Washington’s official story unravels, confirming extra-legal execution of Bin Laden

[stockholmer]

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/osam-m05.shtml

"It took less than two days for Washington’s official story of the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden to unravel, revealing amidst the rubble of the initial lies a cold-blooded extra-legal execution.


The American media, in accordance with its willing and eager role as propaganda arm of the government, is doing its best to limit the damage from the retraction of earlier claims and continue utilizing the murder of Bin Laden and four others, including a woman, to intimidate, debase and brutalize public opinion.


On Monday, Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, told a press conference that Bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs after having “engaged in a firefight,” weapon in hand. “Whether or not he got off any rounds, I frankly don’t know,” Brennan added. Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot in the head.


Carney was obliged to correct another falsehood put forward the previous day by Brennan. The counter-terrorism official had reported that Bin Laden’s wife was killed after the terrorist leader used her as a human shield to protect himself. On Wednesday, Carney, reading from a brief statement drafted by the Pentagon, said Bin Laden’s wife had been wounded in the leg, not killed, and had not been used as a human shield.................."

snip


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/michael-moore-bin-laden-wasnt-killed-he-was-executed-27097


Michael Moore: Bin Laden Wasn’t Killed, ‘He Was Executed’

Comment By Michael Moore in The Wrap:

Osama bin Laden wasn’t killed by a Navy SEAL team, he was straight up executed, Michael Moore told The Wrap on Wednesday,
The “Fahrenheit 9/11” director has been setting Twitter aflame Wednesday afternoon urging the Obama administration to come clean about the circumstances surrounding the terrorist leader’s death — particularly in light of the White House’s shifting account of last weekend’s firefight in Abbottabad.

Said Moore:
I am a Catholic, and the position of the Catholic Church and the Pope is that we are 100 percent against the death penalty unless it is in self-defense. Look at the Nuremberg Trials. We didn’t just pop a bullet in the heads of the worst scum in history. We thought it was important to put them on trial and expose their evil. In a democracy we believe in a system of justice and we believe in a judicial system that gives people a day in court…and then we hung them.
It doesn’t mean we can’t hang them afterward.”

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. I see the World Socialist Web Site has come through with a thoughtful and balanced account

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[JoePhilly]

4. Ding ding ding, no more calls, we have a winner.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Trotskyites are always certifiable.

And the people that link to them as a a source of information are laughable.

If Trotsky had ever been in power in this country, he would have had every self-described Leftist and Socialist in this nation branded as 'Imperialists' and shot in secret, as they would have been a threat to his power.

[rug]

201. You must be glad then that Trotsky was assassinated on the order of a head of government.

[gkhouston]

75. Oh, is that what wsws stands for? I thought it was "we stir watery shit". n/t

[KamaAina]

187. I actually guessed it would be WSWS before I even clicked

:eyes:

[jpak]

2. Fuck Osama Viva Obama

yup

[coalition_unwilling]

33. You support extra-judicial executions. Welcome to my

Ignore list.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

155. Welcome to the club

You're in excellent company. This clown started his/her ignore list a couple of days ago. I'm surprised everyone isn't on it at this point.

[bluestate10]

107. Put me on your ignore list. nt

[Dark]

112. In the case of Osama, I really don't care.

In any other case, I would have a problem with such an assassination. But with osama... meh.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. But I can live with that in this case...

[jpak]

116. Ignorathon!

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

143. 2011's first Ignoreapalooza!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9CL7FdZFFw

[pipi_k]

148. Where can we send our donations?

:7 :+

[Joe the Revelator]

117. Add me if I'm not already

People who use the ignore list as a threat trip me out

[WCGreen]

119. Me too, Me too....

[blondeatlast]

121. Oh, me too! nt

[blondeatlast]

122. So sorry about your "copy and paste" finger. nt

[Union Scribe]

131. I'd also like to be added.

Your ignore list is the hottest spot on DU.

[louslobbs]

189. Add me as well please, thanks.

Lou

[Warren DeMontague]

141. If you're really going to ignore everyone who is okay with OBL being dead

Let me help you out here and save you what clearly is going to be an awful lot of work.

[JuniperLea]

171. To the tune of Adam Ant's "Strip"

We're just following DU history... if I ignore you will you ignore me?

[Warren DeMontague]

178. If you do it first

how will you ever know? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

191. I considered that!

I decided I'd let it go until next week... I do want to use iggie on 'em before the pizza party though! I have quite a concrete collection in there~!

[LibertyLover]

145. One more to add to your ignore list

As another poster said, if it were anyone else, I might be upset over some of the way the operation was carried out, but since it was Bin Laden, I find myself remarkably uncaring as to how he died - extra legal, extra judicial, extra ordinary - just so long as he is extra dead.

[coalition_unwilling]

174. Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him?

No need to respond. Consider yourself Ignored.

[Maru Kitteh]

198. Add me to your ignore list too please. eF osama.

[NikRik]

153. OBL Iam sure wanted it this way !

He said he would not be taken alive and Iam sure he rather be dead then a captive of his enemy. At least thats the way I read what others said on this issuse. Now to all of his followers he died for his cause,went down fighting.
Perhaps the truth is he begged for his life and was killed anyway,however I doubt that.Considering that he was the one who lead the 9/11 attack on country for him being killed was the easy way out!
Nick

[coalition_unwilling]

175. As DUer EFerrari pointed out, we treat evil men decently not because

of who they are (or what they want). We treat evil men decently because of who we are (and what we want).

Glenn Greenwald has posed the quintessential question about this matter, imho: Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

[Warren DeMontague]

179. You confine it to bin laden using a surplus army of straw men and red herrings

brought to the scene of battle on a high-speed luge flying down the slippery slope.

[JuniperLea]

182. Jesus God!

No wonder I have her on IGNORE! IGNORE I tell you!

I hope you can't see this!

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

184. He could have at least thanked me for the graphic.

Of course, I may already be on his IGNORE LIST, so he may not have seen it.

Too bad.

[distantearlywarning]

161. Don't forget me.

You'll want to put me on that ignore list too.

[JuniperLea]

172. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Please no! I'm begging... please please please! Not that! OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Please! Have mercy! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I'm begging you... please please please!

Eh... go ahead, what the fuck?

[Warren DeMontague]

180. *

:thumbsup: :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

181. Glad you liked that...

I was cracking myself up... then I thought perhaps it was just me! Heh!

[Javaman]

185. Say hello to my little friend!

Put me on your ignore as well.

[msanthrope]

194. IGNORE ME COALITION_UNWILLING!!! RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!! n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

199. lol. AND CALL CONGRESS TOO! n/t

[JTFrog]

200. Can you add me again please?

thanks

[uppityperson]

209. If you can still see me, please put me on your ignore list also.

[krabigirl]

192. Du is officially free republic now. Yes, anyone who questions MUST love Osama.

And ending the wars? Nope, Obama will stay the course, some liberal.

[JoePhilly]

3. Is this from the ONION?

I don't give a RATS ASS what the POPE or the Catholic church says. And the notion that Michael Moore is using "the Catholic Church" as part of the logic on this ... pfffft.

Last I checked, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not mentioned as a branch of the US Government.

[Bok_Tukalo]

5. It's not just legal; it's extra legal!

<ope>

[PBS Poll-435]

32. Might even be Super Legal! nt

[AtomicKitten]

63. mmmm -- extra legal

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

173. Your lack of basic snark understanding is showing...

There's no book to help you though. You'll just have to suffer through being outraged over stupid fucking nonsense all the time until a couple of tons of bricks fall on your psyche and the InterTubes snarkification doctor hands you a clue card.

[callous taoboy]

154. Douple super plus legal.

[pokerfan]

165. Three Amigos....

Dusty: What does that mean, in-famous?
Ned: Oh Dusty, in-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man, El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous.

[calimary]

6. Am I a terrible person because I just don't give a damn about this?

'Cause I don't.

He would have been a cause celebre if we'd taken him alive. There would be NO END of plots to try to free him from custody. Our troops in those areas would be at more risk. I'm a Catholic, too. And I just don't have a problem with what happened. How and where would we EVER have been able to get him a fair trial? Hold the proceedings on Mars? Keep him jailed or in Gitmo indefinitely? There's no good answer here, evidently, for many many people, including those here whom I respect. So it seems to me the best of many stinky options was chosen.

[Deep13]

10. Nope.

Capturing him would have been extremely problematic. IF bin Laden surrendered, he would have had to be brought under gruard to the nearest secure American facility. That was hundreds of miles away. In the absence of a clear surrender, they were justified in shooting him anyway. In war the object is to kill the enemy. That's what our people did.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

14. Of course you're not a terrible person.

But at bottom what matters about how this is handled is about us, not about him.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. EFerrari, I think you said it best yesterday: We treat evil men decently

not because of who they are. We treat evil men decently because of who we are. (Paraphrasing somewhat, but I think I've got the gist.)

[EFerrari]

42. Those that have the power to hurt and will do none

#94

They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven's graces
And husband nature's riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die,
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

-SH

[coalition_unwilling]

43. To which I would append: "Oh, it is excellent to have a giant's power.

But it is tyrannous to use it as a giant." "Measure for Measure"

[EFerrari]

55. Oh, yes. MFM and the national security state!

:)

[Solomon]

147. What are you two prattling on about?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

159. The end of the 16th Century in England was a lot like

the end of the 20th with respect to the government using "security" to do whatever the hell it wanted. :hi:

[coalition_unwilling]

176. Hee-hee. There are some who would argue that the 16th Century

in England didn't end until 1641 (Long Parliament :)

[EFerrari]

186. Shhhhhhhhh!

I've actually had that argument.

:yoiks:

[Abq_Sarah]

69. A quick death was decent

It was far more decent that the deaths received at the hands of his followers.

Do not even try to equate the two.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. WTF? Was that shot intended for me? If so, you need to

explain what you mean, b/c I surely don't follow.

[LiberalAndProud]

129. Self examination is a good thing. I very much appreciate and respect your views, EFarrari.

And I have examined my own in light of your concerns.

I don't believe there was a fair trial to be had here. I don't see the point of staging a farce, and any trial would have been exactly that. Even Osama's friends, admirers and allies believed he was a prime mover in the attack on the twin towers. Even supposing he wasn't, there is still the matter of the attack on the USS Cole.

To give Bin Laden a platform to spew zealotry and preach violence may not have been as clean as you seem to envision. There was no sanitary way to do this except to do nothing, and that doesn't seem like a good strategy at all in my view.

[EFerrari]

163. I tend to agree with Michael Moore that the Hague would have been

the proper venue, not an American court. Bin Laden has killed people all over the world. Treating people like bin Laden as criminals and not as warriors also has the added benefit of reducing their stature.

Well, let's see how we do. :)

[LiberalAndProud]

164. Here's a hypothetical for your consideration.

Let us imagine that Bin Laden had been tried at the Hague per international law and found not guilty. Do you think there may have been repercussions? Would it serve to strengthen the rule of international law here in the "exceptional" United States do you think?

I tend to think the opposite reaction might be expected. Would that be a good thing in the long view?

If the Bush/Cheney administration had hunted Bin Laden down and summarily executed him after 9/11, had not declared war against either Afghanistan or Iraq, would that have been a preferable reality? In my view it would. But it wouldn't have been copacetic according to the law.

I am glad to have this conversation. It is important that we at least pause to consider the moral ramifications of our actions. I wish we could live in a world of black and white, evil and divine. The longer I live, the more I discover that we don't.

[EFerrari]

166. The thing is you don't suspend the rule of law

because you might not get a conviction.

[LiberalAndProud]

167. Even in Skidmore?

If the law fails, where do you turn?

[guitar man]

20. No not at all

You're not a terrible person.

Whether or not he was a "leader of a nation" that sonofabitch started a war with us. This mission to go kill his ass is the first thing this country has done right in response to being attacked. So no, don't feel bad at all about it, I know I sure don't.

[hfojvt]

24. yes

you cannot be a proper leftist unless you hate the lying imperialist Obama and the USA war machine more than you hate Osama. Clearly Michael Moore has the moral high ground.

There will be a flag burning ceremony tonight to honor Karl Marx on his birthday.

Film at 11.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Buh-bye. - n/t

[hfojvt]

72. oh noes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2G2wS62bws

[ScreamingMeemie]

170. Pretty soon Mr/Mrs. welcome to my ignore list is going to be here all

by himself/herself. Coalition doesn't stand for much in the way of debate.

[robinlynne]

35. If you are, so am I.

[Dark]

113. No. I"m right there with you.

n/t

[Raine]

206. TOTALLY Agree, I feel the same. nt

[Deep13]

8. This is war, not a criminal prosecution.

In war, the object is to eliminate the enemy, usually by killing them. There was no obligation for the Seal team to capture him. (Just how that would have been accomplished is not clear.)

[stockholmer]

18. ironic you say that,as a dominant meme on DU has been to praise the route taken by Obama as a police

action, limited in scope, vis-a-vis the 'war' meme of the dreadful Bush. Which one is it?

You cannot have it both ways.
:shrug:

[Deep13]

25. It's a war.

If for whatever reason it is best to prosecute it in a limited "police action" manner, it is still a war.

[EFerrari]

37. Wars also have rules.

We don't eat the enemy dead, for example just as we don't hide their graves. We don't rape their women or kill their children.

Unless we do.

[RC]

60. War? Against which nation(s)

Please think carefully.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Times up. No nation attacked us. A group of men, a gang actually, attacked us. An international police action was called for. That's what the rest of the world was gearing up for.
We, on the other hand, responded by attacking a nation. A nation that has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Why did we go to war, when it was not called for?
What Obama did is what should have been done in the first place. The difference being then we could have taken bin Laden alive and put him on trial, such as Bill Clinton did.
Iraq would still be a sovereign nation, Pakistan would not need to be as upset with us and a million people would still be alive. And there would not be as nearly as many terrorist or would be terrorists to worry about.


Why is it when we, the Unites States act worse that the terrorists we are fighting, it is alright, but not when the other guy does it? Huh?
This whole 9/11 would not have happened if Al Gore had been allowed his win. Let's put the blame where it really belongs, on the Cheney/Bush's Administration. The real terrorists behind the last 10 years.

DU is supposed to be a Liberal site. Why then are so many here glorifying the death of so many and destruction of so much, in the name of 3000 people. It's like we used a 500 pound bomb to take out a pesky fly. Millions dead and trillions spend for two buildings and 3000 lives. Are we really worth so much?
Is the cost so far really worth it? Besides the cost in lives and money, all we have really accomplished so far is to make tens of thousands more terrorists so we can kill many more innocent people and spend more money that we can't afford to spend any longer.
Stop the wars and bring the troops home. We have a falling apart country right here to rebuild.

[Chan790]

105. Can I answer that question for you? The one about this being a liberal site.

Because classical liberalism (in the Hobbes, Mill, Rousseau, Jefferson, etc. sense) is first of all a moral philosophy for governance based in a rejection of moral-equivalence or moral-relativism in favor of a strong belief in objective right and wrong with its' foundations in the Enlightenment and the supremacy of reason.

It fairly explicitly rejects unconditional-pacifism as illiberal and contrary to reason. Repeatedly. It may be one of the very few things all those old dead men in the first paragraph agreed upon.

It's irrational to think that one should not kill an enemy bent on your murder and unwilling (or incapable) to be subjected to any law, reason or social-contract but his own. Hobbes would disagree but only in so far as no man (as part of the Leviathan (by which he means society)) can acquiesce to his murder; Hobbes nevertheless conceded the capacity (if not the moral justification) of the Leviathan (society) to kill him anyways.

I'm not going to shed a tear for the death of evil men regardless of the circumstances there-of.

[RC]

118. The question needs to be ask, Why are they trying to kill whoever?

How did they become the enemy? Why are they the enemy?
Without those answers, then the killings becomes merely tit for tat. Back and forth without either thought nor reason.

[hack89]

52. Obama has ordered targeted killings on a scale not imagined by Bush

anyone thinking that Obama was going to tackle terrorism by police methods has not been paying attention. Under him the number of drone attacks in Pakistan has grown enormously. He has also shown a willingness to kill terrorists in Sudan and Yemen.

[PufPuf23]

46. Ironic as that was thew GOP narrative as opposed to the Democratic Party narrative

under Clinton and those that opposed GWB when in office.

[digonswine]

The problem may be

that we need info instantly-so the PTB prepare a version instantly that is friendly to this media atmosphere. People write histories now of things that happened weeks ago. Apparently, this is what we(not "we") want and consume and quickly form responses to. This seems to be a poor way of doing things.

[dkf]

9. Looks like Pakistan was shielding him in which case maybe there was no legal way to get him.

Wsws prefers Osama alive and threatening us I guess.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. Buh-bye. - n/t

[S_E_Fudd]

11. The Nuremberg Criminals surrendered...

And were no longer a threat...

[Bragi]

82. Not true

Many were captured trying to escape. When apprehended, they weren't immediately executed, they had trials that showed that justice involves the rule of law, due process, and a bunch of other old-fashioned notions.

Compared to what happened then, from a rule of law standpoint, the extra-judicial killing of OBL, if that's what happened, was a disgrace to America.

[Kaleva]

128. Other then Himmler, I don't know of any that tried to escape capture.

Himmler, in an effort to evade arrest as a war criminal, disguised himself as sergeant-major of the Secret Military Police. When his true identity was discovered, he committed suicide.

A number of high ranking Nazi's were rounded up by the Brits in Flensburg, site of the last Nazi government.

[LiberalAndProud]

142. Many were captured.

I have listened to the testimony of a concentration camp survivor who sifted through the refuges to arrest Nazi war criminals. I wish I could name the testimony where I heard this, but it was among these http://holocaust.umd.umich.edu/interviews.php?format=video

I will mention that he spoke with pride of how he and his gang didn't execute the criminals, but turned them over to the allies for trial. I wonder if he would have done the same if Hitler had been among them. Food for thought, anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "Thery shot a poor, sweet little old man in his jammies!"

And this, not 3 days after he gave 2 bunny wabbits to his 13 year old neighbor!!! :cry:




:nopity:

[SidDithers]

50. +1...nt

Sid

[blondeatlast]

13. did they do the same on the "extra"-legal killing of over 3.000 innocent civilians on 9/11?

Yeah, I kind of thought not.

[stockholmer]

45. Bin Laden was never indicted for 9-11, due to, in the FBI's own words 'a lack of evidence'

DU flashbacks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1388474

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x93600#93626

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x286555

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1483333
=================================================================================================================================

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109


C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088


Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article410125.ece




http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm


Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

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

The embassy bombings occurred on August 7th 1998 and bin Laden was indicted for them on November 4th of the same year - less than three months after the attack. Yet the US, in the almost ten years since 9-11, never issued an indictment nor were formal court hearings scheduled.

[blondeatlast]

99. What. The. Fuck. Ever. nt

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

132. The evidence was lost in that atomic explosion you foretold of

Oh, wait, that was bullshit too.

[Godhumor]

15. I saw the thread subject and thought "It must be wsws BS"

And lo, it was!

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. "Unravel" is the word of the day among the Obama Haterade Parade

They're clueless imbeciles, of course, but that goes without saying.

[PufPuf23]

53. I am not a member of the Obama Haterade Parade nor a clueless imbecile.

Some posters should look in the mirror and study history.

If you are willing to accept failed and heartless neo-liberal and neo-conservative policy, let that be lead on your heart and Chorozon in your dreams.

[stockholmer]

57. +1

[Bragi]

83. Obama Haterade?

I remember that that was exactly the kind of venom that used to be spewed by right-wingers when Bush was criticized.

We weren't objecting to policy, we just hated Bush for some unknown reason, was the refrain.

Sad to see this same brain-dead approach being adopted by DUers to dismiss criticism of Obama.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Aaaaaw

*tear*

:rofl:

[Bragi]

96. I'm curious. Do you consider yourself a progressive?

Just wondering.

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. Let me clear up your curiosity this way

I have no interest in conversing with you on any issues whatsoever. As far as I can tell, you are a knee-jerk Obama hater and your positions are so fringe-nothing as to be irrelevant. So I'll leave you to them. I find your starting attempts at some kind of lame Socratic refutation to be boring beyond measure.

But I will laugh from time to time.

[Bragi]

101. So you're not a progressive of any sort

Clears that up.

[onenote]

126. and you're not a logician of any sort

Clears that up.

[dionysus]

150. oh damn.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[dionysus]

149. .

:nopity:

[NYC Liberal]

16. Good riddance. He got what he wanted; he was never going

to be taken alive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. "The end justifies the means" has become a byword here.

"They do it so we have to do it" has also achieved popularity.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Friedrich Nietzche

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Two wrongs make a right. Best excuse ever . . . used by a 4-year-old - n/t

[blondeatlast]

21. DAMN! And me, fresh out of violins. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Executed, assassinated, whatever.

The mass-murdering bastard is dead and I don't particularly care how he got that way -- I don't care if he was knitting slippers for his granny when they got him. He didn't get a trial? Call the waahmbulance. 3,000 people at the WTC didn't get a trial, either. Fuck OBL and fuck the idiots who are now whining about how mean the SEALs were to him.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Guilty as charged. Whatever.

But if you're ignoring me you won't notice this anyhow.

[leftynyc]

157. You going to love

being on this posters ignore list. Excellent company and we're considering refreshments. Do you bake?

[blondeatlast]

158. I don't bake, but I make a fabulous pico de gallo from homegrown tomatoes,

onions, and Hatch chiles. :hi:

[leftynyc]

160. Ooooh - Yummy

I really think the ignore club is the place to be. Person using it is a santimonious clown.

[louslobbs]

190. Yum!

Lou

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

168. No, but I make a pretty good Margarita.

This Ignore dungeon will be a happening place.

[treestar]

67. Bush got us into this war

He was the one who should have captured OBL for trial.

What about the lower level people? It's like you are limiting this privilege to the top levels of Al Qaeda. Once the army was there, should they simply have captured people for trial only? The lower level people deserved a trial too, then, and our troops should never have killed anyone. So you're actually claiming privilege for OBL for being the top dog of our opponents.

It's OK not to be in favor of the war, but once the troops are there, they can't be expected to be just police out arresting foreign nationals on their own soil.

[coalition_unwilling]

139. Your question truly gave me pause.

First of all, I 100% agree that Bush got us into this war. I was against it almost from the instant the bombs started falling in Afghanistan because I thought it should have been an international policing matter from the very beginning, rather than our taking sides in the internal civil war of yet another Asian nation.

I have never viewed 'terrorism' as a matter suitable for the military. The military is a blunt force instrument and terrorism requires, imho, a more finely honed set of tools. This alternate approach was never even seriously considered, much less debated, from anything I can gather, except among people on the far left and in the peace movement.

That said, with the military on the ground and the 'war' a given, the question becomes whether the U.S. can expand that war into neighboring countries absent Congressional authorization to do so. Now maybe the Congress authorized an expansion of the war into Pakistan but, if they did so, they must have done so in secret. This mission creep so closely mirrors Nixon's antics ca. 1969-70 re Vietnam and Cambodia and I should perhaps remind you that Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia was one of the proposed articles of impeachment debated but not adopted.

So Obama orders a mission across the admittedly porous border of Afghanistan-Pakistan. Various reports independently confirm that the mission is to 'kill' and not 'capture' OBL. But the mission is taking place in a country where Congress never authorized military action. So if it's not a (legal) military mission, what exactly is it? Two answers come to mind: either it's a extra-judicial assassination mission or it's a policing mission.

It's midnight here in California and my brain is fried. I will try to return to this tomorrow, because I think your question goes to the heart of the whole mess.

[blondeatlast]

123. Goody! Your "copy and paste" function has been restored. I'm so happy for you! nt

[hulka38]

71. This is about whether or not America operates under the rule of law

and not your emotional feelings about OBL as a person. People are expending a lot of energy smashing those two ideas together and making them the same.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

87. I noticed.

Makes one wonder if DU is really a Liberal site or not anymore.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

89. It's Sept 12 all over again. Unteachable.

[rbrnmw]

23. Who gives a fuck Fuck Bin Laden and Fuck the rag who wrote this

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

26. Yawn.

[pipi_k]

27. Does anyone really believe...

that OBL would have gotten a fair trial before being executed anyway?

Seriously?


For whatever reason why he had to die...

Mastermind of 9/11

World's worst terrorist

CIA operative

to keep his followers from trying to free him

to keep his followers from attacking the country where he was being held


whatever the reason, I don't know, and I don't care.


he could not be left alive. He would have been executed after a mock trial.

So what's the difference?

[buddysmellgood]

28. Okay then.

[treestar]

29. The US legal system does not function in Pakistan

This is taking it too far.

You're talking about OBL. Are you really feeling sorry for him? Really?

[cayanne]

30. Moore wasn't there

He has no right to Monday morning quarterbacking on this. Osama bin Laden was a cold blooded serial killer and needed to be taken down. I do not want to spend one dime on a trial, prison and execution on him. Being eaten by crabs and other ocean creatures is good enough for me.

[marions ghost]

49. you were there

I guess?

[cayanne]

203. No

However, I haven't tried to second guess the operation like Moore has.

[coalition_unwilling]

51. Correction: Osama bin Laden was an 'accused' cold blooded

serial killer. But let's just eliminate trials because they're too expensive and execute everyone accused of a capital crime on the mere assertion of the Monarch. That system worked passably well for 1000s of years. So what if a few innocent people died to keep the gears of the killing machine running smoothly?

Welcome to my Ignore list.

[calimary]

61. Guess I've got a lot of company, friend. You seem to be dispensing with quite a few of us.

Well, okay. Happy trails.

I wouldn't be completely honest if I didn't say I had some mixed feelings. But in the final analysis I still am finding it pretty hard to get worked up about Osama bin Laden's civil liberties purportedly being violated. I think he forfeited such considerations on September 11th, if not indeed beforehand, with other earlier anti-American strikes he either sponsored or supported.

:shrug:

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Yes, my purge has reached such Stalin-esque proportions that

I am starting to question the utility of a site like DU any longer. I mean, really, what do you say to someone who thinks that people can and should be executed without a trial first? That's really what it boils down to, imho. The U.S. Constitution does not say that there is anything one can do to 'forfeit' the right to a trial, so for those who say OBL forfeited his right to a trial, I say, "Well, we must part ways b/c there is nothing further to discuss."

I'm not worked up about OBL's civil liberties purportedly being violated. I'm worked up that our government violated anyone's civil liberties. Been a proud member of the ACLU for too many years to start carving out civil liberties exceptions now.

[pipi_k]

81. Wheeee!!!

Can't say I support OBL's execution, but I'm not heartbroken over it, either.

So add me to your purge list too.

Thanks!

:+


PS...Just realized something...If our esteemed Admin, Skinner, goes from "Fuck Bin Laden" to "Fuck Bin Laden I don't care how he was killed", are you gonna add him to your ignore list too?

:+ :+

[coalition_unwilling]

130. Shoot, I almost put you on Ignore before I realized you were

asking me a semi-serious question with a latent paradox: If Skinner endorsed the extra-judicial assassination of OBL (or anyone else for that matter) or simply announced his indifference to its morality, would I place him on Ignore? Assuming that doing so would not cause DU to self-destruct in true Ourobouros fashion, I would indeed place him on Ignore, being the equal-opportunity purgeist I have become these past five days. More probably, I would simply stop contributing to any of the forums and confine myself merely to perusing the LBM forum. Of course, before it came to that, perhaps Skinner would purge me for my thought crimes, thereby rendering the quetion moot (or 'mute' as some DUers would have it :)

[pipi_k]

151. Actually, it wasn't

"semi-serious".

It was totally serious.

Anyway, I'm not sure we can put Admins on "ignore". Some discussion boards forbid it, either through policy, or via the software.

If policy forbade you from putting Skinner on your ignore list, and you had to deal with associating with someone whose attitudes are repugnant to you, then there are only two things you could do...

Leave DU on principle...

or deal with it.

If you chose to deal with it and survived the trauma, then I would imagine it wouldn't be such a horrible thing to deal with the horror of having to rub virtual elbows with anyone else with whom you disagree.

But whatever... :shrug:


In any event, I hereby grant permission for you to place me on your ignore list. No doubt I'll be in good company! :7

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calimary]

124. Aha! The ACLU. An organization I respect, and about which I'm sometimes conflicted.

I donate to the ACLU from time to time and in principle I believe in everything it stands for. In practicality I falter - and it hasn't been just once, either. I find that I am of two minds on some of these issues. The first one I can recall was when the American Nazi Party announced plans to march through Skokie IL, where quite a large segment of the local population were Jews, many survivors from World War II. The ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march. HUGE uproar and tremendous loads of discussion back then (late '70's) and the ACLU won its case, but lost a few thousand members who resigned in protest.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

I WAS going to speculate that maybe it's old age that's making me more conflicted about these things but I remember being as mixed up about that Skokie march as I still am now. Lots of arguments kicked around regarding such questions as: Are one person's rights superior to another person's rights - if the second person is some widely-acknowledged schmuck? And then again, what of even bringing up such a subject (how dare!)? Should it even be dignified with a credible discussion? There were absolutists and there were mudbloods like me. I admire people who can maintain full and uncompromising integrity. There's stuff in that link above that mention a Jewish attorney defending some of the Nazis. Not sure I can get there. I'm still conflicted, about that and about Osama bin Laden. I know what the better angels say to do. And I know how I just keep coming back to the other viewpoint. It's like this little red flag that's springloaded in the back of my mind and I can push it down all I want to, all day, but it just keeps popping back up again.

DUer aquart had a great post about the latest round of mixed feelings - quoting Roger Ebert, quoting Whitman:


ebertchicago

I am against the Death Penalty. I rejoice that Bin Laden was killed. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself." (Whitman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1043095#1043127

[coalition_unwilling]

136. Confession: I let my membership lapse this year, mainly thru

inattention but also b/c unemployed and need to watch $$. I also remember the Skokie incident (although it was a bit before I became active) and the bitter divisions it engendered.

I suppose I would characterize myself as something of an all-or-nothing absolutist on civil liberties issues. Even so, the Skokie affair would have had me deeply conflicted and I might have quit the ACLU because of it. The revelations of the Church Committee about U.S. assassination attempts and programs have led me to an absolutist all-or-nothing position on the issue. Put succinctly, government has no business being in the assassination business.

I'm not an expert on his biography, but I can say almost certainly that Whitman would take no joy in OBL being killed. In my experience, poets as a general rule tend not to take joy in death and destruction. OK, maybe Tennyson gets a little uber-patriotic in some of his poems but, as a general rule since the 1800s, at the risk of generalizing, poets in the West have tended in the opposite direction. Whitman could live with and, indeed, embrace contradiction. But on the key issue of his day, slavery and its abolition, I don't think you would have found him indulging any Southern apologia for the peculiar institution. Now watch some Whitman expert show me how wrong I am :)

[calimary]

195. Absolutism. I'm not there most of the time, but I do have my issues as well.

Remember when the republi-CONS carried on, against Bill Clinton, about what they called "situational ethics"? Weasel words for sure, but unfortunately it does apply sometimes to me, too. Here, certainly. As you've noticed, I'm conflicted about the issues surrounding the killing of Osama. Pretty Machiavellian, frankly - end-justifies-means and I sure did like the end. I'm not bothered by how it was done. But I can indeed be an absolutist about a few things. For example, the line in the sand for me is a woman's right to choose. That's NON-NEGOTIABLE. PERIOD. NO wiggle room, NO weasel words, NO NOTHING. For me, a woman's right to choose is an ABSOLUTE. Totally black-or-white with NO gray shadings whatsoever (nless and/or until men can get pregnant and start going through everything that's involved on a deeply personal basis so they are indeed then qualified to make judgments and pronouncements, and can weigh in with credibility, that is). But I'm not nearly so rigid about many other things. Including the circumstances around bin Laden's death.

Absolutism can be a valuable and instructive thing. It gives us parameters within which we can work and develop opinions and viewpoints, and limits, that are meaningful. It can also be a difficult and idealistic goal that's hard to reach when you have to live with it in the real world. But it gives you goal posts, and the full dimensions of the field. And examples to follow. For example, I know where you and others who share your view stand on this. You're at the purer end of the argument, certainly. I know where you are. It's just hard, and for various reasons not compelling, for me to get there.

I can admire people who are SURE about such things, especially knowing I don't have that certainty myself. But THAT, then, is also situational in and of itself. dubya was awfully cock-sure and absolutist about some things, and I found little if ANY reason to admire that.

[coalition_unwilling]

205. I'm with you on a woman's right to choose, I think. Well, except

I don't donate to NARAL or serve as a volunteer at Planned Parenthood. but I've often thought that if the Repukes managed to make abortion illegal, I'd be helping run the underground.

I'd say 'due process of law' is the sine qua non of civilization, hence what may seem my absolutism.

As Barry Goldwater put it, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." It takes one whack-job to appreciate another :) (Maybe I'm getting overly nostalgic about Goldwater, but I'd like to think he would have a problem or two with this extra-judicial hit job.)

[Warren DeMontague]

140. You do know what the "A" in ACLU stands for, don't you?

I'm sorry, but Osama, in Pakistan, doesn't have "American Civil Liberties". That's not a jingoistic, flag-waving rah-rah-USA opinion, that's a simple fact of reality.

[tallahasseedem]

196. Then you're welcome to fucking leave...

Your "welcome to my ignore list" posts have moved beyond absurdity. Like we're supposed to actually give a shit with your petulant ways.

Put me on your ignore list please, it would be my pleasure!

[JTFrog]

202. Then fucking leave already.

FFS

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cayanne]

204. Who friggin cares if I'm on your ignore list or not.

I guarantee you not a second of sleep will be lost on it. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

[sharp_stick]

31. Too fucking funny

I for one don't give a shit what the wsws and seemingly newly converted fundie catholic Michael Moore have to say about this. I wonder it he'll arrive to discuss the catholic position with Bill Donahue anytime soon.

[meow mix]

39. War Crimes!! Charges!! Impeach!!

and the pro-usamas continue thier hand-wringing..

[spanone]

41. another bullshit thread

[SidDithers]

48. Unrec...

was wondering when the garbage from wsws would show up.

:thumbsdown:

Sid

[seabeyond]

56. talk about hyperbole, you do exactly what you are accusing. within 24 hours of mission this

was corrected by obama. 24 fuckin hours they had misstatements corrected. that is not a tendency to lie and your title is pure hyperbole

you and others should be applauding obama for being so on toes and wakling this with integrity that he immediately took care of it

now, look back to bushco and all the lies, all the time and NEVER correcting the errors

[hulka38]

66. It was corrected because it

was a transparently false, hard to explain and sloppy piece of propaganda and a growing source of embarrassment for the administration. They corrected it for their own good, not ours.

[seabeyond]

68. it was corrected because it was wrong and it was the write thing for obama to do

called integrity.

applaud. yea obama

[hulka38]

73. It was clearly reckless propaganda by Brennan

impossible to defend and damaging to the administration's credibility.

[seabeyond]

95. no, it was not clearly.... it was rushing getting news out. a mistake. and obama had integirty

and walked it in a responsible manner that we should ALL be proud of.

[seabeyond]

94. right, not write. to late for edit. i HATE when i do that. nt

[FLPanhandle]

58. Thanks for the laugh.

Could have been written by Rush Limbaugh.

[hulka38]

59. self delete

wrong spot

[truebrit71]

62. So wait a second..now it's a BAD thing that he's dead?

I'm glad the fucker is dead..in fact, I don't think he can ever be dead enough...

[reorg]

64. Eric Holder kind of announced it about a year ago:

Would U.S. forces kill or capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, if they ever found him? The goal is to capture him, the Pentagon insists, but the leading U.S. law enforcement official says that's not likely.

WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 17, 2010

Attorney General Eric Holder (...) told a House panel this week that bin Laden "will never appear in an American courtroom."

...

Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday that "we would be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden," if U.S. forces ever found the al Qaeda leader, referring to a criminal suspect's right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.

"Either he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us," Holder said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/17/us-usa-binladen-idUSTRE62G4MX20100317

[marions ghost]

70. Obviously

Michael Moore is expressing a minority opinion. But I have NO problem with calling this an "extra-legal execution." Whether you believe it was OK or not, you can't argue that any sort of process that we know as legal took place. OBL was convicted in the court of public opinion and executed in a way that is illegal here in the US. Those are the facts, whether you call it right or not.

So should we agree that anytime the US does this from now on, it's OK. Do people here believe that? As far as I know this is a first--the first time the US has executed an enemy leader in this way (openly and with public approval). Am I wrong? Osama is history, but I need to see some reasons why people feel this is the best way to deal with terrorists in the future. It sets a precedent.

[coalition_unwilling]

208. As Glenn Greenwald put it in Salon, "Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception,

how does it stay confined to him?"

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

Greenwald and Chomsky, imho, have deconstructed and exposed the imperial agit-prop at work. GG, in particular, has pointed out the 'slippery slope' off which we are now in danger of sliding right off into the abyss.

[ProSense]

74. "extra-legal execution"

Clearly, the author of this piece doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

Even if one believes bin Laden's messages were fake and that he was already dead or isn't dead, how the hell is his killing a so-called "extra-legal execution"?

Is this person claiming that there is a possibility that bin Laden was innocent (not a terrorist) and the U.S. had no authorization to use force (PDF)?

Moronic.

[marions ghost]

76. Seems that others question it

not only Michael Moore. For example:

Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law," .

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-legitimacy-idUSTRE74318620110504

[reorg]

84. take a look in the mirror

Authorization to "use force" does not mean the military can go about killing everybody they want. Even if we don't pay attention to all the general problems of the "GWOT" absurdity such as the determination of who the warring parties actually are, there are international rules governing what is deemed acceptable in wars and what is not. E.g.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Thus the criticism concerning "extralegal execution".

[ProSense]

92. What the hell

does a prisoner of war have to do with the AUFM and the current operation?

When was bin Laden a POW?

"Authorization to 'use force' does not mean the military can go about killing everybody they want."

Right, it was just an authorization declaring war and leading to the bombing of Afghanistan.

Again, moronic!

[reorg]

100. the point you carefully avoid

is that the initial false claims of alleged resistance were withdrawn. Just like predicted, or rather announced, about a year ago by Eric Holder, they killed the bad guy instead of detaining him.

When several dozens of heavily armed soldiers launch a surprise attack on a small compound where the civilians present are unarmed and there is practically no resistance, killing instead of detaining a supposed enemy is disproportional, unnecessary, excessive and inhumane. The international conventions are very clear on that and many legal scholars have pointed it out. Which should help if a smattering of common decency doesn't suffice.

[ProSense]

103. Hmmm?

"the point you carefully avoid is that the initial false claims of alleged resistance were withdrawn. Just like predicted, or rather announced, about a year ago by Eric Holder, they killed the bad guy instead of detaining him."

I'm fully aware of what has been reported: bin Laden is dead.

You posted about a POW. Again, when was bin Laden a POW?

[reorg]

138. unless

you are using the "he looked at me sternly and I thought he might have a gun hidden in his underpants" putative self-defense argument - which nobody does - shooting unarmed prisoners of war is a war crime. "Prisoners of war" are all persons "who have fallen into the power of the enemy".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

[hack89]

120. OBL was an active participant in the hostilities

He could be killed with impunity as long as he hadn't surrendered or was incapacitated due to wounds.

[Canuckistanian]

125. Without conviction in a court of law, it's illegal

Plain and simple. Even the Nazis got their day in court. And they killed EXPONENTIALLY more people than bin Laden. Directly.

As for your "authorizations" - they're not legal outside your own borders. That would require an "international authorization", otherwise known to most people as a "treaty".

This killing was NOT approved by the UN OR even Pakistan, on whose land it occurred.

[Kaleva]

137. Those Nazi's who survived the war got their day in court.

Until Germany and her allies officially surrendered, it was understood by all that the killing of high level officials and military leaders was the norm.

[creon]

77. necessary

What was done -- needed to be done.

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. +!

[steve2470]

98. If I had my way...

1- OBL and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed would have both surrendered themselves immediately following 9-11.

2- Failing that, at least before we entered Afghanistan

3- Failing that, at least before we entered Iraq

4- how about 2004 ?

5- how about 2005 ?

6- how about 2006 ?

7- how about 2007 ?

8- how about 2008 ?

You get my point. OBL, from what I understand, had access to over $1 million or millions of USD with which to hire legal counsel and defend himself. Anyone with a grain of sense can guess or reason that the dominant military power on Earth will eventually catch you.

Concise restatement of my point: If OBL had surrendered himself AND had used his funds for the best legal defense money can buy, he MIGHT be still alive ( i.e., OJ Simpson ).

He did not do that. Instead, he "forced" our hand under some of the worst possible conditions (inside another country, in a guarded compound, under cover of darkness, with innocent women and children and his sons, and (from what I read) weapons at ready access. I'm not surprised he's dead.

Moral of the story: When you go on TV and brag that you have something to do with an attack against the USA which kills 3,000 people, you better surrender pretty damn fast and scrounge up every penny for your defense counsel.

[madrchsod]

106. he`s swimming with the fishes and the world goes on...

[bluestate10]

111. The term is sleeping with the fishes. But your sentiment is right. nt

[madrchsod]

144. thanks for the correction...

[pipi_k]

152. Hmmm...four days later...

I doubt he's doing much swimming or sleeping with any fishes...


He's probably being digested by fishes right now

Just a guess though.

;)

[bluestate10]

108. Bin Laden won't plan the killing of another person. Yes, the killing was justified by

all civilized measures.

[krabigirl]

193. But the US military can keep on killing people over there, no problem, right?

[elehhhhna]

109. That extrajudicial part was a nod to the Republicans. They LOVE that shit.

now go away

[elehhhhna]

110. this post makes me feel so fresh and alert.

[slutticus]

114. In the infamous words of Scarface:

"Now the funeral is over
And all the tears are dried up..."


Look up the rest. It's pretty good.

[Union Scribe]

133. instantly brings to mind that scene

in Office Space where Michael Bolton is listening to that in his car, lol.

[Dark]

115. So Moore takes his morality cues from a ring of pedophiles?

And we're supposed to take the word of the "World Socialist" website?

I'll pass on that.

Fuck Osama.

[coalition_unwilling]

177. Um, Moore might take his morality cues from someone like

Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

[moondust]

134. I don't think so.

If tweeter RealityVirtual heard the helicopters over Abbottabad then the people inside the OBL compound surely heard them almost directly overhead and landing in their yard. The SEALs going in would therefore have to assume that OBL and company had their guard up and were armed and ready to defend themselves to the death. The place might also be booby trapped. Assuming a "hostile environment," one false move in the shadows and kablooey!

[Marr]

135. I understand the point of the critics, I think.

There's validity in it. While it seems to me very practical to simply kill bin Laden instead of capture him, avoiding all the complications and potential mayhem that would likely accompany his incarceration-- the same argument could be applied by a government in regards to a whistle-blower, or a dissident, or anyone else the current administration finds inconvenient.

[dionysus]

146. with each day, the desperation level of the attacks rises.

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

156. In another thread, you said he's been dead since 2001....

Might want to get your trolling straight.


Your slip is slowing.

[tallahasseedem]

197. +1

Sweet!

[RegieRocker]

162. What the ¤¤¤¤? The man killed thousands of Americans why is this

junk being posted. Let it go already.

[Cerridwen]

169. The official story is

that President Obama and the Democrats were successful where bush/cheney and the repubs failed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1052015

Anything else is accepting their premise.

[JuniperLea]

183. I'm so loving your campaign today!

Keep up the excellent work!

[Cerridwen]

188. Thanks!

It's good practice for the real world. :)

[Raine]

207. He's dead, I'm glad and I'm glad it was swift and immediate. nt