# Osama Bin Laden is Dead!!!



## Trebor (May 1, 2011)

it's confirmed, Osama Bin Laden has been killed

Osama bin Laden is dead, U.S. confirms | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2011)

Hmmm...something doesn't smell right here. I can't put my finger on it, but something is amiss.


----------



## Trebor (May 1, 2011)

Osama bin Laden is dead - CBS News


----------



## Erich (May 1, 2011)

maybe ..............

the clown is just one cog in the wheel of evil

what is the big deal anyway, think about whom will replace him and already has probably last year when we thought he was obliterated off the planet.


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2011)

Very true, Erich. You get rid of one rat and another will take its place. It just seems too clean and too easy. I know I don't have access to all the info, but this one seems too sterile. Maybe I'm just becoming a cynical old fart.


----------



## Torch (May 1, 2011)

May he rot in hell,this will turn political for personal benefit,as Erich states Osama's shoes will be filled 1000 times before this will end.


----------



## razor1uk (May 1, 2011)

Apparently a small team went in, had a firefight without loss, killed him when he resisted - at least to go in and kill, not rescue always gets better odds less chances of blue on blue. They captured his body to identify (and maybe give it back ti his famly secretly) later. It was in Rupindi province well inside Pakistan.

So this would mean that the US could now with its reason d'guerre completed, pull out of Afghanistan /or Iraq tommorrow if it wanted to.
But as good as it is, who's next inline for Alkida, will this splinter its 'cells' further underground, create a martyr for extremists, give more reason to let some Saudi/UAE/Bahrainian/USGov dealings escape general media notice, or any of these and many others?


----------



## evangilder (May 2, 2011)

Taking out the figurehead for Al Qaida will not lead to a pull out of Afghanistan. Iraq is already in drawdown mode. He was one cockroach out of many in the kitchen.


----------



## Pong (May 2, 2011)

I heard Navy SEALs killed him.


----------



## Trebor (May 2, 2011)

yes, but he was the head roach. there is no doubt someone may take his place, and that a retaliation may follow. and they did say that it is not over. but I will remain optimistic that with the death of Bin Laden, things will get better.


----------



## Wildcat (May 2, 2011)

Good ridance, its been a long time in coming...


----------



## BikerBabe (May 2, 2011)

_Thank you_ USA, for wiping this worthless piece of SH*T off the face of the earth!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 2, 2011)

What's really pissing me off about all this, is that obama is getting all these props from people everywhere. He had nothing to do with this. The U.S. military (originally deployed by President Bush) achieved the mission objective.

On top of that, now is the time to really be on guard, there will surely be reprisals by his followers...hopefully we can send a few of 'em along to keep bin ladin company...


----------



## BikerBabe (May 2, 2011)

I bet that a LOT of military and intelligence people are _damned _busy right now...


----------



## B-17engineer (May 2, 2011)

Hell I don't care if theres gonna be another tomorrow. Just the significance of him makes my Monday a whole lot better.


----------



## Maximowitz (May 2, 2011)

Serves him right for putting his real address on the Playstation network.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 2, 2011)

I'm very glad to hear that this has finally happened. Couldn't happen to a more deserving douchebag! That being said, this is nowhere near being finished. Either he's been grooming replacements, knowing that it was just a matter of time before we closed the book on him for good, and this individual is going to step into the gap with a series of violent and sudden attacks within the next week or so, or else binLaden has been playing it paranoid and there is nobody waiting in line, at which point it breaks down into a bunch of isolated cells fighting for control, setting off attacks at random times and with no warning to the others (including our own intel assets) until another strong leader materializes out of the ashes to reunite al Quida. Either way....its gonna get REAL busy for our troops and intel boffins real soon. My salutes to those who got him (they all deserve medals!), and my prayers to those still over there who will have to handle the aftermath.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2011)

Glad the son of bitch is dead! He recieved what he deserved.

This however will not mean the end in terrorism. It is only going to get worse. Bin Ladin is now a Martyr and I expect bad things to happen now.


----------



## mudpuppy (May 2, 2011)

I think you're thoughts of independent cells carrying out reprisal attacks is the worst danger for us and our allies right now, RA. 
There are troubling aspects of these reports for me: that he was found in a town dominated by the Pakistani military that the BBC described as similar to the US's West Point; and that his body was buried at sea. There are serious questions to be answered from the first and the conspiracy theorists will have a field day with the second.

Without a doubt, I am thrilled that justice has been served and I'm glad there won't be some "martyrs tomb" for him out in the desert. 
Derek


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> What's really pissing me off about all this, is that obama is getting all these props from people everywhere. He had nothing to do with this. The U.S. military (originally deployed by President Bush) achieved the mission objective.



Lets be fair here...

Actually, Obama gave the order to do the mission. I give the man props to have the balls to send a mission into Pakistan to take him out.


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2011)

yeah, that an impressive effort on its own. Apparently they have buried him at sea already. That was a bit curious IMO. It also almost certainly means he was taken out by a Navy special forces group.

Well done fellas.......


----------



## buffnut453 (May 2, 2011)

Burial at sea makes perfect sense - no grave for fanatics to turn into a shrine. That said, the US Govt will have to release piccies (unless they already have - don't have TV where I live!) to at least attempt to put conspiracy theories to bed.


----------



## mudpuppy (May 2, 2011)

Did you see this? "Blogger tweets attack on Osama bin Laden"
Blogger 'tweets' attack on Osama bin Laden



> An IT consultant in the Pakistan city of Abbottabad was an Internet celebrity on Monday after unwittingly providing a real-time account of the attack that killed Osama bin Laden.


----------



## Thorlifter (May 2, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lets be fair here...
> 
> Actually, Obama gave the order to do the mission. I give the man props to have the balls to send a mission into Pakistan to take him out.


 
I agree Adler. Like many on this board, I am absolutely not an Obama fan. But if we are going to dump all the bad things that happen under Obama's watch on him, we have to give him credit for the good things. All presidents take credit for the good things and most blame the bad things on the previous administrations.

That being said......

Thank you to our troops. Stay sharp boys, I fear it may get a little rough now.


----------



## mikewint (May 2, 2011)

While I understand the reasoning, without a body a large portion of the world is not going to believe he is really dead. They are not going to buy DNA tests done by the US


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 2, 2011)

He delayed justice for almost a decade but at the end couldn't evaded it.
Good job NAVY SEALS and God bless America.


----------



## Erich (May 2, 2011)

Always glad to be proven wrong in a case like this. ******* just found out there ain't NO 72 virgins in the afterlife. Personally I would dump his body in no-man's life and put his decapitated head on a pike like days of old to prove a point. You dip-shits think you are gonna get away with this type of evil, no you ain't you will pay dearly as we will find you................all of you !

a great Monday, justice served, court adjourned . . . . . . . . . for now.

E ~


----------



## javlin (May 2, 2011)

mikewint said:


> While I understand the reasoning, without a body a large portion of the world is not going to believe he is really dead. They are not going to buy DNA tests done by the US


 
My thought as well Mike.The other thing as I watched last night was the celebrations by kids wet behind the ears??reminded me of the Palie's celebrating in the streets after 9/11 not much class by either group;actually kinda tacky.My only thoughts last night was "Good Riddens" and whats next?


----------



## mikewint (May 2, 2011)

Javiln, as the talking heads went on and on and on last night three things stood out, This took place a week ago (or more). Osama had given orders to his bodyguards to kill him themselves if there were danger of capture. Osama had a number plots ready to go if he were killed.
Like everyone else here, it is great that the SOB is gone but a lot of innocents are going to pay for it, I just hope we're ready for what hits the fan


----------



## mikewint (May 2, 2011)

Javiln, as the talking heads went on and on and on last night three things stood out, This took place a week ago (or more). Osama had given orders to his bodyguards to kill him themselves if there were danger of capture. Osama had a number plots ready to go if he were killed.
Like everyone else here, it is great that the SOB is gone but a lot of innocents are going to pay for it, I just hope we're ready for what hits the fan


----------



## Erich (May 2, 2011)

Mike you know full well it costs to appreciate freedom just as in Nam, though I can safely say we both struggle with the why's over there ..............

in the case of this shrimp now flattened we have to deal with any and all new "factions" it's all part of the risk we played out and will continue to do so.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (May 2, 2011)

I just wish we were able to bring him back to life over and over again so we can kill him again, one time for for every 9/11 victim!


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 2, 2011)

I guess Gitmo and enhanced interrogation (including waterboarding) to gain intelligence on our murdering enemies WORKS!

And we should not rest until every last terrorist is WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!!!!!!!!!

Cowards to the end! Reported that the stinking terrorists used a woman as a human shield as the SEALS turned bin laden's head into a crimson mist!

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

TO


----------



## Gnomey (May 2, 2011)

Glad its finally been done. Apparently the compound he was in was 200 yards from the Pakistani version of Sandhurst/West Point which is interesting...

Pictures released don't look like him though.

Good decision for a sea burial, as has been said allows for no shrine and also means it is very easy to piss on his grave...


----------



## mikewint (May 2, 2011)

Erich, well do I know, and I and many more like me paid that price. As was said, All gave some and some gave all. My comment was more along the lines of how many people do you know that are willing to pay that price? Most want their TVs and comfort. At least today the soldier gets credit for what he does and sacrifices. Though Chase was busy foreclosing on soldiers, on active duty, homes because they had missed some payments


----------



## Trebor (May 2, 2011)

well said, my friend


----------



## pbfoot (May 2, 2011)

Well done thats one less mission for the 1000's of NATO troops in Afghanistan


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2011)

Gnomey said:


> Pictures released don't look like him though.



The pictures are probably not him. They are mash of several photos.

They however were not released by the US Govt. They were released by a Pakistani News Agency and were never claimed to be authentic by the US Govt.


----------



## jjp_nl (May 2, 2011)

While it seems like a pretty important symbol (a lot of people seem to like symbolic things) as far as the war or terror goes I doubt it has any significant effect on the war on terror whatsoever, if anything it'll give other terrorists an excuse to do truly FUBAR things. I fear Al Quaida is nowhere near the thightly knit organisation we Westerners always make it out to be. It's not like Osama had weekely meetings with luitenants from all different cells to cook up new plans for the week or something, like the Don of terrorists or something. I think it's a loose group of individual cells and individuals each with their own big-brains. They have their own scapegoat (us) and fight their common enemy (which is us). Both Bin Laden and seperate cells benefit from this arrangement. Bin Laden takes the 'credit' when he claims Al Quaida carried out this or that action (while remaining in hiding in a cave or villa as it seems) and at the same time taking the heat for it as everyone is looking for him and let the true 'active' terrorists remain in the shadows so to speak. 

I mean suppose you did something extremely bad and someone came to you and told you he wanted to tell the world he did it? Don't you think it would be tempting to do it and let him take the 'credit' and the heat for it? Neat arrangement. You can continue doing bad things and let the other guy take the credit and the heat for it. While it's too bad if this guy got cought, it doesn't affect your ability to do bad things. Well this is my view on how these things work.

I wouldn't be surprised if Al Quaida as an organisations doesn't go far beyond the people present in the compound at the time of the NAVY seal attack and perhaps a few runners to get things in and out or something.


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2011)

Its important to us, because he was a symbol. Weve removed one of our enemies symbols, like Soviets raising the flag over the Reichstag, or the same deal over Iwo. 

Humanity is not a machine. It needs symbols to represent what it stands for. getting rid of this murderer somehow makes it feel like we have moved forward. maybe thats not the truth, but it feels significant, and this is a war of hearts and minds.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 2, 2011)

...and may be burn in whatever hell there might be, Amen.


----------



## Marcel (May 3, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> What's really pissing me off about all this, is that obama is getting all these props from people everywhere. He had nothing to do with this. The U.S. military (originally deployed by President Bush) achieved the mission objective.
> 
> On top of that, now is the time to really be on guard, there will surely be reprisals by his followers...hopefully we can send a few of 'em along to keep bin ladin company...


 
He's head of the army, isn't he? And he sanctioned the mission. Of course he got the props. 
Good job USA and especially the forces who did this operation. It was about time


----------



## jjp_nl (May 3, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Its important to us, because he was a symbol. Weve removed one of our enemies symbols, like Soviets raising the flag over the Reichstag, or the same deal over Iwo.
> 
> Humanity is not a machine. It needs symbols to represent what it stands for. getting rid of this murderer somehow makes it feel like we have moved forward. maybe thats not the truth, but it feels significant, and this is a war of hearts and minds.


 
Absolutely, symbolism isn't bad and every nation and probably on the lower level of an idividual or a group of people has their symbols be they good or bad, I do anyway. But one must not be blinded by it. For example the fact that an event like the raising of the flag on the burning ruins of the Reichstag even came to pass has to me a lot to do with symbolism covering up what was actually going on..until it became an unstopable torrent that took 60 something million lives to stop.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 3, 2011)

Thought this was hilarious:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8A2unABbtA_


----------



## Torch (May 3, 2011)

Actuall video animation of the Osama assault.....
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiDyrkU0WAQ_


----------



## Njaco (May 3, 2011)

Praise to President Bush for putting the protocols in place to achieve this.

Praise to President Obama for following through with those protocols and giving the green light.

Praise to the Seals who carried out this mission in exemplary fashion!

Now, will the detainee at Gitmo claim the reward?


----------



## Loiner (May 3, 2011)

*Well done* to the CIA and the US Navy SEAL team, good work all round, and some real justice carried out at last.










Although he was just one person in the whole terror network, he had to be the biggest and most iconic figurehead of all, and although they will no doubt have to react to some degree, this has to be a blow to them, and vividly demonstrates to both sides in the war on terror that even their top man isn't untouchable.

The loss of leadership, the figurehead, and funding to the terror organisation will be a blow to their operations.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 3, 2011)

I don't doubt that we killed him, but I think most of the detail about the operation is bs. This is just standard disinformation.

I can't believe we'd give out the method we used to find out where he was, how we got there, and other methods of operation.
Like mister Churchill said, in war the truth has to be protected by a bodyguard of lies.


----------



## mikewint (May 3, 2011)

First, RA, that was absolutely hysterical
Tyro, sometimes we "Good" Guys are pathological truth tellers, comes with the white hat and horse. surprised we didn't shoot him in the hand


----------



## Erich (May 3, 2011)

I am thinking like tyro the more I read the news and hear crap on a minute by minute basis, I do not even think there is a secret navy seals team nor was the cia involved. bin laden was shot in the ass twice, then gassed as he was withering in pain. he was then shrouded in a black cloth and given the skins of at least a dozen mettwurst, buried in a concrete box with gps tracker with explosives and then a text message to Al Q's to try and find him. 








truth of the matter is yes the info has been released way too quickly to the public to allow for many misconceptions of what is reality.


----------



## Messy1 (May 3, 2011)

Many in the military speculate the Bin Laden was no longer in a position to lead as he was in hiding or seclusion and could not risk communicating regularly and efficiently, so his role has been diminished significantly according to many.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2011)

Not really the point. The man was supposedly dying anyhow and had Kidney failure. The point of the matter is that the world is a much better place without the Son of a Bitch and we only made it much sooner. He got what he deserved.


----------



## parsifal (May 3, 2011)

Short message. Reports are surfacing that Obi Wan Bin laden was unarmed at the time of his death. My opinion on that is baloney. his arms was his mouth. He was able to get a lot of bad people to do his bidding. His resistance was to tell his guards to resist, which no-one is disputing. 

There are going to be details emerge in the coming days, and people are going to try to demonize this as much as they can. 

Be ready people


----------



## javlin (May 3, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Short message. Reports are surfacing that Obi Wan Bin laden was unarmed at the time of his death. My opinion on that is baloney. his arms was his mouth. He was able to get a lot of bad people to do his bidding. His resistance was to tell his guards to resist, which no-one is disputing.
> 
> There are going to be details emerge in the coming days, and people are going to try to demonize this as much as they can.




I heard that also and go WTF  A hunted man,every vid he as an Ak47 and there's not one by the bed??Come on! I have a carbine by my bed and a .45 in a closet in another room easy to get to.Something happened but this story keeps on changing and why?
Be ready people.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2011)

I could really care less if he was armed or not. He got what he deserved.


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2011)

But you watch the do-gooders, people who generally have never carried a rifle for their country in their life...people who have never been in harms way for the national interest, come out and say that the US never intended to take him alive and that the US is guilty of some crime....blah blah blah


----------



## N4521U (May 4, 2011)

Oh man, I find it difficult to read some of the comments here. 

I served, Navy, enlisted before Viet Nam, but unfortunately discharged before the conflict escalated to be involved. 

OBL got what was coming. Seal team 6 carried out an assigned mission with great honor, for All Americans, for every relative, of every citizen, of every nation, of every cread who died because of that rat bag. 

Like it or not, they did it for you, and you and you!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 4, 2011)

Just a point of clarification regarding my earlier post...

It wasn't meant to be a political jab, wether or not I like the guy. Yeah he's the C-n-C and gave the green light without meddling in the mission details. What I object to, is that everyone is patting the guy on the back and propping him up as if he personally flew over there, huffed a can of spinach and dove into bin ladin's crib like Chuck Norris on a mission from God and shived the asshat in the face with a stainless steel dinner fork.

What about all the soldiers on the ground for the past 10 years, hiking all over the mountains of Afghanistan, searching under every rock and bush and finding nothing but shadows, stinging insects, crappy weather and the occasional ambush? Not to mention the massive amount of manpower consumed by personnel scouring satelite images, operating and monitoring UAV missions and the Spooks and Opers working on the ground from the inside? And the list goes on.

They all played a role in this, right down to the NAVY Seal team that finally cornered the douchebag and delivered a little payback. They're the ones who deserve the recognition.

And as far as the issue regarding bin ladin being unarmed, well, so were the passengers in those commercial jets...


----------



## evangilder (May 4, 2011)

Having people above you get credit for what you did is SOP in the military, unfortunately. It's a thankless job a lot of the time and the pay sucks. But still there are those that will still go out and do that job. I did it many years ago and have no regrets. I am thankful to those that continue to carry the flame for us old farts.


----------



## Gnomey (May 4, 2011)

^ Agreed Eric, was always going to happen that way.

As for him being unarmed and still being shot, that doesn't bother me. He needed to be removed/captured either dead or alive it doesn't make much difference, highly likely not much would of been learned from him anyway as he wouldn't talk (or at least would try not to talk)...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Short message. Reports are surfacing that Obi Wan Bin laden was unarmed at the time of his death. My opinion on that is baloney. his arms was his mouth. He was able to get a lot of bad people to do his bidding. His resistance was to tell his guards to resist, which no-one is disputing.
> 
> There are going to be details emerge in the coming days, and people are going to try to demonize this as much as they can.
> 
> Be ready people



Yeah I saw a news report where they said it was murder because he was unarmed. **** that! The people in the World Trade Center and countless other terror victims were unarmed as well! 

The man is better off dead.


----------



## comiso90 (May 5, 2011)

Stealth Black hawk?... pretty cool












Aviation Geeks Scramble to ID bin Laden Raid’s Mystery Copter | Danger Room | Wired.com

The official reason explaining the crash was that the temperature was 17 degrees higher than expected and made for poor lifting conditions in a already heavily loaded chopper.

One of these days we'll have a more reliable vertical assault vehicle.

They'll make a FORTUNE selling those pieces to the Chinese and Russians.

.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2011)

I'm betting something smaller given the rotor diameter. Looks all composite too. Given the significant number of obvious differences in airframe tailboom structure (propulsion, structure, material, etc), one would have to conclude this would significantly impact existing H-60 flight controls too. If you are going to go through that much effort, I would think we are talking about a completely different helicopter.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2011)

What I've been wondering is what was the procedure for scuttling the remains? I can see a kill switch for the avionics, but how do you destroy all aspects of the structure related to stealth (ex., exhaust routing, surface coating, material used, conformal antennas, basic shape etc)? Must be a huge find for the Chicoms. Let the bidding begin.


----------



## razor1uk (May 5, 2011)

Maybe a pre-impregnated det-cord/strands within the fibre matrix? would need to be set off using very high electrical input to try and minimise kinetic impact causing piezzo-electric activation?

17 deg C higher airtemp caused a crash, thats bull. If such were the case they'd never have taken off.
Stealth chopper, possible, looks more like a misinformation prop; drop off an advanced looking 'ready to blow' wreckage of UH-60 with stealth styled composite parts - of which the fibre is made of incorrect mat'ls node directions to lead reverse engineers down a dead end.

I hope that senators world leaders with clearence, can view the death pics to try and convince those whom wish more evidence, although I do agree with at the mo, withholding the pics from the world, cos, I don't wish the hornets nest to be shaken any further. 
It seems to be being quietly tolerated within the humane/democratic/normality wantiing Islamic persons/movements as a needed action to try and break from the extremists or fundamentalists.

Hamas Fatah, should be a good fist fight to watch, whoops, might be a good most likely it won't, they'll violently split again sometime down the road. 
Certainly Israel will try to upset them since Israel Hamas share identical dreams of genocide against the other to claim 'their land'.
Then again with a possibly more neutral Egypt could co-opt them H&F to playing nicely - if only the US could rein in the inflammatory speech making Neytinyarhu, - who might have to make such speeches to keep his own fundamentalists from rampaging and 'doing a Rabin' on him, before they attack unify H&F.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> What I've been wondering is what was the procedure for scuttling the remains? I can see a kill switch for the avionics, but how do you destroy all aspects of the structure related to stealth (ex., exhaust routing, surface coating, material used, conformal antennas, basic shape etc)? Must be a huge find for the Chicoms. Let the bidding begin.



In Iraq, if we went down we would kill the avionics as you stated and then leave the aircraft. If possible an attack aircraft would come from behind destroy the downed helo. I know of one downed UH-60 that was attached to our Brigade, was destroyed by an Apache afterwords.


----------



## comiso90 (May 5, 2011)

Seems like a intel goldmine without even considering avionics, electronics or machinery.

Composite material
infra-red deflecting paint.
Ceramics
glues and epoxies...

a laundry basket full of "scrap" could shorten decades off the development curve for exotic materials.


----------



## razor1uk (May 5, 2011)

I think the wreckage is a technical red herring/plant, to misdirect reverse engineering. Ok would you risk losing a very new most secret tech just because of one nutter? 
Its just could be a conveinient excuse to let non-US contries have a false tech goldmine - surely otherwise the US Forces would have locked down the area, removed the wreckage down to everything larger than a basebal and not let the locals play with it, or let them put it on a truck.

Theres also the option that the wreckage is to make all viewers believe that not all went perfect - plans are plans because they never go as intended. 
4 choppers go in, so lets make one appear to crash so our opponants can falsely cheer 1:3 ratio and spend money transporting, examining trying to recreate useless junk; like multi-layered resin impregnated denim with oxide based paint mixed into the resin thats then been set onfire with avgas, thermite white phosphorous, and see if they can tell what the resulting 'fudge' was.

As for it apperently being very quiet, with the other 2 choppers moving away to flanking positions to drop teams around the area, a noise cancelling amp speaker system would make it sound almost quiet underneath the main helo's.
They tested such in Vietnam, but the sound only worked in a close area - the sound cone produced by the amp and speakers attributes didn't expand as far out as the sound thrown outwards from the rotors vortecies. Better mat'ls design of rotor blades with swept and/or transonic tips lowers flutter, chop and resistance hence sound.


----------



## comiso90 (May 5, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> I think the wreckage is a technical red herring/plant, to misdirect reverse engineering.





Sooooo. The alleged "stealth" helicopter was planted?

Wow.... Thanks for the chuckle.. i owe you a beer.

>>Ok would you risk losing a very new most secret tech just because of one nutter? 

For Bin Laden, certainly.. hell yeah. The equipment is useless unless its used.



.


----------



## javlin (May 5, 2011)

So the new story today is Osama was within arms reach of an AK that was in a false wall /door setup.Yet that it was a 40min fire fight with only one guy now said to have a gun(Seals are better than that) The Seals did there job like they should and got the man.The government is guilty of creating a fish story of the one that got away.The Hero's is the Seal Team guys(WH) not the government.


----------



## Erich (May 5, 2011)

so with all this scuttlebutt you guys are buying the whole story hook line and sinker...........eh ? only proof right now as the Paki's have part of a helicopter


----------



## razor1uk (May 5, 2011)

glad to help Cosimo 

Too, tis' true enough Erich. Even 40 mins is unknown....

But it did help wallstreet and increase US confidence a bit too, while hiding 'what' from view?


----------



## javlin (May 5, 2011)

Erich said:


> so with all this scuttlebutt you guys are buying the whole story hook line and sinker...........eh ? only proof right now as the Paki's have part of a helicopter



Well Erich as much as I distrust the Government I hope that they would not lie about a story as such as this.That being said all this BS after the fact is an administration tring to make itself look stronger than what they are.I will give the man a cudos for using the the drones and hellfires for moments of opportunity but all else is total BS.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2011)

I think the US wqould not hesitate to risk its best and most secret equipment in a mission like this. You make it sound like it would be a walk in the park, because they are navy SEALs. I disagree. This would always have been judged a dificult mission because there would have been a high risk of detection and attack from Pakistani forces, and the last thing the US would want is an embarrassing clash with the military of one of its own allies. If twenty or thirty Paki soldiers had been killed because of this, Pakistan would have been lost as an ally. They needed to get in, get out, and complete the mission without any reaction. That is a very difficult ask


----------



## buffnut453 (May 5, 2011)

Can we please stop referring to Pakistanis as "Pakis"? It can be considered highly offensive. This is no different to other recent instances where Japanese were referred to as "Japs" when not quoting a contemporaneous WWII account.

It's not like me to be overly PC but this is supposed to be an international forum where all are welcome.


----------



## Torch (May 5, 2011)

i would use it because its just shorter than typing out Pakistani, probably no real offense intended from us here in the US.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 5, 2011)

But what's intended by the writer and what's perceived by the reader are often very different things.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2011)

By the way, today the US celebrates Cinco de Mayo. In Mexico they refer to it as Cinco de Gringo.

Me? I personally call it Cinco de Drinko.  As that is what most stupid Americans do for this silly holiday.

And as for the other overly PC expectations? F#ck that. And his supposedly 40min Islamic burial.  I hope they buried his azz in a body bag full of spam.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2011)

Oh Matty, ever the diplomat


----------



## Torch (May 6, 2011)

There goes my one shot a diplomacy, Heck with you alls I hate everybody equally..................lol


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2011)

as per Buff's suggestion I see the Pakistani's are using the tail section or main delivery rotor of the besieged Heli for frost protection in the Garden in the so-called compound. man all I can say after seeing reuters fotos is what a messy housekeeper. I note at least 3 dead folk all shot in the head as per "their" pics. so much for Pakistani threats, we did a fly over with drones and popped another 8 plus of the bin laden types with special weapons.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2011)

Nice.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 7, 2011)

Well personally, I'm glad he's dead. I don't about a trial, he would have said the exact same thing he has been saying the past ten years. "America is the evil of the world, and here's why....." Who hasn't heard that one before. I think we just saved a lot of money and time on a trial. I'm just glad we finally got the guy. As for the "Stealth" helicopter, I have not been paying much attention to it from the news, so I won't try to comment on it for now.


----------



## glennasher (May 8, 2011)

From what I can gather, the "firefight" itself only lasted a couple of minutes, from however long it took to fastrope down, and then move up to the third story apartment where UBL lived. The rest of the time was spent gathering up computer hard drives, thumb drives, etc. and exfiltrating. That seems quite logical to me.


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2011)

The fact is that there was no firefight. The fact is that the people in the White House really had little clue about what really went down the next day in spite of all their claims.. The fact is that it was a pure and simple take down. They went in and killed him. Shot him down like a rabid dog. The fact is that the plan all along had to be kill him and I applaud that decision. They could have captured him and brought him back for a "trial." To "bring him to justice" here in the US. They were smart enough not to do that as under the US system of justice it would have been a circus not to mention all the security risks and expense. I don't give any credit to the administration for making the decision to go after him. Once they determined he was there they had to go after him becuse as leaky as Washington DC is, the word would have gotten out and the name of the administration would have been mud.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2011)

Ren

I hope for our sakes that it was not a summary execution as you are suggesting. The one big difference between us and the terrorists is that we do not succumb to summary justice, except when it is absolutely necessary. Every man, even Obi Wan Bin Laden is entitled to a fair trial if they choose to surrender, or not resist. That is one of the basic freedoms that we are fighting for here. If we are forced to give that up then we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting. What you are suggesting is that murder was the first option, rather than the last, which is exactly what Bin Ladens followers advocate. Kill first, without resorting to debate or a fair trial.

As for your comments about how it is not possible to put Bin Laden on trial in the US, well thats a function of the US refusal to ratify the Hague International Court of Justice. And it is a failure of the Hague to properly deal with prisoners in its jurisdiction......

If the US was a signatory to the Hague Court, it would have been a very simple matter to refer Bin Laden, and all the other terrorists to the Hague for a fair trial, using international law as the basis for conviction. Last time i looked, acts of terrorism qualified as a crime against humanity, and liable to incarceration for a long time. Not quite the death penalty that you Texans are so enamoured to, but international justice nevertheless, for an international crime. There were Australians killed in attack on the twin Towers, and where is our justice if Bin Laden is executed without trial by Americans unwilling to follow the rule of law. 

I am the first to admit that the system of international justice is far from perfect, and frustrating in its administration. Its slow and not under our direct control, a certain diconnect that many nationalists find disconcerting. And yet its the only lawful way that we have to deal with criminals like Bin Laden. Otherise we have this legal gordion knot that has so enveloped the US since the beginning....how do you try someone who has committed a crime outside your national jurisdiction....simple answer is you cannot, unless you set up an international system of justice for certain crimes.


----------



## javlin (May 9, 2011)

If the US was a signatory to the Hague Court, it would have been a very simple matter to refer Bin Laden, and all the other terrorists to the Hague for a fair trial, using international law as the basis for conviction.

Getting on a touchy subject when you star talking about about a world court.Many myself includes do not want an outside justice system meddling within our own system of justice.As far as many in this country once the man confessed on video why do you need a court.Justice served.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2011)

If the man resisted the use of force to apprehend him that just happened to result in his death whilst that arrest was occurring is just collateral damage. Tough luck in my opinion.

If however he offered no real resistance, and they killed him anyway, then we have lost something our fathers and grandfathers fought for. Our fathers were faced with the same situation at the end of WWII, but by the dint of perserverance, all the difficulties and frustrations of the international system of justice were overcome, and the chief nazi perpetrators and culprits were brought to justice. That was probably the most important outcome of WWII, the realization that we could no longer exist as separate sovereign states, to a degree we had to learn to mete justice out at an international level, at least for certain crimes. some crimes transcend national borders, both legally and morally. That was precisely the argument that George Bush put when he appealed for help in Iraq and other places. And he was right. We are all confronted with terrorism as a problem. There were many countries who suffered losses from the Septmber 11 attacks not just the US. There should have been a universal effort to eradicate the problem, sad truth is, only some countries responded to the call. However, to try and claim sole US jurisdiction to an international criminal, and to apply US justice at the exclusion of all the other contributory nations, when those nations were asked to provide assistance to the US to capture this ferret, and then deny our justifiable calls for justice for our fallen countrymen, is to treat us with extreme disregard. What justice is there for Australians who have fallen, if the US is going to exclude us from the processes of international law to deal with this character. If the ICC had been reconfigured to deal with this clown retrospectively, and he had been handed over to the ICC, ther would have been symbolic justice for all, and Bin Laden could not continue to be used as the pin up martyr boy for the jihadist nutters out there.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 9, 2011)

Well said, parsifal.

Bin Ladin's attack on 9/11 was aimed at the United States, but was intended to "teach the west a lesson" and claimed the lives from many different nationalities in the process. That in itself should make any person involved in the attack an international fugitive from justice.


----------



## javlin (May 9, 2011)

Alright it's WWII and some Allies are coming upon a concentration camp that the Axis are still moving people into the ovens as the Allies approach(fiction).Now the said Axis fight some and some surrender but there are thousands upon thousand dead.Deal justice to those who surrendered are turn them over to MP's and a court maybe a year or two later.Really save me the breath.Give the guns to encampments and let them deal justice as they see fit.I am sure the oven for there old captors is looking quite appealing.Though different not so different.


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2011)

It seems clear to me, from the reports, that Bin Laden offered no resistance and could have been captured and brought back to the US. He was executed on the spot. The decision to execute him was, no doubt, largely a political decision. Make no mistake that obama and his henchmen are focused only on one goal and that is his reelection. Every move they make now is governed by what is politically helpful. A long drawn out trial with all the furor associated, lasting long after the election in 2012 and probably ending with Bin Laden spending his life in jail, was not politically acceptable, regardless of legal and moral niceties. There would have been many ramifications of a trial, too many to contemplate here. It is over now and obama can, rightly or wrongly, bask in the glow that his administration "hunted down and disposed of the most wanted man on earth."

One part of the UBL raid that was really screwed up and perhaps was not the fault of obama and company directly was to equate UBL with Geronimo. Geronimo was an Apache chief who led the US Army a merry chase in the late 19th century. He and his band were responsible for the deaths of a number of people who lived on the frontier but the Apaches along with many other Amerindian tribes were badly treated by various US administrations and there is plenty of blame to go around for all involved in the Apache-United States disagreement. To compare UBL to Geronimo is to prove how ignorant most Americans are concerning the history of our country whether it was the US Military who chose the name or the obama administration who allowed the choice of the name.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2011)

javlin said:


> Alright it's WWII and some Allies are coming upon a concentration camp that the Axis are still moving people into the ovens as the Allies approach(fiction).Now the said Axis fight some and some surrender but there are thousands upon thousand dead.Deal justice to those who surrendered are turn them over to MP's and a court maybe a year or two later.Really save me the breath.Give the guns to encampments and let them deal justice as they see fit.I am sure the oven for there old captors is looking quite appealing.Though different not so different.


 
Perhaps a better analogy would be to ask how things would go down if the SAS had managed to penetrate Hitlers bunker in 1943, and hitler had offered surrender. Could the SAS have observed the geneva convention and taken him prisoner....probably not.

In the case of bin laden, a lot depends on the circumstances. if the SEALs had gotten him quietly, and ther was no significant threat in the immediate area, they should have taken hi alive. but there are a lot of ifs there, and facts are, it is unlikley that such opportunity was ever there. They probably resisted a bit, made a bit of a fraccus, woke up the locals a bit. The SEALs probably needed to make a quick decision, and they made it. On that basis they were entirely justified in executing him. 

The only point I want to make is it would have been prefereable to take him alive if possible, But the chances of that occurring would be very low in my opinion


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2011)

It is extremely naive to believe that the Seals did not go in to kill bin laden. I just outlined why it was necessary to kill him. They were on the ground and in the house for a long time, forty minutes, collecting material. It is said that the amount of material, records, computer stuff is huge. There was no reason why he could not have been captured and removed just as his body was removed. Perhaps, it is difficult for somone who does not live in the US to understand the political climate here.


----------



## razor1uk (May 10, 2011)

I'd like to wish health swift recovery along the Misassippi before flaming begins. 

Osama is alledgedly dead, he doesn't deserve thinking about, he was/had been CIA, he helped 'market' and encourage the vulnrable, religious idiots, and public opinions tha killing is cool.

As for the rule of intanational law, supposedly you either do follow or you don't, although some play both sides of that line - deje vu?


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 10, 2011)

".... it would have been prefereable to take him alive if possible."

And do WHAT with him? I see the lawyers lining up. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 10, 2011)

so, mm, you prefer summary justice to a lawful process. You seem to be saying thats a preferable outcome over bringing him to trial. Why is he any different to any of the other dirtbags we have seen over the last 100 years. Guess that means we should have shot all the nazis.....all 70 million of them, at the end of the war. Or the British should have just taken Gandhi out the back and shot him for the terrorist he was.....in their eyes.....

This is a very disturbing and dangerous precedent you are advocating. all I would say is careful what you wish for


----------



## Messy1 (May 10, 2011)

He was wanted dead or alive wasn't he?


----------



## parsifal (May 10, 2011)

so were many of the nazis....they still received a fair trial. Being wanted dead or alive is different to taking him alive and then just executing him. 

Dead or alive means his captors are authorized to use deadly force if he resists.if he doesnt resist duting capture, then no, they are not authorized to shoot him just because they want to. 

There is nothing wrong with what happened, so long as he was not just executed on the spot after surrender. if he surrendered, and they killed him anyway, we have turned a corner and are heading south


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 10, 2011)

Nice rebuttal Parsifal but you side-stepped the question "And do WHAT with him?"

Any actual thoughts or just bromides about "summary justice"? I'm always careful what I wish for. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 10, 2011)

The problem for the US as I see it is that they have withdrawn from the international system of justice, and Bin Laden did not carry out any crimes within the US jurisdiction. He got proxies to do the dirty work for him. 

IMO the only way that Bin Laden could have been put on trial effectively would be in an international forum, for crimes against humanity....but that would require a fundamental recognition by the US as to the authority and legitimacy of the ICC. That was extremely unlikely to happen, so there we are with an intractable problem as to what to do legally with him....We end up with a Guantanamo solution, which Obama has also put the kybosh on.....so really there was nowhere to go with Bin Laden. 

Both sides of US politics are to blame for that....which is as far as I dare go with the political issue. 

In the end, something had to be done about the legal mess before apprehending this loser. To that extent you are spot on, I should concede that. But does our legal incompetence justify breaking the law. I say no to be honest....the principals of fairness and basic freedoms is more important than the principal of summary justice for those who died September 11 and since


----------



## RabidAlien (May 10, 2011)

Yes, we're the "civilized" nation here, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. However, if you've got a rabid dog, you don't feed him a biscuit and put him in a crate and take him to the vet to be put down. You'll probably be heading straight to the ER afterwards, yourself. The whole world acknowledged that OBL was behind the 9/11 attack on the US, as well as many other attacks on other countries around the world. Any one of those countries, due to the attacks planned by him, could lay claim to putting him on trial. But seriously, it would just be a show. He's guilty. Pakistan or Iraq might have found him "not guilty", but pretty much everybody else was going to send him to the chair. Or gallows. Or guillotine. Or frikkin-shark-with-frikkin-lasers-on-their-heads tank. With today's economy, I much prefer a bullet that might've cost $.50 to a multi-million dollar media circus, not to mention all of the other rabid dogs coming out of the woodwork to try to save him, or "we'll blow up one kindergarten playground somewhere in the world every hour until he's released" ultimatums...which I have no doubt that would have been followed through on. He's dead now. Did he defend himself? I dunno. I wasn't there. Did the victims in each and every one of the bombings that he masterminded have a chance to defend themselves? Nope. Has justice been served? Yep. Did we sink to their level? Honestly....I don't think so. My folks always taught me to just walk away from a fight, that if I ignored the bully they would go away. Yeah....doesn't work. Sometimes you just have to stand up and respond in the only way that they will recognize, and beat the living crap out of the bully. The difference between us and them, which makes us the "civilized" country, is that we don't continue to do that. We've drawn the line, and recognize that sometimes it has to be stepped over...but that you return to your side of the line as soon as possible.

ETA: by your own argument, that OBL had proxies do his work for him and therefore he committed no crimes within the US jurisdiction....well, since this is a WW2 forum, I can't recall a single instance where Hitler himself personally killed any US troops, or dropped any bombs on a British city, or pushed the button that lit the fires in Dachau's incinerators. He had proxies do it. Yamamoto didn't fire a single shot at Pearl Harbor. And the list goes on.


----------



## parsifal (May 10, 2011)

RabidAlien said:


> ETA: by your own argument, that OBL had proxies do his work for him and therefore he committed no crimes within the US jurisdiction....well, since this is a WW2 forum, I can't recall a single instance where Hitler himself personally killed any US troops, or dropped any bombs on a British city, or pushed the button that lit the fires in Dachau's incinerators. He had proxies do it. Yamamoto didn't fire a single shot at Pearl Harbor. And the list goes on.



All the other stuff in your quote is answered by the quote I have in my signature from Ben Franklin...basically "any nation who gives up a little liberty to gain a little security will gain neither and lose both"....or words to that effect.

Now, to turn to your questions about hitler and the nazis......there is an enormous elephant in the room that you are not seeing....Hitler, like his lieutenants, would have been tried under international law, for crimes against humanity (and a whole bunch of other associated crimes). that was the significance of Nuremberg...it was the first time that an international body of law was agreed upon, and the first time that criminals were tried under those international laws. If any one of those nations had tried to put Hitler on trial under their own jurisdictions ther would have been a miscarriage of justice. you cannot try a a foreigner for a crime in your country when that foreigner never set foot in your own jurisdiction. uncomfortable as that me read, they are the facts. The only exceptions that arises, is if there is a bi-lateral agreement between the two countries that allows the xtradition of a foreign national to face trial in that home country....this is how organizationas like Interpol work....they rely on pre-existing agreements between nations to extradite nationals to a foreign country to face foreign justice. if the country that the individual resides does not have an extradition arrangement, then its just so much huffing and puffing. Last time I checked ther was no extradition treaty between the US and Pakistan

The successor to the Nuremberg tribunals is the ICC. It took a long time to get to that point, since the ICC was not formed until 2002. Moreover, it has neve been able to settle on a satisfactory definition of "terrorism", and cannot be applied retrospectively. it does however deal pretty effectively with "crimes against humanity". Problem from the US POV is that they do not recognize the validity of the ICC....its basically a UN organization, and there are lots of head bangers in that organization that would love nothing better than to put US service personnel on trial for crimes against humanity....hence the very valid justification for the US not recognizing the authority of the ICC. But unfortunately, that failure to recognize also means that the avenue to pursue international criminals through the international system of justice is also closed.....to put it bluntly....if Hitler had been captured in the 21st century, by the US, they could not have tried him because they do not recognize the authority of the courts that could try him. Its a legal blind alley for the US, and at the heart of all this controversy about the war on terror and what to do with captured enemy personnel.

My own opinion is that it might be possible for the US to make a unilateral declaration that whilst it will try its own citizens for crimes they (allegedly) commit, it will be prepared to hand over foreigners for justice to the ICC....a kind of half way no mans land similar to Bush's guantanamo solution. if that is a valid position to adopt (and we would need an expert in International law to verify that), then Bin laden could have been ahnded over to the ICC, on one proviso....that the ICC be granted limited retropectivity to its jurisdiction.


----------



## razor1uk (May 11, 2011)

+3 Parsifal


----------



## RabidAlien (May 11, 2011)

Good argument, Parsifal! I am by no means even close to being considered an expert on international law. However, in this instance, I still believe that what the US did was correct. But that's just my personal opinion, and I'm not gonna assume that everyone needs to follow my own personal opinion.  Never have, never will!


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

Its all cool RA, I am not trying to lecture you, just put my POV as well.....


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

An interesting challenge to my own opinion is perhaps the trial of Adolph Eicchmann.....seeking shelter in South America, this monster was kidnapped by Israeli agents, hauled back to Israel, put on trial and hanged......I am not sure how the legal niceties of that rather pleasing outcome were dealt with....does anybody know?


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 11, 2011)

"... so there we are with an intractable problem as to what to do legally with him..." The key word here I think is "intractable", Parsifal, .

Justice. *That* concept has changed a great deal in my lifetime - and I'm not sure for the better. I don't know how it is in Oz but in this country we no longer differentiate between criminals and victims of criminals. The "justice system" deems it more important to recognize the "equality" of both as human beings with the result that no justice is served whatsoever.

Your quote from Ben Franklin is a fine quote, Parsifal, but it was spoken by a Christian Euro-American addressing Christian Euro-Americans and was meant to be understood by them. 

When one discusses "justice" it is naive to believe that the term is universally understood to mean what one intends it to mean. Osama Bin Ladin spent his life playing "games". He used and was used by America in Afganistan against the Russians. He never advocated American or Christian justice while understanding clearly what American values were as well as American strengths and weaknesses. He knew America better than America knew him. Advantage Bin Ladin. 

In the best of all worlds, America would have a trustworthy partner in Pakistan - but that is not the case. Were it the case, Bin Ladin would have been outed years ago by the Pakistanis and received Islamic justice (or not). Whatever his fate under that system, the world (especially the Islamic world) would have witnessed the closure of the Bin Ladin saga. Some would have liked the end, others would have thought it brutal or a travesty of justice. No mind.

Faced with solving the problem with its own resources, and no trustworthy Islamic partner, America did what it had to do. End of story. Sometimes the end justifies the means.

Instead of a message of "justice" - America sent a message that "we are patient, we are tireless, if you attack us we will not stop until we destroy you". At a time when America (and the Christian west) is under the constant threat of subversion and attack, that is not a bad message to send to the world.

What comparable moral situation did Mr. Franklin ever face, Parsifal, despite his fine thoughts?  Myself, I prefer the words of Ted Roosevelt. "Talk quietly and carry a big stick". It works in bear country  and the world is bear country.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2011)

In all regards I agree with Pasifal. Any man no matter what kind of monster he is, deserves a real trial. In a legal sense OBL is no different. He should have been tried and he should have been put to death.

Now the American in me however does not give a damn, the world is a better place without him. When I say the American in me, it is because of my feelings toward what happened in 9-11 in my country (yes it affected the whole world and not just the USA). 

I however do not believe that the outcome would have been just if he had recieved a trial in an international court. He would have been found guilty and given life in prison which he would have spent in a Western European "Country Club" prison living like a celebrity. Then 10 years later he would have been released on "huminarian" reasons.


----------



## Erich (May 11, 2011)

I still think this thread is going down the futile road............... intel if true has given away to much in my own, but understanding of years previous this would not make sense except to use our own media to lead our evil enemies astray. Let's pray so gentlemen, we do not have concrete 100 % proof his body was dumped at sea or really the 100 % proof the mission planned and carried out as we have been told or if in truth sense Bin is actually deceased. I have my own personal opinions and regards in this matter due to . . . . . well I'll keep you guessing. The whole matter appears as a charade


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

This debate has broken well out of the boundaries of what we should or could have done about OBL. With regard to the alleged moral degeneration of our legal systems, that may be happening, but it is not the legal system that is setting the agenda, its the society that it serves. personally I dont buy it. The world is a more complicated place than it was 100 yearts ago, and that makes it harder to comprehend, but my opinion is that we are not suffering a moral disintegration and the courts are not out of sync with their societies. its just that things are more complicated now. People have far more choices than they did in our parents time, and some choose to take the low path, others aspire to great heights of idealism and nobility. Its part of the complex societies that we live in, and the legal system is just reflecting that complexity.

Conservative elements of society have been complainng about the moral degradation of society since the times of the pharoahs. i kid you not. There are inscriptions in ancient Egypt complaining about this very issue.

No, I dont agree that we have to take matters onto our own hands because the legal system has failed. The law of the vigilante is a definite precursor to the descent into anarchy and the destruction of our society. Once the law has gone, anarchy is only a short step away. Arent we fighting the terrorists to defend our society? Are we not handing them the victory they so keenly pursue if we help them to destroy it by this sort of action, and this trashing of our most cherished values. i fear that more than any suicide jockey with a bomb strapped to his body.

The problems that we are facing, and which these rather hysterical remarks are reflecting, is much larger than the war on terror. Its about the perceptible decline of western dociety in the world stage......and how we deal with the morally decrepid societies that are following us. Look at places like the middle east and china, these areas represent the alternatives to our own societies and value systems, and they are all morally bankrupt. Their power is growing, they will son match our own strength militarily and economically. But they remain moral pygmies when it comes to issues of conscience and morality. As a generalization they have little collective conscience and a sense of fair play. If these societies remain as backward as they are at present, in terms of their moral standards, but their power continues to grow as it is, then the world stands little hope of survival. This debate has moved to the moral plane, which is not where it should be, but if we are going to consider this, then we need to consider what we need to do to raise those moral standards of our successors. How do we get the Ayrabs and chinamen (and all the others) to start to value human life as we do....how can we say to people like the Libyans "you need to find the moral high ground and stop killing each other and us with such lack of concern, when we demonstrate by our own actions that we are absolute hypocrites when it comes to issues like this. How can we say to the Taliban or any other of these nut job outfits "play nice", "be kind to each other" when you guys would have us behave with such utter contempt for due processes. i dont follow your logic if you stop and think it through, you will see that far from hurting "them", we are doing far more harm to ourselves.

I am no bleeding heart. OBL got what he deserved, and I happen to think the guys on the ground did not go out of their way to murder this jerk. I simply dont buy the argument. What worries me are the attituddes being expressed here....essentially it appears that people almost hope that it went down like a nasty little back alley killing. That I dont understand.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 11, 2011)

the dog got what he deserved... a bullet between his eyes. he was responsible for 1000's of deaths. HE will face a court of Justice,
in front of God, and he will suffer unspeakable horrors now. EXACTLY what he deserves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> What worries me are the attituddes being expressed here....essentially it appears that people almost hope that it went down like a nasty little back alley killing. That I dont understand.


 
I knew 6 people killed during 9-11. As far as I'm concerned a "nasty little back alley killing" was too good for him and I base that on the memories of those people. Here's information on two of them...

SILive.com: Lives Remembered

Lillian Caceres was my brother's ex-girlfriend. The night before the attack she played an angel in a play at her church.

Lillian Caceres Guest Book: sign their guest book, share your condolences, or read their obituary

While I can agree with your points on abiding by the same laws we are seeking to protect with regards to terrorism, I think until you place yourself in a position where you personally knew some of the people who were killed there, you can never understand the anger, hatred and rage some of feel. As I have stated many times on here, I grew up in NYC. My father worked at tower one when it was being built and there’s a strong cultural bond that joins many of us who grew up and lived in NYC. I think if there comes a time where we are faced with an evil that is above and beyond what western justice can bring, this is it. I not only hope it went down like a alley killing but I do hope that at least one SEAL pissed on him before they hauled him off and fed him to the sharks.

As far as I'm concerned he got off easy but I do hope he felt terrible pain as his last miserable breath left his corpse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2011)

Even though I agree that Parsifal is correct in what he says, I completely understand Joe's opinion and that is why I said it does not bother me. The world is a better place without him one way or another. He was a murderer and an evil son of a bitch.


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

I dont have any sympathy for what happened to OBL, and agree that he did not deserve anything better than what happened to him. I didnt lose anyone personally at the Twin Towers, but I do have friends who lost a daughter in Bali, so I know only too well what this nutter has cost us. I have other friends who have suffered indirectly from the stress of dealing with this guy....people whose marriages are placed under stress because of extended absences and the strees of possibly getting killed. 

Doesnt alter my opinion on this. I am not worried for OBL when I say a grubby little death in a back alley. I am worried for us. This doesnt hurt that little grub, it hurts us, and it hurts the prospects for our kids, because it cheapens what we stand for and strengthens what Al Qaeda wants the world to believe. All the messages that the US wanted to get out of this ie that we will pursue you until the end of time, in every corner of the world....we will never let you rest,....could have been achieved by capture just as effectively as killing him. And by capture over kill, and more specifically, capture over murder, we could have avoided martyring this loser in the eyes of his followers. I believe OBL was a weak person, and under the right circumstances, would have broken and betrayed his own followers and beliefes. if that had happened, it would have been icing on the cake.


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2011)

Parsifal, you don't buy that UBL was shot out of hand because you apparently don't understand the politics of these United States. It was absolutely politically unacceptable to bring him here for a trial. Aside from security, cost, and the media circus which would have ensued, the main issue was that a trial would have been going on when the presidential election was being held and the strong possibility that UBL would get off with a life prison sentence would have been wildly unpopular, even to many obama voters. In addition, many left wing bleeding hearts would have come out from under their rocks to mewl about the rights of the accused. To turn him over to some world court would have been political suicide for the democrat party. obama and his minions are far too politically savvy to make that mistake. Surely, you cannot believe that those soldiers could not subdue and kidnap someone who did not even have a weapon if they had been ordered to. Morally and in theory, you are right and I agree with you but politics is the art of the possible and it trumps morals and theory.


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

maybe all thats true, I dont know, but what i do know is that the pursuit of Bin Laden was not just an American issue, at the request of the Americans it was an international coalition which suggests that the wishes of the coalition members needed to at least be considered. This does not mean that secret intell needed to be shared, it simply meant that the US led coalition needed to decide beforehand what they wanted to aim for with regards to OBL. AFAIK that question was never asked. 

Ther is a very strong perception in my country that all we were asked for by the Americans was to give our young mens lives....they were not interested in what we thought should be done...all is not well in Denmark so to speak. I dont think much will come of that feeling, but it is cumulative. To satisfy their blood lust, the Americans appear willing to sacrifice everything, even their responsibilities as coalition leaders. Thats a very high price just to see OBL dead.


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2011)

If the attacks of 9-11 had taken place in Australia instead of these United States, I would be very surprised if there were not a great deal of "blood lust" and the desire to see UBL dead down under.


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

Of course. i agree. I would gauge the mood down here as somber, rather than angry or exultant. We suffered 10 deaths September 11, a furthe 88 at Bali. we have lost 24 ADF personnel in Afghanistan and about the same number in Iraq. Australians are angry about those losses, and the vast majority blame islamic extremists for those deaths. We have a good hand in participating in operational control matters, but virtually no control over strategic decisions, like what to do with captured personnel. Americans guard that role jealously as their own. That causes a great deal of discontent within Australian society and a lot of unspoken disquiet at professional military level, and even at our political levels. We are being asked to fight and die for a cause. We are given the right to determine how the risks might be minimised and the results achieved, but we are given virtually no say in the outcomes, or the desired outcomes. That is a problem, a big one, and it needs to be addressed. 

For the record, the majority of military deaths within the coalition in Afghanistan remain American, but a significant proportion are also British Commonwealth. Of the 2430 or so western soldiers killed, 1400 or so are American, but 570 or so are British, Cannadian or Australian. Does that not gives us at least a say on what should be aimed for, and where we are going with all this, or is the coalition unimportant????????'

As for grief driven diplomacy, well, spare a thought for Iraqis themselves. There are no reliable figures on this, but various studies put the death toll somewhere between 104000 and 1000000 million civilian casualties. Most estimates accept a figure of around 150000. If we are basing our positions on the death toll, then the iraqis have suffered roughly 100 civilan casualties for every American lost in 9/11. not one of those caualties has made any difference to the losses suffered 9/11. Virtually none of those people killed had anything to do with the deaths that day. Doesnt mean we shouldnt be there, dosent mean we shouldnt pursue the low lifes that did cause the grief, and doesnt mean I dont see the need to do all this. But to allow grief, or pain to dictate our responses in all of this is absolutely the wrong way to go. We have to do our jobs, remain professional and finish the job we started, if all that blood spilled is to mean anything at all


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think if there comes a time where we are faced with an evil that is above and beyond what western justice can bring, this is it. I not only hope it went down like a alley killing but I do hope that at least one SEAL pissed on him before they hauled him off and fed him to the sharks.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned he got off easy but I do hope he felt terrible pain as his last miserable breath left his corpse.



I dont give Bin Laden and his band of loonies that much credence. He was a lunatic good for nothing dog, if we cant deal with that without keeping our hands clean then we have a bit of a problem. 

As for "I_ not only hope it went down like a alley killing but I do hope that at least one SEAL pissed on him before they hauled him off and fed him to the sharks"_, when I was in the service, we were confronted once or twice during board and search operations with smart arse little twirps that decided they might give us a bit of stick. One ferret decided to take a few shots, which drew fire from us before he laid down his weapon. One sailor under my command decided he was going to beat on that little idiot. Whilst he was resisting I was firing with deadly intent, as soon as he surrendered in my estimation the equation changed. I admit I was more than a little fired up on testosterone, and as soon as i saw what this sailor was doing he was grabbed by the hair and hauled off this little twirp. In my mind, once the threat was eliminated it was over...just a piece of baggage to be processed as far as I was concerned. In the post operational debrief, the CO backed me 100%...that sailor was lucky not to be put on report. So, based on my own experience, I would say the chances of any SEAL member doinfg that is almost zero. They would (or should) have been completely focussed on the task


----------



## RabidAlien (May 12, 2011)

The problem with Osama, in that regard, is that even in jail he was still a threat. Alive and incarcerated, in my opinion, he would have had all of the faithful militants threatening to blow up day-care centers and old-folks homes (and everything in between) to get his release. And can you think of a prison to hold him where 100% (every single one of them) would be guaranteed to NOT smuggle notes/bombing orders out of the prison? As you said before, he did not do any of the attacking himself. He had others do it for him. This fact would not have stopped once he was put in cuffs. So to eliminate the threat he posed, simply put, was to eliminate him.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 12, 2011)

In recognition of the fact that you all seem to want "justice" (whatever that may be ) for Osama, I offer you this.

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2011)

Oh jeez, for the umpteenth time, I am not interested in getting justice for OBL.....but I am interested in making sure our reputations are not tarnished so that what we do can be used against us by our enemies. If OBL was killed by execution, that represents a gold mine for our enemies, and OBL is just as much of a nuisance as he was alive. the loons that support him can now claim he has died a martyrs death. We risk making him a hero in their eyes, and a source of inspiration for all those willing to die for Allah. And I know that some of you people think that might bhe a good thing, but already the US is showing signs of weakening in its resolve, and looking for a way out. Unless we find a way to demoralize our enemies we face a war that could go onn for hundreds of years, and cost hundreds of millions of lives. We have to stop thinking so anally and start thinking about how to win this war. 

You see, meting vengeance on this loser doesnt bring one of our dead back from the grave, and IMO does nothing to contribute to victory. It has the potential to needlessly cost more lives of our soldiers and innocent Muslims caught in the middle. And all so we can feel good about getting vengeance. Thats a poor strategy, a dumb way of thinking and only contributes to our defeat. I cant help thinking that OBL has trumped us yet again....he probably knew that something like this was going to happen in the end, and planned to maximise the benefites for his cause by painting us westerners into a corner....it certainly looks that way at this point. 

Vengeance is not what this should be about. Its about winning for christs sake. We dont win by perpetuating the OBL mythology. We win by deconstructing it. A far better outcome in terms of winning this grubby little war would have been to get OBL to betrtay his own cause in front of the cameras....to plead for his life and show him up as the coward he is. If we had managed to do this his lies would be exposed and we win with a lay down mezzaire.

If he doesnt buckle like that he is going to come out swinging, spitting fire and brimstone, for all the fencesitters and do gooders in our own countries to see. Second prize, but still a good one, would be to watch Bin Laden lay down his antiwestern, murderous manifesto for the French (and others) to see for themselves, just what it was they decided to do nothing about. We dont defuse the hard core jihadists, but we pull the moderates away from them. Still a win.

OBL has been more a symbol than a front line commander for quite a while, so his ability to effectively lead from gaol would not represent his greatest threat to us. His greatest threat is that he will continue to be some sort of Messianic symbol to the jihadists, with all the suffering that goes with that. 

If these reports about execution are correct, with no mitigating circumstances, then my greatest fear is that Binm Ladens supporters will, if anything be strengthened by his death, and the US even more isolated and weakened and divided than it already is. There will, in the end be less support for the US and the west, and a greater falling away from the coaltion because the US will be seen as a brutish murderous society prepared to kill anybody, and step on any country that gets in its way....thats not how I perceive it, but thats how the enemies of the US are going to exploit this.


----------



## Erich (May 12, 2011)

classic Mike !

Parsif damn man let it go will ya. the SOB is dead, gone it is over with him. you are sounding paranoic, what has happened has happened whomever you can believe, we do not have the full story and may never have it. It is a done deal, now we must pursue the rest of the clan and those like it that wish to promote evil in the world with their hate and terminate it like a bad sore in however means we do this.

ok bud breathe in and breathe out. time for a bike ride ...........


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 12, 2011)

Parsif should view this


----------



## Florence (May 12, 2011)

-


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 12, 2011)

haha good one 

I like this one..


----------



## B-17engineer (May 12, 2011)

WHo will win this year


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 12, 2011)

"... The successor to the Nuremberg tribunals is the ICC."

Utter. Nonsense. Parsifal.  With all due respect, Nuremberg was envisioned and conducted by victorious allies who had made enormous investments in both blood and treasure to defeat (Nazi) Germany for the second time in 3 decades.

The ICC is a UN-sanctioned tribunal that currently has an investment in "justice" -- UN-style, justice. Ask the Israelis about UN justice, Parsifal. With Libya chairing the human-rights council, and Saudi Arabia the women's rights council (I exaggerate, but not by much ) I wouldn't trust the UN to fairly judge a spelling bee, let alone the fate of my country, my religion or my culture . Do you ....?

As the world's peace-maker (until recently), the US can hardly be blamed for being highly "skeptical" of the ICC. Right-minded people world-wide are rejecting the UN in droves, and the EU is failing -- another example of the weak and the profligate trumping the hard working and the disciplined. Heavenly Father, spare us from the vision of "world governance" and all the rubbish and illusion that goes with it. I pray.

MM


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 12, 2011)

the UN use to be a noble organization, now there just a bunch of corrupt bastards.
I'm a firm believer that Canada the US should get out of the UN.

anyways, as was already said, a world court would NOT have executed OBL. 

for FLYBOY, I read that OBL was shot in the chest first, then later after some "fun"
with him, the head. I'm sure he suffered... which is good.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2011)

Hi MM

Im going to follow Erichs sound advice and leave the Bin Laden discussions for a while. That kind of limits what I can talk about in this thread, so please take note I will only respond to issues not related to OBL.

With regard to your comments regarding the US role as international peacekeeper, couldnt agree more. With regard to your comments that UN has been infiltrated and corrupted by persons with malevolent intent, agree substantially with that. Just have s look at the anti-jewish resolutions since 1948……and that gives you a very good idea of what is wrong with the UN 

With regard to the ICC, you need to be aware that it is not part of the UN. It was formed by multilateral treaty, the Rome Statute, and is not so badly influenced by the third world, but does tend to be eurocentric, which is why I suspect you are so opposed to it, given it has strong connections to france and britain. It has certain rights and privileges granted to it by the UN security Council, but is not directly answerable to the UN. The UN can refer cases to it for consideration, which is about all it can do. 

In fact you mentioned the Saudis, and the Libyans, but neither of these countries are member states, neither have they even signed the MOU underpinning its existence. Most of the tin pot middle eastern nations have not signed. Not sure about Israel, but I will check later. Australia is a full signatory and recently had three members of the ADF acquiitted for alleged crimes. Neither is China, or Burma, or Egypt. I guess you believe these nations represent all that is good and high minded in the world, please, go ahead and argue their case

114 nations have signed and ratified the statute. A large number of states, including the US and Russia have signed , but not ratified. Not sure what that means, but I don’t think they can use the facilities of the ICC for prosecutions, or judicial review. 

The court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states

So as you can see, the ICC ability to investigate and prosecute is restricted. There really isnt any legal body able to deal with International crimes other than this body, which is why I say it is a successor to the Nuremberg trials, though the real links to this body are more moral rather than real. The ICC has severely restricted jurisdiction, I have to point out, so comparing it to Nuremberg is somewhat ambitios, i admit. In order for terrorists like Bin laden to have been placed before that court, substantial changes to its make up would have been required, but have never been attempted

For the record, also, Nuremberg was a product of the United Nations. The UN was set up under the Atlantic Charter in 1941, and the decision to set up this tribunal was made under the auspices of this body. I am unsure about the war crimes tribunals set up for the Japanese, as they were immediately answerable to the occupation authority set up by the US under Mac in 1945, and by the time they began, the cold war was beginning to have effect.

The problems with the UN arose with the rise of the non-aligned nations, and the rabid anti-semitism that dominates many middle eastern nations. They hate us, and want to use any means to discredit us embarrass us, or stifle us. Whilst the temptation is to ignore the UN, this really is not a productive option. The UN is a product of US and British diplomacy, and great things were expected of it. To abandon it as a concept carries with it a huge price in international standing that the US, and us, are really not willing to pay. Its akin to japan and italy walking out of the league Of nations in the 1930s. The US, and any other western nation could immediately be labelled a pariah and racist state. So what do you do in that situation…..we cant chew it, spit it out or swallow it, the best we can do is limp along and try and lift these nonaligned states that are causing the problems up to a better level of maturity, so that better decision come out of the organization


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2011)

It also seems a poor process to pass judgement on an organization on the basis of some imaginary association with the UN, and to say its ineffective or weak, when it has only just begun operation. The court only began prosecutions in 2006, and state investigations in 2008. Its immediate tribunal predecessors, the tribunal into the war criminals of the former yugoslavia and the criminals of Rwnada, have tried and convicted a number of people, but these were temporary tribunals with limited jurisdictions. The ICC was set up for criminals unable to be tried by states jurisdictions for specific crimes.

According to the ICC website, the following progress has been made with respect to the cases on its books:

"_Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organisations (“communications”). 

To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic – have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party. After a thorough analysis of available information, the Prosecutor has opened and is conducting investigations in all of the above-mentioned situations.

On 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecution authorisation to open an investigation proprio motu in the situation of Kenya.

In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen is currently being heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issued against [the] five top members of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). 

Following the confirmation of the death of Mr Lukwiya, the proceedings against him have been terminated. The four remaining suspects are still at large. 

In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, four cases are being heard before the relevant Chambers: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo; The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana.

Two cases are at the pre-trial stage. The proceedings against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo as well as Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui are at the trial stage.

The accused Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, and Callixte Mbarushimana are currently in the custody of the ICC. The suspect Bosco Ntaganda remains at large. 

In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, four cases are being heard before Pre-Trial Chamber I: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir; The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda and The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus

The suspect Bahr Idriss Abu Garda appeared voluntarily for the first time before Pre-Trial Chamber I on 18 May 2009. He is not in custody. The three other suspects remain at large.

In the situation in the Central African Republic, the case The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo is at the trial stage.

On 6 November, 2009, the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision assigning the situation in the Republic of Kenya to Pre-Trial Chamber II. Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecutor, on 31 March 2010, authorisation to open an investigation in the situation of Kenya.

On 8 March 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber II, by Majority, issued its decisions on the applications submitted by the Prosecutor to summon William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey, Joshua Arap Sang , as well as Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali to appear before the Court on 7 April 2011. 

On 26 February, the United Nations Security Council decided unanimously to refer the situation in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the ICC Prosecutor. On 3 March 2011 the ICC Prosecutor announced his decision to the open an investigation in the situation in Libya, which is assigned by the Presidency to Pre-Trial Chamber I_"

The individuals being indicted are not your average domestic criminal. The trials are ongoing, so it would be valid to say the processes of justice are slow moving, but to say that it is inneffective because it does not prosecute people is clearly spreading misinformation. To date only one person has been acquitted, and the proceedings against another discontinued because he died. A number of these individuals are being held in custody....effectively gaoled....whilst their trials are completed. The firsat trial scheduled for completion is the trtrial against Mr Kony, due in mid August of this year.

And where is the US in all of this. After signing the MOU to the treaty formation, which has the legal effect of making them observe the spirit of the treaty charter and not undertake activities that might be considered contrary to its intent, the US decided this was not for them, and withdrew even that tentative signature. They were joined, understandably, by Israel and remain the only two nations which I would classify as "progressive" as not having at least signed the treaty. Nearly all the other progressive western nations have both signed and ratified the treaty, even Russia has signed it at least. By rejecting the treaty in its entirety, the US and Israel are rubbing shoulders with such luminary nations as North Korea, Egypt, Yemen, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria. These other nations dont want to sign I think because they dont want to be investigated, and dont want any of their "states persons" tried under international law. One should draw ones own conclusions as to why the US has rejected this fledgling attampt at ongoing legal enforcement. It may have something to do with who is running it. I'll give you a hint.....Its a continent starting with "E" and ending with "e"


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 13, 2011)

All points are are noted and well-taken Parsifal. I appreciate your appreciation for the big picture on this. I too think the putting-to-rest of the Osama termination is overdue. 
I'm off this morning to my retreat in the woods - bear country  - 2.5 hours north of Toronto. Trust Fall is unfolding pleasantly down under in Orange, NSW. 

Chairs from the Great White North

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2011)

you lucky sob. wish i was there. I am going fishin in my new motorized zodiac in two weeks, so we will possibly compare notes then


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 13, 2011)

(Sorry about file size)

Two + acres on a river in the bush of the Halliburton Highlands (pre Cambrian shield) with my niece from France's son Mikho. No neighbors .
I don't fish and I don't hunt but I feed the birds year round - winter especially.

MM


----------



## pbfoot (May 13, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> View attachment 167304
> 
> 
> (Sorry about file size)
> ...


Thats not nice using baby as bait for black flies


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 13, 2011)

Sure it is, he's from F***** .

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2011)

gee MM, I didnt think you were that young man....who is the old guy in the background????


----------



## renrich (May 13, 2011)

I saw Senator Imhofe (sp?) on TV saying that he saw the photos of UBL and that he was shot twice in the head, one round going through the eye and that the photos taken after he was cleaned up showed only the two wounds. Don't know where the story about being shot in the chest came from. I agree that the full story is going to be hard to come by but I suspect that there are a number of Seal and Seal alumni who already have the full story. There was a photo circulating on the internet the day the mission was announced that certainly looked like UBL with one hole in the forehead and one in the eye. I don't doubt that it is possible that someone actually made that photo and circulated it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 14, 2011)

.... and the exploding bullets, blow-back thro the entry ... that's news to me. Exit's usually the sloppy one.

Show the bloody pictures and make your actions "observable" to all of us - USA.

Parsifal - "process" followed or process dispensed with - I don't give a damn - GOOD is going to come from this. If I were a moderate Pakistani - right now I would be asking some very hard questions about my government and my beloved military (not getting answers mind you, but .... asking ...). 

Clearly there was a long-agreed-to arrangement that if US Intelligence located Bin Laden they were going "take" him. And the Pakistanis were going to be suitably "pissed". The only hope for Pakistan in all this is to decide whether it wants to be a Muslim state, or a modern Western-facing state. In either case - it is a nuclear state. Frightening - now imagine Iran. 

No bears last night, but moose - driving in. Black flies.

MM


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 14, 2011)

AND SO IT BEGINS....



_BARTENDER, I'LL HAVE A BIN LADEN.

WHAT IS THAT?

TWO SHOTS AND A SPLASH OF WATER
_
LOL!


----------



## RabidAlien (May 14, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> AND SO IT BEGINS....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2011)

I heard the US found pornography - lots of it-, in the personal spaces of Bin Laden. Wonder Mr Average muslim and Mr Crazy loon muslim are going to make of that....if they hear about it that is


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> AND SO IT BEGINS....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
hahahahahahahahh!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2011)

renrich said:


> There was a photo circulating on the internet the day the mission was announced that certainly looked like UBL with one hole in the forehead and one in the eye. I don't doubt that it is possible that someone actually made that photo and circulated it.



That photo was already proven to be a fake the day after the mission. It was made by a Pakistani news agency by photoshopping a photo of OBL and a dead guy together.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 15, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I heard the US found pornography - lots of it-, in the personal spaces of Bin Laden. Wonder Mr Average muslim and Mr Crazy loon muslim are going to make of that....if they hear about it that is



They'll assume it was planted by the US soldiers. 

As for MM's comment that "GOOD is going to come from this", well I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad OBL is no longer around to plague us but he's not Al Qa'eda's only leader and I would expect the organisation to do something substantive to prove it's still in the fight. I also worry that the raid on OBL's compound will be seen as summary execution and hence will harden opinions towards the US and her allies, potentially pushing some moderate Muslims towards greater hostility.


----------



## parsifal (May 15, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> They'll assume it was planted by the US soldiers.
> 
> As for MM's comment that "GOOD is going to come from this", well I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad OBL is no longer around to plague us but he's not Al Qa'eda's only leader and I would expect the organisation to do something substantive to prove it's still in the fight. I also worry that the raid on OBL's compound will be seen as summary execution and hence will harden opinions towards the US and her allies, potentially pushing some moderate Muslims towards greater hostility.


 

Summary execution wont worry them too much. But OBL has gotten his martyrs death, which judging by the circumstances of his death is what he planned for and hoped for. I think he knew his days were numbered, so he took steps to preserve the idea of OBL.......they will portray him as a martyr that died for the cause.

To quarterise this obvious running sore, I think the best strategy at this stage is to do our best to discredit his image as a martyr, and to show to the fencesitters just what evil and blood thirsty lengths he was prepared to go to. I think there will be some western nations that will try and use his death as an excuse to reduce or terminate their contribution to the war on terror. So we will tend to get weaker, while the bad guys get stronger


----------



## buffnut453 (May 15, 2011)

Parsifal,

I agree we need to discredit him but I suspect we're still losing the propaganda war. Anything negative about OBL emerging from Western governments and/or media will simply be ignored by OBL's loyal following. As with the porn, they'll just say the story was made-up, that evidence was planted etc. The trick is persuading people that he was evil when they think the opposite. That's a very hard thing to do, particularly if his execution is perceived as unjust by moderates because that will simply reinforce stereotypes that the West is corrupt and is not interested in law or justice. It's all in the messaging and, frankly, we're still on the back foot because our news releases simply aren't seen as credible.


----------



## parsifal (May 15, 2011)

yep


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 15, 2011)

There would be no Osama without Pakistan - from start (USSR) to finish (9-11 USA) and Pakistan is the key to where this goes. Moderate Pakistanis want to move _ahead_. They see what free enterprise capitalism and entrepreneurship have done for India. EVERYONE wants a piece of the Indian economy-brain bank. Who wants a piece of the Pakistan economy ....? A bunch of backwards looking freaks ... narcissic freaks - that's who 

All out hearts-and-minds war in Pakistan now - some are writing in the Press that Pakistan should devolve back to three autonomous states - as it was before the British put India together. (This process worked in Czechoslovakia in a highly civilized way, after all ) .... but SR Czechoslovakia DIDN'T have the A-Bomb. So - NO SOUP FOR YOU Pakistani Devolvers .

The only war that's worth fighting 'over there' is for Pakistani moderates' hearts and minds. If they are _a majority _of the middle class and speak up, Pakistan can continue to look west. If these moderates don't declare themselves - they are going to lose their country and their "freedom" -)) to Islamic extremists. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

Pakistan is a key player, but its not the only one. If AQ has shown anything its that its a brand readily exportable, and adaptable. If we are to win this war, it has to be one step at a time , one country at a time, done better than Iraq and Afghanistan, and with a united and cogent western voice....instead our efforts are fragmented and we are disunited. And OBLs death tends to reinforce that fragmentation and disunity as many of the fencsitting nations in Europe and elsewhere may use the questionable circumastances of his death as an excuse to duck and weave, whilst the jihadists ham it up as a media circus. 

If we deal with AQ in Pakistan, I think the likley outcome is that they (AQ) will relocate to another country, though inevitably they will be weaker than before. So, winning a charm offensive in Pakistan helps, but it is unrealistic to suppose that it would eliminate the threat,


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 16, 2011)

Pakistan has the bomb. For now, Jakarta, etc. does not. I agree step-by-step. But Pakistan is Job One, IMHO. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

Yes, I agree....its the main exporter of terrorism at the moment, but strangely it is also one of our major muslim bulwarks against it.

On a different note, I note that the ICC have issued warrants for the arrest of Gaddafi and his son. All we ned now is to get himIt would be sure nice to have access to US special forces now.....


----------



## Matt308 (May 17, 2011)

Gaddafi needs to suffer a worse fate... knowing that he is being hunted. And that until he is found he is no longer going to live a life of luxury with wacko Ukranian blond hookers.


----------



## renrich (May 17, 2011)

MM has it right. The US has to try and stay engaged with Pakistan on a supportive basis not only because they have nukes but also as a counterbalance to India.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> Gaddafi needs to suffer a worse fate... knowing that he is being hunted. And that until he is found he is no longer going to live a life of luxury with wacko Ukranian blond hookers.


 
Hard to disagree with your sentiments. This guy was responsible for Lockerby dont forget. However, I would be happy if the ICC gets some air under its wings by getting this guy, trying him, and putting him in gaol for a very long time. If we achieve that, then a clear message starts to get out all those dirtbags in the world, and maybe the US will give it some credence. It would be fantastic if we had an international system of justice that actually worked......


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 18, 2011)

Circle around: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/war-crimes-trials-effective-23907.html



MM


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

from that thread, the majority of us support war crimes trials. The ICC presents the possibility of a permanent system of justicethat will remove or at least reduce the politization of these things, and give the possibility of routinely locking losers like Gaddafi away. There is the obvious risk it will contract the UN disease, but so far in its young existence has avoided that problem. I am cautiously hopeful, but the next three to four years will see it either as a success or an embarrassing failure. If its a success it would be a brilliant outcome to get the Americans onboard with it. I think, or hope (perhaps naively) that are waiting to observe whether it is effective or not. I hope they are not holding out for political reasons of their own......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hard to disagree with your sentiments. This guy was responsible for Lockerby dont forget. However, I would be happy if the ICC gets some air under its wings by getting this guy, trying him, and putting him in gaol for a very long time. If we achieve that, then a clear message starts to get out all those dirtbags in the world, and maybe the US will give it some credence. It would be fantastic if we had an international system of justice that actually worked......


 
And that is the problem, that will not happen with ICC.

As I stated before he will end up in some "Country Club" prison in Western Europe where he will live a very good life. Then after 2 or 3 years they will release him because of bad health and humanitarian reasons.

Please don't take me wrong. I agree with you that Trials are the way to go, I just don't agree with their effectiveness in todays world or that they are "just" enough.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

why do think they will go soft on him, or any other of the criminals brought before them. The predecessors to the ICC were reasonably effective in tracking down and dealing with the criminals in their jurisdiction. The two immediate predecssors were the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and the tribunals for Rwanda. The trials in Rwanda were a bit wishy washy, but a vengeful commission would not have solved the reasons for that massacre. I still rate that tribunal as a success, because the ringleaders were punished, and the main objective there was to try to reach some raprochement between the parties. Before those tribunals ther was only the Nuremberg trials, and these were anything but light on the defendants.

And to date the ICC had not had time to complete any of the matters before it, so it is impossible to judge its effectiveness as yet

The only alternative to prosecution by trial is summary justice, and whilst this might salve our desire for vengeance, it does not solve the issues that drive these attocities. It might seem we are fighting with one arm behind our backs, but we have to...we have to demonstrate to these "restless native" the superiority of what we stand for.

I will grant you this.....inneffective due process is worse than no process. If that happens, then we do have a problem, I admit


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

In regard to the Rwandan trials, there have been a total of 92 indictments brought to trial. Only 8 have been acquitted...a couple have died, whilst in custody, and the remainder are either still in progress, of have been convicted. The vast majority have had life sentences imposed, and as far as I know, life means life in these trials.

I dont have any information of the gaol conditions, but will try and find out. 

With regard to the war crimes trials in the Former Yugolsavia, my understanding and information is incomplete, however some of the facts that I do know of are interesting. 

International armed forces deployed in the Former Yugoslavia, while slow to prioritize cooperation with the Tribunal in enforcing indictments, more recently improved in their performance. The first arrest by an international armed force was on June 27, 1997, when the U.N. mission in Eastern Slavonia, Croatia (UNTAES) detained Slavko Dokmanovic; he died in Tribunal custody before trial. All subsequent arrests have been made by SFOR troops in Bosnia, and included two others in 1997 for a total of three arrests by international forces in that year (Slavko Dokmanovic; Anto Furundziga on December 18, 1997 --convicted and sentenced to ten years December 1998; and Vlalko Kupreskic, arrested with Furundziga and for whom trial remains pending). In the following years, seven were arrested by SFOR in 1998, and four in 1999 (1998: Goran Jelisic, January 22, 1998; Miroslav Kvocka and Mladen Radic, April 8, 1998; Milojica Kos, May 28, 1998; Milorad Krnojelac, June 15, 1998; Stevan Todorovic, September 30, 1998; and Radislav Krstic, December 2, 1998; and 1999: Dragan Kolundziga, June 7, 1999; Radoslav Brdjanin, July 6, 1999; Radomir Kovac, August 2, 1999; and Damir Dosen, October 25, 1999). On October 19, 1999, the Tribunal found that Goran Jelisic, who calls himself the "Serbian Adolf," was not guilty of genocide; but the tribunal nonetheless convicted him on 31 counts of torture and murder of Muslim and Croatian inmates of the Luka prison camp near Brcko in 1992, for which a forty year term was handed down in December 1999. All the rest of those who have been arrested in 1998-2000 still are awaiting or are undergoing trials (ICTY 2000b). 

Bosnian Serb Dusan Tadic, also known as “Dule” and “Dusko”, was the first man brought into the custody of the Tribunal; his long trial and his conviction, May 7, 1996, helped delineate the further course of the work of the Tribunal. On February 13, 1995, indictments were handed down against twenty Bosnian Serb commanders and guards from the Omarska concentration camp in northwestern Bosnia, including Tadic. At the time, Tadic was being held by police in Munich, Germany, since his arrest (February 13, 1994), where he had been hiding out at his brother's apartment. He soon was extradited to the Hague, becoming the first defendant held under the custody of the Tribunal. In Tadic's first Tribunal hearing, he declared “I did not take part in any of the crimes with which I am charged”.

Evidence undermined that assertion. The indictment against Tadic listed 132 separate counts of crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, all of which related to a rape, several instances of torture, and thirteen murders which occurred between May and August of 1992 at the Omarska concentration camp. Tadic did not hold an official position at the camp, but he was frequently observed by witnesses held there to have worn a military uniform while in the camp. 

The Tribunal was scrupulous in examining the many sensational charges, some which alleged his role in castrations, tortures and murders. In one incident, witnesses testified to Tadic ordering prisoners to drink water from puddles on the ground like animals, while he jumped on their backs and beat them. When the men were no longer able to move, Tadic put them into a wheelbarrow, discharging the contents of a fire extinguisher into the mouth of one of the victims. Yet another alleged war crime performed by Tadic occurred on May 27, 1992, when Tadic, along with Goran Borovnica, lined up against a wall Bosnian Muslims and Croats Ekrem Karabasic, Ismet Karabasic, Seido Karabasic, and Redo Foric, and shot them dead. 

Witnesses told their experiences in detail, though the use of hearsay evidence and the fact that the identity of some of the raped witnesses was shielded engendered some criticism. Tadic nevertheless received a vigoroous defense: his legal counsel, Michail Wladimiroff, was an experienced Dutch attorney assisted by members of his own law firm, as well as by the head of the Serbian bar association Milan Vujin and Krstan Simic, “a rural country lawyer” from Banja Luka. Assistance also was provided to the team by international NGO's, including the Americans from the Central/Eastern European Legal Initiative. The prosecutors in the case were a formidable unit. Chief prosecutor Richard Goldstone led the team, assisted by a friend of mine, Grant Niemann, an Australian who had prosecuted three cases against suspected Nazi war criminals, in addition to two Americans, Brenda Hollis and Michael Keegan, on loan from U.S. military Judge Advocate General's offices; and one American, Alan Tieger, from the Justice Department who headed the prosecution in the federal trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused of beating Rodney King. Presiding over the trial were three of the U.N.-selected judges, headed by U.S. appointee Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, along with Malaysia's Lal Vohrah and Australia's Sir Ninian Stephen. 

On July 14, 1997, Tadic was sentenced to a twenty year term. Tadic appealed but his appeal was defeated. Guess hes not smiling now......and hearings took place April 19-22, 1999, in the Appeals Chamber. Its final judgment was delivered July 15, 1999, denying Tadic's appeal on all grounds. Thus, the Tribunal completed its first complete trial and appeal, finding Tadic to have committed grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. Again, I do not know thee conditions of his confinement, but any confinement is going to be a major discouragement to commit such crimes in my opinion. Justice may bne slow but it is happening

Of the 93 warrants that have been issued in the ICTV (the Yugoslavian tribunal), 30 remain at large, 36 convicted, 18 acquitted or the charges dropped, and the remainder are either in progress or awaiting trial. Those awaiting trial are in custody, so effectively they have been incarcerated for more than 10 years anyway. Of the 36 convictions secured, no sentence is less than 10 years duration.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

In regard to the Rwandan trials, there have been a total of 92 indictments brought to trial. Only 8 have been acquitted...a couple have died, whilst in custody, and the remainder are either still in progress, of have been convicted. The vast majority have had life sentences imposed, and as far as I know, life means life in these trials.

I dont have any information of the gaol conditions, but will try and find out. 

With regard to the war crimes trials in the Former Yugolsavia, my understanding and information is incomplete, however some of the facts that I do know of are interesting. 

International armed forces deployed in the Former Yugoslavia, while slow to prioritize cooperation with the Tribunal in enforcing indictments, more recently improved in their performance. The first arrest by an international armed force was on June 27, 1997, when the U.N. mission in Eastern Slavonia, Croatia (UNTAES) detained Slavko Dokmanovic; he died in Tribunal custody before trial. All subsequent arrests have been made by SFOR troops in Bosnia, and included two others in 1997 for a total of three arrests by international forces in that year (Slavko Dokmanovic; Anto Furundziga on December 18, 1997 --convicted and sentenced to ten years December 1998; and Vlalko Kupreskic, arrested with Furundziga and for whom trial remains pending). In the following years, seven were arrested by SFOR in 1998, and four in 1999 (1998: Goran Jelisic, January 22, 1998; Miroslav Kvocka and Mladen Radic, April 8, 1998; Milojica Kos, May 28, 1998; Milorad Krnojelac, June 15, 1998; Stevan Todorovic, September 30, 1998; and Radislav Krstic, December 2, 1998; and 1999: Dragan Kolundziga, June 7, 1999; Radoslav Brdjanin, July 6, 1999; Radomir Kovac, August 2, 1999; and Damir Dosen, October 25, 1999). On October 19, 1999, the Tribunal found that Goran Jelisic, who calls himself the "Serbian Adolf," was not guilty of genocide; but the tribunal nonetheless convicted him on 31 counts of torture and murder of Muslim and Croatian inmates of the Luka prison camp near Brcko in 1992, for which a forty year term was handed down in December 1999. All the rest of those who have been arrested in 1998-2000 still are awaiting or are undergoing trials (ICTY 2000b). 

Bosnian Serb Dusan Tadic, also known as “Dule” and “Dusko”, was the first man brought into the custody of the Tribunal; his long trial and his conviction, May 7, 1996, helped delineate the further course of the work of the Tribunal. On February 13, 1995, indictments were handed down against twenty Bosnian Serb commanders and guards from the Omarska concentration camp in northwestern Bosnia, including Tadic. At the time, Tadic was being held by police in Munich, Germany, since his arrest (February 13, 1994), where he had been hiding out at his brother's apartment. He soon was extradited to the Hague, becoming the first defendant held under the custody of the Tribunal. In Tadic's first Tribunal hearing, he declared “I did not take part in any of the crimes with which I am charged”.

Evidence undermined that assertion. The indictment against Tadic listed 132 separate counts of crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, all of which related to a rape, several instances of torture, and thirteen murders which occurred between May and August of 1992 at the Omarska concentration camp. Tadic did not hold an official position at the camp, but he was frequently observed by witnesses held there to have worn a military uniform while in the camp. 

The Tribunal was scrupulous in examining the many sensational charges, some which alleged his role in castrations, tortures and murders. In one incident, witnesses testified to Tadic ordering prisoners to drink water from puddles on the ground like animals, while he jumped on their backs and beat them. When the men were no longer able to move, Tadic put them into a wheelbarrow, discharging the contents of a fire extinguisher into the mouth of one of the victims. Yet another alleged war crime performed by Tadic occurred on May 27, 1992, when Tadic, along with Goran Borovnica, lined up against a wall Bosnian Muslims and Croats Ekrem Karabasic, Ismet Karabasic, Seido Karabasic, and Redo Foric, and shot them dead. 

Witnesses told their experiences in detail, though the use of hearsay evidence and the fact that the identity of some of the raped witnesses was shielded engendered some criticism. Tadic nevertheless received a vigoroous defense: his legal counsel, Michail Wladimiroff, was an experienced Dutch attorney assisted by members of his own law firm, as well as by the head of the Serbian bar association Milan Vujin and Krstan Simic, “a rural country lawyer” from Banja Luka. Assistance also was provided to the team by international NGO's, including the Americans from the Central/Eastern European Legal Initiative. The prosecutors in the case were a formidable unit. Chief prosecutor Richard Goldstone led the team, assisted by a friend of mine, Grant Niemann, an Australian who had prosecuted three cases against suspected Nazi war criminals, in addition to two Americans, Brenda Hollis and Michael Keegan, on loan from U.S. military Judge Advocate General's offices; and one American, Alan Tieger, from the Justice Department who headed the prosecution in the federal trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused of beating Rodney King. Presiding over the trial were three of the U.N.-selected judges, headed by U.S. appointee Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, along with Malaysia's Lal Vohrah and Australia's Sir Ninian Stephen. 

On July 14, 1997, Tadic was sentenced to a twenty year term. Tadic appealed but his appeal was defeated. Guess hes not smiling now......and hearings took place April 19-22, 1999, in the Appeals Chamber. Its final judgment was delivered July 15, 1999, denying Tadic's appeal on all grounds. Thus, the Tribunal completed its first complete trial and appeal, finding Tadic to have committed grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. Again, I do not know thee conditions of his confinement, but any confinement is going to be a major discouragement to commit such crimes in my opinion. Justice may bne slow but it is happening

Of the 93 warrants that have been issued in the ICTV (the Yugoslavian tribunal), 30 remain at large, 36 convicted, 18 acquitted or the charges dropped, and the remainder are either in progress or awaiting trial. Those awaiting trial are in custody, so effectively they have been incarcerated for more than 10 years anyway. Of the 36 convictions secured, no sentence is less than 10 years duration.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> why do think they will go soft on him, or any other of the criminals brought before them. The predecessors to the ICC were reasonably effective in tracking down and dealing with the criminals in their jurisdiction. The two immediate predecssors were the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and the tribunals for Rwanda. The trials in Rwanda were a bit wishy washy, but a vengeful commission would not have solved the reasons for that massacre. I still rate that tribunal as a success, because the ringleaders were punished, and the main objective there was to try to reach some raprochement between the parties. Before those tribunals ther was only the Nuremberg trials, and these were anything but light on the defendants.
> 
> And to date the ICC had not had time to complete any of the matters before it, so it is impossible to judge its effectiveness as yet
> 
> ...



I probably should have worded that better. I question how effective they would be. 

I honestly see the "Country Club" scenario playing out in any major case involving a war criminal. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 18, 2011)

"... I honestly see the "Country Club" scenario playing out in any major case involving a war criminal."...

That was certainly the case for Napoleon on Elba and Saint Helena Islands .....  ... and the Kaiser didn't get in any practice busting rock.

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

For napoleon his treatment on Elba was a joke, but from what little I know about St helena, it was a rather bleak existence. Mind you, that was also a different age, where the treatment of captured enemy leaders had more to do with romantic notions of chivalry and honour. Mistreatment of officers and leaders in the modern age really began during the ACW

I think it worth noting that a high proportion of detainees from these war crimes tribunbals are recorded as having died in custody. Causes of Death are not known to me at this stage, but i bet at least some of these guys committed suicide. If so, that suggests anything but a paradise like incarceration. Some of these guys do their time tough........


----------



## RabidAlien (May 18, 2011)

The problem with the "Country Club" existence, or a lifetime of turning big rocks into little rocks, for that matter.....who pays for the bills? Who gets stuck paying for the electricity, water, sewage, guards' salaries/training/equipment? Taxpayers. Me, for one, I'd rather spend my hard-earned cash on something that will better me and my family's lot. I'll go in on the cost of bullets to put the world out of these scumbags' misery (or rope....rope can be reused...that's "green", isn't it?). But I don't want to fund some international criminal's lifetime of living better than my family is able to. Screw that.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

The US experience dosent point to any reduced cost. They hauled in a lot of people from 2001 on and put them into a camp. Then they realized they couldnt do anything with these people, and as time progressed, it transpired that many of the people incarcerated were not guilty of anything....victims of faulty intell, again. 

So, what do we do with these situations....haul anyone off the street, shoot them, simply because someone else, usually with a religious ace to grind, says they are bad. We would be taken for a ride by anyone who wanted us to do their dirty work for them.

So again, I fail to see the correlation of due process and the death penalty. The US model (guantanamo) has cost at least as much as the ICC model, and is completely unsatisfactory because it has no end game.

If the ICC wanted to use the death penalty it would need international agreement to do that. However the majority of progressive western states reject the right of the state to use cap[ital punishment, mostly because there is a risk that the trial process might get it wrong. There are reputable investigation into the texan experience, for example, that suggest about 25% of death row inmates are not guilty of the crimjes they are alleged to commit. The figures for China are not reliable but some analysts say that as many as 50% of detainees are not guilty of the crimes they were executed for. So what do you do if you have a miscarriage of justice like that.....put it down to abad day at the office????

In any event, adopting the death penalty is an option, but it is in the minority opinion at the moment. Obviously I dont support state executions, but it would be a matter for consensus amongst the signatory nations. But at least having a trial process means these people will face justice, of a sort, eventuallyt, instead of getting off scott free, or martyring themselves so that others that follow them are inspired to even more depraved depths

There is no evidence to support the notion that summary justice reduces costs of the penal system, or that it acts as an effective deterrent. It does fulfill the concept of retribution, which is a valid element of the justice system, but in just about every other aspect it fails fundamental tests of amodern society. Thats not my opinion, its the opinion of others.....


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

here is a link to a website that gives a pretty good overview of US executions, and people wrongfully put onto Death Row.

Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center I: The Danger of Mistaken Executions

Reports of executions of innocent people weighed heavily in some other countries' decisions to stop using the death penalty. Two American researchers, Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, reported 23 instances in which innocent people have been executed in the United States in this century. 

Among the cases noted by Bedau and Radelet are cases in the south of black men tried by all white juries and executed for the rape of a white woman. In some of these cases, subsequent evidence revealed that the woman had an ongoing sexual relation with the accused, but such evidence was considered either unbelievable or irrelevant at the time. 

The difficulty with such cases is that generally no court decides that an executed person was innocent. Courts hear current cases brought by live petitioners. Whether an executed person was innocent becomes a matter of historical research (which is rarely undertaken) and an evolving consensus among the public. This is a much slower and less precise process than a retrial ending in an acquittal. 

Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions 

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been inmates with reasonably credible claims of innocence who were nevertheless executed, some without a full review of those claims. In 1992, for example, Roger Keith Coleman made headlines with his dual plea that he was innocent and that no court would review his evidence.



Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction 1986 

New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell has asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence. 

O'Dell, I understand has since been executed

Ive been told in this place that "near enough" is "good enough", and "so what if a few innocents are accidentally killed. I find that response apalling to be honest. I know what i would do if anyone in my family were executed wrongly


.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 19, 2011)

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment -- but I have to admit that we've had a series of ghastly wrong convictions in Canada --- where innocent lives have been just destroyed. And non-capital -- we had a coroner in Ontario named Smith who was just out-right incompetent -- who convicted Mothers and Uncles of offenses against kids because he was on a witch hunt and refused to accept in-your-face evidence.

But I think it's naive to believe that everyone in the world shares the same views - for example - Saddam Hussein's execution was a tad "purple" (cursing him, shoes, etc., so was Benito Mussolini's) but sometimes justice is "cathartic" . If justice isn't perceived as justice by those who have been wronged then it misses the mark - somewhat. Justice isn't simply to make one portion of the world feel good about how civilized THEY are.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 19, 2011)

... and then there's this POV 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2urboaloE_

Martin Short from Letterman.

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2011)

Hi MM

There are some "people" who are just such animals that they dont deserve to live. I know that. If a criminal can be shown to have committed a heinous crime, and there is no chance of a mistake, and no chance of rehabilitation, then I am all for stringing those people up. Some crimes are unforgivable, some people cannot be helped. What I object to is using the death penalty as a first choice, as a panacea for all the criminal issues that confront us

Youd have to say that OBL was in that category, Gaddafi probably does deserve to die as well, but only after we have shown the world that he was given a fair trial. Who knows, maybe his grandmother forced him to have sex with her when he was 6 years old or something.....


----------



## Matt308 (May 20, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ... and then there's this POV
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2urboaloE_
> ...




I thought that was funny. This thread needed a little levity.


----------



## Glider (May 20, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> I thought that was funny. This thread needed a little levity.


 
*Agreed

Bin Laden has met the first of the Virgins Promised to him
*


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2011)

Glider, I almost got a hernia from laughing at your post. Well done!


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2011)

even i agree it needs little looosening up. That was one funny picture


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2011)

I note since the last entry that two things of significance have occurred. First, the ICC have issued warrants for the arrest of Gaddafi and his sons, and the Yugoslavian government have arrested Vladtko Miladic for the ICTY (special international tribunal for the former jugoslavia). Riots have already broken out in Belgrade by supporters of this criminal, though the vast majority of Serbs appear relieved or nonchalant about his arrest. He is effectively in gaol from now.

meanwhile his mate Radavan Karadic has had his 48th motion to dismiss on the grounds of a procedural irregularity dismissed. I am told ot took more than three months for his defence team to put together their submission, and less than two days for the motion to be dismissed.

And one of the Bali bombing masterminds Umer Patek has been captured in Pakistan. An Indonesian National the Indonesians are currently considering whether they want to try him at home under local jurisdiction, or refer him to the ICC. Under the local law, he faces the death penalty but the certainty of a conviction is lower. Under the ICC the body of law is more secure, and the court more independant, but he will not face the death penalty. I am unsure about this one.....


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2011)

I had posted this under "Are War Crimes Trials Effective" the day the story broke, but re-post here:

Bosnian-Serb Ratko Mladic arrested, facing genocide charges - The Globe and Mail.

I don't like the idea of "trials" in the Hague - Nuremberg Trials were effective because they were held in Germany. 9-11 trials in some other country than the USA ...? Unthinkable. Trials should be in the location where the crime took place - if there is public discomfort with that (Serbian protests) then that is part of the bargain-of-justice. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 31, 2011)

Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.

Might be appropriate for a localised tribunal like the ICTY, but what do you do with the ICC which is a truly international court? Sometimes the local venues would not have the access to security and legal precedential libraries that are sometimes needed. I agree having the venue so far removed limits the effect of the courts justice, but I also see it as a necessary step. I think the idea is to make the trials "business as usual" rather than letting them degenerate to a media circus. Part of the problem to be solved is the sometimes fanatical support these guys receive. Can you imagine the circus that would develop if Hambali was tried in Pakistan?????

Part of the raison de tre for the ICC is that they offer to remove these divisive persons from countries often devastated by war. The last thing they need is a further descent into anarchy. And it tends to rob these despots of their primary reason for living.....the support they command from their armies of supporters. Instead they are quietly removed frome world stage and deaslt with as surgically as possible .


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2011)

All true, Parsifal, but it does foster the concept of "extradition to justice" which amounts to saying "no possible justice in situ" which then undermines the goal - which is "universal standards of justice". If I were a Serb nationalist I would be pissed off that Mladic was being shipped out of country. If it's OK to do that, why isn't it OK to move prisoners to countries with lower standards of Human Rights to be "questioned"?

MM


----------



## parsifal (May 31, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> All true, Parsifal, but it does foster the concept of "extradition to justice" which amounts to saying "no possible justice in situ" which then undermines the goal - which is "universal standards of justice". If I were a Serb nationalist I would be pissed off that Mladic was being shipped out of country. If it's OK to do that, why isn't it OK to move prisoners to countries with lower standards of Human Rights to be "questioned"?
> 
> MM


 Just be aware that a nation able to try an international criminal, can elect to excercise its soverign rights and do so. A nation with the legal framewaork to try a person, but unwilling to do so, can refer it to the ICC. Finally, the UN security Council can refer a matter to the ICC for investigation and further action. This is the only relationaship the UN has with the ICC, and it the only merchanism that allows nationals of non-signatory nations to be pursued. I think its a pretty neat mechanism...it does a couple of things simultaneously. It establishes an international framework of standards against which international crimes can be judged. It does not unneccessarily cut across the soverignty of nations with the will and the means to paddle their own canoes, but it also gives the world s nations to act collectively to deal with tyranny, if they desire.....all we need now are the balls to use it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 2, 2011)

So what's it like being "one of the boys" incarcerated in the Hague ....?

Sounds like "The League of Gentlemen" 

Mladic's old social club

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2011)

Dont know what the gaol conditions are like. Thats the first article I have seen on the issue


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 2, 2011)

A secular 21st Century monastery .... sounds like.

Latest news suggests that the Serb general Mladic was treated for cancer in Serbia two years ago - and that he 'surrendered' (not caught) in order to receive better cancer treatment in the Hague. 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/79759...mladic-give-himself-up-for-better-cancer-care

So - Elba and Saint Helena weren't inappropriate analogies . 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree that Elba was an unsatisfactory solution for Nappy, for the simple reason that escape was far too easy and some thousands of lives had to be lost to bring him to ground....again. However, I saw a doco some months ago about St Helena, and whilst it was not medieval in its treatmen t of him (no racks, no thumbsrews I am afraid) it was not a picnic either. He was subjected to an almost total quarantine from the outside and limited in his contact with his gaolers. For someone who had aspired to be ruler of all Europe it was torture enough. And his broken power was maintained by this incarceration. Perhaps not retribution, but effective containment.

I dont know enough about Napoleon to say what might have happened if they had hanged him, but I daresay that the possibility of retribution was at least plausible. There were many in Eurpoe who saw him as messianic, and to kill him may well have elevated him to martyrdom.

In any event the gaol at the Hague is more like St Helena than Elba. As far as I am aware, no one has escaped from the Hague. Anbd once in custody, the last thing that would be wanted is to victimise them so that they garner even more support and sympathy, leading to further bloodshed. Remember, that many of its inmates are referred to the ICC because of a fear of further instability and warfare at home....the last thing thes nations want is to inflame the home situation by mistreating some of these people. Its a compromise, and like all compromises, it cannot satisfy all the expectations of everyone. By removing them from their societies, proving their guilt, and locking them away humanely, they at least are denied their liberty and robbed of their opportunity to fulfil what they see as their "destiny"

I am very skeptical about Mladic giving himself up voluntarily to receive treatment. I will concede that the Serbs, like the Pakistanis with OBL, had known for sometime about the whereabouts of their respective fugitives. But in each case, the political ramifications of their arrests were too great for them to risk. In the case of Mladic, his political support was waning, and finacial aid to the Serb administration was being witheld until until he was arrested....a sort of national bounty on his head if you like. As Mladic's influence waned, the Serbs were finally brought round to the opinion that they could risk his arrest. Thats my understanding of how it went down. Mladic did not resist, but he also did not put his hand up and say "come and arrest me now". certainly at the moment he is fighting tooth and nail to argue against extradition to the Hague through the Serbian courts. Dont know the basis of his appeal.


----------

