I didn't come up with it. It was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. If you disagree , your beef is with them.

I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Perhaps out might try being less dismissive and insulting about your ignorance....but likely not.

Apparently it wasn't enough time for him to grasp the seriousness. It was barely enough time to staff the NSA. They briefed him a few times, but the "Osama Bin Laden preparing to attack" report went unread or at best unheeded. Again, this is according to the bipartisan Senate commission set up to determine what actually happened.

Edit: Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff - “The 9/11 Commission had said if there had been a longer transition and there had been cooperation, there might have been a better response, or maybe not even any attack,” the former chief of staff said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/former-bush-chief-of-staff-cites-9/11-warns-about-slow-transition.html

The 9/11 Commission Report noted:
"[T]he 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."
The point is that delaying these processes such as obtaining background checks can create significant later delays in putting new officials into place and in some cases obtaining Senate confirmations. Delays in the transference of information with the incoming team can also obstruct the next administration’s ability to carry out existing and new policies.
Perhaps you're unaware, the Bush administration, like others before it, did not have its full national security team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

Plans like watch for groups of middle eastern men who suddenly have funds to move to America, especially those who want to learn to fly, but not take off or land. Plans like track Bin Laden's money and deny people he funds from entering the country. Plans like focus on his communications to learn what his plans were. Plans like take him out before he attacks. There were many plans, I'm sure most were classified but many just common sense.

Really, you never heard the intelligence community makes plans to deal with threats?! They might not have been successful at stopping an attack, but at least could have tried.

First thought,

If you find the question interesting, watch the Death Note anime(not the movie), this is more the less the premise of the entire series with a teenage genius gaining said power.

I have to say I find video presenter's approach to the question is interesting. He almost only addresses the crime of passion angle. The more difficult moral question IMO is as MilkmanDan alludes with the trolley problem. If you have essentially a superpower like this, it is not ONLY your use of it that is a dilemma, but also a refusal to use that power to help victims when you could.

Go back 10 years ago, what is morally worse, using your power to kill Osama Bin Laden, or to refuse to use your power when you could end his influence?

Huh?

Edit: The 'facts' in this video are misleading and completely ignore the last 70 years as if they never happened in order to claim 'Russia is our friend'. By that logic, so is Osama Bin Laden. JFC!

What is odd is, with the never ending, TRUE, bad for Trump stories since before day one (Flynn), you cannot seem to grasp the probability that he's both incredibly out of his depth and also incredibly corrupt. He's given FAR more evidence of wrong doing in 5 months than Obama and Clinton combined, but you just can't see the mountain of evidence because he told you it's fake news...any negative story about him is fake....and you buy it, from a man who's book explains that you just continue to spout bullshit and lies and enough idiots will believe you and defend your lies to be successful...and he's now proven conclusively that it works.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

*promote (got me by 5 min)

When a man doesn’t love a woman very very much
He signs away his paternal rights and jizzes in a cup
Then with lots of money and scientific genius
Hormones, pain and of course, um… Jesus

The process begins the way god intended
With a transvaginal ultrasound
With a wand longer than a ukulele
When it comes out of my body, it makes this sound (pop)

I give myself daily intradermal injections
An acute blood thinner and estrogen concurrence
Cryopreservation through hormonal activation
And none of it’s covered by insurance

Then I’m knocked out and you’re removed
And combined with a stranger’s come
And as the saying goes
You win some, you lose some/you dispose of the defective ones in a hazardous waste bin

And then you’re frozen until I’m certain
It’s time to unthaw you into a person
Then you’ll expire or you’ll make the grade
And that, my darling, that’s how babies are made
(It’s so easy and natural)

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t say a word
Mama’s gonna freeze you til she gets rich

And when that day finally arrives
You’ll be constructed in a petri dish
With sperm donor 8w6-3
The silent partner of our family

So hush little egg baby don’t be sad
Just because I never fucked your dad

VERSE 2:
I know there are orphans everywhere
But I’m going to pretend that isn’t real
Don’t look at me like that just cause I admit it
You had kids and you knew the deal

Yeah I feel guilty about overpopulation
And ruining the environment for forever
But Osama Bin Laden had 20 kids
So fuck you or whatever

Sadly procreation is not a meritocracy
And we need to prevent a real life Idiocracy
Though it may be the ultimate form of narcissism
It’s also a way to re-reverse reverse Darwinism

Gonna mute the sound of that ticking clock
I just need the sperm now I don’t need the cock
My ovaries are like hey girl I’m over here
And I’m all like shhhh

I want all the stuff I don’t need a bucket list
It doesn’t make me greedy it just makes me feminist
Now I’m thinking back through all the guys I’ve dated
If they heard this song they’d fucking hate it

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t you cry
You’ll have the best genes mommy can buy

I don’t want to wait until I get in dire straights
My friends say if I want kids I should go out on some dates
But these working bitches don’t have time to leave it to the fates
The world deserves more Riki’s and the world deserves more Kate’s

So hush little egg baby dad’s are overrated
He did what mattered when he masturbated

BRIDGE:
Hush little egg baby just hold firm
Mama’s gonna buy you designer sperm

And if that sperm gives you random traits
Mama’s gonna test your dna

And if your dna doesn’t make things clear
Mama’s gonna just have to live in fear

And if that fear turns into guilt
Mama’s gonna hold onto what we built

And if I hold too tight as to suffocate
I’ll buy you lots of things to overcompensate

And if that overcompensation’s too transparent
I’ll pretend it’s somehow better with no male parent

And if you say but mom who’s my dad
I’ll say I don’t know and it’s just too bad

And if that badness forms a hole in your heart
I’ll want to make it up to you but won’t know where to start

I’ll probably start by saying it’s just you and me
And there’s no such thing as a normal family

So fuck being normal and let’s do this shit
Momma’s gonna freeze you til she… gets…. rich

Sy Hersh's account of the Bin Laden raid is quite a doozy:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

Either Sy is full of shit or all the reports about it were Pure-D propaganda -- and I don't know which of these alternatives is more disturbing.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

I think these so-called unstoppable warlords that siphon off our aid is an even bigger myth. The United States of America defeated the British Empire, invaded Nazi Europe, dropped a nuclear fucking bomb on Axis Japan, sacrificed thousands of lives in Vietnam, stood head to head against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, landed on the moon, funded Nicaraguan revolutionaries using money from arms sales to Iran, assassinated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet we can't deal with warlords and civil wars in Africa where (at least with Rwandan civil war) weaponry is in the form of crate after crate of machetes made in China?

If all of those things are possible for the biggest super power in the world, how is it not possible to stop these warlords from siphoning our aid?

Lies.

We don't care so nothing of real consequence happens. All of those above events have one thing in common: our own goddamn self interest.

Everything sucks. May god have mercy on everyone's soul.

I don't really care about their stupid antics at TYT. However yes if you want to fight terrorism, increasing terrorism is a stupid way to do it. Says all the terrorist experts including the CIA. It is completely predictable the increase in terrorism, we predicted it and it happened.

We shouldn't just leave them alone, because we wouldn't be we've already destroyed their countries. We should do what the British and the IRA did when they addressed legitimate grievances. There are legitimate reasons why people are upset and supporting a few wackjob terrorists. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda wouldn't have any support if it wasn't for the US and it's recruitment machine of killing innocent people who have no hatred for the US and thus turning their families into utter psychopaths some would say rightly so.

So yes there are things we can absolutely do, what we're doing isn't working, it wasn't predicted to work, and we should stop doing it because it's fucking evil.

I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

No this isn't true. The US started a War with Afghanistan refusing to give any evidence against Osama Bin Laden. They said hand him over or else, and they didn't have any evidence against them which the CIA admitted 8 months after the War was launched.

The US doesn't present evidence, they don't go to the World Court and they don't even tell the Pakistani Military or Government when they are going to attack someone. They do what they want.

Also there is plenty that you CAN do when a country simply refused to hand over criminals. We don't do them, we simply kill now. Bush Jailed people without evidence, Obama kills them and innocent civilians.

"I believe wiretaps are an important tool for law enforcement/counter terrorism..."

This is not Counter Terrorism, this is simply terrorism. Do I have to remind you of how COINTELPRO was used over 4 administrations to intimidate and assassinate those who fought for social justice?

"Contrary to media hysteria, Obama can't listen in on your phone calls or read your sexts without a court order."

A court order doesn't stop them, they don't listen to the courts. They use them to cover their ass but if they think my friends are organizing to protest they can read all about it in our emails and take steps to have the FBI Focus a crackdown on us. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

Now on to your direct questions.
"Do you all think that surveillance should be a legal tool in criminal investigations?"

Yes, but the government has never been interested in counter terrorism being called or assessed as a criminal act. When we started the War in Afghanistan it was to get Osama Bin Laden and we ordered them to give him up. They asked rightly for the evidence against him. We decided that it didn't matter, let's fucking kill as many people as possible and destabilize the region to get this guy, risking the deaths of up to 4 million people and increasing the threat of terror. The worst part is WE KNEW we were increasing the threat of terror, we did it anyway.

This is just one example there are countless others, even a worse one by Obama himself, it's a travesty. So no this isn't about Criminal Investigation, we have NEVER been interested in that.

"If yes, what changes do we make to current policy without rendering surveillance toothless?"

We address legitimate grievances with the nations and peoples we are wronging, and fall in line with international law. We increase terrorism on ourselves by our actions.

I've got tons more but this is getting long. The point is I'm not going to give this government anything. I'm not willing to, they've proven that they cannot have any sort of power whatsoever.

You specifically need to read up on some things because apparently you woke up today and believed you were dealing with rational people who are just trying to protect us. You're not, these guys don't work for us, they hate us.

@Kofi Did you find any yet?
Oh and I think Shineyblurry was more just trying to educate you Messenger, not just answer your questions. So here's my answers for you:

"1) Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"
All of it. Hamas is a globally recognized terrorist group. Hamas has done more to take away the freedom of it's people than it has good. By continuing to push an antisemitic world view and continually calling for the outright destruction of Israel they have done nothing for their people over the last 40 years. If Hamas would actually accept one of the many peace agreements that have been laid forth over that time, we would not be having this discussion. Instead they kill civilians and place launch pads next to playgrounds.
"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Absolutely. like Bicyclerepairman said, even if the borders went back to the 1946 borders the goal isn't borders it is the elimination of Israel entirely and the death of Jews worldwide.
"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"
Bicyclerepairman hit the nail on the head here. But I think that if all the Jews were dead and France ran Israel and kept Palestinians in Gaza they would have a much more difficult battle as it is a lot harder to identify "French" as a race and that diffuses their Nazi themed marketing machine of "BLAME THE JEWS". But I'm sure they would find a way, or slowly push Muslim and Islamic law to become the law of the land in France (Or other European countries for that matter). Something you can not do in Israel currently.
"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?
5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"
These were civilians. Not enemies. Where we can celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden in the United States, we morn when innocents die. Especially children. And if a US soldier kills civilians while in active duty he is prosecuted and sent to jail or possibly even executed. So killing is worse than celebrating, but celebrating the killing of an innocent makes you a terrorist and a blight on humankind. That's not to say that killing of innocents is off the table, lord knows plenty of it happened during World War 1 & 2 and as a measure of war, while I personally find it a disgusting tactic and something to be avoided you can reach a point where drastic actions must be taken.
For example, North Korea. If they should ever get aggressive, with the overwhelming amount of brainwashing that goes on in that country it is very likely that many of the civilians will wind up being killed in any conflict.
But Israel and Palestine should NOT be at that point.