The Murder of OBL (UBL if you prefer)

[dgs49]

It has long been known and acknowledged that the Democrats - and in particular our beloved President - prefer to "deal with" terrorism as a Law Enforcement issue, rather than treating such activities as acts of war. This is the crux of the longstanding disputes about GITMO, "torture," and so on. The Republicans, led by Bush43, Rummy, and Dick Cheney have treated our captured terrorists as quasi-POW's, thus they are entitled only to quasi-Geneval Convention rights (as they are not actually representatives of any signatory sovereign), and decidedly not entitled to the sorts of "protections" afforded by the U.S. Constitution, as it is now interpreted. More poignantly, their terms of confinement are indefinite - until the cessation of hostilities - rather than for a fixed term.

This is why, for example, AG Holder wanted to try that Muhammad guy in a civil court in Manhattan.

And yet, when push came to shove - when BHO had the opportunity to truly show his stripes - he chose NOT to arrest and detain the Head Terrorist of Them All, but rather to execute him - have him murdered, in fact - without trial. This makes him, in his own view, a War Criminal, does it not?

And yet the hypocrisy of it has been totally ignored in the Media.

Here we were, invading the sovereignty of a foreign nation with which we have full diplomatic ties - indeed, in some minds they are our "allies" - coming upon an unarmed and totally-unthreatening person who was accused but not FOUND to be guilty of any crimes against the U.S., and Our Beloved President orders him to be murdered?

WTF?

Why could they not have arrested him and brought him back for trial in the U.S.? Was this merely a case of BHO abandoning all the principles he campaigned on, and giving in to the irrational blood-lust of the ignorant American public?

I dare say.

Indeed, one could fairly say that BHO was in this case carrying out the plans of the hated Bush43, rather than executing the office of the Presidency in the manner which he campaigned and promised to do.

All Hail Bush43!

[Scooter]

Do you know that the possibility existed of taking him alive? I ask because I do not know, and would have preferred that option if it could have been carried out without risking the life of any of the soldiers involved in the mission.

By calling this "murder", you are by extension calling it murder every time a police officer shoots a suspect to kill rather than risking his/her own life to take the suspect alive.

[Big RR]

o your point is, what, that Obama has abandoned the principles he campaigned on? Absolutely, one need only look at gitmo remaining open or the continued was on civil liberties in the name of security to see that. And it's hardly surprising, every president does the same thing. I personally would have loved to see OBL caught and tried in a court of law, but I never thought that had even a slight possibility of happening. Is he continuing some of the more idiotic policies of W? Without a doubt; but perhaps some of them, like condoned torture, have been curtailed and/or eliminated, and some civil liberty restrictions have been very slightly rolled back. And that is the absolute best we can hope for unless and until someone with the courage of his/her own convictions (and convictions for the matter) is elected. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

[Sue U]

What both Scooter and Big RR said.

[dgs49]

There is absolutely no comparison with a policeman who is in the line of fire. OBL had no weapon, and the others who might have been an obstacleto capturing him had all been "eliminated."

There is no indication whatsoever that he could not have been apprehended and brought back to face "justice."

My point is that in ordering this - in effect - execution, BHO went directly against his long-held, publicly proclaimed beliefs. To say that all politicians do this is fatuous in the extreme.

[Scooter]

You were there, I suppose, and saw the complete sequence of events in minute detail. You know for an absolute certainty that at no time were the lives of any of the strike force in any danger.

Didn't think so.

[Big RR]

Ihaveto agree with Scooter;I have not read any account as detailed as what you are saying; for all know he got caught in the crossfire or tried to flee and was shot.

[dgs49]

Public knowledge:

Security guards had all been dispatched.

OBL was in a remote, top-floor room.

Nobody in the room was armed.

OBL is a sickly, thin, old man, with many know maladies.

It was the middle of the night.

Although one helo was down, the remaining unit had capacity for everyone on the American team. Large enough that one 160lb addition would not have made a difference. In fact, they were reputed to have taken a small room full of electronic equipment and files. OBL would have been more important had the lift capacity of the helo been an issue.

One does not have to be familiar with the intimate, minute details to know that this was an execution, not a firefight.

But one cannot draw a valid conclusion if one is blinded by political preconceptions about events.

[Scooter]

So your answer to:

You were there, I suppose, and saw the complete sequence of events in minute detail. You know for an absolute certainty that at no time were the lives of any of the strike force in any danger.

is no.

Didn't think so.

Oh yeah, and OBL is probably about your age, Dave. Are you a sickly old man?

[Sue U]

I will agree with you dgs49 that this operation was a mission to assassinate bin Laden and not to capture him; I doubt that capture was ever considered a possibility, and to the extent it was, it was probably considered an unwelcome possibility: it would have been impossible bring bin Laden to anything resembling a fair trial and the political circus that would ensue would be untenable. Yet having developed "actionable intelligence," the administration couldn't do nothing. Classically damned if you do, damned if you don't. The decision to assassinate him was purely expedient, and while I am greatly disturbed by the lack of due process, I don't think the decision was wrong. But that is not an endorsement of this nor any other policy decision. As I have repeatedly said, if from the outset OBL and the al Qaeda leadership had been simply hunted down like the common criminals they are, they could have been brought to justice like any other criminals. Engaging them in a "war on terror" did nothing but legitimize them as "enemy combatants," fuel their standing as resistance to the Crusaders, draw more disaffected Muslims to their cause, and allow the Bush administration to thoroughly debase the principles of freedom and justice that this country supposedly stood for. Opening a war in Iraq only served to prove bin Laden's point that the US wants to occupy and control Muslim lands. The current administration is now constrained by the "facts on the ground" left by the blunders of the previous administration.

[Big RR]

Sue--you really think it would have been impossible for bin Laden to get a fair trial? IMHO it might not have been easy to pick a jury, but I think he could have been fairly and publicly tried had there been a political will to do so. But of course there would have been those clamoring for military tribunals to be certain bin laden didn't try to take any advantage of the rights our justice system presents.

You're right, though; he and his buddies should have been hunted down and tried as the criminals they are; but then this would have undermined the war on civil rights, sorry terror, that has the darling of the last two administrations, and the envy of many previous ones.

[The Hen]

It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Osama to get a fair trial. You would have had to pick 12 illiterate people that did not have access to Telly or radio. From what I understand, most illiterate people have flat screens.

[Sue U]

Given the intense publicity over the last 10 years I don't think it would have been possible to get past an appearance of bias in proceedings anywhere in the US. Appeals would go on for decades.

[Big RR]

Hen--I don't think you'd need illiterate people, only a number willing to make a judgment solely on the evidence presented at the trial. And I don't see that as impossible; indeed, I woudl think a lot of us here would be able to do that.

Sue--you're right about the appearance of bias and appeals, but that does not make an unfair trial or ultimate verdict.

[The Hen]

I seriously doubt that there is anyone I. America that hasn't already got a pre-conceived idea of his innocence or guilt unless they were not reading, watching or listening for the past ten years.

[Big RR]

Well I certainly do have a preconceived idea that he is guilty, but I would have no problem judging him solely on the evidence presented and only finding him guilty if that evidence proved it.

[Gob]

BBC timeline of the raid.

[Lord Jim]

You would have had to pick 12 illiterate people

We have precedent for that:



ETA:

I just grabbed that image quickly off of Google...

I just noticed there appears to be some sort of alien in the background...

That might explain the jury verdict....

[Lord Jim]

Dave, I have to tell tell you I really take issue with the arguments you're making here...

They are precisely the sorts of things that some folks on the left would have said had the exact same sequence of events regarding the demise of OBL taken place on Bush 43's watch.....

At first I thought you were satirizing those types of arguments; but you've gone into them in such depth, I'm getting the impression they represent views you sincerely hold....

Are you really wringing your hands out of concern that a man who indisputably (indisputably by any sane person anyway) was the master mind of a plot that murdered 3000 innocent Americans might not have received Miranda style legal treatment?

Or are you so consumed with visceral loathing for Obama that you can't bring yourself to give him credit for any accomplishment,? (As was certainly the case with many regarding W)

I suspect it's probably the latter...

Look, I have no great love for Obama. I've criticized him many times, (especially regarding domestic policy) I didn't vote for him the last time, and I can't imagine a realistic scenario under which I would vote for him in 2012.

But good Lord, credit where credit is due. Obama had an array of options before him, (not just this commando operation or "doing nothing"; he could have blasted the place with bunker busters, for example, getting OBL but also killing a couple of dozen children and losing all the intel we gathered) and he chose the highest risk, (but also highest payoff) option available. he deserves credit for that.

Had this gone badly, which it easily could have, (ala Jimmy Carter's "Desert One" fiasco) he would most certainly have gotten the blame. If the helicopters had been shot down, and some of our guys were now dead and the rest were in a Pakistani prison, (while OBL skated) for example, his prospects for re-election, (on top of the state of the economy) would be over.

He's certainly a good enough politician to have known this. He made the call anyway.

As Dale said, for this he deserves props.

[Joe Guy]

It is an incident like this, when a President makes a very good strategic decision (in this case choosing to take out a terrorist - mass murderer) where people show their true colors.

Some continue to state their prejudiced views and continue to create reasons to criticize politicians they don't like (hate) - and others who can see things for what they are - and are able to give credit where due.