Glenn Greenwald: The Osama bin Laden exception

[Poll_Blind]

From Salon:

When I http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/02/bin_laden/index.html">first wrote about the bin Laden killing on Monday, I suggested that the intense (and understandable) emotional response to his being dead would almost certainly drown out any discussions of the legality, ethics, or precedents created by this event. That, I think, has largely been borne out, at least in the U.S. (one poll shows 86% of Americans favor the killing, though that's hardly universal: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesschau.de%2Finland%2Fdeutschlandtrend1320.html&act=url">a poll in Germany finds 64% view this as "no reason to rejoice," while 52% believe an attempt should have been made to arrest him; http://www.acus.org/natosource/european-press-critical-us-attack-against-osama-bin-laden?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">many European newspapers have harshly criticized U.S. actions; and German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's declaration of happiness over bin Laden's death provoked widespread criticism even in her own party). I expected -- and fully understand -- that many people's view of the bin Laden killing is shaped first and foremost by happiness over his death.

But what has surprised me somewhat is how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here. We know very little about the circumstances of bin Laden's killing, because the U.S. government has issued so many contradictory claims, which in turn contradict the reported claims of those at the scene. When I wrote about this on Monday, I said that the use of force would be justified if, as the U.S. Government claimed, he was violently resisting his capture. But that turned out to be totally false. It's now beyond dispute that bin Laden was unarmed when killed and there was virtually no violent resistence in the house. Still, the range of possibilities for what actually happened is vast -- everything from he was lunging for his AK-47 to he was already captured when shot (in front of his family) to the order from the start was to kill, not capture, him -- and I personally don't see how it's possible to assess the justifiability (or legality) of what took place without knowing which of those are true.

Beyond the apparent indifference to how this killing took place, what has also surprised me somewhat is the lack of interest in trying to figure out how the bin Laden killing fits into broader principles and viewpoints about state power and the War on Terror. I've seen people who have spent the last decade insisting that the U.S. must accord due process to accused Terrorists before punishing them suddenly mock the notion that bin Laden should have been arrested and tried.

Beyond that, the formal position of the Democratic Party for years -- since John Kerry enunciated it when running against Bush -- has been that Terrorism should be primarily dealt with within a law enforcement rather than war paradigm, and that Terrorists should be viewed as criminals, not warriors; and yet many of the same people who once rejected the war paradigm now turn around and cite war theories to justify bin Laden's killing as a "proper military target" (that isn't necessarily contradictory -- it's possible to argue against a war paradigm while still recognizing that that's the paradigm created by our law -- but the comfort in citing war theories among those who long argued against them is quite striking). Obviously, in a law enforcement setting, one is barred from shooting an unarmed, non-resisting suspect; that can be justified only by resort to war and military theories. If you believe that Terrorists are criminals and not warriors, and that the law enforcement context is the proper one to apply, how can the shooting of an unarmed suspect be justified?

--SNIP--

Much more at the link!

PB

[Capitalocracy]

1. Cue the crew to throw Glenn Greenwald under the bus

Me and a few other DUers and Glenn and Michael Moore... come on down, it's good company here under the bus

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Is there room for one more (me)? - n/t

[Capitalocracy]

18. It's a big bus.

:toast:

[coalition_unwilling]

39. Whew! For a few days I felt like one of those frogs in the video

game Frogger. Nice to know the bus is big enough for me :)

Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

26. You and Greenwald aren't under the bus. You're in an ivory tower. Most of us live in reality.

[krabigirl]

80. Lmao. Nt

[Cali_Democrat]

2. The summary execution of an unarmed man in front of his own children

Should not be done.

At least wait until the children are out of sight before you summarily execute and then dump the body in the ocean.

[pipi_k]

32. Then again...

when they showed footage of the towers burning, and footage of people standing on window ledges on the 100th floor, how many family members saw that and wondered if it could have been their own mother...father...brother...sister...best friend...etc. jumping to their deaths?

Those people were innocent.

Bin Laden knew...or must have known...that there were lots of people looking for him, and things would not be peachy dandy when they found him.

He chose to expose his family to that possibility. I feel for his family members who witnessed that horror, I really do. But in the end, OBL chose his own circumstances, and what his family would see. He's just as much to blame for that.

[99th_Monkey]

53. Just because "they" are brutish and calous killers, duz not mean we should be too. Sheesh. ~nt

[eqfan592]

103. If we were so brutish and calous...

...we wouldn't have bothered sending troops into harms way in the first place in order to minimize the casualties. We would have just bombed the place into dust, along with everybody inside.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. You think troops were sent into harm's way to 'minimize the casualties'? Dude,

have I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[bvar22]

89. I'm with you!

I want to be just like Bin Laden & AlQaeda.

When I saw the videos of Middle Easterners dancing in the streets and waving flags after 9-11,
I told myself,
"When I grow up, I want to be Just Like Them!!!

...and then, when Bin laden was killed,
I had the chance to prove it!
I danced on the grave and sang USA! ...USA!!!
...Just Like Them!
:woohoo:

[coalition_unwilling]

106. Believe it or not, there are some on DU who will miss the sarcasm

and take you literally.

Hell, based on what some of them have posted since Sunday, there are some here who will agree with and heartily endorse becoming 'just like them'.

[ProSense]

3. "But what has surprised me somewhat

is how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here."

Greenwald isn't interested in finding out what happened. This piece is more of his navel gazing because he's pissed people were celebrating bin Laden's death.

Beyond that, the formal position of the Democratic Party for years -- since John Kerry enunciated it when running against Bush -- has been that Terrorism should be primarily dealt with within a law enforcement rather than war paradigm, and that Terrorists should be viewed as criminals, not warriors; and yet many of the same people who once rejected the war paradigm now turn around and cite war theories to justify bin Laden's killing as a "proper military target" (that isn't necessarily contradictory -- it's possible to argue against a war paradigm while still recognizing that that's the paradigm created by our law -- but the comfort in citing war theories among those who long argued against them is quite striking). Obviously, in a law enforcement setting, one is barred from shooting an unarmed, non-resisting suspect; that can be justified only by resort to war and military theories. If you believe that Terrorists are criminals and not warriors, and that the law enforcement context is the proper one to apply, how can the shooting of an unarmed suspect be justified?

He's an expert on Kerry's position? Kerry said dealing with terrorism is primarily law enforcement and mentioned often the special forces component. When did Kerry ever say getting bin Laden in Tora Bora required sending in law enforcement?

Greenwald wants to cherry pick the situation to fit his hissyfit.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Good grief that is a complete mischaracterization of JK's position.

It's tough to take anyone seriously that distorts facts to prove a point. I will reiterate your closing sentence:

Greenwald wants to cherry pick the situation to fit his hissyfit.

[EFerrari]

30. How is that a distortion of Kerry's views?

[AtomicKitten]

43. GG is oblivious to nuance in JK's position on, for instance, Tora Bora.

JK did not suggest treating Bin Laden in Tora Bora as a criminal/law enforcement issue. Franks and Rumsfeld favored a "light footprint" and rejected multiple requests to block OBL's escape.

According to Senator Kerry:

Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency. Reversing the recent American military orthodoxy known as the Powell doctrine, the Afghan model emphasized minimizing the U.S. presence by relying on small, highly mobile teams of special operations troops and CIA paramilitary operatives working with the Afghan opposition. Even when his own commanders and senior intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Washington argued for dispatching more U.S. troops, Franks refused to deviate from the plan.

Senator Kerry was right.

[EFerrari]

44. But Tora Bora was a situational specific and can't be generalized

to an overall strategy.

Kerry was right. He suggested a multinational law enforcement response but, of course, that wouldn't have given Junior the war powers his administration was going to claim come hell or high water.

[SpartanDem]

5. Figures he'd be an Osama sympathizer

[EFerrari]

14. Exhibit A.

Obviously if you want to know what happened, you're with the terrorists.

[krabigirl]

85. Yes..seems to be the narrative. Nt

[librechik]

17. In reply to that garbage, Greenwald says withinthe piece:

"It should go without saying for all but the most intellectually and morally stunted that none of this has anything to do with sympathy for bin Laden. Just as was true for objections to the torture regime or Guantanamo or CIA black sites, this is about the standards to which we and our Government adhere, who we are as a nation and a people."

but I believe his nuanced ideas would go right over your feathery helmet, Spartan

[ProSense]

19. "Greenwald says withinthe piece:"

Mark my word I'm not writing this because I'm pissed people were celebrating!!!

Oh brother.

"It should go without saying for all but the most intellectually and morally stunted that none of this has anything to do with sympathy for bin Laden."

Where did I say he was sympathetic to bin Laden? I specifically said he was navel gazing.

His article is "garbage."

[sudopod]

25. Clearly, he's not with us so he must be with the terrorists!

:3

[krabigirl]

84. Lol, is it 2003..again?

[leveymg]

6. Circle the wagons: it's Greenwald asking inconvenient questions again.

Thank G-d, someone still does. Recced.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. I'll second that emotion. Emphatic K&R (but net recs are still equal

to O, so methinks the Unrec crew has been hard at work)

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. OBL's press secretary again? Unrec.

:puke:

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. American propaganda is the finest ever created in the history of humanity

The wizards of Madison Avenue have DECADES of experience in crafting messages that influence large groups of people to do one thing or another. The MIC has been using these techniques and others to manipulate vast swaths of the American public.

I find the reactions of some Americans to the OBL killing to be merely the result of carefully crafted propaganda efforts. You can see it here on DU everyday when you read posts that offer that the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children by drones is perfectly OK becuase we are at war with the amorphous bogeyman called TERROR!

[BobbyBoring]

13. Oh Absolutely!

Goebbels would roll over in his grave. I think this is what pisses me off most about Obama. He promised a change form business as usual, transparency. I haven't seen it yet

[sudopod]

27. I wonder if he would feel cheated.

Hitler surely didn't pay him as well as we pay our advertising execs.

[NYC Liberal]

51. Oh right. People are happy that mass murderer is dead only

because they've been brainwashed.

Give me a break.

And some people here use "the MIC" and "corporations" as all-encompassing boogymen the same way some use "terrorism" as boogeymen.

[Vinnie From Indy]

94. Instead of giving you a break, how about a clue?

Please take a moment to re-read my post. I think you will find the word "some" has real meaning in my post. The word is there for a reason. If you still want to play the broad brush game, find someone else to play.

Cheers!

[NYC Liberal]

99. OK, and which "some" are those?

Which of those who are happy he's dead are brainwashed and which aren't?

[krabigirl]

81. Yep. Nt

[Cerridwen]

9. I know what happened there;

President Obama succeeded where bush failed.

It's the message we should be 'catapulting' if we want to show the repubs as failures.

But that's just me.

[Kber]

10. One of the better reasoned arguments I've read.

If I'm entirely honest, I agree with Juan Cole and Jonathan Capehart on the "Osama Exception", but Greenwald makes a well written (and brave) argument that I am wrong.

Frankly, I've been so angry, for so long, that bin Laden's death has triggered an almost overwhelming and surprising sense of relief. I hadn't realized how much baggage I've been carrying since 9-11 until recent events reminded me.

But after the first flush of emotion passes, perhaps I can take a more measured look at my reactions and square them with my ethics and values.

Of course, we don't know the facts, so it's possible the best we will ever do is to say "if this is how it went down, fine and good, but if not, than not so good". We may never know for sure, the the questions are worth asking.

On the flip side, it's going to be emotionally hard for me to be rational about this right away. Not saying that's good, but it's the truth.

Thanks for posting.

Peace to all.

[Capitalocracy]

12. I feel that way too. I'm glad he's dead.

But I have to be consistent in my beliefs and question what happened and be vocal about doing what's right.

And believe me, I think we'd have a similar positive emotional reaction to his being caught and put on trial.

[EFerrari]

16. Well said.

:)

[OneGrassRoot]

31. I second that "well said." :) n/t

[Fuzz]

34. +1 Well reasoned. Personally though, I don't think I'll ever be convinced that

killing the bastard was a bad thing.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. Ah, but 'killing the bastard without a trial first . . ." is a whole horse

of a different color, wouldn't you say?

[Fuzz]

54. Yup, but in this case he admitted his guilt in the death of thousands, swore

to do more so the bin Laden exception is super fine with me.

[Kber]

61. BzaDem makes an interesting and, IMO, worthwhile point down thread

about the legal (and moral) difference in how we treat declared combatants and alleged criminals.

Convince me that bin Laden was a "declared combatant", and that's a whole different set of rules. It seems like that might be a pretty open and shut case. Then the questions deal not with the idea of self defense, as in an arrest, but the extent to which an enemy soldier was trying to surrender and balancing that with the over-all risk to the mission and our soldiers lives, I guess.

Of course, my earlier point stands in that we don't have the facts to judge that either, but it is a different moral and legal framework.

I am agreeing with you, by the way. I'm actually very grateful to the OP and to the thoughtful posts in this thread and others that are allowing me to hash this out (and it's all about me, right?) :sarcasm:

Seriously these are worthwhile questions and deserve thoughtful answers. DU has not let me down!

[DirkGently]

92. I disagree. We'd say something else if a foreign military team invaded & executed someone.

No analogy fits perfectly with terrorists, but we're not at war with Pakistan, and this mission does not comport with either traditional combat operations or with a law enforcement action. Nor do typical Rules of Engagement include shooting unarmed enemies at point-blank range. If that were alleged to occur, there would be an investigation, and possibly a court martial.

It is anything but normal for a country to declare the right to enter a foreign country with which it is not at war, and (if it is indeed the case) execute any enemies it locates there.

That sounds a lot like Bush Doctrine, and it ought to be considered carefully before being dismissed out either appeals to vengeance, or by comparisons to traditional combat situations, which this most definitely was not.

DO we have the right to enter any foreign state to pursue a terrorist or suspected terrorist, AND to kill them on the spot?

Or, as Greenwald suggests, was this the "Bin Laden exception," and if so, how broadly may it be applied in the future?

[coalition_unwilling]

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

People try to take credit for crimes they had nothing to do with all the time (ask any police officer). Last time I checked, someone boasting about having done x, y or z was not sufficent in the eyes of civilization as grounds to execute that person. But maybe times have changed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

97. +Graham's Number.

:thumbsup:

[GeorgeGist]

20. It's just another example of ...

American Exceptionalism.

[SidDithers]

21. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[krabigirl]

86. Yes, so horrible to stand up for civil liberties.

We should just worship the war machine instead without question.

[BzaDem]

22. I'm not sure why people think of this as an exception. Attacking declared combatants against the US

is the rule, not the exception.

That doesn't mean the rule is absolute -- it just means the responsibility to surrender is on the declared combatant. The laws of war are precisely the opposite of the laws of peace in this regard -- a cop for example is not permitted to use lethal force in the absence of an imminent threat. But according to the law of war (and how war has been practiced for decades and centuries), whether there is an imminent threat (or whether he is armed) is irrelevant. If the person in question is a declared combatant, the declared combatant has to essentially prove that he is willing to surrender if he would like to be taken alive.

This isn't new, but rather has been the law of war for centuries, and continues right up until this day. People seem to be confusing their own personal sensibilities with the actual relevant law, and making false analogies between the law of war and the law of peacetime.

I'm not sure why people think this basic principle (undisputedly the law of war over the last century and further back) leads to a slippery slope. It does not necessarily apply when there is a dispute over whether someone is a combatant. (In Bin Laden's case, he declared himself that he was a combatant, much like any enemy soldier does by putting on a military uniform.) And under US case law, it does not apply to anyone present in the US (citizen or non-citizen). And furthermore, even a non-US-citizen declared combatant residing in another country can go out of their way to ensure their intent to surrender is clear, if they want to surrender.

[Kber]

28. Interesting - thank you.

[MilesColtrane]

79. Your response is right on the money.

[DirkGently]

90. Do normal rules of engagement countenance execution of unarmed enemies outside of a war zone?

I don't think there's any getting around Glenn's point that, perhaps depending on a clearer view of the facts than we have now, there isn't a lot of precedent for the U.S. declaring the right to hunt down and kill someone in any location, under any circumstances, on the basis that the person is a declared enemy of the U.S.

We not at war with Pakistan, did not advise Pakistan of the mission, and therefore presumably, our forces were in the country illegally. I suspect that we would, for example, hit the proverbial roof if the Mexican military were to send a mission into Los Angeles to execute a drug lord, no matter how many people he was known to have murdered. Or if IDF staged a raid in New York to execute Nazi war criminal, for that matter. We consistently required some level due process even for people accused of crimes that were -- to the extent possible -- even worse than Osama Bin Laden's. We have NOT condoned summary execution for enemies of the United States, in or out of war.

[BzaDem]

100. If the Mexican military or IDF had information on a suspect, they would tell our intelligence, and

we would capture their terrorist (as opposed to tip the terrorist off so that he would escape). The same was not true of Pakistan. Pakistan was implicitly harboring terrorists who have declared war on the United States, and they got what was coming to them. In any event, the question of sovereignty is totally separate from the question of capture vs. kill under the laws of war, and it is the latter question I was responding to.

[DirkGently]

108. The two are inextricable here. This was not a battlefield. There is no precedent for this execution.

(Edit: IF execution is what occurred; regardless, though, shooting an unarmed enemy at close range is NOT within typical rules of engagement).

This is NOT the way normal, lawful warfare is conducted. We would not recognize any other country's right to this type of conduct.

[BzaDem]

115. It does not violate international law to shoot an unarmed enemy at close range who doesn't surrender

The issue is whether they surrender (hands up/white flag/etc), not whether they are armed. You are wrong.

"We would not recognize any other country's right to this type of conduct."

We wouldn't need to, since the "conduct" in question is taking out a terrorist in a country that explicitly or implicitly harbors them. Since we don't knowingly harbor terrorists (and we would assist in capturing any terrorist we did find out about), it is literally impossible for this "conduct" to apply to us (if the definition of the "conduct" is limited to what we actually did).

"It isn't a battlefield"

Navy SEALS vs. self-declared combatant against the United States = battlefield. Furthermore, you claim we aren't at war with Pakistan (as if that is relevant), but even that claim is only true because we did the operation as we did. If we informed Pakistan in advance and found that Pakistan was helping Bin Laden escape (as would have likely happened), we may very well have been at war with Pakistan.

[DirkGently]

91. semi-dupe

[msanthrope]

112. Excellent response. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

23. Why the bafflement.

If the sentiment is "glad he's dead" or some variation thereof, why would the circumstances surrounding his death be of importance?

Was Hussein's execution more humane than Osama's. I would argue that it was not. It may have been more legal, but it was not more humane.

[KittyWampus]

24. Greenwald and his devote following live in a fantasyland. Thinking bin Laden would be taken alive

is beyond foolish.

And the intelligence gotten from bin Laden's compound is almost certainly extremely valuable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. The whole thing stems from a false premise

I have no doubt that had nobody shot at the SEALs, and had they had a clear and resistance free run at OBL, he'd be alive in custody as we speak. As it stands, at least one person did shoot at the SEALs, and the residence had obvious barricades, both of which made it a highly dangerous military situation. As soon as that happened, all bets were off and the safest course of action was to move to the kill shots. That is the consistency in all accounts, with the exception of a second-hand account of bin Laden's daughter (supposedly) filtered through the obvious bias of the humiliated and politically endangered Pakistani security apparatus. Once Greenwald's false premise that there was no planning for or intention to capture bin Laden alive is dismissed, as it should be, the rest of his account turns into so much nonsense, since it all depends on that falsehood.

[LiberalAndProud]

33. Would it change your mind if you discovered it actually was a kill mission?

Because it could very well have been. I believe it's likely.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Your belief is noted

I don't see any evidence that it was a "kill mission," whatever that means. The confusion lies in the problem of military v. law enforcement operations, which Greenwald pretends to talk about here, but can't really think through all that well, since he has a position that is axiomatic rather than conditioned on events (he falsely calls this "principle"). The military nature of the mission puts the onus of surrendering on the combatant, especially after one part of the force has engaged. Even if it was just one guard firing at the SEALs, that was sufficient to indicate hostilities throughout the compound. This is completely different from a law enforcement operation, where officers are generally required to confirm hostile intention before engaging.

Greenwald pretends to think through this difference by upbraiding his liberal counterparts for supposed hypocrisy: haven't they all been saying that the war on terror should not be a war at all, but a law enforcement operation? Sure, but that's neither here nor there, since the mission could not have been accomplished by even an elite law enforcement group but required a military unit. Herein lies Greenwald's confusion. We can perfectly well believe that terrorism is a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem, and still believe that in this specific case, only a military unit could successfully and safely intervene. And once that's the case, then we expect them to act in a manner consistent with a military operation, which they did. What Greenwald reads as a legal exception is actually just an operational feature of a specific set of circumstances.

Needless to say, the vast majority (as Greenwald ruefully notes) understands this point perfectly and without need for analysis. It's really a case of the average person have a much better grasp of the situation than the supposed expert, because the expert transforms principle into implausible dissections and needless sophistries, while the average person sees the events as a whole.

But to get back to your question: if there was incontrovertible proof that this was a "kill mission" without exception, yes, my position would likely change somewhat. I'd be more in the Juan Cole camp.

[Capitalocracy]

42. Then why invent a narrative in which bin Laden is shooting back?

If you can just say look, these are the rules of engagement, you raid the compound, if anyone fires back, then it becomes a shoot-first situation, why make up stories about a firefight and bin Laden grabbing a gun and shooting and using his wife as a human shield?

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. You say "invent," I say "initial accounts" by excited officials

The question is undecidable, so it can't serve as a premise.

[EFerrari]

36. The SEAL team that went into the main house took no fire.

One team went into the guest house and took out 1 guy that got some shots off there. The other team went into the main house, they took no fire whatsoever.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42906279/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden


And administration sources are confirming this was a kill mission.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Officials+mission+rules+assured+killing+Laden/4725274/story.html

So no, the premise is not false.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Well

The rules of engagement contemplated surrender, however "unlikely." So, you're wrong. As for the unnamed source, I'll trust the people who came out in public - Brennan and Carney - saying the opposite.

[EFerrari]

70. There was no fire fight in the main house. Brennan and Carney have been corrected.

"According to the officials' account, as the first SEAL team moved into the compound, they took small-arms fire from the guest house in the compound. The SEALs returned fire, killing bin Laden's courier and the courier's wife, who died in the crossfire. It was the only time the SEALs were shot at.

The second SEAL team entered the first floor of the main residence and could see a man standing in the dark with one hand behind his back. Fearing he was hiding a weapon, the SEALs shot and killed the lone man, who turned out to be unarmed."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42906279/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Nice try

There was a firefight in the compound, which is sufficient to indicate that anyone in the compound is a hostile combatant in a combat situation. This was a military operation, not a police operation. That's dishonest statement number one on your part.

Second, aspects of the events have been corrected, but their firm claim that capture was an option has never been rescinded by anyone on the record. The difference is between getting a confused fact from the field wrong, and stating a prior intention. You're conflating these on purpose, I suspect, so that's dishonest statement number two.

You gonna go for three?

[EFerrari]

76. I've already shown that Greenwald's premise is not false but that yours is.

That's good enough for me. :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. No, you haven't

And it's quite telling that you rapidly retreat on this as soon as you face even a minor challenge.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

110. Nobody shot at the SEAL team that took bin Laden.

:hi:

[eqfan592]

105. No you didn't...

...in fact, you provided evidence that showed Greenwald's premise IS false, not the other way around. In an operation such as this, it doesn't matter if shots were fired in one building but not another; as soon as shots were fired at the SEAL team in anger, all bets were off across the board. Why would the SEAL team have any reason to believe that the combatants in one building would be any less hostile than the ones in another on the same compound?

Sorry, but you guys are really grasping at straws. Honestly, the reality is that the administration had no need to make this as a kill mission, because the major likelihood was always that as soon as the SEAL team arrived, somebody on the other side was going to engage them. As soon as that happened, the likelihood of OBL being captured became pretty much nil, as the SEAL team would have every reason to interpret every action he took as potentially hostile.

I would not have asked our SEAL team members to place themselves in any greater danger than they already were on the slim chance that OBL suddenly had a change of heart and was willing to "come quietly."

[EFerrari]

111. No, his premise was that bin Laden was shot because the SEALs took fire.

The team that that apprehended him took no fire. It's pretty simple.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. Another part of this equation that puzzles me...

I'm sure it's been addressed somewhere in the myriad threads this week, but I can't find it right now.

Obama clearly stated -- a few times, I believe -- that he would kill or capture Bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

As a candidate in 2008 Obama vowed to kill bin Laden and "crush" al-Qaeda. He also said at the time that he would go after bin Laden without Pakistan's approval if that's where the terrorist holed up. "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out," then-Sen. Obama said at a presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 7, 2008.

Were Dems/Progressives who are definitely disturbed (versus the many who are ambivalent) now by what has happened concerned about his statement back then, or was his stance applauded?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

38. What this goes back to, if you think about it, is George Bush's position

that our whole planet is his battle field. Unless I'm mistaken, that is part of the rationale of the WOT.

So, if you're Bush in BushWorld, it's fine to conduct military operations any where against terrorists because the whole world is your battlefield. Of course, Bush never dealt well with the fact that there are rules of engagement and international laws regarding the conduct of wars.

Note: I'm not saying our president is Bush, lol, but trying to lay out the original rationale that the president inherited from BushCo.

[OneGrassRoot]

46. Thanks for the reply.

I hear you.

:hi:

[BzaDem]

55. Just because the whole world isnt a battlefield doesnt mean there is no battlefield, or that

Bin Laden's compound in this context wasn't obviously part of the battlefield in this context.

Furthermore, even on the battlefield, international law applies. But the mistake some are making is assuming the onus is on the soldier to wait until there is an identifiable imminent threat, rather than the onus being on the declared combatant to prove their intent to surrender.

[Capitalocracy]

41. Because he didn't campaign on extrajudicial execution.

I doubt there's anyone here who thinks they should've let him go rather than kill him. What we're "handwringing" about was whether an attempt to capture was made (or, at least in my case, deemed unfeasible during operational planning, I think that's also an acceptable reason for a kill order). It just looks fishy when the story keeps changing.

When Obama said we would go after bin Laden, he didn't say we would execute him in order to avoid the hassle of a trial. And I advocate a trial not for bin Laden's sake, but for the sake of our own ideological consistency, for the sake of the rule of law, and because of what a trial does to repair the damage done by murderous ideologues. I live in Argentina, a country that was under a brutal (U.S.-imposed) military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983. Subsequent trials of the de facto president and other operatives of this regime have done a lot to destroy the ideology behind it. I think it would have the same effect on bin Laden... not that it would change the minds of people who are already in al Qaeda, but that it would change the mindset that helps recruitment for terrorist organizations.

And by the way, I think there could still be some effective form of fact-finding judicial action that would help with this.

[OneGrassRoot]

47. Thanks for your insight...

Much appreciated.

:hi:

[ProSense]

48. "When Obama said we would go after bin Laden, he didn't say we would execute him in order

... to avoid the hassle of a trial."

Funny, John Yoo is trying to make that same argument.

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

Authorization to use force (PDF)

There was nothing "extrajudicial" about pursuing and killing bin Laden.

[EFerrari]

49. That's not clear at all and the legal issues that continue around the WOT

are probably the reason why the administration dealt with the body as they did and don't want to release photographic images. In other words, you are overstating the transparency of the legality of this killing.

[ProSense]

50. It's perfectly clear

What do people think is happening when bombs are being dropped on suspected terrorist havens? Clinton dropped a bomb to try to take out bin Laden before 9/11. Had Bush pursued him at Tora Bora, it's likely he'd have been killed then too.

[EFerrari]

56. That something is happening has nothing to do with its legality. n/t

[ProSense]

64. So

despite the fact that dozens of top al Qaeda figures have been killed over the years, even decades, everyone waited until Obama gets bin Laden to make it an issue?

[EFerrari]

67. Where have you been?

People have been piping up about the erosion of due process since 9/12 when Ashcroft rounded up a bunch of Muslim "looking" men in New York City and hid them from public defenders.

[ProSense]

68. Oh please

"People have been piping up about the erosion of due process since 9/12 when Ashcroft"

The conversation is about extrajudicial killings that have been ongoing with no comparable outrage, bin Laden and why now?

[EFerrari]

69. In order to believe that, you have to disallow every objection

to violations of due process that have happened since 9/12. Well done!

[ProSense]

71. Ah

bullshit!

[Poll_Blind]

37. Keep the comments coming!

:hi:

PB

[JoePhilly]

52. .... and Glen is now off to the fainting couch!!!!

[NYC Liberal]

57. I don't particularly care how it was done. I'm happy he's dead.

We are not talking about some pot dealer holed up in his apartment in LA. The guy was a terrorist hiding out in a fortified compound with plans to kill untold numbers of people, beyond the thousands he already has.

[coalition_unwilling]

60. Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him? - n/t

[NYC Liberal]

63. Find me another person who has killed as many people

as bin Laden has and I'll support doing the same thing for them.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. You are not serious are you? If so, you might take a look at

Crawford, TX. His body count now is, by some estimates, in excess of 1 million Iraqi civilians.

Strangely though, I would insist just as loudly that he is entitled to due process with all the rights it entails.

[NYC Liberal]

78. The difference is that Bush is no longer a threat.

He was only a threat so long as he was president. He has no power now. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he's already done, but he isn't a threat now.

However, if it had been Bush who was holed up in a compound surrounded by terrorists and had been on the run for over a decade and was still planning to kill countless more innocent people, then yes, I wouldn't give a damn.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[coalition_unwilling]

59. The key question, imho, comes mid-way in GG's piece:

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

There's a reason the metaphor of the 'slippery slope' exists.

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. There is no "bin Laden Exception"

He gets it wrong from the outset.

[DirkGently]

93. So, the U.S. could land unannounced troops in London, & take out terrorists there dead or alive?

This action may have been reasonable under the circumstances. It may have been necessary. The result can be argued to be just. But it was in no way something universally recognized as legal, or normal, or acceptable. We would not recognize another country's right to carry out a similar operation here.

There absolutely is a "Bin Laden Exception" being suggested here, and it is likewise reasonable to ask how far the U.S. claims it extends.

[eqfan592]

107. I don't believe the exception you are speaking of....

...is the same as the one that most people are talking about here.

[DirkGently]

109. It's an exception nonetheless. "Capture vs kill" cannot be separated from the illegal incursion,

if that's what you mean. This was not a battle on the field of war, and even if it had been, rules of engagement do not typically permit shooting an unarmed enemy at point-blank range (if that is what occurred). We have prosecuted American soldiers accused of the same.

There is no way to square ANY of what occurred with normal, lawful warfare. Perhaps it was wise. Perhaps it was just. But we would condemn anyone else who did the same.

So the question as to what Americas' policy actually is remains valid and important.

[Poll_Blind]

88. You're absolutely right about that. It was difficult to prune because his real point is...

...much deeper-in. I figured there would be two types of readers: Those who just read my excerpts and didn't bother reading more and those who actually looked at the full article. It is a very important question to be asked at a time like this.

:thumbsup:

PB

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[krabigirl]

82. :)

[krabigirl]

83. K & R

[Jefferson23]

87. K&R, n/t

[LoZoccolo]

95. Glenn Greenwald: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. Nullified.

[coalition_unwilling]

98. LoZoccolo: Automatic Ignore. Must have missed you in my purge yesterday. - n/t

[LoZoccolo]

113. Dude, PLEASE DON'T, man

i JUAST WANAN VOICE ON THE du MAN! I want my voicde to be heard, please please plase plaese man, don't IGNORE ME!!!!!! what the fuck wil dI do if I go one here day ahfter tay and NO ONE EWANTS TO LOISTEN TO ME!

i get so flagergasted, thinking about how I CANT t
eEL if peoploeare ignoreing me and I can't even TELL because THEY ARE NOT TELLING ME!!!!!!

everybody Dwants a voicd in government, and in civic participation BUT IT CAN'T BE SO IF PEOPLE ARE INGORED!

PLEASE take one me off ignore, if you see this because you are loggfed off or somethig PLEASE TAKE ME OFF IGNREOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pettypace]

101. If you don't like Glenn Greenwald

you don't like yourself.

Seriously I love this guy.

[pettypace]

102. If you don't like Glenn Greenwald

you don't like yourself.

Seriously I love this guy.

[bvar22]

114. K&R for Greenwald

It is necessary to ask these questions, and explore the deeper implications of situations like this one.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
In a democracy/republic, it is the duty of the public to hold the government accountable.
Monday Morning Quarterbacking is an essential part of growth.

Greenwald is an American Patriot.
:patriot:

Free Manning,
and Bring 'em home....NOW.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
"By their WORKS you will know them,"