So you'd rather him blow it on your belly than blow it on your back? >> ^bamdrew:

Start a death metal band with him. Get drunk and just fucking ROCK, you-know? Soon enough all would be forgive, due to the rocking.
wiaht whatre we talkin about? I think I just trolled blankfist. ... better just roll over and show my belly, metaphorically... avoid some blowback

>> ^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

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, then I suppose it isn't worth it, is it? Because this all started because of US interventionism, I'd probably take steps to close out US hegemony in that area of the world, and then seek a diplomatic dialog in the hopes of having Osama turned over for trial.

The Pakistani say they don't know where he is. Jumping back to the real world, they still insist they didn't know he was there, even now.

So...you'd tell the American people what, exactly? Never mind about bin Laden. Yes, we know where he is, no we're not going to try to capture him, because I'm afraid we might kill him accidentally, and I'm definitely not going to kill him, not because it'd be illegal, but because I think I'm some sort of saint?

How did you win the election in the first place?

>> ^blankfist:
I think what's important here are the things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't continue to kill people with drone planes. I wouldn't continue to create more wars in that part of the world. I wouldn't seek to radicalize more militants by making their families casualties of war. I wouldn't occupy sovereign countries.

I'd withdraw from Afghanistan, if I'd replaced Obama from the start I'd have never surged there. I'd never have gone into Libya. I'm not so mad about the drones, but I'd mostly been giving them a pass because I thought they were the only force we were truly applying to Al Qaeda. If they're not even doing that, I'm all for stopping them.

Oh, and nobody's "seeking to radicalize" anyone. Nor are we occupying a sovereign nation.

>> ^kymbos:

One word: Oprah.


Even better...Dr Phil.

>> ^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:

@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.

Koombaya my lord, koombaya.
>> ^NetRunner:

I'd have sat him down, had a really long, cathartic talk about his issues with his parents, and convinced him to set aside his crusade.
Afterwards, he'd have a joint press conference with me, and tell his followers that he was wrong, and that they should surrender themselves, and beg for forgiveness for their sins they've committed against the true will of Allah. He'd then tearfully apologize to the world, and thank me personally for showing him the error of his ways. Then he'd donate all of Al Qaeda's funds to helping Muslim women get a better education, and dedicate his life to preaching non-violence to Muslim extremists.
After that, I'd go talk to Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, then maybe convince Hu Jintao to forgive the US's debts to China.
That might be over 500 words, sorry.

>> ^blankfist:

If I had to take over where Bush left off, I'd probably seek the advice of my intelligence advisors and see if tracking down Osama was doable within a reasonable timeframe.

That is in fact what Obama did. They found him two years later.

>> ^blankfist:
If yes, I'd bring him to trial.

You're skipping some steps. First you find out that he's living in a compound with 22 people, including armed guards. It's also just down the street from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, and intelligence believes that bin Laden is under the protection of the Pakistani military.

The military says to just bomb the building with a pair of B-2 bombers, because sending special forces poses a lot more risk, both to the soldiers themselves, and to the mission of killing or capturing bin Laden.

So how are you going to capture him, with no possibility of him winding up dead? If for whatever reason, your mission to capture him winds up with him dead instead, are you to automatically be treated as a murderer?

@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:

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?

Due process -- the same thing that worked 60+ years ago on guys like these who make OBL look like a Boy Scout.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm going to continue to rub your collective noses in this shit. Because you may believe this has something to do with "who" had their rights encroached upon, but it doesn't. It has to do with who decides when rights can be skirted.


Since you're so in love with telling lies about people you have political disagreements with this argument, why not articulate it fully, at least?

You're saying...what?

That wars are bad? Progressives agree.

That we're not at war? Afraid we are. Congress voted on it and everything.

That progressives are happy about being at war? Have you listened to anything we've ever said in the last ten fucking years?

Are you saying that morally or legally we had no right to declare war on Al Qaeda after 9/11?

Are you saying hat even if we're at war, we shouldn't fire a shot at anyone, because they deserve a trial first?

Also, why is the killing of OBL the focal point for these concerns? Why not someone less culpable that US forces have killed?

Here's Noam Chomsky's response to OBL's death...
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

>> ^possom:

For the record, no evidence has been presented.
Al Qaeda can not confirm his death. They can only confirm that he is no longer answering his phone when they call.


Not a court of Law...when you hear Al Qaeda and the wife saying it's true...maybe it's time to let your love of OBL go.

Isn't it a delicious irony that Moshe Landau died the day before they killed OBL?

A great reminder of the times when even the most abhorrent criminals in history stood trial in front of a court instead of simply getting executed.