May 2, 2011

"I'd have strongly preferred that Osama bin Laden be captured rather than killed so that he could be tried for his crimes and punished in accordance with due process...."

Glenn Greenwald hews to lefty principles.
But if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the U.S. military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture. 
Read that again and try to picture the scenario in Greenwald's dream of justice.
But those are legalities and they will be ignored even more so than usual. The 9/11 attack was a heinous and wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, and it's understandable that people are reacting with glee over the death of the person responsible for it. I personally don't derive joy or an impulse to chant boastfully....
Greenwald primly eschews "the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice."

I think there are many, many Americans, including myself, who experienced not glee and paroxysms of patriotism but a dignified sense of closure, a calm reaffirmation of confidence in our military, and simple but strong approval of the continued determination of the executive branch of government.

94 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Too bad for Greenwald that Obama disagreed. The mission was to kill him.

David said...

Apparently they tried to capture him, but I bet they did not try for long.

And baby, this is due process--the only process this man was entitled to.

Mary Beth said...

Just over a year ago Eric Holder said that bin Laden would not be tried because he would not be captured alive. The man deserved the chance to be right once in his career.

Scott M said...

He didn't live long enough to see what's going to happen to Conan's beard, though, did he?

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Liberals are addicted to that "I'm on the high road" feeling, ain't they?

It trumps all.

Ooh, I said ....Trump.

traditionalguy said...

He is making that up, I hope. Any real American who visited the hole in the ground in lower Manhattan has had only one thought, "this is not over yet". Call that need retribution or whatever, but it is actually the foundation of civil order that makes peace possible.

Thomas said...

Greenwald must be disappointed that the FBI wasn't involved, and there was no attempt to arrest bin Laden. In the long argument between law enforcement responses versus military respones, law enforcement responses just lost, overwhelmingly.

There are a few loose ends though. Obama said that bin Laden was killed "after" the firefight. "After"? Really? One report today made it sound as if he was killed by gunshot to the head from close range. Double tap was the phrase used. That's an execution, not a military action.

Patrick said...

Greenwald's erstwhile hero gave orders to kill, not capture Bin Laden. No due process, no interrogation or even interview. Just BANG, BANG, you're dead.
Which is the right approach. My approach, which would be wrong, would have involved more humiliation of that bastard.

nonapod said...

You see clearly he is morally superior to all of us who react with jubilation at the news of the death of a mass murderer. His reaction is nuanced and measured.

John said...

He is making that up, I hope.

No. Greenwald really is that vile and self absorbed. It is all about him and his feelings of superiority and his ability to take the high road. He is the most loathsome douchebag posting on the internet. At least Andrew Sullivan has the excuse of being mentally unbalanced. Greenwald is just a shithead and has no excuse.

ironrailsironweights said...

Obama is thinking to himself, "This is all well and good, but I really wish the election were a month or two away."

Peter

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Double tap was the phrase used. That's an execution, not a military action.

Yeah it is…it’s fairly standard combat shooting, for the skilled marksperson…most of us aim Centre of Mass, it’s a big, vital target, but not GUARANTEED of Quick Kill…if you’re good you double-tap your opponent…I’ve heard triple-tapping, two eyes and a round between the eyes….a head shot is ALWAYS preferable to anything else. SEALS, Rangers, “Green Berets” and certain other Special Operations troops certainly understand this and use it…and “Double Tap” really means you just put two rounds into your target, irrespective of aim point.

msm55skm said...

Public embarrassment warning: Cranial space showing. Obama made a show to the world that convicted him. The trial was over then. This is not Perry Mason.

Freeman Hunt said...

An example of someone who really does think we are the police of the world.

It's not a police action, genius.

There should be glee. Glee that terrorists can never rest, that they will be hunted and found no matter how long it takes.

Phil 3:14 said...

Well I appreciate Mr. Greenwald's consistency of principle.

I disagree with him, though.

Chuck66 said...

It worked for Eichmann 50 years ago. Now a trial would have been a circus.

Original Mike said...

"Apparently they tried to capture him,"

I'd be very surprised if they were not told, "no matter what, do NOT capture him."

Then again, it is Obama giving the orders.

Scott M said...

“Double Tap” really means you just put two rounds into your target, irrespective of aim point.

Contrary to movies, video games and gansta culture, "double tap" does NOT mean firing twice quickly or on auto. It simply means two rounds.

The first round fired, especially in handguns, severely affects the aim of the second. Sounds good, looks good, hits the target badly.

MayBee said...

Well I appreciate Mr. Greenwald's consistency of principle.

What exactly that principle is, is an open question. He is consistent in being anti-Israel and not so keen on American action.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

I don't agree with him, but I too have come to respect Greenwald for being consistent. He's one of the few on the left that extends the Bush criticisms to Obama.

Leland said...

If only the military had surrounded Obama, told him to come out with his hands up, and then played Springsteen and Billy Joel on loud speakers until he complied, then maybe he and Manuel Noriega could swap stories at La Sante' Prison.

MayBee said...

but I too have come to respect Greenwald for being consistent.

He isn't consistent. He does not hold America's and Israel's enemies to any standard at all.

がんこもん said...

Greenwald is a fool. But then we all knew that already. Even Obama must have realized (or had one of his advisors who has a modicrum of actual understanding) tell him that trying to capture bin Laden would not be worth it. Look at the circus that occurred with KSM - a much lesser figure. The Democrats and the Left would make a huge hue and cry about his 'rights'. The Press would moan about 'torture' and the Left in general would complain far more about his rights than the rights of his victims - a common failing on the Left. And frankly, I don't trust the courts - they lack any real understanding or expertise in military or battlefield operations and after the ludicrous Boumedienne decision, they cannot be trusted with unlawful combatants like bin Laden.

Another point is that bin Laden is not subject to US civil or criminal courts. He is, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, an unlawful combatant and as such he does not rate POW treatment. If captured, he should be interrogated and then summarily shot. Period. Just like pirates used to be since they are analogous in their lack of legitimate combatant standing.

So in my humble opinion, capturing bin Laden would not have been a good move considering the international outcry. With him dead, the Left and our enemies abroad have no such point of focus.

In conclusion, good for Obama - at least he did the right thing here and gave orders to go get the target and kill, not capture. Kudos to the guys who went in and did it too. Excellent execution in all respects - unlike Carter's adventure in Iran. And that is another thing to point out - without the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, we probably wouldn't have been able to pull this operation off.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The first round fired, especially in handguns, severely affects the aim of the second. Sounds good, looks good, hits the target badly.

That’s what Kill Houses and Simunition and hours of training are all about…..THOSE folks practice the double tap….and can make it work.

Scott M said...

THOSE folks practice the double tap….and can make it work.

Army and Air Force spec ops troops look down on rapid double-taps as cowboy/Dirty Harry bullshit.

Henry said...

@MayBee -- He's consistent in the limited sense of applying the same misjudgements to both Bush and Obama.

That's a lot more than most leftists can say.

MayBee said...

@MayBee -- He's consistent in the limited sense of applying the same misjudgements to both Bush and Obama.

That's fine, but why respect it? Did you respect OBL for the consistency of hating three US Presidents?

Greenwald's misjudgments are against America. Yipee! Consistency.

dbp said...

It would have been better to capture Osama alive. Had there been no resistance to the raid, I have full confidence OBL would have been captured alive.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
E.M. Davis said...

Double tap was the phrase used. That's an execution, not a military action.

How the hell would Greenwald have any clue about either?

PatCA said...

I agree, Ann, it was not glee. It was the same feeling when the Berlin Wall came down. We won, at least one big battle.

Those college kids out screaming with joy have had a cloud over their lives for 10 years. Now they have hope.

Best video is from the Naval Academy: http://tinyurl.com/3eptsmy

J said...

Due Process is "lefty"? Nyet. Whether one approves of Greenwald or not, OBL arguably deserved a trial, tho obviously he wasn't likely to come along quietly (it wasn't proven beyond a reasonsble doubt that OBL ordered 9--11).

The teabuggers are all about the principles of the US-Con--except the bothersome ones that get in the way of cops, CIA, military, etc

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)
Army and Air Force spec ops troops look down on rapid double-taps as cowboy/Dirty Harry bullshit.

That’s not what they taught me at JSOC. Just kiddn’, after all anyone can claim anything…All I can say is I’ve read a great deal about double taps, and not at Soldier of Fortune (Is that still published, BTW?).

PatCA said...

Another thing that must rankle the left is the sight of the multiracial, multicultural crowd of youth all celebrating America's victory. I even saw video of a Gay American talking about how proud he is and a Muslim girl talking about how righteous it all was.

They're way ahead of you, Gleen. The times, they are a-changin'.

Quaestor said...

Patrick wrote: My approach, which would be wrong, would have involved more humiliation of that bastard.

No, not wrong, merely out of fashion. Humiliation is a suitable component of just punishment. In Bin Laden's case being hauled naked to the gallows and then given a slow rope -- public humiliation followed by painful death -- now that's meaningful punishment.

edutcher said...

Agree with dbp, but only to waterboard him and get any useful intel we could.

Holding him would have been more trouble than it was worth. Anyone who remembers the 70s recalls how terrorists regularly carried out ops in the name of freeing their brothers in resistance.

J said...

Due Process is "lefty"? Nyet. Whether one approves of Greenwald or not, OBL arguably deserved a trial, tho obviously he wasn't likely to come along quietly (it wasn't proven beyond a reasonsble doubt that OBL ordered 9--11).

The teabuggers are all about the principles of the US-Con--except the bothersome ones that get in the way of cops, CIA, military, etc


What part of, "We're at war", and, "Enemy combatant", eludes these people?

TWM said...

"The first round fired, especially in handguns, severely affects the aim of the second. Sounds good, looks good, hits the target badly."

IDK, I practice double-taps often and my second round stays very close to where the first one hit. They are fine for center-mass. Not as good for a head shot.

Quaestor said...

J evidently doesn't know what "reasonable doubt" means. Typical.

J said...

These people?


What part of Due Process eludes you, Edu the macho man. For that matter what war was declared? Maybe like try a big print of Greenwald's essay and respond to his points instead of the ...Rush Limblow, or Larry the Cable guy routine, Edu. Though admittedly that would require a bit of reason--so unlikely-- Limblow it, Educita

MadisonMan said...

I suspect Greenwald wanted Obama caught alive just so he could write columns about it. Think of the inches he could get -- the columns would write themselves!

Now he has to find a different topic on which to bloviate.

J said...

11: 22 in fact I do, Quaestor- chester. And also understand the US Military is not, and should not be in charge of the DoJ (or UN, or Hague for that matter).

Now get down wit yr bad chickenhawk selves, A-house.

holdfast said...

FWIW, I learned double-tap in the context of putting two rapid rifle rounds in the approximate direction of the source of incoming fire, as part of an "immediate action" drill. Those are not aimed fire, but rather something quick to distract the bad guy while you get down, find some cover and start planning your next move.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
What part of Due Process eludes you, Edu the macho man. For that matter what war was declared?
Since the Small Pathetic Voice is trying to be reasonable today here goes. “Due Process” is a CIVIL CONCEPT, not a wartime one, and one that ONLY applies to US citizens or to those residing WITHIN the United States. So trotting out the US Constitution for a foreign national, residing in Pakistan is quite the over-reach….Next as to War Being Declared….did the Small Pathetic Voice miss the AUMF as it relates to Afghanistan, passed in 2001? We DID “declare war” Small Pathetic Voice.

Quaestor said...

The only reason to use the "double tap" method is when the weapon used fires a small sub-sonic projectile. The SEAL's often use a waterproof suppressed version of the Ruger Mk.II which fires a reduced speed .22 rimfire. The AWC TM-Amphibian S, as this weapon is known, is no louder than a BB pistol. The action of the bolt is noisier than the bullet. The "double tap into the fatal T" is the preferred method with that gun.

However witnesses reported loud explosions, probably flash-bangs, so "silencers" probably weren't used in this raid.

J said...

Small and pathetic? why that's the bum sephardic shit
that fathered you, Joey Kissinger

Yr queer Bo Gritz act even more pathetic than yr usual verbal excrement, AIPAC trash

get the fock offline, satanists

Quaestor said...

Oh, the FBI is going to serve a warrant on Bin Laden in Islamabad? You're a lightweight, J.

MayBee said...

However witnesses reported loud explosions, probably flash-bangs, so "silencers" probably weren't used in this raid.

I assumed those were the blasts used to destroy the downed helicopter.

Quaestor said...

J wrote: Small and pathetic? why that's the bum sephardic shit
that fathered you, Joey Kissinger


Caught with his pants down J reverts to anti-semitic spew. Typical.

J said...

Capichay Joey excrement?

CHinga to madre, basura

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Since the Small Pathetic Voice is back to SOP, “Goodbye Small Pathetic Voice”.

J said...

FUCK YOU SATAN, and yr fat bag of queer shit leader Lmbaugh


thats all Asshouse needs to know

MayBee said...

Via Jake Tapper:
The process of his burial at sea was done in accordance with Muslim law -- a Muslim seaman conducted the process and said the proper prayers, with bin Laden's body wrapped in the appropriate way.

Administration officials say it's important to do this so as to not inflame the Muslim world.


The admin has said it was done out of fear, and not out of principle of who we are.
They fear that not burying a killer of Muslims within 24 hours, or his body handled by a non-Muslim cleric, will inflame people who do not support terrorism at all.
Why?

Quaestor said...

I assumed those were the blasts used to destroy the downed helicopter.

Possibly. I must find and re-read that report. I think there were other sounds of fighting reported as well.

Oh, shit. Now I read that Bin laden was given a "religious funeral." I wonder if the presiding imam reminded Allah of his martyr status. This kowtowing to so-called Muslim sensibilities has Obama's incompetent fingerprints all over it.

Kirk Parker said...

ScottM,

No, that's exactly what it does mean. You don't have any experience with defensive handgun shooting, do you?

Quaestor said...

This is being to resemble a "nothing personal, strictly business" mob hit. What next, are we sending a formal tribute to the family Luciano style?

TML said...

"primly eschews" Just fucking awesome. I love that. I can SEE that prim eschewment right in my mind.

Scott M said...

No, that's exactly what it does mean. You don't have any experience with defensive handgun shooting, do you?

Some, about six months, actually. But that's not how I come about my opinion on the matter. My brother has been an Army Spec Ops troop for nearly twenty years. A couple of close friends from the AF went combat controller on their second tour and they back up what he's told me.

Firing a couple rounds while seeking cover isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about aimed shots at an engaged target. That was my understanding, at least.

Robert Cook said...

"Greenwald's erstwhile hero gave orders to kill, not capture Bin Laden."

Your assumptions are showing, as well as your unfamiliarity with Greenwald. Although Greenwald has been complimentary of Obama here and there, particularly early in his term before it became clear Obama would just be Bush redux, Greenwald is mostly brutally critical of Obama, as he should be. Obama is no hero, except to the naive or foolish.

Robert Cook said...

"An example of someone who really does think we are the police of the world.

"It's not a police action, genius."


If you're referring to Greenwald, and if this is your takeaway from his spot on column, you win today's No Prize for willful misreading of that which is clarity itself.

(Hint: if there's someone who does not consider America to be the world's police force, it is Greenwald, one of our most valuable public commenters of the day.)

Robert Cook said...

"It worked for Eichmann 50 years ago. Now a trial would have been a circus."

Yes, because Osama was so much more evil and deadly than Eichmann.

Quaestor said...

The "double tap" is largely a myth propagated by bogus hitman manuals and Hollywood... however...

The point of using a suppressed pistol like the AWC TM-Amphibian S is to kill silently. If you shoot a near-silent bullet into your target and he screams out in pain because you haven't killed him instantly defeats the purpose of the expensive clandestine kill weapon, therefore two or more rapid fire shots into the medulla is the best practice.

In WWII the SOE/OSS developed a super-silent anti-sentry weapon which derived from a single shot target pistol. Without the moving parts found in an auto-loader design it was as quiet as any gun ever made, but the inability to rapidly follow-up with a second shot made the gun impractical in the field.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook -- Under what law are you going to try politicians for war crimes? Statute please.

jerryofva said...

Why the double tap? It wasn't because of the recoil. One of the cited reasons that we went to the Beretta 9mm was that it has less recoil and is therefore more accurate than the M1911. The other reasons were standardization within NATO (everybody else used 9mm) and the all important "we will buy the Beretta and you will buy F-16s." With a 9mm it often takes two or three round 9mm to do the work of one 45 round. (The typical 9mm round is 115 grains while the 45 ACP comes in at a robust 230) I own both guns and I will say that you can make the second shot with the M1911 as accurate as the first with a 9mm but your rate of fire with the 45 will be slower because of the larger recoil.

The reason he got two rounds was probably firing doctrine. Overkill is the norm in military operations. That's why we use fully automatic capable assault rifles. Beyond 200 yards trained infantry equipped with good old fashion M1s will send any attacking force to ground with accurate semi-automatic fire from a medium caliber rifle. I'd even bet on troops armed with an '03 Springfield in more or less open terrain over troops equipped with M-4s. The purpose of small arms fire is actually to drive the enemy to ground so you can call in indirect fire from mortars and artillery to kill him. Small arms are the primary killing agent only when you get to close combat. That’s when full auto is more effective then aimed fire.

jerryofva said...

Mr. Cook:

Eichmann was captured 16 years after the war ended. That's why he got a trial. Technically his abduction was illegal under international law since Israel had no extradition treaty with Argentina. He was kidnapped by the Mossad and not legally arrested.

Had we gone after him during the war we would have gotten the same treatment as Osama. That's what happened to his boss Reinhardt Heydrich

Quaestor said...

Eichmann was living alone in a shack without even hot water or an indoor toilet. The Mosad was able to take him alive because nobody in Argentina gave a shit. They didn't even complain about the illegal extradition because they were embarrassed by the fact a wanted Nazi was living safely in their country, something the Peronist government had vigorously denied. Bin Laden lived in a mansion within a walled compound with armed guards, security video, and very likely the protection of the Paki ISI. If practical he would have been taken alive and Obama would have insisted on it, seeing as he's so sensitive to the complaints of bleeders like Robert Cook.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yes, because Osama was so much more evil and deadly than Eichmann.

Thankfully Osama just lacked the tools that Eichmann had available.

edutcher said...

J said...

These people?

What part of Due Process eludes you, Edu the macho man. For that matter what war was declared?


Apparently, everything eludes J, including coherence.

Oh, and declaration of war has nothing to do with this. A bunch of guys named Lee and Davis and Jackson could tell J that, if he ever learns to read a history book.

Quaestor said...

Under what law are you going to try politicians for war crimes? Statute please.

The law of his fevered imagination, which in Robert Cook's fantasy land trumps reality.

Quaestor said...

Maybee wrote: Administration officials say it's important to [bury Bin Laden according to Islamic law] so as to not inflame the Muslim world.

Really? What a bunch of hopeless dolts.

Robert Cook said...

"Thankfully Osama just lacked the tools that Eichmann had available."

Yeah, Boy Howdy!

But then, that's part of the point. Osama and Al Qaeda never had those tools and they never were much of a real threat to us, if we're talking about threats on the order of the Nazi war machine, or Soviet Russia at their height, (although, even at their height, the Soviets always lagged behind us in military power).

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
But then, that's part of the point. Osama and Al Qaeda never had those tools and they never were much of a real threat to us, if we're talking about threats on the order of the Nazi war machine
*WOW* Ok, there you go, but if you are going to use the phrase “threat to us” I would most humbly submit that Hitler, and Himmler were NO THREAT TO US, either, but because WWII is Leftist Approved we never address that (Editor Note: I am NOT a Pat Buchanan Paleo-Con, I just hate when people toss out that something might be OK in WWII because the Nazi’s were a threat to the US. No they weren’t. Doesn’t mean we oughtn’t have fought them just means that Hitler et. al. weren’t planning on marching down Pennsylvania Avenue any time soon.) You don’t have to be a threat to the US to merit elimination.

Kirk Parker said...

ScottM,

If that's what they say, I have no reason to dispute that.

But I've seen plenty of shooters perform like the earlier commenter described--not just by competitors, but members of our local SWAT team too, as well as seeing it taught by the folks at Firearms Academy of Seattle.

(For myself, I'm satisfied just to manage well-aimed shots...)

Hoosier Daddy said...

But then, that's part of the point. Osama and Al Qaeda never had those tools and they never were much of a real threat to us, if we're talking about threats on the order of the Nazi war machine, or Soviet Russia at their height,

I see. So what you're arguing then is that as long as some terrorist group isn't able to pile up a bodycount into the millions then we don't have to worry about them.

(although, even at their height, the Soviets always lagged behind us in military power).

Um, what? I know you tend to opine from a different dimension but the Soviets always outnumbered us from a conventional standpoint.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I see. So what you're arguing then is that as long as some terrorist group isn't able to pile up a bodycount into the millions then we don't have to worry about them.
That would be my read of it….UNLESS you’re killing lots of people, but the people at risk weren’t Americans, you’re not a threat…to sum up, kill a bunch of Poleas and Cooke is all for stopping you, but kill a few thousand AMERICANS, will no big deal.

The US-Soviet “balance” was always dynamic and somewhat asymmetric….It is true that from 1945 until well into the 1980’s the US and NATO were outnumbered, HOWEVER, from 1945 until say about 1968, the US and NATO had “Escalation Dominance”. Yes the T-54 was a very good tank and they had 15,000 of them, but we had a large number of theatre nuclear weapons and the capacity to First Strike the USSR…NATO held escalation dominance, at no level beyond conventional combat could the USSR threaten the US or its allies.

Aft circa 1968 this began to change, no doubt. But by 1979 the US and NATO were developing a robust Conventional Defense, that by the time of Desert Storm was demonstrated to be quite superior to Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). The WTO couldn’t win a conventional fight, and there was “parity” at the theatre and strategic nuclear level, making combat reasonably unlikely.

Depending on what you counted either NATO or the WTO were “dominant” at any given time, but no grouping ever held a clear-cut dominance long enough to profit from it, militarily.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"I see. So what you're arguing then is that as long as some terrorist group isn't able to pile up a bodycount into the millions then we don't have to worry about them."

No...obviously you don't see, as I'm not arguing that at all. My argument is that our reaction to and scare-mongering about Al Qaeda was always greatly disproportionate to any legitimate threat they ever presented. This does not at all mean they were not dangerous, but the danger they presented never warranted the level of response we mounted and still maintain.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
This does not at all mean they were not dangerous, but the danger they presented never warranted the level of response we mounted and still maintain.
How many Americans and their structures need to die and/or be destroyed Cookie before this level of response is “warranted?” I mean Adolf Hitler didn’t kill a SINGLE American (Civilian) prior to 9 December 1941, and yet we flattened much of Italy, France and Germany to defeat him….

AlphaLiberal said...

I have no beef with anyone who wants to see the law followed and held up as the best possible solution to conflict. Strange that Althouse would.

I took no glee from OBL's killing, either, though my TV showed me many who did. More like the reaction Ann describes of closure.

And, just maybe Ann, the situation does not really call for searching for arguments to beat up "the left" with. Maybe we don't have to attack each other at all. Please allow that consideration.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Let’s be honest Cookie, more Americans, civilian and military, died of Diphtheria or Polio, in 1941, than died at Pearl Harbor, what was the big deal? And the Japanese harboured NO intention of attacking the US mainland, gave no indication that they intended to, in any way, interfere with the economic or political life of the United States. I really think the effort mounted and sustained, was “unwarranted” don’t you?

Hoosier Daddy said...

No...obviously you don't see, as I'm not arguing that at all. My argument is that our reaction to and scare-mongering about Al Qaeda was always greatly disproportionate to any legitimate threat they ever presented.

Well then thats because your tolerance for American casualties is a lot higher than mine. Personally I think destroying two skycrapers and killing 3000 civilians warranted the response we gave in Afghanistan and not a strongly worded condemnation.

Fen said...

Robert Cook: My argument is that our reaction to and scare-mongering about Al Qaeda was always greatly disproportionate to any legitimate threat they ever presented

True. The odds that their next attack would be a WMD (sarin, ricin, nuke by proxy) is about as remote as... taking down the World Trade Center with box cutters.

You're such an idiot.

Fen said...

Robert Cook: (Hint: if there's someone who does not consider America to be the world's police force, it is Greenwald, one of our most valuable public commenters of the day, has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog

A Glenn of Sockpuppets!

Skeptical said...

So suppose Bin Laden had walked outside with his hands behind his head. If folks here are suggesting that the proper response to that is to give him a bullet between the eyes, then we have really come to a sad point. This is independent of whether to think of him as a criminal in need of due process. When you kill someone who could be taken alive, and who is not posing a threat to you, then you are a murderer. End of story. The rejection of that principle brought down the twin towers.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
If folks here are suggesting that the proper response to that is to give him a bullet between the eyes, then we have really come to a sad point.
I guess we’d just have to say, “In that split second I couldn’t tell if he was surrendering or reaching for a shoulder holster/throwing knife.”

paul a'barge said...

I think there are many, many Americans, including myself, who experienced not glee and paroxysms of patriotism but a dignified sense of closure, a calm reaffirmation of confidence in our military, and simple but strong approval of the continued determination of the executive branch of government.

Not me.

I experienced glee and paroxysms of patriotism.

And you're not better than me for it, either.

Cedarford said...

dbp said...
It would have been better to capture Osama alive. Had there been no resistance to the raid, I have full confidence OBL would have been captured alive.

==================
I don't see 10 years of 100s of millions spent on "due process" and "Rule of Law" followed by 10 more years on death row as an optimum process.

Unless you think we would have forcefully interrogated Binnie to get all the names of his ME financiers, his Paki ISI protectors, and location of the brains of the bunch - Ayman al-Zawahiri.
But Obama and "Great War Hero" McCain ruled out any sort of tough interrogation...saying the only way such as Binnie would give valuable information up is if we "befriended Binnie, and won his trust and friendship."

Given that, a true as practiced in the field "double tap" was fine. Meaning one to the chest and when you walk up, one right between the eyes at close range to finish the enemy.

Robert Cook said...

"How many Americans and their structures need to die and/or be destroyed Cookie before this level of response is “warranted?” I mean Adolf Hitler didn’t kill a SINGLE American (Civilian) prior to 9 December 1941, and yet we flattened much of Italy, France and Germany to defeat him…."

A ridiculous false equivalency. Hitler had a powerful war machine and he had already conquered large parts of Europe by 1941, and he seemed well-set to continue his conquests unimpeded. Al Qaeda were a ragged band of stateless terrorists, with no war machine at all and little hope of ever matching again an attack on us of the magnitude of 9/11, which succeeded against all odds and largely because we were taken by surprise. I work mere blocks from the World Trade Center and after that day, I thought to myself, "Well, they've blown their wad. They've done the worst they can ever do to us."

I've always thought the hysterical fear that the Muslim hordes were going to overtake us and kill all Americans was pathological.

Robert Cook said...

"The odds that their next attack would be a WMD (sarin, ricin, nuke by proxy) is about as remote as... taking down the World Trade Center with box cutters."

No...far more remote.

jerryofva said...

skeptical:

At the end of the war in Europe there many cases where Allied soldiers shot disarmed and surrendered SS Guards. Was that a rejection of all we stood for in WWII?

Quaestor said...

lablumI have a highly placed source who has shared an opinion with me, an opinion based on confidential intelligence bulletins. I won't give more details regarding my source.

Here's the reason Bin Laden was killed rather than captured: According to interrogations of several Al-Qaeda captives after his escape from Tora Bora OBL took to wearing an explosive vest so that if in imminent danger of capture he could detonate himself and take at least a few of his would-be captors with him. At first when the question where is Bin Laden? was subject of nightly news reports here in the USA, he wore the vest 24/7, removing it only to bathe, because the Americans seemed preoccupied with locating him. Later, when American forces appeared to have lost control of Iraq to Al-Qaeda OBL stopped wearing the suicide vest as a matter of routine.

The reason for the change in habit?
1) Wearing the vest communicated fear to his subordinates, not wearing the vest encouraged confidence.
2) In 2007 OBL got a fourth wife, a 16 year old Yemeni woman who was terrified of explosives and resisted his advances if the vest was on his person or nearby.
3) In 2009 OBL received a second kidney transplant which made wearing heavy tight-fitting garments very painful.
(Reasons 2 and 3 are less supported than reason 1.)

Whatever the reason after 2007 OBL would only wear his suicide vest when he made public appearances, which was fairly often. In return for their protection OBL repaid the Taliban by making personal appearances in reliable towns and villages in Waziristan, sometimes at a mosque to give a sermon, other times at a wedding or funeral. These visits would always generate donations and recruits. Whenever he appeared in public OBL wore the vest; his bodyguards also wore explosive vests so it was well understood that any attempt on his life or liberty would result in mass death.

The long and the short, unless surprised in his home while having sex with his child bride there was there was a good chance OBL couldn't be taken alive.

So why not kill him with a drone-launched Hellfire and not risk American lives? OBL had often predicted that he eventually would be killed by a drone. He couched these predictions in religious terms saying that Allah had preordained a martyr's death for him at the hands of infidels too cowardly to confront him face to face.

wv: susnish - a small kosher snack of raw fish

Quaestor said...

Where did "lablum" come from? Blogger is on crack today.

Methadras said...

This is the best possible outcome. To allow Bin Laden to live, transported to NYC, to be put on trial is to watch a new invigoration of AQ by reigniting his call for jihad for another 3 - 5 years while waiting for the death penalty, only to have that drag on for another 30 years or more. Due process was served you spineless leftards and it was the best possible option. Why do leftards summarily ignore that evil actually exists in the world and when confronted with it, wish to give it due process?

Fen said...

Here's the reason Bin Laden was killed rather than captured...

Thanks Q. Good post.