Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: G M on May 01, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
-
Fingers crossed!!!!!
-
Hope the snake eaters got him.
-
Room temperature. The Commander in Chief cut his golf game to just 9 holes today for the first time in his Presidency, a very big story. Looking forward to learning the details.
Violence threatened. We will see what happens next. We will also see if this gives us confidence to stop operations in Yemen etc.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/689415.aspx
April 25, 2011
'Nuke hellstorm if Laden caught or killed'
Al Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" on the West if their leader and world's most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden is nabbed. ...
-
Looks like SpecOps did get him. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Nuke hellstorm if Laden caught or killed'
"Al Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" on the West if their leader and world's most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden is nabbed. ..."
If they had the chance, they'd nuke us no matter Bin Laden's status.
-
Looks like SpecOps did get him. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Nuke hellstorm if Laden caught or killed'
"Al Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" on the West if their leader and world's most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden is nabbed. ..."
If they had the chance, they'd nuke us no matter Bin Laden's status.
Best cigar I've ever smoked. Good riddance baby...
-
Wonderful news for America! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Many interesting implications to absorb here , , ,
-
http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF33040.html
BIN LADEN: AL AZHAR, SEA BURIAL IS A SIN
02 May , 13:01
(ANSAmed) - CAIRO, MAY 2 - The body of Osama bin Laden must be buried in the ground, and throwing it into the sea would be a 'sin', said Mahmoud Ashour of the Al Azhar Academy of Islamic Research, the most prestigious Sunni educational institute, while speaking to ANSA.
The Al Azhar official rejected the idea of sea burial of the Al Qaida leader for "trivial motives", explaining that even when someone drowns, the body must be searched for in order to be able to "bury it in the ground". "They should bury it in the ground without putting anything on the grave," explained Ashour, responding to a question about whether Osama bin Laden's burial could become a sort of pilgrimage site. (ANSAmed).
-
Congratulations !!
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/222754_1696702579298_1289856263_31412745_3154520_n.jpg
sorry guys, couldnt resist :mrgreen:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_brotherhood_bin_laden
CAIRO – Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative organization with links around the Islamic world, has condemned the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces as an "assassination."
The Brotherhood, which seeks the establishment of a state run according to Islamic principles through peaceful means, is Egypt's most powerful and organized political movement.
The statement Monday said the group "is against violence in general, against assassinations and in favor of fair trials."
Bin Laden and his jihadist allies, however, have repeatedly condemned the Brotherhood's more moderate approach and willingness to work within the system.
The Muslim Brotherhood will be competing for half of Egypt's parliamentary seats in September's elections.
-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Hiding-bin-Laden-Finger-of-suspicion-at-ISI/articleshow/8141352.cms?intenttarget=no
Hiding bin Laden: Finger of suspicion at ISI
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | May 2, 2011, 12.05pm IST
WASHINGTON: Just hours after American Navy Seals shot dead Osama bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan on Sunday, US President Barack Obama shot down the Pakistani security establishment's attempt to claim joint credit for the operation.
In a ten-minute television address, Obama left no doubt that US personnel alone were involved in the action that brought bin Laden to justice. ''Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,'' Obama said, adding, ''A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.''
While Obama said ''It's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding,'' he made no mention of any Pakistani military role in the operation. US officials in background briefing made it clear that no country, much less Pakistan, was informed of the operation.
In fact, there was not even a word of thanks for Pakistan. Instead, Obama said: ''Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.''
The finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the Pakistani military and intelligence for sheltering and protecting Osama bin Laden before US forces hunted him down and put a bullet in his head in the wee hours of Sunday. The coordinates of the action and sequence of events indicate that the al-Qaida fugitive may have been killed in an ISI safehouse.
US analysts uniformly suggested that the Pakistani security establishment's claim of a role in the operation is clearly aimed at ducking charges of its military's possible role in hiding bin Laden. ''This is hugely embarrassing for Pakistan,'' was a common refrain on US TV channels throughout the night.
In fact, top US officials have openly suggested for months that the Pakistani military establishment was hiding bin Laden. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came closest to publicly exposing Pakistan's role last May when she accused some government officials there of harboring Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
''I am not saying they are at the highest level...but I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Taliban are,'' Clinton said on May 10 last year, adding, ''We expect more cooperation (from Pakistan) to help us bring to justice capture or kill those who brought us 9/11.''
Taken together with President Obama's pointed reference to President Zardari and leaving out any mention of Pakistani forces' involvement, it would seem that Washington believes that Pakistan's military intelligence establishment, including the ISI, was sheltering bin Laden. The ISI was accused as recently as last week by the top US military official Admiral Mike Mullen of having terrorist links, and named as a terrorist support entity by US officials, according to the Guantanamo cables.
Lending credence to the charges is the fact that US forces homed in on bin Laden in Abbottabad, which is a cantonment just 50 kms from Islamabad, where the Pakistani military has a strong presence. The place where bin Laden was killed is only kilometers from the Kakul military academy, where many Pakistani military elites, including some of its ISI cadres, graduate from.
While US officials are tightlipped about precise details, analysts are trying to figure out whether the compound that sheltered bin Laden was an ISI safehouse. There is also speculation as to whether Hillary Clinton was referring to this when she made her pointed remarks last May.
US officials have said for years that they believed bin Laden escaped to Pakistan after the American bombing campaign in Afghanistan. But Pakistani officials, including its former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, insisted that he was in Afghanistan, even as Afghan officials would angrily refute it and say he is in Pakistan. In the end, the Americans and Afghans were right on the money.
-
The Tactical Irrelevance of Osama bin Laden's Death
May 2, 2011 | 1450 GMT
NOEL CELIS/AFP/Getty Images
A man in Manila watches news coverage of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s deathSummary
The killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden represents possibly the biggest clandestine operations success for the United States since the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003. The confirmation of his death is an emotional victory for the United States and could have wider effects on the geopolitics of the region, but bin Laden’s death is irrelevant for al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement from an operational perspective.
Analysis
Americans continued to celebrate the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden well into May 2 outside the White House, near the World Trade Center site in New York and elsewhere. The operation that led to bin Laden’s death at a compound deep in Pakistan is among the most significant operational successes for U.S. intelligence in the past decade. While it is surely an emotional victory for the United States and one that could have consequences both for the U.S. role in Afghanistan and for relations with Pakistan, bin Laden’s elimination will have very little effect on al Qaeda as a whole and the wider jihadist movement.
Due to bin Laden’s status as the most-wanted individual in the world, any communications he carried out with other known al Qaeda operatives risked interception, and thus risked revealing his location. This forced him to be extremely careful with communications for operational security and essentially required him to give up an active role in command-and-control in order to remain alive and at large. He reportedly used a handful of highly trusted personal couriers to maintain communication and had no telephone or Internet connection at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Limited as his communications network was, if news reports are accurate, one of these couriers was compromised and tracked to the compound, enabling the operation against bin Laden.
Because of bin Laden’s aforementioned communications limitations, since October 2001 when he fled Tora Bora after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, he has been relegated to a largely symbolic and ideological role in al Qaeda. Accordingly, he has issued audiotapes on a little more than a yearly basis, whereas before 2007 he was able to issue videotapes. The growing infrequency and decreasing quality of his recorded messages was most notable when al Qaeda did not release a message marking the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in September 2010 but later followed up with a tape on Jan. 21, 2011.
The reality of the situation is that the al Qaeda core — the central group including leaders like bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri — has been eclipsed by other jihadist actors on the physical battlefield, and over the past two years it has even been losing its role as an ideological leader of the jihadist struggle. The primary threat is now posed by al Qaeda franchise groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the latter of which may have carried out the recent attack in Marrakech, Morocco. But even these groups are under intense pressure by local government and U.S. operations, and much of the current threat comes from grassroots and lone wolf attackers. These actors could attempt to stage an attack in the United States or elsewhere in retribution for bin Laden’s death, but they do not have the training or capabilities for high-casualty transnational attacks.
STRATFOR long considered the possibility that bin Laden was already dead, and in terms of his impact on terrorist operations, he effectively was. That does not mean, however, that he was not an important ideological leader or that he was not someone the United States sought to capture or kill for his role in carrying out the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history.
Aggressive U.S. intelligence collection efforts have come to fruition, as killing bin Laden was perhaps the top symbolic goal for the CIA and all those involved in U.S. covert operations. Indeed, Obama said during his speech May 1 that upon entering office, he had personally instructed CIA Director Leon Panetta that killing the al Qaeda leader was his top priority. The logistical challenges of catching a single wanted individual with bin Laden’s level of resources were substantial, and while 10 years later, the United States was able to accomplish the objective it set out to do in October 2001. The bottom line is that from an operational point of view, the threat posed by al Qaeda — and the wider jihadist movement — is no different operationally after his death.
-
I'm expecting the muslim world to publicly celebrate the death of OBL, given he wasn't a muslim anyway, although we had to respectfully bury him like a muslim, although that wasn't good enough for al azhar, oh and the muslim brotherhood is upset, luckily they are a secular group of somekind..... :roll:
Yup, the joyous crowds of the "Vast majority of peaceful muslims" should be celebrating anytime now......
-
Within a mile of a Pakistani officer training school.
12-18 foot walls
No trash pickup, phone hookup or internet connection
Few windows facing to the outside. Third floor balcony had a 7' privacy wall
Roughly 8 times the size of any residence nearby
-
Within a mile of a Pakistani officer training school.
12-18 foot walls
No trash pickup, phone hookup or internet connection
Few windows facing to the outside. Third floor balcony had a 7' privacy wall
Roughly 8 times the size of any residence nearby
Sign posted outside saying "ISI safehouse, no kufar allowed".
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k[/youtube]
Oh wait, they are celebrating the 9/11 attacks. My bad.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k[/youtube]
Oh wait, they are celebrating the 9/11 attacks. My bad.
Note for Andrew: These are the people that can't say "Palestine" as they are the decendants of the arab invaders of the land Hadrian renamed "Palistinia" to spite the orignal Jewish inhabitants. Just wanted to be clear on this.
-
GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by U.S. forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an "Arab holy warrior."
"We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood," Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters.
Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden's al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."
(Writing by Dan Williams, Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi)
But we keep being told that OBL wasn't a real muslim.....
-
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hand of U.S. special forces doesn't end the war against Islamic terror, but it is a crucial and just victory that is rightfully cause for celebration.
Especially so in a war fought against combatants who hide in the world's dark corners, who rarely fight in the open and who attack innocents far from any conventional battlefield. Even if it took nearly 10 years, the skillful tracking and daring attack on al Qaeda's founder shows that democracies can prevail in such a struggle and is as notable as landmark victories of other wars that involved the taking of cities or island-hopping. The battle of Abbottabad is a triumph of intelligence, interrogation and special operations that are by necessity three of the main weapons in what the U.S. military has called this "long war."
***
Credit goes to the intelligence gatherers, at the Pentagon, CIA or National Security Agency, who developed the leads and pursued them. President Obama also singled out the "extraordinary courage and capability" of the "small team" of special forces who carried out the risky mission deep inside Pakistan. U.S. special forces too rarely get attention for their perilous work because they must operate in secret, but this is a moment of triumph to savor amid all of their sacrifices.
Mr. Obama also deserves credit for ordering a special forces mission rather than settling for another attack with drones or stand-off weapons from afar. Drones have their uses, but a target as valuable as bin Laden was worth the gamble of a U.S. military raid both to reduce the chances of his escape and to end once and for all the myth that he couldn't be taken. The skill and success of the raid is also a boost to American prestige and pride at a moment of too much national self-doubt.
Yet if the mission had failed, the second-guessers would have asked why Mr. Obama hadn't merely ordered a drone strike. Pakistan's anti-American voices would have exploited the failure, and U.S. soldiers might have been captured or killed. These are nonetheless risks that Presidents must take to achieve larger purposes, and Mr. Obama deserves the praise he is receiving for taking them.
When Bin Laden Struck
In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, Journal staffers returned to the paper's offices at 200 Liberty Street in Manhattan to recover what they could. They took these photos during their visit.
.This is also a moment to salute George W. Bush. After 9/11, Mr. Bush began the counterattack that became the war on terror, developed and expanded the military and intelligence means to fight it, and never flagged in its pursuit even as his political opposition derided him for his determination. The attack even looks to be a vindication of Mr. Bush's interrogation policies, as U.S. sources say the initial break that led to the operation, concerning a bin Laden courier, came several years ago from Guantanamo detainees.
The most striking fact of Mr. Obama's prosecution of the war on terror is how much it resembles Mr. Bush's, to the consternation of America's anti-antiterror left. This includes the strategy to pursue terrorists in their sanctuaries, keeping them on defense and less able to plot against U.S. targets.
No doubt bin Laden's demise will cause some to declare victory in the war on terror, and to urge that we now negotiate a truce with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This sentiment will be heard loudly in Pakistan, which seems to want America out of its region, as well as among Americans tired of the costs of fighting in faraway places.
But the very fact that the U.S. felt obliged to issue a world travel warning at the moment of bin Laden's death shows that the terror threat remains without him. Al Qaeda has evolved in this decade, with smaller cells, new leaders and other sanctuaries. The branch in Yemen is especially dangerous, having played a role in at least two terror attempts on the U.S. mainland. Now is the time to press the advantage, not assume the threat is past.
Continuous Updates
News updates and reactions from around the world.
U.S. Forces Kill Osama bin Laden
How bin Laden Was Found
Video: Obama's Speech
Read Obama's Speech
.In this context, we should add that the U.S. decision to dispose of bin Laden's body at sea strikes us as a potential mistake. We understand the instinct to respect Islamic rituals and dispose of the body within 24 hours, but al Qaeda and others may now try to dismiss the entire episode as U.S. propaganda. Notwithstanding White House assertions today of positively identifying bin Laden's DNA, we hope the U.S. took photos of the dead bin Laden and that those will be released in a formal, public briefing on the evidence with dispatch. The U.S. should not feed the myth that bin Laden was a model of Islamic piety when in fact he perverted Islam's tenets for his own political uses.
We should also add a word about Pakistan and its habit of fighting on both sides of the antiterror war. Abbottabad is not some distant outpost in that country, and it is hard to believe that some in Pakistan did not know of bin Laden's hideout. U.S. officials clearly believed they couldn't trust Pakistani intelligence with what we were learning about bin Laden, a mistrust born of hard experience.
Many Pakistanis will be outraged at the violation of their sovereign territory, but if Pakistan won't behave like a genuine ally then the U.S. must see to its own self-defense. The Pakistan government, and especially its military, would be wise to see the bin Laden operation as proof that the U.S. will act if Pakistan will not. The best security for Pakistan is to defeat the Taliban, not to keep using it as a weapon to bleed America in Afghanistan.
***
Much as during the decades of the Cold War, the "long war" on terror has made many Americans tire of the fight, especially in the absence of cheering crowds waving U.S. flags in Paris or Palermo. But we cannot forget that this is a war for national survival against enemies who would annihilate our cities if they could. The death of bin Laden is a measure of justice for the thousands he killed. As important, it is a warning to others who would kill Americans that they will meet the same fate, no matter how long it takes or where they try to hide.
-
Waiting for the "Vast majority of peaceful muslims" to set them straight.....
http://tribune.com.pk/story/161126/hundreds-join-first-rally-to-honour-bin-laden/
QUETTA: Hundreds took to the streets of Quetta on Monday to pay homage to Osama bin Laden, chanting death to America and setting fire to a US flag, witnesses and organisers said.
Angry participants belonging to a religious party in Quetta, the capital of southwestern province Baluchistan, were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah. They also torched a US flag before dispersing peacefully.
It was the first rally in Pakistan after the United States announced that bin Laden had been killed in an overnight commando mission in Pakistan.
Organisers said between 1,000 and 1,200 people attended the rally, but witnesses put the figure closer to 800.
“Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed (Muslim fighter),” Asmatullah said.
QUETTA: Hundreds took to the streets of Quetta on Monday to pay homage to Osama bin Laden, chanting death to America and setting fire to a US flag, witnesses and organisers said.
Angry participants belonging to a religious party in Quetta, the capital of southwestern province Baluchistan, were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah. They also torched a US flag before dispersing peacefully.
It was the first rally in Pakistan after the United States announced that bin Laden had been killed in an overnight commando mission in Pakistan.
Organisers said between 1,000 and 1,200 people attended the rally, but witnesses put the figure closer to 800.
“Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed (Muslim fighter),” Asmatullah said.
-
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143848
Arabs Riot in Jerusalem Over Bin Laden's Demise, Hamas Angry
by Hillel Fendel
Arabs in the village of Silwan, adjacent to the City of David neighborhood in Jerusalem, rioted Monday night in protest over the elimination of Osama Bin-Laden. The rioters were throwing stones at police and attempting to block roads.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/UK-Reaction-To-Bin-Laden-Death-Muslims-Urged-To-Remain-Peaceful-Following-Terrorists-Death/Article/201105115984076?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15984076_UK_Reaction_To_Bin_Laden_Death%3A_Muslims_Urged_To_Remain_Peaceful_Following_Terrorists_Death
Appeal For Calm In UK After Bin Laden Death
10 Comments5:01pm UK, Monday May 02, 2011
Mike McCarthy, North of England correspondent
The head of one of Britain's largest Muslim organisations has urged people to remain peaceful following the death of Osama bin Laden.
British Muslims have been urged to 'move on' after the death of Bin Laden
Councillor Salim Mulla, who is chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, told Sky News: "I am appealing publicly to all Muslim communities wherever they may be that there is no backlash. We should now move on."
Cllr Mulla said although he was not critical of the American operation that resulted in the Bin Laden's killing, he thought many Muslims would be "irritated".
He said: "I really hope and pray that there will not be a backlash. I hope it won't happen and I can't see it happening.
"I have been very critical of American foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is time to move on.
"In relation to Osama bin Laden - we believe that the soul of anybody who dies belongs to God and he will now be accountable to God."
-
Who in the ISI and elsewhere is losing sleep over the hard drives seized at OBL's safehouse?
Will Obama use this opportunity to advance America's national security?
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4064183,00.html
VIDEO - An imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem vowed to take revenge over "the western dogs" for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday.
Aftermath
US aims to destroy al-Qaeda / News agencies
Washington determined to bring down terrorist organization after successfully killing its leader Osama bin Laden, top Obama advisor says
Full Story
In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: "The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion."
The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: "You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you'll hang together with Bush Junior."
"We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help," he vowed.
We've been told for almost a decade how Bin Laden doesn't represent islam. Why did OBL get a 'muslim' burial? Where are the global expressions of joy from the vast majority of peaceful muslims? Why so many angry words from this imam?
-
Let's hope the US Navy treated OBL with the same civilized, quiet dignity shown for another muslim leader.....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k7mpnPJWDo[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k7mpnPJWDo
-
Picture from outside the compound and a very strange story in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/05/al-qaeda_pakistan) about the lack of curiosity about who resided within. I was wondering what a million dollar shack looks like in Pakistan. "Local residents say that police regularly swept the area, roughly once a week, checking residents' IDs and sometimes looking inside homes." (but not this house)
(http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/OBL%20HOUSE%20590.jpg)
A video from the inside. You would think the guy had time to clean his room.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/osama-bin-laden-dead-inside-pakistan-kill-site-13507839
Bib Laden's daughter claims he was captured alive and shot dead:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html
Will they be able to claim he is still alive AND prosecute the special forces for wrongful death??
-
Andrew posted: http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/222754_1696702579298_1289856263_31412745_3154520_n.jpg
Andrew, That was very funny!
-
Suppose John Brennan Had Simply Repeated Harold Koh?
Kenneth Anderson • May 5, 2011 1:54 am
I wonder whether the current kerfuffle over whether there was a legal obligation to invite OBL to surrender would be different had the Obama administration, and John Brennan in particular, not inexplicably displayed a certain hesitation on the question of capture.
Suppose that faced with that initial, and entirely predictable, question — did the SEALs attempt to capture Bin Laden? — Brennan had instead brooked no opposition and snapped back with visible irritation — of course they were not attempting to capture him, they were there to kill him and had been sent to kill him. This was an armed lethal attack upon a a criminal adversary of the United States in an armed conflict, without cavil or apology. They were sent to attack and kill him as someone who was targetable with lethal force and no warning at any time. Which, as explanations go, and at least as it appears at this moment, does have the virtue of being true, as well as legally sound.
The NGOs and advocates and activist-academics have an instinctive sense for exploitable weakness and go after it; after all it’s part of their job. Brennan (as well as later spokespeople, including Holder) was not direct in stating that of course it was legal to target OBL, legal to target with lethal force, legal to target without warning or invitation to surrender, and that has always been the US legal position. I don’t understand how this entirely obvious question wasn’t briefed and anticipated, with an answer directly from Harold Koh’s 2010 American Society of International Law address on exactly this point:
Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force ....
The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are … implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law ....
Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems — consistent with the applicable laws of war — for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination’.
Isn’t that what the US government actually thinks is legally correct? Of course it is — it was stated a year ago as the “considered view” of the United States government by the chief international and foreign relations legal counsel to the United States. And isn’t this what it must eventually get around to saying, no matter what? It seems peculiar that high level officials would seem unprepared to articulate this. And had it done so, I wonder if some of the challenges to its position that the administration faces on its Europhile left wing would not have found far less traction. I agree that ultimately these are not politically serious objections and generally are aimed at appealing to various constituencies among the advocacy communities.
Still, the administration is in a strange position — not one I would have anticipated. And not one the administration would have anticipated either, I reckon:
A strand of the left wing insisting that OBL should have been arrested or at least killed resisting arrest for the sake of good legal form;
a strand of the right wing crying vindication for enhanced interrogation techniques and, it desperately hopes, crucial information obtained through waterboarding; and
a middle wing, including most of the left and right and in-between, looking at where OBL was living in Pakistan and among whom, and thinking, WTF?
(Update: The question raised in some of the comments of refusing quarter or refusing surrender is a separate one. Firing on a lawful target, even an unarmed one and even when one knows a human target is unarmed, is not unlawful — that is what potentially happens when one drops a bomb, after all. Refusing to grant quarter or refusing to grant surrender, on the other hand, is a serious war crime.
However, precisely because it is so serious, the act of surrender requires clear evidence of completion and, because it is fraught with risk and unknowns, is a far more difficult act to establish as a legal fact than is ordinarily supposed. Over the last several years, I’ve had many discussions with DOD lawyers and JAG, reviewing draft manuals and the like, and at first I was astonished at how much attention was paid by operational law of war lawyers — the JAG tactically advising in the field — to the nitty-gritty of this topic. They anxiously wanted to discuss and write down practical instructions on many distinct situations. They wanted to cover the many ways in which forces should not rush to assume that surrender was intended, or assume who exactly was surrendering, whether they would stop surrendering when their own superiors or comrades told them no or kept firing, what happens when individuals try to surrender piece-meal, by individuals but not under responsible command, if you an even know who that is on short notice, and you’re not sure who or whether it’s real — under what circumstances does any of this stop combat and with respect to whom?
We walked through these and many other situations from records of what had happened in many actual tactical situations, and not infrequently with grim results for attackers who had thought surrender by the other side was underway, and it wasn’t. In most of those cases, no perfidy or bad faith was involved, just uncertainty and fog of war on both sides.
This is a topic for another post, but surrender is a vital rule and an easy one to state in the abstract — but far more complicated, even when acting in good faith on both sides, on the ground. And, operational law lawyers emphasize, until that quite fraught legal act of surrender is accomplished, an attacker has no obligation to stop, or even pause in the attack, because so pausing might well cause the attacker to cede the initiative in the element of surprise on the other side that allows the adversary enough time to regroup and turn the tide. Is that subject to bad faith? Yes, just as perfidy and bad faith on the other side might happen.)
(I’ve also cleaned things up a little to emphasize that I think the fragmentation of the debate involves splinters of the right and left. A couple of the commenters were right in pointing out that I had carelessly taken “left” and “right” as whole things. However, when one looks abroad, I do believe that more important legal commentators — a Special Rapporteur at the UN, for example, Martin Scheinin — do indeed take the view that some form of invitation to surrender should have been made. I persist in my view that, however fringe that view is in the US, it has a lot of traction among the international advocacy community, in Europe, at the UN, among the NGOs, and unless confronted directly, will have the effect of reshaping the narrative internationally to a much greater degree than the administration seems to understand.)
http://volokh.com/2011/05/05/suppose-john-brennan-had-simply-repeated-harold-koh/
-
Job Opening: New Global Jihad Leader Wanted
by Raymond Ibrahim
National Review Online
May 2, 2011
With the killing of Osama bin Laden, we return to the age old question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Or, in our context, which came first—the jihadist vision or the jihadist? The ideology or the ideologue?
Did Osama "create" the ideology of jihad, or did the ancient ideology of jihad create him—and countless like him, past, present, and future?
Years ago, Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda's undisputed leader, placed it all in context. After he was asked about the status of bin Laden and the Taliban's Mullah Omar, he confidently replied:
Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.182).
In short, bin Laden's death, while intrinsically good, has no instrumental value against the jihad—a phenomenon that "transcends time" and "is greater than any individual."
-
Tangent concerning Harold Koh, who was mentioned in BBG's post.
a) He appears to have gotten it right concerning the question presented here;
b) The man's writings while prof at Harvard show him to be a serious advocate of undermining US sovereigty via treaties, the UN, and such. His position now at the State Dept puts him in the perfect position to do great harm. Watch out for this guy.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/5/evidence-at-bin-ladens-home-raises-nuclear-concern/
Intelligence analysts are sifting through phone numbers and email addresses found at Osama bin Laden’s compound to determine potential links to Pakistani government and military officials while U.S. officials and analysts raise concerns about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear materials.
According to three U.S. intelligence officials, the race is on to identify what President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, has called bin Laden’s “support system” inside Pakistan. These sources sought anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to reporters.
“My concern now is that we cannot exclude the possibility that officers in the Pakistani military and the intelligence service were helping to harbor or aware of the location of bin Laden,” said Olli Heinonen, who served as the deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 2005 to 2010.
“What is to say they would not help al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to gain access to sensitive nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium?”
The U.S. has worried quietly about the infiltration of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years. Those concerns heightened in recent months when the CIA learned that bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad was a stone’s throw from Pakistan's military academy.
Politico first reported this week that CIA Director Leon E. Panetta told members of Congress that bin Laden’s clothing had two phone numbers sewn into it at the time of the raid. Those numbers and other contacts found at the compound are key clues in an effort to determine what elements of Pakistan’s national security establishment provided support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.
“I can tell you that concern about al Qaeda and other terrorists’ infiltration into the ISI is not new on the part of the Congress or the [George W.] Bush and Obama administrations,” said Rep. Steve Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat who serves on two House Appropriations subcommittees that fund defense and foreign aid.
Mr. Rothman has attended top-secret briefings on the Abbottabad raid and the impact of the raid on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“As a matter of course, and for good reason, the materials that were removed from bin Laden’s home in Pakistan are being run down for leads that could assist the United States in apprehending individuals or entities who have sought to harm Americans or who have enabled others to harm Americans,” he said.
Another U.S. intelligence official told The Washington Times that other phone numbers and emails were recovered in the raid.
-
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/05/07/did-naval-burial-ceremony-for-bin-laden-curse-jews-and-christians-and-confer-pardon-and-paradise-on-the-muslim-mass-murderer/
Did Naval Burial Ceremony for Bin Laden Curse Jews and Christians, and Confer Pardon and Paradise on the Muslim Mass Murderer?
May 7th, 2011 by Andrew Bostom
Anneke Green has a disturbing analysis in the Washington Times which indicates the very likely specifics of the burial ceremony aboard the USS Carl Vinson—repeatedly noted by witless counter-terrorism czar John Brennan to be in strict “conformance to Islamic requirements”—for pious Muslim jihadist Osama Bin Laden, orchestrator of the mass murder of Americans on 9/11/2001.
As Green reports, “Navy Military Funerals, (pp. 34-35)” a protocol developed by the Navy, describes in explicit detail what transpires during a Muslim sea burial:
The body must have been washed and wrapped “as required for the bodies of Muslims,” which refers to ceremonial cleanings that must be done by another Muslim. Those who have gathered to pray at the burial—ostensibly crewmembers since family is not allowed at sea burials—must face Mecca.
But the most shocking details Green has uncovered concern the formal funeral prayers which must be uttered—as specified by the Navy—during the segment of the burial ceremony in which supplication for the Muslim decedent is made. The requisite prayer includes the following statements:
“O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodgings, wash him (off from his sins) with water, snow and ice, purify him from his sins as a white garment is cleansed from dirt, replace his present abode with a better one, replace his present family with a better one, replace his present partner with a better one, make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave [sic] and the punishment of hell.”
But what Green’s discussion omits is that before this supplication, the required prayer service (see p. 34) includes the opening sura (chapter) of the Koran, or “Fatiha”. As copiously documented by the most authoritative Muslim Koranic commentaries—past and present—verse 1.7 from this sura includes an eternal curse upon Jews and Christians, as noted in this official modern Koranic translation by Drs. Muhammad al-Hilali and Muhammad Khan (p.12):
“The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).”
For example, the 2008 English translation (by a pious Muslim translator) of the classical single volume Koranic commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn, proclaims,
“This translation gives non-Arabic speakers access to one of the seminal works of classical tafsir literature. It is hoped that it will prove a valuable aid to the correct understanding of the Qur’anic Revelation throughout the English-speaking world.”
As the Koranic commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains, Muslims are told in the preceding verse, Koran 1:6,
“Guide us on the straight path” means, direct us to it.
The commentary continues,
It is followed by its appositive [in verse 7], “…the Path of those You have blessed,” with guidance, “not of those with anger on them,” who are the Jews, “nor of the misguided,”who are the Christians. The grammatical structure here shows that those who are guided are not the Jews or the Christians. Allah Almighty knows best what is correct, and to Him is the return and the homecoming. May Allah bless our Master Muhammad and His family and Companions and grant them abundant peace always and forever. Allah is enough for us and the best Protector. There is no strength nor power except by Allah, the High, the Immense.
The modern Koranic commentary Ma’ariful Qur’an, written by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (1898-1976), former Grand Mufti of (pre-Partition) India, and founder of Darul Ulum Karachi, is the best known Koranic commentary in Urdu. This modern Koranic exegesis comports with the classical commentary on verse 1:7, highlighting the Koran’s strident Antisemitism, and accompanying Christianophobia:
Those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people, who in spite of being quite familiar with the commandments of Allah willfully go against them out of a calculated perversity or in the service of their desires, or, in other words, who are deficient in obeying divine injunctions. This, for example, was the general condition of the Jews who were ready to sacrifice their religion for the sake of a petty worldly gain, and used to insult and sometimes even to kill their prophets.
As for (those who go astray), they are the people who, out of ignorance or lack of thought, go beyond the limits appointed by Allah, and indulge in excess and exaggeration in religious matters. This, for example, has generally been the error of the Christians who exceededthe limits in their reverence for a prophet and turned him into a god. On the one hand, there is the rebelliousness of the Jews who not only refused to listen to the prophets of Allah but went on to kill them; on the other hand, there is the excessive zeal of the Christians who deified a prophet.
There is more than ample reason to believe that the Navy Military Funerals protocol was indeed followed—a logical inference, which at any rate should be confirmed or denied by release of the reported video footage of Bin Laden’s “ceremonial burial”—because as Anneke Green notes:
According to the Pentagon, “prepared religious remarks” were read at bin Laden’s funeral, but when asked whether his burial was performed according to Navy Military Funeral protocol, they had “no additional operational details or comments to make.” Mr. Brennan, however, in his Monday briefing on the bin Laden operation, reassured reporters that, “Burial at sea takes place on a regular basis. The U.S. military has the ability to ensure that that burial is done in a manner that is, again, consistent with Islamic law, as well as consistent with what the requirements are for a burial at sea. And so that burial was done appropriately.”
The grotesque dhimmitude in these apparent details—so destructive of our nation’s soul, in accord with the fundamental goal of Islamic supremacism—defies speech, and demands a thorough public airing for all Americans, first and foremost those whose family members were slaughtered during the 9/11/2001 acts of jihad terrorism.
-
My Take: Sea burial shows U.S. religious literacy
Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World"
A few years ago, I wrote a book decrying religious illiteracy in the U.S. population and in the U.S. government. Since that time, I have tried to demonstrate the huge cost of our ignorance of Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider Muslim world.
So it is only fair to acknowledge when U.S. officials demonstrate real religious literacy, as they have done with the death and burial of Osama bin Laden.
Over the last generation, American diplomatic and military actions overseas have been hurt by a woefully shallow understanding of Islam. Whether you were for or against U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, you had to admit that in each case Americans went into a country whose language they did not speak and whose culture they did not understand.
Our lack of understanding of Islam’s Sunni-Shia split, for example, cost us dearly in both wars.
As I watched the story of bin Laden’s death unfold Sunday night, I was preoccupied with the question, “What are they going to do with the body?”
If they buried it in a marked grave, that grave would almost certainly become a pilgrimage destination for Islamic extremists worldwide — a Mecca to Islamist martyrdom. If they buried it in an unmarked grave, dozens of such sites would likely turn up, each claiming to house the sacred relics of the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. And if they desecrated the body in any way, there would be hell to pay not only among bin Laden’s supporters, but also in the wider Muslim world.
Prothero: Burying bin Laden at sea an elegant solution
I was hoping against hope that people in the Obama administration had been considering these implications. And apparently they were.
At some point between the moment this special operation was planned and the moment it was completed, U.S. officials went to the trouble to learn that when a Muslim dies, the body is washed, wrapped in a white cloth and buried. They also learned that prayers are said over the body before it is laid to rest.
U.S. officials then put this education into action in a manner that was both in keeping with Islamic customs and in U.S. national interests.
Everything they did underscored a point former President Bush and President Obama have made repeatedly: that the United States is at war not with Islam but with terrorism.
By giving bin Laden’s body a burial in the Arabian Sea, they prevented his followers from turning any specific site into a sacred place where they could visit his body and dedicate their own bodies to his cause. But by giving him a proper Islamic burial, they showed respect for Islam.
Muslims will of course disagree about whether a sea burial was proper in this case. From an Islamic perspective, land burial is clearly preferable, but burial at sea is allowed in exceptional cases. The only question here is whether this was sufficiently exceptional.
What is not up for debate, however, is the fact that in this case the Obama administration and the U.S. military demonstrated real religious literacy. They should be commended for that, as well as for tracking down Osama bin Laden.
-
But we've been told over and over that bin Laden wasn't a muslim, so why the concern?
-
:? Not Muslim? Really?
You mean he was a Jew? Or a Christian? Or maybe he was a Buddhist? :-D
-
"Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He he was a mass murderer. A mass murderer of people around the world, including Muslims," Carney said at Wednesday's press briefing.
So why the concern with islamic burial rituals? It's not like he had a following amongst the "vast majority of peaceful muslims" we keep hearing about, right?
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4066313,00.html
Turkey: Thousands attend bin Laden 'funeral'
Mourners gather in Istanbul to give al-Qaeda leader burial rites – even though he was buried at sea. 'US, UK, Israel murdered a martyr,' mourners chant
Aviel Magnezi Published: 05.08.11, 20:16 / Israel News
Thousands participated in a funeral ceremony for assassinated al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Istanbul on Friday, following Muslim burial rites but not including an actual burial.
Bin Laden was taken out by Navy SEAL troops last week and was subsequently buried at sea.
"The US, UK and Israel are the murderers of the martyr," the participants chanted. "The US is the terrorist, bin Laden is the warrior."
The mourners carried pictures of bin Laden and signs condemning his assassination, and called the man who planned the September 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans "a beautiful, wise man, a warrior for Islam."
The mourners, who gathered near Istanbul's Fatih Mosque, which is located in the area that is considered Turkey's epicenter of Islamic extremism, burned Israeli, American and British flags, and prayed facing a stone bench that traditionally holds the body of the deceased.
-
Radicals warn 'it is only a matter of time' before another atrocity
EDL member burns Bin Laden effigy among extremist Muslims
A protest by hundreds of Osama Bin Laden supporters sparked fury outside the US Embassy in London today as they staged a mock 'funeral service' for the terror leader.
Police stepped in to separate the protesters and members of the English Defence League amid threats of violence from both sides.
Radicals carrying placards proclaiming 'Islam will dominate the world' branded US leaders 'murderers' and warned vengeance attacks were 'guaranteed'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384353/Osama-bin-Laden-mock-funeral-Fury-erupts-outside-US-Embassy-London.html
-
Woof,
Well I hope Britt intelligence is getting photos, taking names and so on. :-)
P.C.
-
Obama's Abominable 'Respect' for Bin Laden Burial Rites
by Robert Spencer
05/10/2011
After approving the Navy SEALs’ mission to kill Osama bin Laden (or allowing Leon Panetta to approve it, as some reports indicate), Barack Obama has been in full retreat mode, doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Most notoriously, he ordered a full Muslim burial for Osama bin Laden, contradicting his own claim that bin Laden was “not a Muslim leader.”
Even worse, when Islamic groups started to complain about the fact that bin Laden was buried at sea, rather than on land in accordance with Islamic law, Obama took pains to assure the world that the American troops involved in the burial were “respectful of the body” of bin Laden.
The word “respectful” is all-important, because the sea burial had once again plunged those ever-fragile Islamic supremacists into a crisis of self-esteem. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, a former resident of the United Kingdom who—until he left on a jaunt to Lebanon and wasn’t allowed back into the country—used to boast that one day the “black flag of Islam” would fly over 10 Downing Street, fulminated that “the Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don't think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration.”
This is a man, mind you, who didn’t find anything “humiliating” about 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11. On the contrary, Muhammad celebrated the Islamic jihadist murderers of those Americans as “The Magnificent 19.” But of course, those dead were infidels—Bakri has apparently not picked up on the new theme from the Islamic supremacist propaganda machine in the U.S., that Muslims were killed in the twin towers' collapse, and therefore a triumphal mosque at Ground Zero is altogether fitting and proper.
Another Islamic cleric, the Iraqi Sheikh Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, warned about Osama’s sea burial that “what was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims. It is not acceptable, and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea.”
Al-Janabi is not on record saying that the 9/11 attacks were “forbidden by Islam” or were “almost a crime.” But again, they were just infidels. The body of the great hero is another thing altogether.
And instead of telling these men and other outraged Muslims to take a long walk off a short pier, Barack Obama granted that they had a point, assuring the media that American personnel were “respectful of the body.” He thus demonstrated (yet again) that he was interested in taking pains not to “humiliate Muslims,” and that he was being careful not to do anything that was “forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims,” much less anything that an Islamic cleric would classify as “almost a crime.”
In displaying such sensitivity, Obama wins no points in the Islamic world. He only appears as what he is, which is weak and unwilling to do what is necessary to defeat the Islamic jihad that will be in no way stopped by the death of Osama bin Laden.
In 1945, when Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his besieged Berlin bunker, German officials were careful to burn his body. They wanted to make sure his corpse didn’t fall into the hands of the Russians. They knew the Russians were not likely to give Hitler a respectful Aryan funeral, but would probably display his body as a trophy. Imagine if Hitler had been captured and killed by American troops. Can you envision FDR ordering that he be given a dignified funeral and burial?
Of course he would not have, for to have done so would have been to suggest some legitimacy to this genocidal monster's actions, his life, and his legacy. And in saying (counterfactually) that Osama bin Laden was “not a Muslim leader,” Obama seems to have been trying to deny the al-Qaeda chief exactly that. So why then turn around and force American troops to endure the rites of the very religion that inspired bin Laden to commit mass murder in the first place?
It was no less absurd and insulting than the Americans’ burying Hitler with a Nazi flag draped over his coffin would have been in 1945. Obama owes the American people an apology.
-
But we've been told over and over that bin Laden wasn't a muslim, so why the concern?
For someone who wasn't a muslim, GM you are sure posting a lot of muslim related references. :-o
So what was he, if he wasn't muslim? I'm still waiting.... Jew? Christian? Maybe Hindu?
:-D
-
So he WAS a muslim, even a muslim leader, given the reaction we are seeing, right?
-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Record-sale-of-Osama-posters-in-Pakistan/articleshow/8221641.cms
Record sale of Osama posters in Pakistan
IANS | May 10, 2011, 05.39pm IST
ISLAMABAD: There has been a record sale of posters of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan after the al-Qaida leader was gunned down in a daring US commando raid May 2 in the country, a media report said on Tuesday.
More than 100,000 posters of Osama Bin Laden have been sold since his death, the Online news agency reported citing the print industry. It added that the volume of sale is increasing daily.
Osama's death on May 2 ended nearly a decade-long hunt for the US's most wanted terrorist. He was blamed for the terrorist attacks in the US in September 2001 in which nearly 3,000 people were killed.
Boy, when the "Vast majority of peaceful muslims" hear about this, they are going to be pissed!
-
I eagerly await Andraz Bole's return :-D
-
I wont go into great lenghts here, because I am still putting together the mega response in the Anti semitism thread, and I do not want to open two fronts at once, but GM, how exactly does the fact that osamas posters have big sales, connect with peacful or not so peaceful Islamism ?
I am sure the topic is way more volatile in the US, but overseas the man, is somewhat an icon, albeit a very controversial one. His rise, fall and eventual death are now a thing of the annales, and like all annales of controversial people, they leave an impression, a romanticised, poetic reverberation. Like a Byronian fallen angel, almost.
Here, his death is mostly taken with a distrustful resignation of Americas crediblity.People were shrugging the news " Empire killed the man" left right and centre. "Wow tough it out Empire, you just might hit base 2". Today alone Ive seen 3 college juniors walk around downtown with a che-guevarra-like Osama face outline, that said : "Heaven is great". Surely this must mean Islamification (the evil one) of Europe is just about finished ???
I tapped alot tonight, so the lack of oxygen in the brain might disrupt the thought flow of the post :mrgreen:
-
If there was a run on Hitler posters in Germany, would that suggest something about his popularity amongst the Germans?
The ignorant love to cling to the images and ideas of evil men. Che is popular on t-shirts, despite his murderous acts and ideas. Castro is praised by leftist dilettantes who never seem to move to his tropical prison. I guess Kim Jung-Il just isn't photogenic enough.
Sneering at America is nothing new for europeans. It usually on stops momentarily when America's rescue is needed and then resumes immediately afterwards. Usually between sips of cola and bites of cheesesburger as they wait in line to watch a movie made by Hollywood.
-
A Hollywood movie that often about a rogue CIA being challenged by a rogue (e.g. the Bourne trillogy) or evil white racists (e.g. the Clancy movie that changed the bad guys from Islamo Fascists in the book to , , , somebody white, I forget who) but never about the evils of Stalin, Marxism, the oppressions of the Soviet Empire blah blah
-
"The sum of all fears" changed the bad guys in the book (jihadists) to eastern european neo-nazis for the movie. I think we are all aware of the looming threat from eastern european neo-nazis and the horrific death toll they've racked up.....
:roll:
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0510/Bin-Laden-son-calls-burial-at-sea-humiliating
Omar bin Laden, who has been based in the Gulf in recent years, did not immediately respond to emailed and telephoned requests for comment.
The letter said, in part: "We hold the American President (Barack) Obama legally responsible to clarify the fate of our father, Osama bin Laden, for it is unacceptable, humanely and religiously, to dispose of a person with such importance and status among his people, by throwing his body into the sea in that way, which demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and which challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims."
The letter said the U.S. administration had offered no proof to back up its account of the mission. It alleged the goal of raid had been to kill and not arrest, adding that afterwards the American commandos had "rushed to dispose of the body".
Some Muslims have misgivings about how U.S. forces killed bin Laden in a raid in Pakistan on May 2 and disposed of his body in the ocean.
Questions have multiplied since the White House said the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when U.S. helicopter-borne commandos raided the villa where he was hiding in the city of Abbottabad.
Bin Laden's swift burial at sea, in what many Muslims say was a violation of Islamic custom, has also stirred anger.
-
http://tribune.com.pk/story/166047/prayers-for-bin-laden-in-national-assembly/
ISLAMABAD/QUETTA:
Parliamentarians were stunned on Tuesday when a lawmaker led prayers for al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, defying calls from Deputy Speaker Faisal Karim Kundi that he needed permission to do so.
At the National Assembly session, Maulvi Asmatullah, an independent candidate from NA-264 stood up and said Bin Laden had reportedly been given funeral services by the Americans and “we should pray for him”.
The prayer service hardly lasted a minute in which two JUI-F legislators from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, former federal minister Attaur Rehman and Laiq Muhammad Khan, participated.
The deputy speaker was administering the proceedings on a private members day, but he could not convince the lawmakers to stick to the rules of business. Osama bin Laden was killed in a US operation in Abbottabad in the early hours of May 2.
Earlier, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said in the National Assembly that “Osama bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist and enemy number one of the civilized world.
Elimination of Osama bin Laden, who launched waves after waves of terrorist attacks against innocent Pakistanis, is indeed justice done. However, we are not so naïve to declare victory; missions accomplished, and turn around.”
The first of its kind prayer service at the floor of the National Assembly reflected a divergent view from the official stance over the killing of Bin Laden.
-
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8e464776e6/the-navy-seal-who-killed-osama-bin-laden?playlist=featured_videos
-
A friend forwards to me:
"I don't agree with all of the spin, but this is a very interesting
account of how the ten year hunt was conducted. Too long to attach
the full text, unfortunately."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/projects/osama-hunt/index.html
-
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46960&Cat=1&dt=5/14/2011
Did a Pakistani official sell info to CIA to settle in the West?
Wajid Ali Syed
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Recommend
26 recommendations. Sign Up to see what your friends recommend.
WASHINGTON: Did a Pakistani intelligence official sell the information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden to the US last year to get millions of dollars and relocate to a western country with a new non-Pakistani passport? All those seeking to know the full facts of the Osama episode are looking for an answer to this question.
President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed. The advocates of the mission had “reached a boiling point”, because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.
According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president’s indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was “dragged kicking and screaming” to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed. The planning for the operation underscores the deep divisions in the Obama administration, with President Obama and a close aide, Valerie Jarrett, procrastinating on making a decision and high-ranking officials and members of the cabinet pressing him to go ahead on the other. The chief architect of the plan to “take bin Laden out” was CIA Director Leon Panetta.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, US Commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were part of the group that supported Panetta.
When asked to comment, the White House referred the question to the National Security Council. The NSC said the Department of Defence was fielding such inquiries. The Defence Department’s press office contact Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Robbins responded with this comment: “The Department of Defense is not giving out any further operational details of the mission.”
However, according to an informed official, the story that a courier helped track bin Laden is just a cover. The CIA actually learned of bin Laden’s whereabouts in August of 2010, when an informant associated with Pakistani intelligence walked into a US Embassy and claimed that bin Laden was living in a house in Abbottabad. The official, however, would not disclose whether the Embassy was located in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
After confirming that the information was somewhat accurate, the CIA set up a safe house in Abbottabad in September last year to monitor bin Laden’s compound.
As the intelligence collection proceeded, the CIA demanded that Pakistan come clean with what they knew about bin Laden, claims the official. In December of 2010, the CIA station chief’s identity was made public in the Pakistani press. The intelligence official says that the station chief’s cover was blown to retaliate against the CIA for pressing Pakistani intelligence for information about bin Laden. At the time, the speculation was that the move was in response to a civil suit accusing ISI officials of being involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Once it was clear that the information from the walk-in source was accurate, Panetta set up a reporting chain from the CIA’s Pakistan station direct to him, a highly unusual move that involved bypassing the normal official channels.
Again the US president was not informed of this progress. Meanwhile, the intelligence operatives learned that key people from an Islamic country friendly to Pakistan were sending Pakistan money to keep Osama out of sight and under virtual house arrest, claims the official.
By January of 2011 there was a high degree of certainty that bin Laden was in the house. In early February, Panetta suggested that the US should move on bin Laden. But Gates and Petraeus were determined to avoid the “boots on the ground” strategy at all costs. CIA chief Panetta was in favour of an invasion. But President Obama balked on the advice of Valerie Jarrett, a close aide.
The source maintains that Jarrett’s objection to the proposal was based on the worry that the mission could fail, further eroding Obama’s approval ratings and the strong likelihood that it would be interpreted as yet another act of aggression against the Muslims. The source explained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a crucial role to pressure President Obama to take action. In the last week of April, she met with White House Chief of Staff William Daley to request a meeting with the president to secure approval for the mission. Within hours, Daley called to say that Valerie Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.
However, Clinton made sure that the vice president was made aware of the situation. The president was later approached by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta and pressurised to order the mission.
Panetta was directing the operation with both his CIA operatives and the military. The plan was not to capture but to kill bin Laden on sight. Contrary to the news reports, it was Panetta and not President Obama who took the lead on coordinating the details of the mission.
According to the source, the White House staff has compromised the identity of the unit that carried out the mission. The source said the claim that the raid yielded a “treasure trove” of information about al-Qaeda is also exaggerated. Obama meanwhile is “milking” the mission as a tactic to better his chances of re-election in 2012. The concern in intelligence circles is that in his zeal to boost his approval ratings, the president is harming relations with Pakistan.
The writer is currently a freelance journalist based in Washington who has worked for foreign and Pakistani newspapers and TV channels.
-
However, according to an informed official, the story that a courier helped track bin Laden is just a cover. The CIA actually learned of bin Laden’s whereabouts in August of 2010, when an informant associated with Pakistani intelligence walked into a US Embassy and claimed that bin Laden was living in a house in Abbottabad. The official, however, would not disclose whether the Embassy was located in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
It's my understanding that most all of our biggest intel success resulted from "walk-in's".
-
If this piece is true, then note the implications for the assertions of enhanced interrogation yielding the leads that led to the OBL kill.
-
If, it is true. Is it?
Does this mean no valuable intel was obtained from EIT's? I'd think not. In a war for existential survival, never put any weapon on the shelf.
-
The source explained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a crucial role to pressure President Obama to take action."
And he wanted to delay and delay because? :?
Too bad she's not President versus Obama....
-
I'd agree with that, JDN. I think HRC has a killer instinct and the ability to make a decision. Not that in a rational world either she of the empty suit would be in a leadership position, but I'd prefer her over O-Barry if forced to choose.
-
I am skeptical of that story. Could involve elements of truth and new discovery of facts but seems unlikely that they and no one else know the whole story. Let's see if the embassy snitch gets the reward.
"Clinton made sure that the vice president was made aware of the situation."
For one thing, I don't think the players on the inside would screw around much with the secrecy set up for the operation, other than Obama who has the power to declassify anything and choose who knows. Regarding the role of Valerie Jarret, I believe Obama sought political advice when he needed to sleep on it and then approved it with no operational follow up. Maybe his most trusted adviser is Jarret. I just don't believe one freelance journalist, if he knows the Pak or Afghan embassy story that is completely new, would also be first to know and tell the whole story inside the west wing story - with all the behind the scenes details.
"Too bad she's not President versus Obama...."
- Very sad that out of 300 million Americans that Obama, H.Clinton and McCain were the last 3 people standing for that position. (People, get involved earlier in the process!)
If enough people inside Pakistan knew OBL's whereabouts, how could Obama know he had months to sit still on the information and then strike with complete surprise? The CIA sets up a safe house in the neighborhood, within view(?), where home visits by military police are routine, and no one in Pakistan knew that either??...
The courier story makes more sense to me. OBL had more than 30 tapes delivered to the media, with delays and safeguards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden I'm sure we were at least trying to track the movement of those from the first one. Interesting that bin Laden was denying his involvement in the released tapes but proved his involvement in one that American forces found: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html I think we will be waiting longer than the JFK assassination to get the whole story. Be patient.
BTW, does anyway believe that the trusted couriers were sneaking porn into the compound for themselves, without bin Laden's approval? The villains of the Batman series were more authentic than this fraudulent religious freak.
-
Well done analysis, Doug.
-
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
In January, the chief of the military's elite special-operations troops accepted an unusual invitation to visit Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. There, Adm. William McRaven was shown, for the first time, photos and maps indicating the whereabouts of the world's most wanted man.
Adm. McRaven—one of the first military officers to be brought into the CIA's latest hunt for Osama bin Laden—offered a blunt assessment: Taking bin Laden's compound would be reasonably straightforward. Dealing with Pakistan would be hard.
A Wall Street Journal reconstruction of the mission planning shows that this meeting helped define a profound new strategy in the U.S. war on terror, namely the use of secret, unilateral missions powered by a militarized spy operation. The strategy reflects newfound trust between two traditionally wary groups: America's spies, and its troops.
The bin Laden strike was the strategy's "proof of concept," says one U.S. official.
Last month's military strike deep inside Pakistan is already being used by U.S. officials as a negotiating tool—akin to, don't make us do that again—with countries including Pakistan thought to harbor other terrorists. Yemen and Somalia are also potential venues, officials said, if local-government cooperation were found to be lacking.
The new U.S. strategy has roots in a close relationship between CIA Director Leon Panetta and Adm. McRaven. In 2009, the two inked a secret agreement setting out rules for joint missions that provided a blueprint for dozens of operations in the Afghan war before the bin Laden raid.
More
The Long, Winding Path to Closer CIA and Military Cooperation
.The reshuffling of the Obama administration's national-security team will likely reinforce the relationship between the nation's spies and its top military teams. Mr. Panetta is expected to take over the Pentagon this summer armed with a strong understanding of its special-operations capabilities. Gen. David Petraeus, who is expected to become CIA director, made extensive use of special operations while running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This account of the planning of the raid on bin Laden's home in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is based on interviews with more than a dozen administration, intelligence, military and congressional officials.
Officials and experts say the new U.S. approach will likely be used only sparingly. "This is the kind of thing that, in the past, people who watched movies thought was possible, but no one in the government thought was possible," one official said.
View Full Image
Associated Press
CIA contractor Raymond Davis under arrest in Pakistan in January.
.Growing Closer: Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid
2004 CIA learns the nom de guerre
of one of Osama bin Laden's trusted couriers.
2007 CIA learns the courier's real name.
2009 CIA and special-forces commanders ink a secret deal to conduct joint operations.
May 2009 CIA briefs President Obama on bin Laden.
Aug. 2010 Courier is tailed by the CIA to his home in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Sept. 2010 Mr. Panetta briefs Mr. Obama on the Abbottabad compound.
Dec. 2010 CIA station chief's cover is blown in Pakistan; U.S. blames Pakistan's intelligence agency
Dec. 2010 Mr. Panetta updates Mr. Obama, who calls for attack planning to begin.
Jan. 2011 CIA briefs Adm. William McRaven, commander of military special-operations troops.
Jan. 27 CIA contractor Raymond
Davis is charged in the shooting deaths of two Pakistanis.
Feb. 25 Select group of CIA and military officials meet to discuss intelligence and uncertainty regarding bin Laden's presence.
March 14 Obama decides on urgent unilateral action.
March 16 Mr. Davis is freed in Pakistan, easing the path to attack bin Laden's compound.
April 11 Mr. Panetta meets with Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha.
April 19 Mr. Obama gives provisional go-ahead for helicopter raid.
April 28 National Security Council meets to present final plans for helicopter raid to the president.
April 29 Mr. Obama authorizes raid on the Abbottabad compound.
April 30 Mr. Obama calls Adm. McRaven for final status check.
May 2 An early-morning raid kills bin Laden deep in Pakistani territory.
May 2 Adm. Mullen calls Pakistan
Army Chief Gen. Kayani to tell him of the raid.
May 7 Pakistan appears to out the CIA's station chief in Islamabad.
May 9 Pakistani Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani gives a speech saying Pakistan didn't harbor bin Laden and criticizing the U.S. strike on its territory.
May 16 Sen. John Kerry travels to Pakistan to smooth tensions.
.On Sunday, President Barack Obama said in an interview with the BBC that he would be willing to authorize similar strikes in the future. "Our job is to secure the United States," he said.
Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, said earlier this month in an interview that a repeat of the bin Laden raid could lead to "terrible consequences." Other officials have said Pakistan would curtail intelligence cooperation with the U.S. in the event of another such attack.
A more traditional approach would have been to simply bomb the bin Laden property using stealth aircraft, perhaps in cooperation with Pakistani troops. But from the outset, Mr. Obama decided to cut Pakistan out of the loop.
Top U.S. officials—in particular, Defense Secretary Robert Gates—worried how keeping Pakistan in the dark would affect relations with the country, a close but unstable ally. But mistrust of the Pakistani intelligence services drowned out that fear.
In the end, several hundred people in the U.S. government knew about the raid before it happened. But it didn't leak.
View Full Image
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Sen. John Kerry with Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik in May.
.U.S. officials took extraordinary measures to keep it quiet, often speaking in code to each other. One decided to refer to the operation as "the trip to Atlantic City" to avoid accidentally tipping off colleagues.
In August 2010, after 10 years of a largely fruitless hunt for the man who killed nearly 3,000 Americans, the CIA caught a break when it followed a courier believed to be working with bin Laden to a home in Abbottabad, about 40 miles from Pakistan's capital. After months of observation, the CIA eventually decided that one of the three families living there was most likely bin Laden's.
In December, Mr. Panetta laid out CIA's best intelligence case for Mr. Obama, which pointed to bin Laden's likely, but not certain, presence at the compound. The president asked Mr. Panetta to start devising a plan.
Mr. Panetta turned to Adm. McRaven. It was his visit to CIA headquarters in January, and his quick analysis of the pros and cons, that sealed the two men's partnership, officials say.
Their ties mark a significant historical shift. During the Cold War, there was little interaction between the Pentagon and CIA, as the military focused on planning for a land war with the Soviets and the spy community focused on analysis. That started changing in the 1990s, but only the past few years have the CIA and military begun working particularly closely.
Adm. McRaven assigned one senior special-operations officer—a Navy Captain from SEAL Team 6, one of the top special-forces units—to work on what was known as AC1, for Abbottabad Compound 1. The captain spent every day working with the CIA team in a remote, secure facility on the CIA's campus in Langley, Va.
On the evening of Feb. 25, several black Suburbans pulled up to the front of CIA's Langley headquarters. The meeting was planned after dusk, on a Friday, to reduce the chances anyone would notice. Around a large wooden table in the CIA director's windowless conference room, the Pentagon's chief counterterrorism adviser Michael Vickers, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright and senior CIA officials joined Adm. McRaven and Mr. Panetta. Over sandwiches and sodas, the CIA team walked through their intelligence assessment.
After the Raid in the Compound
While President Obama has decided not to release photographs of Osama bin Laden taken after the al Qaeda leader was shot to death by U.S. forces, other photos taken at the compound have been released by Reuters.
View Slideshow
.His Compound
Photos inside and out
View Slideshow
Anjum Naveed/Associated Press
U.S. forces found Osama bin Laden at this compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, about 40 miles outside Islamabad.
.America's Most Wanted
See a timeline about Osama bin Laden.
View Interactive
.More photos and interactive graphics
.In the middle of the conference table sat a scale model of the compound. Measuring four feet by four feet, it was built by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency based on satellite photos. It was accurate down to every tree.
Analysts told the group they had high confidence that a "high-value" terrorist target was living there. They said there was "a strong probability" it was bin Laden.
The planners reviewed the options they had developed. The first was a bombing strike with a B-2 stealth bomber that would destroy the compound and any tunnels under it. The second was a helicopter raid with U.S. special operations, which immediately evoked visions of "Black Hawk Down," the disastrous Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia in which a U.S. helicopter was shot down and 19 U.S. soldiers killed.
The third option was to offer the Pakistanis an opportunity to assist in the raid, perhaps by forming a cordon around the compound to ensure U.S. forces could carry out the operation without obstruction.
Kicking planning into higher gear, the president reviewed these options at a March 14 meeting of the National Security Council. Among his first decisions was to scotch the idea of gathering more intelligence to make sure they had found bin Laden. The potential gain was outweighed by the risk of being exposed.
Mr. Obama also rejected a joint Pakistani operation, officials say. There was no serious consideration of the prospect, said one administration official, given the desire for secrecy.
Weighing on the minds of several officials was the fate of a CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, being held in a Lahore jail after having shot two Pakistanis in disputed circumstances. Mr. Panetta, pressing hard for his release, worried Mr. Davis might be killed if the U.S. couldn't spring him before the bin Laden raid.
The B-2 plan had many supporters, particularly among military brass. A bombing would provide certainty that the compound's residents would be killed, and it posed less risk to U.S. personnel. At the time, Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, was skeptical of the intelligence case that bin Laden was at the compound.
At the end of the meeting, officials believed Mr. Obama favored the bombing raid, too. Gen. Cartwright asked two Air Force officers to flesh out that proposal.
They immediately faced a challenge. CIA analysts couldn't tell if there was a tunnel network under the compound. Planners had to presume it existed, which meant the B-2 bombers would have to drop a large amount of ordinance. But a bombing raid of that magnitude would likely kill innocent neighbors in nearby homes.
Another other option would use less powerful ordinance, sparing the neighbors. But any tunnels would be spared, too.
Gen. Cartwright made no recommendations. But the team's PowerPoint presentation, created just after the meeting with the president, laid out plainly the disadvantages of the larger bombing run. It showed another house besides bin Laden's clearly in the blast radius and estimated that up to a dozen civilians could be killed. The ability to recover evidence of bin Laden's death was also minimal—meaning the U.S. wouldn't even be able to prove why they violated Pakistani airspace.
By the time the National Security Council gathered again March 29, the president had grown wary of the bombing-raid option. "He put that plan on ice," a U.S. official said.
Instead, Mr. Obama turned to Adm. McRaven to further develop the idea of a helicopter raid. Adm. McRaven assembled a team drawing from Red Squadron, one of four that make up SEAL Team 6. Red Squadron was coming home from Afghanistan and could be redirected with little notice inside the military.
The team had experience with cross-border operations from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and had language skills that would come in handy as well. The team performed two rehearsals at a location inside the U.S.
Planners ran through the what-ifs: What if bin Laden surrendered? (He likely would be held near Bagram Air Force base, a senior military official said.) What if U.S. forces were discovered by the Pakistanis in the middle of the raid? (A senior U.S. official would call Pakistan's chief military officer and try to talk his way out of it.)
The U.S. was pretty sure it could get in and out without alerting the Pakistanis. Officials say the choppers used in the raid were designed to be less visible to radar and, possibly, to make them quieter.
In addition, because the U.S. helped equip and train Pakistan's military, it had intimate knowledge of the country's capabilities—from the sensitivity of the radar systems deployed along the Afghan border to the level of alert for Pakistani forces in and around Islamabad and Abbottabad.
If Pakistan scrambled F-16s to investigate, the U.S. knew how long it would take the planes to reach the area, officials said. The U.S. supplies F-16s to Pakistan on the condition they are kept at a Pakistani military base with 24/7 U.S. security surveillance, according to diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
On April 11, Mr. Panetta had a high-stakes meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Ties between the U.S. and Pakistan were already chilly, partly due to the spat over Mr. Davis, the CIA contractor jailed in Lahore. But Mr. Davis had since been freed, and the high-profile event at Langley was intended to improve ties between the nations.
At the event, Gen. Pasha asked Mr. Panetta to be more forthcoming about what his agency was doing inside Pakistan. Gen. Pasha also voiced frustration that the CIA was operating in his country behind his back—not knowing, of course, of the planning for the bin Laden attack.
Mr. Pasha has said the meeting involved a shouting match; American officials say that didn't happen. Mr. Panetta promised to review Gen. Pasha's concerns, according to U.S. officials. His goal was to try to improve ties so the bin Laden takedown didn't occur when relations were at rock bottom.
When the National Security Council met again eight days later. Mr. Obama gave a provisional go-ahead for the helicopter raid. But he worried the plan for managing the Pakistanis was too flimsy.
The U.S. had little faith that, if U.S. forces were captured by the Pakistanis, they would be easily returned home. Given how difficult it had been to resolve the case of Mr. Davis—which took more than two months of heated negotiations—one U.S. official said: "How could we get them to uphold an incursion 128 miles into their airspace?"
Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on stand-by in case of an emergency.
On April 28, a few days before the attack on bin Laden's compound, Mr. Obama held a public event in the East Room of the White House to unveil his new national-security team. From there, Messrs. Obama and Panetta went to the Situation Room, where Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained the final plan to the National Security Council.
Only at that meeting did Mr. Gates come around to fully endorsing the operation, because of his skepticism of the intelligence indicating bin Laden was there.
Mr. Obama told his advisers he wanted to speak directly with Adm. McRaven before the raid was launched. The admiral was in Afghanistan preparing his strike team.
That call took place on Saturday afternoon, Washington time, over a secure phone line. Mr. Obama asked Adm. McRaven for an update on final preparations. Mr. Obama also asked the admiral if had learned anything since arriving in Afghanistan that caused him to alter his confidence in the mission.
Adm. McRaven told Mr. Obama the team was ready, and that his assessment remained unchanged.
-
An interesting look at the inside of the mission. And, of course, there was a dog with the SEALs.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/documents-show-bin-laden-fretting-over-future-of-al-qaida-20120503
The U.S. released a trove of documents on Thursday recovered from Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan a year ago, which show that al-Qaida’s leaders were deeply divided over how to manage a group of worldwide affiliates that lacked discipline or willingness to take direction, The Washington Post reports.
(RELATED: Text of the 17 bin Laden Documents)
A 2010 letter from bin Laden to one of his top deputies, for example, shows concern over “increased mistakes” by “brothers” in countries including Iraq and Yemen, the Post reported.
The documents also show bin Laden was frustrated with the groups’ attacks on fellow Muslims, bad media operations and a lack of focus on attacking the United States and the West.
(RELATED: Obama Released More Detail on bin Laden Raid)
The documents were released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point and date from September 2006 to April 2011.
-
Thanks BD. The writings of this character help to tell a historic story.
The death of bin Laden was important and symbolic, but it was the death of his ability to operate freely and command effectively a worldwide terror group that was crucial.
"bin Laden was frustrated with the groups’ attacks on fellow Muslims"
This was a confused man.
IIRC the leaders were laughing in their video at the fate of the suicide volunteers who did not know their ending as they prepared for their mission. A suicide bomber IS an attack on a fellow Muslim no matter how many infidels it kills. I wonder how many Muslims died in his attacks and their aftermath with the wars he intentionally set off:
-----
"...28 Muslims who died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center, in addition to three Muslims who were among the passengers on two hijacked planes; one of them crashed on a Pennsylvania field before it reached its target, and the second one hit the Pentagon. The Muslims victims in the 9/11 attacks were as follows: six from Pakistan, six from Bangladesh, four from Guiana, two from Sri Lanka, two from Gambia, two from Ivory Coast, and 1 from Yemen, one from Iran, one from Ethiopia, one from Turkey, one from Trinidad and Tobago, one from Burma, one from Albania, one from Greece and one from India, representing 1.07 percent of the total number of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, which is the same percentage of Muslims in the United States."
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/11/166286.html
----
In the aftermath of 'bin Laden Dead' it would be nice if the regret of attacks against fellow Muslims was what a billion Muslims take forward from this global nightmare. Setting off 'necessary' wars in Muslim lands is not consistent with regretting attacks against fellow Muslims. Of course he meant Muslim on Muslim attacks, but the result of his Muslim on 'infidel' attacks was the same.
-
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/05/02/operation-neptune-spear-the-new-textbook-for-special-operators/
One year removed from the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, hundreds of hours of programing and print pages are being devoted to to telling us what it all means. In this week’s issue of TIME, journalist Peter Bergen and historian Graham Allison walk us through the events that led up to Navy SEALs storming bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan on a moonless night one year ago.
But to truly understand what the raid means in the study of special operations, you have to go back much further, past Operations Eagle Claw, the disastrous 1980 attempt to rescue hostages from the American Embassy in Tehran, to Operation Thunderbolt. In July 1976, Israeli commandos stormed the airport at Entebbe, Uganda and rescued 105 hostages held by pro-Palestinian hijackers (the animation on this video is second rate, but it gives a good overview of the raid).
But wait a minute. What does a 36-year-old Israeli commando raid have to do with killing Osama bin Laden?
-
Amazing story Bigdog! Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ct-meb6U0
3 hostages died in crossfire, still that is how you negotiate with terrorists.
One Commando was killed, the commander of the unit, Yonathon Netanyahu.
-
There was a special on the military station this weekend on seal team six. I believe it was a replay. In any case the seals who came up with the six idea had their first operation in Iran in 1980. They learned from the failure. Jimmy Carter had the guts to try the operation though he was made the laughing stock by the Repubs for it's failure. This time around Brock man looks like the genius. The only geniuses were the Seals IMHO:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0503/In-SEAL-Team-Six-success-lessons-from-horrible-night-in-Iran-30-years-ago
-
CCP, I agree except that I don't remember if Republicans made big on that operational failure or if people mostly just took that as having had enough with a policy of dealing with the world from a position of weakness. To me it was not that it failed, but that the failure was a symbol of our weakness.
The alternative side (Reagan) was saying we will arm and grow in order to deal with our adversaries, including those a lot stronger than Iran, from a position of strength.
----------------------------
There are some people including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f3271910-3fad-40a5-9d98-93450e0090aa saying we already had the courier information through other means.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Eric Holder's predecessor: "That is a half-truth peculiarly designed to irritate anybody who knows the other half."
"Yes, the CIA knew about the name before it was disclosed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, that information lay unexploited because it came from an insignificant source. When it came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, after he was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, they followed it up and found that this guy was still active. They then went back to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who by then had his wits about him, and asked him again about this guy, and he said, "Oh, he's been out of it for some time." That was a lie. They knew it was a lie. And because he had lied about it, that enhanced even more the significance of the information. So the information didn't become significant until they learned about it from him and its significance was increased by the fact that he lied about it. They learned about it after enhanced interrogation techniques."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577388473896862672.html
-
"CCP, I agree except that I don't remember if Republicans made big on that operational failure or if people mostly just took that as having had enough with a policy of dealing with the world from a position of weakness. To me it was not that it failed, but that the failure was a symbol of our weakness."
Good point. Your probably more accurately depicting it then I did in retrospect.
As for you points about the value of "enhanced" interrogation I agree with that as well. We will never get the libs to admit it that.
There is no rational logic to the concept that water boarding three people with no permanent harm is some such incredible crime against humanity yet sending robots (drones) out to assasinate alleged combatants/enemies and kill them like that is humane and ethically ok. Don't get me wrong - I am not against either - just the illogic of one is so totallly outrageous and immoral and the other is morrally justified and within international law.
We never really know who is killed from these drones. They are all faceless and labelled enemy combatants by the military. Many could be innocent farmers or goat herders for all we know.
I wonder what the outrage would be if W was still ordering all these drones murders vs a Democrat Prez?
-
CCP: "
There is no rational logic to the concept that water boarding three people with no permanent harm is some such incredible crime against humanity yet sending robots (drones) out to assasinate alleged combatants/enemies and kill them like that is humane and ethically ok. Don't get me wrong - I am not against either - just the illogic of one is so totallly outrageous and immoral and the other is morrally justified and within international law."..."I wonder what the outrage would be if W was still ordering all these drones ..."
This is really well put. I'm not for torture but torture to the guy who beheaded WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl in his bare hands on camera would be to gouge out his eyeballs and chop off his limbs one by one, not sleep deprivation or water tricks. He is fully intact and ready to be belligerent in the courtroom of his fair trial.
Also as you say, can you imagine the uproar from the left if the drone hits were still Bush's! Those drone attacks escalated under Obama. Assuming we are acting on good intelligence, the policy of continuing those cross border hits was a far more controversial and courageous decision (IMHO) by a peace prize winning President than authorizing a one-time, high-profile hit on Osama, which appeared to be quite a no brainer.
-
Amazing story Bigdog! Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ct-meb6U0
3 hostages died in crossfire, still that is how you negotiate with terrorists.
One Commando was killed, the commander of the unit, Yonathon Netanyahu.
Thanks DMG. And the video linked above is amazing.
-
Time magazine broke this without fanfare in late April; I can't find it on their site. The Blaze is all over it. Holder's predecessor Mukasey calls it a highly lawyered document designed to put blame back on the Navy Admiral if the mission failed: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141038/Revealed-How-White-House-planned-shield-Obama-blaming-Navy-chief-bin-Laden-raid-went-wrong.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
The White House denies that. Anyone here have an opinion?
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bin-laden-memo.jpg
http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpg
(http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpg)