No Surrender

Does Bin Laden's death vindicate Obama's policy of targeted killings?

According to the official story, Osama bin Laden was killed because he resisted the Navy SEALs who were attempting to capture him at his hideaway in Abbottabad, Pakistan. "If we had the opportunity to take him alive," John Brennan, the president's counterterrorism adviser, said on Monday, "we would have done that."

Does it matter? Evidently the Obama administration thinks it does. But such fastidiousness seems inconsistent with the president's policy regarding terrorism suspects who are not in custody, which is to shoot first and never ask questions.

Under the laws of war, which the administration says apply to members and supporters of Al Qaeda, you are not supposed to shoot an enemy combatant who is attempting to surrender or summarily execute him after he has been captured. Yet it is OK to kill him from a distance, without offering him a chance to give up.

In fact, President Obama considered dropping a bomb on Bin Laden's house but decided on a helicopter raid instead because he wanted to preserve the Al Qaeda leader's body to confirm that he was dead. "The helicopter raid was riskier," an administration official told Politico. "But he wanted proof. He didn't want to just leave a pile of rubble."

Although the helicopter raid was riskier for American personnel, a bomb would have been riskier for innocent civilians in the house and the neighborhood. But it would have avoided any question of whether Bin Laden could have been taken alive by foreclosing that option.

Notably, several news outlets called the killing of Bin Laden, who reportedly was shot twice in the head at close range, an "assassination," suggesting they doubted the official account of the raid. Assassination is banned by an executive order that is still in force, although the Bush and Obama administrations have interpreted the term narrowly, to exclude targeted killings of terrorists.

The assassination ban, first imposed by Gerald Ford in 1976, grew out of an investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that highlighted CIA plots to kill government officials in Cuba, Vietnam, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. Hence everyone agrees the order forbids deliberately killing foreign heads of state, a practice that is also condemned by international law.

This distaste for assassination can lead to morally puzzling results. The day of the raid in Abbottabad, the Libyan government accused NATO forces of trying to assassinate Muammar al-Qaddafi after an air attack killed one of his sons and three of his grandchildren. NATO officials said the complex it bombed was a command post as well as a residence and therefore a legitimate military target. They denied any intent to kill Qaddafi.

Which is worse: deliberately killing a brutal dictator or accidentally killing little children? It is a perverse policy that forbids the assassination of foreign leaders, even those guilty of mass murder, yet sanctions the slaughter of innocent noncombatants as unavoidable "collateral damage."

Qaddafi, like Bin Laden, has plenty of innocent blood on his hands. But he receives special consideration because his victims include not only the targets of terrorist attacks (such as the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland) but also the Libyans he rules by force.

By contrast, anyone other than a government official is fair game if President Obama identifies him as a terrorist. Obama claims the authority to deal death from a distance anywhere in the world, since the whole planet is a battlefield in the war with Al Qaeda.

The problem is that some people on Obama's list, which includes U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, may not be as indisputably guilty as Osama bin Laden, who was proud of his role in murdering thousands of Americans. In a conventional war, the enemy is the guy in a uniform shooting at you. In the war with Al Qaeda, the enemy is whoever the president says he is.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2011 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Wind Rider||

    What? You mean they really did open an unintended box of consequences by just up and out calling it (and carrying it out as) a targeted assassination?

    Shoulda listened to Baron Harkonenn. . .

  • Wind Rider||

    Oh, yeah, and replay Skippy's announcment speech. Yeah, I'm pretty sure he used the term 'assassination' to describe it all.

  • ||

    That is what it was. And I don't have a problem with the government hunting down and killing a fanatic who orchestrated the worst terror attack ever conducted on US soil. But, lots of other people, based on their previous statements on the subject, should.

    Glenn Greenwald's reaction is particularly pathetic and amusing. He is too much of a partisan hack to call out Obama for the assassination the way he would have called out Bush. At the same time he can't just go along and act like it is great and forget everything he ever said about the subject the way his other partisans do. So instead he whines about how horrible it is that Americans celebrated Bin Ladin's death.

    It is truly pathetic. The same guy who spent the entirety of the Bush Presidency pontificating about international law has from what I can see not a single word to say about the legality of the biggest political assassination in years. All he can talk about is the "frat boy reaction to it" and the media portrayal of it as if those are somehow more important or more damning than the legality of the act itself.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....r#comments

  • nanda||

    your comments are on target.
    Liberal hypocrisy is the most interesting thing about the entire episode. Suddenly the SEALs are heroes, and cold blooded murder is good. At what point did obama realize that he could not be the president and continue to support al quada because people would get just a tad suspicious? One month into the job, one year? Obama and liberals have acted completely contrary to what they have been saying for years.

    Also note the disappearance of the anti war movement. Now war is good. Killing Ghadaffi's son and grandchildren is just dandy (and that is an immoral war considering that all evidence suggests that most Libyans would rather continue with him than have the "rebels" in charge, and Ghadaffi has been quiet and not actively against the west for the last ten, twelve years, and it seems likely that these rebels are going to be even more anti US).

  • Comment Tater||

    Liberal hypocrisy is real and well documented and boring as hell to keep reiterating. We get it. Obama gets favorable press. Yawn.

  • ||

    Sorry uncomfortable facts make you uncomfortable.

  • Comment Tater||

    Not uncomfortable. Bored. The "liberal hypocrisy" card has been played ad nauseum. It's Glenn Beck-quality analysis. It's a hackneyed cliché. It's been done to death. It enlightens not. It's a rerun, a grade-B movie, a FOX News "alert." It's kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-MEME!!

  • Alex||

    Call out hypocrites at every turn. Unless, of course, one is a partisan hack, then obviously they'll try to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, or is merely some cliche.

  • ||

    ..'es just sleepin'

  • Apogee||

    THIS IS AN EX-MEME!!

    So bored you posted an entire comment trying to deflect attention from the left's empty bullshit.

  • ||

    It's not overdone to call out the hypocrisy, because this is a real war for our lives (laugh until Al-Q gets ahold of a Pakistani nuke, because whoever built Osama a house .5 miles from their West Point is obviously someone(s) who matters), and we need to stop viewing policies as a matter of whose team is in charge. This is all just pontificating, until it's not.

  • JoshINHB||

    John,

    Can you cite any time that US forces have openly acknowledged killing an enemy combatant that was attempting to surrender?

    That is a war crime, is it not?

  • ||

    Only if other people do it. The US is "exceptional", IOW, the principles that they enforce on others don't apply to them.

  • Apogee||

    That is a war crime, is it not?

    Not so sure about that. Rules of war generally allow for the immediate execution of spies and/or aggressors that generally fit the actions of terrorists.

  • Joel||

    I'm pretty sure that now only applies to people who perpertrated warfare under a false flag. I could be wrong.

  • Apogee||

    I think you could make the argument that AQ's assertion of a resurgent Caliphate could qualify as a 'false flag', since it lays claim to the re-taking of a region.

    My greater point is that AQ isn't part of an existing state, and that acting outside of recognized GC members was grounds for execution.

  • Jesse Walker||

    He is too much of a partisan hack to call out Obama for the assassination the way he would have called out Bush.

    Have you been following his twitter feed? It's filled with links challenging the legality of the Bin Laden operation, attacking Obama for releasing misinformation, and otherwise straying from the Blue Team line on matters more important than whether some folks felt like celebrating when a murderer died.

  • ||

    No Jessee. I haven't. I am not a Greenwald groupie. I just read his Salon posts. But I stand corrected. I guess he is willing to call out Obama.

  • ||

    He's at least willing to call out Obumba to a fraction of his audience anyway.

  • ||

    Yes, Greenwald has and deserves credit for that.

  • Tony||

    How is Greenwald a partisan? He's the biggest critic of Obama and Democrats I can think of who's not a partisan of the other side (like you).

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, come to fuck ON, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Do you read his columns? He absolutely does not give Obama or Democrats a pass on anything AT ALL. He thinks like the few principled libertarians there are here: both parties are tentacles of an evil state machine of death. He is no partisan.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I wasn't talking about Greenwald... I was talking about your supposed concern for partisanship.

  • Les||

    Greenwald has been devastatingly more critical of Obama than any other liberal I know of. Don't know how that isn't obvious to anyone who reads him without reflexive hatred.

    It was striking to note in yesterday's New York Times the obituary of Moshe Landau, the Israeli judge who presided over the 1961 war crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann. It's a reminder that when even the most heinous Nazi war criminals were hunted down by the Israelis, they weren't shot in the head and then dumped into the ocean, but rather were apprehended, tried in a court of law, confronted with the evidence against them for all the world to see, and then punished in accordance with due process. The same was done to leading Nazis found by Allied powers and tried at Nuremberg. It's true that those trials took place after the war was over, but whether Al Qaeda should be treated as active warriors or mere criminals was once one of the few ostensible differences between the two parties on the question of Terrorism.

  • Apogee||

    The same was done to leading Nazis found by Allied powers and tried at Nuremberg.

    All who were, at the time of their crimes, part of an organized military that had a base of operations that fit quite well into the definitions of the Geneva Convention.

    That may go a long way in explaining why the Israelis took the measures they did.

  • Realist||

    So Obama is your new hero now? He did in 2 years what Bush couldn't do in 8 years!

  • ||

    It's that simple? What was Obama's unique contribution to finding OBL that Bush didn't do?

  • The only thing that matters||

    Obama's a democrat.

  • Ragnar||

    First?

  • Wind Rider||

    Not even, amateur.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Is the commander in chief of a nation-state's military a valid military target?

    (I know that "Terror" is not a nation state and nor does it have a commander-in-chief)

  • Mike in PA||

    Technically, I don't think this falls under the government's definition of assassination. Unless I'm mistaken, I think their rules only apply to other government leaders.

    That being said, while I can appreciate the ends, I deplore the means. In order to accomplish one (mostly symbolic) mission, we had to torture, we had to violate the sovereignty of another country, and we had to carry out a kill mission on an individual target.

    I know it's like sacrilege to suggest that I'm not 100% pleased with this, but I, too, worry about the consequences - and not just from our enemies.

  • cynical||

    "we had to violate the sovereignty of another country"

    Congress constitutionally has the power to specifically authorize a violation of another sovereign's territory in order to attack some specific people in order to avenge a wrong. That's old school international law.

  • ||

    Where in the constitution do we find a specific grant of power to Congress authorizing it to do what you asseverate?

  • ||

    I assume he's referring to the grant of power to Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

    Not sure that those are properly taken as operating in another sovereign's territory, instead of just in international waters, though.

  • .||

    What did we use when we went after the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800's?

  • Edwin||

    CHUCK NORRIS

  • prolefeed||

    I haven't seen any details about what actually happened in that room, so hard to second-guess the actions of the Navy Seals, but if someone is unarmed and not in a position to kill you, and you shoot him anyway, that comes uncomfortably close to a common-sense definition of an "assassination".

    I'm sure the Obama administration will never, ever admit this was an "assassination", because that sets a precedent for what people can do to him, plus such blunt truthfulness is not how politicians operate.

    Me, I don't have any problem with Obama being killed that way, or any other way. Sumbitch had it coming.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    You mean Osama, right? Gotta watch those typos or you will have the feds knocking on your door in no time.

  • ||

    "Vengeance is a water vessel with a hole. It carries nothing but the promise of emptiness."

  • ||

    I knew I recognized that. You can't lose quoting Kung Fu.

  • ||

    "Getting double tapped in the head stops you from being a terrorist"

    I like that quote better

  • Jason||

    "Under the laws of war, which the administration says apply to members and supporters of Al Qaeda, you are not supposed to shoot an enemy combatant who is attempting to surrender or summarily execute him after he has been captured. Yet it is OK to kill him from a distance, without offering him a chance to give up."

    Using that logic, isn't it immoral to drop any bomb? Bombs are dropped with the intention of taking lives, and the people killed have no chance to raise a white flag. I'm not sure I understand why it is obviously wrong to target who you kill with missiles/bombs, but it is not obviously wrong to kill strangers from above during wartime.

  • prolefeed||

    If you shell a hostile enemy force with artillery from a distance, you can't ascertain if the particular people being shelled would surrender if given the chance.

    But, if a column of soldiers come up toward you waving a white flag of surrender, and you open up on them with those same artillery pieces, then that is different. Then you have ascertained that they are trying to surrender, and you are ignoring that offer to do so.

  • *||

    Why are there rules to war in the first place?

  • .||

    To have something with which to beat up on the loser of the war?

  • plisade||

    For me, the concepts and practice of sovereignty and morality require reciprocal acts between 2 parties. They're not one-sided abstractions. Bin Laden chose his means of communication with us, violence. He chose to be a soldier; he was in the game and played it out to his end. Live by the sword, die by the sword. In assassination, we spoke to him in his language since he didn't seem interested in our morality or sovereignty.

  • arib||

    we spoke to him in his language"
    Assuming OBL was the initial aggressor.
    OBL has made it more than clear his intent in 9/11 was retaliation

    Now I'm not starting any debate on the merits of his individual opinion, but given the obvious shades of grey and bias of opinions on both sides, it's pretty absent minded to simply feel 'we' are in the right because of 9/11.
    An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

  • plisade||

    Arib, I agree. I'm not so much justifying the actions of the U.S. as discussing the morality of the assassination. A blind world, as you say, is not something I'm interested in perpetuating either.

  • creech||

    An eye for an eye is justice. Even-steven restitution. Not I get to gouge out three eyes for one, or you get to remain sighted by paying a small fine but not my medical expenses.
    A world where justice prevailed is far superior to one where grudges are nursed because justice was not done.

  • ||

    So, given all of the facts, i.e., the US subsidizes the mass murder of Palestinians by Israel, the US intervenes in the 1973 Yom Kippur War in order to bail out the Israelis, the US invades Lebanon in 1983, the US invades Iraq in 1991, the US establishes and maintains military installations throughout the Middle East, the US engineers the mass murder of half a million Iraqis between 1991 and 2003, who can blame any person for having the stones to stand up to the Great Satan?

    This board is full of pussies who can't get enough of sucking the cock of the Leviathan.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    That's cute.
    You start by saying "So, given all of the facts.." then you list only the facts that fit your narrative and dress them up with a lot of villian/victim words and then rest your case by calling people pussies because they're not willing to join you in dropping most of the context involved.

    Read more than one book before you go parading your stupidity around.

  • ||

    You appear to buy the statist line. You appear to swallow the statist propaganda.

    I note that you were too stupid to answer the questions, stupid.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    What questions? Here let me try.

    Given all the facts, The American Empire Of Hate dropped nuclear bombs on a bunch of Japanese people one day for no reason. And if you say I've left anything out then you have been indoctrinated by the state.

    Now answer all my questions, stupid.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Oh there it is. I found the needle of a question in your haystack of question-begging. The answer is...I can.

  • ||

    How about "an eye for an eye makes the asshole who took out your first eye have to run and hide instead of going after your remaining good eye like he wants to"?

  • cmace||

    [E]veryone agrees the order forbids deliberately killing foreign heads of state, a practice that is also condemned by international law heads of state.

  • ||

    I always had a lot of trouble with that. It is ok to kill some illiterate conscripted goat herder, but not the asshole who started the mess?

  • prolefeed||

    That outcome is OK from the perspective of the asshole who started the mess, and they are the ones who set the rules.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yup. I've never understood why it is always taken for granted that leaders are off limits. Don't be a ruler if you don't like the risks.

  • .||

    I think, if it were to come right down to it, that rulers would not be off limits; it just never seems to go that far in actual practice.

  • ||

    The Obama Administration's anti-surrender, "shoot first" policy is largely a consequence of wanting to avoid the difficult policy question of what to do with captured terrorists. As I've said for the last 9 years, it's not an easy question, because they're not like typical POWs that you can have prisoner exchange programs with (or foresee an eventual end to the war), but they're not captured in circumstances that make civilian trials easy.

    As I predicted consistently starting 9 years ago, the focus on the dislike for holding detainees indefinitely was inevitably going to lead to a policy of "shoot first" and avoiding captures. Nearly everyone agrees that killing terrorists (and suspected terrorists) in a military operation is acceptable; far more people object to holding them indefinitely (and of course to interrogation techniques that some consider torture.)

    AG Holder last year was asked if Osama bin Laden would be given a civilian trial, and answered only that ""The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal - he will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people."

    It was long obvious to me that the inevitable consequence of strong protest of the detainee policy was a shoot to kill policy, given the lack of well-argued alternatives as well as political reality.

  • ||

    Which incidentally is why I've said before that I can't go as far as RC Dean in saying that people are responsible for all foreseeable consequences (and that they're not unintended), or else I'd have to argue that the Gitmo critics all wanted a shoot to kill policy.

  • Tony||

    I think critics wanted terrorists to be treated as civilian criminals--Obviously the underlying cause of the problem is the rhetoric of war being applied to terrorism. It might have been possible to treat the matter according to established law, but not after all the Bush admin. bluster.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Terrorists can't be treated as mere criminals.

  • Tony||

    Why? Treating them the way we have has only resulted in the inability to prosecute them.

  • ||

    Yes, and we are unable to prosecute the ones who are dead because President Obama killed them rather than risk capture.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Acting like pussies won't defeat them, either.

  • Edwin||

    I'd like him to put up or shut up. I'm pretty sure all parts of the US Code and our various treaties and what have you with the U.N. are available online. I'd like to see some citations where it says we signed away our right to declare and perform war if we so choose regardless of how the U.N. panels vote or where we have try war criminals in civilian court as though they were citizens of our country.

  • Tony||

    But the mistake is in thinking that treating terrorist suspects as battlefield warriors will result in swifter justice and a safer country. It quite obviously does not. Add torture to the mix and we have people we just have to hold indefinitely because no court military or otherwise can give us the outcomes we want.

  • Edwin||

    I dunno WTF you're talking about. Is that what has actually happened with military courts? That we couldn't convict and execute them? Has that actually happened. As far as I know they've only been holding people in Gitmo, no courts happened yet. I don't know the details beyond that.

  • Edwin||

    and even if that's true, with the "torture" at least they're getting information. Pendotetta or whatever his name is says Bin Laden's location may have been found from suspects who were waterboarded. He could just be blowing smoke, but really I wouldn';t be surprised if that were the case.

  • Tony||

    Any real interrogator will tell you that torture is not an efficient means of gaining intelligence. On top of that is the fact that any statement given as a result of torture isn't admissible in either a military or civilian court.

  • Edwin||

    which is why they don't really use "torture" - they do things like sleep deprivation and stress positions to lower the self-control/awareness threshold of the person. From what I've read the idea half the time is to get the suspect to give you information without even realizing it.

    Anyway, no matter what anyone babbles, I know the cold hard fact is that there are suspects who will give inofrmation just to stop the pain/discomfort. Maybe some suspects don't know anything, and lots who do won't tell you, but basic human nature tells you there are people who will give up info - nobody like being made to stand for 14 hours, or not sleep for 4 days.

  • Edwin||

    and how about you tell me about what's been going on with regards to the court thing? What has actually happened?

    and why do we even need to "convict" anyone. The only thing I care about with regards to them being kept alive and held is the chance to get important information out of them. Further than that they could just take em out back and shoot em in the head for all I care.

  • ||

    Edwin, I see that you, too, are nothing more than a feckless, pathetic ccok sucker of Leviathan.

  • Edwin||

    and you're a whiny douchebag libertarian nerd bitch who describes any government as "leviathan" - yeah, governments are monsters on par with monsters from LOTR

    there's nothing wrong with us trying to keep ourselves alive, and there's nothing wrong with doing nasty shit to mass-murdering monsters to do so

  • ||

    What about mass murdering monsters like Obama and Bush and his father and Truman and Lincoln and Roosevelt?

    Given all of the murders of Pakistani civilians by the US, would not the Pakistanis have the right to send a strike force to the White House to take out Obama?

  • Edwin||

    your moral equivalency is as disgusted as it is played out

    our governments spend tens of thousands of dollars just to put a computer onto a missile to minimize civilian casualties when for way less money we could carpet bomb the entire block that the target's on and still hit that target and we'd save a shit load of money

    these guys you want to fellate, on the other hand, walk into a vilage andmurder a few people just to sned the message that they're in charge, and hang women just for going to school, and deliberately hide amongst civilians even during battle, endangering said civilians

  • Monkey with Feces||

    I came to fling, but I stayed to learn.

  • ||

    No, Edwin, I think that those who want to impose sharia law upon you or me can go fornicate themselves.

    OTOH, I think that those who want to impose their security state upon you or me can go fornicate themselves as well. I do not have a prior claim on your paycheck - even if I cite my fear of muslim terrorists and that I must be kept alive at your expense.

  • Edwin||

    and now you're changing the subject - you were calling our government murderers for its actions in foreign wars and comparing us to terrorists, and now all of a sudden you're talking about domestic civil liberties issues

    know why you changed the subject? 'casue you can't actually address the issue

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    and you're a whiny douchebag libertarian nerd bitch who describes any government as "leviathan" - yeah, governments are monsters on par with monsters from LOTR

    It's from Hobbes, you uneducated douche.

  • Edwin||

    yeah and it's also a word for monsters used frequently in sci fi and fantasy literature and movies and pop culture, ya doosh

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The point is that by referring to government as leviathan, Libertymike wasn't being a "whiny douchebag libertarian nerd bitch who describes any government as "leviathan" - yeah, governments are monsters on par with monsters from LOTR". He wasn't trying to compare government to a creature from fantasy fiction, he was making a reference to a great philosophical thinker, one who, as it happens, was about as big a statist as you can get.

  • Edwin||

    no, he was being a douche nerd because he thought it would be cute or funny to use a sci-fi, pop culture like reference.

    Also, he's being fucking shrill by calloing even first world governments something that implies they're monsters. They're not - our lives amazing compared to the rest of the world and the rest of history. Our governments are not in any serious way opressive, and the vast majority of americans can live their lives unhindered from any serious getting-fucked-with.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Our governments are not in any serious way oppressive...yet.

  • Barry||

    Workin' on it, folks. Y'all don't want TOTAL oppression until my SECOND term, anyway.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Like he said, those Hobbes and their big hairy feet kicked Sauron's ass.

  • ||

    "Any real interrogator will tell you that torture is not an efficient means of gaining intelligence."

    And yet "real interrogators" are telling us that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were effective. So either they aren't torture, or your statement is false.

    But it doesn't really matter. I've never liked the argument against torture for pragmatic reasons. Torture is torture because it's morally wrong, though people can disagree about what crosses the line. I, for one, think that SuperMax prison treatment are worse than waterboarding, and certainly worse than Gitmo. Though most people in that treatment are convicted, to me a defining characteristic of "torture" is that you shouldn't do it to the convicted either.

  • ||

    Oh, sure, they did, which is why it would be unfair to tar them with that brush.

    However, the practical result has been a policy of "shoot to kill" instead of capturing.

  • ||

    But aren't Obama and his lifelong ideological company exactly the people who had so much to say about how Bush was conducting things and how illegal it was? So instead of demonstrating his enlightened alternative, he kills people to avoid having to put his money where his mouth was for years. Fine. But he needs to say it. Say that this turns out to be the right way to deal with things. But no, somehow he can give terrorists even less legal process than Bush and somehow get MORE credit because the press assures us be "thinks deeply" about it or some utter bullshit.

  • ||

    "Hideaway"...heh, horseshit. I'm supposed to believe that a guy who's been in guerilla wars since the '80s is just hanging out at da house, with no bodyguards, no security worth mentioning. Uh-huh.

    Looks more like he was under CIA house arrest. His last words were probably "...wait! I did all the stuff you told me to do! I got Bush re-elected! Why are you pointing that gun--" (bang)

  • ||

    lol, yeah right, we will just take the White Houses word for it, rotfl, too funny.

    www.real-privacy.es.tc

  • Edwin||

    "Does Bin Laden's death vindicate Obama's policy of targeted killings?"

    Yes, yes it does. What a silly question.

    The good thing about Obama is that he failed on his campaign promises/message/persona of the typical liberal kumbaya circle-jerk and America-bashing. Once he became president he eventually grew up and became more realistic about what can be accomplished. A president does have the power to do all the things he wanted to do, but he would have also had to ignore the massive bad conseqeuences, which Obama had the maturity not to do.

  • MR Obvious||

    You mean Obama's targeted killing of American jobs, freedom, low oil prices and a decent economy?
    that targeted killing?

  • Edwin||

    lulz

  • ||

    Then he needs to say he was wrong and stop getting credit for pursuing a more diplomatic and enlightened road than Bush. He isn't.

  • ||

    Which incidentally is why I've said before that I can't go as far as RC Dean in saying that people are responsible for all foreseeable consequences (and that they're not unintended), or else I'd have to argue that the Gitmo critics all wanted a shoot to kill policy.

    I'm not saying that people want the foreseeable consequences of what they do. I'm saying they are responsible for them. That should hardly be controversial.

    It is absolutely routine, for example, to require Company A to pay damages to somebody harmed by the foreseeable consequences of Company A's actions, isn't it? Nobody says Company A shouldn't be held responsible unless it intended to harm somebody, they say (rightly), that Company A should be held responsible for the foreseeable damage that it causes, regardless of its intent to cause damage.

    Wailing "I didn't mean for that to happen" is no defense, when what happened was perfectly foreseeable.

  • Edwin||

    OK, true enough if said consequence absolutely necessarily will happen after some action is taken, but what about when there are different risk levels? Risk vs. intention vs. outcome is a very real aspect of reality that I've seen a lot of libertarians come up with fucked up policies on.

  • ||

    I call bullshit. The problem with the word "foreseeable." It is one of those squishy words that has been stretched by incompetent judges and lawyers into meaninglessness. I;ve read enough cases that define foreseeable as meaning you better god damn well be omniscient. Now if foreseeable was based on some kind of... oh I don't know....reality, say, like the laws of physics, then OK.

    Having said all that. I am ok with killing Osama.

  • ||

    The constitution does not authorize the US to make war on foreign lands and it certainly does not authorize the targeted assassinations of individuals the military industrial national security complex alleges is a murderer.

  • Edwin||

    right, because the founding fathers were stupid enough to create a country that doesn't have the ability to wage war

    ever try actually READING the constitution?

  • ||

    Show me any founding era documents in which Jefferson, Madison, Admas or Paine opined that the state has a right to murder individuals who are residing in the territory of a sovereign nation with whom the state is not at war.

    Show me.

  • Edwin||

    show me where it explicitly says they can't, especially where we have said government's cooperation as an ally

  • ||

    The burden is upon the state as it only has the power specifically granted to it. It is incumbent upon the state to demonstrate that it has been granted such power. Pretty basic stuff.

    This is a libertarian board. Not a board for slaves.

  • ||

    Pakistan has officially objected to the act.

  • Edwin||

    yeah and they have the power to wage war

    so, what, I'm a slave for wanting to remain alive? Are you sure? I don't work for anyone against my will, so I'm pretty sure I'm not a slave. Ohhhhh, you were just spouting more bullshit libertarian platitudes that only show how fucked in the head and shrill you guys are. oh OK. that's what that was.

  • ||

    Do you file tax returns? Do you pay income taxes? If so, you are a slave.

  • Edwin||

    really? are you sure? Nobody's ever threatened to beat me viciously with a whip if I don't work for them. I've seen pcitures of slaves, their backs are marked with whipping scars

    I do however, subscribe to this certain service that within a geographical area maintains roads and helps me protect my life and property rights and maintains the right to the details of the definitions thereof (as opposed to everybody trying to apply their own ideas and duking it out). It's like an HOA, but with more service. The great thing about this service is I that I absolutely don't have to pay it - I can leave anytime I want from the service area, and then I don't have to pay. It's completely my CHOICE. Not to mention that there's actually no charge for loads of people including me, who are below a certain paycheck/title-to-money-protection level.

    What's wrong, I thought HOA's were a private form interaction that libertarians are totally for?

  • ||

    The income earned by an individual is his property - it does not belong to you or some collective. The individual has an absolute right to keep all of his income - the state has no prior claim to it.

    Just because you subscribe to the bolzhevik philosophy that the state has a right to take your property in exchange for the "services" it provides, does not mean that everybody has to so subscribe. You do not have a right to impose your bolzhevik values upon anybody else.

    Individuals do have a choice - they have the option of not surrendering a substantial portion of their income to the government. You do not have a right to make that choice for them.

  • Edwin||

    I guess you better go tell homeowners' associations that, then, right?

    and, what, so because I understand that taxes are legitimate that makes me a full-on communist? Hyperbole much?

    and you're missing the point of my analogy and completely contradicting yourself; you're right, it is their choice - like I said, they could leave their country, which could also be seen as a definition/enforcement/judgement jurisdiction-service.

    how many systems out there are there that you would completely support just because they're a part of the "private sector" or the "free-market"? When you sit down at a restaurant, do you sign a contract agreeing to pay? What if there were private roads, and there were signs posted notifying "By using these roads you agree to abide by the driving safety policies of XYZ corporation" and the XYZ corporation saw fit to arrest you if you violated their policy on their land?
    The endless number of similar systems.

    YOU are the one who doesn't have the right to usurp the ideals and political system of 300 million Americans. How many actual anarchists are there out there? What,. like 300,000 out of a country of 300 million? When we normies outnumber you by that much, it'd be you who'd be fucking with us if you managed to forcibly impose your system. And you would need to do it by force outnumbered 100-1 by statists.

    You've been notified your entire life that there is an American government and there are foreign governments. You can leave anytime you want to one of those. And you've been notified that remaining here implies that you agree to pay for the service. Like a lot of other things, the service is occupancy-based - while you're here, you get the service, but you also have to pay. Again, there are a million private sector thiungs just like this. Hell, it's easier to leave the country than it is to sell your house to get out of an HOA.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    and, what, so because I understand that taxes are legitimate that makes me a full-on communist? Hyperbole much?

    Your reasoning can also be used to justify communism. Hey, if you don't want the state to have absolute prior claims on your body and your labour, hey, you can leave the country. You're not a communist, but your arguments are only as good as a communists (actually a good deal worse, since Marx was a genius, mistaken though he was).

    and you're missing the point of my analogy and completely contradicting yourself; you're right, it is their choice - like I said, they could leave their country, which could also be seen as a definition/enforcement/judgement jurisdiction-service.

    When someone buys a home they sign a contract with the previous property owner agreeing to abide the HOA. It's a voluntary contract. For this to be analogous to government, we would have to admit that the government is the initial property owner of all the land in the country. How is property acquired? Not by arbitrary claims of territory, that's for sure. Why shouldn't any particular government claim the whole earth as their territory and claim taxes from everyone? Only because they can't enforce it? If that's the only limit on this, you're proposing that might makes right. Libertarians propose that property is acquired by labour, and that therefore the original property owners of the 'territory' of a nation are really home-builders and farmers and road-layers, not governments. So how does that government's claim on our income work, again?

    how many systems out there are there that you would completely support just because they're a part of the "private sector" or the "free-market"? When you sit down at a restaurant, do you sign a contract agreeing to pay? What if there were private roads, and there were signs posted notifying "By using these roads you agree to abide by the driving safety policies of XYZ corporation" and the XYZ corporation saw fit to arrest you if you violated their policy on their land?
    The endless number of similar systems.


    Voluntary contracts, all of them. Again, you have to submit that the government owns all the land of the nation to make this work.

    YOU are the one who doesn't have the right to usurp the ideals and political system of 300 million Americans. How many actual anarchists are there out there? What,. like 300,000 out of a country of 300 million? When we normies outnumber you by that much, it'd be you who'd be fucking with us if you managed to forcibly impose your system. And you would need to do it by force outnumbered 100-1 by statists.


    So you outnumber us. That makes you right? Arguments ad populum are worthless.

    You've been notified your entire life that there is an American government and there are foreign governments. You can leave anytime you want to one of those. And you've been notified that remaining here implies that you agree to pay for the service. Like a lot of other things, the service is occupancy-based - while you're here, you get the service, but you also have to pay. Again, there are a million private sector thiungs just like this. Hell, it's easier to leave the country than it is to sell your house to get out of an HOA.


    There are some private sector analogies to government, but none of those you've listed are. Here are some: theft, murder, rape, trespassing, fraud, vandalism...
    In case you're wondering, libertarians are against all those things too.
  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Well, okay, so I fucked up the blockquotes a bit.

  • Edwin||

    no it can't - saying taxes are legitimate is HUGELY different from communist policy

    no, the government doesn't have to own all the land in the country - that presumes libertarian philosophy, which deliberately restricts everything into the context of property. You have to remember it's the other way around, half the land in this country was homesteaded under government-directed policies - the taking of title and the functioning of government around land issues evolved together.

    Th point is that your continuing to stay is just as voluntary as any of these contracts, and many time even more so. You were born here or your parents moved here when you were little, and that wasn't your choice, but those are the limits imposed by reality. Whatever system you claim could exist would also be subject to this reality.
    But from there, once you grow up, you can go whereever the hell you want to. It's your CHOICE. You have 200+ countries to choose from. By staying here, knowing that you will on the one hand get the services of our "subscription" but also on the other hand have to pay for our "subscription" , you are indeed CONSENTING to pay for this system, at least to the extent that you consent to anything else in a world of limited options. I don't hear libertarians bitching that they don't get the exact kind of car with exactly all the features they want as some violation of human rights - know why I don't hear that, because their entire bullshit sophistry is deliberately restrictive to satisfy their sense of entitlement, hence the obsession with only property.

    It's not an argument ad populum. Again, read what I've been saying. You are consenting to abide by this government, and the vast majority of Americans explicitly do. Lots of people get upset when their side doesn't win but very few actually claim that they aren't willing to still have a government - it's part of having a government or ANY system of governance that you don't always get your way, that's part of growing up.
    If 1,200 people in a town want a government, and you don't, you'd have to impose your will against theirs wouldn't you? And guess what, what if they're all landowners who own the land in the town? Then where does your "that assumes government owns the land" bullshit get you? Even if property were the only thing that mattered (which it isn't), why should your measly 1 care lot and house outweight theirs?

    Governments are here to stay and are not nazi-level evils. The day you grow up and understand that is the day you people start winning elections. Then again, if you did understand that, you wouldn't be libertarians.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Oh, shut the fuck up with the 'when you grow up' stuff. How about this: how about I sit here and wax lyrical about how I used to be a liberal when I was a child, but then I realised that that was just silly childish nonsense. What makes my making this argument any less valid than your making this argument?

    Now let's say the government decides that women are chattel and proclaims it legal to have sex with them at will. It's not rape though, no, because they could leave the country (and their property - which is theirs, not the governments), and are therefore consenting to anyone having sex with them whenever by remaining here. Hey, it's your argument. And they have 200+ countries to choose from. So what if all of them decide that women are chattel? It's still consent, apparently.
    Your car analogy is stupid and you know it is. Nobody's forced to buy a car: one can go completely carless.
    The reason property matters is simple: in order to be free, people need exclusive right of control over themselves. Exclusive right of control is ownership - that is, without self-ownership, liberty is impossible. The only alternative is other-ownership, by degrees or otherwise (since the only alternative to exclusive control is non-exclusive control). Self-ownership entails ownership of what we think of as external matter - although it's no more external than our bodies, since the skin is not a magic barrier where rights stop. Therefore, whatever we make conform to our will through labour is our property as much as our own bodies are. And yes, these are just the cliffsnotes. What this all means is that by taking somebody's property you're making them conform you your will without their consent using force - you are enslaving them, by degrees or otherwise.

    Each landowner can decide what to do with his own land - so if everyone in town gets together and decides to run the town a particular way that's fine. The 1,200 can have as much government as they want. They just can't impose it on me or on my land. My 1 lot doesn't outweigh theirs, except in the matter or my lot.

    I didn't say government were nazi-level evil. I also think they are here to stay. I also think that murderers and thieves are here to stay. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to hate murderers and thieves: it doesn't mean their actions aren't morally wrong.

  • Edwin||

    except NO ONE'S LEGALIZING THE RAPING OF WOMEN YOU FUCKING SHRILL DOUCHE.

    That's not what you're complaining about. If that were actually happening, you might have a point. But it isn't - you're complaining on a fundamental level about even the smallest taxes or the smallest most reasonable regulation. You're arguing against the right of peoples to decide what they think their rights are and the details therein. There are a shitload of regulations that could easily be viewed as laws regarding the details of the definition of fraud, abandonment, title, decendents, etc. But according to you idiots, it's all "opression".
    Maybe they're not "imposing" anything on you. Maybe they're just defining the nature of property rights, and you're being an asshole. No matter what you do, you can't deny that in contiguous areas, you have to have one legal structure, one set of the definitions of rights and the details. And no matter what you idiots say, there is no objectively derivable system to get all those details, it's all just bullshit libertarian word games. If there is only one objectiove correct answer, then why can't people EVER seem to agree on it? There are as many opinions as people. And we have to do something to create rules and conventions for consistency.
    None of these natural rights bullshit things is ever consistent. If you own yourself, it doesn't necessarily follow that you can own objects as property. And if you can own things you make, you can't own land because you never made it. See? Immediately all your bullshit runs into massive inconsistencies.

    The point is taxation isn't theft, legislation and regulation isn't automatically "opression", and is you think that you're a douche.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Gee whiz, okay. Let's start with the very basics, since you apparently need it.

    Basic logic: if you make argument A to support position X, and argument A can also be used to support position Y, you need to explain why you support X and not Y. In this case, X is 'it's morally permissible for the government to take your money' and Y is 'it's morally permissible for the government to rape women'. Argument A is your social contract bull. Now explain why your social contract argument justifies taxes but doesn't justify the rape of women, or admit you're wrong.

    I agree that in a contiguous area you have to have one set of laws. I thought what we were arguing about was what the right set of laws is. Are we not?

    If I turn clay into a statue, I own the statue. If I turn land into a farm, I own the farm. And it does necessarily follow from self-ownership that you can own external matter, since your body is as much external matter as anything else. Your skin is an arbitrary boundary. My bullshit does not run into massive inconsistencies. Guess what, I've heard these objections before, I've made these objections before, and I've defeated these objections before. Not only have I done that, but Rothbard and Nozick have done that, and if you bothered to read works by people who disagree with you, you'd already know that.

    And we end with an ad hominem. 'If you think that, you're a douche.' Hell of an argument you got there.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Also, it's debatable whether my particular conception of rights makes them natural rights, since they derive from the authority of individuals over their own lives.

  • Edwin||

    and you know what? If a woman stayed for any significant period of time in such a legal atmosphere, she would essentially be consenting. Which is ALL WOMEN WOULD IMMEDIATELY RENOUNCE THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND LEAVE THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR BULLSHIT PROBABLY THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN ANYWAYS WOULD IMMEDIATELY SOLVE ITSELF.

    yeah, nobody's forced to buy a car. And nobody is forced to work above the taxation cutoff, either. There's also tons of various forms of welfare. Also, even above the supposed taxation cutoff, below around like $30,000, no one's really actually taxed. They only file to get their rebates.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    If a woman stayed for any significant period of time in such a legal atmosphere, she would essentially be consenting.

    You realise that what you're saying is, if a woman doesn't want to be raped in this example, she should leave behind her property, not to mention he friends and family, her house which for all we know she built with her own two hands, and get out of the country, otherwise it's not really rape. And what if the whole world is that way? Is it still consent? And of course it would never happen. It's called a thought experiment.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    An HOA is based upon rules and procedures that have legal significance. People sign on to those rules knowing that they can only be changed according to an agreed-upon procedure, and when the rules are violated, even by those in charge, there are legal consequences.

    The Constitution was supposed to establish a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, but it has been informally amended over time by the judicial branch. The fact that thousands of pages of legal briefs are being drafted to debate whether or not the feds can force us to buy a product (health insurance) is a perfect illustration of this fact. If the feds are like an HOA, then they are seriously operating way outside of the agreed-upon CCRs.

  • Edwin||

    yeah, agreed on the constitutional issues. But FYI, that's actually reasonable - that isn't libertarian. Libertarianism is stuff like the tard above with their "natural rights" bullshit and refusal to look at the basic facts of human existence.

  • Apogee||

    People sign on to those rules knowing that they can only be changed according to an agreed-upon procedure,

    Bullshit. HOA's are the most abusive scam out there. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of criminal and fraudulent activities that are ostensibly shielded by the 'consensual' nature of HOA 'membership'.

    CCR's are just the excuse to extort money, and they're altered all the time, regardless of what's been written previously.

    It's a scam, and any ability of an HOA to put any lien on someone's property should be prohibited.

  • ||

    So are advocated for raising awareness about closing Gitmo and CIA secret prisons "responsible" for this new policy of shoot to kill? After all, I thought it was a foreseeable consequence of their activism and awareness raising.

    I predicted it at the time, and warned them against it for exactly the reason that we'd get "shoot to kill" instead of capturing. Does that make them "responsible?"

    I would hesitate to go that far.

  • ||

    Clicked too soon.

    If causing damage is a foreseeable result of your actions, but you decide to go ahead anyway, how can you say you didn't intend that result? "Intend" is not the same as "want", after all.

  • ||

    I clicked too soon too. "Perfectly foreseeable." Puuulllleeeezzzeee.. There are very few things that are perfectly foreseeable. And when you are talking about human conduct and human responses, the term perfectly foreseeable is just stupid.

  • ||

    "Assassin" originally referred to "one of an order of Muslim fanatics, active in Persia and Syria from about 1090 to 1272, whose chief object was to assassinate Crusaders." The word is derived from the Arabic ḥashshāshīn, or eaters of hashish.

    I find that odd.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And they're still pissed about the Crusades.

    Oh, irony.

  • ||

    The Crusades started because of Muslim incursions into Asia Minor and the Holy Land. So we should be seeking revenge, right? I mean, they're still holding Constantinople!

    Or maybe we should just let it go, man.

  • 0x90||

    Why did Constantinople get the works?

  • ||

    That's nobody's business but the Turks'!

    You're either getting or missing the point.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah... and Muslims are STILL pissed about it.

  • ||

    "In the war with Al Qaeda, the enemy is whoever the president says he is."

    They had these kinds of irregular warfare at the time of the founding of our nation. It's not new. And it's why the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to keep the war going. The President gets to pick out who our enemy; Congress gets to decide if the attempt to kill them will be funded.

    In the war that no sensible person denies is going on with al-Qaeda, to kill Osama bin Laden is a lawful killing. In the war with Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Churchill expressly said that if some British squad captured Adolf Hitler, an elected national leader, it would be OK if the squad leader summarily put Hitler up against a wall and shot him.

    I don't have any heartburn over killing the leaders of other nations if we're at war with them. That's why I oppose the Libya fiasco; we're not at war with them. If the U.N. wants to explore this particular legal territory (the rightness of killing a national leader in some U.N. "police action"), let them while we stand aside and don't get involved, particularly where we have no idea what the politics of the rebels is and where the conflict doesn't affect the national interests of the United States.

  • ||

    So, you are okay with Pakistan sending in a strike force to murder obama?

  • Apogee||

    You are conflating OBL with the elected leader of Pakistan.

    A better analogy would be:

    "Would you be angry at Pakistan for sending a strike force to kill a terrorist on American soil who had masterminded an attack that killed thousands of Pakistanis, and who had no connection to the US Government, even though he was very popular with many Americans?"

  • bob||

    Sure does vindicate Bush. Liberals are defending the actions and policies of Obama which are a complete replica of Bush's actions and policy. Of course if Bush's policy was written in red ink instead of Obama's blue ink it's a significant debatable difference for them.

  • Tony||

    Not exactly. See, Obama actually got bin Laden. Bush got distracted a little.

  • nanda||

    the CIA and the SEALs got OBL, not Obama. Obama realized that he had to give the go ahead to the killing because if/when it came out later that he had not, his reelection chances would have been way down.

    So funny all of this. Obama went to Venezuela and sat grinning while Chavez insulted the US and Obama (it was a serious dis, although Obama did not see it like that, lacking the wit to see he was being insulted, having at that time no idea of what Country means to most people, not just Americans). Now Obama has some little inkling of that. But what does he really think? Is expediency all? Have his values really changed? Is he ever struck between what he believed then and what he professes to think now? I am sure that Obama hated the CIA profoundly. Now he should acknowledge his debt to that much hated (unfairly) organization.

  • bob||

    Another celebration of Bush's policy.

  • bob||

    Come on Mr. Tony. What would liberal Daily Kos readers say if Bush took down what appears to be an unarmed man?

  • Blank Stare||

    Tony, the fallacy of your argument is that the military and intelligence services are indeed capable of multitasking.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then why won't he release the fucking pictures, Tony?

    This isn't birtherism. Fuck Obama's birth certificate... this is important shit here.

    Fuck, we can look up pics and flicks of WTC jumpers, and Daniel Pearl, and Theo van Gogh. What were their crimes? Why should bin Laden have gotten even the piss-poorly indecent burial-at-sea sendoff he got? Too fucking good for him. His victims got it WAY worse.

    Prove it wrong, Tony.

  • mike||

    I have issues with targeting an American citizen for execution but none with a foreigner if the executive believes they are a threat to the US.

    As to the raid and UBL being unarmed - have you ever considered he could be wearing a suicide belt under his thawb? The man did say numerous times he would not be taken alive. That's good enough for me if I'm one of the SEALs in that room.

  • CE||

    So you would have no issue with if a foreign executive targets a US citizen for execution, if that foreign executive believes they are a threat to his country? Or is America somehow above international laws and ethics?

  • Apogee||

    If that American citizen had started a terrorist campaign against that foreign executive's country, I would expect an assassination attempt.

    Especially if that American citizen was hiding in a foreign country at the time, and had no direct approval from the US Government for his actions.

  • ||

    In a time of war any enemy combatant ,which includes their leaders, can be killed on the spot unless they are actively surrendering. Reaching for a white flag can just as easily be confused with reaching for a gun and therefore it should not be considered an assassination. Besides it's far easier to pack a dead body then one that struggles and yells which might have been a concern since they already lot one helicopter. Either way this was a combate situation where people get shot and die.

  • CE||

    The "assassination" term is unnecessary, and misleading. Just call it what it is, "murder".

    Calling the murder of a head of state an assassination simultaneously serves to elevate heads of states onto another arbitrary set of laws, above mere mortals, and provides a semblance of justification for those ordering and carrying out the murder.

  • Edwin||

    Am I the only one who caught this? So now libertarians are calling the killing of Osama Bin Laden murder? How fucking depraved and sick do you guys have to get? Is it like a competition or something? Is there some lottery I don't know about where you get prized for upping the ante on crazy?

    How long before libertarians start advocating for the raping of children followed by cannibalizing them?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Never, Edwin. Stuff the hyperbole back in the cupboard, where it belongs.

  • ||

    The best way to kill a snake is to cut off the head. The next action is to cut out its gonads to prevent the perpetuation of this venomous species.
    Self preservation is the first moral requirement against an enemy without the ability to know truth from lies.

  • ||

    What is really telling is how few people have picked up on the following:

    OBL is said to have been the mastermind behind 9/11-if one is to believe the government's conspiracy theory that a few Saudis with box cutters executed the attacks.

    Many here have made the point that 9/11 sceptics overlook the reality that the united states government is the very embodiment of incompetence. Thus, the argument goes that one should not be surprised to learn that OBL and his saudis were able to outwit not only the CIA and FBI, but all US intelligence agencies, NORAD, NATO intelligence, MOSSAD, the National Security Council, the US Air Force and the Air Traffic Control system.

    In addition, OBL and his box cutting disciples caused airport secuirty procedures to fail 4 times in one hour-on the same day. They also caused the Pentagon's state of the art air defenses to fail as well. They were able to do cause three jets to crash into buildings with pilots who did not know how to fly.

    If OBL was so powerful and able to pull off 9/11 and defeat all of the above, how come he has not managed to do so again? Does any person really believe that such incompetent security systems suddnely perfected themselves overnight?

    Then, do we forget that KSM has allegedly been fingered as the mastermind of 9/11? Our heros have told us that KSM admitted to being the bossman of 9/11 during enhanced interrogation techniques.

    So, if the state has told us that it was KSM who masterminded 9/11, and that there has been no proof presented to a disinterested court that OBL was behind 9/11, by what logic does liberty permit the socialist states of amerika to murder OBL in the land of a sovereign entity?

  • Edwin||

    they didn't use boxcutters. The actual information about what was used is vague.

    I'd tell you to pay attention to facts more, but it's clear you just flat out don't care.

  • Libertymike||

    Tha casheestees!! The casheestees are out to get me!!!! HELPPP!!!!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Read books Mike. Books by Historians who have never been WWF wrestlers.

  • ||

    Heh, nobody seems to want to answer your questions. I think you're making them a bit uncomfortable.

  • ||

    Notice how Fiscal meth does not answer the questions.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    1.Increased security
    2.No
    3.No
    4.Just plain old regular logic.

    "Notice how Fiscal meth does not answer the questions."

    Just in case the period on this sentence was supposed to be a question mark...

    5.Does so.

  • Bradley||

    If OBL was so powerful and able to pull off 9/11 and defeat all of the above, how come he has not managed to do so again? Does any person really believe that such incompetent security systems suddnely perfected themselves overnight?

    No, I just don't think there are really that many people who are interested in hijacking/blowing up US airliners.

  • Apogee||

    OBL is said to have been the mastermind behind 9/11-if one is to believe the government's conspiracy theory that a few Saudis with box cutters executed the attacks.

    And, maybe, Bin Laden's Own words.

  • The Fringe Economist||

    why should we expect anything short of complete denial of human rights from the guy who's going to shut down guantanamo?

  • Holy Cow||

    So in True Libertarian land, it's perfectly okay to shoot an armed intruder into your home, even though he hasn't fired a shot. (Which I agree with, by the way.)

    But shooting the military leader ('cause that's what Osama is) behind the murder of 3K civilians needs to be debated for its Constitutionality?

    Anyway, the Revolutionary War was wrong, too. I mean, look at all the dead soldiers. And 300 years later, there's FEMA. It's not pure enough this gulldarn country.

    Inaction! Is there any problem it can't solve?

  • Edwin||

    yeah no shit

    and it's worse than that. One on a forum maintained that he could shoot anyone just for crossing his lawn or keying his car, and described the Loughner's massacre as "morally defensible" because he shot a federal agent

  • mark||

    This has got to be a drink-worthy comment.

  • ||

    I honestly am happier just killing the guy.

    If we actually attempted to try him, it would have to be some kind of Guantanamo military tribunal thing anyway.

    The is no way OBL could get tried in a US court in a way that was fair, or seen to be fair. Nevermind that most of the information on him is classified intelligence, and that his trial would be a media circus and a soapbox for Islamic radicalism.

    Besides, capturing people is a lot harder than killing them. Especially if they are in a hostile foreign country. We could spend years trying to orchestrate the perfect raid to take him alive, and the net result would be that he would continue to evade justice.

  • Edwin||

    oh you're so full of shit

    let me subject you to your own bullshit on this one

    "WHAT? YOU WANT TO JUST MURDER SOMEONE IN A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY!? YOU WAR-MONGER!!! YOU AUTHORITARIAN FASCIST@!!1211111ONE ONEON EOKJsod GFOaisdh fOIsd FOIsed FOIUJHsdeIO UGFHseo HseoidH FOsieh FOIusdehgfOIJUSde HIOusrh

  • Mr. FIFY||

    His death was far too kind, punishment-wise.

  • Confederal_Republic||

    We should just construct a 100-foot tall wall around the United States, and isolate ourselves completely. Fuck the world.

  • chaussures puma||

    nice job!

  • sologn||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • Abercrombie and Fitch||

    Nice!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement