The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #137528   Message #3149348
Posted By: Don Firth
06-May-11 - 02:51 PM
Thread Name: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
"There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorities, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis."

Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights" going through the Shannon airport are transporting uncharged prisoners for the purpose of "special rendition?" Do they have some special insignia that identifies them as such? I'm sorry, but I don't think the CIA is quite that stupid. So. How do you know?

"The arrest of bin Laden, a trial and sentence would have been 100 times more impressive to the rest of the world that the bloody act of vengeance which took place, and would not have caused the antagonism that has arisen over the hasty execution of a murderous terrorist."

This, as I understand it, was considered, but what was also considered was the likelihood of hostage-taking during the incarceration and trial period, along with threats of massive terrorist attacks if bin Laden was found guilty. The people who planned this operation are not as bloodthirsty and stupid as you apparently prefer to think.

And as to that "bloody act of vengeance," as you choose to characterize it. There are vast numbers of people in the world, most especially the families of the innocent people murdered by terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden who characterize it as an "act of justice." You show a great deal of sympathy for the murderer and no regard whatsoever for his victims and their families.

Even according to Sharia Law, bin Laden deserved his fate. In fact, he had long since had a Fatwa issued against him. (I heard that on the radio this morning in an interview with an Imam.)

". . . a country with a bad human rights record. . . ."

That is a really ignorant statement, Jim. If you really believe that, you just haven't been paying attention. One of the major thrusts of both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States has been toward the principle stated in the very opening sentence of the U. S. Constitution about "inalienable rights." And the idea that these inalienable rights belong to everyone, whether the government they live under recognizes them or not.

But those "inalienable rights" do not include a "right to commit mass murder on innocent noncombatants."

". . . if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned. . . ."

America did. The Pakistani government had offered full cooperation in the search for bin Laden. Whether they actually were cooperating is another question, but considering the fact that they offered this cooperation, they are hardly in a position to protest.

AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture. What is your evidence for this?

There are a variety of methods by which he could be located that would not involve anything of this nature. Some of which are pretty exotic and don't infringe on anyone's rights.

"Yank bashing." That about sums it up.

Don Firth