The death of Osama bin Laden and its aftermath

[Ealasaid]

What we don't remember though, is people cheering for the death of some unknown Pakistanis (maybe Taliban, maybe not, probably some were and some not) on the streets of the US. People cheering for the dead of this particular person, whose hands are running red with blood (including, though far from limited to, much US blood) is something entirely different. You cannot place this as an equivalent for the cheering of deaths of a lot of innocent people, which is hate for an entire people or civilisation rather than for one person who thoroughly deserves it.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

I was talking about the Palestinians and other in the MIddle East cheering and celebrating in the streets when the unarned Isreali Olympic athletes were murdered in Germany. I think there are many Patestinians who DO believe any Jew/Isreali deserves killing.

Sorry to get off point there.

[Commodore]

alternate speech

[mcbigski]

ETA: I just remembered a Jesse Ventura interview not to long ago. Basically he said "Ah they killed OBL years ago and are keeping it quiet to keep the boogey man alive." It wasn't the first time I had heard that sentiment. IIRC there were even some on this board that expressed the same thing. Anyone feel like stepping up and admitting they were wrong?

I was surprised to hear he was still alive. I would have thought he'd been vaporized by now and we just didn't know it. Good reason to send in the SEALs instead of bombing the compound. Too bad we couldn't have taken him alive though. I was always in favor of letting him live to a ripe old age in captivity, as long as we were still actively involved in liberalizing the Arab world. Not to mention the potential intelligence value of capturing him. Can't help but wonder how much the political considerations trumped the strategic ones wrt to going for the kill. Killing him outright is a lot neater in a lot of ways than capturing him.

Yes, if it had gone wrong, Somalia style or worse, nobody would have spared Obama, least of all those who are now saying the hardest that this operation means nothing and Obama was a nobody or that it wasn't his doing as the SEALs did it on the ground. In that case, it would have been Obama's fault those brave men died for nothing - so his opponents would have said.

We've lost a fair number of SEALs over the last decade, I don't think the blowback would have been nearly as large as Somalia or Iran, but thankfully that's just a counterfactual and all of them made it back.

So we have officials with a vested interest in continuing the torture policy, and officials with a vested interest in ending the torture policy. I know which officials I'd side with.

That's sort of aligned with my point. Anyone saying something in harmony with their previously held positions isn't really adding any new evidence.

During Obama's 2008 campaign he took alot of criticism (from republicans and democrats) about saying he would be willing to authorize strikes in Pakistan, without Pakistani approval, if he felt there was actionable intelligence. IIRC, Hilary Clinton was one of the critics. Wonder how she stood when they were making the decision to send in the SEALs. It will be interesting to see how US-Pakistani relations in the near future.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I always took Obama's hard line on Pakistan to be mostly theater. If candidate Obama was against troops in Iraq and against staying in Afghanistan, threatening a nominal ally at least makes him sound more hawkish when he's trying to appeal to the center. Now in reality, he's pretty much continued the lion's share of Bush's policies wrt to Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo etc, and even backpedaled on his promise to try KSM in a civilian court. So I tend to think his stated willingness a candidate to authorize a strike in Pakistan had relatively little to do with his actual decision, when faced with the facts that the compound had some high value target and that the tipping off Pakistan would mean the ISI would tip off the target.

Obama learned well the lesson that the Pakistanis can't be trusted with sensitive operational details, but he's also had shoulders to stand on when it comes to espying their perfidy.

[Kalbear]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I always took Obama's hard line on Pakistan to be mostly theater. If candidate Obama was against troops in Iraq and against staying in Afghanistan, threatening a nominal ally at least makes him sound more hawkish when he's trying to appeal to the center.

To be clear, Obama was always in favor of going to afghanistan MORE and getting the job done there. He has never waivered on Afghanistan being a good war and has been in favor of expanding operations there. In that respect he's been very consistent.

As to Iraq, he definitely didn't continue Bush's policies there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Under the "extralegal" argument does that mean Austria-Hungary was well within it's rights when it declared war with Serbia over the assaination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand?

[Repman]

Legality!

Kinda depressing to me that the arguments for the illegality outweigh the legality.

The man with the biggest stick is right. That's just the way it always is. However, we are all lucky that one with the most power today is also the most reserved with using it, at least historically. In no way do I claim America as some sort of "promise land", but it is a lot better than what came before it.

[Tempra]

Looks like CNN made the Obama/Osama goof as well. From the main page:

"• U.S.: Osama died resisting, unarmed

• Live blog: No place to hide, Biden says

• SEALs: 'Best of the best' got bin Laden

• The man who led to bin Laden

• CIA boss expects release of Obama pics

• Fake bin Laden photo circulates

• iReport: Open Story | Bush officials

Once you click on the link, it talks about the Osama pics.

[Lord O' Bones]

Looks like CNN made the Obama/Osama goof as well. From the main page:

"• U.S.: Osama died resisting, unarmed

• Live blog: No place to hide, Biden says

• SEALs: 'Best of the best' got bin Laden

• The man who led to bin Laden

• CIA boss expects release of Obama pics

• Fake bin Laden photo circulates

• iReport: Open Story | Bush officials

Once you click on the link, it talks about the Osama pics.

Ultimately, only a jerk would care too much about this. It was absolutely going to happen, and nothing as bad as saying J-Lo was more likely to get a curb job than a blow job for example. Or that a mountain climber was gay...

ETA: link

[felice]

Is it the same people complaining about the OBL celebrations, who are planning to attend the Thatcher party?

There's some overlap, yeah, which is perhaps a little hypocritical. There are some differences, though. Thatcher will presumably be dying of natural causes, not being assassinated by agents of the US government. The planned parties are partly a reaction to the state funeral etc she'll be getting. And she was personally responsible for far more evil than Osama Bin Laden managed.

[snake]

So anyone have or going to to get, some of the memorabilia. Seems to be catching on a bit.Link to story.

[Altherion]

Too bad we couldn't have taken him alive though. I was always in favor of letting him live to a ripe old age in captivity, as long as we were still actively involved in liberalizing the Arab world. Not to mention the potential intelligence value of capturing him. Can't help but wonder how much the political considerations trumped the strategic ones wrt to going for the kill. Killing him outright is a lot neater in a lot of ways than capturing him.

Even leaving the past 20 years aside, he knew entirely too much to live. It would not look good if he started talking about what happened in the 80's.

[The Anti-Targ]

I was amazed that mere days before the event I'd heard someone at work claiming they'd read an article somewhere which quoted an al Qaeda source saying nukes (or was it dirty bombs?) had been strategically placed in various places in the west that would go off if ever OBL was taken out. Then what happens? OBL is taken out.

I found it amusing, in so far as it's possible to be amusing, that politicians from various countries were saying the world is a safer place without OBL, and then in the same breath saying there is a heightened chance of al Qaeda attempting violent reprisals as a result of OBL's killing. I guess in the bizarro political world it can be both at the same time.

End of the day this is gonna be a footnote in history rather than a turning point.

[IheartTesla]

In what way are the "illegality" arguments outweighing the legality arguments? Because they listed individual arguments and scholars seperately and just lumped all the "legality" scholars into one?

Having numerous arguments doesn't increase the validity of the arguments. Many criminal defendants have their convictions upheld despite appealing on numerous grounds. The single valid position, if it is so, that these are enemy combatants oversomes all of the illegality arguments.

I'm sorry, I meant to say outnumber. I still haven't made up my mind on which arguments outwigh the other (not being an expert in international law). As the Atlantic points out, it is kinda academic now. Everything pivots on whether AQ can be treated as enemy combatants, and if so, what is the scope of the conflict (i.e only Afghanistan and select other locales or all around the world) - as you point out.

[S John]

I found it amusing, in so far as it's possible to be amusing, that politicians from various countries were saying the world is a safer place without OBL, and then in the same breath saying there is a heightened chance of al Qaeda attempting violent reprisals as a result of OBL's killing. I guess in the bizarro political world it can be both at the same time.

End of the day this is gonna be a footnote in history rather than a turning point.

Well, they can't hardly declare terrorsim to be over. And I do think that there will be attempts at violent reprisals. But you know what? I suspect that they will be weak sauce. The reality is that the only people who are going to seek violent revenge for bin Laden's death are jihad-minded anyway. If AQ rushes something that they've been cooking up to give it the flavor of retaliation... then there is a greater chance that they'll screw it up and get caught or fail. (for this I'm referring to attacks outside Afghanistan/Iraq, which are AQ's bread and butter becuase its how they get attention)

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say its a turning point, but I do think its more significant than a footnote. The timeline since 9/11 certainly shows that the US is capable of being relentless and I think that sends a pretty powerful message. Something to think about. In addition, bin Laden has been this elusive mythical figure for years and years, an icon for extremists all over the world. Regardless of his operational value within AQ, his death is clearly a blow to that image of invincibility. A morale boost for US and ISAF forces and a pretty big bummer for those who saw him as a hero.

And it happened right as the Taliban gear up for the summer fighting season. Might take some of the wind out of thier sails. By next winter we should have a pretty good idea if the US troop surge, the death of bin Laden, etc, have led to any progress in Afghanistan. Last year was particularly violent, but ISAF has pushed back hard all winter. The only thing to do now is give it a few months and see if any of this bears fruit.

[Hereward]

And she was personally responsible for far more evil than Osama Bin Laden managed.

WTF?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I simply cannot picture Terry Thomas saying "WTF"

All my illusions are destroyed.

[Swordfish]

I guess you really CAN'T please everyone....

"Apparently, having an African-American president in the White House is not enough to overturn the more than 200-year American tradition of treating and thinking of Indians as enemies of the United States," Newcomb wrote.

"It's another attempt to label Native Americans as terrorists," said Paula Antoine of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

:rolleyes:

[Quoth]

I guess you really CAN'T please everyone....

:rolleyes:

If only they had thought to code name him "Fl00b" instead of Geronimo...

The President is to visit the WTC site. He extended invitations to former Presidents Bush and Clinton to attend. Good gesture, I thought. Much is being made of Bush declining to attend with comments along the lines of "This shouldn't be partisan... we should be coming together." I disagree. It was likewise the proper gesture, I felt, for Bush to politely decline (as did Clinton, BTW).

[Guest Raids]

I just don't *care* whether shooting bin Laden was legal. Legal and illegal are terms we should care about in situations of at least passing moral complexity.

In morally clear situations, it's just wasting time. I mean, I'm not saying people can't look into it after the fact - totally different. And if some special committee finds it unjustified and wants to sanction whoever, so be it.

I just would not want Obama sitting around feeling like his hands are tied over the legality issue at the outset. I mean, come ON.

IMHO, of course it wasn't legal. He was not, at the time, a combatant, in all likelihood, any more than Barack Obama is a combatant for ordering the strike. He's a political figure. We assassinated him. Good for us.

[Tears of Lys]

There's some overlap, yeah, which is perhaps a little hypocritical. There are some differences, though. Thatcher will presumably be dying of natural causes, not being assassinated by agents of the US government. The planned parties are partly a reaction to the state funeral etc she'll be getting. And she was personally responsible for far more evil than Osama Bin Laden managed.

:stunned:

WTF?

:agree:

Seriously, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind THAT one. No politician is an angel, but to say she was responsible for "far more evil" is at least hyperbolic, at worst, seriously deranged.

(With my apologies to Kat ahead of time. :P)