bin Laden death myths–top ten as of May 4.
May 4, 2011, 9:10 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Juan Cole offers this assessment of bin Laden death myths so far.
Jim Sleeper, “Why I’m Not Gloating.”
Something else to chew on: Senate official: “Wrong to link bin Laden, Geronimo.”
Good summary.
Great NYT this morning, also. Maureen! Friedman! Last letter to editor! The kids at W. Va. U. celebrating! Etc.
Good summary, except that I doubt the US would have preferred to take him alive. Eric Holder said as much last year, and as much as I would have liked to have seen bin Laden reduced to the mere criminal that he was in a trial that would have demonstrated a great respect for the rule of law etc., the political circus over trying KSM would have been a sideshow compared to trying bin Laden. Anyway, live by the sword, as they say. Too bad for him. And he received a more merciful end than his victims got.
I also don’t think it’s necessary to go into contortions to justify the shooting of bin Laden. This was a battlefield situation and it involved a target who teaches men (and women) to don explosive belts a kill themselves and everyone around them. If bin Laden did anything except put his hands in the air and lay on the ground he’d have been a hot target. And even then, who knows what he’d have been packing.
True. NYT or maybe Post-Dispatch this morning said he would have had to be naked.
And with the fire fight going on downstairs for 40 minutes, he had plenty of time to get naked and on the floor.
The sympathy for bin Laden and the criticism of those who killed him is kind of funny. Desperate, the lengths to which some are going.
Gerelyn; Right on…I too almost feel sorry [but don't] for those who dislike Obama so much that they have regrets about the death of Usama Ben Laden. Their mental contortions must be painful..
Agreed. No sympathy here for OBL; it seems pretty clear the action was justified within the context of a war. I didn’t find much to be proud of or reassured by in the NYT story about the young folk, however, but to each her own.
Who do you have in mind, Ed? Certainly no one on the Right.
I didn’t find much to be proud of or reassured by in the NYT story about the young folk, however, but to each her own.
—
Hi, Mary. Maybe it’s a generational thing. I’m old enough to remember when a picture of college kids at a southern university would have been very different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/04youth.html?hp
(And old enough to know that “jack-booted” has a very specific meaning, one that shouldn’t be applied to these happy college kids.)
Now that the White House admits bin Laden was unarmed, it has become increasingly clear that this was an assassination mission with no attempt to capture. Even more troubling, from a Christian perspective. My blog question today is, “WWJA: Who Would Jesus Assassinate?” http://new-wood.blogspot.com/2011/05/wwja-who-would-jesus-assassinate.html
More chutzpah, from the notorious John Yoo in the WSJ, via Massimo Calabresi at Swampland:
Yes, I understood that to be your opinion the first time, thanks.
I think Yoo’s a scoundrel, but I also think he’s right that it was a mistake to kill rather than capture bin Laden.
There seem to be two arguments for why it was best to kill him. The first is that it would have been unacceptably dangerous to try to capture him unless he was lying down naked with his hands over his head, etc. Maybe. The military’s obviously in a better position than we are to know just how dangerous he was or could have been — though they do not necessarily have the final word on how much danger is too much danger. But was anyone very surprised to learn that, in fact, bin Laden’s body was not rigged with explosives? I wasn’t.
The second argument, which is much more problematic, is that it wasn’t worth the trouble or expense: the “if we couldn’t even try KSM in Manhattan what were we going to do with OBL?” argument. I don’t buy it. Not because we needed bin Laden to tell us how and why he did what he did (we already knew that well enough), nor because he might have provided us with other useful intelligence if we did to him what we did to KSM (thanks to people like Yoo). This was primarily about retributve justice, not security, and the provision of justice is always harder, more complicated, and riskier than vengeance. Why didn’t we shoot Saddam Hussein on the spot? We could have offered the same excuses — as that his trial would give him a chance to incite his supporters, or that, in a time of war, a trial was too complicated, or that justice was too good for such a monster. Does anyone think there was any danger that bin Laden would have been found innocent wherever he was tried, in the U.S. or in the Hague?
I read a story which has been so discredited that I won’t bother to find it and link to it, but the gist of it was that Obama couldn’t bring himself to issue the kill or capture order, because he is such a terrible leader, so the military (and I think the CIA, as well) just pushed him aside and carried out their plan. So for those who bought this story, they got to rejoice in bin Laden’s death without acknowledging that Obama did anything they approve of.
Matthew you ask is there a danger? Yes there would be a big danger that Usama would not being convicted.. Big bucks buying one or more jurors?. Is OJ so soon forgotten? Only children really like circuses… not adults.
Juan Cole ought to get his “myths” straight. Rumfeld did not say waterboarding or enhanced techniques played no role in this.
Last night he stated -
“I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox, I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one was who was waterboarded at Guantanamo, provided any information on this. That’s just not true. What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA, away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo. And in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.”
If waterboiarding and other techniques are torture, and toture is wrong it must be wrong EVEN IF it yeilds valuable information. Progressives have been having their cake and eating it too on this issue for too long. Either take a moral stand on this or don’t, but it’s time to stop basing the moral argument on the utility of the act.
David; We will soon hear/read the spin that the picture of the WH situation room shows Obama staring and Hillary with hand to her mouth because they see the Seals dis-obeying orders? one spin …shooting OBL… the other… not shooting him? I say ‘they’ will choose shooting him..
I nominate ‘The Biden had no rosary’ flap as the best catholic spin of 2011.
The torture works.. ‘ thank you Bush’ is GOP first place spin.
Sean ; ” Progressives have been having their cake and eating it too’.. You are Right .. cake is Obama … eating it is Getting rid of Usama. GOP gets the crumbs..
I have little problem with bin Laden no longer being on this earth — it is a safer place without him here. That said, we should not be so quick to toss our moral principles and laws of war into the sea along with bin Laden’s body (and Obama supporters should not be so quick to justify things that they have long claimed to be against). Moreover, we should not be so quick to simply ignore the mounting instances of (intentionally?) false statements about what happened coming from the Administration.
From CNN on the extent of bin Laden’s “resistance” –
When Benson asked the first U.S. official whether bin Laden tried to grab a weapon or physically attack a commando, the official said only, “He didn’t hold up his hands and surrender.”
From the UK Daily Mail –
Osama Bin Laden’s daughter has claimed he was captured alive in his Pakistani hideout and then shot by U.S. special forces, it was reported today.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383106/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Wife-watched-die-White-House-reveals-WASNT-armed.html#ixzz1LPK0EMc3
From the National Journal –
The SEALs’ decision to fatally shoot bin Laden — even though he didn’t have a weapon – wasn’t an accident. The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive. . . . But bin Laden didn’t appear to have been given a chance to surrender himself to the SEALs.
“To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an interview airing on PBS NewsHour.
U.S. officials have described a chaotic scene inside the sprawling compound as the SEALs fought running gun battles with militants. When commandos reached the room were bin Laden had been sleeping, they made a quick decision to kill him.
“It was a firefight going up that compound. By the time they got to the third floor and found bin Laden, I think this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs,” Panetta said in the PBS interview. . . .
The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration’s counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.
It appears that this Administration has adopted a policy of “kill first, don’t bother to capture to ask questions later.”
I think Bender is telling us that the Seal that fired the two shots was a liberal Obama supporter/hench. Great bender obervation .. (-:
Right Bender! Stuff happens: Rumsfeld: ‘I’m Not Surprised’ By Changing Osama Death Narrative
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tells TPM narrative changes like the one about the capture/killing of Osama Bin Laden the White House released today are par for the course in special operations like the one on Sunday.
TPM just ran into Rumsfeld as he walked into the Capitol Tuesday evening. He said he hadn’t seen the changing story of the Pakistan operation that killed bin Laden but wasn’t moved by a description of it.
“That’s not surprising,” he said of the changing tale. “You know, new additional information comes out, people talk about it, and things get adjusted.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/bin_laden_wire/bin_laden_wire.html?ref=fpblg#126
Don’t deflect.
This isn’t about the Seals. This isn’t about Bender. This is about the actions and policies of Barack Obama and his Administration, and the moral and legal implications arising from his apparent decision to “summarily execute” bin Laden (to use Eduardo’s terminology).
Right! REflect.
Bender ; why not take your ‘concerns’ to Hague world court. Flights leave daily and are safer now.
Bender,
In 2002 Bush gave the CIA the authority to kill high-value terrorist targets (including bin Laden) without even checking with him. That is why such a fuss was made last year when an American citizen was put on the capture-or-kill list. That required presidential approval, but the killing of non-Americans did not.
Bush isn’t the issue either. Neither is Rumsfeld. Obama is the issue. He’s the president now. This was his doing.
I know that that is painful for some to realize. Too painful, such that there is the need to deflect, so as not to have to believe that Obama and his Administration essentially sent out a death squad here. But the situation is what it is.
“This is about the actions and policies of Barack Obama and his Administration, and the moral and legal implications arising from his apparent decision to “summarily execute” bin Laden…”
Is that what they are saying on Fox News? There are no legal implications. The President has been clear since at least 20 Feb 09 of the legal right of self-defense of the American people to use lethal force against anyone we suspect may be associated with al-Qaeda or who may be suspected of being affiliated with organizations which may be associated with al-Qaeda.
The current Executive has, at least as early as 20 February 2009 reversed its June 2008 opinion regarding the decision in Boumediene v. Bush. Additionally, following-up on the excellent and patriotic work of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and others, Harold Koh, in his remarks at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on 25 March 2010, has reiterated that the United States has an inherent legal right to pre-emptive self-defense whereby it is “not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.” Additionally, the current Administration has been very clear this right applies to anyone suspected of any sort of relationship involvement with any “associated forces” of al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
I know that that is painful for some to realize. Too painful, such that there is the need to deflect, so as not to have to believe that Obama and his Administration essentially sent out a death squad here. But the situation is what it is.
Bender,
Don’t count me among the “some.” First, I know Obama had the legal right to have bin Laden executed. Second, I am convinced he had the moral right. Third, you have no idea what orders the Navy Seals were given by Obama or by their commanding officers. Fourth, none of us know exactly what happened.
You want to believe Obama did something you can make him look bad for, but without knowing the orders that were given and without the testimony of those in the room when bin Laden was shot, it is you anti-Obama bias talking.
the excellent and patriotic work of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and others . . .
MAT,
If you disagree with Yoo and Gonzalez, are you unpatriotic?
“Too painful, such that there is the need to deflect, so as not to have to believe that Obama and his Administration essentially sent out a death squad here.”
Great. We just finished off the birthers and now we have the rise of the deathers.
You guys already blew it. A single death squad agaisnt a worldwide terrorist leader is very weak beer against earlier accusations that Obama was convening death panels for U.S. grandmas under his health reform inititatives. Neither death squads nor death panlels need be taken seriously. Don’t forget to double line the tin foil in your hats, it prevents Apple from tracking your iphone.
Register your complaints against Obama at the ballot box. Meanwhile, the man has an economy to fix. Let him do his job.
“If you disagree with Yoo and Gonzalez, are you unpatriotic?”
The nature of the disagreement would make one unpatriotic only to the extent the disagreement undermined the powers of the Executive to defend the Constitution from all enemies at home and abroad. In the current example, any non-Socratic disagreement which would cast doubt on the legality of the actions leading to the death of OBL would be unpatriotic.
“There seem to be two arguments for why it was best to kill him. The first is that it would have been unacceptably dangerous to try to capture him unless he was lying down naked with his hands over his head, etc. Maybe.” (Matthew Boudway)
Maybe? Do you wish to encourage the U.S. government to demand that we all submit to strip searches at airports?
Why are many people appearing to accept trustingly and without critical analysis all statements made by a government that assured us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
No, Stephen. What I meant was that maybe it was dangerous, and even unacceptably dangerous, for our soldiers to approach the world’s most famous advocate of suicide terrorism before they had killed him. As a matter of fact, I do “wish to encourage the U.S. government to demand” that known terrorists submit to strip searches at airports. Don’t you?
“any non-Socratic disagreement which would cast doubt on the legality of the actions leading to the death of OBL would be unpatriotic.”
I have to disagree with that. I think Yoo’s conduct was unrpfoessional. I also think that some of those who suggest Osama was assassinated by an Obama death squad are timfoil crazy jsut as birthers and otehr kook cosnpriacy theorists.
But are they somehow unpatriotic? No. It’s a free country–it’s patriotic to exercise your right of free speech. conferring wackaloon speech the dignity of “unpatriotic” gives it too much credit.
Gerelyn, I have to admit, your meaning in the following statements eludes me: “Hi, Mary. Maybe it’s a generational thing. I’m old enough to remember when a picture of college kids at a southern university would have been very different.”
I happen to be a bit old (61), and a graduate of two Southern universities (Loyola, New Orleans and Tulane) (and a Canadian one in between), and I agree with Mary: I don’t find much to be proud of or reassured by in the NYT story about the young folk.
Perhaps the world will be a safer place without Mr. bin Laden in it. And perhaps justice was served in what occurred several days ago.
But cause for jubilation? I think I may be somewhat less convinced than some of those doing the shouting right now are that the New Jerusalem flourishes in America’s green and pleasant land.
“I have to disagree with that. I think Yoo’s conduct was unrpfoessional. ”
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to but I will assume it is certain legal opinions given via letter and memorandum in 2002 regarding interrogation techniques. If that is the case, I will grant you certain conclusions there seem to be flawed and if you want to characterize that as unprofessional, I am ok with that. Nevertheless, it is the global legal premise he and others had that was then novel and until the last 24 months or so was still considered controversial that these enemies and their associates were not entitled to the protections of International Human Rights Laws. It would be strange to me to argue that the fact that we now have bi-partisan domestic agreement on this to people other than the progenitors of these novel (at the time) legal theories. (With of course much reliance on the Israelis). So in this instance at hand, for example, the ability of our CiC to speak openly about our right of self-defense entitling us to, for example, drop several tons on conventional explosives on multi-family homes in the suburbabia of third-party countries we are not at war with is a great development and all of the so-called Bush Six deserve credit from the non-party-affiliated American public for this understanding that IHL is in conflict with our right of preemptive self-defense.
“As a matter of fact, I do ‘wish to encourage the U.S. government to demand’ that known terrorists submit to strip searches at airports. Don’t you?” (Matthew Boudway)
No. A known terrorist is someone who has been tried and found guilty of actual terrorism and then executed or incarcerated. Such a person would not be a passenger on a commercial airplane; therefore, Matthew Boudway’s hypothetical situation does not arise.
Instead of intentionally or unintentionally fostering the transformation of our country into an Orwellian state, we should be pondering reactions such as the following posts by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/03/propaganda_bin_laden
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/04/torture/index.html
Paradoxically, though he lives in a same-sex relationship and probably supports legalized abortion, Greenwald is closer than are some Catholics to the Church’s teachings on torture and on the impermissibility of using evil means to achieve good ends (CCC 1759 and 2297). I am praying for his conversion to the Faith.
Stephen,
Yes, “the hypothetical situation does not arise” and is indeed absurd, and the absurdity of my question derives from the absurdity of yours. My point is that Osama bin Laden WAS a known terrorist (or do you really think we couldn’t know that without a trial?) and so one would expect the military to treat him differently from the way you and I expect to be treated by our government. If the men responsible for bin Laden’s death killed him because they thought it was too dangerous to apprehend him alive, that is no indication that the government is now more likely to have everyone stripsearched at the airport. Orwell would not have thought there was anything “Orwellian” about a state ordering the assassination of a terrorist, nor would he have imagined that such an assassination would hasten the arrival of Big Brother at home. Finally, there is nothing paradoxical about Glenn Greenwald’s position. Opposition to torture is not distinctively Catholic, nor is it particularly unusual to find homosexuals who oppose it.
My point is that Osama bin Laden WAS a known terrorist (or do you really think we couldn’t know that without a trial?) [. . .]. (Matthew Boudway)
Matthew, I don’t wish to extend this thread unduly, or to appear to monopolize it, and I’ll be glad to give you the last word if you wish. I’d like, however, to answer the question that you’ve posed to me, and to take the liberty of recommending another columnist.
Since I wish to live in a rule-of-law state–for your safety and mine, and that of all our fellow citizens–I strongly oppose the judicial execution of anyone who has not received an adequate trial. Further, I strongly oppose the extrajudicial execution of anyone regardless of the reason. I take those positions, neither as a “liberal” nor as a “conservative,” but precisely as an adherent of the religion which, since it alone is totally true in its ethical system, is the only world-view that has a full understanding of the virtue of justice.
If you and other Commonweal contributors and readers are unfamiliar with the background and columns of Paul Craig Roberts, I respectfully recommend his commentaries to you, Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, your other colleagues, and my fellow subscribers. Here is his most recent column:
http://www.infowars.com/the-agendas-behind-the-bin-laden-news-event/
Keep and spread the Faith. Steve
Steve, I don’t disagree with you about extrajudicial executions; in fact, that was the gist of the comment to which you took exception. But I do disagree with your suggestion that the assassination of Osama bin Laden logicall leads to the general suspension of civil liberties in the U.S. They shouldn’t have killed him without a trial, but even without a trial they knew he was a terrorist, and it was because he was a terrorist that they decided that it might be too dangerous to try to apprehend him instead of killing him. You and I agree that they were wrong to kill him, but I don’t consider their explanation worthless or morally irrelevant.