Home > National News > Osama Bin Laden is dead

Osama Bin Laden is dead

NBC is reporting that “public enemy #1” Osama Bin Laden is dead.  Such an outcome has been a top priority for the United States since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Bin Laden was killed by US personnel in Pakistan during a CIA operation and the US has his body, says NBC.

Obama is readying his announcement as we write.

  1. Random Guy
    May 1, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    Hmmm…wonder if international media is gonna force this down our throats for awhile? Oughta distract from anything real and productive for awhile.

  2. May 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    CNN says he was killed in a mansion outside Islamabad.

  3. Random Guy
    May 1, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Not just CNN, but you and every other blog this side of the milky way by the end of the day. Who gives a fuck. Not reality.

  4. May 1, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Guess you better go to bed, Random.

  5. Random Guy
    May 1, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    I’ll leave you mature sophisticated political savvy grown ups alone to discuss important matters like this.

  6. May 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Obama speaking now.

  7. May 1, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Well, that’s pretty much a guaranteed reelection.

  8. May 1, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    We are all murderers now. Just like with Saddam; kill him before he talks about his partners in the American leadership.
    I’m very ashamed, we used to be a nation of laws; now we’re the mafia.

  9. Johnny Cambridge
    May 1, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    There are people setting off fireworks in McKinleyville… I guess there are some people who are more excited than Random….

  10. Anonymous
    May 1, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Over at Rose’s blog, they are already in defensive mode

  11. Largo
    May 1, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    Praise Jesus! Now I won’t have to lock the doors at night.

  12. Anonymous
    May 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Just what the fuck are you on about Moviedad. I didn’t kill Bin Laden. It’s not murder, it’s an act of war in retribution for acts committed by an evil person.Why is it that some people have to be so cynical about everything?

  13. Random Guy
    May 1, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    “There are people setting off fireworks in McKinleyville… I guess there are some people who are more excited than Random…”

    Ya think? I thought only people on the internet allowed themselves to be spoonfed reality.

    “Why is it that some people have to be so cynical about everything?”

    People like you make it easy.

  14. High Finance
    May 1, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    I hope there is a hell for then Osama will rot in it.

    They should bury his body in an unmarked grave in a garbage dump and buried with pig bodies all around him.

  15. Anonymous
    May 1, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Yes we are a revengeful people…and, the Hydra grows another head.

  16. Anonymous
    May 1, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    I thought you were going to leave us sophistacates to discuss this dummy.

  17. Random Guy
    May 1, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    How can I look away, anon?? I’m watching history unfold, you fool! Right in my own neck of the woods! Right in this room! I didn’t even have to get up! Gawbless the internet, for allowing me a voice during such important and miraculous times! Change is in the air, I can feel it!

  18. mresquan
    May 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I feel sorry for the Bush family.It’s always a sad thing when people lose their friends who are most dear to them.

  19. anonymous#1
    May 1, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Unfortunately for this country he dies a very successful martyr for his cause, which is to make the cost of American foreign policy in Bin Ladens part of the world prohibitively expensive. We have lost a huge amount of national treasure, freedom to travel without wartime restrictions and searches, and the dubious claim that we are better than the other guy and don’t torture and imprison people without a trial. Plus the huge defense budget and wars that are helping to bankrupt our country. I bet he died knowing that he totally succeeded in his mission given the U.S. reaction to his attack on the Twin Towers. What makes terrorism successful is not the actual act but the reaction to it. More Bin Ladens are already at work. The cost of Empire I guess.

  20. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 1, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    This sux big time, I was hoping he could talk about the connected American conspirators and espionage types. Kill the dude before he talks and reveals American names and associates. America is far from clean in foreign/ international policy schemes……The United Nations may be a joke, but America is a bigger one with more hypocrits, guaranteed.

    JL

  21. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 1, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Anonymous says:
    May 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    Just what the fuck are you on about Moviedad. I didn’t kill Bin Laden. It’s not murder, it’s an act of war in retribution for acts committed by an evil person.Why is it that some people have to be so cynical about everything?

    Response: Ummmm, you do pay taxes don’t you? If you do, tell me that you decided 100% of where each and every penny of your taxes went. Ya can’t. Therefore, percentage wise, we tax payers are murderers too until we show our defiance to pay taxes that are exchanged for death certificates in unconstitutional involvements!

    JL

  22. red neck hippie bastard
    May 1, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    I drank an extra beer, sang a song about how we got his body and shot off fireworks!

  23. Anonymousss
    May 1, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    This is more exciting than alien autopsy! When do we get to see the grainy footage of a bearded Middle Eastern dead guy we are told is Osama bin Laden? The best part about this whole thing is that you just have to watch TV and you know what’s going on in the world at the moment it’s happening! Tell me what reality simulation is next oh mighty TV. What foreign dark skinned person should we all hate now? Who should we be afraid of now? Heralded TV, please reveal to me my reality.

  24. Eric Kirk
    May 1, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    It’s already turning partisan. Certain elements on the right are already attacking Obama for taking too much credit, and talking up what deep humility Bush had.

    Thing is, Obama was briefed last August on this location as a potential haven for Bin Laden. It’s too his credit that he didn’t try to rush things for the fall election. Other presidents would have done so.

  25. What Now
    May 1, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    moviedad says:
    “May 1, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    We are all murderers now. Just like with Saddam; kill him before he talks about his partners in the American leadership.
    I’m very ashamed, we used to be a nation of laws; now we’re the mafia.”
    Moviedad, I’ve yet to see you post anything i don;t agree wholeheartedly with.
    I appreciate your posts.
    Thank you.

  26. What Now
    May 1, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    “High Finance says:
    May 1, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    I hope there is a hell for then Osama will rot in it.

    They should bury his body in an unmarked grave in a garbage dump and buried with pig bodies all around him.”
    That would be an adapt description of your family burial plot, HighlyFried.
    You should call and volunteer the space.

  27. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 12:32 am

    RG – maybe some of these photos will make the story a little more relevant for you.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/01/972064/-%28Updated-1x%29-Photos:-May-they-finally-rest-in-peace

  28. May 2, 2011 at 1:44 am

    This should go far in securing Leon Penetta’s confirmation with the U.S. Senate for Secretary of Defense.

    So far Republican nationally seem willing to give the President due credit.

    You might remember this:
    Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
    At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase “wag the dog” to describe Clinton’s military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the domestic scandal.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-23/politics/wag.dog_1_bin-president-clinton-political-ploy?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

  29. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 6:05 am

    I heard Rob Arkley fired the kill shot.

  30. Mitch
    May 2, 2011 at 6:47 am

    “It’s already turning partisan. Certain elements on the right are already attacking Obama for taking too much credit…”

    Impossible to parody.

  31. Decline To State
    May 2, 2011 at 7:10 am

    Wow! That’s some news to wake up to. It’s going to take me a bit to sort out my feelings about this. One thing I do know is that the world is a little better place now without bin Laden.

    Btw, I can’t believe you asses who would make this into something partisan. I would have thought this is the one thing we could all come together on.

  32. Walt
    May 2, 2011 at 7:12 am

    Bin Laden was Cheney’s Emmanuel Goldstein. What will we do with our two-minutes’ hate now?

  33. May 2, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Moviedad “we are all murderers now”
    Well said. Sad, graceless and dumb.
    Looking for an uptick at the stockmarket.

  34. Donald Trump
    May 2, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Where’s the death certificate?

  35. May 2, 2011 at 7:35 am

    “This should go far in securing Leon Penetta’s confirmation with the U.S. Senate for Secretary of Defense.”

    Gee, that really cheers me.

  36. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 2, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Gee whiz, America can’t even come together about the truths and cover-overs of 9-1-1. If anything, the world is now less safe because now the “fill the void” effect is in play with newfound battles for power and control in the muslim world. Although, if you are purely just recognizing one less human being on a grotesquely over-populated planet as making the planet safer, then that would make sense. Politically though, the world is now more dangerous. Maybe if American foreign policy wonks and mongrols were not so imperialistic, retaliation would be less and American leaders would not brainwash the citizenry with hate speech. The video tape of exterior explosions milliseconds before any plane hit the twin towers PROVES other incendiary devices were used in the internal plot and conspiracy by certain American officials and agencies. America is becoming more and more a big lie.

    Decline To State says:
    May 2, 2011 at 7:10 am
    Wow! That’s some news to wake up to. It’s going to take me a bit to sort out my feelings about this. One thing I do know is that the world is a little better place now without bin Laden.

    Btw, I can’t believe you asses who would make this into something partisan. I would have thought this is the one thing we could all come together on.

    JL

  37. Mitch
    May 2, 2011 at 7:42 am

    moviedad and What Now,

    Osama bin Laden was directly responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ innocents at the World Trade Center. The janitors and secretaries there were not responsible for the problems of the Arab world.

    If there’s any military operation I would have thought all Americans would agree was justified, it is a surgical attack against bin Laden.

    A mass murderer who was a continuing danger to American citizens has been stopped. That is good news. If you want to gripe, why not at least wait a day?

  38. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 2, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Mitch,

    who really, really knows who is responsible in today’s fascist set-up. Even the citizenry is becoming “rigged”. How? Just consider the same argument as “entrained” versus “inate”!!!!

    Propaganda is alive and doing very well!

    JL

  39. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 2, 2011 at 7:49 am

    For all the non-druids: The Mexican-American Thug War began in what year? Hmmmm, 3000 killed on 9-1-1 (date driven massacre based on emergency) versus tens of thousands since 9-1-1. Yup, muslims are scary and mexicans are not.

    JL

  40. Landlord
    May 2, 2011 at 7:52 am

    I agree with Mitch. What do you all think of them “burying his body at sea” after the event? I would have thought they would have spent more time with it, but I suppose they wanted the “ownership” of it to be final.

  41. Big Al
    May 2, 2011 at 7:56 am

    I’d bet we still have his body.

  42. mresquan
    May 2, 2011 at 8:09 am

    I read somewhere that Osama had about 10 body doubles,same as the Libyan dictator.Hugo Chavez uses about 6 or 7.

  43. High Finance
    May 2, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Once in awhile I agree with Mitch. This is one of those times.

    Moviedad & What Now, I thought you two fools were beyond surprising me anymore. I was wrong.

  44. quite serious
    May 2, 2011 at 8:16 am

    Now if we can just get a Pakistani military group to fly into the US and take out Bush/Cheney for the subsequent war crimes that are far greater in scale than the attack that was allowed to happen on 9/11.

    Oh… I forgot, sorry, we can kill as many people as we want with our taxes because we are US, and they are them. Might makes right, yes?

  45. Landlord
    May 2, 2011 at 8:30 am

    The times when our country can pull together, feeling unified, without very much partisan separation are rare. This is one of those times.

  46. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 2, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Pffft, times like this are just brain-fed citizens pulling together over issues they really know nothing about. Emotions are such a tool.

    JL

  47. May 2, 2011 at 8:56 am

    It’s murder Hi-Fi. He should have stood trial for Crimes Against Humanity. If it was too dangerous to arrest him, we should have besieged him. We are supposed to be a nation of law. No where in the Constitution does it say the President has the authority to execute criminals without trial. There was never any thought of arresting him. It was “Kill him” from day one. I guess now all we need is to know someone is guilty and we send in the marines to kill them.
    The United States has just carried out an extra-judicial assassination of a wanted criminal; cheating his victims of their right to know who else was involved in the attacks. Throwing away the opportunity to show the world that we are a “just” nation.
    All this killing has done has protected Laden’s accomplices by destroying any hope of further investigation.
    There is celebration? Parades in the street? Why not interview some of the folks from: “911: Press For Truth?” See what they say about killing the one guy who actually knew the extent of the conspiracy, and who was involved.
    This whole thing has been the act of a criminal.

  48. May 2, 2011 at 8:58 am

    “Nowhere”

  49. Not A Native
    May 2, 2011 at 8:58 am

    I hope we’re soon to hear the last of Bin Laden and we achieve some ‘closure’ concerning 9/11. Bin Laden was maintained as an archetype of evil. Now that evil has been purged, our attention and objectives can be directed away from vengeance and retribution.

    This was advertised as the primary way to reduce the likelihood of future terrorists attacks on the US. I personally don’t understand how it will do that. But still, I hope it will.

  50. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 9:06 am
  51. SNaFU
    May 2, 2011 at 9:07 am

    I wonder if the ACLU and Eric Holder will now try to prosecute the soldiers that shot him?

  52. skippy
    May 2, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Early reports of interest compiled from major news agencies around the web:

    “‘We were shocked by what we saw: an extraordinarily unique compound.” The plot of land was roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area. “Physical security is extraordinary: 12 to 18 foot walls, walled areas, restricted access by two security gates.” There are no windows facing the road. One part of the compound has its own seven-foot privacy wall. A compound valued at more than $1 million: It had no telephone or Internet service. This home was “custom built to hide someone of significance.”

    “Our team was on the compound for under 40 minutes and did not encounter any local authorities.” Bin Laden himself participated in the ensuing firefight, officials suggested. “Bin laden was killed in a firefight as our operators came onto the compound,” the official said. Did he fire?, a reporter asked. “He did resist the assault force, and he was killed in a firefight,” an official said. It was reported that he was shot in the left eye. Four adult males were killed: bin Laden, his son, and the two couriers. “One woman killed when used as a shield,” and other women were injured, the officials said; it’s not clear whether bin Laden’s wife was among them. The team blew up the disabled chopper upon their departure with bin Laden’s remains, which resulted in a “massive explosion,” the official told NBC.

    A U.S. government official told CNN the operation that killed the leader of al Qaeda was designed to do just that, not take him alive. There are photographs of the body with a gunshot wound to the side of the head that shows an individual who is not unrecognizable as bin Laden, the official said. No decision has yet been made on whether to release the photographs.

    “Obama was able to monitor the situation in real time from the Situation Room inside the White House. Applause broke out in the room when the team on the ground reported that the attack had killed bin Laden. CIA Director Leon Panetta and intelligence officials monitored the situation in real time from a conference room and described “heart stopping” moments: choppers arriving on the scene and when they left the country.”

    The announcement in the United States of bin Laden’s death came on the same date — May 1 — that Adolf Hitler’s death was announced in 1945. Terrorists “almost certainly will attempt to avenge” the death of Osama bin Laden, Leon Panetta said. Footage showed fire and smoke spewing from the compound where bin Laden was killed. An official told CNN that multiple confirmations that the body was bin Laden’s, saying they had the “ability to run images of the body and the face.”

    “Bin Laden was buried at sea after Saudi Arabia refused to take the body.”

  53. Groan
    May 2, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Buried at sea? Fishy.

  54. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Do you really, Snafu? Really? Or are you so ignorant that you couldn’t think of anything negative but slightly rational to say about bin Laden finally being killed?

  55. vet
    May 2, 2011 at 9:20 am

    DING DONG! THE WITCH IS DEAD

    Munchkins
    Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
    Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
    Wake up – sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
    Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She’s gone where the goblins go,
    Below – below – below. Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out.
    Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
    Let them know
    The Wicked Witch is dead!
    Mayor
    As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.
    Barrister
    But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see
    Mayor
    To see?
    Barrister
    If she
    Mayor
    If she?
    Barrister
    Is morally, ethic’lly
    Father No.1
    Spiritually, physically
    Father No. 2
    Positively, absolutely
    Munchkins
    Undeniably and reliably Dead
    Coroner
    As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
    And she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.
    Mayor
    Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendants
    Barrister
    If any.
    Mayor
    Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last is dead!

    This is for those who believed the myth.

  56. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 9:44 am

    I agree with Mitch. What do you all think of them “burying his body at sea” after the event? I would have thought they would have spent more time with it, but I suppose they wanted the “ownership” of it to be final.

    I suspect they wanted to avoid a burial place on land as a gathering point. Who would want that on his/her property?

  57. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Yeah, but where’s Obama’s long form death certificate!?

  58. May 2, 2011 at 10:06 am

    “I suspect they wanted to avoid a burial place on land as a gathering point. Who would want that on his/her property?”

    Still trusting Obama to tell the truth…

  59. anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 10:07 am

    So out of the clear blue sky Osama woke up one day and
    said “I hate USA”. There’s more to the story than the
    general public will ever know. I’m with Mitch and Movie Dad.

  60. Julie Timmons
    May 2, 2011 at 10:10 am

    The Redding Record -Searchlight is publishing a special edition on OBL and his demise. .A bit much..

  61. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 10:18 am

    No one would expect a birther like yourself to trust Obama on anything, Joe Blow. The sane people, on the other hand, trust him more than they do any one on the conservative side.

  62. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 10:38 am

    No country would take the body. That is why it was buried at sea.

  63. skippy
    May 2, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Different news perspectives from the global web:

    “The successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden will give a much-needed boost to President Barack Obama’s flagging popularity ratings.” (PA)

    Stock markets around the world received a boost today from the news that Osama bin Laden was dead, with the event also triggering a fall in oil prices. (PA)

    “Early euphoria for the dollar over the demise of Osama bin Laden faded Monday, with traders sending it to a new 2-1/2 year low as news of the death of the September 11 mastermind was eventually overtaken by pessimism over the U.S. currency’s dour fundamentals. Gold, which had declined on news that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had been killed in a U.S.-led operation in Pakistan, turned positive in midday floor trading.” (WSJ)

    Israeli officials lauded the U.S. announcement that it had killed al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden in a firefight in Pakistan. (WSJ)

    “Hamas condemned on Monday the US killing of Osama bin Laden as the assassination of an Arab holy warrior, differing sharply with the Palestinian Authority, the Islamist group’s partner in a new unity deal.” (Reuters)

    The discovery of Osama bin Laden’s hideaway in a city at the heart of Pakistan’s military establishment today revived questions about alleged links between al-Qa’ida and elements in the country’s security forces. The Pakistani authorities were quick to insist that they had no prior knowledge that the world’s most wanted man was living in the garrison town of Abbottabad, only a few hundred yards from the military academy known as Pakistan’s West Point. (PA)

  64. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 10:52 am

    That stocks would be affected in any way by this news is simply evidence that there is no rationality with regard to the economy. Especially these days you’d have more luck with a water witcher.

  65. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Still trusting Obama to tell the truth…

    About what?

  66. Behind the news
    May 2, 2011 at 10:56 am

    The most interesting fact of the entire 911 attack, is that the news media/policy makers never addressed the initial reason for the World Trade Center attack. I remember hearing after the attack that the reason why Osama attacked the WTC center was because of the USA exploiting his country and people through world trade. Shortly it turned into a “holy war” by the media and the root reason was glossed over and never addressed.

    Now the worst part of the whole war is that we have established the right to torture and indefinitely contain prisoners without a speedy trial. Reversing hundreds of years of progress and speedily hearkening back to policies of the dark ages.

    From the associated press:

    “Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.”

  67. Johnny Cambridge
    May 2, 2011 at 11:03 am

    10:07,

    There is more to the story, but its not exactly secret. A little digging will find that the CIA armed and funded bin Laden during the Afghan war against Russia in the early 1980s.

    The movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” was based around this, of course the cleverly left out the fact that the Afghans that Charlie Wilson was in contact with were Osama bin Laden and the early organizers of al Qaeda.

    Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, the CIA then simply left the war torn country to fend for its, rather live up to the bargain of helping rebuild after the devastating attacks by the USSR. That is when bin Laden declared a Holy War against the United States.

    So, as with Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq, with the exception of Somalia, every country we have put troops on the ground since World War II, it has been to fight a leader we helped put into power.

    You would think, that someday, we would learn to mind our own business.

  68. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 11:06 am

    There is no right for any US citizen or official to torture anyone anywhere in the world for any reason. Another of the Bush legacies is the automatic connection of the words interrogation with torture. They are not one and the same.

  69. What Now
    May 2, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Once again the United Staes Government has proven itself to be a criminal syndicate.

  70. Walt Kelly
    May 2, 2011 at 11:10 am

    “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Don’t worry, we’ll find someone else to despise, we’ll find someone else to hate, we always do. That’s how we keep war perpetual. The enemy doesn’t take away our freedoms, we do. Willingly.

  71. Behind the news
    May 2, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Why the attack on world trade?

  72. Behind the news
    May 2, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Are you denying that the US has tortured prisoners in this war?

  73. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 11:14 am

    A little digging will find that the CIA armed and funded bin Laden during the Afghan war against Russia in the early 1980s.

    Well, yes and no. We funded groups who were allied with Bin Laden. I’ve never seen any evidence in a direct relationship.

    We did the same in Cambodia with Pol Pot, by funding counterrevolutionaries allied with him. Perhaps the distinction isn’t that meaningful, but war sets up all sorts of weird alliances. During WWII for instance, we funded and aided Stalin, a mere five years after he had killed seven million in concentration camps.

  74. May 2, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Joel,
    I wasn’t trying to make anyone feel good with my comment about Panetta, just observing that it’s a success for someone who a lot people questioned as to his qualifications to run the CIA. This has been a priority for three administrations and this is the team that got the guy. It’s a success for Leon Panetta (and Obama), in that it was their goal and they achieved it, whether or not you are glad Bin Laden’s dead.

  75. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 11:54 am

    I believe Bin Laden had cited U.S. support for autocratic regimes in the Middle East, U.S. support for the Israeli occupation and military actions in the West bank and Gaza, and the continued presence of U.S. military bases in the region (including U.S. troops garrisoned in Saudi Arabia ever since the first Iraq war) as part of his rationale for his attacks on the U.S.

  76. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I certainly agree that it would have been better if Bin Laden could have been captured and made to stand trial instead of killed. But I doubt he would have been willing to surrender and allow himself to be captured alive, when he must have known that he would have been subjected to years of “enhanced interrogation” (torture).

    I’m just glad that he or his supporters didn’t blow up the compound during the raid, killing the U.S. forces in the process. I’m kind of surprised that they hadn’t built in that kind of “self-destruct” option when they designed the fortified compound. Or maybe they had that capability, but didn’t use it. Either way, I’m glad that didn’t happen.

  77. Not A Native
    May 2, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Eric, you wrote of “weird alliances” in war, but how many of them are unholy?

    Many alliances are formed to concentrate power. Often with an intention to have capability to conduct a war.

  78. Random Guy
    May 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    OH BEAUTIFUL, FOR SPACIOUS SKIES, FOR AMBER WAVES OF GRAIN, O’ER PURPLE MOUNTAINS MAJESTY, ABOVE THE FRUITED PLANE…AMERICA, AMERICA, I GOTTA GO TO WORK IN A MINUTE…AND SAVE A FEW BUCKS, TO BUY AN IPHONE, AND PAY MY BILLS AND SHIT AS USUAL EXCEPT MY MONEY’S NOT WORTH WHAT IT USED TO BE EVEN THOUGH I’M WORKING MORE THAN I USED TO AND MY RENT JUST WENT UP AND SO DID GAS PRICES AND MILK COSTS TWO MORE BUCKS PER GALLON THAN IT DID TWO YEARS AGO AND SO DOES EVERYTHING AND OPEN SPACE IS BEING REPLACED WITH CEMENT AND THE OCEAN IS FILTHIER THAN EVER AND WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO THE BRAINDEAD PEOPLE OF THE FIRST WORLD THE INTERNET DOCUMENTS THEIR PATTERNS OF STUPIDITY I GUESS THAT’S WHY IT’S SO EASY TO INCREASINGLY MANIPULATE THEM THEY’LL BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BELIEVE WHEN TOLD BY THE RIGHT PERSONNNNNNN…..

  79. robash141
    May 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    My only regret is that Cheney and Rumsfeld weren’t in the room trying to cut a secret deal when the SEALs busted in and started spraying bullets.

  80. suzy blah blah
    May 2, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    I’ll leave you mature sophisticated political savvy grown ups alone to discuss important matters like this.

    -thank you.

  81. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    I’ve noticed that a number of news stories are already crediting interrogations at “secret overseas U.S. prisons” for yielding results that eventually heped lead to information on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

    I haven’t yet seen the phrase “enhanced interrogation” used (yet), but I think that’s probably part of the subtext. In other words, the ability to pinpoint Bin Laden’s location and kill him will be pointed to as evidence that “torture works.”

    Of course the unspoken assumption is that other forms of interrogation which don’t rely on torture wouldn’t have worked just as well or better. In fact from what I can gather, many experts in interrogation believe that torture is generally a lot less effective than other interrogation methods (gaining little, if any, additional accurate information, but plenty of false leads as the tortured prisoner becomes willing to “say anything” to try to ge the torturer to stop).

    So it’s entirely possible that by generating lots of false leads and wild-goose-chases, the “enhanced interrogation” (torture) policies initiated by the Bush Administration have in fact delayed the date of Bin Laden’s demise.

    But I wouldn’t hold my breath while waiting to hear that analysis in the mainstream media or from political leaders. We’ll hear that the system worked, and that the secret overseas CIA “black site” prisons and interrogations “enhanced” by torture were, in the end, justified by the result. If so, score another P.R. victory for Authoritarianism.

  82. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    tra says:
    May 2, 2011 at 10:00 am
    Yeah, but where’s Obama’s long form death certificate!?

    You meant Osama, Mitch.

  83. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Of COURSE Bin Ladan would not surrender himself. Remember what happened to Saddam Hussein? We ( the USA ) hanged him so badly his head popped off. Would anyone volunteer to go into the custody of the USA after such an end to the Iraq affair?

  84. Walt
    May 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    So, if there was a $25 million reward for info about Bin Laden, and they tortured somebody to get the information, does the torturee get the $25 million? Or his heirs and assignees? Or the neighbor who turned him in because he still had the neighbor’s lawn mower?

  85. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    All the assumptions that torture was used have no basis in fact. Interrogation experts have testified that standard interrogation yields higher quality results than torture so why would anyone assume they got any valuable information through torture? Do you really believe that there is no difference in the principles and intelligence of Obama and Bush? I’m fully expecting news the intelligence was obtained through standard (non-enhanced) techniques which experts have said all along worked better and didn’t have them chasing the phantoms like torture did. Color me naive, but I don’t believe Obama would order torture.

  86. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Let me extrapolate on that for a second. Bush / Cheney were looking for anything to justify their invasion of Iraq and tortured people to give them the answers they wanted, accuracy didn’t matter. That is always the motive for regimes that torture. Who needs evidence when you have a confession?

    Obama wanted factual information and the use of torture would make that less likely than more.

  87. Decline To State
    May 2, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    I agree with you PJ about the use of torture but should point out that this was an investigation that’s been going on for 4 years. Obama’s administration inherited this case from the Bush/Cheney regime.

  88. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    It’s possible they got some information by torturing the guy, but I don’t think they cared that much about where bin Laden was. He was worth more to them alive and free than imprisoned or dead. Obama made his views on torture quite clear and signed an order that there would be no interrogation beyond military rules – no torture. There is a real contradiction when people believe torture is a detriment in gaining accurate intelligence but then assume that torture was used to gain good intelligence. Am I missing something?

  89. May 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    2:37 wrote, “Remember what happened to Saddam Hussein? We ( the USA ) hanged him so badly his head popped off.

    That wasn’t Hussein. That was one of his seconds that was hanged later.

    As an aside for you old west and history buffs, the same thing happened to Tom “Black Jack” Ketchum when he was hanged:

  90. May 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Let’s see if this Copy Image Location thing works. This is supposed to be a picture of a bloody and dead Bin Laden:

  91. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Plain Jane says: “There is a real contradiction when people believe torture is a detriment in gaining accurate intelligence but then assume that torture was used to gain good intelligence. Am I missing something?”

    Yes you are missing something. Educate yourself on history. Here’s a good place to start.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/files/fox105.htm

  92. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    The inquisition tortures were for the purpose of confessions as well and then the confessions were used to seize the confessed’s assets. What am I missing?

  93. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    P.J.,

    I’m not sure if you were addressing me or someone else, but at least in my case, I didn’t claim to have any evidence that torture was used in obtaining the info on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

    I was just noting that some news sources have mentioned that some of the information that eventually led the U.S. to learn of Bin Laden’s whereabouts emerged from interrogations at “secret U.S. overseas prisons.” And, whether accurate or not, I think the perception of the U.S. public is that various forms of torture are used as interrogation methods at these secret prisons. (And given the secret, no-accountability nature of such prisons, it would be hard to rule that out).

    So don’t be surprised if the capture of Bin Laden is used as “evidence” that CIA “black sites” and “enhanced interrogations,” and so on, were justified. I’m not saying that’s a correct interpretation, in fact if you read my comments I’m saying just the opposite. But I do think we’ll be hearing that argument in any future debates about tactics like “extraordinary renditioning” (kidnapping) “enhanced interrogations” (torture) “indefinite detention of enemy combatants” (unlawful imprisonment) and “overseas U.S. detention facilities” (secret CIA prisons / “interrogation” centers).

  94. Walt
    May 2, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    “Color me naive, but I don’t believe Obama would order torture.” Unless it’s to make a statement, like with Bradley Manning?

  95. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    By the way, do you know if Obama’s anti-torture policy extends to CIA operatives and to private contractors employed by U.S. intelligence agencies?

    Because it is my recollection that it only covered U.S. military and civilian personnel on U.S. military bases, like Guantanamo and Bagram. That wouldn’t necessarily include the CIA and/or private contractor-run “black site” secret prisons where the interrogations that supposedly yielded this information too place.

  96. May 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm
  97. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Obama signed an order that all US agencies have to follow the Geneva Conventions for every prisoner and use no interrogations which are not allowed by the US military. I would imagine we have a lot of secret prisons overseas. They’re easier to secure than publicly known prisons.

    Cheney has been in the news saying the intelligence “may” have been acquired through “enhanced” interrogation, but he’d say anything to justify his criminal behavior and the sort of people who believe what he says “know” this proves that torture is justified. He isn’t going to convince anyone either way.

  98. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    That’s some photo, Heraldo. The looks on some of their faces (especially Obama’s) gave me the shivers. I can’t imagine watching that live.

  99. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Well, the “torture works” meme is already being pimped to the media, and not just by Cheney, but also by other right-wing torture apologists. Former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Theissen writes:

    Before coming to Gitmo, both were held by the CIA as part of the agency’s enhanced interrogation program, and provided the information that led to bin Laden’s death after undergoing interrogation by the CIA. In other words, the crowning achievement of Obama’s presidency came as a direct result of the CIA interrogation program he has denigrated and shut down.

    And, the despicable John Yoo also wasted no time in claiming vindication for the Bush-era torture policies:

    Also, buried in the stories may be yet another sign of the vindication of the Bush administration’s war on terror policies. Anonymous government sources say that the al Qaeda courier who led our intelligence people to bin Laden was a protege of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks who was captured in 2002, subjected to enhanced interrogation methods, and yielded a trove of intelligence on al Qaeda.

    On the other hand, Donald Rumsfeld says that warterboarding wasn’t a factor, though he hedges significantly by only claiming that “The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone.”

    The careful reader will note that the CIA and it’s secret prisons are not part of the Department of Defense.

  100. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 5:21 pm
  101. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    “updated 1/9/2009 4:39:23 PM ET
    Share Print Font:
    WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama said Friday his administration would not compromise its ideals to fight terrorism, adding at a press conference to announce his CIA and national intelligence nominees that he has told them to honor the Geneva Conventions.
    “I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture,” Obama said, when asked at the news conference whether he would continue the Bush administration’s policy of harsh interrogation. “We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.”

  102. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    And I have to ask again, if interrogation experts believe, and they do, that more accurate and usable information can be gained by standard interrogation techniques than by torture, why would Obama want to torture – even if it was legal?

  103. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Obama signed an order that all US agencies have to follow the Geneva Conventions for every prisoner…I would imagine we have a lot of secret prisons overseas.

    It seems to me that the first statement contradicts the second. There’s no such thing as a Geneva Convention-approved “secret prison.” And that’s not surprising, since the lack of Red Cross and other monitoring makes it impossible to say whether the prisoner-treatment conditions laid out in the Geneva Conventions are being followed at a secret CIA “black site” interrogation center.

    I think you may be engaging in a bit of wishful thinking about just how far Obama’s anti-torture executive order reached. I don’t believe it extended to CIA operatives, and I’m not clear about whether it would cover private contractors at the “black sites.”

    I’d like to believe that torture was no longer being used by the CIA and its private contractors, but as long as they’re operating a “network of secret prisons” overseas, as long as they’re still doing the “extraordinary renditionings” to countries that are known to torture (with a pinky promise that the kidnapped people won’t be tortured, of course, wink-wink), well I’m a bit skeptical.

  104. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Did I just hear that right? They buried him at sea? Already? Why not show the body? This stinks.

  105. suzy blah blah
    May 2, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    I can’t imagine watching that live.

    I can

  106. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Again, Tra. Why would they use torture when the experts say it doesn’t work as well as standard interrogation techniques? Tortured people will say anything to stop the pain. That doesn’t mean it has any intelligence value and too much information, some maybe accurate and some maybe not, clogs up the works.

  107. Decline To State
    May 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Muslims bury their dead within 24 hours and we rightly honored that tradition 5:39pm but they also wanted no grave that might serve as a potential shrine. So he swims with the fishes…I’ve no problem with that. They’ve got the photos, they’ve got the DNA…I’m sure conspiracy theories will abound.

  108. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Okay, I’m looking into it a little further, and finding conflicting reports on whether Obama’s executive order on torture left some loopholes. I does appear that it would cover CIA agents (though less clear whether it would cover private contractors).

    Apparently CIA “black sites” were ordered closed “as expeditiously as possible”…just like Guantanamo Bay, which, of course, is still open today, and with no end in sight.

  109. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Again, Tra. Why would they use torture when the experts say it doesn’t work as well as standard interrogation techniques?

    You could ask the same thing about the Bush administration. I guess the answer must be that either some folks believe it works, or works in at least some cases, or else they’re just into the torture for sadistic/revenge purposes, and the interrogation is just an excuse to justify the infliction of pain.

    Anyway, you seem to be missing my point, which is certainly not that torture is a good idea, or useful, or in any way justifiable, but simply that torture has been used by U.S. intelligence agencies as part of the so-called War on Torture, and that after yesterday’s killing of Bin Laden those who support torture and other extreme measures will try to use the situation to defend their indefensible beliefs.

    At this point, that’s no longer in doubt — they’re already lining up to crow about how information obtained by “enhanced interrogations” and secret prisons led to yesterday’s events.

    Hopefully the media and the public won’t buy it.

  110. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Plain Jane said: “Tortured people will say anything to stop the pain. That doesn’t mean it has any intelligence value and too much information, some maybe accurate and some maybe not, clogs up the works.”

    Exactly. Like I said in my original comment at 1:15:

    In fact from what I can gather, many experts in interrogation believe that torture is generally a lot less effective than other interrogation methods (gaining little, if any, additional accurate information, but plenty of false leads as the tortured prisoner becomes willing to “say anything” to try to ge the torturer to stop).

    So it’s entirely possible that by generating lots of false leads and wild-goose-chases, the “enhanced interrogation” (torture) policies initiated by the Bush Administration have in fact delayed the date of Bin Laden’s demise.

  111. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    The point I made above, Tra, was that Bush / Cheney used torture because they didn’t care so much about the quality of the information they obtained, but what they could get the tortured people to say. They were desperate for anything to justify the Iraq war. Torture is used by those who want confessions, not necessarily truth.

  112. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Plain Jane says:
    May 2, 2011 at 10:18 am
    No one would expect a birther like yourself to trust Obama on anything, Joe Blow. The sane people, on the other hand, trust him more than they do any one on the conservative side.

    Response: Sane people who vote dualopoly are really not that sane Plane Jane, just sayin’. No need to feel proud voting for a leftover that gained from entities for whom I am sure you despise. Campaign financings, deals with GM, GE, etc….. Yes, the work of sane people as you imply.

    JL

  113. High Finance
    May 2, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    I get it now, people use “torture” because they don’t want to get the bad guys.

    Do you people ever listen to yourselves ?

  114. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Only bad guys use torture, HiFi. It’s monstrous. When you use torture, every suspect you torture is guilty by confession whether he is or not. You must be insane!

  115. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Torture is used by those who want confessions, not necessarily truth.

    Yes, you’re right, that was probably the most important factor in the Bush Administration’s use of torture. But I suspect that sadism and/or the desire for revenge, humiliation and intimidation probably also played some role in some of the torturing.

    And there’s still the possibility that some torture true-believers actually did think they might get additional information which (they may have believed) “couldn’t be” obtained through standard interrogation.

    There are always some folks who reflexively believe that compulsory, punitive approaches are bound to be more effective than approaches based on building trust and gaining cooperation, even when there is no evidence to suggest that the compulsory/punitive approach will work better (and even when there is considerable evidence pointing to the contrary). I see that belief as just another rather predicatable aspect of the authoritarian mindset.

    One example of this same mindset in operation on another issue, is the way many people assume that “cracking down” on drugs with tougher laws and longer prison sentences will address drug-addiction-related problems more effectively than providing treatment programs, even though so much evidence points to how much cheaper and yet more effective treatment is compared to prison.

    There are plenty of other examples of where our authoritarian assumptions lead us to pursue irrational, unnecessary, and often counterproductive policies, in the belief that “more force” will yield “more results.” Sometimes that’s true, but often it isn’t.

  116. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    PJ, TRA,
    you are only entitled to geneva convention privileges under specific circumstances. there is a list somewhere but there are things like: wearing a uniform, representing a state, and so forth. basically, being a soldier in the traditional sense. after the 911 attack there was a problem categorizing the people who attacked us, which is where the term “enemy combatant” got popular. these people are not following the geneva convention, do not fit the criteria, and therefore do not get the rights. it is not black and white of course. that’s why the U.S. is able to put them away offshore with little or no rules without breaking any rules.

  117. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Is that you, John Yoo?

  118. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Anon 6:45,

    It seems to me that you’re referring to the category “Prisoners of War” or P.O.W.s, but the Geneva Conventions are far broader than that. Just because a person is not categorized as an official Prisoner of War does not mean that “anything goes” under the Geneva Conventions.

    Meanwhile, an “enemy combatant” can be either a “lawful combatant” (soldier or other security force member, uniformed or not) or an “unlawful combatant” (spy, saboteur, terrorist) and the main difference is that an “unlawful combatant” can be tried as a criminal, whereas a lawful combatant cannot be prosecuted for participating in acts of war (unless those acts amount to “war crimes” under the Geneva Conventions) and must be released at the end of the conflict.

    Basically, what you’re saying echoes the Bush Administration’s false portrayl of the situation, where prisoners were supposedly either a uniformed P.O.W. that would be covered by the Geneva Conventions, or a non-uniformed “enemy combatant” who, according to the Bushites, could be treated any way the President wanted to treat them, notwithstanding the basic rights of all prisoners delineated in the Geneva Conventions (which the Bushites dismissed as “quaint” and “no longer useful.”)

  119. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    They only tortured the guilty ones, Tra.

  120. Eric Kirk
    May 2, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Here’s team Obama watching the raid on Osama.

    Not saying it isn’t authentic, but for all we know they could have been watching Trump fire Gary Busey on The Apprentice.

  121. May 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    I wrote, “ This is supposed to be a picture of a bloody and dead Bin Laden.

    Sorry. Just heard on NPR that it’s a photoshop job. I should have known. I was wondering why that one blog is the only place I saw it.

  122. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    At any rate, it seems that both these statements are true:

    (1) Obama issued an Executive Order in 2009 that called for an end to the CIA’s secret overseas prisons “as expeditiously as possible.”

    The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/

    (2) More than two years later, the secret U.S. prisons continue to exist, and the number may even be growing.

    They reportedly hold detainees at the facilities for nine weeks…There are about 20 secret detention centers here all run by the US military….US military officials say they have no plans to close these prisons in Afghanistan which they claim are needed to interrogate detainees…

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175283.html

    It appears that they’re avoiding conflict with the direct wording of the Executive Order by placing the secret prisons under the authority of the “Joint Special Operations Command” instead of the CIA.

    The fact that statements (1) and (2) both appear to be true reveals an apparent conflict between the Obama administration’s publicly-stated policy against secret prisons, and the on-the-ground reality of the continuing use of such prisons, specifically justified as necessary so that interrogation can take place in secret and beyond the reach of the Red Cross or any other monitoring agency.

  123. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    That is very disappointing, Tra. I’d like to hear Obama speak publicly about it.

  124. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    On January 22, 2009, US President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual “unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site#Obama_administration

  125. owltotem
    May 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    thanks movie dad, days like today make me feel like an outlier

  126. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Yes, P.J., it is disappointing, but, sadly, at least to me it’s not really surprising.

    Here’s another article about the confirmation, just last month, of the existence of scores of secret U.S military detention centers, despite previous administration claims (lies) to the contrary:

    Detainees are kept in secret facilities for up to nine weeks at a time, it said, and while some of the most extreme interrogation techniques of the Bush era are no longer used, prisoners are still deprived of sleep, made to undress in public, and otherwise intimidated or humiliated.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/04/secret-us-prisons-afghanistan-confirmed/36471/

    And another one, with a little more about the conditions of imprisonment and other methods for “softening up” detainees for interrogation:

    Over a dozen former detainees claimed they were held for weeks at the Joint Special Operations Command site, forced to strip naked and kept in the cold in solitary confinement with lights on 24 hours a day, Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First, told AP. In many cases detainees claimed they were told they would be held indefinitely if they did not cooperate.
    The US military insisted the allegations were untrue.

    So the U.S. military is denying the ill-treatment of the detainees, and no doubt the detainees have a potential ulterior motive for making these charges, but sadly the fact that the military and the administration had long denied the continued existence of these secret detention/interrogation centers leaves their credibility in tatters.

    An obvious question is: If the interrogation methods being used at the secret military detention/interrogation centers are no different than those used at the public, Red-Cross-accessible military detention centers like Guantanamo, why the need to keep them for up to nine weeks, incommunicado, at a secret detention/interrogation center?

  127. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Sorry, here’s the link for the second excerpt (the second italicized paragraph) in my last comment:

    http://rt.com/usa/news/secret-usa-prisons-afghanistan/

  128. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    The most secretive of roughly 20 temporary sites is run by the military’s elite counterterrorism unit, the Joint Special Operations Command, at Bagram Air Base. Working together with CIA and other intelligence officers at the site, JSOC questions high-value targets, the detainees suspected of top roles in the Taliban, al-Qaida or other militant groups…

    …The detainees reported being forced into nudity and humiliated upon arrival, malnourishment resulting from inadequate and foul-smelling food, sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation resulting from cold temperatures and inadequate bedding. They reported being blindfolded and shackled when leaving their cells and losing complete track of the time and date. The International Committee of the Red Cross was also reportedly denied access to the detainees and the secret facility.

    http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2011/04/10/secret-us-prisons-in-afghanistan-admitted-after-year-of-lies/

    Yes, the Obama administration has apparently stopped sanctioning the notorious practice of “water-boarding,” which despite the Bush Administration’s best efforts at spin, is viewed by the great majority of people as a form of torture.

    But apparently the sleep-deprivation continues, along with people being kept naked in cold conditions (which is also alleged in the Bradley Manning case) and other forms of prisoner mistreatment.

    It seems that the basic approach taken by the Bush administration remains intact under the Obama administration: Insist that “the U.S. doesn’t torture” and just define your way out of the problem by not including currently preferred methods of coercion under the administration’s interpretation of the definition of “torture.”

    And of course insisting that “we abide by the Geneva Conventions,” while denying Geneva Convention rights to Red Cross access for up to nine weeks while the not-officially-torture methods are used in secret (possibly in tandem with full-on-torture methods…we don’t really know, because it takes place in these secret detention/interrogation centers).

  129. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Obama Osama don’t reject me re-elect me
    Buried at sea, ha ha he he
    You must think we have the mind of a pea
    (And we do)

  130. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    And the “deather conspiracy theorists” are up and running, with a whole slew of feeble-minded nutjobs, ranging from the Pakistani Taliban to Breitbart followers to Alex Jones to Cindy Sheehan, all rushing, lemminglike, into the latest tinfoil-hat festival:

    In the United States, suspicious voices rose across the political spectrum. Radio host Alex Jones, a powerful hub of anti-government sentiment and leader of those who believe the American government was behind the September 11 attacks, instantly floated his own theory: “Government had Osama bin Laden frozen for years.”

    Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wrote her supporters, “I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid. Just think to yourself—they paraded Saddam’s dead sons around to prove they were dead—why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent—just put your flags away and THINK!”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54113.html

  131. Anonymous
    May 2, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    tra,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

    it is not as simple as you make it out.

  132. Plain Jane
    May 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Even “enemy combatants” must be treated humanely according to the Geneva Conventions as well as US law.

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
    § 2340A. Torture
    (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
    (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

    Definition of torture:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html

  133. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    9:48,

    It’s true that my 7:11 comment was certainly a “simplification” or summary of the lawful enemy combatant / unlawful enemy combatant issue.

    I submit that my 7:11 comment was a more accurate summary of the situation than the anon 6:45 comment that ended with the (inaccurate) claim that:

    …that’s why the U.S. is able to put them away offshore with little or no rules without breaking any rules.

    Now your wikipedia link says that:

    An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action

    And that’s an important point. Unlawful combatants can be prosecuted and detained under the supervision our domestic civilian courts — but of course our domestic laws (wisely) don’t allow indefinite detention without charges and without access to the courts, and our domestic laws ban torture and disallow evidence gained by the use of torture, mistreatment, and other coercive means. So if the administration wanted to follow the domestic laws, that would be fine with me, and it certainly wouldn’t be a case of “with little or no rules.”

    Meanwhile, when they are in military custody (as in these secret prisons) their treatment is governed by the Geneva Convention.

    Basically, the government is not supposed to be able to point to your civilian status in order to justify denying you Geneva Convention protections, while simultaneously keeping you in a secret military prison overseas to deny you domestic legal protections.

    However, it is understandable that people may believe this is the way it’s supposed to work, since two U.S. Presidential administrations have now played this game, with the complicity of U.S. Congressional leaders of both major political parties. I guess if “might makes right” then the authoritarians have won the argument (at least for now).

    But they don’t seem terribly confident that their novel interpretation that results in the “legal no-mans-land” will remain secure, which is why they’ve tried to keep the secret prisons secret, and to clean up their interrogation practices at least to the point where they don’t so obviously amount to torture as was the case with the “water-boarding.”

  134. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    From the IIRC Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention:

    [e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.”

    – Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.

  135. tra
    May 2, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    So a prisoner, even if an “unlawful combatant” has the right to humane treatment and protection from torture under the Geneva Convention as long as they remain in the hands of the military.

    It’s true that an “unlawful combatant” can be detained for trial and prosecuted, either in a military trial or a civilian one, but then the detainee has protection under domestic laws, at least in those countries with domestic laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners, which the U.S. does (both in our civilian system, and also under the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

    Meanwhile, whether held in a civilian jail, domestic military detention center, overseas military detention center, concentration camp, secret prison, “black site,” labor camp, or any other setting, all persons are covered by the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

    The law is there, but both the domestic judiciary and the international community have little to no leverage to enforce those laws when the executive and the military (along with their enablers in the legislative branch) decide to ignore the laws, court decisions and treaty obligations, or to “creatively re-interpret” those laws and treaties, to conveniently re-define “torture” and so on.

  136. Behind the news
    May 2, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    Since they killed the guy, I am glad the war is now over, and that solved the problem. Now I guess we can stop torturing people for information, spying on everyone, and get back to due process in our justice system. Unless of course we are not interested in retaining our freedoms we have enjoyed the last 200 years. I could not remember exactly what I had heard way back in 2001. Wasn’t sure about why he attacked the World Trade Center, so I did a little searching and reading here

    http://www.americanpendulum.com/2011/05/flashback-osama-bin-laden%E2%80%99s-statements-denying-involvement-in-the-9-11-attacks/

    He makes the statement, “USAMA BIN LADEN: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.”

    There we have it. Globalization and exploitation symbolized by the World Trade Center.

  137. skippy
    May 2, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    World reactions from around the globe:

    Palestinian Hamas Leader Haniyeh: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

    Former Pakistan President Musharraf: “America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop…foreign troops crossing the border into Pakistan will not be liked by the people of Pakistan. US forces should not have crossed over into Pakistan.”

    Indian Minister Chidambaram: The killing of Osama bin Laden near Islamabad is proof that “terrorists belonging to different organizations find sanctuary in Pakistan.”

    Saudi Arabia King Abdullah: the Saudi Press Agency carried an official statement that bin Laden’s death will be a “step that supports the international efforts against terrorism.”

    Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood: condemned Osama bin Laden’s killing as an “assassination.”

    Russian President Medvedev: “The Kremlin welcomes the serious success the United States achieved in the war against international terrorism. Russia is ready to step up this type of cooperation.”

    Afghan President Karzai: “Osama was not in Afghanistan: they found him in Pakistan. The war on terror is not in Afghan villages and in the houses of innocent Afghans, but in the safe havens of terrorism outside Afghanistan.”

    Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari: “We, like many people in the world, are delighted to see an end to his mentality and his devious ideology. Iraqis suffered a great deal at the hands of this man and his terrorist organization. Thousands of Iraqis were murdered and killed because of his ideologies.”

    Iranian officials reacted to the death of Osama bin Laden with a mix of political spin and conspiratorial thinking.

    Kenyan President Kibaki: said the al-Qaida leader’s death is an “act of justice” for the victims of the Nairobi bombing and commended those involved.

    In Morocco, where the government blames last week’s bombing in Marrakech on an al-Qaida affiliated group, Communications Minister Naciri said the entire world suffered from bin Laden and the organization he created.

    Somali Prime Minister Mohamed: “We welcome the operation which U.S intelligence carried and killed the leader of al-Qaeda Bin Laden, who confessed mass killing in different places in the world.”

    China had no comment on Monday to news of Osama bin Laden’s death, though state-run media covered his killing extensively.

    The Singapore foreign affairs ministry said it was a significant milestone in the struggle. Japan’s prime minister described it as ‘remarkable progress,’ and the Philippines president said it ‘marks a signal defeat for the forces of extremism and terrorism.’ But Muslims from Pakistan and Indian Kashmir, to Indonesia and Thailand, have expressed regret at the news.

    Rush Limbaugh: “Thank God for President Obama.”

  138. Eric Kirk
    May 3, 2011 at 12:44 am

    Rush was being sarcastic.

  139. Eric Kirk
    May 3, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Michael Savage however, complimented Obama. It was weird.

  140. Walt
    May 3, 2011 at 6:08 am

    Is Julian Assange next?

  141. Mitch
    May 3, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Cindy Sheehan’s comment (tra @ 9:28) is sad. It suggests that she is blinded by the black and white thinking she’s opposed in George W. Bush. I think she’s a wounded hero; she’s been through a lot.

    Can she really not look at the difference between the “Mission Accomplished” speeches of President Obama and George W. Bush and figure out for herself the answer to the question she posed?

    I’m a bit surprised by the number of commenters here who simply don’t believe this news. I don’t think of myself as one who blindly trusts the government, but I do believe Americans landed on the moon, and I do believe our military has finally killed bin Laden. Face it, if the government wanted to lie about getting bin Laden, there would have been far easier approaches with far better timing.

    As to whether we know all we should about bin Laden’s connections to powerful Americans, including the Bush family, well that’s another story.

  142. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 3, 2011 at 7:30 am

    To be or not to be, that is “a question”.

    To kill or be killed, that is “a question.”

    Take no prisoners or Geneva blah, blah, blah, “as if it really matters.” Funny how the Geneva blah, blah, blah “plays favorites” during violence WHEN its membership is not hiding somewhere, disengaged from acknowledging much more violence throughout the world in various forms than that which hardly ever gets uncovered. Sad how war became “politics of conspiring nations” at the international level in an agressive, offensive manner.

    International Puppet show galore!

    For the idiot American on the news who said the killing was good for the economy – pull thy head outta Ye dark, stenchy fecal filled arse. Stupid people suck.

    JL

  143. Anonymous
    May 3, 2011 at 7:50 am

    TRA,
    the geneva convention applies in wars between two or more states. terrorists are not entitled to POW status or lawful combatant status. that puts them in a different category, not covered by geneva convention.

    after 911, congress invoked the war powers resolution and stated:
    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    pretty broad, wouldn’t you say?

  144. Plain Jane
    May 3, 2011 at 8:14 am

    7:50 insists on repeating what he’s already said and ignores all the evidence, (US Law and The Geneva Conventions) which clearly states that torture is never legal. Necessary and appropriate force does not include torture. It isn’t necessary or appropriate since our laws expressly forbid it, any where, any time, by any US citizen or person in the US. Congress can’t violate the Geneva Conventions obliquely with a resolution. The Geneva Conventions are treaties which are, constitutionally, supreme laws of the land.

  145. May 3, 2011 at 8:27 am

    After reading this far, I feel like I’ve been tortured!!
    I wonder how Osama is making out with his 72 Virgins about now. Any guesses?
    I’m glad this chapter is done, however it went down. Enough with the ‘conspiracy theories’. We can come up with those for anything and they’re all equally valuable…or not. Why, even HiFi may be conspiring to take over the financial system of the Western World! Could happen?! Nah, probably not. But Rush said…….

  146. May 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Plain Jane says:
    May 2, 2011 at 10:18 am
    “No one would expect a birther like yourself to trust Obama on anything, Joe Blow. The sane people, on the other hand, trust him more than they do any one on the conservative side.”

    Who the hell says I’m a “birther”? YOU? Better get your facts straight before you start throwing around bullshit accusations. Obama’s record to date speaks for itself. Sane people can accept the truth when the see it.

  147. May 3, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Read about the extent of the lies: In bin Laden killing, media — as usual — regurgitates false Government claims – Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com http://bit.ly/ijrezA

  148. Teacher
    May 3, 2011 at 9:24 am

    It’s pretty sick to celebrate anything connected with this situation where thousands of American civilians died, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi and Afgahni civilians died, thousand of our troops have died, and now a religous leader/terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter dies. Whole thing is just sad and I think the appropriate response would be treat it as such.

  149. May 3, 2011 at 9:27 am

    “Senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed.” – http://bit.ly/iRpCfd – Administration Backs Off Tale Of Osama Bin Laden Using Wife As Human Shield | TPMMuckraker

  150. tra
    May 3, 2011 at 9:48 am

    terrorists are not entitled to POW status or lawful combatant status. that puts them in a different category,

    True. As I already made clear above, they are in a different category.

    not covered by geneva convention.

    False. They are still entitled to humane treatment under the Geneva Convention, though not entitled to the more favorable terms granted to lawful combatants.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. has also signed and ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which makes no exception allowing for the torture of suspected terrorists.

  151. Random Guy
    May 3, 2011 at 9:52 am

    KILL KILL KILL!!! Force them well-water peasants out of there and give them a Starbucks already! KILL KILL KILL!!! USA! USA! USA!

  152. Plain Jane
    May 3, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Sorry Joe, but I saw the post you made at Rose’s blog about Obama not being qualified to serve as a natural born citizen. If you insist, I can dive into the sewer over there to find it for you.

  153. High Finance
    May 3, 2011 at 10:33 am

    The only thing “sad” about Bin-Laden’s death, Teacher, is that it didn’t happen 20 years ago.

    Most of the rest of us will celebrate the death of this murderer.

  154. Teacher
    May 3, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Celebrating someone’s death seems strange to me HiFi. I understand that he was responsible for horrible attrocities and thousands of innocent deaths, but I believe that to a lesser extent, George W. and his administration are responsible for thousands of innocent people dying. I wouldn’t celebrate his death and I would find it in poor taste if I saw pictures of people celebrating death.
    In the 90’s, the Somalians looked at US forces as invaders and as their enemies. They drug bodies of dead US soldiers through the streets. It was grotesque when they celebrated killing their enemy and I find it in poor taste when we do it. It has nothing to do with OBL, it is the concept of killing someone and celebrating.

  155. Mitch
    May 3, 2011 at 10:51 am

    This “discussion” is truly eye-opening.

    Would people be happier if the President had chosen to bomb the estate instead of send in SEALS? I would not want one American soldier to have to risk his or her life in order to catch bin Laden alive. He has claimed credit for the murder of thousands; the facts are not in dispute.

    This has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with American foreign policy. After ten years of hunting, a man who killed thousands of innocent Americans was located and killed. The Commander in Chief waited a half year until there was sufficient certainty (missing an opportunity, by the way, to get his party an election boost). He chose a risky approach to increase the certainty that the attack had succeeded.

    Anyone who thinks those SEALS — who were risking their lives in an ambush — should have been careful not to muss bin Laden’s hair is simply beyond my understanding. You want the terrorist alive, you go get him yourselves next time.

  156. tra
    May 3, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Anyone who thinks those SEALS — who were risking their lives in an ambush — should have been careful not to muss bin Laden’s hair is simply beyond my understanding

    Is anyone actually making that sort of argument on this thread?

  157. Landlord
    May 3, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I agree with Mitch. No one should have to risk their life to take OBL alive. I am glad they got in and did their work, and did it well. I also agree with Teacher. It is in bad taste to celebrate this the way you celebrate an election result. The whole thing was necessary, scary, and I am glad it is over.

  158. Anonymous
    May 3, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Bin-Laden claimed that civilians murdered in the World Trade Center were unfortunate casualties of war, just like every U.S. imperial president has claimed. And the count rises daily.

    Peas in a pod.

  159. Boris
    May 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    High Finance says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:33 am

    “Most of the rest of us will celebrate the death of this murderer.”

    You Americans, one day Osama is killing Russians for you, then he turns on you and kills some of you. Then you declare endless war and invade many countries. You hated the British Empire and Soviet Gulags, but who has the empire now? Who has a gulag in Guantanamo Bay? You have met the enemy Yankee, it is you. Celebrate death war pigs!

  160. High Finance
    May 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Boris is not for real. He has to be some con just trying to make liberals look like assholes.

    And by the way, I give full credit to Obama for his actions in all this. I am surprised. He continued Pres Bush’s policies in the war on terror. He authorized the kill mission and he isn’t apologizing for any of it now.

  161. Boris
    May 3, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    High Finance is not for real. He has to be some con just trying to make Americans look like assholes.

  162. Boris
    May 3, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Continue to celebrate Mr. High Finance. As you Americans say, the chickens they will be coming home to roost.

    ElBaradei Suggests War Crimes Probe of Bush Team

    (AP) – Apr 22, 2011

    NEW YORK (AP) — Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the “shame of a needless war” in Iraq.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNPral5JynvoTAWXX2CeWuyeHktg?docId=15d999a2189e42608965ed14fd0d8708

  163. Mitch
    May 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    tra,

    See 9:52 a few posts back. I suppose it’s not referring to mussing his hair, but the sentiment seems to be there. I recall other comments expressing distress that he was not brought back for trial, but they may have been elsewhere.

  164. Mitch
  165. Walt
    May 3, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Mitch, Timothy McVeigh was killed too, but nobody was dancing in front of the White House.

  166. Mitch
    May 3, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Walt,

    I was not dancing in front of the White House, nor was I praising those who did. I was pointing out that to complain that Osama bin Laden was killed in a military action was, in my opinion, ridiculous. Yes, I’m glad he’s dead; no, I don’t think it calls for celebration.

  167. Wikipedia
    May 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    “The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term “al-Qaeda” to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.[30]

    As a matter of law, the U.S. Department of Justice needed to show that bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, who said he was a founding member of the organization and a former employee of bin Laden.[31] Questions about the reliability of al-Fadl’s testimony have been raised by a number of sources because of his history of dishonesty, and because he was delivering it as part of a plea bargain agreement after being convicted of conspiring to attack U.S. military establishments.[21][32] Sam Schmidt, one of his defense lawyers, said:

    There were selective portions of al-Fadl’s testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organization was. It made al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with al-Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden.[30]”

  168. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
    May 3, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    “U.S. government financial support for the Afghan Islamic militants was substantial. Aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader. and founder and leader of the Hezb-e Islami radical Islamic militant faction, alone amounted “by the most conservative estimates” to $600 million. Hekmatyar “worked closely” with bin Laden in the early 1990s.[64] In addition to hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid, Hekmatyar also received the lion’s share of aid from the Saudis.[65] There is evidence that the CIA supported Hekmatyar’s drug trade activities by giving him immunity for his opium trafficking that financed operation of his militant faction.[66]”

  169. tra
    May 3, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Mitch,

    Well I would have in fact preferred it if Bin Laden could have been captured alive and made to stand trial for his crimes — but I also realize that the chances that he would have allowed himself to be captured alive were pretty much slim to none.

    And I agree that additional risk to the lives of our soldiers (or for that matter innocent civilians) might have been involved if they had taken a different approach (besieging his compound rather than raiding it, for example), an in my view this would not have been justified by the slim chance that it might have resulted in him being captured alive.

    It seems to me that the whole operation went about as well as it possibly could, considering the circumstances.

  170. Mitch
    May 3, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Well I would have in fact preferred it if Bin Laden could have been captured alive and made to stand trial for his crimes — but I also realize that the chances that he would have allowed himself to be captured alive were pretty much slim to none.

    That’s because your reasonable, tra.

    In this case, I’m glad he was not captured alive. It would have given him an opportunity to recruit, an opportunity to inspire his troops, and would have posed all sorts of risks to the U.S., including the risks of undisciplined jailers making the U.S. look bad in the eyes of the world.

    Is there anyone alive who doubts bin Laden was (at the least) heavily involved in planning 9/11 or other attacks against the U.S.?

  171. tra
    May 3, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    In Portland, Oregon, Muslims planned to hold a downtown rally Monday to celebrate the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and “call for unity and peace.”

    But they called it off after facing anti-Muslim threats.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/oregon-muslims-cancel-bin-laden-death-celebration-after-threats.php

    How dare they rejoice at the death of the man who has done more harm to their religion than any other human being in modern history! How dare they call for “unity and peace!”

    Don’t they realize that our stereotypes demand that they all be devoted Bin Laden worshippers and potential home-grown terrorist?

    If only they would go out and burn American flags and chant “death to America” like they’re supposed to, then we could get on with the important business of demonizing, scapegoating, profiling and harassing them.

    Wait..so now they won’t be celebrating Bin Laden’s demise? They won’t be calling for “unity and peace” after all? Aha! See, that proves their love for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda! Let the hate-fest resume!

  172. vet
    May 3, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    I think you need to have served in the military during the past decade to appreciate the extent of the lies that Americans believe about their country and its wars, and how they are conducted.
    Sheeple love their myths.
    We are a hideously bloodthirsty country with a media that glorifies violence, and desensitizes an entire populace to the horror of war.
    What is the bodycount now? ‘Merica: 1-2 million killed, Osama: 3,000 lives taken? Wahoo, kickass on them non-whites.
    I truly wish that every American family would be forced to look at pictures of dead civilians and soldiers for hours a day until they puke. Then a shred of the visceral horror and reality of war would come home to the citizenry.
    A just war is just war.

    I wish the fuck that I had never put on a uniform for this country.

  173. May 3, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    Thank you Vet for reminding us of who we are.
    Though I have no shame for wearing the uniform; I do have shame for the backless-liars who use the uniformed as their personal hit-squad.
    One other thing Mitch, if our guys (Navy Seals) were given the mission of bringing Bin Laden back alive, you can bet your ass he’d be in custody right now.

  174. Mr. Nice
    May 3, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    Who got that hydro
    Who got that light green
    Who got that Bobby Brown
    Who got Bin Laden weed

  175. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Ok,

    about this: TORTURE?

    Now, is it God or torture? I ask only cuz God is supposed to be all knowing, all punishing, all healing….that mankind invented religion to honor God(s) because God(s) does the dirty holy-work for truth. Now, if I am not mistaken, is not the military speaking on behalf of God in an Americanized sense….ya know a musket in one hand and a bible in the other wherever they may roam……sorta like emmigration killings in the name of God(s)?

    Hmmmmm, what will be left for God to decide other than a lot of “you started it” kiddy fights……

    Now, I can only wonder with ALL the tax dollars going to truth and fact finding torture techniques, how much money could have been saved refining equipment (like lie detectors); or, simply not sticking America’s nationalistic noses into other nations affairs that serves but a few bad men which then brings about violence because a few bad men create military minions and vasals who follow like sheep and rats.

    Stupidity in, of and by itself the people allows American Imperialisms. America proves more and more each day that it deserves its troubles. Only true national patriots could ever understand:-)!

    JL

  176. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 4, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Mitch and moviedad,

    .Reuters – Osama bin Laden was unarmed when U.S. special forces shot and killed him, the White House said, as it tried to establish whether its ally Pakistan had helped the al Qaeda leader elude a worl…

    U.S. says Osama bin Laden unarmed when shot dead

    Response to 2 headlines above: This is why the constitutional framers knew about the right to bare arms – an unarmed person versus an armed person, with the armed person being politically funded by the unarmed person!

    JL

  177. Mitch
    May 4, 2011 at 8:03 am

    moviedad,

    Again, my opinion about this raid has nothing to do with my opinion of our foreign policy or our general behavior in the world. Personally, I hope Bush and his associates are prosecuted for war crimes.

    The options the current President had were probably bomb the hell out of the house, send in commandos to get bin Laden, or risk losing him.

    I read somewhere that under the rules of engagement that team was working under, bin Laden would have had to be naked to come out alive, because the team needed to know he wasn’t wearing a suicide bomb. That makes sense to me.

    To have killed the world’s most wanted terrorist with so few additional casualties is beyond what I’d imagined our government was capable of accomplishing.

    A few days after 9/11, I sent a letter to the editor hoping that we would not end up killing still more innocent civilians while trying to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice.

    If President Obama (or, likely, anyone but Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove) had been in charge in 2011, thousands upon thousands of completely innocent Iraqis and Afghans would be alive today.

  178. Plain Jane
    May 4, 2011 at 8:11 am

    But thousands of investors in the military industrial complex would be poorer, Mitch; and the right wouldn’t have justification for their draconian cuts to our social safety net. You have to see the bright side of the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld regime.

  179. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 4, 2011 at 8:34 am

    To have killed the world’s most wanted terrorist with so few additional casualties is beyond what I’d imagined our government was capable of accomplishing.

    Response: These capabilities have existed for decades, Mitch. Terrorism is easier to deal with than national/foreign espionage, spy, special ops aainst world leaders, etc…. The fact is, America’s military leadership can make anything look like anything, easy or hard. It is a game, Mitch, that keeps the citizenry going back and forth like a bobble-head doll ona dashboard. Confusion is the key, confusion. Confusion covers-over truths and facts for believable alternative theories or analyses. Leadership is very sinister whereever in the world.

    JL

  180. Mitch
    May 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

    It’s only easy on TV, Henchman. People in the military and intelligence community are not superhuman.

    The reality is this sort of operation is hard and very risky. The military and intelligence communities missed bin Laden under Clinton. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was severely hurt by a helicopter failure when he tried a rescue.

    My personal belief is that if Bush were still sitting in the oval office, this raid would have been done in October, before the Congressional election and before the planners were fully ready or certain. Like everything else the man touched, it would have been a disaster.

  181. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 8:59 am

    Tra-
    I was surprised, interested, and saddened to read that the Muslims in Portland, Oregon were receiving threats. Upon investigation, the Muslim community in Portland, Oregon received no threats. However, a mosque in Portland, Maine was spray painted something that said basically down with Islam and it was mispelled.
    I am commenting on this because it appears that some dipshit kid decided to spray paint on a mosque in some town in the eastern US. You Tra, then go on ranting trying to make a connection showing how biggoted our society is against Muslims and blah, blahh, blah. I know this is a blog but give me a break. Find something worth talking about. Nobdoy threatened the Muslims in Portland, Oregon. Maybe, just maybe, most people get along and like Muslims, Christians, etc. Try finding something that is true and actually happened to try and get pist off about. What a bunch of crap, Tra.

  182. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Teacher,

    I was reacting to the news as it was first reported. The story at TPM was later corrected to indicate that there was no specific threat received in Oregon.

    However, the incident in Portland, Maine was certainly not only anti-Muslim incident that has taken place in this country. Yes, most Americans are not animated by hatred of Muslims, but quite a few are, and unfortunately some of those people are in positions of power and influence.

  183. Plain Jane
    May 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Can’t you tell the difference between hateful graffiti sprayed by a dipshit kid and hateful graffiti sprayed by anti-Muslim bigots, TRA?? And those polls which showed a large majority opposed to mosques being built were all dipshit kids too.

  184. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Tra,
    The story you referenced in your blog didn’t support what you were saying. You made it sound much worse. It that was simple over-sight, I understand. I was just trying to point out the hysteria we create by making situations sound worse than they actually are (i.e. the Muslims in Portland, Oregon aren’t holding a rally out of fear of reprisal from racist biggots).
    Plain Jane-
    Your witty sacrasm is really appreciated. You are king, or queen, of taking something small and trying to show how that represents an entire segment of people (i.e. conservatives don’t like wellfare so conservatives all think that all poor people should die). Your comment was in no way connected with what I was saying. I’ll explain it, and then you can disagree with it because apparently you have already made up your mind that you want to disagree with me today (nobody else to agrue with?). One small anti-Islam incident in Portland, Maine, doesn’t mean that our country is in upheaval and conspiring against Muslims. I think we should be careful before we try to blow things out of proportion ala Fox News and the other television networks.
    Now tell me how I’m wrong and how Rob Arkley is the root cause of all of this.

  185. Plain Jane
    May 4, 2011 at 10:08 am

    • A solid majority (57%) of Americans are opposed to allowing Muslims in New York to build an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. Only about one-third (31%) favor it.

    Strongest opposition: Religious groups most opposed include white evangelical Protestants (75%) and Catholics (63%). Republicans (85%), Americans age 65 or older (67%), and those with a high school education or less (64%) are also solidly opposed.

  186. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Religious people and people with limited education don’t want a mosque built next to the site of the World Trade Center… your point? How does that relate to me telling Tra he was exagerating, possibly unintentionally, about events in Portland, Oregon?

  187. Plain Jane
    May 4, 2011 at 10:17 am

    It relates to your trying to minimize the hatred of Muslims by a majority of the country, Teacher, by claiming (without evidence) that the graffiti was done by a dipshit kid and not one of millions of adult bigots who hate Muslims.

  188. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 4, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Mitch,

    I had no idea you watched television or went to the movies while others are freely thinking and analysing the dribble of information. Do any of us ever really know the “full truths”. Nope! You seem easy to be able to get to trust, watch-out now, here they come for your ok generosity.

    Anyhow, don’t fall for foolishnesses unbecoming that are perpetrated by your own government, Obama, Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, back up the truck. Now, connect WikiLeaks to information that your big, bad American gubbamint don’t want out…… only true patriots have the fortitude to call out its own country’s abuses and question its actions. Funny how country men and women have been trained to love thy country, always, no matter what the circumstances are. Seems to me mankind existed prior to “country”; prior to government; prior to other people telling whomever what to do and how to do it……Yes, a great world we live in, politically not really, but mankind is used to death, so be it.

    JL

  189. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Teacher,

    If you read to the bottom of that TPM story you will see these words:

    Editor’s note: This post has been updated.

    It originally said that the Muslim leaders in Oregoon had received threats. It was later corrected to say that they had not received any specific threats, but that “they called it off after concerns over reprisals.”

    My 5:30 post was written after the original TPM story was posted, but before it was corrected. My “how dare they…” satire was not meant to imply that this is how I think most Americans think about Muslims, it was just intended to ridicule the kind of idiocy that would be involved in threatening Muslims for celebrating the downfall of Bin Laden and for calling for peace and unity.

    Since apparently no specific threats were made, the satire doesn’t really work. But I still think it’s sad that the Muslim leaders felt the need to cancel the event because of “concerns over reprisals.”

    I suppose that in the absence of specific threats, one could argue that they shouldn’t have canceled the event, but I can certainly understand their concerns, based on the overall history of anti-Muslim incidents since 9/11, including some fairly recent ones, and also based on the “really out-there” e-mails that they say they had been receiving after the death of Bin Laden and the announcement of their event.

  190. May 4, 2011 at 10:34 am

    I appreciate your position Mitch. My point is that had the operation been carried out with the purpose of bringing a dangerous criminal to justice alive, and he forced the team to kill him; then it wouldn’t have been murder. The fact that they were specifically ordered to kill him, makes it murder.
    While it’s true that Special Forces are not superhuman, they are pretty damn tricky, and they usually accomplish whatever task is given them. It is up to their commanders to keep it all on the up and up, and not use them to perform crimes for politicians, regardless of who the enemy is.

  191. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 10:35 am

    Sorry, that was supposed to read “Oregon,” not “Oregoon.” Just a typo, not a slur on our northern neighbors!

  192. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Tra,
    In all seriousness, I appreciate the clarification. I’m a Portland, Oregon lover. It has what I perceive as a sophisticated, liberal vibe and to think that Muslims felt threatened there really bothered me. After reading the article, I was happy and wanted to clarify that nobody was threatened and hopefully, Muslims in Portland feel safe and free to express their thoughts.
    I realize that there have been anti-Muslims threats and incidents. In a country our size, there is bound to be ignorant assholes. I think that sometimes the ignorant assholes are highlighted and hyped so it seems like there is a lot of them when in fact their numbers are, hopefully, small.

  193. Fact Checker
    May 4, 2011 at 11:07 am

    “…administration and government officials — both cloaked in anonymity and on the record — provided misleading if not erroneous information about what happened in the al Qaeda leader’s final moments.

    Bin Laden was shielded during the shooting by women, including his wife, they said. He was an active participant in an ongoing firefight, they insisted, implying bin Laden was armed and therefore gave U.S. Navy SEALs little choice but to shoot him down.

    Hours later, a senior administration official began to revise that narrative to some White House reporters. Further revisions came Tuesday when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gave a step-by-step description of the raid provided by the Defense Department that made clear bin Laden was unarmed and had no human shields.”

  194. olmanriver
    May 4, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Makes me want to chant We’re Number 1!

  195. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 11:53 am

    I’m a Portland, Oregon lover. It has what I perceive as a sophisticated, liberal vibe and to think that Muslims felt threatened there really bothered me. After reading the article, I was happy and wanted to clarify that nobody was threatened and hopefully, Muslims in Portland feel safe and free to express their thoughts.

    I, too, was happy to hear that there was no specific threat. I have nothing against Portland Oregon (or Portland, Maine, for that matter). Unfortunately, it sounds like like the Muslim leaders in Portland, Oregon apparetnly do not “feel safe and free to express their thoughts” and this led them to cancel their event.

    I realize that there have been anti-Muslims threats and incidents. In a country our size, there is bound to be ignorant assholes. I think that sometimes the ignorant assholes are highlighted and hyped so it seems like there is a lot of them when in fact their numbers are, hopefully, small.

    I think there’s much truth to that analysis. However, it seems that the number of “ignorant assholes” may not be so small (as indicated by the poll data about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”), though I do think that the number of these assholes who would actually pose a threat to an event such as the one that was planned and then canceled in Portland is hopefully very, very small.

    Still, I have a hard time second-guessing their decision to cancel the event, since I’m not a Muslim and therefore not quite as attuned to the kinds of prejudice and threats to which some American Muslims have been subjected.

  196. Mitch
    May 4, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Mr. Bush has apparently declined an invitation from President Obama for a joint appearance at Ground Zero.

    This video — well worth watching — might have something to do with it. Ardilla thanks you.

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/will-ferrells-president-bush-reacts-to-osama-bin-ladens-death.php?ref=fpb

  197. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    I think that is a stretch to say that because someone opposes putting a mosque at Ground Zero they are an ignorant asshole. Also, did the Muslim leaders in Portland Oregon say they were cancelling the event for safety reasons? I missed that.

  198. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    From the corrected/updated TPM story:

    In Portland, Oregon, Muslims planned to hold a downtown rally Monday to celebrate the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and “call for unity and peace.” But they called it off after concerns over reprisals.

    In Oregon, there wasn’t a direct threat like there was in Maine. But organizers of the unity rally were fearful enough that something bad might go down at the rally that they canceled it .

    “Just the reaction of [Sunday] nights’ news has been different, in different communities and we have been getting emails,” Salma Ahmad, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Portland, which sponsored the event, told KOIN-TV. Some have been supportive – sending best wishes and there are really ‘out there’ emails.'”

    Zafar Hasan, a vice president at the ISGP, told TPM that the group wasn’t threatened directly.

    “We did not get any specific threats,” Hasan said, “we were simply concerned about a potential for something bad to happen especially after reading the reports about the vandalism at the mosque in Portland, Maine.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/oregon-muslims-cancel-bin-laden-death-celebration-after-threats.php

    One can argue that they their fears, and decision to cancel the event, were not justified given that there was no specific threat. But, unless they are outright lying about their reason for canceling the event, it sounds like there is no real question that they canceled it due to safety concerns.

  199. Teacher
    May 4, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Interesting how we all interpret words. “Something bad” could be a negative review in the media or it could be a bomb. It is an extremely vague statement as is “out there emails.” “Out there” doesn’t mean biggoted in my mind. It means some emailed and said, “let’s all protest naked.” I’m really not convinced they cancelled the protest due to safety concerns. If they had said, “we’re cancelling due to safety concerns,” I would believe it but they were careful not to say that.

  200. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I think that is a stretch to say that because someone opposes putting a mosque at Ground Zero they are an ignorant asshole.

    Well first you have to realize that the whole “Ground Zero Mosque” issue is steeped in ignorance. The proposal was never to build a mosque at Ground Zero, it was to build a Muslim Community Center in a private office building a number of blocks away from Ground Zero.

    So, yes, some of the people who got all worked up about that are, in fact, ignorant (I guess I’ll leave out “assholes” which is much more subjective, and I only used it earlier because you brought up the category “ignorant assholes” in your earlier comment).

    But you’re right that at least some of the opponents aren’t ignorant of the facts. For one thing, the “leaders” of the no-mosque-at-Ground-Zero movement know full well that the plans were just for a Muslim Community Center, which was to include, horror of horrors, a “prayer room,” (taking up maybe 1% of the square footage) and that it was not going to be built on the ruins of the WTC at Ground Zero.

    These individuals aren’t necessarily “ignorant,” but obviously they are deeply bigoted, and they have shown themselves all-too-willing to mislead the ignorant in order to whip up a frenzy by claiming that American Muslims are supposedly trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero as a triumphalist monument glorifying the 9/11 attacks.

    This kind of sick, twisted propagandizing in the service of religious bigotry is really quite despicable, and even more disturbing is the number of media outlets willing to give a megaphone and a spotlight to such bigots, not to mention the alarming number of politicians who were willing to pander to ignorant and the bigots by declaring their opposition to the fabled “Ground Zero Mosque.”

  201. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    “Out there” doesn’t mean biggoted in my mind. It means some emailed and said, “let’s all protest naked.”

    Maybe, but doesn’t that seem rather unlikely?

    It seems to me that the statement “we were simply concerned about a potential for something bad to happen especially after reading the reports about the vandalism at the mosque in Portland, Maine” is more suggestive of a concern about anti-Muslim reaction.

    I agree that in “reading between the lines” people may come to different conclusions, but I do think that some readings are more plausible than others.

  202. tra
    May 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Teacher,

    It looks like you may be right that anti-Muslim actions may not have been the only concerns in the minds of those who canceled the event in Portland, Oregon:

    …a Muslim unity rally was canceled in Portland, OR after organizers feared reprisals from both non-Muslims upset over terrorism and Muslims who organizers said might be angry by an event that supported the killing of bin Laden.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/tx-teacher-suspended-after-telling-muslim-student-i-bet-youre-grieving.php?ref=fpblg

    The article through the link is about an incident in Texas, but the very last paragraph includes the text that I’ve quoted here.

  203. skippy
    May 6, 2011 at 8:26 am

    One of the interesting articles recently hitting the web describe the newest US military dogs of war, one of which was more part of the 79 man Navy SEAL operation– although specific details remain hushed.

    Able to sniff out anything from bombs to people (and even Osama, if given the scent) these specially trained dogs are outfitted with body armor, ear radio, infrared camera, and reportedly titanium capped fangs able to rip through both skin and enemy protective armor. They can capture or kill as commanded by their handlers.

    More found in the Daily’s article, Hounded to Death.

  204. Mitch
    May 6, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Titanium capped fangs? Titanium capped fangs?

    I can’t wait for the GOP to get their hands on this in the budget debates.

    “Mr. Speaker, the American people are taxed and taxed and taxed. And why? So that my friends on the other side of the aisle can provide gold-plated dental welfare for dogs! Yes, you heard me right, I have the documents in my hand! This is (yadda yadda yadda)”

  205. skippy
    May 6, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Reading the article with some degree of mixed wonder, horror, and some pride, Mitch, yours truly wasn’t sure exactly what to make of this other than being pleased and somewhat relieved knowing that at least these titanium canines are on our side and not the other.

  206. robash141
    May 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    I can scarcely imagine a more deserving fate for Osama bin Laden than to be hunted down like an animal and flushed out by titanium fanged dogs. summarily Shot down and dumped in the ocean.
    Sorry peaceniks.This is where we ,at least temporarily, part company. This guy was a proven enemy of our country who was reponsible for the death of thousands of our citizens who openly wished and prayed for all Americans to die. Since he’s wishing me dead it’s not unnatural that I would feel a certain amount of grim satisfaction when Osama finally gets his.
    I can agree that the celebrations in the street were kind of icky and triumphalist but that’s just bad taste certainly not because I had any misplaced concern for the welfare of Osama bin Laden. The punk definitely had it coming!
    And please don’t run any more of this MLK/Ghandi/John Lennon at me it’s not working . They were all great visionary men no doubt. But perhaps I’d rather emulate the example of someone who didn’t wind up getting shot in the head. Be honest with yourselves, how many of you would be willing to face the prospect of sudden violent death for your beliefs? If not , why would you insist that I should ?
    Those great Men I mentioned all deserved a better fate of course but Osama bin Laden got exactly what was coming to him.
    You know who would have been better off following the example of Martin Luther King and Gandhi? Osama bin Laden that’s who. But instead he chose a life path that was all about warfare fanaticism gore and terror. So his life met an entirely appropriately gory and violent ending.

  207. ClintonOn
    December 25, 2014 at 12:14 am

    The glut could possibly be longer for states that need foreclosures, which includes Florida but non-judicial foreclosure states like Nevada could take a shorter time resolving their inventory.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s