When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, May 23rd, 2011 10:07am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

we always get the whole story from the government, right?
Saudi Arabia? nothing to see here!

I'd be surprised if capture was even given as an option for the mission... that would be such a mess. I'd rather see our troops not dying trying to find him.

It also seems rather odd that so many people expect photos to be released. It would only be inflammatory, and if Bin Laden isn't dead then he can disprove the official story quite easily.

>> ^blankfist:

When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.


I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."

Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^blankfist:
When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."
Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.


So shooting unarmed men fits into the same comparison as shooting someone with a gun to your head? Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please...heheh jk *troll face*. But seriously though, they didn't kill everyone in the building, took some captive, why not him? If we change the situation to a drug raid, and we run into an apartment complex and start killing suspects that aren't armed is it a equal comparison? I mean, we didn't murder on site those responsible for the Holocaust, a fair bit worse than 911. I am so confused on what people believe here.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^blankfist:
When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."
Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.

So shooting unarmed men fits into the same comparison as shooting someone with a gun to your head? Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please...heheh jk troll face . But seriously though, they didn't kill everyone in the building, took some captive, why not him? If we change the situation to a drug raid, and we run into an apartment complex and start killing suspects that aren't armed is it a equal comparison? I mean, we didn't murder on site those responsible for the Holocaust, a fair bit worse than 911. I am so confused on what people believe here.


I don't care. That doesn't require any more explanation I just don't care.

So, upshot of what the guy from Reason (read: libertarian propaganda outfit) said was that it's legal, unless they shot him when he was surrendering, or otherwise rendered harmless. Everything else was simply speculation and willfully misreading things.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^blankfist:
When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."
Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.


Doesn't deserve to live? How do you determine that without due process?

And a right to fair trial isn't a law, douchebag. It's a right.

>> ^blankfist:

Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.

Doesn't deserve to live? How do you determine that without due process?
And a right to fair trial isn't a law, douchebag. It's a right.


I guess I have to say this again. I don't care. No I really don't fucking care your life is worthless.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^blankfist:
When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."
Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.

Doesn't deserve to live? How do you determine that without due process?
And a right to fair trial isn't a law, douchebag. It's a right.


I'd like you to address Yogi's hypothetical. What if when the SEALs came to bin Laden's house, he drew a gun and pointed it at them? Would shooting him be okay?

What if they said "Put your hands up or we'll shoot!" and he responded by quickly reaching for something in his robes? Especially after they'd already been fired on by his guards?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^blankfist:
When the people hurrah the disregard of a human's rights, it becomes tolerated.

I don't think that happens when you do it to someone who simply doesn't deserve to live. In short Laws are worth following only as long as it makes sense to reasonably do so. So if there was say a man holding a gun on you, you may kill him because it is reasonable to assume he might kill you. I'm not saying Bin Laden was in that situation, but I don't care to see him compared to say the "Freedom Riders."
Make accurate comparisons not platitudes please.

Doesn't deserve to live? How do you determine that without due process?
And a right to fair trial isn't a law, douchebag. It's a right.

I'd like you to address Yogi's hypothetical. What if when the SEALs came to bin Laden's house, he drew a gun and pointed it at them? Would shooting him be okay?
What if they said "Put your hands up or we'll shoot!" and he responded by quickly reaching for something in his robes? Especially after they'd already been fired on by his guards?


But he didn't. There was a kill order. Zero attempt at giving him a fair trial. Enough with your "what if" games. Let's live in reality for once.

RT if you're ever going to get as good at spin as FOX your 'experts' not only need to support the ethos you're pushing, but they need to be so in favor of it, they make the anchors look neutral in comparison. And when you show clips that supposedly support your position that don't actually support it one way or the other, your lead in needs to be much stronger so as to cue the audience more to your way of thinking.

Seriously, they show a clip that supposedly shows a massive flipflop in the story and the biggest change is them saying the wife was used as a shield, to she charged the SEALs. Frankly that clears up how she shielded him and her willingness. Secondly all the expert can say is it was illegal if he surrendered and they shot him anyways and that you can only speculate whether that happened or not, but we have no idea.

People treat this like it was the police showing up for some domestic abuse squabble, and they shot the guy for being angry. This was a man who headed an organization responsible for thousands of people's death. Who specifically targeted civilians, and used his own people as living bombs. And no that's not an emotional plea saying he's a bad man and deserved to die. It's a listing of factual behaviors showing the man is very capable of and willing to use lethal force. Its a matter of risk assessment for the SEALs; how much latitude do you give someone before deciding the potential for them to kill you is too great? With a man that had a history like Bin Laden I'm going to say probably not a lot.

>> ^blankfist:

But he didn't. There was a kill order. Zero attempt at giving him a fair trial. Enough with your "what if" games. Let's live in reality for once.


I agree, we should live in reality for once. How do you know what the orders were? We've been told it was a capture or kill mission, and that OBL was shot when reaching for a weapon.

What's your evidence that either element is false? Or are you simply asserting that your suspicion is proof enough of guilt?

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted. How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly? Surely if this was a "capture or kill" order, then they must've offered a chance for him to surrender, right?

Their first story was that a gun battle occurred, then later it was revealed he was unarmed. Also they claimed he used his wife as a shield, then later it came out that he didn't. So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

Too circumstantial for you? Okay. How about Obama's track record? In 2009 military commanders told Obama's Administration they were able to located and capture one of the most wanted leaders of Al Qaeda, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Instead of capturing, Obama's Administration said they wanted him dead. And the SEALS bombed him from the sky. No arrest attempt.

And the drone aerial attacks have increased over Pakistan under Obama, according to Long War Journal, a website dedicated to tracking the attacks. They estimate that the drones over Pakistan have killed almost 1500 people. Not capture, killed. Innocent people live there in tribes. Murdered as a casualty. But look at you and people like Yogi, the brave people who're out of range of danger that just don't give a fuck about those who are targeted and murdered - unless of course it furthers your political agenda, right? Yep.

Most damning is the time when Obama's Administration authorized the assassination of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. He wasn't even Osama. He was some radical cleric they gave "explicit" authorization to murder without due process. That's your guy, Obama, side-stepping the rights of people like a pro authoritarian fascist.

Osama's murder without trial looks like more bloodthirsty progressivism to me. Hiding behind civil righteousness. By contrast the Bush Administration "captured" (not killed) thousands of suspected terrorists. And we all hated him.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted.

If this is supposed to be about Obama committing some sort of a crime, the burden of proof is on you. He's innocent until proven guilty.

>> ^blankfist:
How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly?

It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.

As for the rest of your comment, I could go and respond to each of your points in a big thread, but you usually don't bother to read those. Without stipulating that you said anything even remotely true, I'll say that there are certainly quite a few non-Osama bin Laden killings that are on much weaker legal and moral grounds than killing OBL was.

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.

The use of this one makes me just think you're trying to blunt its positive effect on Obama's poll numbers.

>> ^blankfist:

So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

They didn't instantly teleport into his room... I doubt he was sleeping too well with helicopters hovering over his residence and gunshots being fired.

And as far as due process... while I agree with that notion in general, I'm wondering what the point would be in this case. Whether or not he actually perpetuated the 911 plans, he was more than willing to accept credit for it.

Bin Laden had at least several minutes to prepare from the time the heli arrived to the time his room was breached. I wouldn't discount the possibility of him having a bomb under his robe in the hopes they would try to arrest him.

Honestly, I have far more of a problem with predator drones nuking buildings than I do with this particular operation.

>> ^NetRunner:
It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.


Burden of proof? Evidence? Well, it's hard to have any evidence when the government rushes off under the cover of night and runs top secret exercises with zero transparency except for what they tell me they did. But, let's look at the facts. OBL was unarmed, he was shot, the government reported an untruth that a gun battle was waged, they also reported an untruth about him using his wife as a shield, they claimed they ran a DNA test and identified OBL, then cleaned him and dumped his body in the ocean all within 24 hours.

And you say the burden on proof is on the "we the people" of this country to prove or disprove the secret assassinations of our military and CIA? Rolling my eyes right now.

And, lol at "it's easy to raise your hands and say I surrender". What an apologist answer. Fucking murderous cretins. Yes, it's easy for you or me to raise our hands and say "I surrender" if the cops are outside our door with a bullhorn. Doubt anything remotely similar to that happened. lol

>> ^NetRunner:

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.


Gladly. 1. It's Osama Bin Laden. He's the bogeyman for our loss of liberties over the past decade and the reason we've marched headlong into wars. 2. The other "examples" weren't met with such momentous applause as the death of OBL - and the cheers were mostly from progressives I've always hoped were pro-human rights (namely the right to due process here). But instead what I see are a bunch of apologists who are pro-partisanship even at the cost of human rights.


>> ^Psychologic:

They didn't instantly teleport into his room... I doubt he was sleeping too well with helicopters hovering over his residence and gunshots being fired.
And as far as due process... while I agree with that notion in general, I'm wondering what the point would be in this case. Whether or not he actually perpetuated the 911 plans, he was more than willing to accept credit for it.
Bin Laden had at least several minutes to prepare from the time the heli arrived to the time his room was breached. I wouldn't discount the possibility of him having a bomb under his robe in the hopes they would try to arrest him.
Honestly, I have far more of a problem with predator drones nuking buildings than I do with this particular operation.


Yes, Osama heard the helicopters being valeted, got up, brushed his teeth, flossed, took a nice jaunt around the park, walked his dog, shat, and jerked it moments before strapping on his Explosinator 3000 under his robe.

Several minutes to prepare? You're obviously speculating. The reports of eye witnesses said the helis came fast as if they were out of nowhere.

As far as due process, what're you saying? That the premise for a trial is flimsy? And therefore assassination is a better recourse? Has everyone on here lost their fucking minds? Seriously, I think we're all getting hung up on this being OBL. Yes, he was a fucking scumbag that probably deserved worse than what he got, but goddammit he deserves a fair trial if we're to have a society of laws, no?

Isn't that what all you statists keep clamoring on and on about? That we should have laws? Well, where's your consistency here? A man, a very terrible scum of a human being, was robbed of his right to a fair trial. The "who" in this scenario is incidental. Rights aren't conditional based on someone's popularity. For fuck's sake.

And, yes, the drone planes are terrible. I despise those too, and we should constantly be outraged at that every second of every day and not stop voting out the lying bastards that continue bombing innocent people. Starting with Obama and any other Republican or Democrat that steps up in 2012 who isn't immediately in favor of ending these warlust aggressions against other people in sovereign lands.

>> ^blankfist:

Several minutes to prepare? You're obviously speculating. The reports of eye witnesses said the helis came fast as if they were out of nowhere.

This isn't Star Trek. Even if the heli instantly appeared above the compound it still either has to land or have the troops drop down. Then, even assuming there was no one but Bin Laden there, they still had to get into the building and up to the 3rd floor. At an all-out sprint with no confrontations along the way, I'm guessing 30 seconds minimum.

If you want to bring reports into it, shots were fired outside of the house and also when they were climbing the stairs... that's when they killed Bin Laden's son and shot at Bin Laden as he looked over the railing (missed at that point).

Then they got to his room (he went back to sleep I suppose?) and shot him. At least, that's the last version I read, so perhaps this is outdated.

>> ^blankfist:
As far as due process, what're you saying? That the premise for a trial is flimsy? And therefore assassination is a better recourse?

He wanted a trial? I'm pretty sure people can claim guilt and skip that whole "fair trial" thing, and I don't remember him being too ambiguous about his role in 911.

No, I'm not saying I'm happy about the events, but here's my list of what I would like to happen from most desired to least desired:

1. Stop occupying other countries and getting our people (and others) killed, all while providing great recruiting material for extremists.
2. Kill Bin Laden and get it the hell over with so we can get out of these other countries where we're getting the previously-mentioned people killed.
3. Capture Bin Laden, creating a political/media circus under the laughable pretext of a "fair trial" while spurring more extremists to kill people and take hostages "until Bin Laden is released".

If we can rightly assume that Bin Laden wasn't given the option of surrender (which I kinda do) then we can just as well assume that he wouldn't have taken the option if it were presented. Aren't assumptions fun?

>> ^blankfist:

Burden of proof? Evidence? Well, it's hard to have any evidence when the government rushes off under the cover of night and runs top secret exercises with zero transparency except for what they tell me they did. But, let's look at the facts. OBL was unarmed, he was shot, the government reported an untruth that a gun battle was waged, they also reported an untruth about him using his wife as a shield, they claimed they ran a DNA test and identified OBL, then cleaned him and dumped his body in the ocean all within 24 hours.

How do you know OBL was unarmed? Because the government said so? How do you know that it was an "untruth" that a gun battle was waged? I'm particularly interested in that one, since you're the only person I've seen advance the story that the SEALs didn't take any fire at all during the raid.

>> ^blankfist:
And you say the burden on proof is on the "we the people" of this country to prove or disprove the secret assassinations of our military and CIA? Rolling my eyes right now.

Hey, you're the one who's supposedly in favor of due process. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused. It doesn't matter what the accusation is, or who you're accusing.

You're right, you've got a hard case to prove...whatever it is you're trying to prove. That's why I think you should probably start looking for evidence, rather than running around pronouncing people guilty of things you can't prove. That is, at least if you're going to continue to hold yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes due process and what doesn't.

>> ^blankfist:
Gladly. 1. It's Osama Bin Laden. He's the bogeyman for our loss of liberties over the past decade and the reason we've marched headlong into wars. 2. The other "examples" weren't met with such momentous applause as the death of OBL - and the cheers were mostly from progressives I've always hoped were pro-human rights (namely the right to due process here). But instead what I see are a bunch of apologists who are pro-partisanship even at the cost of human rights.

Ahh, pretty much what I expected. He's famous, and there are plenty of liberals who're glad he's dead.

So what you're saying is, rather than accept that maybe, just maybe Obama deserves credit for killing the bogeyman, and joining the liberal pivot to "so now we can bring everyone home, right?" You want to intentionally beat this drum to try to show that liberals are...what? You say "bloodthirsty" a lot, but at best this is an excuse to call people hypocrites for saying "in this case, I'm willing to make an exception."

Instead, your logic (such as it is) goes:

1. It isn't a war, it's purely a criminal matter (no matter what Congress says)
   
2. The official story says he was shot while reaching for a weapon, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SEALs could've captured him if they wanted, and just shot him anyways
   
3. It was Obama's order that even if they could capture him, they should kill him instead
   
4. Obama is the physical embodiment of pure liberalism, so anything he does must be based on a core tenet of liberalism
   
5. Therefore all liberals are bloodthirsty murderous cretins, especially that pro-Obama NetRunner guy

A bunch of military operations experts on the Sift. I never knew.

Sweet! Can I list you as a reference?