After a vote of over 93% in favor of statehood, it was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959, with a population of about 423,620 (85%) Americans, Asians, and Europeans, and 76,620 (15%) Native Hawaiians.

Colony? Nah, I don't think it was ever that.

Don Firth

P. S. Thanks for the question, gnu! In looking for the answer, I learned a bit!

P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it.

And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its—    Well, forget it!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:13 PM

Richard.
Was he a comabatant?
He had been.
He posed as such.
He had never announced a change of role.
Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant.
If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone.
The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:04 PM

Actually, this might be a good time to hold up on the nasty rhetoric. Understanding, would really clear a lot of this up. Shit, you guys keep this up, and the U.S. and Britain will be fighting again!
So far, I think the consensus is that it is great that OBL is dead...whether we all believe the 'reports' of the ever-changing details, and/or the back-peddling of the administration, to cover whatever they're trying to keep from looking worse than it is. On the other hand, it might have been anything from a clean, slick military operation, to a fiasco..who knows?..and even hiding that OBL might have been already dead, long ago. Its ALL out there! ANY information, that would be accurate, would only come from someone who was there....and that, I doubt, you'd ever find on the internet..or anywhere else.....and then, you'd still have to consider the source, whether it was from the SEALS, or from one of OBL's surviving witnesses! ..depending on their biases and PERCEPTION!!!

one thing I can rest on, is that my posts, have tried, impartially to best describe the actual conflict, between TWO warring world systems!

Oh well, Back to the studio..where the only conflict, is to get it right!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 04:24 PM

"declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!!"
And that's unworthy of you Don - unless you are referring to those supporting or excusing the use of torture and holding prisoners in concentration camps without charge.
Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists, but your government has handed them a huge propaganda victory on a plate, and you appear to be upholding that as some sort of a victory.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: gnu
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:59 PM

Don... "I don't think the United States has any "colonies.""

Iraq? Libya? Kuwait?... wait... you are correct... they are Brit colonies that the Yanks keep in line for the Brits, among others. Sorry. Of course, the technicalities are up for discussion... ad infinitum.

Hmmmm. On a less technical note... what about Hawaii?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:51 PM

"Not even Pakistan."
You keep repeting this and it keeps not being true - I too watched exerpts from the Prime Misister (my mistake) of Pakistan's speech (in impeccible English) and he certainly did object (as much as he could on behalf of a country who is dependent on Western aid - as has been pointed out and as you continue to ignore). The "proper justice" you quote was refrring to the killing of bin Laden, not the way it was done and certainly not excusing Pakistan being left out of the loop, humiliated, threatened with having a large number of its people running the risk of being massacred and its troops being in danger fired on by US forces.
The outing of the CIA chief in Pakistan was also an indication of Pakistani/US soured relations; this from this morning's Irish Times:
"In another sign of the soured relations between US and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the Americans have blamed Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) for "outing" the CIA station chief in Pakistan, presumably to demonstrate leverage over the US, and as an expression of anger over allegations that the ISI was complicit in bin Laden's presence in Pakistan.
The US station chief reportedly clashed bitterly with Lieut Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, over the detention of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis in January.
ISI officials, who allegedly keep some Pakistani journalists on their payroll, are believed to have given an approximate version of the name of the station chief to a private television station which broadcast it, and to the Nation newspaper, described by the New York Times as "supportive of the ISI".
The previous CIA station chief left Pakistan in December, after he was "outed" in the same manner. The new station chief reportedly played a key role in bin Laden's killing, by supervising the safe house in Abbottabad which spied on bin Laden's compound."
The US sent troops into Pakistan without consulting the govenment, it was prpared to kill a large number of Pakistani non combatants to prevent bib Laden from escaping, and the US troops were prepared exchange fire with Pakistani troops if they were fired upon - of course the Pakistanis were ******** well upset by the episode; who wouldn't be (except Keith, who says he is quite happy to let troops walk in and out of his country unmolested as long as they do it 'legally'.)
"but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets."
So the children were expendable - and those outside the compound quite likely to be injured and killed - assuming that you know the adults knew, of course - didn't read that bit anywhere).
"So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?"
We are objecting to the long term effects of a cowboy military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination, on the fight against terrorism.
I am also objecting to the fact that the US was prepared massacre a large number of uninvolved non- combatants had their plans gone awry and their target had attempted to escape (not fight back).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:47 PM

". . . unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony."

Pots and kettles, Richard?

I am a citizen of a country that used to be a British colony (until we decided we didn't want to be anymore;   "Bloody cheek!!"). You might try learning a little of your own history. For example, that fairly extended era in which the boast was "The sun never sets on the British Empire."

I don't think the United States has any "colonies."

Don Firth

P. S. Someone a few posts back used the phrase, "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers." I'm amazed at the people on this thread who have tacitly declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:21 PM

Richard: "...It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet..."

To the Islamist's view, Sharia law, is the aim of them, to be 'international law'. So how they view 'our' international law, has no bearing, as far as they are concerned,..and therefore ,the rub.

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:06 PM

It is not true that Pakistan has not objected. It voiced its deep concern. But it the intergovernmental agreement was still validly in force that is a red herring.

ASSUMING that someone is a combatant is not a valid logical step.

If the killing needed to be lawful under international law (which I assert it did need to be as otherwise there is anarchy and rule by might) then the distinction or otherwise made by Islamic law between on the one hand a politician or religious leader or on the other hand a combatant is not in point any more than US law. It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet.

My concern was and to some extent still is the potential for US hegemony to move into brute force domination. I require my fate to be determined by English law, not John Wayne cultural imperialism.

GFS, I am not sure you have got my drift - and alternatively I am not sure of your expertise on some things.

I think we see eye to eye on ObL's potential status as apostate.

If the present US accounts of the death are accurate, was that a battlefield death for Islamic purposes or not? The importance of the question is that apparently the ceremony carried out before the burial at sea was one that was not for a battlefield death - which in turn somewhat undermines the US justification for the shooting - but more importantly that it was incorrect in Islamic law should have been followed.   Civilised countries do not defile the bodies of their fallen opponents.

I am clear (from the internet) that Islam permits in some cases and in some ways burial at sea. Two questions follow.

First, was this a case in which Islamic law permitted burial at sea? If not, then as a matter of Islamic ritual there was a defilement.

Second, if Islamic law permitted this burial at sea, were the requirements - eg lowering on a rope, use of a clay vessel, attempts to circumvent predation etc - followed.

I suspect we need an Islamic scholar to examine these things if we want to know the answers. Some, I suspect, simply don't want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:02 PM

I'm outta this place...!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:49 PM

Ok, we cross-posted....

Lighter: "I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently."

OK, so you're saying that you enjoy being suicidal, and proud of it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:45 PM

Keith A of Hertford: "Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason."

Hamas was also castigated by OBL and he distanced himself from them, earlier on, because they had a falling out. (that, I believe was also in my link).

This is also just my opinion, but a 'reasonably educated one', (I think), but Iran is more of the influence to Hamas, and behind their protestations..more than Hamas, itself. I think Iran, has most of the power hungry influence, in the whole area...and from their standpoint, feel most justified. Now, using that justification, they are getting the whole area up in arms, more than any of the individual factions.
You would have to get acquainted more with the Shaw, overthrow, hostage situation, Iraq/Iran war, our participation, and Iran-Contra history, to see why...which is lengthy...but I have posted some inside stuff in previous posts, (a while back)..and its pretty clear.

The first time I heard of the details, and particulars, on the Iran/Contra affair, in 1986, from Daniel Sheehan, and the Christic Institute's, lawsuit, in Florida's Federal court,,...I actually cried for my country!

............................................................

Keith: "So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?"

I think they are finally asking the right questions, now.

I also hope there is a healing from all this.
Death and war, and our participation in all this, is a black eye for all of us!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:34 PM

I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently.

My last two posts state my position without irony.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:57 PM

Was he a combatant?
US assumed he was and that was a reasonable assumption.
He had been a combatant, had paraded himself as a combatant, and no change of role had been announced.
The incursion was legal.
The killing was legal (unless he actually surrendered in time.)
Not one innocent bystander was hurt.
Not one of the children was hurt.
Pakistan did not object.
No government except Hamas has raised any objection.
UN has raised no objection.
No demos in any country except Pakistan, and very low key there.

So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?
The nationality of the SEALS?
The end of an enemy of the West?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:47 PM

"sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". "

Not one government has criticised the US.
Not even Pakistan.
Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason.

"The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday"

The President has not even bothered to make a speech about it.
It was the Prime Minister, who was not at all angry (I watched it all. It was obligingly made in English!).
He said it was "proper justice"

Had the compound been bombed, it would have been a tragedy for the children present, but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:40 PM

Cool, Richard!!! You're making a lot more sense now.
So I'll help you out, with some of your questions.

We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time.

Islam (especially the radicals), make NO distinction between political and religious, combining the two into one. There is a link that I provided, that shows that, with NUMEROUS sources, in the bibliography!!
......................................................................

The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains.

TRUE!!! (Who do you trust these days??)

.....................................................................
A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points.

First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back.

TRUE! (In the links that I provided, it shows the Islamist grounds for 'excommunication'..which, BTW, can also carry a death sentence, and that is why the world of Islam is yet divided about his death! Radicals either dismiss him, for that reason, OR use him as a symbol to justify more of their deal. Moderates, dismiss him, because he has brought war to them, and on them as well! So, its mixed, depending on what faction re-acts.

....................................................................

Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect).

Again, the death reports are, at best, not fully given, and what we DO have, is just the administrations accounts..which many people doubt, even claiming he was dead a long time ago!..Who knows?

.....................................................................

Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea?

According to Islam, the dead are supposed to be buried with their head pointed east, toward Mecca. ...Personal note: Hopefully with enough currents, it gets to do that a few times..perhaps!


....................................................................

Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators?

the 'reported' story, was, and is also true, about burials at sea, is that he would have been placed in a weighted 'bag'(f you will), and lowered. I imagine, coming off the deck of an aircraft carrier, the 'lowering' still would have made a bit of a splash...(but that is speculatory..but is also the common practice at sea.

......................................................................



Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk.

I'm sure they did...remember, that there was a 'story' that had to be cooked up, for public consumption..The amount of truth in the released story, may be questioned, for years to come
......................................................................


Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law?

We usually request our fallen to be returned, but not all the time, as one can see on the hills above Normandy.

......................................................................

I hope these answers, which you can research, help you out.
Try the link on one of my previous posts.

I also hope, that you can remain open, about all this. Frankly, its a huge cluster-fuck!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:29 PM

Dear Terry

I suggest you audition immediately for a part in "Gunsmoke". Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun.

It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist.

You seem to want to be a terrorist.

That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:24 PM

Well kids .... the photos are now making there way through the vast WWW ..... appears OBL is in the water.

Sea Hunt with Osama

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:24 PM

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." - Osama bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa

So much for due process of law for any man, woman or child anywhere in the world who any fanatic could classify as satisfying the criteria set out above by Mr bin Laden. The phrase then comes to mind, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander".

It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man.

Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:13 PM

Lighter, it seems you've changed you perspective, a little...cool!
It seems that your post left out the 'reported' story, that multiple SEALS opened fire on him, hitting him numerous times. I think that was the order. The medical teams were probably their for the SEALS, should any of them become wounded. That makes more sense.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:07 PM

I'm starting to feel intrigued about the death rites.

We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time.

The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains.


A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points.

First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back.

Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect).

Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea?

Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators?



Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk.


Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:50 PM

Prevaricator?

Straw men?   

If the categories don't fit, Jim, it's reasonable to assume that I was talking about someone else.

In any case, I think my position is clear: the United States did what it had to do, and with the minimum of violence possible.

In an ideal world, perhaps, where nothing goes wrong and all decisions are perfect, Bin Laden would have been arrested and tried -if terrorism even existed in such a world. The legal and medical teams readied by the U.S. show that it had prepared for just that possibility - which casts doubt on the idea that the SEALs had absolute orders to shoot to kill. In the judgment of the shooter, who was there, the only way to complete the mission was to kill Bin Laden. I'd think your argument is with him rather than with the United States.

And I believe that the good fath of the SEALs is beyond question. Why? Because they reported that Bin Laden was not holding a gun. It would have simplified everything if they'd just lied and said he'd been armed or even fired at them. Who could prove otherwise? As honorable men, they didn't.

Beyond all else, Bin Laden's own history and creed imply that, faced with enemy soldiers, he would choose martyrdom rather than surrender.

I can't see that it makes sense to blame anyone for that.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:35 PM

OOps typo: 15th line, second paragraph should read,"Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family consults their Qur'an,.."

or even, "Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family there consults the Qur'an,.."

I screwed up the context of 'there' versus 'their'..

GfS

P.S. there's a couple of lesser ones, as well..but nobody understands anything I say, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:27 PM

Jim Carroll: ""Let's lay our cards on the table."
How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting."

Actually, Jim, that is a GOOD question, and does deserve a good answer!
If you've been reading my posts, I've addressed the question of laws, which is key here.

Let's play it out....OBL gets arrested, goes to trial..now the question is to what jurisdiction....if it is, lets say, international law, perhaps in the Hague, or even here, by either military tribunal, or even in New York, by a civil trial...this trial would last up to a couple of years, let's say at the outside, the radical Islamists would be screaming bloody murder, that it doesn't recognize that legal system, because they would feel that he should be tried under Sharia law. During the time period, of his incarceration, and publicity of how 'unfair' that would appear, I would think that would be reason for massive recruitment of radicals, using the argument, that the 'infidels' are ignoring their law, by superseding it, and during this whole time, the rhetoric, would escalate...and so would the terrorists activities, demanding his release. The sooner that the ordeal goes on, the more inflamed it gets..virtually consuming every waking moment of the 'news' cycles...The more 'news' the more of an issue, (sorta like on here, but far more dangerous). Also, the snuffing of OBL, gives Obama a 'reason' to crank up the rhetoric on withdrawing from places in the mid-east, because we simply cannot afford the war effort. Possibly the only funding we might get, would be from Saudi Arabia, of which I posted before, and alluded to more recently. Neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia could afford to run this a long time...after all, the Saudis are facing the same civil uprisings, that is sweeping the mid-east. A lengthy, inflammatory incarceration, and trial, would put them in a rather sticky wicket, with the population of Islamists, trying to find as many reasons, to get the populace behind them.
Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family their consults the Qur'an, when setting oil prices...nor do they 'share the wealth' either.
By the way, the answer to my question, (from a few of my posts back) that nobody dared to answer, was 'the Saudis'. They need us, for consuming their product, and for our military to protect them, and we need the oil...No brainer.
Personally I think we should be drilling our own oil and stimulate OUR economy..and I DON'T really think that the only thing preventing us from doing just that, are a bunch of whiny environmentalists! They are nothing but a ruse, to be used, as well.

Does that answer suffice?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 11:52 AM

Why did I select that issue!??
The whole post is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 11:50 AM

"Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world."

Hostages are easily taken.
Aid workers, NGO workers, journalists, etc.
There are many precedents.
Many can still be seen having their heads hacked off on the net.

Reprisal attacks?
They are already attacking as much as they can.
All they could do is bring forward an attack, making it less likely to succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 11:03 AM

"Let's lay our cards on the table."
How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting.
Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world.
The fact that the US were prepared to carry out a massacre of non-combatants, and have a shoot-out with Pakistani troops if things had not gone to plan will have sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday and the deliberate disiclosure aimed at damaging the work of the CIA were reflections of what is likely to come from other Middle Eastern countries at a time when their co-operation is vital.
Stop setting up your own straw men Lighter - there are far more alternatives than yours and one prevaricator is more than enough
Jim Carroll