i know i'm just another new guy here but come on guys, Jazz just had a big thing about talking shit to other members. if you want to go ahead and get kicked off of TFP, be my guest, but don't be surprised if it happens

after reading this

Administration Backs Off Tale Of Osama Bin Laden Using Wife As Human Shield | TPMMuckraker

if it is indeed true that bin laden wasnt armed, should the military have taken him alive? and if so, should they have read him his miranda rights?

i know we've touched on this topic a while back, but in light of these new events, i thought id bring this up again.

You know, the Geneva Convention states that captured non-war combatants must be given procedural protections (hence the establishment of military tribunals). Now, whether those procedural protections necessarily entail miranda is another question, especially when you consider the extra-territoriality of the actions and the non-US citizen.

I think yes, the US should have tried to capture him--both for intelligence value and to show the world that the US still believes in justice, equality, rule of law yadda yadda. The end result would probably be the same though. A dead Osama. One would have probably just taken 14 years and 5 appeals.

But the US doesn't believe in justice, equality or rule of law. That's why so many folks are positively thrilled about that OBL died in the way that he did.

Yea...actually...if you take a look at the tons of 42 USC 1983 Federal Tort Claims Act suits brought against state actors....then, you may realize this government's rule of law is far stronger than other states.

Not to mention, other countries are fully exploiting weaker countries too. (I.e. China and Africa, and squalid working conditions, shoddy workmanship, bribery, etc.)

which is why it takes so long to prosecute anyone in this country right? if anything, i think that the US is overly concerned with doling out the perfect amount of justice to the point where a 10 year trial is worse than the sentence. it shouldn't be "well you broke the law.. uhmmm... 25 years!" but something closer to those lines than the current "check every book on law ever written before reaching a verdict" for the sake that making sure that the criminal can be punished with the closest approximation of justice (with actual deliberation, just not for years), in the shortest amount of time possible.
please go on, are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
isn't the US the country with (one of) the most cases of litigation in the world? if anything the rule of law in the US is sacred to all Americans if for nothing else, it gives them one more thing to sue over, but i think there's more to it that just raking in capital with lawsuits (...hopefully), people really do want justice to be done.

Well, except for the precedent set by Obama, whereby we "look forward" instead of look into all of the possible war crimes, including illegal domestic spying and torture, committed by previous administrations.


Really? You think that a nation whose prison population is heavily weighted by people guilty of the victimless crime of drug possession is one that is overly concerned with justice?

Is there anyone who actually believes that opportunity and success are doled out indiscriminately in the US? Even if the idea didn't defy decades worth of descriptive statistics, the most cursory thought experiment would reveal why the idealized notion of equality peddled in 9th grade civics textbooks is unattainable.

See admitted crimes of previous administration.

Also, most folks support the rule of law only when it comes to laws that don't adversely affect them. I don't think you'll find much support for the rule of law on the freeway, where typical speeds routinely exceed the legal speed limit. This is a microcosm of the average person's respect for the rule of law: laws are difficult to pay attention to if they aren't displayed in front of a backdrop of significant consequences.

i wasn't arguing over whether drug possession is legal or not filtherton, i was talking about the process of justice (gathering evidence, consulting previous related cases etc...). whether drug possession's criminal status is just or not is a discussion for another thread, another time.



uh yeah i'm pretty sure everyone who collects welfare is glad that the people who are very successful are being taxed so that they, the welfare collectors, are included in getting a slice of the money pie.

i'm not talking about communism dude, i'm talking about tightening (not to be confused with closing) the gap between the rich and the poor, the elite and the disenfranchised, coke and pepsi drinkers alike!



last i checked, speeding tickets are still issued by the hundreds of thousands every year. i dont know where you drive, but in rural south dakota, where the cops are very very very far and few in between, people dont drive more than 5 over the speed limit. maybe the problem isnt with the laws, but with the people who are breaking them

Alright Filtherton. Give me the specific statutes/treaties/articles and the manners in which the administration tortured people. Feel free to cite newspapers, and cases. Also make sure that the acts you cite are indeed torture, and prosecutable, punishable offenses.

TESTIFY!KirStang... TESTIFY!!!

...

i was talking about the whole demanding solid evidence part

this is funny. the trick is that bush administration officials constructed a definition of "harsh interrogation techniques" that are classified them as somehow not torture even though by any standard they are torture---but there's been no prosecution of any of these people for their actions---because of that whole "looking forward" thing---so there's been no legal frame established in the context of which the bush administration's (to my mind) bogus arguments have been demolished.

personally, i would like to see bush and rumsfeld and the yoo and adelman (is that his name? i can't remember) hauled up in front of the international war crimes tribunal. but that won't happen because in reality the only real war crime is losing a war.

and the united states lacks the ethics and/or "political will" to self-correct.

interesting developments. more reports coming out that osama wasnt armed.

Osama bin Laden unarmed when killed by US commandos, says White House | Courier Mail

im yet to read a report that said that bin laden or anyone inside that compound shot at the navy seals. is a firefight considered a firefight if only one side is shooting?

maybe some of the more knowledgeable guys here might shed some light, what are the US rules of engagement in this case?

this is something to consider, should you get all caught up in that fuck yeah thing:

How Osama bin Laden perverted US justice | Karen Greenberg | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

As a past poster said I am relieved but not particularly thrilled he is dead.

I find the whole buried at sea shit to be... weird at best. I cannot imagine having neither video or film.

I don't know personally what really went down in that house.

However, you don't have to shoot back to be a combatant.

There are many, many instances of high-level AQ guys and their bodyguards sleeping with suicide vests on, living in houses rigged with explosives (look up Tony Yost for an example), and other threats that may not present as a visible weapon.

When someone moves in an aggressive manner after being told to lay down and not move they will most likely get shot on a high-risk target.

The fact they did not kill everyone (or even most of the people) implies they were discriminating targets and not just blazing away.

slims---what do you think the deal is with the official story about this? why so many bizarre-o details? why so much moving around of them?

the decision to dump the body in the ocean is still excedingly strange. apparently no-one is buying the "respect for custom" line since he would have had to die aboard a ship for there to be such a custom.

my freezer malfunction joke seems more plausible by the day...

Okay, I guess that I mistakenly thought you were replying to the quoted text immediately above your musings about the "process of justice". I don't really see what your response about the "process of justice" has to do with anything I said.



We're all welfare collectors. Anyone who thinks that they haven't benefited immensely from the generosity of their fellow taxpayer isn't paying attention.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You know that driving 5 mph over the speed limit is against the law? The only reason people do it is because there is this idea that the police won't pull you over if you're only going 5 mph above the speed limit. This is the very definition of casual disrespect for the rule of law.


Well, I'm not going to look up and argue statutes with someone in law school. You win, dude, no contest. I do think that when it comes to bullshitting on the internet, I'm pretty good, so hear me out.

Here's what I know: The previous administration enacted a policy of extrajudicial torture. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet it's illegal. The previous administration enacted or ramped up the practice of extrajudicially exporting detainees to be tortured in other countries. Again, I'm no Johnnie Cochran, but I would probably get arrested if I tried doing the same thing. The previous administration tapped the wires of American citizens without getting the proper warrants. I don't have a statute to cite here, but I'd be willing to bet that it isn't legal.

I also know that the general attitude of Bush seemed to be that of "I don't give a damn about the law, I'll do whatever the hell I think I need to do to accomplish my policy goals." While there likely isn't anything illegal about having this attitude, one might expect such an outlook would be associated with a certain amount of active disrespect for the rule of law. Legal opinions may vary here.

Maybe you think Bush's administration didn't break the law at all, that he'd never engage or enact policies that were counter to the laws of our land. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I think that such a view is incomprehensible, but perhaps technically sound given the fact that the Bush administration seem to be able to find someone with a JD capable of formulating complex legal arguments to justify the legality everything they wanted to do. A given action can't be illegal if the lawyers at the justice department say it isn't illegal, right? Plus, it'd be nearly impossible to find a lawyer capable of coming up with convincing arguments in support of premises which aren't completely true ;) so there's no way people like John Yoo could be wrong.

But I guess when it comes down to it, Bush probably didn't do anything illegal. A person obviously hasn't broken any laws until they've been convicted of breaking those laws and it's impossible to be convicted of a crime if the people responsible for investigating and prosecuting that crime have decided that they aren't going to investigate anyt of the possibly criminal activities because they want to continue engaging in them.


edit: snarkiness was a part of my bullshitting on the internet paradigm. No disrespect was actually intended.

i was merely trying to steer the conversation away from drug possession (however the hell it even got to that)


my mistake i should've clarified. i was talking about the people who get unemployment benefits/checks, because i sure as hell don't.



equality



i suppose it depends on how you look at it. one could say "the limit is the limit! 1 over is breaking the law! CITATIONS FOR EVERYONE!!" (maybe i got a little carried away). on the other hand, one could notice "hey, they were going down a hill and they weren't trying to weave in and out of traffic like Vin Diesel or those other two nobodies from the F&F franchise, they were obviously sticking close to the speed limit enough to realize one was there and that they were obeying it". can we agree its a matter of perspective?

I understand the consternation about protocol and justice and what have you, but I also think that killing him was the right thing to do. We saw what kind of fiasco the trial of KSM has been (and continues to be); bin Laden would be that x1000. A bullet in the head helped avoid the biggest media circus in history

Drug possession hadn't been brought up yet. I was talking about your response in #46. Can you clarify what your response about justice had to do with anything that I said? Why did your response to my claim that the US lacked respect for justice so closely resemble the last half of a really lame Law and Order episode?


I'm lost. What does this (or odd, poorly constructed digs at welfare recipients) have to do with the US' lack of equal opportunity?

Well, you're somewhat cryptic. Why not just come out with what you're trying to get at instead of talking about communism or cola factions?


No. The speed limit is a pretty clear concept. You are either going over it or under it. This isn't as complicated as the definition of "is". I don't know that I would want someone to be driving if their ability to manage their speed was foiled by a hill.

find the first post where drug possession is mentioned. it seemed like discussion was going down a dark alley to get violently threadjacked.

i'm not poking fun of or trying to humiliate people who get the welfare check. i was illustrating the point that the welfare system is a form of... get ready to google these next three words... equality of outcome.

+1 for clinton reference. well i guess if we can't agree to the fact that its a "by individual" basis that people follow the law, then thats kind of proving the point isnt it? you see it one way and i see it another. its a matter of perspective

apologies for not using the quote feature, i dont want to type "/quote" anymore

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

but my bottom line is that the US does believe in justice, equality, and the rule of law (within reason)

LOL, within reason.....either they do, or they don't, none of this, when it's convienient tothem to believe in it......

I googled it. I had no idea it was a formal concept. I'm pretty sure that neither equality of outcome or equality of opportunity are a high priority for anyone with any amount of policy-making power.

Well, everything is a matter of perspective. However, that issue is entirely different than indifference to the law or overt contempt for the law. I think that most people have their own set of rules that they follow when the risk of legal consequences are small.

I'm sure that Moamar Qadafi also believes in justice, equality, and the rule of law ... *drumroll* ... within reason. As certain justice department lawyers have shown, reason is easy to come by when it comes to tossing out the type of rights and responsibilities Americans used to have cause to take for granted.

within reason, to me, means something that a cop can let you off with a warning on. none of this "johnny citizen" or "homocidal maniac" duality

There is the idealism behind justice, equality, and the rule of law, and then there is the practical and unavoidable reality.

The disparity between American idealism and American realities is a gap wide enough to sail the USS Carl Vinson through.

Quit beating around the bush and be a man, recon... tell us what you really think! ;)

Well, the cop can let you off for whatever s/he wants. They have a lot of discretion. In larger terms, this is exactly what happened when Obama decided he wanted to be "forward thinking" with respect to the possible crimes of the previous administration. He used his capacity for reason to come to the conclusion that crime or not, he wasn't going to do anything about any potential criminal acts.

We also use the reason card to completely toss out notions of the rule of law, justice and equality when it comes to dealing with various dictators around the world.

I think the official story is changing because our relationship with Pakistan is changing....Quickly.

I think we straight up went in and killed Osama on a Pakistani Army Cantonment area, in a compound built by ISI deliberately to hide him. The direct implication is that the Pakistani Government supported, sheltered and hid Osama for years while accepting huge sums of money from the United States to 'look for him'. UBL was not inactive, just marginalized due to the necessity to maintain a degree of separation from his organization, so if what I wrote above turns out to be true then the PK government was also allowing him to control Al Qaeda operations... That may very well turn the American public so far against PK that we pull all our support and aid money.

President Obama is nothing if not political, so he very well may have initially shaped the narrative in a more positive light for Pakistan in the hopes that they would accept it as both a warning and an olive branch. The story that initially came out would have allowed PK to save face publicly, kept the US population from becoming enraged, and would have been private leverage for the president to hold over Pakistan in order to push for actual cooperation.

It seems we have released more and more information roughly synchronized with Pakistani government statements. The more the PK government backs away from the raid and condemns it the more we publish regarding PK's complete lack of cooperation in the raid, the fact that they have repeatedly burned CT targets when information was shared in the past, and some choice details such as the fact that the house was actually on the grounds of the military cantonment....

There is, I am sure another factor at work here that has nothing to do with politics but rather the confusion that always happens in a fight. It takes time to sort through the details of exactly what happened. The guys on the ground involved in the action will often remember bits and pieces with big gaps or chronological errors. It is normal for the initial situation reports that are sent up from the objective to be incomplete or wildly inaccurate. It is not anyones intention to get things wrong, but shit happens when adrenaline is up.

Then during the debriefings it probably became clear that some of the initial impressions were inaccurate and we began backing away from the unintentional mis-truths.

I think it was a genius move to bury the body at sea.... It solves many of the problems that would have accompanied any burial. It prevents a spot on the ground from becoming a 'shrine' to that ideology, removes the liability and continuing expenses that would be incurred by any country that hosted his body, and got rid of him before huge riots, etc. could be organized.

I think what we meant by handled in the Muslim tradition is that a Mullah was allowed to give a prayer, the body was cleaned, and the burial took place within 24 hours of the death...That is enough to prevent widespread accusations of impropriety a-la Pershing.

thanks for this, slims.
fascinating account...miles from the domestic framing.

it is interesting the extent to which pakistan as a more-or-less live theater is not central in the presentation of afghanistan. there seems to have been a decision that it's ok to allow the media-image of drift into a kind of busy incoherence, to not have a center. i assume that follows from another decision to basically not try to sell the war. i think the assumption is that the war is simply a fact and has been adequately framed as necessary. but i'm not sure about that.

have to do some stuff...perhaps more later.

This is why I love this forum. So many very good and diverse viewpoints.

Anyway, I thought I'd add more fuel to the fire. Woke up this morning and saw this headline:

New U.S. Account Says Bin Laden Was Unarmed During Raid - NYTimes.com

As Dlish was saying, Osama may have been unarmed when he was shot. I'm sure as Slims stated, this doesn't make him not a threat, but it makes the whole thing less clear cut.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

I also hope the data recovered from his compound leads to the further weakening of Al Qaeda.

I don't believe anything about this Osama assasination. This guy actually worked with Osama during the Soviet war and says he died in 2001. He served as deputy secretary of state under 3 administrations and still works for the Department of Defense today. I'd say he's credible.

Remember the Pat Tillman lies? Remember the WMD lies? Remember how they said we don't torture then we find out that we do torture? Remember how many times the number 2 al qaida guy was killed? Remember Tom Ridge admitting he raised the terror threat level to improve poll numbers?

We can trust NOTHING they say about this war on terror. It's all built on lies.

In evaluating the responses to the death announcement (if not death) of bin Laden, consider the differences between the America many of us knew and post-9/11 America, including the observation below:

Sports, Osama, and the new normal - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

i have thought the use of sports to build consent for this travesty to be utterly nauseating. and even worse than the sportscasters who broke the infotainment were the officially sanctioned moments of maudlin jingo shit that preceded sporty events the next night. made me wonder if there was some kind of co-ordination, since it did not appear one could escape the self-congratulatory horseshit. blech.

but that's not a sickening as the attempt from former bush people to use this to justify torture.

After trawling through this I cannot help but notice No one has posted that if YOU were the Soldier and after months of DANGEROUS covert operations..That if you finnaly..(And i say finally because they didn't catch a taxi there and were escorted in by a bell boy) You got into a room with numerous people,and lets be fair were never more that 6" away from a firearm ... I know I would have just scattered that room!!! Who the hell wants to be remebered as they guy who NEARLY killed OSL but ...ooo bad show old boy better luck .....NEVER!!!!

This probably shouldn't come as any surprise:
White House Won't Release Bin Laden Death Pic | New York Daily News

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

If terrorism isn't met with jingoism in equal measure, it would make it appear terrorism is winning. We wouldn't want to make it appear that terrorism is winning. It's bad enough that it actually is.

Weren't we just talking about that justice, equality, and rule of law thing somewhere?

Assuming all of these conditions are correct and nothing is incorrect, you are probably but not definitely right.

Thought I Might be LOL

Celebrating Death? Merkel Comments on Bin Laden Killing Draw Criticism - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

apparently even a suggestion of american-style flinstone gloating is enough to cause controversy in germany...

Yeah but if OBL had been Jewish...

Sorry couldn't stop myself.