Bin Laden is dead

[DutchJazzer]

be nice to have all the pertinent info laid out for examination by all - I'd love to know the details -

Not laid out to all just some people. for example some un officials or diplomats.

i would not care less if they put tje pictures on CNN or whatever.

 

[DutchJazzer]

So what type of "consipracies" are you hinting at? You seem to strongly believe that our government is hiding something.

If they were hiding something Im pretty sure Osama's wife would not still be alive to tell her version of the story. She was right there when he was killed. I also dont believe the SEALS knew it was Osama until he was dead. The events would have happened so fast theres no way they could.

The only mistakes the administration is being to vague. Obama had to release the news to the world before it started getting out. Also some people in the Administration were probably "speculating" on alot of the details. In a perfect world the adminstration could have waited a few days until they got a full report back from the SEALS.

Also we dont owe your country or any other anything.

lol conpsiracy.

i have no conspiracy just saying the way its been handled leaves the door open for questions.

 

[babe]

thats why i have my doubts. look i get it why you bury obl at sea Israel does it all the time (although a lot of people around me seem to questioning the burial at sea). but so fast after the incident,no pictures, no videos, no body to investigate.
all the conflicting reports. makes me question it all.
this is turning internationally in a PR nightmare for usa. people are starting to question it al.
now maybe some of you don't care what foreigners think. but still with al technology available no seal was outfitted with some night vision camera? no evidence whatsoever. now if this evidence exist shouldn't the at least release it in some united nations assembly to certain governments/ certain diplomats. or are they afraid of wikileaks?

it is just buried in to much secrecy.

Declaring wars with arbitrary/ideological enemies, such as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Terror" are nutjob wars in the first place. In the second place we didn't follow the Constitutiion in declaring the wars, just sort of gave the President a nod, and a bunch of money to spend, without defining who the enemy was, or how the war should be defined, is idiocy of the highest rank. If we had "probable cause" we could get a US judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. Then if we could seize him even in hostile territory and get him out and give him a trial, the "host" country could be intimidated at peril with good relations with the US or worldwide public opinion for harboring a heinous criminal fugitive.

Spending trillions of dollars on catching a few heinous criminals has gotta rank as the worst case of cost-effective law enforcement in our history. It's not worth turning our backs on principles like due process, and many other basic safeguards of human rights.

Like Bush giving permission to fly a planeload of Bin Laden relatives out of the USA just two days after 9/11, the decision to kill him and dump the body at sea really is a statement that US officials can't afford to let some people "talk".

 

[Beantown]

lol conpsiracy.

i have no conspiracy just saying the way its been handled leaves the door open for questions.

Because you didnt get to see a dead photo of Osama?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Because you didnt get to see a dead photo of Osama?

i'm not talking about "pics or it did not happen"

clearly you dont know what i mean.

 

[Beantown]

i'm not talking about "pics or it did not happen"

clearly you dont know what i mean.

Im asking what you think was handled so terribly for you to question our government?...How blunt do I have to be?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Im asking what you think was handled so terribly for you to question our government?...How blunt do I have to be?

i already told you that.

i wont question your government again cus it is perfect

 

[Beantown]

i already told you that.

i wont question your government again cus it is perfect

Ive never heard them, Ive only heard "what if" scenarios.

So tell me what was handled so bad......I will wait.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You keep going back to the same limited options. Either murder him or bomb the compound. That is seriously short-sighted. The option I would choose, in your poorly thought-out question, would be to have them complete their mission and bring him back alive. If they had him safely in custody then knelt him down and shot him in the head it is illegal. Period. No debate. That is where throwing ethics and laws out the window come in to play. If they simply executed him while he was in custody, then that is just throwing the laws we have agreed to out the window.

The alternative if they had him in custody was to bring him back as Obama said their mission entailed.

You keep saying that even if they knelt him down and shot him in the head that the ONLY ALTERNATIVE was to bomb the place. I call ********. IF they had him in custody and were in a position to choose whether or not to execute him, they had plenty of options. Bringing him to justice, as was their mission as outlined by Obama, was just one of those options.

Man, whatever happened happened. Whether he was killed in a firefight, or put on his knees- whatever happened happened. That is how the raid on the compound turned out.

So in your what if scenario, lets say he was put on his knees and shot in the head. That was either due to the Navy Seal being pumped up and out of control, or due to following orders to do that.

So what were the options- not send in Navy Seals because they will be too pumped up and kill him anyway? Send in less skilled soldiers that might not be successful in the mission but would probably not put him on his knees if they get to him?

And if the order came from the top, then there was no alternative, this WAS the mission.

And the only alternative to this, is not doing the raid at all. and in that case, the administration was clear the only alternative was bombing the place and killing everyone.

Your "bring him in alive" was not an option. The only possible way that could happen is in the raid, which they did, and he did not get taken alive.

By the way, read Obama's interview on CBS from last night. At one point Obama flat out says that the one part of the mission he didn't lose any sleep over was the possibility of Bin laden getting killed. he then goes on to say that justice was served, and anyone questioning that needs to have their head examined.

His comments only further strengthen my point that technically they wanted him dead or alive, but they by far preferred the dead option. They didn't send in the best Navy SEAL team to serve an arrest warrant.

And I have absolutely no problem with that. I actually applaud Obama for it.

 

[DutchJazzer]

So in your what if scenario, lets say he was put on his knees and shot in the head. That was either due to the Navy Seal being pumped up and out of control, or due to following orders to do that.

the problem is that is not JUSTICE

 

[Scat]

the problem is that is not JUSTICE

He got exactly what he deserved. THAT is justice.

 

[One Brow]

Obama: What are the options?
Adviser # 1: We can probably get him alive if we get lucky and catch them totally off guard.
Obama: Then what do we do with him?
Adviser # 2: We could hold him on a sub somewhere and extract whatever intel he gives us, and then put him on trial under a military court on the sub.
Obama: I can't really do that after I campaigned against it. Plus the pressure from the rest of the world would be pretty great to give him a normal trial, and the red cross would entitled to inspections.

1) Obama has already agreed to military trials, why would it be different for Osama?
2) The Red Cross hasn't been in to see PFC Manning, but has to be let in to see Osama? I think not.
3) I think highly enough of this country that we could have managed to secure Osama.
4) If they can disregard the laws when dealing with Osama, why should they follow the laws in dealing with you?

 

[One Brow]

Man, whatever happened happened. Whether he was killed in a firefight, or put on his knees- whatever happened happened. That is how the raid on the compound turned out.

So in your what if scenario, lets say he was put on his knees and shot in the head. That was either due to the Navy Seal being pumped up and out of control, or due to following orders to do that.

If he was put on his knees, it was illegal. If a SEAL was out of control, he should be tried for it. Not that complicated.

 

[babe]

1) Obama has already agreed to military trials, why would it be different for Osama?
2) The Red Cross hasn't been in to see PFC Manning, but has to be let in to see Osama? I think not.
3) I think highly enough of this country that we could have managed to secure Osama.
4) If they can disregard the laws when dealing with Osama, why should they follow the laws in dealing with you?

This is what every government action outside of Constitutional provisions comes down to. A declaration of war against a defined enemy acting overtly to destroy our principled government by our congress places us on a war footing in dealing with that enemy.

We shouldn't delude ourselves when an organization can build a "fort" or "headquarters" on another nation's soil and we can't trust officials of that nation with either the ability or the will to act "on our side" that it is our ally. What it means in respect to Pakistan is that significant government and/or military people are not our allies.

Even in a declared war, we should take prisoners in preference to just killing them as a matter of self-defining principle. Failure to do that, because of not being committed to the human values that underlie our constitutional principles, is an unacceptable degradation of our principles.

 

[PearlWatson]

Im asking what you think was handled so terribly for you to question our government?...How blunt do I have to be?

For me it was that they released the picture of the Obama Regime supposedly watching it all go down, then Panetta said that the video was blank for 25-30 minutes. Then Hillary says it was the most intense 38 minutes of her life, then she says putting her hand over her mouth like she was in shock was just because of her allergies. It doesn't add up.

 

[SaltyDawg]

the problem is that is not JUSTICE

Yes, that absolutely is justice to the vast majority of Americans.

1) Obama has already agreed to military trials, why would it be different for Osama?
2) The Red Cross hasn't been in to see PFC Manning, but has to be let in to see Osama? I think not.
3) I think highly enough of this country that we could have managed to secure Osama.
4) If they can disregard the laws when dealing with Osama, why should they follow the laws in dealing with you?

1: What is the point of a sham of a military trial that nobody is allowed into? Do you expect them to spill all their intel secrets for the entire world? The trial would be a sham. Why bother? Would it make you feel better if they said they held a 30 second trial on the battlefield before they executed him? because the "trial" he received would not be any better than that. It would be a secret trial, with only the top military people allowed in, with no information being released.
2: Manning is not a POW captured in battle.
3: We could have secured him, sure, but it still would have given the terrorists something to rally behind. As it stands now we followed Islamic law in dealing with Bin Laden. That's a far cry from holding him in some secret location, probably torturing him, giving him a top secret sham of a trial where he has absolutely no chance to win, and eventually announcing he was found guilty and given the death penalty.
4: The better question is, if they can throw the laws out the window when dealing with me, then why should they bend over backwards to treat Bin Laden with kid gloves? The whole reason we have the Patriot act is because of him.

If he was put on his knees, it was illegal. If a SEAL was out of control, he should be tried for it. Not that complicated.

No, you don't do that. If you train a Seal to go at full speed 100% of the time, in order to make him the best of the best, you don't put him on trial when he does that. If this was just some average enemy soldier, then you might have a point. But this was Bin freaking Laden. He was going to die either way, so a soldier doing the deed he was trained to do should not be punished for it.

Plus, this is a top secret navy SEAL team So either you give him a sham of a top secret trial, or you expose all your secrets to the rest of the world. All for what? Because this guy did what he was trained to do? And 99% of Americans would have done the same thing?

No, that guy doesn't deserve a trial, and a trial would not be in the best interest of this country. The whole team deserves an award.

 

[One Brow]

1: What is the point of a sham of a military trial that nobody is allowed into?

Not responsive. The question was why Obama would not be able to give a military trial to Osama, since he is giving military trials to other terrorists. It was hyour scenario where Obama said a military trial was not doable because of campaign promises.

2: Manning is not a POW captured in battle.

That gives teh Red Cross less authority, somehow? Again, not relevant.

3: We could have secured him, sure, but it still would have given the terrorists something to rally behind.

Good think no one rallies behind martyrs. Oh, wait...

As it stands now we followed Islamic law in dealing with Bin Laden. That's a far cry from holding him in some secret location, probably torturing him, giving him a top secret sham of a trial where he has absolutely no chance to win, and eventually announcing he was found guilty and given the death penalty.

Which of those do you think violates the Islamic law we followed, to the degree that the difference is a "far cry"?

4: The better question is, if they can throw the laws out the window when dealing with me, then why should they bend over backwards to treat Bin Laden with kid gloves?

So, you feel it is acceptable for the police to throw the laws out the window when dealing with you?

No, you don't do that. If you train a Seal to go at full speed 100% of the time, in order to make him the best of the best, you don't put him on trial when he does that.

I agree, since part of that training is the proper use fo the techniques and weaponry he receives (at least, so I have been informed by people familiar with such training). Executing people would be breaking the training, not following it.

If this was just some average enemy soldier, then you might have a point. ...

Got it. It's OK to make an exception for bin Laden. Or people with different skin color. Or peolpe with different religious views. Or anyone else we decide to hate.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Some interesting quotes from the Obama 60 Minutes interview:
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/full-barack-obama-60-minutes-interview-and-complete-transcript

And in some ways sending in choppers and actually puttin' our guys on the ground entailed some greater risks than some other options. I thought it was important, though, for us to be able to say that we'd definitely got the guy. We thought that it was important for us to be able to exploit potential information that was on the ground in the compound if it did turn out to be him.

Yeah, sounds like the mission from the start was to bring Bin Laden in alive, lol.

You know, the fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received. And I think Americans and people around the world are glad that he's gone.

Yeah, sounds like taking him alive was Obama's first choice...

On the decision to bury him at sea:

It was a joint decision. We thought it was important to think through ahead of time how we would dispose of the body if he were killed in the compound. And I think that what we tried to do was, consulting with experts in Islamic law and ritual, to find something that was appropriate that was respectful of the body.

Frankly we took more care on this than, obviously, bin Laden took when he killed 3,000 people. He didn't have much regard for how they were treated and desecrated. But that, again, is somethin' that makes us different. And I think we handled it appropriately.

Wow, so they studied this and planned to do it long before the mission. And they sure sound like it was the first choice (mentioning Bin Laden's crimes).

But the fact of the matter is, is that we've been able to kill more terrorists on Pakistani soil than just about any place else.

Yeah, capturing them is obviously the first priority.

KROFT: Is this the first time that you've ever ordered someone killed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that, you know, every time I make a decision about launching a missile, every time I make a decision about sending troops into battle, you know, I understand that this will result in people being killed. And that is a sobering fact. But it is one that comes with the job.

Wait, I thought we were trying to get him alive? You mean killing him was part of the mission?

As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.

Wow, that pretty much says it all. Exactly how I feel.

 

[YB85]

I haven't read through the past 10 or so pages of multiquoted replies, but I have this question for One Brow: Does it really bother you if OBL was summarily executed? Personally, I haven't lost one bit of sleep thinking about whether it was legal or justified. I was more bothered when Clinton and Reno took out David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.

We're not talking about a citizen of a sovereign nation who was taken out. We're talking about a man without a country who declared war on not just America, but all who did not go along with his extreme ideology. You ask that if we can do that to OBL, why can't they do that to (me). The answer is that I am a citizen subject to the protection and rights of the Consitution. Now, if I were to renounce my citizenship and take up arms against the country, I shouldn't be surprised when the SEALs come calling in the middle of the night. OBL was not entitled to a trial. He got exactly what he deserved. In regards to OBL and every member of al qaeda and their related networks, shoot first and let Allah sort 'em out.

 

[TroutBum]

I haven't read through the past 10 or so pages of multiquoted replies, but I have this question for One Brow: Does it really bother you if OBL was summarily executed? Personally, I haven't lost one bit of sleep thinking about whether it was legal or justified.

We're not talking about a citizen of a sovereign nation who was taken out. We're talking about a man without a country who declared war on not just America, but all who did not go along with his extreme ideology. You ask that if we can do that to OBL, why can't they do that to (me). The answer is that I am a citizen subject to the protection and rights of the Consitution. Now, if I were to renounce my citizenship and take up arms against the country, I shouldn't be surprised when the SEALs come calling in the middle of the night. OBL was not entitled to a trial. He got exactly what he deserved. In regards to OBL and every member of al qaeda and their related networks, shoot first and let Allah sort 'em out.

You and Marcus were separated at birth, weren't you?

Who are you to decide what someone deserves, especially when it comes to taking their life?