did anyone see Mike Moore on CNN last night

[sasha031]

I only caught pieces, in between watching Rachel. But from what I could gather, he was criticizing Obama for assassinating Bi Laden. He claimed we were better then that.

He went on how Bin Laden should of been arrested and taken to the Hague.
Now I am no expert, but I see this in a very simplified view of what happened.

How could the administration manage to get Bin Laden out of the country especially if there was a possibility that he was under house arrest.
I don't see how this could of been done any other way.
I love Michael, he has done so much good at bringing attention to issues that are vital in this country and the campaign work he has done throughout the yrs. What can you say, he has been wonderful.

[dionysus]

1. his heart is in the right place, but i disagree with him on this.

[truebrit71]

3. Me too...on this one he is wrong...

..

[sasha031]

8. yes it's an over simplified view

the format was cold, I don't care for that person who took Larry King's place.
Although Larry was not known to ask tough questions he appeared kind and smart.

It seemed Mike was out of place there.

I disagree with him also. there is no way they could of got Bin Laden out of Pakistan without having to take on the country.

[elias49]

2. They got him out dead. Why not alive? eom

[truebrit71]

9. Much better to have a live target to continue inflaming the situation...

...rather than a dead terrorist...:saywhat:

I simply don't understand how people can continue not to understand this point...if he was kept alive he would continue to carry out his message (in fact it would probably embolden the message because he had been captured by 'the infidel') rather than being erased and having a clear message sent that we WILL find you no matter how long it takes..

The found him. They killed him. Next?

[Poll_Blind]

24. Yours is the "Don't anger Al Qaeda" argument, and it's not persuasive.

It assumes that Al Qaeda would "cut America slack" given a certain choice. That's just silly. Al Qaeda will always do whatever it can to destroy America and Americans, regardless of either choice taken.

Unless you're into arguing about the level of compassion in Al Qaeda, I don't know what the next step in your argument is?

PB

[truebrit71]

34. No, Al-Q was going to be angered one way or another...

...but having a living martyr behind bars allows him and his followers to continue on the message loud and clear...It also increases the liklihood of reprisals at US targets..

Blow his head off and dump his body in the ocean sends a different message..don't fuck with us or you will die..

Capturing him and giving him a trial gives him yet another platform to spew his hatred from...an option that is unavailable to him currently at the bottom of the ocean...

[Capitalocracy]

52. The trial as a platform thing is a Republican talking point.

I can't believe we're repeating it now.

Trials aren't a platform for the ideology of the person on trial. They are more effective in picking that ideology apart.

[truebrit71]

60. You can call it what you want, but a trial of OBl would merely have given him a platform...

..from whence to spew his hatful message...

If you were dealing with a rational person, that had thousands and thousands of rational followers then maybe a nice trial unravelling the hateful ideology wooul work, the problem is neither the leader nor the followers are rational...

You may as well perform Shakespeare to barnyard animals, they will still behave the same way afterwards as before...

Two bullets in the head and dumped in the ocean is a far clearer message..

[Capitalocracy]

4. Very unpopular opinion right now.

I've probably earned multiple ignores for supporting trials (and with no insults or snarkiness or anything). I think a week ago DU in general was far more in favor of trials than they are today. We'll see what happens next week.

Again, it's better to kill him than to leave him alone. If they determined it wasn't safe to take him alive, I would accept that situation (even better if they actually said that from the start!) But killing him to avoid the "hassle" of a trial is very, very wrong. A trial helps destroy his ideology far more than turning him into a martyr.

[krabigirl]

16. Which is why it is good for him to be out there saying it.

[KoKo]

18. Agree he needs to be out there saying it. Diversity of opinion better than lockstep

Republican mindset.

[fascisthunter]

5. I think he's right

but then again, I don't find myself as upset or concerned about this topic.

[Solomon]

13. Have you considered how many Americans would be kidnapped

and tortured in an attempt to ransom Bin Laden back?

I shudder to think of it. Who's so important that we would give him back if people were kidnapped? Not my loved ones, not yours. We would get to see more beheadings on you-tube.

[Poll_Blind]

19. Yours is a false choice logical fallacy. The "don't anger Al Qaeda" argument is...

...a flimsy one.

What is your reasoning that Americans would not be kidnapped because bin Laden was killed? It's just silly, IMO. Al Qaeda is going to harm every American interest it can.

To posit that Al Qaeda is going to "cut us slack" for doing this instead of that is possibly the weakest argument one can make, given the group of terrorist we're talking about.

PB

[EFerrari]

44. The Don't Anger Al Qaida argument is what is used when

someone wants you to stop thinking about a problem.

[Greybnk48]

6. I don't agree with Michael on this one either.

It's done, it's over, and this is how it should have been. Why create a drawn out spectacle to rile the anger in the Mid-East. This was like ripping off a band-aid--done before you know it.

[still_one]

7. He is consistent, but in my view, wrong in this case /nt

[justiceischeap]

10. I'll keep banging the trial wasn't an option drum as long as I have strength

There is no way we could have held this man for trial without causing the terrorists to kidnap and kill Americans to try and gain his freedom. No American would really be safe anywhere in the world if he was captured and held, even if he was held in an undisclosed location. I firmly believe the only option we had to handle this particular terrorist was exactly the way it was handled.

I give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt on this one, not because I'm a huge Obama supporter but because they have intelligence we will never be privy to. There is a reason a kill order was given and I don't think it was because they didn't want the spectacle of a trial or the costs or the trouble associated with one. I think they looked at the risks and weighed all factors and this was the safest outcome (and not just for the SEALs).

[glinda]

11. Yes. Possibly safest, same outcome in the end, least time for political abuse also.

[sasha031]

12. agree, now suppose he was under house arrest

can you imagine the fire fight that would of broke out. It could of turned into another war.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[justiceischeap]

21. Denying there are terrorists? How about AQ who released a statement today that said

"our happiness will soon turn to sadness..." Those terrorists? Would you rather AQ kill a whole bunch of innocent people so we could try Osama? Cause they, yeah the terrorists, they wouldn't do that, would they? And let us not forget that we ARE at war with AQ and Osama was the head of AQ so therefore, an enemy combatant. There was nothing illegal or immoral about this kill.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[justiceischeap]

29. Yes, well you see, "we" haven't done it but "we" are the ones who pay the price for it

If "we" stopped supporting Israel, all this would go away. However, "I" haven't fucked with anyone in the world yet "I'm" still in danger from "them" because "I" happened by circumstance to be born an American citizen.

The way you quote "terrorists" makes me feel like maybe you sympathize with what "they're" doing because "we" are involved in foreign politics, right or wrong as they may be. One could surmise from your argument about "terrorists" that what they're doing isn't so bad.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[wildbilln864]

41. who are the terrorists?

you honestly think you're in danger from terrorists?
Wow! Better chance you'll get struck by lightning!
Of course that also depends on your definition of terrorist.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[wildbilln864]

31. see post 19. nt

[CrossChris]

36. But wouldn't this mean they're holding back now? Aren't they trying their hardest right now?

I don't buy the argument that any new action we take is going to inflame them even more. That would imply that they're not trying their hardest right now.

[Poll_Blind]

14. The government has officially stated that they intended to capture him if possible.

However, as more details come out about the raid, it appears that if the SEALS had wanted to capture or at least wound bin Laden, they probably would have been able to. Off the record, "unnamed administration officials" and military sources are telling the major newsmedia that the operation was kill only.

Simply put, there is a difference between what the official explanation is and what the unoffical explanation is.

I think 99% of the comments you're going to read, like Moore's, suggesting disappointment that we didn't capture him do not stem from him thinking the SEALS should have unnecessarily put their lives in danger to do so. No. By the time the second official revision official revision was complete, it was clear that bin Laden was killed while unarmed. His wife, who aggressively charged the SEALS, was merely shot in the leg and disabled. According to the official US government account, bin Laden did not behave in any such agressive manner. In fact, if you read the official release it basically says, directly after talking about the wounding of his wife, "We saw bin Laden and then shot him. He was unarmed."

That's it.

So the point here is because the Administration has officially stated that the mission was capture or kill, people are naturally led to wonder why, even taking the US government's account as 100% gospel, he was not taken into custody.

If you read the accounts from the people who were in the complex and survived, they 100% agree with the U.S. government account. They only include the assertion that bin Laden was taken into custody, then executed. These do not necessarily disagree with the DOD's versionof events, the DOD's version of events just omit under what circumstances bin Laden was shot under.

All the really "detailed" accounts you're going to read which fill in the blanks of the DOD's account are all off-the-record and from "unnamed sources". Again, even in a situation where one gives 100% credence to the official, DoD-released account, the questions like Moore's naturally arise.

Lots of posters here, who I honestly believe are completely ignorant of what the DoD actually wrote about the raid, are ignorantly assuming that the unofficial story reported by the media is gospel while the official DoD account is false.

Does not compute if trying to defend the Administration.

PB

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

22. Saddam also...Knew too Much. So, it does make sense that

it had to be kill. And, most Americans in the early polls agree with kill...But they don't know that it's the information that could be revealed that would be damaging to our US Policies and not the threat to the people from terrorism backlash that was the reason. "Dead Men Tell No Tales." "Swim with the Fishes."

It had to be that way. But, it doesn't mean that the truth still can't come out. That's why some folks are asking questions ...like Michael Moore.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[leftynyc]

30. Sadaam was put on trial by Iraqis

Convicted by Iraqis and hanged by Iraqis. the situations are in no way similar.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[leftynyc]

39. Take it up with the Iraqis

I shed no tears for either of them.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[BobbyBoring]

70. Dead men tell no tales

n/t

[KoKo]

71. Amazing this post got so many "deleted messages"...it must have been vicious..

I'm just getting back from work..a job that might not last much longer..and see that my post got mostly DELETED MESSAGES.. Ugh.

I think I'm being sent some kind of message here. But, since all is "DELETED" how can I know what people are saying? :shrug: I might have been able to argue with them ...if their posts hadn't been DELETED.

:shrug: What is this on DU these days?

[kenny blankenship]

68. If bin Laden "knew too much" then he could have deposited what he knew in a file

to come out, in the event of his unnatural death, or in the event that Pakistan handed him over to the US. That's what people who "know too much" do for insurance. It's not like he didn't know people in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region who he could trust to execute his will.

There's still plenty of time for it to come out. But if it doesn't come out, then it will pretty clear to me that while he may have had dirt on Pakistan (such as the fact that they were harboring him) he didn't have anything embarrassing or scandalous to release with which to strike back at the United States, the country he viewed as the enemy of his homeland, people and God. Osama bin Laden was a long range planner, a mad-genius individual capable of laying traps for great powers and driven by undying hatred; it's very difficult to imagine him not planning to get in a last blow of this type, if he had anything on us.

[EFerrari]

20. The administration can't say they set out to kill Bin Laden.

Too much legal risk. And you're right, imo, about the witness accounts supporting DoD's corrected account.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[leftynyc]

26. I disagree with him on this issue

It's okay - I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[leftynyc]

33. Where do you get that idea from?

I defended Park 51 before and will do so again. So you may take your head out of your ass now and go bother someone else.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[WhollyHeretic]

50. Oh yes. Just an innocent question. You were in no way trying to call that poster a bigot

:eyes:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[leftynyc]

64. LOL - yeah, a question

like glen beck just "asks questions". You're fooling nobody.

[WhollyHeretic]

42. Where the hell did that come from? Are you trying to say that anyone who supported the killing

of Bin Laden is a bigot?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

32. He said a lot more than that. It was very interesting.

And whenever he says anything these days, I give it a lot of thought as he's been right so often in the past.

But, re OBL being arrested, he is absolutely right about his main point. Since when did the US become so incompetent that we can't arrest someone and give them a fair trial? He doesn't buy it, and neither do I and it's amazing how many people here actually do.

If one human being, who doesn't and probably never did, have much of a following has scared this country into tossing away our system of justice, convincing them we can't do business the way we are supposed to, then he destroyed way more than the WTC and 3,000 people. And that was MM's point and he could not be more correct.

We are being lied to and have been for ten years now.

[LibGranny]

37. He lamented that Bin Ladin was "unarmed" but I think he forgets all

those killed on 9/11 were also "unarmed" and ambushed! Eat dirt Michael Moore!

[Capitalocracy]

54. So we should be like them?

You don't think we should be better?

[EFerrari]

65. No one is lamenting bin Laden was unarmed. That's ludicrous. n/t

[RegieRocker]

38. Mike is wrong on this one. He's never been in, the military and has not

a clue as to how dangerous of a mission it was. A handful of Navy Seal went into a guarded compound and did the impossible. This wasn't a My Lai massacre it was the death of a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[RegieRocker]

57. You were there? Shot on sight is not an execution by a tactical team during

the time of the raid. Not anymore than a sniper taking out their target. If however they had complete control of the compound and then later shot him yes that would have been a execution. Would you have judged him as innocent? Do you think he would have been found innocent in any trial? That is the 800lb gorilla. So what have you to gain by these accusations that he was executed?

[OHdem10]

47. I like MM and agree with him on some things like Health Care.

However, not to flamebait, but this is what gives Liberals
the image of being soft on crime.

Trying to bring Bin Laden back here alive and getting him
to the Hague was just not feasible. Yes, we would love
to have Al Qeda and associated groups from all over the
world descending on this country to fight for their Beloved
Leader. How wonderful to have him at the Hague spewing his
nonsense and his lawyers puling every trick in the book and
Al Qeda acting out everywhere.

In Theory, MM might make sense idealistically. However, we
live in a real world. I will always admire Obama's True
Grit in making the right decision snd following through.
This Liberal believes our President handled this in the best
way possible under the circumstances and makes many of us
so very Proud.

[grasswire]

51. You didn't quite get his point.

His point was wondering why the administration can't be truthful about the intent of the mission. Why not just say the mission was to kill bin Laden, instead of all the fluff about the firefight and the dodgy words.

He just wants the government to say the simple truth from the beginning and say it consistently.

Why?

Because governments that indulge in little lies don't get trusted on the big things.

[Armstead]

58. That was my sense of what he was saying too

[truebrit71]

61. In that case MM is more of a dreamer than I ever imagined...you can't use 'truth'and 'govt'..

..in the same sentence and expected to be taken seriously no matter WHO is in charge..

[grasswire]

66. maybe not, but you can ADVOCATE for truth in government

Which is what he was doing.

He said that Obama gets the benefit of the doubt because he has generally told Americans the truth. Why lie about the mission?

[truebrit71]

69. Sure you can ADVOCATE for the truth...hell you can ADVOCATE for unicorns...

...but it boils down to this, all politicians lie when in government it's just that Dems lie LESS then repubes when in power..

[OHdem10]

67. Developing Stories always have muddled beginnings.

Murder cases take OJ. There was so much misinformation
in the beggining.

Olympic Bombing Case. All the stories in the beginning
and they ended up paying the one Guy millions in damages
because he was not guilty.

The Media has to be fed and depending on the sources they
are using there is going to be fog.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. I agree with Michael.

Back in my 20s, I worked for a criminal defense attorney here in SF -- some of his clients included Joe Bonnano, Sr. and Sarah Jane Moore. He also did a lot of pro bono work with the ACLU on death penalty cases, and I came to truly understand the importance of our judicial system and the necessity of a trial before jurors.

I fully believe that even the biggest pile of shit on the planet deserves judicial representation and a trial -- it is really more about what is says about US as a people, as a society. If a trial for Osama Bin Laden isn't good enough for the "Leader of the Free World" then we can never ask another country to embrace the standards we ourselves will not abide by.

And I would have much preferred to see Bin Laden disappear into some supermax facility and irrelevance instead of being a made a martyr.

[Capitalocracy]

56. +1

[KurtNYC]

59. I think you have to hear MM's comment in the context of him believing

that 911 was LIHOP. A trial would have pulled at lots of loose threads like 'why are there no photos of the strike on the Pentagon?'

We are turning the page and leaving many questions unanswered.

[KoKo]

62. I think that MM feels Saudi's had more to do with 911

than that he's a LIHOPer, though. His concern is that we invaded Iraq when 19 of the hijackers were Saudi's and none were Iraqi or Afghani. Doesn't mean he thinks "9/11" was an inside job, though.

[Whisp]

63. I love Michael even tho I sometimes strongly disagree with him.

He seemed tired and frustrated last night. Guess fighting all those years is wearing him down.

Hope Not!
We need him desperately.

[KoKo]

72. kick