Osama Bin Laden is dead!

Waldo regains title as world's hardest man to find, Osama hailed as runner up.

The prevailing opinion at my fiancée's work place is that Osama was captured alive and the "buried at sea" thing is so that the CIA has plenty of time to "question" him without any scrutiny. I do believe that's the sort of thing our government would do if it thought it would get away with it, but I don't think they would. I'm going to be interested to see the photographic evidence they release over the next couple days. If they don't then I may buy into that theory as well. Even if they release pictures tomorrow that's still an extra day and a half they had for interrogation.

Of course the biggest strike against this theory is that I'm not sure how valuable of an intelligence asset Bin Laden would be, which I extrapolate on a small amount below:

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

The weirdest thing to me is how the administration had the intelligence to take him down, but didn't capture him. I understand some of the arguments against that, but isn't the chance of him letting out valuable intelligence worth catching him?

EDIT: Unless, of course, that intelligence would also have included his knowledge of life as a CIA asset. Oops.

I just hope we can rely on the Pakistani forces securing that compound. That place could be a treasure trove of intel. Hell they might be able to find every freaking cell in the world if they were stupid enough to keep laptops there.

I'm guessing that Osama didn't actually get much intel on Al Qaeda operations anymore, and wasn't really in charge in a meaningful way. I'm guessing that the reason he was able to hide out for so long was because communication between him and anyone else was kept to an absolute minimum.

Yonder wrote:

The prevailing opinion at my fiancée's work place is that Osama was captured alive and the "buried at sea" thing is so that the CIA has plenty of time to "question" him without any scrutiny. I do believe that's the sort of thing our government would do if it thought it would get away with it, but I don't think they would.

Believe me if that's true you don't want to have proof of that or you'll suddenly find yourself being prosecuted for rape in Sweden/Norway ;).

I skimmed through this huge post. And as I thought they said they were going for a "kill" rather than capture but the theory that they did the other way around is valid.

Anyways... you can't blame the US for all the civilian deaths in the countries it invaded. When a strong government falls it's not uncommon for the civilian population to start killing each other due to some old conflict the previous government held in check.

Any ways fighting against non-government organization is problematic because they didn't sign the Geneva convention and tend to ignore it. Use of human shields, hostages, armed civilians and child soldiers are common. According to the Geneva convention Mercenaries and illegal combatants(generally soldiers who don't wear a uniforms) do not have any rights . If all terrorists are illegal combatants then executing them without a trial is "OK" but that may break other laws.

The legal implications of fighting terrorists is a very complicated subject. A state with a good legal system would usually double check if any military action is legal (or if they can get away with it). Terrorists usually don't have honor code . You can't sign treaties with them or hold them accountable to anything. This is why it's common practice to kill them and never negotiate with them.

Wow. The compound looks EXACTLY like something out of Combat Mission Shock Force:

IMAGE(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52455000/jpg/_52455064_52455063.jpg)

The White House is now backing off the "he used a woman as a shield" story, which makes sense. It was a little too much like an action movie cliche. Reminds me of that whole Jessica Lynch thing during the Iraq invasion.

Funkenpants wrote:

The White House is now backing off the "he used a woman as a shield" story, which makes sense. It was a little too much like an action movie cliche. Reminds me of that whole Jessica Lynch thing during the Iraq invasion.

I didn't hear that HE used one as a human shield, but heard that someone did. There seems to be plenty of real propaganda fodder even without that to satisfy the psyops folks for a while. The fact that bin Laden was living in the lap of luxury while his fighters are drinking their urine in caves. The fact that the SEALS took him and his family out without casualties and significant resistance. And the fact that no Arab country on the planet wanted anything to do with his body so they had to dump it in the ocean.

I still think it would have been better if they managed to taken him alive while he was butt banging his trusted courier, but that's just because I'm vindictive.

This seems to be the initial source of the story, which was twisted in other media reports:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – One of Osama bin Laden's wives acted as a human shield in an unsuccessful bid to save the Al-Qaeda leader's life before he was killed in a raid by US special forces, a top US official said Monday.

All those propaganda points fit easily into the mythos of the young muslim fighter facing by impossible odds. These are guys who are willing to blow themselves up to take out a few enemies with them. They know what they're up against by now.

lol, instead of 72 virgins Osama got 24 Virginians. Seems fair.


Source(French) JSS news

IMAGE(http://jssnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/planobl1.jpg)

I guess Bin Laden was hiding in Jerusalem all along. Now the UN can blame Israel for hiding him.

edit:

Nekroman wrote:

lol, instead of 72 virgins Osama got 24 Virginians. Seems fair.

I told my co-workers I am going to replace Bin Laden because a Super-Shahid gets a down payment from Allah.

Niseg wrote:

:lol:
Source(French) JSS news

IMAGE(http://jssnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/planobl1.jpg)

I guess Bin Laden was hiding in Jerusalem all along. Now the UN can blame Israel for hiding him.

Actually, that's either an odd coincidence, or they purposely modeled the compound after Israel, with the main building being placed proportionally (I bet there's a better word for that) to where the Wailing Wall and, more importantly to the Muslim community, Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary are located in Jerusalem. Is there such a thing as Muslim Feng shui?

Current word is that that woman may have stepped in front of him to shield him, unsuccessfully. I've also seen one report that his wife was wounded; no idea where she is, or the kids they mentioned earlier.

Intriguing thought that they got him alive, but I doubt that he'd have any seriously useful information after being (purposely) isolated from the rest of the organization for so many years. He'd be a stub, essentially, sending information into the system, but probably not getting much out of it, and not managing day to day ops. Zawahiri would be a much bigger catch.

I suspect that the rumor mill will start soon if he's alive. There are a lot of people on the Carl Vinson....

Nekroman wrote:

lol, instead of 72 virgins Osama got 24 Virginians. Seems fair.

Nice. Translations of religious texts can be a tricky affair.

I can't find the article that had the timeline of events. Can someone remind me, was Osama already dead when Seth Myers was making jokes about his whereabouts at the White House Correspondents Dinner?

McChuck wrote:

I can't find the article that had the timeline of events. Can someone remind me, was Osama already dead when Seth Myers was making jokes about his whereabouts at the White House Correspondents Dinner?

No, but Obama had just given the order to send out the strike team, IIRC.

It seems the US has started to change its story on how the kill went down.

Now they're saying Osama never fired a shot, probably because he was not armed. Also none of his wives were killed (another woman was), so they're not sure he was using anyone as a body shield. There have been allegations that he may have been captured non-violently, then executed on the spot.

While the guy was as big a bastard as ever there was, this is still troubling. Even if he deserved that and worse, that's not how we're supposed to do things.

The official statement is that they would have taken him alive had they been able to do so with relative safety. The fact that he's dead should say enough about that.

Yes, it's hard that a 40-members strong strike force, with all imaginable incapacitation means at their disposal, couldn't capture three people. Maybe the operators just decided to nail the bastard. The flipped a coin to decide who gets the honor, and BLAM! "We're sorry to report, Mr. President -- the target has put up a fierce resistance, and was shot dead in a firefight".

McChuck wrote:

I can't find the article that had the timeline of events. Can someone remind me, was Osama already dead when Seth Myers was making jokes about his whereabouts at the White House Correspondents Dinner?

Article last night said that Obama gave the order Fri, before he left for the tornado + space shuttle trip. The op went down Sun afternoon though, at 1am local time in pakistan.

So yeah, while Meyers was making jokes Sat night, Obama knew what was going down the next day. I watched CSPAN's footage of both of them last night, pretty funny stuff. I think Obama enjoyed poking some fun at people himself too, especially knowing what was coming.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Yes, it's hard that a 40-members strong strike force, with all imaginable incapacitation means at their disposal, couldn't capture three people. Maybe the operators just decided to nail the bastard. The flipped a coin to decide who gets the honor, and BLAM! "We're sorry to report, Mr. President -- the target has put up a fierce resistance, and was shot dead in a firefight".

Sounds like the coin flipping contest was the hard part. I wonder if anyone asked for his autograph before they shot the unarmed man (so I've read ) in the head.

Well I guess he was more dangerous alive then dead but that only time would tell.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It seems the US has started to change its story on how the kill went down.

Now they're saying Osama never fired a shot, probably because he was not armed. Also none of his wives were killed (another woman was), so they're not sure he was using anyone as a body shield. There have been allegations that he may have been captured non-violently, then executed on the spot.

While the guy was as big a bastard as ever there was, this is still troubling. Even if he deserved that and worse, that's not how we're supposed to do things.

The official statement is that they would have taken him alive had they been able to do so with relative safety. The fact that he's dead should say enough about that.

It's hard for me to tell how much of the previously communicated story was actually released by the gov't and how much was extrapolated from the press. I never heard it said that Osama himself was the one using a human shield, and while I've heard it said that he never fired a shot I have not heard that he was not armed. Given the chaos surrounding the reporting of the story right now I'm waiting for things to settle down before I believe any of the smaller details other than the location and the result.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Yes, it's hard that a 40-members strong strike force, with all imaginable incapacitation means at their disposal, couldn't capture three people. Maybe the operators just decided to nail the bastard. The flipped a coin to decide who gets the honor, and BLAM! "We're sorry to report, Mr. President -- the target has put up a fierce resistance, and was shot dead in a firefight".

Well honestly Osama should not have expected quarter since his terrorists showed no mercy to their victims. I'm just glad that he didn't plan better for his final stand. If I were in his shoes, I'd have several rooms rigged with explosives so that I could take most of the spec ops team with me if I was ever cornered.

jdzappa wrote:

Well honestly Osama should not have expected quarter since his terrorists showed no mercy to their victims.

Beheading videos of civilians released to the internet, etc.

jdzappa wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Yes, it's hard that a 40-members strong strike force, with all imaginable incapacitation means at their disposal, couldn't capture three people. Maybe the operators just decided to nail the bastard. The flipped a coin to decide who gets the honor, and BLAM! "We're sorry to report, Mr. President -- the target has put up a fierce resistance, and was shot dead in a firefight".

Well honestly Osama should not have expected quarter since his terrorists showed no mercy to their victims. I'm just glad that he didn't plan better for his final stand. If I were in his shoes, I'd have several rooms rigged with explosives so that I could take most of the spec ops team with me if I was ever cornered.

Oh. Well, that makes it OK then, according to the 2002 landmark case of Rubber vs. Glue.

Osama was a monster and doesn't deserve any sympathy, don't get me wrong, but we're America. We do things a specific way, to uphold our core beliefs. Little things about human rights. You can say that if anyone deserved an exception, it was Osama, and you'd probably be right, as long as you assume that anyone ever deserves an exception.

If we make exceptions to our principles then they are not principles. If Osama is not guaranteed rights, no one is. I don't know what went down as I wasn't there. I only hope it was something of which we can be proud.

Colbert Report was money last night. Especially a joke about the timing of the birth certificate release in light of what Obama knew was coming.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/383355/may-02-2011/carefree-pre-9-11-world

LobsterMobster wrote:

If we make exceptions to our principles then they are not principles. If Osama is not guaranteed rights, no one is. I don't know what went down as I wasn't there. I only hope it was something of which we can be proud.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is technically war, no? He doesn't really get the same liberties you or I would get if the police showed up to our house to arrest us.
I do not know the ins and outs of the Geneva Convention, but if he wasn't actively surrendering (which I don't really see him doing), his life is on the line.

This discussion reminds me of the Southpark episode where they came to the conclusion that the First Amendment gives America the strange ability to be able to do "that which is needed" while still being appalled at its own actions.

from the internet:

Benjamin Franklin shows up, as voiced by famed TV producer Norman Lear, also creative consultant for this episode. Franklin believes that the new country must not seem to be a war-monger to the rest of the world; at the same time it cannot seem to be weak either. Therefore it must go to war, but allow protests. The United States will go to war on one hand, and use protest to oppose the war on the other. He refers to the this as "saying one thing" and "doing another". One member refers to this as "having our cake and eating it too".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Little_Bit_Country

ELewis17 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

If we make exceptions to our principles then they are not principles. If Osama is not guaranteed rights, no one is. I don't know what went down as I wasn't there. I only hope it was something of which we can be proud.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is technically war, no? He doesn't really get the same liberties you or I would get if the police showed up to our house to arrest us.
I do not know the ins and outs of the Geneva Convention, but if he wasn't actively surrendering (which I don't really see him doing), his life is on the line.

I've always been confused by the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to Al Queda. The conventions apply to signatory nations and are applicable in wars between signatories and any other nations that might not have signed the conventions, but that are abiding by them. If the signatory nation is fighting a non-signatory nation not abiding by the conventions, the way I've read it is that the signatory nation does not necessarily fall under the rules.

Since Al Queda is neither a nation nor are they abiding by the conventions, this is pretty vague territory to me.

Just a sideline point that's always confused me. I agree with your post about the requirements of the military in cases like this, but I'm not sure how the Geneva Conventions apply. I think we agreed to follow the rules early in the war, but I'm not sure we even had to. I don't think that's a bad thing, but does get into exactly what "rights" there are here.

I do know international law has been applied even to those not part of the Geneva Conventions as well, so maybe it's all moot.

Thought this was interesting:

The Man Who Led Us To Osama

Particularly this passage:

CNN wrote:

Analysis of assessments of detainees held at the U.S. Navy's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, include several mentions of a man by the name of Abu Ahmad al Kuwaiti, who was reportedly close to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- also a Kuwaiti.

Wonder what kind of "assessments" turned up that name? And what kind of effect, if any, it would have on the current jubilation if those assessments turned out to be a more intense procedure than asking in a really, really mean voice?

Very few of the protections in the Geneva Conventions apply to Al Qaeda, if indeed any of them do.

I think there is a whole lot of uneducated speculation going on regarding whether or not this was a good or bad shoot. Fact is that none of us were there and second guessing the actions of an elite force in a 60 second firefight in which a major asset (a helicopter ) went tits up is some world class armchair quarterbacking.