The conspiracy game!

[Marat]

The latest report about bin Laden's arrest by CNN says that he was shot while moving about in the dark and within seconds of the arrival of the Navy Seals. A sensible prosecutor before an international tribunal would want to know how the U.S. can have discharged its duty to make a proper arrest by exercising no more force than necessary in the circumstances if its forces had only seconds to decide to make two lethal shots -- one to the head and one to the heart -- of a person moving in the dark? How could they have been certain under those circumstances that the person was resisting arrest, and that only lethal force would suffice for a group of young Navy Seals to subdue a 55 year old man? It all seems implausible.

 

Cf. the Quintinalla Claim in the United States v. Mexico, General Claims Commission (1926), 4 R.I.A.A. 101 at 102-103: "The most notable parallel in international law relates to war prisoners, hostages, and interned members of a belligerent army and navy. ... A foreigner is taken into custody by a state official. It would go too far to hold that the government is responsible for everything that might happen to him. But it has to account for him. The government can be held liable if it is proven that it has treated him cruelly, harshly, unlawfully ... ."

 

So the U.S. has to give an account to a neutral arbiter of exactly why bin Laden was killed -- execution-style -- rather than being taken into custody. The facts provided so far, that a team of burly Navy Seals armed with machine guns were simply overawed by a 55 year old unarmed man resisting arrest and so had absolutely no other way to subdue him except by firing two lethal shots, is simply unbelievable. Even granting that a group of Navy Seals armed to the teeth are no match for one late-middle-aged, unarmed man, surprised in the night and stumbling around his bedroom in his pajamas, there is still no explanation for why, if they absolutely had to shoot him, they didn't just shoot to wound bin Laden as an intermediate option.

[rigney]

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks will not help your argument, and are unacceptable in these forums - "Politics" included.

 

Rigney, I'm quite sure you can phrase your opinions and disagreement without resorting to this type of terminology or attitude.

 

Sorry Mooey, but by now you surely know me better than that!. I simply can't stand a "son of a bitch" like (bin laden) being elegized or placated in any fashion. He was a dirtbag, scum and filth. Even those in his own homeland are probably glad Navy Seals offed such trash. Edited May 5, 2011 by rigney

[mooeypoo]

Sorry Mooey, but by now you surely know me better than that!. I simply can't stand a "son of a bitch" like (bin laden) being elegized or placated in any fashion. He was a dirtbag, scum and filth. Even those in his own homeland are probably glad Navy Seals offed such trash.

 

 

You know the rules of the forum better by now too, rigney, and you know that this note was courtesy for you.

If you can't manage to hold yourself back and follow the rules, you should walk away. People have a right to disagree with you as passionately as you disagree with them; that's why flaming is not tolerated on EITHER side.

 

!

Moderator Note

Moderation notes are not up for debate.

The next comment about moderation action will be deleted on sight. Continue on topic please, and without the flaming.

[Moontanman]

Unless this is a left wing "bleeding hearts" scenario, other than conjecture; who really gives a "RATS ASS"? Anyway, don't you like spooky movies? Hey! one of his younger wives was there. Maybe he was reaching for a "condom'?

 

 

Then again maybe he was reaching for the petroleum jelly....

[john5746]

Just read this on FOX: While working on another deep sea oil leak, BP has found what appears to be Bin Laden's body. Although his body is covered, we have determined that he is lying face down, but there appears to be a cowboy boot protruding from it...

Edited May 5, 2011 by john5746

[Marat]

Now the U.S. is being hit by a wave of criticism for its apparent 'execution' of a wanted person whom it should have sought to subdue, arrest, and bring to justice according to international law, which must certainly have been possible given the disproportion of force available to the U.S. in this situation compared to a lone, unarmed person's capacity for resistance.

 

Among those criticizing the U.S. action as a possible violation of international law are: Cecilla Malmstrom, European Union Home Affairs Commissioner; Reed Brody, counsel of Human Rights Watch; Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Louise Doswald-Beck, Professor of International Law at the University of Geneva, Institute for Graduate Studies; and Alan Dershowitz, Professor at Harvard Law School. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt said the killing of bin Laden was "quite clearly a violation of international law."

 

It doesn't do much good for America to puff itself up as the defender of human rights around the world and then violate them when it suits its own interests.

[insane_alien]

just to be clear, although myself and many other have issues about how this was handled and what happened, this does not mean we are osama sympathisers.

 

We just feel that as this is such a high profile and sensitive case that it should have been done by the book at whatever costs so as not to give the otherside more fuel for their hate.

[Moontanman]

Just read this on FOX: While working on another deep sea oil leak, BP has found what appears to be Bin Laden's body. Although his body is covered, we have determined that he is lying face down, but there appears to be a cowboy boot protruding from it...

 

 

This one is really good John...

 

just to be clear, although myself and many other have issues about how this was handled and what happened, this does not mean we are osama sympathisers.

 

We just feel that as this is such a high profile and sensitive case that it should have been done by the book at whatever costs so as not to give the otherside more fuel for their hate.

 

 

Very good points insane and Marat, personally i would have liked to have see him paraded around in chains and chained up at the 9/11 site and left there to rot in a pit of pig guts but that is just me...

Edited May 5, 2011 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

"It doesn't do much good for America to puff itself up as the defender of human rights around the world and then violate them when it suits its own interests. "

For the record, a good example of what Habeas corpus means is that it's the right to a trial; which was denied to the people in Guantanamo bay.

 

It is also the right to trial that was denied to OBL- though as I have pointed out, if the soldiers had a legitimate basis for believing that their action in killing him was necessary to prevent further loss of life then it may well have been legal.

We don't have the evidence so we don't know. For all I know, the tasteless joke about him being an Arsenal football club fan might be right.

 

"personally i would have liked to have see him paraded around in chains and chained up at the 9/11 site and left there to rot in a pit of pig guts but that is just me"

It is indeed, just you; and you may want to think about what it says about you.

 

Personally I'd like to have seen him treated just like any other criminal. (Sadly that probably wouldn't have been possible).

There's nothing special about him, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

[Marat]

Are you suggesting that the Navy Seals may have been invoking a defense of necessity as their warrant to kill him? Would the further loss of life they were preventing then be the risk that some of the Seals would be killed by those in the compound if bin Laden's friends could take advantage of the delay in arresting him properly to attack the U.S. forces? Or would it be the risk that the Seals themselves would have to kill more people in the compound if they could not complete their mission quickly because they were delayed in arresting bin Laden? Either way, it would seem to fail the ordinary domestic tests of the defense of necessity, since the necessity would be one caused by the fault of the person invoking the defense, which negates it.

 

If the danger was that bin Laden would go on to kill other people if not immediately killed rather than arrested, that seems unlikely, given that he was confronted by sufficient force to subdue him. Another condition of the defense of necessity is that the danger averted be immediate, and future killings by bin Laden would have been rather speculative and distant.

 

Since the U.S. proudly inflated itself and pronounced to the world that it was intervening in Libya under U.N. Security Council auspices to protect civilian life according to international law, the attitude that the U.S. now adopts in saying, "Aw, what does international law matter now that we got bin Laden?!" just looks hypocritical.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Fox News claims Osama had two weapons within reach and that the SEALs expected he'd have the building (or his own body) wired to explode:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/

 

Hence the urge to shoot him if he merely looked at them funny. I do question whether Fox really got access to sources "involved in the mission," however, given its secrecy.

 

The aspect of international law that intrigues me more in this case is the unannounced intrusion into Pakistani territory, since it also seems it'll have serious repercussions for the US-Pakistan relationship.

[Moontanman]

"It doesn't do much good for America to puff itself up as the defender of human rights around the world and then violate them when it suits its own interests. "

For the record, a good example of what Habeas corpus means is that it's the right to a trial; which was denied to the people in Guantanamo bay.

 

It is also the right to trial that was denied to OBL- though as I have pointed out, if the soldiers had a legitimate basis for believing that their action in killing him was necessary to prevent further loss of life then it may well have been legal.

We don't have the evidence so we don't know. For all I know, the tasteless joke about him being an Arsenal football club fan might be right.

 

"personally i would have liked to have see him paraded around in chains and chained up at the 9/11 site and left there to rot in a pit of pig guts but that is just me"

It is indeed, just you; and you may want to think about what it says about you.

 

Personally I'd like to have seen him treated just like any other criminal. (Sadly that probably wouldn't have been possible).

There's nothing special about him, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

 

John there should have been a at the end of that, I mean this is game thread isn't it? But you cannot really think OBL could or should have been treated like an American Citizen do you? He is not a regular person any more than the Queen of England is or Bonnie and Clyde were. Personally I think it's wrong to question the Navy Seals, they were there, they did what they had to do in a very fluid situation. I think the real question here, if there is one, is did the USA have the right to invade the sovereign soil of another country to take him. But if he had been taken he would have been part of a circus, much like a dangerous caged beast on display, the bullet to his brain was probably the most compassionate way his life could have ended, his capture would have been every bit the equivalent of being dragged in chains and dropped in a pit....

Edited May 5, 2011 by Moontanman

[Marat]

Although Osama bin Laden was certainly a villain (it's no coincidence that he looks just like the villian, 'der Grosse Nikolas,' in the famous German children's story book, 'Strewelpeter'), by international law someone suspected of being a terrorist has a right to be arrested with no more force than is reasonably necessary to subdue him so he can be taken to trial, and he cannot simply be executed. From all accounts it looks as though the U.S. simply intended to murder him, given the capacities of the force which was sent, the speed with which they acted in shooting him, and the misrepresentations about him 'reaching for a gun' which were made by the official U.S. spokesperson after the incident. Now bin Laden's daughter, who was evidently an eye-witness of his killing, is telling the Pakistanis that bin Laden was actually captured on the ground floor of the building and executed on the third floor.

 

But there is certainly a whole lot to this story which is missing. For example, how was it possible even for stealth helicopters to land so close to Pakistan's main defense college with no one there noticing? How was it possible for the Navy Seals to shot up and set fire to bin Laden's compound, as well as explode their downed helicopter, without attracting any attention from the neighboring defense college personnel? Why didn't bin Laden and company simply flee the compound at the first sound of the helicopters, rather than being captured in situ, unless there was already some up to now unspecified ground force already in place to block their escape?

 

My guess is that no international law issue will be raised about the violation of Pakistan's air space and the foreign military expedition on their soil by the U.S. (cn. Bulgaria's declaration of war on the U.S. in 1943 for its overflight of Bulgarian territory en route to bomb the Ploiesti oil fields, or Argentina's protests before the U.N. about Israel's seizure of Adolph Eichmann from its territory) because Pakistan was itself helping the U.S. with its mission. They may well have provided the blocking force that kept bin Laden and friends in their compound, ordered the defense college personnel not to respond to anything unusual that night, and guaranteed the safety of the helicopters flying over the border. The reason no one is saying anything about this is because Pakistan fears that its own population, containing many Muslim extremists and some al-Quaida members, would be outraged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

From all accounts it looks as though the U.S. simply intended to murder him, given the capacities of the force which was sent, the speed with which they acted in shooting him, and the misrepresentations about him 'reaching for a gun' which were made by the official U.S. spokesperson after the incident.

Why do you call them "misrepresentations"? Do you have other information to the contrary?

 

But there is certainly a whole lot to this story which is missing. For example, how was it possible even for stealth helicopters to land so close to Pakistan's main defense college with no one there noticing? How was it possible for the Navy Seals to shot up and set fire to bin Laden's compound, as well as explode their downed helicopter, without attracting any attention from the neighboring defense college personnel? Why didn't bin Laden and company simply flee the compound at the first sound of the helicopters, rather than being captured in situ, unless there was already some up to now unspecified ground force already in place to block their escape?

Most of the news stories on the subject state that the Pakistani military did respond and dispatch aircraft, but the helicopters were able to leave before being intercepted. One must also remember it was the middle of the night near a Pakistani military base, so (a) the sound of helicopters may have gone unnoticed as they slept, and (b) the sound of helicopters was not unusual to hear. Bin Laden and his friends may have woken up to hear helicopters, thought "eh, just the Army out practicing again," and ignored the attackers until it was too late.

[rigney]

Although Osama bin Laden was certainly a villain (it's no coincidence that he looks just like the villian, 'der Grosse Nikolas,' in the famous German children's story book, 'Strewelpeter'), by international law someone suspected of being a terrorist has a right to be arrested with no more force than is reasonably necessary to subdue him so he can be taken to trial, and he cannot simply be executed. From all accounts it looks as though the U.S. simply intended to murder him, given the capacities of the force which was sent, the speed with which they acted in shooting him, and the misrepresentations about him 'reaching for a gun' which were made by the official U.S. spokesperson after the incident. Now bin Laden's daughter, who was evidently an eye-witness of his killing, is telling the Pakistanis that bin Laden was actually captured on the ground floor of the building and executed on the third floor.

 

But there is certainly a whole lot to this story which is missing. For example, how was it possible even for stealth helicopters to land so close to Pakistan's main defense college with no one there noticing? How was it possible for the Navy Seals to shot up and set fire to bin Laden's compound, as well as explode their downed helicopter, without attracting any attention from the neighboring defense college personnel? Why didn't bin Laden and company simply flee the compound at the first sound of the helicopters, rather than being captured in situ, unless there was already some up to now unspecified ground force already in place to block their escape?

 

My guess is that no international law issue will be raised about the violation of Pakistan's air space and the foreign military expedition on their soil by the U.S. (cn. Bulgaria's declaration of war on the U.S. in 1943 for its overflight of Bulgarian territory en route to bomb the Ploiesti oil fields, or Argentina's protests before the U.N. about Israel's seizure of Adolph Eichmann from its territory) because Pakistan was itself helping the U.S. with its mission. They may well have provided the blocking force that kept bin Laden and friends in their compound, ordered the defense college personnel not to respond to anything unusual that night, and guaranteed the safety of the helicopters flying over the border. The reason no one is saying anything about this is because Pakistan fears that its own population, containing many Muslim extremists and some al-Quaida members, would be outraged.

 

#7, 2 May 2011 - 08:58 AM rigney-Baryon The demise of Osama Bin Laden

Unlike my normal hatred of sick murderers, and as much as I despise them; it would have been nice to lock this guy away in Leavenworth, Kansas for the rest of his un-natural life. Took a while, but looks like this military team finally got done what we have been trying to do for years. I just can't imagine a more demeaning place for his burial than in a cold, wet "SEA", as alien to him and those of his kind, as a far away Mars might be. Poetic justice you might say?.

Marat, I had no right trashing your opinion of the operation and I do apologise for my condemnation of your views. Right, wrong or indifferent, the deed is done. America must deal with it, and will.

Edited May 6, 2011 by rigney

[ewmon]

Here's a conspiracy theory perhaps worthy of its own thread.

 

US and Pakistan previously agreed that:

• there'd be hell to pay if Pakistan actively assisted US in obtaining OBL. So...
  
• the US will act unilaterally and secretly in obtaining OBL from Pakistan if found there;
  
• the US would immediately "terminate" OBL, to keep him from disclosing the truth; and
  
• the US and Pakistan will then pretend to distrust/despise one another
  (ie, Pakistan: "The US invaded us! Mean ol' Americans! (And they lie -- see below!)"
  and US: "Pakistani officials must have known OBL location. Let's cut its foreign aid!").
  

Otherwise, how could Pakistan ever cope with having assisted the US in obtaining OBL?

[imatfaal]

Because quite a lot of Pakistanis did not support Osama Bin Ladin and hated the fact that their intelligence/security forces seemed to enjoy playing the dangerous game of soft-peddling on the extremist terrorists with Pakistan. There are far too many Pakistani military/security personnel who see the only enemy as India - and everybody else as a potential asset to be utilised. Pakistan has a population the same magnitude as the United States - and to expect unanimity amongst them would be naive; the islamic extremist hate the government due to the ties with the united states anyway...

 

And I have just remembered this is a conspiracy theory thread and you weren't serious any way

[rigney]

Irony and misgivings? No! Rigney

 

I saw what you might consider the beginning of a "New Memorial" this morning. About 9:AM?, 5/6/11; my Son in Law"; who works for the city ofr Lakewood, broke up my coffee and Danish routine by telling me I should walk up to the corner of my street to watch a large tractor-trailer pulling a load from W. 117th St. and Madison Ave. out to the #1 Fire Station at W.150th. and Warren Roads. Consisting of two huge "I Beams". both from ground zero and the South Tower of the World Trade Center in NY,NY. I don't know why such a sequence of the past few days and ten years in the making should haunt me so, but I'm proud and thankful to have been able to see and touch such a part of history, and to know the "son of a bitch" responsible for this destruction is gone, regardless of how he left ???? Semper Fi!

Edited May 6, 2011 by rigney

[ewmon]

And I have just remembered this is a conspiracy theory thread and you weren't serious any way

Actually ... I'm partly serious. How else could Pakistan weather through OBL's capture/death? I'd say, take the koran burning fury, multiply it times a thousand, and direct it at the Pakistani government. That is what they'd be up against.

 

Pakistan would have to pretend to be naïve/non-conspiratorial. Like I said, this almost deserves a thread of its own. If Pakistan found OBL for us and/or gave us its blessings to go in and get him, they'd have to pretend to be innocent. And if they didn't, they'd actually be innocent. I see no other choice.

[Marat]

But against that you have to consider the theory that Pakistan was in collusion with bin Laden in hiding him. Some have pointed to the fact that Pakistani authorities must have known about his presence in the country and at least turned a blind eye to it, given that he lived next door to their war college. But another point little explored is that there must have been some reason why bin Laden decided to move next to the war college in the first place, of all the various places in Pakistan he could have picked to live. I have to think that the only reasonable motivation for his moving there must have been to improve his safety by putting himself next door to where his protectors could always have military force ready to protect him, yet without calling attention to his presence by that force being stationed there.

[swansont]

But against that you have to consider the theory that Pakistan was in collusion with bin Laden in hiding him. Some have pointed to the fact that Pakistani authorities must have known about his presence in the country and at least turned a blind eye to it, given that he lived next door to their war college. But another point little explored is that there must have been some reason why bin Laden decided to move next to the war college in the first place, of all the various places in Pakistan he could have picked to live. I have to think that the only reasonable motivation for his moving there must have been to improve his safety by putting himself next door to where his protectors could always have military force ready to protect him, yet without calling attention to his presence by that force being stationed there.

 

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you are forced to conclude that there are no criminals/fugitives in Annapolis, MD, West Point, NY or any of the other towns that host military academies in the US (or elsewhere in the world).

 

The "it must be a conspiracy" concept also conflicts with the fact that others have spent years (some more than a decade) on the FBI/international wanted lists. The ability to go off the grid because you have money and friends is a big advantage.

[john5746]

...I have to think that the only reasonable motivation for his moving there must have been to improve his safety by putting himself next door to where his protectors could always have military force ready to protect him, yet without calling attention to his presence by that force being stationed there.

 

Good point. Some other reasons:

 

1) This would be the last place a fugitive would try to hide, so no one would look there.

 

2) We would never bomb such a place and if we did and made a mistake, it might plunge us into war or destabilize Pakistan.

 

#2 really seems very plausible to me.

[Marat]

It has now been revealed that people living next door to the bin Laden compound took amateur videos of the bin Laden compound as it was burning, and the films show that there was quite a large conflagration there. Too bad the soldiers in the military college, also next door to bin Laden, didn't respond to that fire. Or react to the explosion of the downed U.S. helicopter, or the gunfire. Of course these are exactly the sorts of things that cause people militarily trained to jump to their feet when they hear, so why did civilian neighbors come out with cameras while the military college soldiers apparently just slumbered on? Also, no defense installation ever neglects to have perimeter partols on duty all the time to guard the installation, so why didn't they react to helicopters landing in the middle of the night next door, gunfire, fires, and explosions?

 

Given that one U.S. helicopter struck the side of bin Laden's compound and smashed its propeller as the Navy Seals were being deployed, why didn't everyone in the compoud just flee as soon as they heard what must have been an enormous crashing sound as a warning that something was coming? The fact that they didn't flee seems to argue that there was already some blocking force in place to prevent their escape, and who provided that if not the Pakistanis?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It has now been revealed that people living next door to the bin Laden compound took amateur videos of the bin Laden compound as it was burning, and the films show that there was quite a large conflagration there. Too bad the soldiers in the military college, also next door to bin Laden, didn't respond to that fire. Or react to the explosion of the downed U.S. helicopter, or the gunfire.

You seem to be mistaken.

Another white-knuckle moment – at the end of the operation, Pakistan’s military scrambled fighter jets looking for the US helicopters. Who knows what could have happened if the Pakistani planes had reached the US helicopters -- but they didn’t.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/some-white-knuckle-moments-for-elite-navy-seals-team.html

 

One must also note that "next door" in this case is "more than a kilometer away," and that a military college is not the same as a military base. What occurs outside is the jurisdiction of the local police, not a bunch of trainee soldiers.

 

Given that one U.S. helicopter struck the side of bin Laden's compound and smashed its propeller as the Navy Seals were being deployed, why didn't everyone in the compoud just flee as soon as they heard what must have been an enormous crashing sound as a warning that something was coming?

Because there were a bunch of men with guns outside by this point? Once the helicopter crash-landed, the Seals on board debarked, and the crash may have occurred before or after the other helicopter had already landed.

 

Also, why would you try to run away from people in helicopters? Just how far do you think you'll get before they catch up?

 

The fact that they didn't flee seems to argue that there was already some blocking force in place to prevent their escape, and who provided that if not the Pakistanis?

I thought you said there were videos from next door as the compound was on fire. Wouldn't the neighbors have noticed the Pakistani military hanging around? Wouldn't the civilians awakened by explosions and gunfire notice a bunch of men in uniforms standing out front? Why wouldn't they tell the local news? Wouldn't it save a lot of embarrassment for the Pakistanis?

[rigney]

Don't tell me none of you guys have ever heard of collusion, espionage and sabotage?

Edited May 9, 2011 by rigney