Osama bin Laden dead

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

Hopefully these narratives are wrong, but the crescendos are building:

http://english.alarabiya.net/article...04/147782.html

So let me get this straight:

There were a total of 6 people killed, including 1 woman. 1 was OBL, another was OBL's son.

Perhaps the other three were security guards, or just people standing in the wrong place.

According to the above, OBL was captured alive then executed in front of his family.

Yep, all goodness and light for the law abiding, civilized side...

EDIT: The US is saying only 5 people were killed: OBL, OBL's son, a courier, the courier's wife, and the courier's brother. Doesn't jibe with Pakistan saying 4 bodies were recovered (OBL and son were taken away). OBL being unarmed was confirmed.

Here's a question for you:

If you believe the US narrative is wrong.....and both by the content/tone of your posts combined with the amateurish conflicting releases of the administration show.....what are your thoughts on Pakistani-shaped narrative?

It would be incredibly naive to believe that Pakistan and it's ISI do not have a vise-like grip on media/info operations coming out of Abbottabad/Pakistan to shape the narrative in a direction that will reduce the negative impact of this incredibly embarrassing and damning situation.

You seem to be fervently focused on what the US has done wrong in this mess......but you don't seem to be displaying much in the way of balance in even acknowledging what Pakistan has done(and has failed to do) in order for all parties to arrive at the spot we are today.

[Ghent12]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

So you're asserting then that what occurred in Abottabad was deviant from other US 'war on terror' behavior in the past 10 years?

That Guantanamo Bay is another outlier, as are hundreds to thousands, to perhaps tens and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed? Extraordinary rendition? Use of undemocratic 'allies' to perform torture?

Keep on truckin', man.

I made no assertion that it was aberrant, but that it is a single instance. The matter of "collateral damage" is tragic but it is quite clear that efforts, even if not every effort, have been made to reduce that factor. The detention of Guantanamo Bay is as much a product of the enemy as it is of the United States--how would you detain and try non-state entities?

The other matters are murky by their very nature and certainly worthy of condemnation where appropriate, but those are also relatively minor in the overall conflict.

Clearly you aren't up with the news. The White House confirmed that Osama wasn't armed.

Whether Osama was armed or not is quite irrelevant, especially for such a prominent advocate of suicide bombings. I don't know any of the minute details of the operation, but I can imagine very few scenarios in which Bin Laden could have even been captured alive--any movement whatsoever from him would result in him getting shot, as would any visible electronic item such as wires or a TV remote, and so forth. In fact, I imagine that he could have been taken alive if and only if he were perfectly still and visible when the SEALs busted in.

[Ghent12]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

I doubt you noticed this at first, but you should probably keep pornographic material out of your posts, metalman.

[metalman]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

I doubt you noticed this at first, but you should probably keep pornographic material out of your posts, metalman.

er... didn't see that. thx.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

lakedaemonian, I think that c1ue's view is that the US is claiming moral ground and should be held to higher standards regardless of Pakistan's failings.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

Lets not forget that KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED was caught in the Westridge neighborhood of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. This is where Pakistan military HQ and Pakistan ISI are based. Former President Musharaff lived just a few miles from the location and many retired and current military officers lived in the same neighborhood.

A scenario that has a number of parallels to the operation that led to the killing of OBL.

Specifically, the likely harboring of a high level AQ leader by current/"former" Pakistani Army/ISI in a location/environment not too different in the most relevant ways from OBL's harboring.

Past performance is indicative of future performance.

Musharaff has been commenting from London:

*He condemns US violation of Pakistani sovereignty.....as if Pakistan didn't have the opportunty to arrest/kill OBL themselves daily...for years
*He claimed Pakistani SSG(Pakistani SF) should have performed the Op......as if they can be trusted, much like the fully infiltrated Columbian military/LE in the hunt for Pablo Escobar that went no where for years, until they were almost entirely cut out of the loop.
*Pakistan is a "good ally" in the fight against AQ/terrorism in the region...when they are really playing a dangerous game of harboring senior AQ/Taliban leadership while using standover tactics to milk their ISAF supply line protection racket.
*it's "possible" some "local" Pakistanis colluded in harboring OBL....right in the middle of a closely guarded military town that represents the heart of the Pakistani Military leadership.
*That there's a lack of trust between the US and Pakistan.....true...but pretty obvious to even the mentally challenged by now.

Musharraf is like a Pakistani Pete version of Baghdad Bob....either that or a Pakistani Donald Trump.

Funny Musharraf is commenting from London...he has a lot in common with OBL....he is also hiding in plain sight far from hom to avoid being assassinated.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

lakedaemonian, I think that c1ue's view is that the US is claiming moral ground and should be held to higher standards regardless of Pakistan's failings.

What I find absurd is the perceived need to have to arrest/charge/try/convict/execute every enemy....and OBL declared himself an enemy by his actions.....he didn't steal some candy...he created and led an organization responsible for mass murder via unconventional warfare.

OBL effectively declared war on the US....he didn't just commit a common crime worthy of traditional arrest and prosecution.

While I personally believe MUCH of the global anti and counter terrorism effort SHOULD be law-enforcement centric, there is a need for paramilitary and military action at times...this being one of them.

I see zero difference in the pre-determined show trials of German and Japanese war criminals that led to their execution and the execution of OBL....with the only difference being that a pre-determined show trial with OBL would likely possess a far greater likelihood of it being used as ammunition by his adherents, followers, and sympathizers.

OBL shouldn't be compared to Nazi and Japanese war criminals...because this isn't a fight against a vertically integrated leader of a naiton state.

This is a fight against the symbolic or operational leader of an enemy network....so it's more relevant to compare OBL with the likes of Che Guevara and Pablo Escobar.....both of whom exceeded the boundaries and capabilities of law enforcement and the judicial system and knowingly hide in the area between traditional law enforcement and traditional military operations.

Hiding in grey areas has led to the development and use of grey units and capabilities to deal with it.

It's worth having a look back to the late 1960's, 1970's and early 80's as the golden age of terrorism(from a terrorist's perspective).

Governments did some incredibly stupid things because they were totally incapable of effectively and decisively dealing with the threat posed by the first generations of terrorists that found that grey area to hide and thrive in.

Israel at Entebbe
Germany in Somalia
UK at the Iranian Embassy

These were some of the early successful counter-terrorism operations...after a LOT of failures by law enforcement, failures in the judicial system, and failures by government and policy.

About 30 years ago there was debate about the actions of UK Special Forces during their rescue of hostages at the Iranian Embassy. According to UK policy UK civilian leadership and law enforcement handed over control to the military to conduct the operation.

One of the terrorists attempted to hide amongst the hostages being evacuated. He was identified, stripped from the group, and instantly shot about a bazillion times by UK Special Forces...I believe he may have had a hand grenade, but I don't believe it was known or seen at the time he was effectively executed.

Lots of folks thought it was "wrong" that he was executed....but that's how to effectively respond with folks that play outside the traditional/conventional rules.

But he decided to play by big boys rules and faced the consequences of his actions...much like OBL.

This wasn't a law enforcement mission for justice....this was a military mission of war to destroy the enemy.

Personally I don't think war is ever moral.....but I do think it is sometimes necessary.

I would concede that the US government is not only making some amateurish PR/media ops mistakes that are quite embarrassing to the government but is also potentially damaging to the war effort overall.

And I'd also concede that members of government are also trying to capitalize on the win.......Nancy Pelosi's recent comments compared to her comments from a few years ago are, quite frankly, disgusting in my opinion.

I can't help by think about that scene with Angela Lansbury in Manchurian Candidate when she capitalizes on her war hero son for strictly political gain. Most awesomely disgusting representation of a politician pandering to intentionally inflamed patriotism on film in my opinion.

As to the legality of killing OBL.....the US is in near declared war(in the traditional sense) against a network rather than a nation.....and the symbolic head of that network has just been destroyed...what's not to like?

I think people need to get over the non-judicial execution of designated naughty people......because historically it doesn't happen that often, and when it does it's almost always warranted as the players have placed themselves by their own actions outside the traditional square of conventional law enforcement and justice.

Of course there are exceptions....the first that comes to mind is the Lillehammer Affair.

The only thing I can suggest is the possible development of law enforcement and judicial capabilities that mimic the development and introduction of unconventional military capabilities created to deal with the same folks who have intentionally placed themselves in these grey area nooks and crannies between traditional/conventional law enforcement and traditional/conventional military.

Maybe someday law enforcement and the judiciary can develop robust capabilities to effectively and consistently(they have had a few big and difficult successes) deal to this grey threat.

Until then, I guess it's two in the head to make sure they're dead.

It is worth noting that a large part of the success in Iraq in dramatically reducing the insurgency threat there in recent years revolved around rapid and continuous raids by special mission units to CAPTURE enemy combatants and immediately exploit the intelligence value of them and their property to immediately lead to another raid, and another, and another....but I think in OBL's case, especially since he is not likely running the AQ operations cells....killing was far better than capturing for lots of reasons.


Just my opinion...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

ya know... while i dont profess to be any kind of expert in these matters, eye do pay attention to them - and, after watching all you guys the past year, personally believe that altho Mr c1ue's analytical abilities are 2nd to none, that your take on all this is quite plausible - it will be very enlightening/wildly entertaining to watch as the debate unfolds - esp here on the tulip, as this issue is more than likely going to be Numero Uno for the next year.5 - if for no other reason than it IS The Big Distraction, while the US economy, the dollar at least, continues to be plundered/pillaged/flushed down the toilet for the benefit of the banksters.

I'll be the first to admit that I do NOT think a major conflict with or without the use of nuclear weapons, likely between Pakistan/India but involving other players, in the region is LIKELY.

But I think it is clearly shifting from unlikely to possible.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

I agree. If Bin Laden was not an the definition of an enemy of the United States who is?

[flintlock]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

I agree with lakedamonian. This is war, albeit an unconventional one. This may come as a surprise to some, but at times we probably killed thousands of the enemy during WWII the same way. No quarter was given and none taken. I've read stories of GIs marching SS troops out and shooting them immediately AFTER surrendering. Especially after a tough fight of if the GIs thought the enemy only surrendered at the last moment. Others have personally told me that it was just an unwritten rule that some types were to be killed and not taken prisoner in some situations. This is the "dirty little secret" of many wars that never makes the official histories.

A childhood neighbor of my Dad was killed in 1944 when he was detailed to take prisoners to the rear. They found his body a few hundred yards back. Apparently the prisoners jumped him. Incredibly my Dad found this out talking to his Platoon SGT while serving in Korea. The Sgt asked my Dad where he was from and eventually realized he had served with my Dad's neighbor. Until that chance meeting the family had never known what had happened to their son.(My father had an emotional tale of going to visit his neighbors to explain the circumstances of their sons demise). Small world. Anyway, the Sgt told him after that they quit taking prisoners for the most part.

They seem to have sent the Seal team in to kill UBL, not arrest him. While I normally deplore shooting any kind of prisoners, I can understand the unique situation they were in there. No doubt the US tries to pass itself off as taking the high road. And probably more than any other they do. But war and warfare is ugly and violent and doesn't fit into neat easy categories.

[c1ue]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

I also think it's a good dose of Monday quarterbacking to say we shouldn't have killed him because 'he wasn't armed' - how many suicide bombers look armed? Are the SEALS supposed to risk their lives on the theory that bin Laden would never choose suicide if under attack? If I'm in the room and I see any movement in any direction at all from the guy, armed or not, to stay alive I'm going to at least entertain the possibility that he's going for a booby trap or something like it and take him out. He more than any human alive has lost the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly this isn't a very strong argument.

You can say the same for policemen attempting to arrest a suspect in a violent crime.

Should these policemen shoot the suspect under any and all circumstances?

The reason this doesn't happen more - though it does happen - is that policemen are charged with apprehending a criminal. Not with administering summary justice.

And that's the entire problem here. Sure, it is very possible and even likely that OBL deserved to die.

However, there is a reason for due process of law.

Lack of due process even in the most 'obvious' cases is what prevents innocents from being punished as well as the guilty.

Due process is one of the only excuses any government has for capital punishment, and strict adherence to due process is one of the most important features distinguishing a just society from the far more common warlord/tyrant/oligarchy type societies.

If you believe the US narrative is wrong.....and both by the content/tone of your posts combined with the amateurish conflicting releases of the administration show.....what are your thoughts on Pakistani-shaped narrative?

It would be incredibly naive to believe that Pakistan and it's ISI do not have a vise-like grip on media/info operations coming out of Abbottabad/Pakistan to shape the narrative in a direction that will reduce the negative impact of this incredibly embarrassing and damning situation.

You seem to be fervently focused on what the US has done wrong in this mess......but you don't seem to be displaying much in the way of balance in even acknowledging what Pakistan has done(and has failed to do) in order for all parties to arrive at the spot we are today.

Pakistan is doing whatever it feels it must to survive. It is an artificial nation forged when India decided to self segregate into 2 nations, and subsequently got divided again when Bangladesh went its own way.

Is Pakistan in the right here? No, probably not. But frankly, it is irrelevant.

Pakistan isn't the one claiming the moral high ground here in fighting the 'War on Terror'.

Pakistan doesn't have tens and hundreds of thousands of troops in other nations, particularly Afghanistan.

Pakistan isn't shooting 2000 pound warheads into wedding parties or shooting up children gathering firewood.

The point is simple: if the US wishes to simply say it is taking on the American equivalent of the "White Man's Burden", so be it.

The British in their day were just as brutal.

But don't tell me that this is justice. Or fighting for freedom. Or liberating the oppressed.

The detention of Guantanamo Bay is as much a product of the enemy as it is of the United States--how would you detain and try non-state entities?

This is an interesting take. You're asserting that since al-Qaeda is not associated with a specific nation, therefore they have no rights?

This is frankly ludicrous. Every single person in Guantanamo is from some nation. Every single person in Guantanamo, if they have indeed violated the law, would present plenty of justification for normal judicial proceedings.

Al Qaeda as an organization isn't imprisoned in Guantanamo.

It is hundreds of individuals.

The whole point of American rule of law is that individuals have rights including due process.

We're not supposed to judge entire categories by the 'organization' and pass summary judgement.

Whether Osama was armed or not is quite irrelevant, especially for such a prominent advocate of suicide bombings. I don't know any of the minute details of the operation, but I can imagine very few scenarios in which Bin Laden could have even been captured alive--any movement whatsoever from him would result in him getting shot, as would any visible electronic item such as wires or a TV remote, and so forth. In fact, I imagine that he could have been taken alive if and only if he were perfectly still and visible when the SEALs busted in.

Again, a ludicrous proposition. Are you seriously trying to tell me that OBL ran around all day in a suicide vest? With his family around him? In fact, did OBL ever don a suicide vest?

Secondly there are plenty of ways of taking people alive. Shoot them in the leg, for example. How about using a beanbag gun. Tear gas.

It seems quite clear that there was not some Rambo style firefight going on, so I am confused by the assertion that somehow there was no way to even attempt justice.

What I find absurd is the perceived need to have to arrest/charge/try/convict/execute every enemy....and OBL declared himself an enemy by his actions.....he didn't steal some candy...he created and led an organization responsible for mass murder via unconventional warfare.

OBL effectively declared war on the US....he didn't just commit a common crime worthy of traditional arrest and prosecution.

If indeed OBL is at war with the US, then US law itself prohibits assassination of enemy leaders.

Again, I understand the convenience and simplicity of simple assassination.

The point remains that becoming the Void is hardly the way to combat the Void.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

Frankly this isn't a very strong argument.

You can say the same for policemen attempting to arrest a suspect in a violent crime.

Should these policemen shoot the suspect under any and all circumstances?

The reason this doesn't happen more - though it does happen - is that policemen are charged with apprehending a criminal. Not with administering summary justice.

And that's the entire problem here. Sure, it is very possible and even likely that OBL deserved to die.

However, there is a reason for due process of law.

Lack of due process even in the most 'obvious' cases is what prevents innocents from being punished as well as the guilty.

Due process is one of the only excuses any government has for capital punishment, and strict adherence to due process is one of the most important features distinguishing a just society from the far more common warlord/tyrant/oligarchy type societies.

What "law" are you referring to?

OBL is easily and clearly classified as an Unlaw Combatant under the Geneva Conventions 1949, Laws of Armed Conflict.

Excerpt:

"Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations."

I agree with you in your assessment if OBL was drink driving, or robbing banks in Riyadh...but he initiated a WAR(an unconventional war but a war nonetheless) against nation states.

In doing see he subjected himself to the Laws of Armed Conflict......which does not look kindly on folks fighting a war without national representation.

He chose NOT to play by civilian law enforcement and justice rules....he chose TO play by big boys rules.


Pakistan is doing whatever it feels it must to survive. It is an artificial nation forged when India decided to self segregate into 2 nations, and subsequently got divided again when Bangladesh went its own way.

Is Pakistan in the right here? No, probably not. But frankly, it is irrelevant.

Pakistan isn't the one claiming the moral high ground here in fighting the 'War on Terror'.

As I stated before, I don't find any war moral(only necessary sometimes) so I don't see a high ground in that respect. What I see is media operations designed to shape and gain public support for the interests of the nation state's government and media operations designed to shape and destroy public support for interests that oppose the nation state.

Haven't you seen Musharraf's comments? It certainly sounds like he's playing his part in shaping perceptions to sympathize with Pakistan as moral victim.

Pakistan doesn't have tens and hundreds of thousands of troops in other nations, particularly Afghanistan.

Pakistan isn't shooting 2000 pound warheads into wedding parties or shooting up children gathering firewood.

No but they are clearly supporting terrorism on a broad scale. LeT was CREATED by the ISI. ISI fingerprints are all over the Indian Parliament attack, the Mumbai train bombings, and the Mumbai Massacre. What different is a $500,000 JDAM smart bomb and a $5000 smart suicide bomb other than cost? That and the fact the US tries to mitigate collateral damage....at times unsuccessfully, while the ISI back ops that promote it.

The point is simple: if the US wishes to simply say it is taking on the American equivalent of the "White Man's Burden", so be it.

The British in their day were just as brutal.

I don't think it's ANYTHING alike....if the US had taken on the British model things would be far different(not necessarily better)....I tend to think the US has done militarily in the region what business has done..outsourcing it's manufacturing and heavy lifting to it's detriment.

The US has been at arm's length with the Pakistanis getting paid(by their choosing and probably the US's as well) to do the heavy lifting since late 1979 to shape things in their direction...as you stated as every nation would do.


But don't tell me that this is justice. Or fighting for freedom. Or liberating the oppressed.

Where did I claim justice, freedom, or liberating the oppressed? Please point it out.

A military operation was conducted against a military objective that happened to be an unlawful combatant. The target was destroyed. See Below:

This is an interesting take. You're asserting that since al-Qaeda is not associated with a specific nation, therefore they have no rights?

I would never claim they have no rights, but according to the Laws of Armed Conflict they are unlawful combatants....and they do not enjoy the same rights as a lawful combatant/POW. That's the law lots of countries have agreed to when "playing" the "game" of war.

This is frankly ludicrous. Every single person in Guantanamo is from some nation. Every single person in Guantanamo, if they have indeed violated the law, would present plenty of justification for normal judicial proceedings.

I find the idea of rules to the "game" of war hilarious...but completely necessary. If they wish to be treated like civilians, they need to act more like civilian criminals rather than unlawful combatants at war. If they wish to "play" war they need to accept they are unlawful combatants and face the consequences of their reduced rights or find a sovereign nation to openly sponsor them.

Nation states attempt to monopolize warfare.....much like an individual will be punished for starting his own central bank, an individual or group that doesn't possess the backing of a nation state can't start a war without consequences.

Al Qaeda as an organization isn't imprisoned in Guantanamo.

It is hundreds of individuals.

The whole point of American rule of law is that individuals have rights including due process.

We're not supposed to judge entire categories by the 'organization' and pass summary judgement.

Again, you're using the wrong law...it's not American law...it's international law as agreed by many nations in LOAC.

Again, a ludicrous proposition. Are you seriously trying to tell me that OBL ran around all day in a suicide vest? With his family around him? In fact, did OBL ever don a suicide vest?

Secondly there are plenty of ways of taking people alive. Shoot them in the leg, for example. How about using a beanbag gun. Tear gas.

It seems quite clear that there was not some Rambo style firefight going on, so I am confused by the assertion that somehow there was no way to even attempt justice.

If indeed OBL is at war with the US, then US law itself prohibits assassination of enemy leaders.

Again, I understand the convenience and simplicity of simple assassination.

The point remains that becoming the Void is hardly the way to combat the Void.

With some direct training and experience in this field, while what you suggest is possible, I think you are confused.

Would you shoot beanbags rounds at a military command, control, and communications node?

Or would you destroy it?

According to my interpretation of LOAC, OBL wasn't assassinated, he was destroyed. It may sound like semantics, but there's some distinctions:

3 key parts to LOAC:

Military Necessity: Was OBL a legitimate objective/target tat if destroyed would lead to enemy's partial/complete detriment/demise? CHECK!

Distinction: Did the raiders discriminate as best they could between unlawful combatants and noncombatants and only engage military objectives/targets as to minimize impact on noncombatants. CHECK!

Proportionality: Was considerable thought given to minimize collateral damage....such as shooting the military target in the face instead of carpet bombing the entire neighborhood? CHECK!

If simpletons like me can be trained how to snatch bad guys, clearly the studs who pulled this off could have snatched Bin Laden......but he was deemed a military target with far higher value destroyed than captured and exploited. His exploitation value must have failed to equal or exceed the cost associated with doing so. Military necessity, not civilian justice.

I don't get the void bit....I have my own issues with policy and outcomes in the region....but for this specific operation and outcome...it's about as black and white as I see and perceive it.

[Shakespear]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

Due process is one of the only excuses any government has for capital punishment, and strict adherence to due process is one of the most important features distinguishing a just society from the far more common warlord/tyrant/oligarchy type societies.

Very well said c1ue.

Those who do not see a legal (in an "normal" world sense) issue, better read this.
http://www.cfr.org/international-law...entions/p11485

Why do some military officials oppose the Bush plan?

Legal experts say the Geneva Conventions had already been largely incorporated into the Pentagon’s Uniform Code of Military Justice before revisions to the manual earlier this month banning specific forms of torture. “The definition of torture and of cruel and inhumane treatment has been workable from a military perspective [since the Second World War],” Malone says. “JAGs [ Judge Advocate Generals] were saying they don’t want it to be broken down into specifics.” On September 13, a number of JAGs signed a letter in support of the White House bill, but experts say some of the uniformed lawyers were pressured to sign the statement and that many, in fact, objected to the Bush plan. “JAGs have said, ‘We can do this [interrogate terrorist suspects] by following the rules,’” says David M. Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University. “The wording of that letter [the JAGs signed] was like kissing your sister: supportive but with very faint praise.”

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect there were very good reasons why legal experts wanted USA to stick to Law and not make its own when it wants to. If it does then the Pandora's box is wide open, sending "terrorists" to Syria, Kazahstan, Egypt for interrogation.

How about the quick pay off to the families of the people shot by the CIA agent in Pakistan? Fear that law would not work in Pakistan I guess.

Then this ironic observation in 2001,

Indeed, a fundamental reason for supporting the making of war outside the United States is to prevent the erosion of our domestic arrangements and civil liberties by instead destroying those abroad who would bring war to this society, for it is better to make war on our enemies abroad and to destroy them and their threat than to create a long-term police and surveillance state at home. Quite possibly this is a fool's hope; the Bush Administration, consistent with the pattern of American governments across our history in time of war, including the administrations of great presidents such as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, has sought to make war abroad a basis for constricting civil liberties at home. For the most part, this approach must be opposed.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/...queda.pdf?rd=1

What if Hitler was found by Wisenfeld living 2 km from West Point? Two taps to the head and run. Heck, we have a better example of how things work, Wernher von Braun.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/uf...fz/preface.htm

[D-Mack]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”

The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as ‘the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.”
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43817

Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?

The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?



,.,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=24625

Here we go and you don't need to see those pictures...

White House Sees Bin Laden Killing as Precedent

Unilateral Raids in Pakistan the New Normal?



The US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad came without any permission from the Pakistani government. Most people overlooked this given the nature of the target, and assumed the attack was a “special case.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney, however, suggested that this was a precedent-setting event, and that President Obama “reserves the right” to launch comparable attacks into Pakistan in the future.


http://news.antiwar.com/2011/05/04/w...-as-precedent/

[unlucky]

Re: Osama bin Laden dead

The BBC discusses the legal options if OBL had been captured:

Should Osama Bin Laden have been caught and tried?

Their conclusion is that the available options aren't very attractive. Other arguments against capture that I have seen elsewhere include the possibility of riots in many parts of the world, and kidnapping of Americans and other acts aimed at forcing a release.