Bin Laden dead

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/o...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/bin.laden.obit/index.html?hpt=T1
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/search/Osama%20Bin%20Laden

I was alerted by Theoria in this thread: "It looks like Obama just wrapped up a second term: he got Bin Laden."

Waiting for Obama's address to begin. An 11:30pm address?

Didn't Obama imply Delta Force guys? Fox says a missile strike. Bad sources? Spotters and a strike?

Man, this event brings back memories. What a day that was, and what a different world it made.

The Obama-haters won't believe it until they see the long-form death certificate.

As someone on Twitter said, when Obama said he had more important things on his mind than the whole certificate thing, he was right.

"SYDNEY: Asian stocks rose on Monday and US stock index futures extended gains on the back of media reports that Osama bin Laden was dead.

US crude slid more than 1 per cent to $112.51 a barrel after CNN reported that Al Qaeda's elusive leader Osama bin Laden was dead and his body has been recovered by US authorities."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Stocks-rise-after-Bin...

3> The announcement preempted "Celebrity Apprentice". . .

Was he found in a spider hole?

I wonder whether they will ever tell us the whole truth about what happened. Was he summarily executed, a politically savvy thing to do, or was he killed in battle? Will the person who aimed the gun and pulled the trigger be identified? I'm looking forward to the news reports over the next couple of days to see how much is revealed.

Robert

#4, same comment but as a picture:

Can't wait for the movie.

I think this is a rare situation where both sides would have preferred death. It's possible such an order came from the top—although you can be sure it would have not been written down. But Bin Laden was no sissy, and apart from the obvious belief in martyrdom, I believe he had previously spoken of his eagerness to die rather than be taken.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

Are we going to suddenly withdraw from Afghanistan?

Are we going to declare 'we're done' in Iraq and leave?

Have we managed to develop a balanced budget and come up with a way to pay our debts?

Does anyone actually think that simply because bin Laden is dead, the opposition to the United States will fold its tents and quietly walk away?

This is a celebrity death story; lots of sound and fury, but ultimately signifying nothing.

We just beat a "boss level" in the worldwide video game.

The game will go on, but usually when you beat a boss level you pause to have a celebratory cutscene, or unlock some goody or something like that.

And so this goes.

It doesn't signify nothing. Nor does it mean anyone is folding their tents.

That is a false choice, it's not either or.

So, for the retaliatory machine, this is a victory. For some, it is a healing moment. For others, it will just stoke their anger.

Thus, the fuss.

Well heck....all I can say is that I am glad that I wasn't Ms Laura Bush this weekend.

Would not have wanted to be there when the Buffalo Soldier called The Cowboy to tell him that the enemy had beed found and killed, using a small operative and sustaining no causualties !

It's appalling to think that Bin Laden was holed up so conspicuously two miles from the Pakistani Military Academy: "To put it in perspective, it is like capturing Carlos the Jackal just down the road from West Point or Sandhurst."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152104652958379.html

> 15
It was a matter of making this a priority....not too sure this was the case at the start.

>16 clamairy: O.K. This will cause a migraine fairly quickly.

It's appalling to think that Bin Laden was holed up so conspicuously two miles from the Pakistani Military Academy

I know, but if the ISI was involved, could they be that stupid? That's a weird defense, but it's a defense.

It was a matter of making this a priority....not too sure this was the case at the start.

Oh, come on. They've been working this problem for a long time. Maybe they could have done it faster. Maybe not.

Sorry. I'll make it a link, just for you.

>18 timspalding: They've had him a couple of times but because of political reasons...he has been allowed to slip away.

Both Clinton AND Bush had their chances....no excuses this time !

Also was stong evidence that Hussain wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden.

> 18 if the ISI was involved, could they be that stupid?

I sure hope that it was rank stupidity, because the alternative is terrible to contemplate: a well-trained and (nuclear!) armed national military and secret service protecting Bin Laden (and Mumbai terrorists?)... Brr!

Certainly.. we have only the knowledge regarding these issues that the powers that be, want us to have.

To my way of thinking, the end of Bin Laden would have been the START of the Middle East conflict.....there would have been trouble (shudder to think of our troops who find themselves over there now) and we could have dealt with it. But from what was known prior to the attack on 9/11 and according to most of the evidence afterwards , the first step would have been to take out the master mind.
Wasn't implying that Bin Laden was not hunted but we seem to have spread ourselves pretty thin by not having one central objective.
Obama did say that this was going to be a priority for him. He made that statement.....

Revenge, retribution, and vengeance.

POTUS Barack Hussein Obama:

First he took out Hilary and Blowjob Bill.

Then he took out McInsane and his pet manikin.

Then he took out the donald and his pet badger.

Now he's taken out Osama - after My Pet Goat Bush, Jr. shit himself and then slipped in it for 7 years.

In 2012 Obama will take out some republican scumbag - and A-holes across the nation will cry like babies and demand to see Obama's kindergarten records.

AMERICA - FUCK YEAH!

> 24

or Justice?

I find this whole thing questionable. First and foremost, I do not trust Barrack Obama. Second, there's this:

"American officials said Bin Laden resisted and was shot in the head. He was later buried at sea."

Which officials? And with burial at sea, there's no way to verify that there indeed was a body (could be faked) or that said body was actually Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am very suspicious that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt instigated by Obama or his people... Oh, and I did mention that I do not trust Barrack Obama...

> 27

WGASWYT.

3. I won't even believe the form. It's too easy to falsify documents these days. It was a very bad move to do an at sea burial for such an infamous person as Osama Bin Laden.

28. I have no idea what that means.

do you think Obama has got Osama to collude with him 1dragones? or do you think Osama is going to release evidence that he did not die later this week?
Perhaps you have thought of a third possibility? If so what?

> 30

Yeah, it's an I.Q. thing.

Hint: Who gives......

How the mission went down - the background story of how it all came about. Seems like Obama is the real American and the Real American Hero, compared to ne'er-do-wells Bill Clinton and George Bush, Jr.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54093.html

32. Okay, I get it now. You're insulting me, which is a TOS violation that ought to be reported. You're lucky that I don't feel you are worth the effort.

31 I'm not precisely sure, but probably the latter. I'm mainly just very suspicious.

I am very suspicious that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt instigated by Obama or his people

Would it convince you if they said they landed him on the moon first?

> 34

I am not insulting you. I am identifying you.

Like Osama, you can't hide.

> 28

?????

> 36

Only if they show his long-form birth certificate.

>38 lilithcat:

See 32.

> 40

I did. The question remains. What did #28 mean?

41 > Who Gives A Shit What You Think

37. Identification is the same as name calling... But I am still viewing your post as an insult, and a TOS violation, no matter what you choose to call it. Unlike Osama, I am NOT trying to hide.

I have no idea what will happen worldwide over the
next few days, but I have a feeling this thread will not end well. :/

A DNA Analysis of Osama's body might convince me. I dunno though because I can't be on the scene so must rely on documentation that might be faked.

I haven't been to New York. I think it possible that the Twin Towers still stand. Also, what about that crazy fake moon landing?

#44 - Sure it will. And some of us will have found new people to block! :o)

41. It obviously means that the poster of message 28 needs to grow up and/or be kicked off of LT.

I'm too young to have an opinion of the moon landing - if such it really was... As for the Twin towers... I believe they are gone, though I have never set foot in the state of New York, let alone been in the vicinity of the towers. Some news stories are just more credible than others. Barrack Obama has no credibility as far as I am concerned.

45> A DNA sample was taken. Do you think military personnel involved who are at this moment no doubt happily looking forward to free drinks for the rest of their lives. Would consider that sufficient reason to lie and falsify statements and legal documents?

#49 - You've made that pretty clear, and I'm not sure why you think repeating it ad nauseam is necessary, unless you're trying to provoke the kind of reaction you got in #28, so you can then whine about it.

I refer everyone to post #27, which sort of got me to thinking bad thoughts.

I will have to check with my psychiatrist, but I don't think I am the one on this thread displaying possible signs of paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur.

But as Dennis Miller always reminded us - I could be wrong.

>45 1dragones:
If you needed such precise proof of Osama's death, then you should have got your ass over to Pakistan and pulled the trigger yourself.

I do agree that swift burial at sea might have been a significant error if there is no independent (i.e. non-American) corroboration of the identification. But they may just be saying that to dissuade anyone from trying to reclaim the body. It remains to be seen whether there is anyone left in the Al Qaeda network with enough authority to issue a confirmation statement from their side.

(And just for the record, I trust Obama a whole lot more than I trust a lot of American politicians.)

> 49

"...I'm too young to have an opinion of the moon landing - if such it really was...

Jesus H. Christ on a Fucking Crutch.

I rest my case.

49> I'll try to enter into your line of skepticism: We don't have Bin Laden's birth certificate either. Did he even exist? What's your view?

Does it really matter? Dead (or possibly, though very unlikely, alive) bin Laden's influence will continue. Although there may be a lot of back-patting and cheering, this news really doesn't change anything about the state of affairs in the world.

56> Living and working near Ground Zero, it matters to me cognitively and existentially.

>49 1dragones:

Scepticism is one thing, but that's ridiculous.

I've been to New York. There are no twin towers there.

However, I never went to New York before 2001, so I have no reason to believe that they ever existed. I think they were invented by the American Right to justify increased defense expenditure and so boost profits for Republican plutocrats.

People tell me that there is intelligent life in the state of Mississippi, but I've seen no evidence of it.

>45 1dragones: I would have far more respect for your distrust if there had been more brew ha ha over Bush's assertion that we needed to start blasting the Middle East to smithereens !
Doubter's got over that one rather quickly yet Obama is doubted regarding everything.

Hell, perhaps he is FROM the moon. Perhaps he wasn't even born so much as hatched ?

That is it.....kick it up a notch. OBAMA IS AN ALIEN !

By the way...they had to be very care in regards to what they did with the body of Bin Laden. Couldn't bury it over there......couldn't start riots over here with it......why on earth do you think they are not parading in the streets with it ? Would be very symbolic but it would set us right along side the country we spent lives and money fighting.

I saw the "celebrating" in the streets.....for God's sake.....we didn't get that excited when the health care law kept taking a hit, or when hundreds of thousands of American's were thrown out of their homes due to illegal crap commited by the banks, or when the stock market crashed OR when unemployment hit 10%. Seems a dead terrorist is the only thing that can unit Americans as much as having an African American president.

> 58
"...People tell me that there is intelligent life in the state of Mississippi, but I've seen no evidence of it."

There is no intelligent life in Greenville, MS. Likewise there is no intelligent life in most towns in Mississippi. I cannot argue against those ideas.

However, I live in Brandon, MS. We am way smart here. I figured my way out of a wet brown paper sack once in less than two minutes. And if I ever catch that a-hole who put me in that sack....... (I think it was my father when he chunked me in the Pearl River, but it's hard to recall - I was only a new born baby).

The United States has inflicted several 9/11s on the civilian populations of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to get at Bin Laden. But so long as theoria can sleep at night, it was worth it.

if Osamas body was kept anywhere it would be a damn popular spot for terrorists.

> 62

Gee, how many innocent non-combatant old men, women, children, and babies did Allied Forces snuff in defeating the governments and armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII?

I'm guessing one gigantic fuck-load.

And it was worth it.

Q.E.D.

> Exactly !

The body will sleep with the fishes !

Every war is WWII.

Except for WWI. AND all the rest of them.

> 58

People tell me that there is intelligent life in the state of Mississippi, but I've seen no evidence of it.

Milton Babbitt
The Hodding Carters (father & son)
William Faulkner
Craig Claiborne
Eudora Welty
Mose Allison
Shelby Foote
Willie Morris

That enough, or should I keep going?

If you REALLY want to go conspiracy, Osama is alive but we only reported his death so we can interrogate him for years before quietly putting him in an unmarked grave.

Or better yet, he's actually been dead for a couple years and we finally found out so we claimed to kill him, since Al Qauda wouldn't admit to just pretending he was alive...

I'm sure I could come up with some more given a little time.

51. Apparenty it wasn't clear enough for some people.

53: At the risk of being repetitive enough to tick some people off, I'll just say this: I trust all politicians - American or otherwise - as much as I trust Obama.

Oh, I believe someone is dead... just not yet sure who.

Someone existed who called himself Osama Bin Laden... but was he who he said he was? We have no birth certificate, so we don't have any proof of the man's real name.

> 71

Perhaps The Donald will get right on this and demand a copy of the death certificate ? better yet...his head on a stake just outside the Whitehouse ? That would be convincing !

How thoughtful of someone to have taken a DNA sample. When the DNA analysis is released, maybe I'll believe it. As long as someone with credibility makes the announcement, and if I can see the documents.

56. You're absolutely correct.

58. "People tell me that there is intelligent life in the state of Mississippi, but I've seen no evidence of it."

That's just because there are so few intelligent life forms here.

60. "Couldn't bury it over there..."

IMO that's where it belongs. As for celebrating in the streets though... that's patently unnecessary.

72> please answer my question about the military personnel you suspect of colluding, what do you think is their motivation?

68. The trouble is most if not all of those are gone now...

>74 1dragones:
Based on a news report I heard on the radio....the DNA test was done and it was a match.

There is this also....but who knows...it may be written with ill intent.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/158390/dna-test-done-osama-bin.html

strange I never thought of celebrating as a unnecessary act, Merely a human one.

>82 SimonW11:
You are absolutely correct...but then we should not consider ourselves above those who celebrate in much the same manner and consider themselves our enemy.

Guess our humanity shows in what it is we choose to celebrate !
There are things we do out of necessity, some those things would come under the heading of "a necessary evil."

79. Hmm... did I say I suspected military personnel of colluding? I don't recall saying that... Oh, I did mention Obama's people, but did not mean that implication to be military personnel... but politicians instead. I'd repeat here what I said earlier about Obama, but I've ticked off some people enough so I won't say that, but just refer you to my earlier posts on the subject. I didn't imply anything, but straightforward said what I thought - and still have not changed my thinking on that subject.

Now, as to the motivation - We all know Obama wants to be thought a hero... Money probably exchanged hands but I'm not sure how much or which direction. Money talks.

82. And you don't think humans do unnecessary things?

81 Yes, and how do we know the woman was Bin Laden's sister?

#77 - "Too bad your father didn't just kill you directly. He would have done the world a favor."

Nice. Lots of class evident there.

>85 1dragones:
Believe humans do all kinds of unnecessary things. How did you interpert my words to mean that humans never did unnecessary things ?

During war I would think that men, who would never dream of commiting the acts they are forced to commit just to stay alive, are commiting acts of necessary evil. Not saying that they all believe this but it would be safe to say that many of them hang on to sanity by operating on this premise.

The act of an assasination is not a pretty thing....don't care who it is or where it is....not pretty...but, in some cases necessary. How would you discribe it ?

>86 1dragones:
Would not want to live in your reality ! or lack there of.

84: Hmm... did I say I suspected military personnel of colluding? I don't recall saying that... Oh, I did mention Obama's people, but did not mean that implication to be military personnel... but politicians instead.

In order for Obama to fake a story like this he would need to have military personnel willing to collude with his political appointees. Otherwise all it would take to disprove the story would be for a member of Seal Team 6 to say "Hey, we didn't kill Osama, they are lying to you."

The problem with this "conspiracy" that you are hinting at, like most grandiose conspiracy theories, is that it requires by necessity far too many actors to keep their mouths shut to be plausible.

87. Just giving it a little of what's coming my direction. Both are probably unwarranted, but it started and I cannot resist entry into the foray.

88. You said "strange I never thought of celebrating as a unnecessary" which I interpreted to mean you think humans didn't do unnecessary things or that you think celebration is necessary... which I don't believe it to be. Yes, celebration is human, but never, IMO, necessary.

"Would not want to live in your reality ! or lack there of."

You mean you would not want to be the eternal skeptic as I am? Life has made me that way. I'm not saying that there are not some things I can believe, but there are more things that I cannot believe than there are those things I can. This comes from having been lied to for over 50 years by almost everyone with whom I've come in contact... at first believing, and then discovering the lies later... so now, I require irrefutable proof of most things before I will begin to believe. You can trust me when I say it's safer that way. And no, I don't like being in my world either... but we don't always get to choose what happens in life.

First, I don't believe war is necessary, but that it is, at times, inevitable, given human nature.
Second, yes, I believe this is true:

"During war I would think that men, who would never dream of commiting the acts they are forced to commit just to stay alive, are commiting acts of necessary evil."

Assassination is not pretty, nor was it meant to be. Sometimes it may be necessary, indeed, perhaps the only way to deal with a tyrant... and that's sad.

Oh, interesting. JGL53 starts by insulting me, and yet you flag the only response to his unnecessary remarks that I made, but you let his objectionable posts stand, even after he says he's identifying me, which is an admission of name calling if I ever saw one.

60. I don't merely distrust Obama. I distrust ALL politicians equally.

91: Perhaps because other people don't see his post as a personal insult, but see yours as one. That's what community standards are.

51. "I'm not sure why you think repeating it ad nauseam"

Three times isn't exactly ad nauseam, and the third was prompted by someone's post who didn't seem to understand or did not see first time. I thought twice was plenty for most people, and it was done for emphasis.

As for 28, that remark was totally unnecessary and completely unwarranted. I see, however, that you do not object to people insulting and labeling me, you just object to me retaliating with the same.

#91 - You don't see a difference between 'no one gives a shit what you think' and 'too bad your father didn't just kill you' at all? Because in my mind one is just rude, but the other clearly violates the ToS.

> 95

It may not be immediately obvious that it was directed at 1dragones, but "There is no intelligent life in Greenville, MS." is pretty insulting if that's where you live.

". . .most grand conspiracy theories.... (Require) by necessity far too many actors"

But also refuting the conspiracy theory, e.g. in the Kennedy assassination, requires
explaining the sudden deaths of possible witnesses, and of figures possible involved (like David Ferry and George DeMorgenschildt) within the next few years, long before the time that actuarial probabilities would allow for that many deaths. It also requires the assumption --which common sense refutes-- that a "lone assassin" would succeed where conspirators have failed or have given up the attempt.

>92 1dragones:
To some extent our current political circus has earned a fair amount of distrust.

However, taken too far distrust starts to look foolish.
Being skeptical can be self preservation but a measure of wisdom should tell one that not all in life is a conspiracy.
Some people conspire but not all.

#96 - Ahh, didn't not realize that was his/her locale. I only knew that JLG lived in MS.

Just means he's better at it because he uses acronyms that most people don't get until someone explains, whereas I do not try to hide what I say or what I think, but am very straightforward about it. That's exactly what he was doing though, and someone even typed out the full explanation of what he said...

Letting his abuse stand makes me feel quite unwelcome in talk threads... just so you know.

Is this an AKA situation ??

Sounds pretty familiar. Or do like minds just think alike ?

Just saying.....

97: The Kennedy conspiracy theories are ludicrous on their face. They have been examined ad nauseum and they don't add up to anything.

For example, George DeMorgenschildt died in 1977, 15 years after the Kennedy assassination. That's hardly "sudden". He also appears to have been mentally unbalanced and erratic.

95 Not much difference. Both are rude and insulting and should both be violations of TOS.

28, 32, 37, and 61 were all directed at me. He is baiting me, and continuing to get away with it. I flagged the most insulting of his messages, but nobody else seems to have done so. I said he wasn't worth the effort, but I will report him if this abuse continues. His insults to me were completely unprovoked. I said nothing to warrant that sort of abuse until later... and then only once, while he has repetitively insulted me for no reason other than his personal "entertainment."

I have not asked anyone to agree with my opinions, and I don't care if I am believed or not. I do, however, have just as much right as he does to state my opinions... and I do ask that people respect that right.

On 97:

(My screen doesnʻt show any way of revising this (!?)

But I wanted to add that Iʻm not agreeing with any particular alleged conspiracy;
97 is a generalization about the conventional objections to conspiracy theories.

#13: We just beat a "boss level" in the worldwide video game.

And that's my cue to vommit.

104: The problem is that the conventional objection is pretty much always correct: it is impossible to keep a secret if there is any number of people involved that is more than a bare handful, and even then it is extraordinarily difficult (as an example: Watergate).

The vast webs that are spun as conspiracies about things like the Kennedy assasination, the 9/11 attacks, Pearl Harbor, the moon landings and have all turned out to be based upon misinformation, half-truths, and in some cases outright falsehoods (intentional or not).

87. FYI post 77 has been deleted

Good work Navy Seals!!! I wonder if we will be able to get out of Afghanistan soon now or if we would be leaving a rats nest capable of hiding world terrorists. Maybe we can isolate countries who do that.

edit:: Also I love the cartoons posted in this thread. I consider them witty.

It is possible (barely, with a great deal of effort) to conceal a conspiracy before it completes a task. After the deed is done, however, there's just too much information available for the secret to remain hidden. (And too much interest in unravelling what happened on the part of survivors.)

As far as the 'single gunman' theory; there have been several assassinations throughout history, either attempted or successful, committed by lone gunman. (Garfield, McKinley, and Reagan come immediately to mind.) No great effort has gone into trying to unravel the 'conspiracy' behind these attacks and deaths. If 'common sense' refuted the idea of lone gunmen succeeding, then surely something would have been discovered in other cases (especially in the case of Reagan, which was at the dawn of the Information Age).

Folks, folks please! A bit of rigor here. Just to remind you, Ida: Barack has one "r". Geez. And Codyed, everyone knows that wars even before WWII were WWII. How else would the universe make sense? And Lunar--"vomit" has one "m." Libertarian spelling doesn't apply in this forum.

Carry on.

"...The conventional objection is pretty much always correct..." (106)

I donʻt agree with you about the Kennedy case. About 9/11 and Pearl harbor, I agree --assuming you mean the "theories" (if they merit that word) that "we attached ourselves -- in order to have a causa belli.
Of course the reality of those cases is that they WERE, indeed, a vast conspiracy -- and they did achieve their immediate goals--but were formed by the enemy. not by the alleged conspirators of the "theories". Itʻs probable that, for the Pearl harbor attack, the Japanese military had to exclude even large parts of their own government from it. Itʻs been theorized that even the Foreign secretary was kept in the dark, and he was negotiating with U.S. Sec.of State Cordell Hall only days before the attack (or, going throught he motions of negotiating, if you believe
those who resolutely deny the theory of the Militaryʻs conspiracy.)

111: As I noted before, the Kennedy conspiracy theories are built on sand. There's just nothing there despite decades of attempts by theory theorists to make something work. Their assertions are always built on half-truths, misinformation, or simple outright falsehoods. There was a long thread about this last year I think, and the usual theories were trotted out, and all of them fell apart in short order. The only people who adhere to Kennedy conspiracy theories at this point are the uninformed or the nutty.

>82 SimonW11:
Nothing wrong with honoring those who lost their lives due to the actions of Bin Laden but it seems somewhat wrong to see college students doing fist pumps with a flag in one hand and a can of beer in the other.
The first speaks of justice, the second revenge.

But, my point was missed.....the reaction to the death of one man was so much louder than the reaction to any of the misfortunes many American's are suffering right now.....from the loss of homes to the lack of medical care coverage. Would like to see some of that energy and cooperation directed at the banks and the current health care system.

>112 StormRaven:

I agree they don't hold up. You said they were "ludicrous on their face." That seems a little strong for an assassination carried out by a man who attempted to become a Soviet citizen and was killed two days after in very odd circumstances. The fact is that the top levels of the US government were terrified there might indeed be a larger, possibly international, conspiracy. They decided--and subsequent investigations have agreed--that there was not.

>113 faceinbook:

No doubt US anger at Pearl Harbor was excessive, and should have been directed into rural electrification.

114: Given that many of them take silly and patently false premises like "Oswald could not possibly have shot that many aimed bullets that fast with a bolt action rifle" as pieces of their core "evidence", yeah, they pretty much are ludicrous on their face. While it might not necessarily be ludicrous to consider at the time that a conspiracy might be afoot, the various specific theories that have been bandied about since then have been so laughable that its a wonder anyone is willing to mention them with a straight face.

>115 StormRaven:

Well, I have no desire to argue it down to a nub, but I don't think one could say ALL Kennedy theories are ludicrous on their face. This sort of rhetorical inflation is certainly sometimes characteristic of some LT debate.

Or rather, it is utterly determinative of all LT debate!

> 113

my point was missed.....the reaction to the death of one man was so much louder than the reaction to any of the misfortunes many American's are suffering right now

Of course it was. People tend naturally to react to specific, isolated events. You're never going to see a spontaneous crowd reaction to "lack of health care coverage". It's too nebulous, it's not something that "happens", the way a natural disaster or terrorist attack does, it just "is". And people just don't respond in the same way.

Obama got Bin Laden? No. Navy seals and other such people got Bin Laden. And, while I'm no Bush fan, the hunt for Bin Laden started during his administration. This has been going on since 911. Obama just kept the ball rolling.

>117 lilithcat:

Should they? More Americans have died from allergic reactions to peanuts than were killed on 9/11. More Americans have died from heart disease this decade than died during the Holocaust. Maybe the crowd's reaction is right after all?

> Obama just kept the ball rolling

You don't know that. You're just asserting it. No doubt we aren't currently positioned to know just how much Obama did, but history would suggest executive direction and attention can be important. Kennedy owed some of the blame for the Bay of Pigs, Carter the Iran hostage rescue disaster. Why can't you concede preliminary credit to Obama here?

I could not even make it all the way through this wonderful thread of nonsense, vitriol, and juvenile aggression. Apologies to those who posted toward the end as I am not speaking of your posts, I didn't read them.

I do despair for democracy as we seem to have lost the idea of a rational, well informed, citizenry.

Ido despair for democracy as we seem to have lost the idea of a rational, well informed, citizenry.

May have been a pipe dream from the get-go.

>121 Jesse_wiedinmyer: - Unfortunately, I am beginning to suspect that you are right. Now, what is the alternative?

>114 timspalding: Anger at Bin Laden is justified....so is a sense of accomplishment over bringing him to justice.....wasn't my point.

>117 lilithcat: You are correct....it is just a bit disheartening to see such a reaction by those who seem otherwise unengaged.

Not asking to be contentious but do you suppose most people are indeed acting out of a sense of justice or would revenge be the primary feeling ?

I may be one of the few but when I saw some of those celebrating my first thought was "REALLY ?" "We are united over this ?" "Can't seem to agree on anything that would make a difference in the lives of those who live around us but we can rally for this ?"

Was my gut reaction....couldn't tell you why.

In all honesty....I didn't see the nicest of clips.....mostly drunken idiots waving flags and screaming. The site of the Towers in New York was a different matter.

mostly drunken idiots waving flags and screaming

They looked like George Washington University students. Those kids are idiots.

- Tim (Georgetown '94)

#123

Mayhap the video you saw of people dancing in the streets in jubilation brought to mind pictures of other people dancing in the street in jubilation?

"Kennedy conspiracy theories ... (adhered to) by the uninformed or the nutty" (112)

Nuttiness is exactly the nucleus of the debunkersʻ of conspiracyʻs presentation: The lone assassin, the Lone Nut. So when you pass off a theory as "nutty", you are abandoning your own debunking. You canʻt have it both ways: If "nuttiness" just doesnʻt happen, then neither does "the Lone Gunman".
The burden of proof rests on those who say "the Lone Gunman" does happen. Just as the burden of proof rests on the defenders of any individual conspiracy scenario.
But even if all the conspiracy scenarios have been disproved --to my mind they havenʻt--
it still hasnʻt been proved that there was NO conspiracy. And conspiracy remains more probable than believing that someone just came along and said to himself "Long as Iʻm here I might as well kill the president. Piece of cake! I can do it myself, I wonʻt need any help."

>118 CharlesBoyd:
Doesn't matter....Obama said that he was going to make it a priority and it happened...on his watch. Putting two and two together leads one to believe that he was somehow instrumental in getting the job done.

Bin Laden has been lost and found several times. Politics has played a big role in the fact that he has lived as long as he has.

The Obama administration got serious about this as the President stated they would.

>125 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Yes it did....it reminded me of some of the streets in the Middle East on occasion. All that was lacking were the automatic weapons. Just replace the beer cans !

If we are to continue in the conspiracy theory vein we should not forget the ties that the Bush family had with the Bin Ladens......

as I said before...I don't think that Bush wasn't looking for Bin Laden but I do believe that somewhere along the line priorities got mixed up and resources were spread thin. A few individuals seemed to take their eyes off of the ball when we needed to have all eyes on the same ball.

Those who were - and still are - into Birtherism are N.U.T.S.

Ditto the 9/11 conspiracy involving Bush/Cheney.

Ditto the moon landings hoax and evolution being just a theory and ancient astronauts.

All such people are N.U.T.S.

But I can see how a person would still have doubts about the JFK assassination.

Nevertheless, if one puts in the time to examine ALL relevant information, the only rational theory that holds up is the Lone Nut Theory. All of the JFK conspiracy theories are N.U.T.S.

As to the idea that some conspiracy surrounds the report of Bin Laden's demise - that would also appear to be N.U.T.S. The motherfucker is dead. Obama deserves credit along with the Seals who actually took the piece of shit out.

If Obama haters don't like it, then too-fucking-bad.

84> on the contrary i think few human actions are driven by necessity. I wondered that you thought you thought celebration might be somehow different.

The military personnel are not colluding but it was a fake? Nope I'm not sure I understand that. Do you think the personnel do not exist? Do you think they actually raided a fake location and shot stand ins? with out any one in the navy?marines knowing? Maybe you think The CIA feed them false leads. And the CIA are the ones that collaborated?

Please tell me how how you think a fake raid could be organised without collaboration from the people raiding?

I think politics in the U.S. has gotten so divisive that diehards on either side won't believe anything the other side says. And they'll suspect the other side of all kinds of bizarre conspiracies. Honestly, if Bush had announced "Osama has been killed" everyone on the right would be cheering, while many on the left (including many posters here, I suspect) would be as skeptical as 1dragones. Remember, there was a time when 911 'truthers' were as common on the left as "birthers" are now, on the right.

BTW, I know the guy was evil and all, but we're still talking about a human being who was killed. (And his sister) Comparing his assassination to a video game...? Poor taste.

Comparing his assassination to a video game...? Poor taste.

Poor taste, but a very valid commentary.

Worth remembering:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/02

Mayhap the video you saw of people dancing in the streets in jubilation brought to mind pictures of other people dancing in the street in jubilation

I know. That scene in Time Square on VJ day, where the sailor kisses the nurse. Barbarians.

>132 madpoet:, I think there have always been "outliers" on the left and on the right in USA politics; I think those "true believers" do not believe much of what their opposition says, and I think it has pretty much always been that way. When I was in High School and College it was the John Birch Society and Moral Rearmament on the right, and then a little later it was The Weathermen on the left. What seems to be missing today is the big middle where one was able to find individuals willing to ignore that nonsense and get on with rational, civil discourse. For that, I grieve.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972308/-Obama-Proves-Critics-Wrong,-Kee...

>134 AsYouKnow_Bob:
One has to wonder what exactly was the priority of G.W. Bush ? and why ?

137> I thought his priority was spreading God's gift of democracy to every State in the middle east through various state-building projects from above and democratic elections from below (such as the one on the West Bank that brought Hamas to power).

Worth remembering

One has to wonder what exactly was the priority of G.W. Bush ? and why ?

Bush was an idiot, but his point is actually the point being made over and over again on both the left and the right this week. Al-Qaeda is a decentralized organization, and that's not even counting allies that aren't directly part of Al-Qaeda. On 9/11 Al-Quaeda was the praetorian guard of a state. After the invasion of Afghanistan it became a diffuse, cell-based movement--less dangerous in some ways, more dangerous in others but certainly far less dependent on its leadership. Killing Bin Laden is a victory for justice, and demonstrates US resolve, but it's not clear what effect it will have on the movement he began.

126: Yeah, you have a very idiosyncratic view of "nuttiness". You see, the lone gunman "theory" is the only one consistent with the evidence, hence, it is not "nutty" to consider it to be the explanation.

The other theories, they don't even pass the laugh test.

>139 timspalding: Right. We're all happy that Bin Laden is gone, but does it really make all that much of a difference? It's like cutting off the Hydra's head: it just doesn't kill the beast.

On a slightly different topic: does anyone really believe Pakistan's government didn't know that Bin Laden was 'hiding' just down the street from a major Pakistani Army base? The fact that the American helicopters which attacked the base were ordered to fly very low, under the radar of Pakistan's military, shows how much the U.S. trusts them. Nice allies they turned out to be!

#139, Nice one Tim - put that one in the editorial section of the newspaper! I think our current Prez said more or less the same thing in his speech.

I still hope Osama's demise hastens a more peaceful world or our ass out of Afghanistan at least.

". . .consistent with the evidence" (140)

It seems ot me that you have a very idiosyncratic view of "evidence". In this case the evidence would have be related to (!) motivation and (2) workability (from the assassinʻs point of view).
The alleged Communist connection (which I think is probable) provides some data on motivation. How about workability? What would make him think he could do this "for the Paartyʻs benefit, without having to conspire with anyone? (Iʻm not one of those who believe that Oswald was completely uninvolved. There was a French publication, titled "Oswald nʻa pas tire! / (Oswald did not Fire!) I couldnʻt even bring myself to read it, with that ridiculous a title. That he was uninvolved, that a complete set-up was contrived making him a patsy
is just as implausible to me as the Lone Gunman theories.
But with such a "good" case against him why was it necessary to keep him from coming to trial? Oh, I remember! ANOTHER "Nut" just happened to come along and kill him!
He was killed by a marginal crime figure? Oh, well thatʻs just a coincidence! He was a guy who was outraged by the assassination, and wanted to keep Kennedyʻs widow from having to appear in court! (Ha Ha-- er, I mean Boo Hoo, I weep for him.) He was someone who had "never met Oswald". Yet he was somehow able to correct the prosecutor who had called Oswald "a member of the Free Cuba Committee". No, Ruby c corrected the D A, "he is a member of the FAIR PLAY for CUBA Committee." True. And a very insightful remark for someone who had never met Oswald.

141>

I think a better question is, "What's Pakistan's obligation to us, and what is that based on?" That's what I want to know--why did they look the other way for so long, and what changed (if anything?)

All I know is that if this had happened under a Republican President's watch the GOP would be ten times more aggressive in selling this accomplishment than the Democrats are. I mean, if this isn't reason enough to rally around a President then you're never going to support the guy, case closed. Your mind was made up a long time ago.

127: Many people talk of "Obama haters," with the implication that those people would never see any good that he may do. I guess you might be what could be called an "Obama lover," who would never see anything bad he might. One's as bad as the other.

#136: What seems to be missing today is the big middle where one was able to find individuals willing to ignore that nonsense and get on with rational, civil discourse.

Actually, I think they only seem to be missing because of their willingness to ignore the nonsense.

> 141 Nice allies they turned out to be!

Have you ever heard of the The Hague Invasion Act, meant to attack a long-term ally in case Americans were brought for an internationally recognised criminal court case. It is another legacy of G.W. Bush that was basically unnecessary, as you can read here:

"The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak," says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. "Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers' are charged with war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction."

But see how eager Uncle Sam was to place himself above a law:

One controversial offshoot of the invasion law is called "bilateral immunity" – a policy requiring all states except Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, and those in NATO to sign a waiver stating that they will contravene the ICC if any Americans are arrested. Countries that don't sign the waiver forfeit US military assistance. The policy pressured small states to comply – whether or not they felt it proper.

Kenya did not and lost US antiterrorism equipment in the years after the bombing of the US Embassy there. Trinidad-Tobago forfeited some drug-detection equipment.

For the rest, great that America caught Bin-Laden, although he seems to have become more of a symbolic figure than a real threat. I can’t wait for the book detailing Sunday’s action.

143: Given that you have no actual evidence concerning either motivation or workability that points to anything but Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone I don't think I'm the one who has an idiosyncratic view of evidence.

The fact that Ruby was able to correct Wade at his press conference is entirely unsurprising, given that Oswald's association with Fair Play for Cuba was broadcast at 4:00 PM Central time that day and had been all over the media for at least eight hours prior to Wade's conference. If you look at the actual newsreel footage, you will note that many people corrected Wade. This was because by the time Wade made his conference Oswald's association was common knowledge for anyone who had been paying attention to the biggest news story in the world that day. As usual, when you actually look at the "evidence" conspiracy theorists trot out, it doesn't hold up at all.

Another thing that struck my mind when watching this picture of Obama in the Situation Room: suppose the operation had failed. Would Obama have gone the same way as Carter after the failed operation to release the hostages in the US embassy in Iran?

Would Donald Trump have become the next Leader of the Free World?

#107 I'll believe it's been deleted when I see the DNA.

I think Osama bin Laden's death is psychologically very important, and I hope this is our cue to get out of Afghanistan. I hope this weakens the Taliban, and that this horrible chapter is over....I'm sorry that people are making this so political.

Members are reminded of the Terms of Use. "Comment on content, not the contributor."

> 139 I understand what we did in Afghanistan....I understand the need to "get" Bin Laden. Also feel that for the most part....Americans have forgotten what we did to the country of Iraq.
I run into serious problems when it comes to Iraq. Seriously....if Iraqi special forces were to come to America, shoot Bush or Cheney in the head and bury them at sea....from their point of view, justice would be served. No different that what we are feeling right now.
If one tries to link terrorist cells between Iraq and Afghanistan.....one can from the perspective of those in the Middle East, look at America as sanctioning most of them at one time or another.
Why is it we are allowed to do such things and when the "unthinkable" happens to us it is so unjustified ?

>9 bnielsen:: How did you post a picture?

>139 timspalding:: I agree with you Tim, Bush is an idiot. Did you ever see Fahrenheit 911?

<img src="url" />

to add an image

> 145

Welcome to your world, huh? LOL.

This is just spin. It makes NO sense in the real world. Not a effing bit.

The reason Obama has consistently been less than 50 per cent in the polls - sometime as low as 41 per cent - is because liberals-progressives-"Lefties" have been very unhappy with his middle-of-the-road-compromise-with-asshats approach to domestic governing. Once those 10 -15 per cent get back on board with Obama in 2012 the Palin/Trump (or the Gingrich/Bachman) ticket will be in Big trouble. LOL.

>156 SimonW11:: Thank you, but what do I do with that to add a pic?

I'd like to question one part of this whole thing. Everyone's describing how awesome the house was, it's "massive size," etc. The US estimated it as worth $1 million dollars.

Have people seen the photos? It may well have been larger than surrounding buildings, but it was not actually very large. 50x50 on the bottom level, at most. (Check out the Google Map, which has a scale marking and shows a number of nearby houses are about the same size.) This may qualify as a premium dwelling in Pakistan, it's hardly a mansion there or anywhere. The land can hardly be very expensive there or the settlement pattern would be very different indeed. We're talking the growing edge of a small Pakistani city, not Manhattan. And the house itself? The construction will be familiar to anyone who's lived in a second-world country; it's a sturdy but utterly plain concrete box like a million others. $1m dollars? My house isn't worth half that and it's larger, extensively ornamented and situated in a American city!

What gives?

>159 timspalding:
Another conspiracy perpetuated by the media. Bin Laden was in a spider hole.....for the past 10 years. Sound bite is better this way ;>) He was living in luxury..."Damn Him" !

Okay, it's larger than my house. 50 feet seems smallish. Apparently not. Here's my attempt to put my house—which also includes the LibraryThing "compound"—next to Bin Laden's.

Guess one would have to have a definition of what comprises a "mansion" in that particular area. My guess is that perhaps like it is here, it would be about comparables.

My home is pretty big but by the standards of where I live it is not a mansion......if I travel north a couple of hours, my home would be considered a mansion.

Same goes for the idea of a compound....does a fence around a home constitute a compound ?
We call it a fenced in propertiy but I can see where it may appear to be a compound to some, depending on the number of out buildings and the size of the house.

No, I can understand why it's a fairly nice house. A million dollars is a lot of money in Pakistan, though. I could buy one hell of a house in Portland for a million dollars—a lot better than Bin Laden's!

Again, value vs size is pretty area specific.....one can get a lot more house for the money in certain areas of the country. Can even narrow that down to areas of the State and even to each specific county. If you want to live in Brookfield Wisconsin or in Mequon Wis. you better have some big bucks.....you can get a lot more for your money in Shawano Wis.

Do we know the history of the house ? How long the owners had the home ? Maybe they bought it for the specific reason of hiding Bin Laden. If this is true, they may have paid dearly.
Haven't done any research on this so I have no clue....a lot of unknowns.
The media is throwing around words like "mansion" and "compound" and it does bring to mind a totally different picture than what the home really appears to be.

My understanding of the word "compound" when talking about living in a non-Western country is that the family (extended usually) has a number of buildings surrounded by a wall. Not a fence that your dog can see through and bark at pedestrians. A wall which is usually at least 8 feet tall, many times more. This is a common way of separating "my world" from the rest of you-all. I lived in a compound when in the Peace Corps in Africa. Not luxury accommodations, I'm here to say. Pretty much fit the description of "mud huts" but we were surrounded by a big, thick, and protective wall.

Now, using the word "mansion" is a little more tricky. Your home may be a mansion to me, the little old lady living on fixed retirement income, with no increases in Social Security, nor in Teachers' Retirement.

a million dollars would not buy you four bedrooms in large swaths of England. and I suspect my definition of a Mansion is somewhat different from an Americans. It has to have a ghost for one thing :^).
I suspect a Pakistanis definition would be different from both of ours. It may be that a house that would merely be middle class here would have higher status there, I don't know.
compund for me impies a perimeter than stops all but determined entry efforts..

I think it highly unlikely that Osama would chose to live anywhere ostentatious enough to provoke interest.

> 167

a million dollars would not buy you four bedrooms in large swaths of England.

Heck, it would barely buy you one bedroom in Manhattan!

Ah, property values. That is a topic that could take us... where? One million dollars would be the price for many a home in and near Seattle. Way too many!

>170 Sarahthewriter: What does this have to do with Bin Laden? (the topic of this thread) Are you an Author? You might want to look at the Terms of Service and How Authors Can Use LibraryThing.

"LibraryThing is a place to connect with readers, not a place to advertise. As we say in our Terms of Service, "Do not use LibraryThing as an advertising medium. Egregious commercial solicitation is forbidden. No matter how great your novel, this does apply to authors."

With that, just a few things to keep in mind:

* Do not send out friend requests to hundreds of people, even if all of them happen to have a copy of your book.
* Do not send unsolicited profile comments to everyone who has listed a book similar to your book.
* Do not post messages in Talk advertising your book. You can promote your book in Hobnob with Authors, but posting a blurb about your book and never coming back to discuss it is still seen as overt advertising.
* While you can review your own book, be aware that the review will be marked as the author's."

170-171: There is, in fact, a specific LibraryThing group and a specific LibraryThing thread for promoting your blog.

I think the member in 170 is just using a link to her blog as a signature line (which we don't see often here, but in this case is not necessarily a TOS violation - it is not commercial spam).

I've actually been kind of confused, having read multiple news accounts, by just how large/expensive the property was supposed to be.

Also is it really that unusual to burn your trash? I haven't been to Pakistan, but burning your trash is pretty common in parts of the middle east.

Ah the internet. I did a quick look and it looks like Abbotabad has municipal pickup, but it's very spotty. There's a whole report on it, put together by a nature NGO. The report notes that burning is, in fact, common. Parts of the city aren't served by the municipal pickup at all, and service is spotty everywhere. Apparently 78% of local residents are aware of the sanitary consequences of the problem. I wonder if Bin Laden's trash-survey form is on file somewhere...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7u2Uv-gSwhUJ:cmsdata.iucn.org/down...

There's also this heartbreaking picture: "Poor children collect reusable items from the garbage"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sultandogar/3308587075/

When people start talking real estate, that's when some of us decide to excuse ourselves and go get another drink. Me no speaky.

wait, let me see if I've got this straight. Bin Laden was living in Tim's 1 million dollar mansion???

I know. It's going to be something of a PR problem for the site.

Reports of Tim's mansion's value have been grossly overstated. Though the lack of internet connection does not bode well for LibraryThing.

it's the garbage burning that surprised me. I always thought Tim was a recycling kind of guy.

wait, let me see if I've got this straight. Bin Laden was living in Tim's 1 million dollar mansion???

That explains a lot.

>181 AsYouKnow_Bob:

Boooo!

So, serious question:

What do we do if we believe that Pakistan really knew about Bin Laden--and presumably set him up there?

I've been skeptical of such allegations in the past. It just seems so crazy-stupid. But there's no question that Pakistan has been playing a double-game with respect to the Taliban. Could they really have been complicit in this? I still don't believe it. But short of discovering Bin Laden in Zardari's wardrobe, could the situation be any less damaging for them?

So, let's say US intelligence decides senior Pakistani officials knew where Bin Laden was. What do we do?

I can't see that there's much doubt about Pakistan's double game, and I think few people have doubted it since the beginning of the whole reign of Al Qaeda terror. What can we do, they have the bomb? Obviously the billions of dollars we give them hasn't changed any minds, I don't know what would.

>183 timspalding: There's not much the US can do. The US-Pakistan relationship is already troubled- and the US is very unpopular in Pakistan. If the US government were to accuse Pakistan of complicity in hiding Bin Laden, it would damage the relationship further. Although Pakistan has been an uncertain ally, they have allowed the US and NATO to fly over their territory, and there are US bases in Pakistan (not far from Bin Laden's house, as a matter of fact). If Pakistan turned hostile to the US and NATO, the war in Afghanistan- as difficult as it is now- would be untenable. The US and NATO would have to withdraw.

Then again, maybe that would be a good thing...

Forgive my ignorance on this, but when we flew in to land at this compound, who gave us permission to do that? Was it the Pakistani government itself, and if so, was this a change in policy or was this just the first time we made such a request?

And furthermore, if they did actually know Bin Laden was in there, what prompted them to allow us to go in without warning him? Certainly something had to have changed--either their obligation to Bin Laden or their desire to assist us. Has this information been disclosed?

From what I understand (which admittedly is rather little), Clinton's missile launch to take out the camp was an instance where notification was given to Pakistan, in order to make sure the Pakistanis didn't assume that they were being attacked by India. It's widely rumoured that this led to a tip-off to Bin Laden.

Aside from that, there's been an uneasy balance with the U.S. and Pakistan. A lot of the drone attacks have been made with various levels of complicity. I think both sides in the issue have been trying to play both sides of the issue.

This latest raid has been said to either have originated at a Pakistani air base or and Afghan one depending on which reports you read. As for this raid, I don't believe they were notified in real time. I don't believe that we were given explicit permission. At least, that's our administration's line. As for Pakistan, you'd probably have to bear in mind that differing factions within the country probably have differing attitudes on the whole situation.

>184 Citizenjoyce:

I think it's general consensus among security people, government officials, the military and so forth is that the Pakistani is playing a double game with the Taliban. The Taliban are useful to Pakistan as a counterweight to a hostile Afghan government. They have long had an arrangement with them that keeps them from agitating within Pakistan, which has a very large majority-Pashtun area--in exchange for supporting them in Afghanistan. They are Pakistan's foreign-policy card. At the same time, they're by no means blind to the danger of Islamic militancy within Pakistan itself, and of a direct Taliban threat to the state. They have accordingly attacked Pakistani Taliban on many occasions, but left alone or supported Taliban groups willingly to confine their attacks to Afghanistani and US targets.

Playing a double-game with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda since 9/11 has not previously been considered likely. Bin Laden doesn't serve Pakistani objectives. Bin Laden is an unalloyed supporter of regime change in Pakistan. And being seen to support him is such a poison pill.

U.S. overhauls story of bin Laden's death

The White House retreated Tuesday from its most provocative assertions about the predawn operation to kill Osama bin Laden, acknowledging the al-Qaida leader was neither armed nor hiding behind a female "human shield" when U.S. commandos fatally shot him.

If I understand correctly, Pakistan is also one of those states with a sharp divide between the military/intelligence communities and the larger state.

So wait a minute: how did we fly in then? Either the government knew we were coming in (and chose to do nothing to prevent our mission or notify Bin Laden) or their defense within the country is pitiful--the fact that anyone could just fly in on their own terms without resistance.

Of course, there's always a third possibility: that we have certain provisions that allow us to fly in and out while conducting regular security missions, and that we breached certain boundaries once inside. Has anyone heard any of these possibilities? Are there other possible explanations that I'm overlooking?

Such things aren't without precedent.

As noted above, a lot of our drone missions have had at least some approval within the Pakistani state, if I recall correctly.

How long did it take the U.S. to account for commercial aircraft during 9/11?

> 192: You are right. See message 147.

>191 jasonseidner:

I doubt they knew it was coming. The US was not going to introduce the possibility of Bin Laden being tipped off. Getting out may have been tricky, but getting in? A German in a private plane managed to fly to Red Square during the Cold War. Delta Force can fly a helicopter across Pakistan if they really need to.

>192 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Shit. You thought of it too.

Don't fuck with me, Spalding. I believe that Israel has pulled off some pretty insane black ops in the past, too.

>191 jasonseidner: From what I've read, the American helicopters flew low, below Pakistan's radar, deliberately to avoid detection. The US did NOT have approval from Pakistan, or inform them of the mission. And yes, Pakistan's defenses must be rather pathetic- although I suspect they are a little more diligent in guarding their southern border, with India.

" Q And I understand that there was a moment of real tension, one with the helicopter, but then also when the Navy SEALs were leaving and the Pakistani government started scrambling their jets, and there was a concern that they were coming to where the U.S. troops were, where the Navy SEALs were. Was there an actual concern that the Pakistanis -- since they were not apparently informed about this military operation, was there an actual concern that they might actually take military action against the Navy SEALs?

MR. BRENNAN: We didn’t contact the Pakistanis until after all of our people, all of our aircraft were out of Pakistani airspace. At the time, the Pakistanis were reacting to an incident that they knew was taking place in Abbottabad. Therefore, they were scrambling some of their assets.

Clearly, we were concerned that if the Pakistanis decided to scramble jets or whatever else, they didn’t know who were on those jets. They had no idea about who might have been on there, whether it be U.S. or somebody else. So we were watching and making sure that our people and our aircraft were able to get out of Pakistani airspace. And thankfully, there was no engagement with Pakistani forces. This operation was designed to minimize the prospects, the chances of engagement with Pakistani forces. It was done very well, and thankfully no Pakistani forces were engaged and there was no other individuals who were killed aside from those on the compound.

Q Thank you, sir."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-press-secre...

I sure hope the US doesn't release OBL photos. They won't convince anyone who doesn't wish to believe, and they could prompt violence. OBL should not be allowed to cause even one more person's death.

Agreeing with 197 and 199. Glad to see the thread is calmed down a bit. Hopefully, the world may follow suit.

It's pretty easy to fly a group of Helos into a country when the country is busily looking the other way. Bin Laden was not an asset to Pakistan but they didn't want the bad press from killing him. I was amazed at the few number of people surrounding Bin Laden. You would think he would have a security detail to match a Prime Minister. He seemed to be caught unawares, the sounds probably being masked by his CPAP machine.
I wonder how the Truthers are dealing with this because they believed Bin Laden had nothing to do with it.

So, let's say US intelligence decides senior Pakistani officials knew where Bin Laden was. What do we do?

==============================

Well, I think that "we" should invade, conquer and occupy the country, don't you? After all, they defied and lied to Rom.... errr, the United States, the great defender of Truth, Freedom and the One And Only Way. What other response would be possible?

I sure hope the US doesn't release OBL photos. They won't convince anyone who doesn't wish to believe, and they could prompt violence. OBL should not be allowed to cause even one more person's death.

==================================

Right. "Official" accounts that say that he was shot although unarmed, followed by a mysterious burial at sea under otherwise undisclosed circumstances certainly will not promote violence and suspicion. Of course not. Our Leaders did what was best. They always do what is best.

> 201

I wonder how the Truthers are dealing with this because they believed Bin Laden had nothing to do with it.

I don't see why this should change the Truthers' opinions. Obviously, Bin Laden was about to reveal all, so the government had to take him out. Or, alternatively, too many people are starting to realize that the Truthers are right, so the government had to cause a distraction.

Seriously, though, there really is nothing about the fact that Bin Laden is dead that affects the core story believed by the Truthers.

Seriously, though, there really is nothing about the fact that Bin Laden is dead that affects the core story believed by the Truthers.

Mostly correct. Change that to "there are no facts of any kind that affect the core story believed by the Truthers" and you'd be completely correct.

Nothing will change because of this act; except possibly justifcations.

Now people who decide to 'join' Al Quaeda (which is done by looking at some literature and a website, and then deciding you approve and are going to join and carry out the agenda) have an additional reason to commit violence. Lack of that particular reason didn't remove all the other reasons to bomb something, so no real change.

The U.S. isn't going to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq now that the 'Bad Guy' is dead.

Conspiracy theorists (of whatever conspiracy) can come up with all sorts of reasons why suddenly, after 10 years, bin Laden was killed.

Bread and Circuses...

195> 197>

What's scary is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and this is how asleep at the wheel they seem to have been. I mean, they are SOOO engaged with protecting their position against India (enough that they have nuclear defense) and yet we can get in, unannounced, and accomplish everything we set out to do? That's a very fine line.

There is no way that msg #196 was a personal attack.

> 208

I agree.

In addition to incompetent or complicit, I wonder if third option for Pakistan. Perhaps the civilian government or some element of the military helped locate OBL, etc., but cannot admit it publicly, given the treacherous politics in that country.

Just before this mission WikiLeaks revealed that the US had classified the Pakistani intelligence agency as a supporter of terrorism: "...the InterServices Intelligence directorate, or ISI, was listed as an "associated force" that provides support to al Qaida or the Taliban. Other associated forces included Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran's intelligence services. The ISI has long been suspected of maintaining ties to the al Quaida-allied Haqqanie network, a group it supported during the struggle against the Soviet occuipation of Afghanistan in the 1980s..." (THE WEEK, May 6, 2011)

Wonder where Benazir Bhutto's assassins came from--military, ISI, terrorist group?

ETA: According to MD neighbor of OBL, the military recently surveyed the neighborhood as to who was living there.

I note that the latest excuse for disposing of the body of Bin Laden in such a way that it just disappears is that his burial site would become a shrine for like minded Muslims. Of course, this makes no sense if anyone knows anything about Muslim sects or history. Bin Laden was a Wahhabist. Wahhabists detest worship of anything other than Allah. Their first act upon taking over Saudi Arabia was to destroy the graves of Muhammad and his Companions. http://babakdarvish.blogspot.com/2010/09/saudi-arabia-destruction-of-sites.html But now, somehow, these same people would have totally changed their basic doctrines and flocked to the grave of Bin Laden? Of course they would. After all, the federal government of the U.S. is always right (but often ridiculous in the propaganda it releases to convince stupid Americans of the latest party line).

~199

Got your wish.

Why am I getting the same impressions I got during the run up to the Iraq war? Weapons of mass destruction, we've got to save the Iraqi People before we go up in a nuclear cloud, Saddam forming an alliance with Al Queda, etc. Of course, those sorts of outlandish lies by public officials to obtain their ends have never happened before or since. And there are certainly no holes in the present story.

> 211

Most "thinking" people seemed to know much more about the politics and practices of the Middle Eastern peoples than the government, when the decision was made in 2003 to go to war.

Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot but I did read a book titled "Baghdad Without A Map" by Tony Horwitz and knew from the get go that things like "shock" and "awe" were going to be all about destruction and desolation without much benefit to those whom we were so intent on shocking and awing.

The only conclusion one can draw from any of it is that for the most part it is all propaganda for the benefit of a select few Americans.

Which puts a serious kink into how we American's like to view ourselves.

As to Bin Ladens body......since Ms Palin opened her trap again about the "mission" and how important the release of the pictures is to the "mission"......maybe we should have buried it in Alaska.....where she could view the site from her back door.

for the most part it is all propaganda for the benefit of a select few Americans

No, it's propaganda for the benefit of a large number of Americans. Unless you mean financial benefit, in which case, yes, it's a select few.

(American foreign policy rarely seems to consider how things will appear to other people. Why do Americans imagine that people of other nationalities would think that America is the greatest? Why do they not seem to realize that other people have patriotic feelings towards their own countries, not America?)

I think the Alaska idea is an excellent one! I certainly thought they should have taken the body back to the US and buried it somewhere really inaccessible.

Of course, this makes no sense if anyone knows anything about Muslim sects or history

The risk is not that Bin Laden's closest co-religionists would make a shrine of it, but that it would become a shrine to others less committed--but perhaps on their way--to Bin Laden's ideology. The Wahabis didn't destroy the grave of Muhammad, and aren't opposed to all the graves of sufi saints around the world, because such shrines are pointless and disregarded. Graves of holy men are in fact a common and popular aspect of Muslim religiosity. I'm sure you could find or speculate that many of them were errected against the wishes of those they commemorate.

What I meant was propaganda which is used to financially benefit the few.

A writer for AlterNet claims that Osama Bin Laden has won the war on terror. I am afraid to fly, and a large part of that is because of the TSA thugs controlling access to aviation. I think I largely agree with this writer.

Robert

So the war on terror boils down to air travel.

Well, I can't help but want to weigh-in. I am not terrorized. I am not afraid to fly. I don't like flying because it causes too big a carbon footprint. I am not afraid of being in crowds. So, I guess it all equals out. Eh?

> 218 Think perhaps they ought have two planes going to any given destination. One where passengers have been checked and one with out anybody checking.
Would be interesting to see which plane would fill up first.

Seriously ? You are comparing TSA personel to terrorists ?

219. How is that?

Robert

221. Seriously, I didn't do that.

Robert

#218

An interesting article. I too feel that the writer made some very good, and very unsettling points.

Killing a single person, no matter how important, may not have any effect on a war. Indeed, it may simply confirm a victory by the deceased.

History is rife with killings, assassinations, and executions that merely confirmed a victory for the cause of the victim.

~215

I think that you'd better read the link, and if that one isn't convincing to you I've got about a dozen similar ones. As for your other statements, well, I don't know what to say. The Wahabbists consider the Sufis to be the most vile of heretics. They are not only not "ignored," they are generally persecuted and treated abominably.

>225 lawecon:

The point is that Bin Laden is not merely inspiring to his particular group. He has a much larger significance and following, who appreciate or even revere him for what they see as his courageous stand against the United States and against Jews, not for his particularly rigorous strain of Islam. For example, the latest Pew research report found 34% of Palestinians and 48% of Nigerians "confident" Bin Laden will do what's right in international affairs. This is down significantly. In 2003 you could even get majorities in Jordan and Indonesia to agree with the statement, and 3/4 of Palestinians were on board. As you are surely aware, those numbers are far from what you'd get if you asked "Are you a Wahabi?" Bin Laden's charisma, success and overall program transcended his Wahabbism.

Al-Qaida has confirmed the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, and vowed vengeance, pledging in a statement posted on militant websites that his blood "will not be wasted".

"We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheikh, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will not go in vain.

"We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries. Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness, their blood will be mingled with their tears." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/osama-bin-laden-al-qaida

Interesting that Al Quaida is demanding that body be returned to OBL family.

I haven't seen video of at-sea burial, but would there have been any utility for US keeping the body? To prove death? For autopsy, etc., to see if there had been recent surgery, or if he had required regular dialysis., i.e., if he had been in Pakistani hospitals? I guess it could have been autopsied on ship--the US does have DNA samples, reportedly. I am sure US wouldn't want it known if body was kept. They probably just wanted the damned thing deep-sixed ASAP? (Damned is not just expletive in this case, says Huckabee.) But if remains are at bottom of sea, Al Quaida demand is one that could never be met, even if US wanted to--thus a good rallying cry?

US authorities obviously don't want to offend Muslim sensibilities over burial procedures. One blogger, however, said he didn't care if it was wrapped in bacon and served to wild dogs (!) A bit excessive and not worthy of a great nation, IMHO.

211> I imagine desecration by Americans was also a concern. I have no problem believing there are Americans wacky enough to want to piss on OBL's grave or do any number of other things were it accesible. The parties upon news of his assassination were bad enough. We don't need idiots desecrating the grave of an enemy to further damage our image in the eyes of the international community.

>228 margd: wrapped in bacon and served to wild dogs Hmm, that does have a certain poetic justice to it.

> 229
Ah, a like minded individual. What was done to Bin Laden was justified by his actions. To go any further would be vengence. We are hearing from Al-Quaida that they will seek revenge.....
Who are we as a society ?
Are we to remake ourselves into the image of the enemy ?

I think the career choice of Mr Bin Laden exposed him to certain existential risks (like any other armed thug, protection racket, or religious mercenary fighting for material or spiritual profit). I think his demise has little to do with justice -- in the juridical sense of the term -- than the logic of violence playing itself out (honour killing characteristic of the Mediterranean societies). In a more poetic sense, the US government (not "we") "remakes itself" whenever it adopts the tactics of its enemy to defeat it. But one should not have too romantic a view of the use of state power in the first place to think it has ever been otherwise. The idea that Navy Seals would have been sent on a mission to serve Mr Bin Laden with a subpoena to appear in US Federal Court to answer indictments against him is risible.

>232 theoria:
Perhaps it had nothing to do with justice and everthing to do with revenge......keeping that in mind, I am pretty sure that there are plenty of Iraqi citizens who would very much like to bring Bush to task for what happened in their country.
Granted, Bush did spend his life planning the destruction of Iraq (at least not that we know of) but I'm not sure that makes what happened there any less tragic.

We have very little control over the likes of Bin Laden or the way our government chooses to deal with their actions. No different than the average Middle Eastern citizen has over many of the things that come our way from that direction.

The "we" I was referring to were those who "partied" when they heard of an assassination.
The same "we" who are, more often than not, pretty disengaged from what is going on in this country. The "we" who can't seem to get along enough to tackle any of the big problems this country is mired in at the moment.
Brought this up before and it was not received well but, to me, the reaction lacked a bit of class.
Just wish the "we" would get half so excited about the banks who stole/ and continue to steal our money or the 40 million without healthcare in this country......imagine what could happen if the "we" would rally as much over the piss poor job that our legislators have been doing for the past several years ?
Guess that was the point I was trying to make....had nothing to do with the death of Bin Laden or the methods used to take him out other than the fact that his death is about the only thing that has united this country since 9/11

". . .Navy Seals would have been sent to serve mr. binLaden with a subpoena(?)
. -- risible!" (232)

Yes, I can laugh at that. But the analogy doesnʻt hold up: A subpoena is issued to
a potential witness, not to a defendant. No one is suggesting that Bin Laden was only a witness. So the joke doesnʻt demolish the idea that this was a criminal, not a military situation. Youʻre saying, in effect, that ARREST for his CRIMES was not an option. That has already been said in the media, and is becoming the "Conventional wisdom" of the case. I didnʻt believe George W. Bush when he told us that this is a war, not a hunt for a criminal.
I voted for Obama, but if he says the same as Bush, I donʻt believe him either. But Bush didnʻt maintain the "war" scenario consistently enough to confer the status of P O W s on the prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. His legal advisors assured him (and us) that these prisoners are military prisoners "with a difference", and we canʻt be held to any "obsolete" Geneva Conventions about them.

that

>234 rolandperkins:

The problem from the beginning is that we've been acting as if a war exists, rather than a major criminal problem. No war has been declared; the United States has not been officially at war since 1945. Technically, this was a state-sanctioned assassination; not an act of war (since no such war exists) but closer to state terrorism.

Imagine, if you will, a group of commandos from Cambodia tracking down and shooting Kissinger for manifest war crimes against their nation and people. And various southeast Asians caught on camera cheering and celebrating the end of a hated 'realpolitik' leader who brought so much unnecessary misery to their countries. Would we think this perfectly reasonable, given the precedent that has been set?

Hmm.... good analogy

234> ok how about: "make good on an arrest warrant." I don't think Obama supporters listened closely to Obama's campaign promise, made numerous times but most strikingly during one of the debates with McCain, that if his administration found bin Laden, it would "kill" bin Laden. Having said that, my point was that it's risible to dress this up in a justice frame, and to think that Navy Seals were sent to retrieve bin Laden for any sort of trial. State power used in this form is naked power. On the other hand, bin Laden also placed himself "outside the law," including any international law that might have applied to his activities. So naked power met naked power and one side wound up off loaded in the ocean.

I also agree with #235 that the problem from the very start was the framing of the situation as a "war on terrorism," which is an unwinnable war because it is a war against a tactic and, additionally, because no "truce" can ever be negotiated. However, within this framework, "extrajudicial" assassinations are the norm, not the exception. Until someone successfully debunks this frame, expect more of this sort of military engagement with the "enemy."

bin Laden did not place himself 'outside the law'; we went along with his declaration that he was waging war, rather than simply a criminal with a cause.

In short, bin Laden got everything he was trying for in his stated manifestos. He was treated as an important leader, got the United States involved in two wars in the Middle East (possibly three, although Libya's connection with bin Laden is very vague), and became a martyr. Whether these were worthwhile goals, or reasonable ones, is beside the point; you don't win a conflict by doing what the enemy wants you to do.

And terrorism is a tactic of warfare; unless all the international actors agreed to and upheld a ban against terrorism, both private and state-sponsored, it's going to continue. (It might well continue in spite of such a declaration; but at least there would be a legal rejection on file.)

bin Laden did not place himself 'outside the law'

Really? What legal tenets set limits on his actions?

Pyschologists discuss the celebration of OBL's death and the underpinnings of revenge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/health/06revenge.html

"(. . .Libyaʻs connection with BinLaden is very vague . . .)" (238)

Not vague at all, if there is ANY truth in what the media is telling us: that Qadafi and Al Qaeda are enemies of eachother; and that
we are on the same side as Al Qaeda in Libya, and that Qadafi points to Al Qaeda as the mainstream of the opposition to him.
Iʻm not one who has great faith in our media, and I donʻt believe that "Your Enemyʻs Enemy is your friend." I donʻt think Middle Eastern powers hold themselves very much to that maxim, either; still less do those in the Balkans.)
Yes the Media could be lying to us, but I donʻt think even they would attempt that blatant a reversal.

>240 margd:
An interesting article but I would say it is a stretch to say that the average citizen in this country, has been anxious about the where abouts of Bin Laden. For crying out loud, we hardly acted like we were at war.....a volunteer army and no food/fuel shortages led to pretty disengaged nation.
We also have yet to connect our current financial situation with having very much to do with the cost of this war. Cleverly done by the Bush administration so as to make it appear that the burden of the financial problem fell on the next administration.
If one had the tenacity to bring up the fact that people were actually dying, one was quickly reminded that those who were doing so "signed up to do so". Not to mention that if you even whispered anything about the loss of life in Iraq you were "for Sadam" and should question your own patriotism or lack there of.

Great article but a bit of a stretch.....

~229

You and I can make up whatever rationales we want for what has purportedly been done, but the facts are these: There is no body that was inspected by anyone other than military personnel. The identity of those personnel is not being disclosed, nor are they allowed to speak to the press. The video record of the attack and the body are not being disclosed. Apparently Bin Laden's wife, who was also shot but not killed at the time he was purportedly shot and killed, has disappeared.

If the allies at the end of WWII could have had similar credulity from their populations, they could have simply declared that Hitler was dead without any problem of verification. Whatever else we may learn from this episode, it is that Orwell was a good judge of future trends regarding this excerpt from 1984:

"On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax. "

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html

~239
Really? What legal tenets set limits on his actions?

==========================

Yes, true. I'm certain if asked that he would have proclaimed that he could have attacked nations without any declaration of war and tortured their inhabitants to achieve his ends.

~238

In short, bin Laden got everything he was trying for in his stated manifestos. He was treated as an important leader, got the United States involved in two wars in the Middle East (possibly three, although Libya's connection with bin Laden is very vague), and became a martyr. Whether these were worthwhile goals, or reasonable ones, is beside the point; you don't win a conflict by doing what the enemy wants you to do.

==========================

A well thought out set of observations. International criminal scum can now become great figures, the George Washington of a holy cause, simply by being labelled as a "terrorist."

But you're forgetting Bin Laden's also expressed goal of destroying liberty in the United States. "I tell you freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people and the West in general will enter an unbearable hell and a choking life..."

Not fully successful, perhaps, but his corroborators in the U.S. government at least managed to irretrievably destroy habeas corpus.

Apparently Bin Laden's wife, who was also shot but not killed at the time he was purportedly shot and killed, has disappeared.

She's in Pakistani custody. The original plan was to remove the family, but the loss of the second hellicopter required them to be left.

And she's been interviewed by..........

Umm, laws against murder, especially mass murder?

No country that I am aware of allows for the murder of people, even non-citizens, without prior declaration of war or governmental statement of the need for armed aggression. (I disagree with the latter as a justification, but it's accepted by the United States, at least when they're the ones doing it, and acknowledged as valid by U.S. allies.) Nor was bin Laden an acknowledged mercenary figure under contract with an accepted nation-state.

Therefore, bin Laden was a mass murderer. He wasn't a nation unto himself, nor did Al Quaeda have, nor has, any accepted standing to declare and conduct a war as an NGO. Nor is any such standing ever likely to be granted, ever. If Afghanistan refused extradition, then precedent exists for the capture and removal of such a person for formal trial.

Letting people place themselves 'outside the law', and accepting such a declaration, sets a very dangerous precedent.

I rather favor the "Dread Pirate Bin Laden" approach (see http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp.... There is a status separate from "criminal under your jurisdiction" and "enemy on the battlefield" and that is pirate--the original non-state actor.

Therefore, bin Laden was a mass murderer. He wasn't a nation unto himself, nor did Al Quaeda have, nor has, any accepted standing to declare and conduct a war as an NGO. Nor is any such standing ever likely to be granted, ever. If Afghanistan refused extradition, then precedent exists for the capture and removal of such a person for formal trial.

=====================================

All exactly right.

~249

The article is predicated on this assumption: "But attempts to provide a definition have failed because of terrorists' strangely hybrid status in the law. They are neither ordinary criminals nor recognized state actors, " The assumption is false, unless one is making some sort of distinction between Al Capone and "ordinary criminals." I don't recall a new body of law being invented for Al Capone.

It is a terrorists aim to be treated not as an ordinary criminal but as as a state actor.

I haven't been following this really closely, but didn't I hear a report that Al Queda admitted that Bin Laden is dead? I suppose they can't know that he's dead, but they do know that he's missing so at the very least we know that the US "got" Bin Laden so a large part of what the gov't is saying is true. It's possible that instead of killing BL and burying him at sea he's actually in CIA custody but if that's true the number of people that would have to know about it means that it won't be a secret for long.

> No chance that we would keep Bin Laden in custody. Could you imagine the circus surrounding the issue of what to do with him ?? Couldn't even keep the body as no one would agree with what to do with that either.

The way it was handled was probably the most "peaceful" way if one can use that expression in this context......the decision to keep it as private as possible in all aspects of dealing with Bin Laden was a sound decision.

How much would it have cost this country to keep him anywhere ? Security...trials....what ever....it all costs. So would a body.....

What's nice about putting him at sea is the fact it wasn't deemed as an anti-Muslim action, ie, it did not go off on a tangent about how this was against Muslims as a whole. We did it to HIM, and that was our purpose.

But I agree with lawecon in 245: bil Laden set out to disrupt our nation's flow, our economy, and our priorities--and he did just that. Where we are 3, 5, 10 years from now will help define whether his legacy is merely symbolic or if he really did make a lasting difference.

~252
It is a terrorists aim to be treated not as an ordinary criminal but as as a state actor.

=========================

That is, of course, seldom true. The first modern terrorists were anarchists. Bin Laden and his sort see themselves as simply pious followers of a particular religious faith and make no claim of statehood or being the agents of a state. Rather, it is governments like the federal government of the U.S. that seek to place them in some "special category" that has elements of being the agent of a state.

~254

Of course, this is an excellent solution! Any criminal should simply be shot in the head and chest and then buried at sea. No bother with the cost of incarceration or that silly antiquated notion of a public trial.

Actually, sometime similar was once the norm, but then some pesky sorts came up with ridiculous notions like habeas corpus and the metaphysical nonsense summarized in the so-called Bill of Rights. Totally inefficient. So glad that "we" are beyond that these days.

~253

Just so we don't get off on some strawman tangent here. I haven't heard anyone - on this thread or otherwise - claim that Bin Laden isn't dead. The issue is whether he died in the way being reported or, perhaps, of natural causes in his own bed. Which scenario would better serve the federal government of the U.S. and Al Qaeda? What evidence is there for either scenario?

>257 lawecon:
I believe that any measures needed to secure Bin Laden would have been way beyond the norm. Not only from those who would want to see him dead and try do the deed themselves but also from those who would seek to free him......would have been a nightmare.

Can almost hear the brew ha ha from the Right if Obama had captured him and decided to keep him somewhere in the States......which state ? Where ? Who would be responsible for the cost of the security needed to move him about ?

I am not suggesting that this is the way we should handle criminals....only pointing out an obvious consideration when it came to this particular individual.

The idea of an assassination repulses me but so too does the thought of the media/political circus that would have ensued if Bin Laden would have been captured alive.

Once again....Obama would have been wrong no matter his decision !

>257 lawecon:
One of the main purposes of a trial is to establish whether or not the defendant is guilty of a charge. If the defendant has not only admitted the charge but trumpeted the fact in the international media and professed an eagerness to repeat the crime, there isn't really any contest.

>260 MyopicBookworm:
You are absolutely correct....yet, for many criminals in this country we go through legal hoops to prove guilt.......as much as I hate to see anyone "put to death" there comes a point where the victims, along with the rest of society, start paying for needless, extended trials for individuals which, to my way of thinking, have boldly commited such horrible crimes that it would seem a no brainer to declare them guilty.

It becomes a case of twisting and tweeking an individuals "protected rights" until common sense no longer applies.

In this case....it would have made little sense to prolong Bin Laden's life.

~260

My, that is interesting. And here I thought that the principal purpose of a trial was something called "due process." It may surprise you, but hardly anyone - even those who admit certain acts - also admit that they constitute crimes. Crimes are determined by judges and juries, not by internet lynch mobs or Navy Seals.

~261

People with "your way of thinking" need to be accused of a crime sometime. I'd be willing to bet that your standards would suddenly change if that were to happen. But, of course, I'm certain that part of "your way of thinking" is that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys and that anyone accused of a crime is a Bad Guy, unlike yourself.

Local real estate pro assesses Bin Laden residence at $250,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-compound_n_858...

>263 lawecon: WOW...that was totally unfair !

Never in anything I posted did I say that ALL cases were that clear cut. It would seem that you are looking at things with an "all or nothing" attitude. It has been my experiance that when things are viewed in this manner.......common sense no longer applies.

And what of the shooter in Arizona ? No matter how sick in the head the guy may be he is guilty of killing several people. To stand in a court room and declare himself "not guilty" is a travesty of justice. To allow him to do so supercedes the rights of all those who found themselves at the wrong end of his particular nightmare.

You are making some assumptions about me that are pretty personal.....it may surprise you to know how many times I've dealt with the legal system and in what manner. Experience is the best teacher !

265: No, allowing him to defend himself as he sees fit is justice.

266>

What is the defense for killing/injuring nine people you don't even know ? There is a defense for this ??
Justice for HIM....and only him.

The prisons are full of people who are "not" guilty......we can only hope that justice is being served.....have some doubts when plea bargining takes place....(if someone commits nine or ten crimes they commited nine or ten crimes....not two or three that they will "agree" with)

When something like this happens the focus immediately shifts to the perpetrator......seem to forget that a nine year old girl has a right to life.

Not all crimes are clear cut. Not all perpetrators are caught "red handed". Our legal system is structured so has to deal with this.

However, some times....the evidence is overwhelming...as in the case of Bin Laden....what sense does it make to drag it out ? Would be a mockery to all who lost family members on 9/11......not only to watch a trial but to have to indirectly pay for it as well.

Of course I am dismissing the idea that a jury may have found him "not guilty" by way of insanity and then we could have institutionalized him for the rest of his life. Always a possiblity I guess.

266: As you have pointed out, it is quite likely he will be found guilty, or at the last found not guilty by reason of insanity (which I actually find fairly likely). But that determination is to be made after trial. Not before. And before, to ensure a fair justice system, the accused must be given the right to defend themselves as they see fit.

Once you start discarding trials for people who are "obviously" guilty, you have to decide who is "obviously" guilty and gets sent stright to jail, and who isn't, and gets the benefits of a trial. How do you make that distinction and make it work? You say it is "obvious" he is guilty. Maybe. Maybe not. How do we determine that someone is obviously guilty or not? Wait, there's a system that has been used for that. What was it called? Oh yeah, a fair trial. So we are back to square one.

Guys like Loughner get fair trials because there is no other way to sort the guilty from the innocent that is reasonably fair. That is why allowing him to stand up and plead "not guilty" is justice.

Yes, I have to agree, habeas corpus needs to be upheld for everyone. If someone is 'obviously' guilty it should be a slam dunk case for the prosecutor. We already have enough problems by Bush enacting the suspension of habeas corpus (and Obama's continuation of same!) merely by calling someone a 'Terrorist'. My understanding of the situation is that there are no checks and balances on this act and it's whole use is to skip over any checks to balance the power of the government.

Now having said that, at no time did I think it likely that if Osama was found would he ever be 'captured' to be brought to justice. Though if it actually happened (his capture) I would have expected after spending sometime be questioned, he'd finally get a trial, even Saddam Husein got a trial, though few had doubts about it's outcome.

The point I was getting at is that our judicial system has become like a dang flea market. Do what you want then go haggle over justice.

True senerio this :
An individual, I know, received a ticket for speeding 17 miles over the speed limit. Being no stranger to speeding tickets he was in danger of losing his licence to drive. Having a substancial amount of personal funds....he hired a good attorney, went to court, pleaded "not guilty". Came away with a large fine (which he can easily afford) and a PARKING ticket.

Persumedly speeding laws were instituted for a reason. First and foremost would be safety not only for the driver but for those around him. Next time this guy decides he wants to do 17 miles over and hits someone.....who has the judicial system served ? Him or those who depend on a rule of law and order to keep them safe ?

When a punishment is stipulated for any particular crime....it is the punishment for the crime...to haggle and reduce or change it...is a mockery of the whole system.

>269 StormRaven:
Again, the whole focus of your argument is built around the rights of the perpetrator.....the rights of those he has harmed are somehow forgotten in this process.
Once the legal system starts it's workings.... very often the victim or victims become incidental....the rights of the criminal are to be protected....not only does this cost our society a great deal of money....it also fosters an attitude of nonresponsibility....after all...Bin Laden may have had a "terrible" childhood, that type of thing. (don't believe Bin Laden was insane...pissed off but, not insane.....did not give him a right to do what he did either way)
Personally....I don't give a rip about someone's childhood.....doesn't give anyone license to treat other people poorly. At some point the "reason" for disprespect of the law and/or the rights of others, has become an "excuse" to continue to behave poorly. There is very little excuse, in my opinion, to behave in such a manner as to cost someone else their life.
Once someone is caught with a smoking gun, a trail becomes all about the reason why he had the smoking gun.....what I hear are a bunch of excuses.....

Good way to determine if a person "knew" the consquences of his actions ...... take the guy from Arizona.....put him in a parking lot....tell him you have thirty rounds in a gun....walk away from him.....then start shooting at him. If he runs, he knows exactly what he did. If he stands there and has no clue what to do....well then maybe he is impaired to the point where he can't make a distinction regarding the consequences of his action. He needs some mercy along with some help.

(My Conservative side......though pretty much a Democrat...THIS topic touches my Conservative side....in a big way)

271: The rights of the victims are upheld by the fact that there is a prosecution to begin with. The state, acting on behalf of the victims, seeks redress for the crimes committed. Of course, the victims can also puruse a civil suit as well in their own right - and frequently do (for example, O.J. Simpson was the defendant in a wrongful death suit brought by the Goldman family).

But you are still putting the cart before the horse. You keep saying you can know some people are guilty without bothering with a trial. How do you make that determination? Who gets to have a trial before they are declared guilty? How do we determine sentence without a trial? By fiat? Should we have a star chamber deciding who gets to go before a jury and who does not? Who sits on that star chamber? What if they are wrong and the person they declared "obviously" guilty is not?

For your speeding ticket example, are you suggesting that we simply should not have trials for speeding tickets? Whatever the officer says must be true, and therefore we can dispense with the need to have a trial? Do you not see the potential hazards in that approach to prosecutions? Or maybe we should only have trials for some speeding tickets. Which ones? How do you decide which ones get them and which ones don't? You continue to put the cart before the horse, and suggest we can simply dispense with trials, but give no alternative means to seperate the guilty from the innocent other than you think some people are "obviously" guilty. Sorry, that just doesn't make for a just system. It makes for the kind of lottery that you decry.

Local real estate pro assesses Bin Laden residence at $250,000.

Much better. If I had cause to live there, I'd put in a bid.I'd imagine it's now worth far, far more now. I also bet the Pakistanis demolish it.

Yes, I have to agree, habeas corpus needs to be upheld for everyone

On the beaches of Normandy?

On the beaches of Normandy?

Ok, I guess I needed to be more specific, once someone is in custody, if they had actually captured Osama alive then I think he would have had rights to a trial. As I said, I doubted he'd have been taken alive. The military are not the police, and even the police periodically kill people in an attempt to apprehend suspected criminals.

>272 StormRaven:
For the most part...speeding is now caught on a radar divice. Hard to argue with technology. To haggle over traffic tickets is the norm I guess. Can be deadly when it comes to OWI s........Got a speeding ticket myself....I was speeding. Paid the fine took the points and slowed the heck down.

The point I am making is that we seem to have left common sense out of the equation. For a guy who has multiple speeding tickets to have his ticket reduced to a parking ticket is a crime perpetuated by the courts on those who count on the laws to keep a civil society. He is an accident waiting to happen. Would be, in my opinion why speeding laws were put there in the first place....along with the consquences.....sometimes harsh for repeat offenders. This defys common sense ! You say the trial is for the victims....in this case I clearly don't see it that way......if there aren't any victims yet, the court has made a decision which will create a greater potential that there will be.

How many individuals saw the shooting in Arizona ! The man who took the gun away from this individual...is he not alive to tell of such ? So now we have a trial ? Why ? What is the point of the trial for this man ? What is being proven or disproven ? Are we there to decide punishment ? No, we are there so that this man can try and prove that there was, to his way of thinking, a sound reason for him to do what he did and that this should prove him "not guilty" of his crime.
Somehow I feel that our system is no longer about crime and punishment but more about how we can avoid responsibilty for our actions.
For this individual to stand in a court room and plead "not guilty" is a joke. He is guilty. Maybe he should say "I did it but I had sound reason to do it" ? Any thing but "not guilty" He clearly did it ! He is guilty of taking lives and injuring quite a few people.

At some point in this circus the right of nine individuals to draw breath on the day after the shooting was taken from them by someone who is having his rights protected.....doesn't make sense to me ! There would be little. if no, excuse in my book for a person to commit such a crime.....wouldn't want to hear a bunch of excuses about it ! His rights would NOT superceed the rights of the nine who died.

In the Simpson case ....there were no witnesses.....though most of us had an opinion, the trial was done for the purpose of establishing whether he was guilty or not.

Perhaps it is more the results of our trial system that are so disturbing to me rather than the trial itself.......sometimes it is laughable. Bending over back ward to give criminals a chance to repeat their actions.....meanwhile those who count on the laws very existance to keep a reasonably sane society are compromised. At some point we have gone from a society of law and order to a society of excuses and Plea bargining, which puts the rights of those who obey the laws in jeopardy.

When people start talking about victim's rights is when innocent people start getting put in jail or worst. When the police have apprehended somebody then it becomes in everyone's interest, victim's too, to ensure that that person really is guilty. Too often the police do shoddy work because "someone has to pay," usually a minority. Then in the trial, victim's rights become an excuse to remove any protections an innocent person might have to defend themselves.

275: And yet that radar device has to be attested to. And radar devices can be wrong. And police officers can be mistaken. And this doesn't even get into the possibility that a police officer might lie - which is rare but does happen. How do you decide which cases get trials and which don't? You say you don't like the outcome of some trials. And I say "so"? If it was as slam dunk a case as you seem to think those cases would have been then the outcome would have never been in doubt to begin with. Your own examples argue against your case. We have trials because there is no other way to sort the guilty from the innocent. We have rules concerning how those trials are conducted to ensure that they will be as fair as we can make them.

Are trials perfect? No. No system administered by humans is. But your "solution" would be to remove most of the procedures we have in place to try to ensure that those trials are as close to accurate and fair as we can make them. On the speeding ticket, and Loughner you keep saying you "don't want to hear excuses", and don't even want them to present a defense in the way they want to. But that presumes guilt ahead of time. In some cases it seems apparent that the accused is guilty, but if Loughner pleads not guilty and demonstrates that he is somehow actually not guilty, what does that do to your theory that we should engage in prejudgement? If he pleads not guilty and is found guilty, doesn't that vindicate the system's effectiveness?

Dispensing with a trial is the quickest way to a tyrannical society in which law and order is dispensed with. Compare the justice system of nations in which actual trials are conducted to the justice system of nations in which show trials are conducted, or trials are dispensed with in favor of things like special hit squads instead. Which do you think has a system more conducive to law and order?

>276 jjwilson61: So victims just by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, lose their rights ?? It often seems that this is true but I find it pretty sad !

>277 StormRaven:
You have yet to address how a "speeding ticket" becomes a "parking ticket" The two are not even closely linked.....one requires motion beyond the accepted limit and the other requires nonmotion in an inappropriate spot or for an unaccepted amount of time.

If one is to have respect for a system than the system needs to operate in such a way as to inspire respect.
Having problems respecting our current legal system....on many levels.

" In some cases it seems apparent that the accused is guilty, but if Loughner pleads not guilty and demonstrates that he is somehow actually not guilty, what does that do to your theory that we should engage in prejudgement? If he pleads not guilty and is found guilty, doesn't that vindicate the system's effectiveness?"

Appears to be a crap shoot.....depending on lawyers and how they are influenced, jurys and each members prejudices....all kinds of issues can be deciding motivators.....the only thing that is perfectly clear is that the man stood and emptied a gun into a crowd of people. Which is the reason for the whole trial in the first place.

Like any system, our legal system is only so good as those who manage it.....currently, I feel that managment has taken their eye off of the ball and shifted the focus from determining who is guilty and who is not onto who can plead a better case and how can it can be tweeked to the benefit of what ever their personal agenda may be.

Not much different than some of the actions of our Supreme Court.

I believe G W Bush asserted that the USA would take bin Laden "dead or alive."

First 2008 presidential debate:

Obama: Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda. . . .

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy. . . .

In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaida is resurgent.

Second 2008 presidential debate:

Obama: And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority. . . .

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

I don't remember hearing any objections to this clear statement that the goal of the United States was to kill bin Laden, not to bring him to trial (either in the U. S. or the Hague). Hence, I'm not sure that ex post facto criticism has the necessary moral purchase it might have had if it had arisen earlier. To be sure, the normal workings of the rule of law are preferable to extra-judicial assassinations. It's too bad the rule of law framework has been so impotent in the face of the discourse of the "war on terror."

278: Well, here's the thing - I don't know all the facts that were adduced at trial. It appears that neither do you. Was the officer's radar detector properly calibrated? Do you know? Was the officer present to testify? Do you know? Were there mitgating circumstances? Do you know? Were any of a hundred other possibilites demonstrated at trial? Do you know? I certainly don't.

All we know is that you think this guy should have been guilty because you think he should have been guilty. Apparently, in "faceinbook"-land that's all we need. Because you think, based upon half-known facts, that someone should be guilty, we don't need to have a trial where we examine as many of those facts as possible to come to a fair and just result. We should just dispense with trials when faceinbook gets a gut feeling that someone needs some punishin'. Because.

And yes, Loughner killed a bunch of people. But do you know what punishment is appropriate? Do you know if he is mentally capable of being criminally responsible for his actions? How do you figure this out without actually going through the trial? And given the vast weight of evidence arrayed against him, it should be a simple case to try on the question of guilt, the only real determination being his mental capabilities. And then, even if he is declared not guilty by reason of mental illness, then he's going to be confined for the rest of his life anyway. But we have the trials to evaluate the facts. Attempting to come to conclusions before evaluating the facts is an anathema to an actual functioning justice system.

Seriously, you're being an advocate for the worst kind of tyranny possible. And you don't even realize it. There's a reason tinpot dictators the world over discard things like habeus corpus and due process at the first opportunity, usually accompanied with an explanation that they are making the justice system "more efficient". Its because those sorts of things get in the way of despotism. Its because those sorts of things help ensure that a system is, in fact, just. But brcause you think they are inconvenient to the outcome of cases you have prejudged based upon your gut feelings, you would discard them. There are plenty of places with the kind of legal system you are advocating for. I can virtually guarantee you would not want to live in any of them.

>280 StormRaven: What I do know about the speeding ticket is this....the guy admitted he was speeding, to various sources, including his high priced lawyer.....he has a history of speeding tickets....so much so that he would have lost his license this time around. He was issued a parking ticket (any moving violation would have suspended his license) and a fine.....rather large fine but easy enough for him to pay.
Is this a system that is working in so far as punishment for speeding is concerned ?

You are nit picking (Ha....got that one right) a point on this one......don't know many people who don't try to "get away" with traffic violations and many of them do....in fact if they have enough money they don't even have to experience the inconvienence of showing up in court.....a lawyer will do that....the police officer has to be there.

A good source of information as to how inefficent some of our legal system/court decisions have become are, in fact, police officers. Some may be corrupt or harried or what ever you want to call it but for the most part they are doing a job that appears to them at times to be fruitless.....trying to keep perpetrators off the streets....picking them up only to have them back on the streets in a couple of hours......the system may be set up to work in the best possible way but it appears to be falling short somewhere.

I am in no way advocating tyranny.....just advocating for a system that deals in reality.... currently the way we are conducting ourselves is very costly....to all.

It is the example of the stupid speeding ticket/parking ticket debacle that leads people to frustration when it comes to how we deal with criminals. This kind of thing instills doubt as to if indeed people are seeing true justice.

In "facebook land" if such a place ever existed.....there would be no gun that carried thirty-one rounds.....nor would there be any EXCUSE what so ever for owning, selling or using one....for what reason ? This kind of stuff may still happen but the odds would be much less. Just another way law enforcement is ham strung when it comes to keeping a civil society. We have a more populated society, different life style and yet we operate under an antiquated system of beliefs. Is it not reasonable to expect that as a society evolves, it make necessary changes to keep what strengths it does have in place operating efficiently ? We are using a system to try this man that was put in place when no one had heard of a automatic weapon.....the reality of one person creating so much havoc was unknowable.

What you say makes sense......you have a valid point....yet like everything else we humans tend to do....we push the boundries to extremes and what once made perfect sense starts to look foolish and not very effective.

>279 theoria:
Yes.....there was no plan in place to capture Bin Laden and bring him to trial.....apparently his crimes which resulted in loss of life were far worse than Loughner's plans which resulted in loss of life OR Bush's plans which resulted in loss of life. Why ? Cause we all know Bin Laden was responsible....yet there is a question as to Loughner's actions ? Bush also gets a pass...no trial for him...no death threat either...done for the right reasons I guess. It is frustrating and confusing !

The only point I am trying to make is that, in many cases, the system isn't working all that well....maybe it "could" but at this point in time...it isn't.

TANSTAAFL.

Any system designed to enforce a set of rules will have a cost. The question is, what do you want to pay? The current system's 'costs' are a time-consuming bureaucracy and inefficiency, with the benefits of most people accepting the judgements of the system without further coercion. (It's a truism that in any legal matter, at least one person will be unhappy with the result.)

A more efficient system would scrap the social persuasion aspect, and substitute raw force. Trials are inefficient; let the judge hear the evidence of the prosecution, and decide the sentence. That's far more efficient, saving time and money. More innocent people will end up in jail or dead; that's part of the cost.

Justice is not something any legal system necessarily provides, or can provide. What such systems provide are decisions.

281: Once again, you are engaging in a pile of speculation. One wonders how you know that he told his lawyer he was speeding - that would be attorney-client privileged communication. And you still haven't demonstrated that you knew what was going on at all. Attorney's are not magicians, we can only deal with the facts we have. An attorney cannot make a ticket go away just because you pay him a lot of money - there has to be some reason that the ticket can be bargained down to a lesser ticket for example. In short, the fact that he was able to pelad down his case means, by implication that there was something wrong with the prosecutors case.

(By the way, the idea that someone could pay their attorney to show up and not bother tells me you really don't know what you are talking about. A defendant must show up for trial, attorney or no attorney. And the police officer has to show up for trial because he has to testify in support of the ticket, in other words, he has to give evidence to support the conviction.)

I said "faceINbook"-land. As in, the world as you seem to want it. Which would be a recipe for tyranny. You are in fact arguing in favor of tyranny by saying we can dispense with trials when we are certain the accused is guilty. Because we are not actually able to be certain the accused is guilty before we have the trial. We test the truth by means of the trial. Some trials are easier than others to be sure, but that's actually where most plea bargains come into play: unlike your earlier supposition that plea bargains are people getting away with a crime, many take place when the defendant knows they will be convicted and they plead in order to avoid a trial. Once you dispense with trials brefore establishing guilt, you are on your way to a legal system like that "enjoyed" by the inhabitants of Russia, where they "knew" that Khodorkovsky was guilty without having to have a trial. You are, in fact, arguing for tyranny. The truly sad thing here is that you don't realize it.

Even in your fantasy system, we would need to have a way to determine which cases get trials and which do not. Unless you are arguing for dispensing with trials in all cases. So we'd need some system for determining what the truth of the matter was. If only we had some sort of procedure that we could use to make that determination . . .

~271

The point I was getting at is that our judicial system has become like a dang flea market. Do what you want then go haggle over justice.

============================

Our society use to permit people to take whatever acts they wanted and then bear the consequences of those acts. It was called "freedom." Perhaps you aren't familiar with that concept? Of course, now that the government protects us prospectively from Bad People and Bad Things we don't live that way any more. Neither do children.

If trials are unjust the solution is not no trials but fairer trials.
Who exactly is this person who you want to give the right to say you do not have the right to go to court Faceinabook? Are you really so eager to give up the right to defend yourself?

As to Plea bargaining, it fills me with contempt. and its spread beyond the US in recent years fills me with horror.
As far as i am concerned bargains are for civil law, Not criminal law.
While we are on the subject of civil law what the hell are punitive damages about?Punishment should be reserved for crimes( and crimes should require a higher burden of proof.

uh ho topic drift.

~276

You really need to get some experience with the "justice system" as it really works rather than as Fox News contends it works. Try these for a start: The Tyranny of Good Intentions and Go Directly To Jail and Three Felonies A Day/

~278

So victims just by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, lose their rights ??

====================================

No, they don't "lose their rights," they lose their property or their health or their lives, but not their rights. Look up "rights" in a dictionary.

One has to know when to fold them.....so that is what I am doing....did not realize that I was talking with an attorney......been down this path and have not come out on the winning end. Even though the law was clearly on my side.....I was too broke to do what needed doing.

As to the ticket guy....he stood in my garage talking to my husband...told him that he was speeding, that he routinely speeds, that he told his lawyer he was speeding and that his "special radar" detector that usually keeps him from getting "caught" speeding was not working properly.

Lawyers can handle traffic matters without clients in the court room.....perhaps it is different for a jury trial....but in Wisconsin a lawyer can go to court for you regarding traffic violations (if you can afford it)

>285 SimonW11:
Yes fairer trials......a legal system that makes sense. Honesty in sentencing....acceptance of responsiblilty....

Did not start this converstation as an advocate for tyranny.....only more common sense in a system that seems to have run amock.....

Don't feel that I am alone in feeling this way. But the cards are stacked against me on this one.
I conceed !

278> So victims just by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, lose their rights ??

The only right that they lose is the right to put an innocent person in jail in order to make themselves feel better.

Our society use to permit people to take whatever acts they wanted and then bear the consequences of those acts. It was called "freedom."

Freedom to trample on others as long as you are strong enough or rich enough to avoid justice? Freedom to make as much profit as possible while undermining people's health and trashing the planet? I piss on your "freedom".

Having read the above relatively carefully, albeit quickly, I would like to suggest everyone read a few more novels about what it was like to live in medieval England before the principals of a fair trial were established. Then people were named "guilty" because they were poor and in the way of someone who had the power to declare them "guilty". "Off with their heads" said The Queen of Hearts, was it?

America, the greatest country on earth....it sure isn't what the founding fathers had in mind.

" ʻOff with their headsʻ said The Queen of Hearts, was it?" (291)

Yes, as I remember it.

And, what you describe (because they were poor and in the way of someone who had the power...) reminds me of Robert Louis Stevensonʻs (unfinished?) novel, Weir of Hermiston. I first approached the book because the title sounded spooky and romantic; I had seen the word "weir" only in a Poe poem; never heard it pronounced by a human voice. As it turned out, "Weir" was not a body of water but a surname, that of the bookʻs anti-hero,
a "hanging judge" in 19th century Scotland. He often got mad at defendants just on "general principles"; his :"reasons" included that they "looked" poor. One witness shocked him by implying that she was "the panelʻs* mistress" (!) When a servant tells him that his wife has died, his reaction is to murmur, "Hmm. Puir* bitch!"

*Puir: Not sure how this is pronounced. Probably "poor" the same as in standard American. R L S probably regarded this as dialect, and "pore" as standard

>290 MyopicBookworm:
LOL.....yes this is the land of the free......for the top, those who can afford it and the bottom, those who know how to use the system, be it legal or financial, it doesn't really matter.
Their are no victims....since by acknowledging that someone may have been harmed by the actions of another (again either financially or physically) puts innocent people in jail...."just to make those who claim to have been hurt feel better"

Would venture to guess that the person who said this has not had any one dear to them killed by a drunk driver who has six or seven DUI arrests on thier record. OR a daughter or wife raped by a repeat sex offender.......crazy stuff that victim garbage.....

As to the ticket guy....he stood in my garage talking to my husband...told him that he was speeding, that he routinely speeds, that he told his lawyer he was speeding and that his "special radar" detector that usually keeps him from getting "caught" speeding was not working properly.

So, the source of your knowledge is garage braggadacio by a guy who may or may not have been telling you the whole story, and who probably had no idea what he was talking about to begin with. Need I point out just how unreliable a source of information this appears to be? And based upon this you think we should dispense with the bother of trials.

Lawyers can handle traffic matters without clients in the court room.....perhaps it is different for a jury trial....but in Wisconsin a lawyer can go to court for you regarding traffic violations (if you can afford it)

Having just checked the rules of various municipal courts in Wisconsin, I believe you are misinformed. Every single one of them states that the defendant must appear for their court date, and gives no exception for people who have an attorney to appear for them. The municipal court rules all state that you may hire an attorney to repesent you, but none of them provide for the attorney's attendance in lieu of the defendant's attendance.

~290

I contended: "Our society use to permit people to take whatever acts they wanted and then bear the consequences of those acts. It was called "freedom."

Myopicbookworm responded: "Freedom to trample on others as long as you are strong enough or rich enough to avoid justice? Freedom to make as much profit as possible while undermining people's health and trashing the planet? I piss on your "freedom"."
=================================

My observation on a certain non-sequitur: Let's see if I understand your argument here. I contend that freedom is doing what you want with the understanding that you will bear the consequences of your acts. You contend that some people sometimes don't bear the consequences of their acts and thus you piss on freedom. Very convincing. May I recommend a good logic book to you?

After reading through this divergent thread again I would just like to say, in case anyone missed it, that I watched the news tonight and it appears that Bin Laden is still dead!

I am glad the guy is gone but the speculation around his death brings back memories of the endless news articles, paper, radio and TV of the Spanish dictator General Francisco Franco's ill health, miraculous recoveries and then finally death announcement {possibly weeks after his actual death, a who is the new leader problem}. It was satirized several times on Saturday Night LIve. the link is to a Utube snip of the show. Garrett Morris is "translating for the hard of hearing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESyTVnxxrPc

>295 StormRaven:

The guy who was talking in my garage was the guy who did the speeding....he is not stranger to speeding tickets.....he owns several fast cars and prides himself on his ability to speed without getting caught.....

As is typical of anything that is pertaining to legal issues I am certain that the perpetrator's own words/actions can be twisted and turned into utter nonsense until the guy can be viewed as innocently walking his dog at the time the ticket was issued.

Perfect example.

I have conceeded......you made your point. Is there something else you need to do here ?

Trials are right and just. We have the best system for dealing with crime in the free world and I shudder to think what would happen if anything changed.

As to Bin Laden.....the world is better without such forces....though I don't think that he is alone and I don't always believe that those who wanted him gone are so far removed from being much like him......
How we see things is all about perspective and there are those who are master's at spinning perspective in any given direction. Thankfully, not all are easily swayed...unfortunately too many can be persuaded.
When individuals learn the value of thinking for themselves....the Bin Laden's of the world will become irrelevent.

298: Being a defendant does not make one an expert in the legal system. I have seen enough prisoner petitions to state this with confidence. Being a defendant does not even mean that you understand the salient facts in your own case. I've dealt with many clients who were absolutely convinced that some utterly trivial and irrelevant issue was of the utmost importance to their case - because winning on that point would make them feel vindicated and therefore, they believed, would obviously result in their victory.

And even further, what you are doing is relying upon a loudmouth showing off in your garage for the facts here. Anyone who has ever heard a fish story, or more crudely, a locker room story, would know just how reliable a story by a braggart is. As in, not at all. I'll point out that even your statement shows a contradiction in his braggadacio - you say "he prides himself on being able to speed without being caught", but at the same time "he owns several speeding tickets". It seems that he prides himself on something he's not particularly good at.

some people sometimes don't bear the consequences of their acts

Exactly. That is why the government protects us prospectively from Bad People and Bad Things. I would rather have a society that protects the vulnerable than one which lets them suffer and then ineffectually picks up the pieces.

>300 MyopicBookworm:
Nope, not the way it is supposed to work.

One can plan a crime.....verbally announce that they have such plans and what those plans are.
One can prepare for the crime (buy guns....explosives...whatever). The crime can be committed.....the perpetrator can be caught red handed. Sometimes one confesses to their crime.....they will brag about their ability to plan and carry out such a crime and yet....when they are brought to trial.....every effort is made to ensure that the perpetrator is proven to be unable to be held accountable for his own actions......or his own words or anything else that may implicate him.
Yes there was a crime....yes he was standing there admitting to this horrible thing but.....he knows not what he does !

If this person can not afford an attorney....one will be provided him. (at a cost to society)

This is the best way !

It is not the trial itself that is particualry bad....it is the twisting of facts so as to make even the worst offender seem helpless in the face of his own actions. Once a perpetrator enters our legal system....it doesn't matter much if he himself wants to claim responsibility or not. He becomes noncentral to a game of wit and manuvering that is expensive and nonproductive towards a goal which should be to see crime diminished.

Can you see why bringing Bin Laden to trial may have turned into a circus ? I'm sure Bin Laden was focused to the point of being mentally unwell........however, in no way do I think that he did not know what he was doing. However, some individauls might. Crap shoot !

DVD worth the watch: Conviction--The Incredible True Story of Betty Anne Waters.
Even with innocent-until-proven-guilty justice, innocent people are punished for crimes they didn't commit...

Just in case no one has noticed this thread has turned into a circle. I'll be off to read some other ones. Bye, now.

~300

Then may I suggest a kindergarten rather than a nation?

You say that freedom is having "society permit people to take whatever acts they wanted and then bear the consequences of those acts". But who is bearing the consequences? The people who act, or society? Why should anyone bear the consequences of the foolish or cruel actions of others? Is it not necessary that society permit people to take whatever acts they want, and then oblige them to bear the consequences?

There is no such thing as "society" as some sort of god being with "interests" and "motives." There are only associated individuals who have found that their lives are, on net, improved by the association we refer to as "society."

Individuals cannot be expected to continue their VOLUNTARY association with one another if some of them try to tell others of them how to live their lives. Individuals can, of course, be threatened, coerced and enslaved, until their master turns his back. But it isn't ultimately a matter of what is "permitted," it is a matter of what sort of restraints the master can fool himself into believing will be effective, will be obeyed without questions or resistance. Most such restraints won't be effective over the long haul.

You can't get around such issues by thinking in terms of "we." The only "we" that is stable is an association with one another that individuals find to their mutual advantage.

Human beings cannot possibly have interests and motives because human beings are composed of chemical elements which do not have agency! Or something like that. Duh.

Photos of the dead OBL are reportedly being shown to Congressmen and to soldiers. Should only be a matter of time before they're leaked...

Call me naive, but how could they be leaked? I would think that anyone who was permitted to see the photos would (A) be searched so thoroughly for ANYthing that could possibly take a picture and (B) would risk severe penalty if caught.

Unless, of course, the White House really DOES want them released, they just don't want to take responsibility for that decision. (Personally, I think I would rather take responsibility, but it depends what their motives are.)

Surely Assange already has it. He's just that good.

Isn't he in jail?

~307

"Duh," indeed.

"I knew Bin Laden", 45 minutes of interviews from Al Jazeera English:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2011/05/201151014338715787.html

I don't always appreciate some of the accompanying music (wistful?), but the interviews of western journalists, former leaders of host countries, OBL bodyguards, former comrades in arms, etc., are interesting, especially (to me) the Pakistani excerpts. Second part scheduled for this Tuesday.