Those who are uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance or so-called conspiracy theories might be better off skipping this post. Those who seek to understand the machinations of our government however, are encouraged to read on. There is much historical revisionism in this area, and I want to ensure that some of this information doesn’t disappear down the memory hole in all the celebration over bin Laden’s death.
Firstly, let me clearly state that I disapprove of the manner of this killing. Extrajudicial assassinations are anathema to a society that claims to live by the rule of law. Numerous voices are loudly praising this decision to kill bin Laden rather than capture him, supposedly to save the fragile American public from the rigors of a trial. They claim that a trial would have been “too controversial”, as if that had anything to do with the law or its application. Either we believe that laws matter or we don’t. Either we believe that there is justice available under our system of laws, or we do not. In this case, it’s clear that we do not trust our own system of justice to arrive at the “right” conclusion. Implicitly, this suggests that we are hoping for a kangaroo court, already convinced of the guilt of the accused based upon the mere say-so of our government. When the president can order someone to be killed, with no oversight or evidence presented, we no longer a democratic system of checks and balances. We have an emperor, a tyrant holding the power of life and death in his hands. I argued much the same in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed last year.
Hillary Clinton warned Pakistan in May, 2010 that we expected much more co-operation from the Pakistani government in attempting to locate bin Laden. Presenting three alternatives, Clinton said “we expect more cooperation to help us bring to justice, capture or kill those who attacked us on 9/11.” Subtle, but please note that in the Secretary’s sentence, killing is distinct from “bringing to justice”, as it should be.
Secondly, at least one administration officials showed remarkably prescience. Attorney General Eric Holder bluntly stated last year that bin Laden would be killed, not brought to justice. “Let’s deal with reality,” Holder said. Bin Laden “will never appear in an American courtroom.” Pressed for more information, Holder continued, “The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can’t be captured by us.”
And so Osama bin Laden has been killed. Allegedly. Again. Why do I say again? Because this is not the first, second, third, or even fourth time such a claim has been made.
Journalist Simon Reeve wrote in 1999 that a joint U.S.-Saudi operation nearly succeeded in poisoning bin Laden. The attack was “only partially successful, causing acute kidney failure”.
Beginning in 2000, news reports began to surface that bin Laden was gravely ill with kidney problems, requiring dialysis. The South Asia Analysis Group of India reported in February 2001 that “Bin Laden, who suffers from renal deficiency, has been periodically undergoing dialysis in a Peshawar military hospital with the knowledge and approval of the Inter-Services Intelligence, (ISI) if not of Gen.Pervez Musharraf himself.”
From July 4-14th of 2001, bin Laden was reportedly seeking lifesaving treatment for renal failure in a hospital in Dubai. During this time, he allegedly meets with at least one CIA agent, as well as Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was then the head of Saudi Intelligence. The Saudis were reportedly hoping to broker negotiations between the U.S. and bin Laden, but the meeting was a failure. Although the CIA denies this, all the news agencies carrying the story (Reuters, Le Figaro [Paris], and Radio France International) stand by their reporting. (source)
Dan Rather with CBS News reported that bin Laden had been undergoing dialysis on the day before 9/11, under the care and protection of the Pakistani government.
Following the attacks of September 11th, bin Laden denied involvement on September 12th, 13th, 17th (twice), 28th and on December 26th, 2001. The denial on the 28th is notable in its vehemence:
I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. It is the United States which is perpetrating every sort of maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.
Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed. …
A video of uncertain origin surfaced on October 8th 2001, in which bin Laden voices support for those who attacked America, although he does not admit to being one of them. Regardless, Bush was already convinced it was Bin Laden and concluded that Bin Laden “virtually took responsibility”. Still, the repeated denials don’t exactly evoke the image of a terrorist mastermind bragging of his biggest success to date.
In any case, rumors of his death began to appear soon after 9/11. A Chinese news source reported that Bin Laden and Mullah Omar had been shot in the back by underlings in October, 2001. The rumors would continue intermittently from then on.
In December 2001, Fox News reported that bin Laden had died from an “untreated lung complication.”
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf told CNN in January 2002 that he thought bin Laden was most likely already dead:
“I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient,” Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Friday in an interview with CNN.
Musharraf said Pakistan knew bin Laden took two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. “One was specifically for his own personal use,” he said.
“I don’t know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak. … I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan.”
Then in July 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Dale Watson agreed with Musharraf’s assessment, although he admitted he has no evidence to support it.
By October 2002, even Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai indicated he believed Bin Laden to be dead. “I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead. But still, you never know. He might be alive. Five months ago, six months ago, I was thinking that he was alive. The more we don’t hear of him, and the more time passes, there is the likelihood that he probably is either dead or seriously wounded somewhere,” said Karzai.
The next several years saw a spate of bin Laden videos, although some or all of these were alleged to be fakes. Interestingly, the Washington Post reported last year that the CIA planned to make fake bin Laden videos in 2003. The videos would purport to show bin Laden and his band of merry terrorists sitting around a campfire swilling liquor and discussing their sexual conquests of little boys. The videos never went anywhere, although there are conflicting claims as to whether the idea was killed outright or taken over by military Psy-Ops.
Then, in a play that works well enough to have its own name, an October Surprise! Four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election between Bush and Kerry, a new bin Laden videotape surfaced. MSNBC reported at the time:
In no previous authenticated message — audio or video — had bin Laden explicitly stated that he ordered the 2001 attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people.
But in the new tape, he claims full responsibility. “We decided to destroy towers in America so they may taste what we have tasted,” he says, clearly referring to the World Trade Center.
Journalist Ron Suskind will later report that the CIA has concluded “bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the president’s reelection.” The pundits agreed:
- Walter Cronkite: “I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.”
- Roger Simon (U.S. News and World Report): “I don’t have any trouble parsing out who this helps. I think this is an enormous boost for George Bush.”
- Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC): “It makes it harder for Kerry, and it shifts the subject matter back to what George Bush is strongest on. So the Bush people may not say that they are happy about this, but I’m sure that they could not be more pleased that this is the subject of the closing days. How do you say October surprise? This is one that could benefit the president.”
And, as October Surprises are wont to do, the tape helped Bush secure re-election. The Bush campaign jumped to a six-point lead over Kerry in the polling following the videotape’s release. Incidentally, news of bin Laden’s death has caused a spike in President Obama’s flagging approval ratings and re-election odds.
By 2005, the rumors of bin Laden’s death would begin to swirl anew. U.S. and British search teams would comb the rubble of the earthquake-stricken Pakistani city of Balakot looking for bin Laden’s body. The search was based on satellite imagery which purported to show a somewhat-thinner bin Laden, which U.S. officials chalked up to a worsening of his kidney condition, perhaps brought by the failure of portable dialysis machines due to heavy U.S. drone strikes in the area.
Also in 2005, Australian terrorism expert Clive Williams claims to have seen evidence that bin Laden died in April of 2004 of massive organ failure.
In 2006, Congressman Curt Weldon said he had an Iranian source that claimed bin Laden had died in exile in Iran. The Washington Post would report later that year that bin Laden’s trail had gone “stone cold”, and that some intelligence operatives had taken to calling him “Elvis”. In September of 2006, French newspaper L’Est Republicain reported that bin Laden had died of typhoid on August 23rd of that year.
By 2007, U.S. officials were indicating that they had no solid leads on bin Laden’s whereabouts since 2002. “We’re not any closer,” said one anonymous official. In late 2007 though, CIA officials were again indicating that bin Laden was seriously ill with long-term kidney disease. In a jab at the large number of suspected previous deaths, the Time headline reads “Is Osama bin Laden dying…again?” One anonymous CIA official claimed, “Based on his current pharmaceutical intake, [we] would expect that he has no more than six to 18 months to live and impending kidney failure.”
In 2009, Angelo Codevilla, a professor of International Relations at Boston University, publishes an article jocularly entitled “Osama bin Elvis” which leads with the sentence “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.” The article goes on to point out the flaws in the various bin Laden videotapes that had emerged over the years, including that the left-handed Bin Laden occasionally writes with the wrong hand in some videos.
In 2009, U.S. Defense Secretary (and former CIA chief) Robert Gates claimed that it had “been years” since they had received any good intelligence on bin Laden. He also declined to confirm reports that a detainee in Pakistan had provided clues to bin Laden’s location. Later that year, another CIA official would tell Time magazine that “He’s dead, of course. No wonder there’s no intelligence on him.”
Interestingly, although bin Laden was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list, he was not on that list for 9/11. The FBI flyer warns: “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people.” For a more complete discussion of the evidence (or lack thereof) tying bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, see here. Suffice it to say, the FBI says there is no “hard evidence” of bin Laden’s involvement.
So what is the picture that we are left with? bin Laden has apparently died more times than I can keep track of. In no case, including the current one, is there a shred of public evidence to support the conclusion that he is dead. All assertions from the U.S. government to the contrary, we still have not seen any convincing evidence that he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and he refused to accept responsibility for those attacks for years. Apparently, this man who was so weakened by chronic kidney problems that he was assumed dead several times (and required regular dialysis), has been on the run from the U.S. military and intelligence services for over a decade, including spending time in some of the most forbidding and remote areas of Af-Pak. Then, in a finale worthy of Hollywood, the daring shoot-out: a team of Navy SEALs attacks his evil terrorist-mastermind fortress/lair. The dastardly criminal grabs a poor defenseless woman for a human-shield, and takes aim at U.S. forces. The good guys put two bullets in his face, and it’s Miller-Time™! Well, that story is changing already, but never mind about the details. He’ll probably put out a new videotape in time for the 2012 elections, if history is any guide. And I’m not the only one who has considered the Hollywood angle: CIA director Leon Panetta said that watching the raid was “like watching a Harrison Ford movie”, and helpfully suggested that perhaps Al Pacino would make an ideal Panetta in the inevitable movie version.
Actually, it’s interesting that Panetta chose a Harrison Ford movie as the template. Harrison Ford has acted in a number of movies as Jack Ryan, a character from Tom Clancy novels based on a real person, Dr. Steve Pieczenik. Dr. Pieczenik has impressive credentials. Quoting from his bio:
Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an M.D. from Cornell University Medical College and a Ph.D. in International Relations from M.I.T. He was the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD. focusing on international relations. He served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker.
And quoting from his Wikipedia page:
Dr. Pieczenik created first hostage survival courses in the US government and became famous for developing the strategy and tactics for rescuing hostages around the world. … He developed the basic tenets for pscyhological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government. …Dr. Pieczenik continues to consult to the Department of Defense.
Dr. Pieczenik has been on the record since early 2002 that Osama bin Laden is dead. Dr. Pieczenik appeared on the conspiracy-oriented Alex Jones show in 2002:
Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.
“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.
“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.
Lastly, let’s please dispose with the farce that we spirited bin Laden’s corpse to the Arabian Sea and dropped it overboard out of an abundance of respect for Islamic law or tradition. If that were the case, we would have done the same for his son, 2 brothers, and a guard, who were also killed in the raid and whose bodies were left lying in the courtyard. I understand that there were exigent circumstances, war is hell, and all of that– but then one shouldn’t invent justifications for it after the fact.
As a postscript, if you are interested in the history of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, there is a highly informative lecture given by Peter Dale Scott to the “Issues in Foreign Policy After 9/11” class at Berkeley. The lecture is nearly two hours long, including a question and answer session, but the information is terribly interesting.
h/t for research assistance to Historycommons.org, an open-source history project which constructs timelines for significant events based on mainstream news accounts.
Re: Obama being a Tryant. A tyrant is one who uses power to unjustly oppress. You think Bin Laden was unjustly oppressed? You think Obama acted as an individual and not with a group of political advisors? Did you think he was a tyrant when he "promised" to kill Bin Laden or just when he accomplished it? You think the American people feel oppressed by the killing of Bin Laden? Would you think / call Bush a tyrant? Bush, who probably would have bombed the complex and caused more causalities?
Regarding Hillary Clinton's statement – You merely need to use dashes, rather than commas, and you see that "bring to justice" is not exclusive of capture of kill, as "capture or kill" is the explanation of "bring to justice". Oration can be taken out of context just as can be manipulated through stylistics in writing.
Re: reports of his death. You merely are resurfacing news that is erroneous. (shocking! from Fox News?) and rumours that "reportedly" were true. What purpose is served by rehashing FALSE details of history? It is hard enough to find facts!
Re: Bin Laden's statements: How do we know this is any more real than the supposed "fake videos" made of him, bragging about the event? How do we judge the "source" of this newspaper? Is it anything like Fox news reporting?
re: Dr. Pieczenik. Regardless of your offering up this man's credentials, he only no support to HIS conclusion that Bin Laden died. He assumed it based on medical history. Shoddy reporting / source at best. The proof he was correct? "Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s."
A possibly good point about the burial at sea but the killing of other "lessers" would not inflame people quite as much as Bin Laden's death and handling of the corpse so it could be true that a sea-burial was chosen for political reasons. It is not out of the question.
Anyway, this was a gathering of old, proven-false and unsubstantiated rumours – which I think has served no purpose and shall come to (nor was meant to come to ) any good.
Rubbish.
This situation bothers me deeply. On one hand, I am relieved that (apparently) this monster is gone forever. On the other hand, I am dismayed that my country would execute someone without due process. I am embarrassed to admit that, like most people, I will probably deal with it by choosing not to think about it.
[sarcasm alert] That said, how do we know that it was actually Bin Laden unless we have his long-form birth certificate?
Miriam:
As to the tyrant aspect: as I said in the post, I believe extrajudicial assassinations are tyrannical. What standard ought we go by, if not the law, when allowing the President to order someone murdered? Of course Obama had advisors in the matter, but I don't see how that provides any sort of oversight or checks and balances. A tyrant in word and deed, both. I'm sure the American people do not "feel" oppressed by bin Laden's assassination, but perhaps they should. Yes, I would both think and call Bush a tyrant as well, based on the same standard. The number of casualties is irrelevant to the issue, although it may go to the scale of the tyranny.
re: the many reported deaths of bin Laden. I have no standard by which to judge the accuracy of any of these reports, including the current one. I'm not a journalist, I have no sources of my own. All I can do is research the details and offer my interpretation. There has been no independent proof in any of these alleged deaths, including the current one. Not all of the reports originated with Fox news, and highly credible people were cited in each case (possibly excepting the anonymous CIA officials). All I can do is point out the many, many times he has been alleged to have died, and offer my argument that there has never been any proof. That is still the case.
re: bin Laden's statements. To my knowledge, the credibility of that interview has never really been questioned. You're welcome to do so– again, I have no standard by which to judge the accuracy there other than what is reported.
re: Dr. Pieczenik. I think you may be slightly mis-reading Dr. Pieczenik's statements. He indicates that he, as well as the CIA and intelligence community, was familiar with bin-Laden's medical chart, perhaps during the Dubai kidney-dialysis episode reported above. While not providing specifics as to bin Laden's death, he goes on to point out that the CIA, as well as Bush himself was aware that bin Laden had died late in 2001. Again, I'm not privy to national security information on this level, so I have no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of these claims, other than to point to the credibility of the people making the claims.
What is striking to me, is the ambiguous way Bush responds to the questions in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
The time is March of 2002, and people are starting to wonder why they haven't heard much about bin Laden from the administration in a while. Watch the video while asking yourself if it's possible that Bush already knew bin Laden was dead. Of course, the ambiguity means that you could take his statements either way, but look at his self-satisfied grin at 1:05 as he brags that bin Laden "met his match". It's also curious that Bush says, "I don't know where he is, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." This, the terrorist mastermind behind September 11th, and Bush isn't spending that much time on it?
Of course a sea-burial was chosen for political reasons, that's exactly the point. Let's not hold ourselves out to be concerned with offending Muslim burial sensibilities then.
In sum, weigh the evidence of this death against the evidence of the other deaths– the only difference we have this time is the say-so of the President.
huh. Conspiracy theories here on DangerousIntersection.org. I thought this site didn't delve into that kind of stuff, but I guess conspiracy rants are just part and parcel for the intarwebs no matter where we go– we're just getting a version that's written with better grammar and an expanded lexicon.
So here’s the deal: 1) The White House announced that a Navy Seal team raided Osama’s residence in Pakistan; 2) They allegedly conducted a DNA analysis and confirmed that the man shot in the head is Osama but never showed us the actual result or explained where they got the prior control sample to set up the profile for a match test; 3) They announced that they took the body to an aircraft carrier and dumped it overboard after a Muslim funeral; 4) They said they have pictures but are refusing to show them to the general public. I’m certain that if the Seals killed a decoy and Osama is still alive somewhere else, he won’t wait long before appearing on AL Jazeera Television to thumb his nose at the world (G-d forbid). So, unless Osama made a deal with Obama to trade information for witness protection, in the absence of any visible shred of corroborating forensic evidence, time will tell whether the dead chicken of the sea is really Osama Bin Laden or has Obama been Lying? More at http://moshesharon.wordpress.com
I think you also need to take into account the danger involved in trying to capture Ben Laden. He has already caused enough pain and suffering, why take the risk of losing soldiers lives in trying to capture him.
"What if he has been dead for years, and the British and U.S. intelligence services are actually playing a game of double bluff? What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept 'alive' by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?
Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/H…
Eric Holder states what is apparently the "Bin Laden" exception to the general rule:
"Attorney General Holder defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been 'lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.'"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/…
Okay, I'll bite:
I have no problem with Bin Laden getting popped– I don't see this as an "extra-judicial" killing, or maybe that's exactly why I think it's not a problem: it literally is "extra-judicial": there is no governing body, no law, no prevention against killing him.
– UBL had no passport, he was not a citizen of any country (Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship). If anything, he could have claimed Afganistan, but they wouldn't recognize him, so he was a non-person (legally).
– He is certainly not a US citizen, so there is no expectation of due process.
– He could be an "enemy combatant" if this were a formally declared war and he wore a uniform. He did neither, so that puts him in a kind of no-mans land. Perversely, that actually denies him any Geneva Convention rights. This is why spies get hung: no uniforms, no acknowledgement from a sponsoring (enemy) government. Reap the whirlwind…
– GWB declared him an enemy of the United States, and Congress signed off. That's two branches of government. No one (that I know of) brought suit to the Supreme Court, so that took care of the third. With all of those "checked off", we're down to the nasty ugly world of realpolitik, and that pretty much sez that those in power (the USA) can get away with whatever they can get away with, until/unless a countering power stops them.
International politics is a bitch– technically, there is no law, only relative power, and things that nation states voluntarily sign up for. It's the same root cause that makes the UN so toothless. Ultimately, nation-states can do whatever they damn well please, until someone bigger (or a group) tells them not to, and backs it up with a threat of violence.
In this case, UBL put himself on the wrong side of just about everybody. At that point, Seal Team Six only needed to follow orders of the POTUS, who in turn was doing whatever he felt the people (ultimate sovereignty) would allow.
Tell me which law was broken?
Dave, Erich, all—
Thanks for your comments. I was asking myself what I hoped to accomplish or what I was trying to say in writing this piece. The truth is, I'm still not really sure.
In a way, I suppose it's pure catharsis. The bogeyman who has been in the back of our minds since 9/11 seems to have been exorcised. Despite the fact that this will not really change anything in terms of the "war on terror", in a way it is a relief.
It occurred to me though, how similar this whole story arc is to that of Orwell's 1984. The Afghan muhajideen, who we helped create and arm in their war (and by proxy, ours) against the USSR, go from being our allies to our enemies. In bin Laden, we have our very own Goldstein, the shadowy figure that we all love to hate. He emerges from the shadows, usually at politically convenient times, only to slip away again when he's not needed. At no time do the citizenry in 1984 or modern America ask justification of their government for the rigors of the never-ending wars, nor for the constant sense of fear engendered by those governments.
Call it a conspiracy if you want, but I can't be alone in thinking that there are more questions that need to be answered here. The whole history of our war on terror from the start has been absurd and contradictory. In many cases we learn (far too late to do any good) that the government's story has, in fact, been the false one. From the Nigerian yellowcake, to the non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, through the Pat Tillman and Private Lynch fiascos, our government has repeatedly demonstrated that it is willing to advance a fictional narrative in order to further its own bloody ends. And still, everyone defers to the government's official story as though it simply must be true, regardless of the complete lack of any evidence.
Erich, that's amazing– the goal was never to capture bin Laden alive. Purely from an intelligence standpoint, wouldn't have capturing him been the ideal case? And I guess this disturbs me as well:
This is not the hope and change that I believe the American people were asking for. And Dave, I think you made the best case possible for assassinating bin Laden. Do you hold to the same beliefs when American citizens are involved, such as in the case of Awlaki? What evidence has been presented that justifies his death? If we accept the president has the authority to kill even American citizens without due process, where do we draw the line?
Brynn,
I agree that there are questions to be answered, and I acknowledge that you're not alone in doubting many of these points. However, those two factors are not sufficient for a "conspiracy". A conspiracy requires at least a third element of malicious pre-meditated misdirection, and also a fourth element of active collusion among members. I have not seen these elements yet, therefore I mark it down to "bumbling government communications" rather than some grand architecture.
Common sense would tell us that government workers are likely just as smart as us– smarter in some positions, dumber in others. In the end, it washes out. So, it's probably fair to super-impose you and your community of co-workers and neighbors into these positions. Now give them the responsibility of pulling off an operation 10,000 miles away under darkness, with at least 14 people involved in transferring orders and responses back and forth. Imagine yourself at either end of this, or somewhere in the middle. You know (just like at work), that people make decisions and assumptions and conclusions based on 45%-70% of the information. Items will get confused, right? Some of the guys at the pointy-end of the stick will bend things to their advantage just a little, right? Everyone in between will also bend things just a little, right? Add all those up, and you've got narratives that don't line up as more facts finally bubble up to the surface. It's typical large-organization communications, not a conspiracy.
The genius of Orwell's work was to tap into enough of that bureaucracy to make it sound plausible, while putting a true horror story underneath it all. We all know the bureaucracy, so we get sucked into the premise of the fiction.
As to your last question– no, I would not sanction the outright assassination of a US citizen, even if he's "turned". I would sanction the attempt to capture him, and I would expect those would-be captors to keep one finger on their M4s, and if said US citizen doesn't put his hands up immediately or makes any sudden movements, I wouldn't blink if he got popped (just like any armed criminal in the street).
We've said from the beginning of this thing (over ten years ago now), that we're in new territory as far as the "rules" are concerned. These are not state-sponsored combatants; this is not a "war" in the classic Klauswitz form; there is not much of a carrot by which we can strike a deal; the modus operandi of "terror" by its definition begs for pre-emptive countermeasures. I think it will take us another 10 years or so to figure out the tipping points and balance points in our approach to US law, international relations, and criminal processing.
Dave, It was invasion of Pakistani sovereign territory, but more importantly hewing to the letter of the Geneva convention may make bin Laden a non-person, but he's still a human being.
It's like having a burglar break into your house, you grab your gun from the nightstand, catch him red handed, he lies down on the ground with his hands folded over his head, and then you shoot him in the head because you're too angry to let him have a trial. Legal maybe, but fuck you if you do it.
Miles, thanks for your response.
1. It was an invasion of a sovereign country, but that is squarely in that international realpolitik thing. There's no law against invading another country, there are only treaties which are promises not to do so. Treaties are pretty flexible things. As long as something doesn't result in worse consequences, either party will do what it wants anyway. It's "legal".
2. Killing a surrendering burglar is an "unethical" thing to do, but– as you point out– legal.
Both points are only going back to my point– people calling this an "illegal" or "extrajudicial" killing are wrong. It is not illegal. It may be unethical, regrettable, vile, or some other subjective term, but it wasn't illegal. Please understand that I am not defending the killing (I welcome it), I am merely countering some of the rhetoric around the event of those who were calling it illegal.
Perhaps it is legal in some states to kill a burglar who has surrendered and put his hands up, but it would not be a defense to a murder charge in most states. I haven't done the necessary survey of criminal laws, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine, which suggests that there aren't any states that allow you to shoot a burglar who no longer presents any threat to you.
Imagine coming home to find that a neighborhood teenager was illegally in your home eating your frozen pizza and and getting ready to walk out with your iPod. Imagine that he stands up and announces that he will immediately leave. Does anyone really think it's OK to shoot him?
Keep in mind that these states protect home-owners. They wouldn't presumably apply to someone who barges into someone else's premises, guns drawn, and starts firing at unarmed people.
If I broke into another's house with a gun in America, and shot and killed the occupant who had reacted by standing there, or even trying to run away, or even trying to attack me, I believe that I would be guilty of murder, and I would not have any defense of "self-defense."
Here's Missouri's law of self defense. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563….
This defense (of "self-defense") would not apply to a burglar who had demonstrated that he was in the process of leaving the premises and who presented no further threat to the occupants.
Then again, I would be surprised if a prosecutor brought charges against the homeowner in a close case.
The facts regarding the killing of Osama Bin Laden are not yet clear, but from what I am hearing (that he was unarmed and not a threat to the soldiers), these same acts that killed him would constitute murder in most, if not all, states of the United States.
Not that most Americans care. It appears that the law of the jungle will prevail in this incident. In fact, it will be applauded.
Brynn: Of all the things in your article, the strangest is the "need" for the U.S. to quickly bury OBL at sea. Very strange, indeed. Why not give the corpse to Bin Laden's family, so that they could identify it? Or would they possibly find out that we pumped his body full of dozens of bullets, such that would suggest that this was a mission of animus, not of justice?
Whatever the U.S. does should be made public. To hide it suggests that we have done something improper. Further, the citizens of the U.S. supposedly run this country, but we are kept in the dark as a general rule. That's the way this country is being run, and the details of this mission to hunt down Bin Laden (and of the $2 Billion/week "mission" in Afghanistan) might forever remain mysteries. Strange way to run a country: Keep those in charge in the dark . . .
Dave-
I wasn't asserting that a conspiracy exists, I was responding to your statement: "Conspiracy theories here on DangerousIntersection.org. I thought this site didn’t delve into that kind of stuff, but I guess conspiracy rants are just part and parcel for the intarwebs"
And when I say there are more questions that need to be answered, that's not limited to just this mission, but to the war on terror as a whole.
10 years on, one would think that there would be some kind of clarity emerging about what should and should not be allowed, especially in the realm of international relations and international law. Pakistan appears to be asking for some additional clarity. Perhaps they tire of our unmanned drone strikes which continue to kill civilians? How would the U.S. react if some foreign power were hunting "terrorist" on our soil, and ruthlessly killing our civilians in the process?
But, I'm getting a bit far afield from the topic. Forgive me, but I must point out that there are already substantial differences in the official story emerging. Can you still call it the "fog of war" if the victims were mostly unarmed? MSNBC is now reporting that 4 out of 5 people we killed were unarmed.
And I reject your analogy that most of these people are roughly similar to me and my co-workers. These are highly trained professional soldiers. We expect, if not demand, much more from them than we would the average Joe. When these guys mess up, people get killed. When I mess up, I have to edit for grammar or spelling.
Dave, Thanks for the response 😀
To my understanding sovereignty isn't a treaty but well established international law, even more so than the Geneva Convention.
Even domestic laws can be thought of as an implicit social contract or "treaty" though. I don't what is to be gained by dismissing laws as flexible and therefore irrelevant. If laws need flexibility then discretionary power should be written into the law with proper oversight. Laws should not be ignored at the first opportunity, but followed and if necessary changed.
The line between laws and ethics is not as clear cut for me. Legality is just a human construct that should mirror ethics as much as possible anyway, with the singular exception of things that are so difficult to police that to do so would be unethical.
Seems to me that bin Laden's killing was illegal for violating Pakistani sovereignty at a minimum, and immoral for executing someone without a trial or the semblance of due process.
Bin Laden's obituary in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18648254
The assassination of Osama Bin Laden by Obama's team unilaterally within Pakistani soil is just too good. That too within a Pakistani "defense forces" town, without the knowledge of any Pakistani government/police/military/ISI officials proves that – Pakistani authorities are absolutely CLUELESS & USELESS when it comes to who enters their soil – either US Navy Seals or Terrorists – how & when, how long they stay, do whatever they wish to and depart from Pakistani soil pretty easily. US Navy Seals easily hood winked all Pakistani authorities and also all pathetic Terror groups based in Pakistani soil. Both are no match to US supreme powers. Perhaps, US should colonize Pakistan and take control completely – this way US can nip the terror cells in the bud and hold Pakistani authorities accountable.
Why is the US spending $3 billion in annual aid for Pakistan when the government could be using that money on our own schools for our own childrens education, but instead are cutting the money spent on schools and teachers left and right. After all these children are the furture of this great nation. This really makes me angry and it should make all of America angry.
Erich-
You ask "…Or would they possibly find out that we pumped his body full of dozens of bullets, such that would suggest that this was a mission of animus, not of justice?"
Your suggestion of a cover up in this area is interesting, given that there are at least two other incidents that spring to mind where a similar situation occurred:
1) About this same time last year, a different U.S. special forces team was accused of a cover-up in the death of innocent civilians. NATO officials reported that they found evidence that the Americans had attempted to tamper with the scene. Afghan officials concurred, and indicated that bullets had been dug from the bodies and from the nearby walls. Among those killed were two pregnant women.
2) The now-infamous "Kill Team" (or what was called the Kill Team before the team who killed bin Laden appropriated the moniker) which had resolved to kill some <span style="font-style: italic;">hajis</span>, and did. Civilians, in fact, whose corpses they then mutilated and whose fingers were removed as trophies. Sometimes they would plant weapons on the corpses to justify the killings. One of the soldiers, Jeremy Morlock, pleaded guilty last month and was sentenced to 24 years in prison.
"It seems increasingly clear that the SEALs went into the compound with a presumption that while women and children would be spared, any adult male would be killed, in part to avoid U.S. casualties and in part because one of the men might be Bin Laden."
http://www.slate.com/id/2293111?wpisrc=newsletter…
Republicans give George Bush more credit for killing Osama Bin Laden than Barack Obama:
"More than three-quarters of all Americans say the president deserves credit for the killing of the bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday. Among Republicans, 61 percent say Obama deserves at least some credit for the move. But just 17 percent of them say he deserves a “great deal” of credit for bringing bin Laden to justice after a nearly 10-year pursuit by U.S. intelligence and military forces.
Republicans are more apt to give former president George W. Bush acclaim for killing bin Laden, with 81 percent saying he deserves at least some of the credit for what happened Sunday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/osama-bin-…
Glenn Greenwald expresses my reservations much more eloquently than I have been:
This is exactly what it comes down to for me. As I said in the post, are we a nation of laws or not? Do we have principles, or are we swayed with the ever-varying tides of political opinion? Will we now yield all our long-standing values (truth, justice, law & order) out of deference to a petty terrorist when we did not do so for perhaps the greatest evil we have yet known in the Nazis? Greenwald includes the first paragraph of the opening statement of Nuremburg prosecutor Robert Jackson:
Brynn,
All valid points, but I would offer up the following for your consideration (points you likely already know):
1. the Nuremberg trials were a conscious effort to establish "international law" above the state of war, for the very purpose of trying to break the cycle of recrimination that had locked that continent into war for 100+ years. There was a very purposeful element to it– put on some trials and invite the Soviets and Germans survivors to show that The West– to your point– had laws and principles. Certainly the same could be said here: show the Islamic world that we have principles and due process and all that jazz. But that begs a question: would the "Arab Street" buy into that? Or are they so tricked out on conspiracy theories that they would dismiss it anyway? Certainly the Al Qaeda elements would dismiss it– so there would be relatively little to gain (compared to an organized German State or an organized Soviet System). Benefit: small. Risk: big (imagine the security around trying to try UBL). Moreover, what if he were acquited? What then?
2. To your earlier point, the SEALS should be "smarter and better". Trust me, they are. I was only trying to illustrate the mean IQ of the government workers averages out to 100, just like all the people in your company and immediate neighborhood. But let's assume that the SEALS are smarter than the average rabbit. They go into the room, they see that bearded goat fucker, and they really did see an AK47 on the table next to him, with him waving his arms around. Double-tap. It would be instinct to those guys at that point.
At the end of the day, it's really up to your own subjective acceptance of the situation: take solace that the threat is a little reduced and our guys did their job as best they could, or second-guess everything based on incomplete information. I'll go with the former, thanks– and I do so with eyes wide open.
Dave-
It's clear that we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this. I start from the assumption that trying to impose law and order on international politics is a good thing. I think we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard, al Qaeda's response be damned. I happen to believe that if we started attempting to live up to our flowery rhetoric, perhaps things would change. It's very difficult to preach the values of democracy when one abandons those principles at the first opportunity, however.
I understand your desire for retribution. What troubles me is this aspect of your response:
What if he were acquitted? I imagine that, in reality, nothing much would change. He would still likely be held indefinitely. In fact, the Obama administration has already claimed the right to detain individuals in the wake of an acquittal. The legal basis for that right? Your guess is as good as mine. Chalk it up to the ever-expanding executive privilege. At least one individual (a cook) is being held after having been tried, convicted, and having served out their sentence.
Are you suggesting that bin Laden would not receive a fair trial in the U.S.? Possibly true, but given that some 60% of Americans are proud/happy about bin Laden's death, I'm sure that the jury would be far more eager to convict than to acquit.
Are you suggesting that insufficient evidence would force an acquittal? Isn't that what the courts are for– to determine if there is enough evidence to justify taking a person's freedom, or even life? What does it say about us if we are so willing to casually kill someone in the face of insufficient evidence? As a reminder, a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/guantanamo?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+salon%2Fgreenwald+%28Glenn+Greenwald%29" rel="nofollow">majority of those detained in Guantanamo who have had the opportunity to have a habeas hearing have been found wrongfully detained and ordered to be released. That shouldn't be surprising, as we now know that <a href="http://digitaljournal.com/article/290407" rel="nofollow">Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc… were aware that a number of those detained were actually innocent. Not "innocent" as in insufficient evidence to convict, but "innocent" as in never did anything wrong.
As I noted in the post, you seem to be advocating a kangaroo-court for accused terrorists. And I know, big scary terrorists! We must abandon all our civil liberties and democratic values in order to "win" the never-ending war on terror. I'm not OK with that. Again, if you wouldn't support these types of policies for American citizens, now's the time to stand up and say so. Because <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki/index.html" rel="nofollow">President Obama just tried to assassinate an American citizen. No evidence presented, no trial, no oversight. Presidential say-so only. Pesky 5th Amendment was supposed to prevent such things, but again, toss it all out the window because now we're fighting terror.
Brynn,
You've made two very large, and very poor assumptions in your latest comment:
1. I desired retribution. I didn't say whether I desired retribution or not. I called UBL a goat fucker because that's my personal opinion of him. FWIW, I call a lot of people goat fuckers. Yes, I did celebrate the kill, but that is much more about the US seizing the initiative for once in this ongoing nightmare, and for the elimination of one of t he "unknowns" that has led to so many poor policy assumptions.
2. I want a kangaroo court. Not true, on any level. I'm not sure where you got that inference. My comment about "what if he's acquitted, what then?" question was a real and very sticky problem for any US official– there are very real and unsolvable problems that would arise from such an outcome.
Please understand that in most international political matters I take a very cold position, based on realpolitik. This comes from my training in school as some previous work I've done. Our aspirations can be as high as they want to be, but in the end, policies need to be hammered out, risks need to be assessed, and choices made. It's an ugly process, and "international law" hasn't ever scored high on the list of considerations from what I've seen, read, and experienced.