by liberal japonicus
It has been tire week (or tyre week if you are so inclined) here at the lj household. Last Saturday, I had a presentation in Fukuoka with a colleague and another teacher came along, so I decided to drive. The night before, I went to our full service gas station (one of the joys of being here is full service gas stations. The additional cost isn't too bad, and it is so nice to pull in and not have to worry about doing anything. A brief moment of Zen) and I asked the attendant to make sure the tire pressure was fine for expressway driving. She said that the right front was low and I could have the garage check it if I had 20 minutes. Sure, and I went into the waiting room, helped myself to the free coffee and read my book. The guy said that the valve on the tire was leaking, but my tires were old, so I should think about getting them replaced. Well, I was going to Costco, so I figured I'd get them replaced there. There was a 2,000 yen off per tire coupon, and they fill the tires/tyres with nitrogen. Also, the next time I go in, they top off the nitrogen and rotate the tires for free. Bargain.
As is usual for me, I asked about putting nitrogen in tires, got an explanation that I sort of understood and when I got home, googled to fill in the gaps. Not any kind of amazing technology, but interesting enough.
So, talk about your car, or talk about something else.
dehhh. air is already around 70% nitrogen. and i’d bet my engineering phd that it’s not doing jack. but i’m sure the explanation sounded really good.
dehhh. air is already around 70% nitrogen. and i’d bet my engineering phd that it’s not doing jack. but i’m sure the explanation sounded really good.
That’s around 78% nitrogen. I’m sure the 21% oxygen makes a difference.
That’s around 78% nitrogen. I’m sure the 21% oxygen makes a difference.
It’s not a silver bullet, but the following advantages are supposed to obtain
1) nitrogen atoms are ‘fatter’ than oxygen, so they are less likely to migrate thru the tire rubber
2)With regular air, water vapor is a small but measurable percentage, and this is more likely to cause pressure fluctuations than a tire filled with only nitrogen as well as causing corrosion (though that isn’t really a problem)
3)nitrogen is inert, so it doesn’t attack the rubber, and it isn’t flammable, which is why passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air
At any rate, it’s a free service at Costco and, as I said, not amazing technology, just something that seemed interesting.
It’s not a silver bullet, but the following advantages are supposed to obtain
1) nitrogen atoms are ‘fatter’ than oxygen, so they are less likely to migrate thru the tire rubber
2)With regular air, water vapor is a small but measurable percentage, and this is more likely to cause pressure fluctuations than a tire filled with only nitrogen as well as causing corrosion (though that isn’t really a problem)
3)nitrogen is inert, so it doesn’t attack the rubber, and it isn’t flammable, which is why passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air
At any rate, it’s a free service at Costco and, as I said, not amazing technology, just something that seemed interesting.
passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air
The tires, that is.
passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air
The tires, that is.
OK, it’s worth it to you to not have to mess with the car, fine. But then you waited 20 minutes to do something that only takes 2 minutes to check, and maybe another 3 or 4 to put air in it, if it needs any.
Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it’s the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?
How much did they stiff you for altogether?
OK, it’s worth it to you to not have to mess with the car, fine. But then you waited 20 minutes to do something that only takes 2 minutes to check, and maybe another 3 or 4 to put air in it, if it needs any.
Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it’s the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?
How much did they stiff you for altogether?
Relatively inert, I’d amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas; it’s just rather firmly wedded to itself.
Here‘s a cool explanation of why N2 is “smaller” than O2, and permeates through rubber more slowly. It seems to me that it ought to be a tossup, given that oxygen and nitrogen are next-door neighbors on the Periodic Table, but the data says it’s not.
If oxygen is such a non-player, I wonder if anyone who thinks so would mind if we filled their tires with pure O2, and then allowed it to heat up during freeway traffic.
That aside, there are other things in life to worry about, and what’s in my tires is never near the top of my list.
Relatively inert, I’d amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas; it’s just rather firmly wedded to itself.
Here‘s a cool explanation of why N2 is “smaller” than O2, and permeates through rubber more slowly. It seems to me that it ought to be a tossup, given that oxygen and nitrogen are next-door neighbors on the Periodic Table, but the data says it’s not.
If oxygen is such a non-player, I wonder if anyone who thinks so would mind if we filled their tires with pure O2, and then allowed it to heat up during freeway traffic.
That aside, there are other things in life to worry about, and what’s in my tires is never near the top of my list.
Just dropped my ride off for its overdue scheduled maintenance. It’s going strong with just under 150K miles on board precisely because I pay people who know what they are doing to take care of it.
Just dropped my ride off for its overdue scheduled maintenance. It’s going strong with just under 150K miles on board precisely because I pay people who know what they are doing to take care of it.
Do you have an audiophile-quality sound system in your car?
Because if you do, you should really be filling the tires with Argon, not that common Nitrogen stuff. And air is *right* *out*.
You can mix in a bit of Xenon to improve the low-end response, but IMO that’s taking things a bit too far.
For the best handling, however, I recommend Krypton. Accept no substitutes!
Do you have an audiophile-quality sound system in your car?
Because if you do, you should really be filling the tires with Argon, not that common Nitrogen stuff. And air is *right* *out*.
You can mix in a bit of Xenon to improve the low-end response, but IMO that’s taking things a bit too far.
For the best handling, however, I recommend Krypton. Accept no substitutes!
Krypton makes me feel a tad weaker, so I go with Argon.
Krypton makes me feel a tad weaker, so I go with Argon.
I prefer Helium. It’s not for everyone but it brings out the high end.
I prefer Helium. It’s not for everyone but it brings out the high end.
Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it’s the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?
Actually, it was all free. That is what full service stations do in Japan. The pit is actually next to where I get the free coffee and he took me out there and sprayed the valve with a water and liquid detergent mix to show me the slow leak after he had pulled it off of the car. I don’t know if the shop sells tires (there were none displayed in the front and he didn’t offer to sell me any) but when he said that I might want to think about getting new tires, I said that I was hoping that I could get them at the Costco, it was 100 km away in Fukuoka and would it be ok to drive on those tires that far, and he said it would be.
And as for time, I could, like my dad used to, keep a book in my glove compartment keeping track of mileage and air pressure and such. However, I have a rented parking space and no place to jack the car up to take the tires off if I was inclined to do that, so the whole question of time is kind of moot.
I’m sure he’s not doing all this for free, but customer loyalty seems to be worth a lot more here than it is in the US. Or to you, for that matter.
Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it’s the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?
Actually, it was all free. That is what full service stations do in Japan. The pit is actually next to where I get the free coffee and he took me out there and sprayed the valve with a water and liquid detergent mix to show me the slow leak after he had pulled it off of the car. I don’t know if the shop sells tires (there were none displayed in the front and he didn’t offer to sell me any) but when he said that I might want to think about getting new tires, I said that I was hoping that I could get them at the Costco, it was 100 km away in Fukuoka and would it be ok to drive on those tires that far, and he said it would be.
And as for time, I could, like my dad used to, keep a book in my glove compartment keeping track of mileage and air pressure and such. However, I have a rented parking space and no place to jack the car up to take the tires off if I was inclined to do that, so the whole question of time is kind of moot.
I’m sure he’s not doing all this for free, but customer loyalty seems to be worth a lot more here than it is in the US. Or to you, for that matter.
The nitrogen-in-your-tires thing reminds me of when I bought my stereo system.
The guy at the audio shop told me about one of his customers who had a dedicated electric line run to his home, so that the occasional surges and drains on the electric power caused by, frex, his refrigerator motor cycling on would not effect the performance of his stereo amp.
Not that he would hear the refrigerator motor, but that the brief drain on the overall electric power supply might ever-so-temporarily underpower his stereo amp, causing a change in its handling of transients etc.
Which was interesting. And expensive.
But I had to ask, what kind of Superman ears does this guy have to even come close to hearing something like that?
Did he grow up in some remote secluded and unpopulated part of the world, where the loudest sound he ever heard was the whisper of butterfly wings?
I find it hard to believe that anybody living in the modern world, with its constant background (and not always background) buzz and hum has about as much chance of hearing that kind of audible effect as they have of feeling the pea beneath a stack of mattresses.
I can buy the concept of pure nitrogen being somewhat less reactive with the tire rubber in principle, but I wonder if anyone has ever actually been able to detect a measurable difference in a real-world application.
I drive a ’99 Honda Civic DX hatch with about 130K on it. I get 35+ mpg, it’s a low emissions motor. It has great headroom, which I like because I’m 6’2″. It holds a full drum kit even if I bring the 28″ bass drum, and it will fit up to four standard size trash barrels in the hatch for dump runs.
Change the oil, swap the tires when the seasons change, replace consumables, change the timing belt every 60K or so.
It’s the car that will not die.
It’s the second one I’ve had. My old one was a ’93. I dropped a B18b1 non-VTEC motor from a wrecked Integra in that one, and I used to smoke five-liter Mustangs from a dead start at red lights.
Which was a hell of a lot of fun, I can tell you.
But we need to re-do the bathroom, and we need to replace our 50-year-old furnace before it craps out, so my wife has asked that I not invest in a motor swap on the current ride.
Which is cool with me, I had my fun.
The nitrogen-in-your-tires thing reminds me of when I bought my stereo system.
The guy at the audio shop told me about one of his customers who had a dedicated electric line run to his home, so that the occasional surges and drains on the electric power caused by, frex, his refrigerator motor cycling on would not effect the performance of his stereo amp.
Not that he would hear the refrigerator motor, but that the brief drain on the overall electric power supply might ever-so-temporarily underpower his stereo amp, causing a change in its handling of transients etc.
Which was interesting. And expensive.
But I had to ask, what kind of Superman ears does this guy have to even come close to hearing something like that?
Did he grow up in some remote secluded and unpopulated part of the world, where the loudest sound he ever heard was the whisper of butterfly wings?
I find it hard to believe that anybody living in the modern world, with its constant background (and not always background) buzz and hum has about as much chance of hearing that kind of audible effect as they have of feeling the pea beneath a stack of mattresses.
I can buy the concept of pure nitrogen being somewhat less reactive with the tire rubber in principle, but I wonder if anyone has ever actually been able to detect a measurable difference in a real-world application.
I drive a ’99 Honda Civic DX hatch with about 130K on it. I get 35+ mpg, it’s a low emissions motor. It has great headroom, which I like because I’m 6’2″. It holds a full drum kit even if I bring the 28″ bass drum, and it will fit up to four standard size trash barrels in the hatch for dump runs.
Change the oil, swap the tires when the seasons change, replace consumables, change the timing belt every 60K or so.
It’s the car that will not die.
It’s the second one I’ve had. My old one was a ’93. I dropped a B18b1 non-VTEC motor from a wrecked Integra in that one, and I used to smoke five-liter Mustangs from a dead start at red lights.
Which was a hell of a lot of fun, I can tell you.
But we need to re-do the bathroom, and we need to replace our 50-year-old furnace before it craps out, so my wife has asked that I not invest in a motor swap on the current ride.
Which is cool with me, I had my fun.
Real crazed audiophiles will purchase a military-grade power-line conditioner and plug their gear into that. Because the power you get from even a separate line is full of all kinds of noise and harmonic crapola.
And don’t even get me started on interconnects. Unless you’ve spent as much money on your interconnects as you have on your speakers, you’re doing it rong.
I work with a guy who maybe once a week drives a stock-looking, 15-year-old Lexus to work. Under the hood is a turbocharged 3L 6-cylinder engine that puts out something like 900hp on aviation fuel, and a good 750 on street gas. The only giveaway from the outside (or even from the inside of the car, which is the stock leather interior; even the AC works (and works well)) is if you look closely at the front wheels you can see that the discs are a bit oversize, and he’s running four-piston calipers.
Open the hood and the large turbo, the large-diameter piping to the intercooler, and the obviously custom-made intercooler and radiator are dead giveaways.
It’s like a carnival ride. If you’ve never ridden in a street machine that can reel off a sub-10-second quarter-mile, you won’t know what I’m talking about.
Real crazed audiophiles will purchase a military-grade power-line conditioner and plug their gear into that. Because the power you get from even a separate line is full of all kinds of noise and harmonic crapola.
And don’t even get me started on interconnects. Unless you’ve spent as much money on your interconnects as you have on your speakers, you’re doing it rong.
I work with a guy who maybe once a week drives a stock-looking, 15-year-old Lexus to work. Under the hood is a turbocharged 3L 6-cylinder engine that puts out something like 900hp on aviation fuel, and a good 750 on street gas. The only giveaway from the outside (or even from the inside of the car, which is the stock leather interior; even the AC works (and works well)) is if you look closely at the front wheels you can see that the discs are a bit oversize, and he’s running four-piston calipers.
Open the hood and the large turbo, the large-diameter piping to the intercooler, and the obviously custom-made intercooler and radiator are dead giveaways.
It’s like a carnival ride. If you’ve never ridden in a street machine that can reel off a sub-10-second quarter-mile, you won’t know what I’m talking about.
I stand corrected. I had no idea such a place existed.
I’m in the States, driving a ’62 ford, and I don’t let anybody else touch it.
I stand corrected. I had no idea such a place existed.
I’m in the States, driving a ’62 ford, and I don’t let anybody else touch it.
My gut feeling is that the lower reactivity is the biggest advantage of using nitrogen over oxygen. Loss of gas is probably dominated by leaking through the valve and tire/wheel interface, not by diffusion through the rubber. Problems with water vapor would more easily be dealt with using an air dryer than trying to use pure nitrogen. Even the lower reactivity of the nitrogen is a minor thing, since the biggest reactivity problem the tires face is from ozone attacking the outsides of the tires.
My gut feeling is that the lower reactivity is the biggest advantage of using nitrogen over oxygen. Loss of gas is probably dominated by leaking through the valve and tire/wheel interface, not by diffusion through the rubber. Problems with water vapor would more easily be dealt with using an air dryer than trying to use pure nitrogen. Even the lower reactivity of the nitrogen is a minor thing, since the biggest reactivity problem the tires face is from ozone attacking the outsides of the tires.
Tick tick tick:
The Government’s in camera submission raises a very disturbing issue. The Government previously provided false and misleading information to the Court. The Government represented to the Court in pleadings, declarations, and briefs that it had searched its databases and found only a limited number of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and that a significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government’s representations were then, and remain today, blatantly false. As the Government’s in camera submission makes clear, the Government located a significant number of documents that were responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Virtually all of the information within those documents is inside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security.
href
Tick tick tick:
The Government’s in camera submission raises a very disturbing issue. The Government previously provided false and misleading information to the Court. The Government represented to the Court in pleadings, declarations, and briefs that it had searched its databases and found only a limited number of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and that a significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government’s representations were then, and remain today, blatantly false. As the Government’s in camera submission makes clear, the Government located a significant number of documents that were responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Virtually all of the information within those documents is inside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security.
href
ugh, a citation, please. Or maybe a link. Inquiring minds want to know . . .
Thanks
ugh, a citation, please. Or maybe a link. Inquiring minds want to know . . .
Thanks
I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?
I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?
The opinion Ugh cites.
Volokh discusses.
The opinion Ugh cites.
Volokh discusses.
Here we are: FOIA Decision
via Volokh Conspiracy
Here we are: FOIA Decision
via Volokh Conspiracy
Fixed Ugh’s link just because I can.
Fixed Ugh’s link just because I can.
In racing we used nitrogen because it heated up less, therefore increasing tire temperature less, as the tire was used. So the year we used regular air we had to constantly readjust the tire temps after warmup laps, with nitrogen we didn’t have to anymore.
In racing we used nitrogen because it heated up less, therefore increasing tire temperature less, as the tire was used. So the year we used regular air we had to constantly readjust the tire temps after warmup laps, with nitrogen we didn’t have to anymore.
Fixed Ugh’s link just because I can.
Thanks, and crap, I usually get that right.
Anyway, I’m not sure why the judiciary puts up with this sort of thing and doesn’t start holding gov’t lawyers in criminal contempt. That’s what I would do if the gov’t lied to me and then stood there and argued they could.
Fixed Ugh’s link just because I can.
Thanks, and crap, I usually get that right.
Anyway, I’m not sure why the judiciary puts up with this sort of thing and doesn’t start holding gov’t lawyers in criminal contempt. That’s what I would do if the gov’t lied to me and then stood there and argued they could.
It was just a typo, Ugh. Unfortunately html is not robust to typos of the “a hred=” variety.
It was just a typo, Ugh. Unfortunately html is not robust to typos of the “a hred=” variety.
Don’t know if anyone here has been following the House of Representatives/Paul Clement/King & Spalding/DOMA kerfuffle, but Politico has obtained the full contract between the House and K&S, including the controversial section 4(g), here.
(if anyone cares)
Don’t know if anyone here has been following the House of Representatives/Paul Clement/King & Spalding/DOMA kerfuffle, but Politico has obtained the full contract between the House and K&S, including the controversial section 4(g), here.
(if anyone cares)
4(f), that those involved in the case shall not lobby or otherwise oppose the position that the firm is attempting to argue, seems reasonable. Nobody wants their attorney to be undercutting his case outside the courtroom.
But 4(g), extending that to everybody else at the firm? Over-reach seems like the obvious characterization.
4(f), that those involved in the case shall not lobby or otherwise oppose the position that the firm is attempting to argue, seems reasonable. Nobody wants their attorney to be undercutting his case outside the courtroom.
But 4(g), extending that to everybody else at the firm? Over-reach seems like the obvious characterization.
wj – I agree, and 4(g) potentially conflicts with 4(e), the latter requiring compliance with employment laws and 4(g) may be illegal where K&S has offices (it has been reported).
wj – I agree, and 4(g) potentially conflicts with 4(e), the latter requiring compliance with employment laws and 4(g) may be illegal where K&S has offices (it has been reported).
I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?
There is no requirement that the Court issue a contempt citation, here, and I suspect that two issues influenced the Judge: (1) as I (quickly) read the decision, there was not a violation of a Court order, which is usually the basis for a contempt citation and (2) the Government self reported and had a basis (albeit an implausible one) for its prior misrepresentations.
Anyhoo, my two cents.
I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?
There is no requirement that the Court issue a contempt citation, here, and I suspect that two issues influenced the Judge: (1) as I (quickly) read the decision, there was not a violation of a Court order, which is usually the basis for a contempt citation and (2) the Government self reported and had a basis (albeit an implausible one) for its prior misrepresentations.
Anyhoo, my two cents.
uzza,
no worries and sorry if I was a bit sharp in my reply. It is really hard to go back to the states after you get used to this kind of treatment here.
uzza,
no worries and sorry if I was a bit sharp in my reply. It is really hard to go back to the states after you get used to this kind of treatment here.
My mechanic, who reads a lot and is usually on top of this sort of thing, thinks the nitrogen-in-tires thing is complete b. s., at least for passenger cars.
My mechanic, who reads a lot and is usually on top of this sort of thing, thinks the nitrogen-in-tires thing is complete b. s., at least for passenger cars.
I’d say that almost all of the advantage of filling your tires with nitrogen comes from the fact that you… filled your tires. Although in theory it could make a significant difference if you happened to fill your tires on a very humid day.
I’d say that almost all of the advantage of filling your tires with nitrogen comes from the fact that you… filled your tires. Although in theory it could make a significant difference if you happened to fill your tires on a very humid day.
Relatively inert, I’d amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas;
And dental patients are thankful.
Relatively inert, I’d amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas;
And dental patients are thankful.
So, it’s just a narcissistic gas?
So, it’s just a narcissistic gas?
Speaking of dental patients and gas permitivity, I had a thermodynamics professor in school who told this story:
Some years ago, his grad students decided to prank him by completely filling his office with brightly colored balloons. The prank was that the balloons would contain Nitrous oxide instead of air so that as he started puncturing them, he’d get high and a good time would be had by all. The students got a tank of nitrous, broken into his office on the weekend and diligently started filling balloons. But they forgot that cheap party balloons are much more permeable to Nitrous oxide than to air, so the joke was on them: they started getting the Nitrous high rather than the professor.
Speaking of dental patients and gas permitivity, I had a thermodynamics professor in school who told this story:
Some years ago, his grad students decided to prank him by completely filling his office with brightly colored balloons. The prank was that the balloons would contain Nitrous oxide instead of air so that as he started puncturing them, he’d get high and a good time would be had by all. The students got a tank of nitrous, broken into his office on the weekend and diligently started filling balloons. But they forgot that cheap party balloons are much more permeable to Nitrous oxide than to air, so the joke was on them: they started getting the Nitrous high rather than the professor.
My favorite among the cars I’ve owned is a Saab Sonett (not a misspelling) I had in the mid-70’s.
It was a tiny neon-red two-seater with a fibreglass body and a V-4 engine made by Ford and not really intended for autmotive use. It “free-wheeled,” which means that you could set it to disengage the clutch when you took your foot off the gas, allowing you to shift gears (maybe only way) without bothering with the pedal. This, plus the small engine, plus the light weight meant it got a gazillion miles a gallon.
It was quite an unusual car, but needed constant repair, and a small fender-bender once literally broke the body, and I had to get a replacement shipped from Sweden. Finally, my bank account couldn’t take it.
My favorite among the cars I’ve owned is a Saab Sonett (not a misspelling) I had in the mid-70’s.
It was a tiny neon-red two-seater with a fibreglass body and a V-4 engine made by Ford and not really intended for autmotive use. It “free-wheeled,” which means that you could set it to disengage the clutch when you took your foot off the gas, allowing you to shift gears (maybe only way) without bothering with the pedal. This, plus the small engine, plus the light weight meant it got a gazillion miles a gallon.
It was quite an unusual car, but needed constant repair, and a small fender-bender once literally broke the body, and I had to get a replacement shipped from Sweden. Finally, my bank account couldn’t take it.
My favorite was a Geo Storm, the very first car I got to buy new, and probably the closest thing to a sports car I’ll ever own. At the time I had a boss, 6’6″, close to 400#, (He had scoliosis, we used to joke he’d be 7′ tall if you could stretch him out.) and occasionally his car would need work, and he’d rely on me to ferry him to and from the garage.
It was a hilarious sight, him folded up into the front seat, with his knees against his chin. He used to complain about how little acceleration my car had, and I’d tell him, “Only when you’re in it…”
My favorite was a Geo Storm, the very first car I got to buy new, and probably the closest thing to a sports car I’ll ever own. At the time I had a boss, 6’6″, close to 400#, (He had scoliosis, we used to joke he’d be 7′ tall if you could stretch him out.) and occasionally his car would need work, and he’d rely on me to ferry him to and from the garage.
It was a hilarious sight, him folded up into the front seat, with his knees against his chin. He used to complain about how little acceleration my car had, and I’d tell him, “Only when you’re in it…”
Much as I love cars, I hate being forced to own one, which we pretty much are in this country. Workable public transportation systems–that are not taxis, at least at current prices–would be nice, and a good starting point for that would be a change in our philosophy about what cars are really for, which is to get you from Point A to Point B. This is not the same thing as the ego stroking the auto industry uses as its advertizing model.
Much as I love cars, I hate being forced to own one, which we pretty much are in this country. Workable public transportation systems–that are not taxis, at least at current prices–would be nice, and a good starting point for that would be a change in our philosophy about what cars are really for, which is to get you from Point A to Point B. This is not the same thing as the ego stroking the auto industry uses as its advertizing model.
Bill,
I agree that it would be nice to reduce our dependence on cars.
But I think there would still be lots of room for cars as something more than practical transportation vehicles. I drive about 5000 miles a year, but I just like having a nice car. If I ever win the lottery I’ll think about getting a Ferrari, which I would probably drive once a month or so.
Bill,
I agree that it would be nice to reduce our dependence on cars.
But I think there would still be lots of room for cars as something more than practical transportation vehicles. I drive about 5000 miles a year, but I just like having a nice car. If I ever win the lottery I’ll think about getting a Ferrari, which I would probably drive once a month or so.
Like I said, I love cars. I just don’t like the fact that our transportation system is organized so that, unless you live in a big city, you pretty much have to own a car. To me that’s an unfunded mandate. This year alone I have to get a new catalytic converter and replace the timing belt/water pump. That’s close to a thousand bucks that I don’t have. Not that I have much of a choice in the matter, since where I live it’s hard to rely on public transportation; you can do it, but it’s a hassle. Maybe that’s my problem: hassle-avoidance behavior.
Like I said, I love cars. I just don’t like the fact that our transportation system is organized so that, unless you live in a big city, you pretty much have to own a car. To me that’s an unfunded mandate. This year alone I have to get a new catalytic converter and replace the timing belt/water pump. That’s close to a thousand bucks that I don’t have. Not that I have much of a choice in the matter, since where I live it’s hard to rely on public transportation; you can do it, but it’s a hassle. Maybe that’s my problem: hassle-avoidance behavior.
Open thread?
Obama killed Osama, leader of the second most murderous organization on the face of the Earth.
Open thread?
Obama killed Osama, leader of the second most murderous organization on the face of the Earth.
From this link
“It is also noteworthy that the property is valued at approximately $1 million but has no telephone or Internet service connected to it,” an administration official said
No internet! Man, you wouldn’t catch me dead in a place like that…
From this link
“It is also noteworthy that the property is valued at approximately $1 million but has no telephone or Internet service connected to it,” an administration official said
No internet! Man, you wouldn’t catch me dead in a place like that…
They killed bin Laden, and then dumped his body in the ocean?
That’s weird.
They killed bin Laden, and then dumped his body in the ocean?
That’s weird.
That is bizarre. Up until Obama’s speech, we heard the newscasters say that he was killed days ago, and they were doing DNA analysis to establish that it really was bin Laden.
And then Obama stood up and said he was killed “today”, yesterday.
Puzzling. I’m wondering what the actual timeline was, and how they cranked out DNA analysis that quickly.
That is bizarre. Up until Obama’s speech, we heard the newscasters say that he was killed days ago, and they were doing DNA analysis to establish that it really was bin Laden.
And then Obama stood up and said he was killed “today”, yesterday.
Puzzling. I’m wondering what the actual timeline was, and how they cranked out DNA analysis that quickly.
Well that’s good. Are we done now?
Well that’s good. Are we done now?
Cal Thomas told me on the radio this morning that this was vindication of Bush’s post-9/11 interrogation policies.
Cal Thomas told me on the radio this morning that this was vindication of Bush’s post-9/11 interrogation policies.
The cool thing about making statements like that is that it’s probably treason to authoritatively refute them.
Unless you’re the President; then you can pretty much declassify at will.
The cool thing about making statements like that is that it’s probably treason to authoritatively refute them.
Unless you’re the President; then you can pretty much declassify at will.
russell, the reason to dump his body at sea is so that there won’t be a grave to become a focus for worshipful jihadists.
russell, the reason to dump his body at sea is so that there won’t be a grave to become a focus for worshipful jihadists.
I guess I was thinking that if somebody, somewhere wanted to question whether the dead guy was actually OBL, it might be useful if we could produce the body.
Too late for that.
I guess I was thinking that if somebody, somewhere wanted to question whether the dead guy was actually OBL, it might be useful if we could produce the body.
Too late for that.
I would assume that, if you brought the equipment along, had a largish sample to begin with, and knew in the first place who you were looking to compare it too, that a DNA analysis could be done in a matter of hours. It’s not like you’re extracting a few strands of DNA from a hair follicle, and have to spend a long while amplifying it before doing the tests.
I’m cool with burial at sea, just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage. The guy didn’t earn any respect, after all.
I would assume that, if you brought the equipment along, had a largish sample to begin with, and knew in the first place who you were looking to compare it too, that a DNA analysis could be done in a matter of hours. It’s not like you’re extracting a few strands of DNA from a hair follicle, and have to spend a long while amplifying it before doing the tests.
I’m cool with burial at sea, just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage. The guy didn’t earn any respect, after all.
Taking OBL alive seems superior to killing him for a bunch of reasons:
No dispute about having him
Get intelligence
Have a trial
I can see political downsides, such as the trial being … unpopular. Also the same kerfuffle as with the KSM trial.
I suspect that the option of taking him alive was discarded early on. If the mission fails or troops die because of the specification that he be taken alive, huge backlash (if anyone finds out). If the public doesn’t like the idea of the trial, backlash.
Really doesn’t make sense to lose the body so fast though. I read somewhere else that it was buried at sea in accordance with Muslim tradition blah blah blah and I didn’t think twice, but that does sound BS-y to me now.
Taking OBL alive seems superior to killing him for a bunch of reasons:
No dispute about having him
Get intelligence
Have a trial
I can see political downsides, such as the trial being … unpopular. Also the same kerfuffle as with the KSM trial.
I suspect that the option of taking him alive was discarded early on. If the mission fails or troops die because of the specification that he be taken alive, huge backlash (if anyone finds out). If the public doesn’t like the idea of the trial, backlash.
Really doesn’t make sense to lose the body so fast though. I read somewhere else that it was buried at sea in accordance with Muslim tradition blah blah blah and I didn’t think twice, but that does sound BS-y to me now.
It’s okay. We have the long-form death certificate.
I think they’ll have plenty of evidence that he was there, certainly enough to convince reasonable people that they killed him. It’s not like the body would have been available for viewing by skeptics (or that photos really prove anything these days). No doubt there will be conspiracy theorists claiming that the whole thing was faked, but nothing, not even OBLs head on a stick, would prevent that.
Too bad this won’t end all the silly security theater that we waste our time with.
It’s okay. We have the long-form death certificate.
I think they’ll have plenty of evidence that he was there, certainly enough to convince reasonable people that they killed him. It’s not like the body would have been available for viewing by skeptics (or that photos really prove anything these days). No doubt there will be conspiracy theorists claiming that the whole thing was faked, but nothing, not even OBLs head on a stick, would prevent that.
Too bad this won’t end all the silly security theater that we waste our time with.
Has anyone seen my apostrophe?
Has anyone seen my apostrophe?
just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage
Which would have accomplished what, precisely?
I always gave you credit for at least being smarter than Bird, but I guess not.
just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage
Which would have accomplished what, precisely?
I always gave you credit for at least being smarter than Bird, but I guess not.
I wonder if this isn’t one reason why Gitmo wasn’t shut down earlier:
I wonder if this isn’t one reason why Gitmo wasn’t shut down earlier:
Which would have accomplished what, precisely?
My guess is Brett wasn’t entirely serious about that, and was just expressing his disgust for Bin Laden.
Which would have accomplished what, precisely?
My guess is Brett wasn’t entirely serious about that, and was just expressing his disgust for Bin Laden.
He made the same comment at The Reality-Based Community, except adding that it should have been televised. I think he is serious. Brett is not known for his sense of humor.
He made the same comment at The Reality-Based Community, except adding that it should have been televised. I think he is serious. Brett is not known for his sense of humor.
Humor is only a subset of non-seriousness.
Humor is only a subset of non-seriousness.
it might be useful if we could produce the body.
Obama haters would just demand the long-form corpse.
it might be useful if we could produce the body.
Obama haters would just demand the long-form corpse.
Good news for Brett (and any others of a skeptical turn of mind). It appears that they did collect a DNA sample. Not sure exactly what they have to compare it against (can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison), but the radio reports I’m hearing say that DNA confirms it was the guy.
Good news for Brett (and any others of a skeptical turn of mind). It appears that they did collect a DNA sample. Not sure exactly what they have to compare it against (can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison), but the radio reports I’m hearing say that DNA confirms it was the guy.
(can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison)
But that’s what they did, some time ago, pals of the Bush family that they were.
(can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison)
But that’s what they did, some time ago, pals of the Bush family that they were.
More seriously, there’s this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family
In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport.[3]
More seriously, there’s this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family
In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport.[3]
I wonder if this isn’t one reason why Gitmo wasn’t shut down earlier:
I believe that’s what Cal Thomas was referring to when he said Bush’s post-9/11 interrogation (or maybe detention) policies were “vindicated” by Bin Laden’s death.
I wonder if this isn’t one reason why Gitmo wasn’t shut down earlier:
I believe that’s what Cal Thomas was referring to when he said Bush’s post-9/11 interrogation (or maybe detention) policies were “vindicated” by Bin Laden’s death.
can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison
they also arrested four of his children (and killed another) and two of his wives (and killed another). there will be plenty of people alive who can attest, genetically or otherwise, that he was, in fact the one and only OBL.
can’t see the family offering up their own for comparison
they also arrested four of his children (and killed another) and two of his wives (and killed another). there will be plenty of people alive who can attest, genetically or otherwise, that he was, in fact the one and only OBL.
So, it’s hard for me to put a finger on it, but something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
Glenn Greewald sort of hits on it here, but not entirely (and not that I agree with all of the sentiments in that post).
So, it’s hard for me to put a finger on it, but something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
Glenn Greewald sort of hits on it here, but not entirely (and not that I agree with all of the sentiments in that post).
something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
I find it reassuring in that it reaffirms our universal humanity. People celebrate the (sometimes symbolic) killing of scary guys who threatened them. That’s human nature. When people in foreign countries do that, lots of stupid people in the US point and say “aha! that proves they’re bloodthirsty savages!” but I don’t think this sort of behavior tells us anything whether it happens in the middle east or outside the Whitehouse.
At the same time, I’m not interested in criticizing it because (1) I don’t think it does any harm in any case and (2) I don’t like telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death.
something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
I find it reassuring in that it reaffirms our universal humanity. People celebrate the (sometimes symbolic) killing of scary guys who threatened them. That’s human nature. When people in foreign countries do that, lots of stupid people in the US point and say “aha! that proves they’re bloodthirsty savages!” but I don’t think this sort of behavior tells us anything whether it happens in the middle east or outside the Whitehouse.
At the same time, I’m not interested in criticizing it because (1) I don’t think it does any harm in any case and (2) I don’t like telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death.
“Brett is not known for his sense of humor.”
Or maybe you’re not known for noticing it.
Serious? Not really, just reacting to the “Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law.” line of BS. More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
“Brett is not known for his sense of humor.”
Or maybe you’re not known for noticing it.
Serious? Not really, just reacting to the “Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law.” line of BS. More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
“Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law.” line of BS.
Why exactly is it BS? Are you saying that there is no Islamic requirement for relatively prompt burials? Or is the idea here that it is self-evidently absurd that the US government would ever show any consideration for such rules?
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
The United States government is enormously skilled when it comes to torturing people in ways that leave no marks.
“Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law.” line of BS.
Why exactly is it BS? Are you saying that there is no Islamic requirement for relatively prompt burials? Or is the idea here that it is self-evidently absurd that the US government would ever show any consideration for such rules?
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
The United States government is enormously skilled when it comes to torturing people in ways that leave no marks.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
?!?!?!
Brett, they shot him in the head.
something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
My own reaction to hearing about his death was weirdly mixed, and very subdued.
It almost seems like an anticlimax at this point. I mean, I’m glad they at least kept looking for him, and I’m not sorry he’s dead, but as a practical matter I’m not sure whether it makes a big difference at this point if he’s alive or dead.
I also feel, with all of the changes we’ve put ourselves through post-9/11, and the 1,000 ways in which “OMG terrorists!!!!!!111” has become lodged in our national psyche, that in some significant ways, bin Laden achieved his goals.
Who cares if he’s gone? His work here is done. From his point of view, mission accomplished. Something like that.
He was a sick MF, but he played us like a violin. He’s dead, but we still have to live with what we’ve made of ourselves. Or, maybe, just revealed ourselves to be.
It doesn’t make me happy.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
?!?!?!
Brett, they shot him in the head.
something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.
My own reaction to hearing about his death was weirdly mixed, and very subdued.
It almost seems like an anticlimax at this point. I mean, I’m glad they at least kept looking for him, and I’m not sorry he’s dead, but as a practical matter I’m not sure whether it makes a big difference at this point if he’s alive or dead.
I also feel, with all of the changes we’ve put ourselves through post-9/11, and the 1,000 ways in which “OMG terrorists!!!!!!111” has become lodged in our national psyche, that in some significant ways, bin Laden achieved his goals.
Who cares if he’s gone? His work here is done. From his point of view, mission accomplished. Something like that.
He was a sick MF, but he played us like a violin. He’s dead, but we still have to live with what we’ve made of ourselves. Or, maybe, just revealed ourselves to be.
It doesn’t make me happy.
I don’t know about Islam, but Judaism definitely calls for prompt burial. It would hardly surprise me if Islam did also.
I don’t know about Islam, but Judaism definitely calls for prompt burial. It would hardly surprise me if Islam did also.
How long do you think it takes?
I do DNA genotyping of my favorite invertebrate organism all the time, using technology that’s both cheap and at least fifteen years old, and I could do as many markers as you’d like inside four hours. If I were in a hurry and cut a few corners, two hours. If I were using other, more modern techniques, maybe less. If they’d already profiled their reference samples for comparison, that would be all you’d need. Remember, they knw going in some effort of this sort might be needed.
I’m always upset when TV shows show DNA evidence being fast and conclusive – but that’s because they’re dealing with an eyelash found down a drain, not a whole body, and because they never consider the time and budget considerations. None of those issues are relevant here.
How long do you think it takes?
I do DNA genotyping of my favorite invertebrate organism all the time, using technology that’s both cheap and at least fifteen years old, and I could do as many markers as you’d like inside four hours. If I were in a hurry and cut a few corners, two hours. If I were using other, more modern techniques, maybe less. If they’d already profiled their reference samples for comparison, that would be all you’d need. Remember, they knw going in some effort of this sort might be needed.
I’m always upset when TV shows show DNA evidence being fast and conclusive – but that’s because they’re dealing with an eyelash found down a drain, not a whole body, and because they never consider the time and budget considerations. None of those issues are relevant here.
“It doesn’t make me happy.”
It doesn’t make me “happy”. It makes me somewhat satisfied. And triumphant. Triumph is, I think, a mixed feeling: it’s like victory over regret. Regret that people perpetrated the acts of 9/11. Regret that so much horror resulted from it. I don’t think we know yet what good “getting” bin Laden will do. Maybe none; maybe a lot.
I’ve never been (personally) through a war, but I know people (Bosnians) who went through the Yugoslav wars. They were very, very happy. Very satisfied today. They’ve suffered people who were murderers of their friends. I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.
I’m grateful. I take it back – I’m happy.
“It doesn’t make me happy.”
It doesn’t make me “happy”. It makes me somewhat satisfied. And triumphant. Triumph is, I think, a mixed feeling: it’s like victory over regret. Regret that people perpetrated the acts of 9/11. Regret that so much horror resulted from it. I don’t think we know yet what good “getting” bin Laden will do. Maybe none; maybe a lot.
I’ve never been (personally) through a war, but I know people (Bosnians) who went through the Yugoslav wars. They were very, very happy. Very satisfied today. They’ve suffered people who were murderers of their friends. I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.
I’m grateful. I take it back – I’m happy.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
looks like the wingnut conspiracy machine is now at “11”. maybe “12”.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
looks like the wingnut conspiracy machine is now at “11”. maybe “12”.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
it’s very important for wingnuts to find, or to start rumors of, the turd in the punchbowl. because otherwise, they’d have to admit that a Democrat did something right.
and we all know they can’t do that.
More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
it’s very important for wingnuts to find, or to start rumors of, the turd in the punchbowl. because otherwise, they’d have to admit that a Democrat did something right.
and we all know they can’t do that.
“More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
I saw this somewhere else today, and found it offensive. I was pleased that it was overwhelmingly treated that way.
I also saw someone start the “Obama got him in two years and Bush couldn’t get him in eight” line and it was unanimously belittled as inappropriate.
My point is that it takes a true wingnut from either side not to accept this as good for America, recognize a good job by the people involved at all levels, give thanks to those on the ground that risked their lives and then take a long pause to remember the people that died on 9/11.
It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.
“More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of “enhanced interrogation”.
I saw this somewhere else today, and found it offensive. I was pleased that it was overwhelmingly treated that way.
I also saw someone start the “Obama got him in two years and Bush couldn’t get him in eight” line and it was unanimously belittled as inappropriate.
My point is that it takes a true wingnut from either side not to accept this as good for America, recognize a good job by the people involved at all levels, give thanks to those on the ground that risked their lives and then take a long pause to remember the people that died on 9/11.
It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.
@Marty
Well, sure, on a couple of levels.
Firstly, because Bush had closer to 7-and-a-quarter years, not eight, and it took Obama 2-and-a-quarter. But that’s mostly a weak attempt at humor: it’s not like Obama could have gotten Bin Laden a lot faster by tring harder.
This because, and secondly, all things being equal and despite his later claims, Bush very much wanted to catch Bin Laden, and was presumably driving his people very hard to get him. But then, all things aren’t equal. We had a chance to catch Osama at Tora Bora, but that was less important to Bush than was ramping up for a massively pointless invasion of Iraq. We had an opportunity to behave generally in a way that would reduce the number of people wanting to be Bin Laden’s friends and to conceal him from us, and we chose the opposite tack (sadly, Obama has maintained all too many of the relevant policies).
And thirdly because if someone like Bush had been in charge we well might have done the raid 6 months ago – so this Bush-like President would have done the job in 20 months, not 26. Almost exactly 6 months ago, in fact: late October 2010. After all, we had the address in August, and since then our forces spent 8 months double-checking, making extra sure of everything, and planning all the details of the raid. Now imagine that a Bush, who never hesitated to gin up a good terrorism scare for political gain, had been saddled with an epically bad economy, two months and change to go before the midterms, and a plausible home address for Osama Bin Laden. A Bush, who so obviously cared not a fig for double-checking of intelligence nor for thorough planning of military operations. Think he would have given those reponsible 8 months to do the job properly, when in two months they might win him seats in Congress?
@Marty
Well, sure, on a couple of levels.
Firstly, because Bush had closer to 7-and-a-quarter years, not eight, and it took Obama 2-and-a-quarter. But that’s mostly a weak attempt at humor: it’s not like Obama could have gotten Bin Laden a lot faster by tring harder.
This because, and secondly, all things being equal and despite his later claims, Bush very much wanted to catch Bin Laden, and was presumably driving his people very hard to get him. But then, all things aren’t equal. We had a chance to catch Osama at Tora Bora, but that was less important to Bush than was ramping up for a massively pointless invasion of Iraq. We had an opportunity to behave generally in a way that would reduce the number of people wanting to be Bin Laden’s friends and to conceal him from us, and we chose the opposite tack (sadly, Obama has maintained all too many of the relevant policies).
And thirdly because if someone like Bush had been in charge we well might have done the raid 6 months ago – so this Bush-like President would have done the job in 20 months, not 26. Almost exactly 6 months ago, in fact: late October 2010. After all, we had the address in August, and since then our forces spent 8 months double-checking, making extra sure of everything, and planning all the details of the raid. Now imagine that a Bush, who never hesitated to gin up a good terrorism scare for political gain, had been saddled with an epically bad economy, two months and change to go before the midterms, and a plausible home address for Osama Bin Laden. A Bush, who so obviously cared not a fig for double-checking of intelligence nor for thorough planning of military operations. Think he would have given those reponsible 8 months to do the job properly, when in two months they might win him seats in Congress?
It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.
IMO this is well said.
I’m glad bin Laden’s gone, but the dead aren’t coming back.
It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.
IMO this is well said.
I’m glad bin Laden’s gone, but the dead aren’t coming back.
In ordering the strike on UBL, President Obama demonstrated that there is (was) at least ONE person in the world not worth negotiating with, trying to win over, or offering a compromise to. I consider that a step in the right direction.
Incidentally, the most interesting fact I have learned in the last 24 hours:
“The town of Abbottabad in British India was the headquarters of the then Hazara district, and was named after Major James Abbott who founded the town and district in January 1853 after the annexation of the Punjab.”
–TP
In ordering the strike on UBL, President Obama demonstrated that there is (was) at least ONE person in the world not worth negotiating with, trying to win over, or offering a compromise to. I consider that a step in the right direction.
Incidentally, the most interesting fact I have learned in the last 24 hours:
“The town of Abbottabad in British India was the headquarters of the then Hazara district, and was named after Major James Abbott who founded the town and district in January 1853 after the annexation of the Punjab.”
–TP
negative reactions to the end of the OBL story were sooooo predictable.
Absolutely typical of course the complaints that the president did not gloat enough.
The most insidious I have encountered yet (originating from Tea Party Nation) is that Obama had to strike now because someone was going to leak Osama’s whereabouts and the ‘fact’ that he lived there under Obama’s protection. In order to not endanger the plan to force the US into Shariah law, Obama had to sacifice his buddy and can even use the kill as an extra layer of cover for his true intentions.
Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.
negative reactions to the end of the OBL story were sooooo predictable.
Absolutely typical of course the complaints that the president did not gloat enough.
The most insidious I have encountered yet (originating from Tea Party Nation) is that Obama had to strike now because someone was going to leak Osama’s whereabouts and the ‘fact’ that he lived there under Obama’s protection. In order to not endanger the plan to force the US into Shariah law, Obama had to sacifice his buddy and can even use the kill as an extra layer of cover for his true intentions.
Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.
Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.
not just the D and R. at least for this local affiliate
Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.
not just the D and R. at least for this local affiliate
Slightly different points, I think. Thomas is asserting that this is so; I’m just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden’s whereabouts wasn’t Obama’s motivation for keeping Gitmo open.
Yes, that bothers me, too. Reminds me of the celebration in the streets of various middle eastern locales following the fall of the WTC. I think, too, that it’s just fine to be uncomfortable with the celebration without, as Turbulence puts it, “telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death”.
Good to know. Thanks!
Slightly different points, I think. Thomas is asserting that this is so; I’m just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden’s whereabouts wasn’t Obama’s motivation for keeping Gitmo open.
Yes, that bothers me, too. Reminds me of the celebration in the streets of various middle eastern locales following the fall of the WTC. I think, too, that it’s just fine to be uncomfortable with the celebration without, as Turbulence puts it, “telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death”.
Good to know. Thanks!
‘m just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden’s whereabouts wasn’t Obama’s motivation for keeping Gitmo open.
i thought the motivation was that Congress has denied him the means to close it.
‘m just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden’s whereabouts wasn’t Obama’s motivation for keeping Gitmo open.
i thought the motivation was that Congress has denied him the means to close it.
Seriously?
The President of the United States can’t move some prisoners from Gitmo to (for instance) Leavenworth? There are any number of military bases in this country that have prisons that could be expanded to accommodate the Gitmo prisoners. So even if Obama doesn’t have authority to order transfers to federal prisons, I’d think he could disperse them to any or several military bases. Bases that have been used to house WWII POWs, for instance, include Fort Leavenworth, Fort Bragg, Eglin, Fort Bliss, and a fair number of still-open military bases.
He hasn’t exactly bully-pulpited this issue, has he?
Seriously?
The President of the United States can’t move some prisoners from Gitmo to (for instance) Leavenworth? There are any number of military bases in this country that have prisons that could be expanded to accommodate the Gitmo prisoners. So even if Obama doesn’t have authority to order transfers to federal prisons, I’d think he could disperse them to any or several military bases. Bases that have been used to house WWII POWs, for instance, include Fort Leavenworth, Fort Bragg, Eglin, Fort Bliss, and a fair number of still-open military bases.
He hasn’t exactly bully-pulpited this issue, has he?
I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.
Apparently some, a bit. It seems to be a mix, for most people, including the families of the people killed on 9/11.
There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden’s wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.
So, in the end, not a romantic hero at all. Just another cowardly bastard.
I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.
Apparently some, a bit. It seems to be a mix, for most people, including the families of the people killed on 9/11.
There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden’s wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.
So, in the end, not a romantic hero at all. Just another cowardly bastard.
It needed to be done and it was done, on balance, just the way it should have been: an actual raid calculated to produce proof positive of who was killed/captured (although I don’t think capturing OBL was even on the list of priorities).
A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we’re the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released.
Not to mention incensing even more that element in the Islamic community that thinks OBL is a ‘holy warrior.’
Obama made the right call.
My disagreement is in not having the body independently identified by third parties as OBL. I anticipate a birther-type movement growing up around the disposition of OBL’s body. My disagreement is a minor point and, most likely, the President considered this option and it had it’s own set of problems.
FWIW, I watched Hannity last night and even he gave Obama high marks. Tommy Franks, David Beamer and Guiliani all gave Obama high marks and, despite being baited by Hannity, Guiliani would not second guess and, in fact, endorsed everything the administration did.
Cheering in the streets–this put my wife off considerably. My issue with it is that it’s premature, not unlike “Mission Accomplished.” Parades come at the end of the war, not before. Still, though, cheering the death of the man who authored 9-11 is not comparable to worldwide riots over allegations of defacing a Koran or of a Danish cartoonist’s efforts.
It needed to be done and it was done, on balance, just the way it should have been: an actual raid calculated to produce proof positive of who was killed/captured (although I don’t think capturing OBL was even on the list of priorities).
A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we’re the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released.
Not to mention incensing even more that element in the Islamic community that thinks OBL is a ‘holy warrior.’
Obama made the right call.
My disagreement is in not having the body independently identified by third parties as OBL. I anticipate a birther-type movement growing up around the disposition of OBL’s body. My disagreement is a minor point and, most likely, the President considered this option and it had it’s own set of problems.
FWIW, I watched Hannity last night and even he gave Obama high marks. Tommy Franks, David Beamer and Guiliani all gave Obama high marks and, despite being baited by Hannity, Guiliani would not second guess and, in fact, endorsed everything the administration did.
Cheering in the streets–this put my wife off considerably. My issue with it is that it’s premature, not unlike “Mission Accomplished.” Parades come at the end of the war, not before. Still, though, cheering the death of the man who authored 9-11 is not comparable to worldwide riots over allegations of defacing a Koran or of a Danish cartoonist’s efforts.
It’s endemic, almost.
It’s endemic, almost.
There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden’s wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.
This is the kind of detail I view with a bit of skepticism. Not that I doubt it could have happened, it just seems a bit too good, or bad, to be true. If one wanted to add just the right touch “he’s the worst kind of bastard there is” as a sort of icing on the cake, this bit of local color surely accomplishes that end. The reverse was that young woman captured in the early days of the Iraqi invasion–people had her fighting off hordes of nasties, even while wounded, and ultimately rendered incapable of further resistance. None of that turned out to be the case, IIRC.
There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden’s wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.
This is the kind of detail I view with a bit of skepticism. Not that I doubt it could have happened, it just seems a bit too good, or bad, to be true. If one wanted to add just the right touch “he’s the worst kind of bastard there is” as a sort of icing on the cake, this bit of local color surely accomplishes that end. The reverse was that young woman captured in the early days of the Iraqi invasion–people had her fighting off hordes of nasties, even while wounded, and ultimately rendered incapable of further resistance. None of that turned out to be the case, IIRC.
I just found [a href=”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html”]this[/a] and I obviously I did not understand JanieM’s instructions which further establishes me as the least competent computer person in the world, or at least in the running for that title. Can someone tell me what I should have done? Thanks. BTW, I did the whole thing in Word and cut/pasted to the comment box. Thanks.
I just found [a href=”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html”]this[/a] and I obviously I did not understand JanieM’s instructions which further establishes me as the least competent computer person in the world, or at least in the running for that title. Can someone tell me what I should have done? Thanks. BTW, I did the whole thing in Word and cut/pasted to the comment box. Thanks.
Just drop the all the ” and replace [ with < and ] with >
Just drop the all the ” and replace [ with < and ] with >
I think, even if a body had been produced there would be claims that it was fake and all ‘independent’ proof was too. Even a bin Laden captured alive would be doubted by some.
I have joked on some other fora that Osama is destined to become the Hidden Infame of Salafism.
About the woman shot as a human shield, I read and heard that it was not a relative and that his wifes are all alive (and have testified that the body was indeed that of OBL)
I think, even if a body had been produced there would be claims that it was fake and all ‘independent’ proof was too. Even a bin Laden captured alive would be doubted by some.
I have joked on some other fora that Osama is destined to become the Hidden Infame of Salafism.
About the woman shot as a human shield, I read and heard that it was not a relative and that his wifes are all alive (and have testified that the body was indeed that of OBL)
I think killing OBL was the expedient thing to do, but I would have preferred live capture because of the potential intelligence benefit and also the opportunity for a trial.
McKT:
“A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we’re the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released.”
You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don’t support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.
I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on whether we should have tried to take OBL alive, and whether we should have given him a trial.
I am firmly protrial. The protection and enforcement of rights when it is definitely not in the state’s immediate interest to do so is, to me, the whole point of our principles. Abandoning our principles when they are inexpedient means they’re not principles.
I know this is one guy, and one trial, but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point, and this would’ve been a good time to start. Not good in the sense that it might benefit Obama politically, or maybe for pleasant television viewing.
I think killing OBL was the expedient thing to do, but I would have preferred live capture because of the potential intelligence benefit and also the opportunity for a trial.
McKT:
“A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we’re the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released.”
You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don’t support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.
I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on whether we should have tried to take OBL alive, and whether we should have given him a trial.
I am firmly protrial. The protection and enforcement of rights when it is definitely not in the state’s immediate interest to do so is, to me, the whole point of our principles. Abandoning our principles when they are inexpedient means they’re not principles.
I know this is one guy, and one trial, but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point, and this would’ve been a good time to start. Not good in the sense that it might benefit Obama politically, or maybe for pleasant television viewing.
Like : this?
Ok, we’re getting there. Still, I can’t seem to close the link.
Like : this?
Ok, we’re getting there. Still, I can’t seem to close the link.
Just realized that I worded my post to sound like I only want the views of people who are not McKT, which is of course false; I’d like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!
Just realized that I worded my post to sound like I only want the views of people who are not McKT, which is of course false; I’d like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!
I fixed it, McKTx. You had a spare left-bracket in there instead of a left pointy-brace, and I always enclose my link in quotation marks.
Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I’m never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use ’em.
I fixed it, McKTx. You had a spare left-bracket in there instead of a left pointy-brace, and I always enclose my link in quotation marks.
Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I’m never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use ’em.
You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don’t support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.
Holding OBL alive wouldn’t produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected. Can I support this? No more than anyone can support the notion that reprisals are forthcoming. Common sense says that reprisals will occur. Ditto efforts to secure OBL’s release if he were taken alive.
Moreover, I would not impose upon our troops the effort to capture OBL. That adds risk factors to the mission. There are reports that a lot of intelligence was picked up at OBL’s home. This is likely as much or more than we would have gotten by taking him alive.
but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point
Julian, “the world” is populated by the PRC, Putin’s Russia and a NATO that is bombing the carp out of Libya, among others. Really, “the world” well understands that practicality means something. Sometimes it is useful for elements of the “the world” to see a legitimately aggrieved country act decisively in its own interests.
You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don’t support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.
Holding OBL alive wouldn’t produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected. Can I support this? No more than anyone can support the notion that reprisals are forthcoming. Common sense says that reprisals will occur. Ditto efforts to secure OBL’s release if he were taken alive.
Moreover, I would not impose upon our troops the effort to capture OBL. That adds risk factors to the mission. There are reports that a lot of intelligence was picked up at OBL’s home. This is likely as much or more than we would have gotten by taking him alive.
but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point
Julian, “the world” is populated by the PRC, Putin’s Russia and a NATO that is bombing the carp out of Libya, among others. Really, “the world” well understands that practicality means something. Sometimes it is useful for elements of the “the world” to see a legitimately aggrieved country act decisively in its own interests.
I’d like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!
I took it that way and you did. No worries.
Slarti, thanks, I appreciate it.
I’d like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!
I took it that way and you did. No worries.
Slarti, thanks, I appreciate it.
I always enclose my link in quotation marks.
Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I’m never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use ’em.
Slarti, I was told to use quotes when I first came here and tried to make a link. My links never worked. The reason — discovered just the other day — seems to be that smart quotes don’t work. I usually compose in Word, and I have my Word set to use smart quotes (which is not always the smart thing to do but never mind), so I kept running into situations where I would use the quotes as instructed, and the link wouldn’t work, and when I removed the quotes the link worked. Turns out if I replace the smart quotes with the other kind, the link works fine.
JFTR.
Also jftr, I agree with you about parentheses in equations, but I don’t think you’d get far trying to follow the same rule in handling quotation marks. 😉
I always enclose my link in quotation marks.
Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I’m never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use ’em.
Slarti, I was told to use quotes when I first came here and tried to make a link. My links never worked. The reason — discovered just the other day — seems to be that smart quotes don’t work. I usually compose in Word, and I have my Word set to use smart quotes (which is not always the smart thing to do but never mind), so I kept running into situations where I would use the quotes as instructed, and the link wouldn’t work, and when I removed the quotes the link worked. Turns out if I replace the smart quotes with the other kind, the link works fine.
JFTR.
Also jftr, I agree with you about parentheses in equations, but I don’t think you’d get far trying to follow the same rule in handling quotation marks. 😉
If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so.
Isn’t this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn’t it, uh, not happened?
If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so.
Isn’t this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn’t it, uh, not happened?
Isn’t this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn’t it, uh, not happened?
Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming. But, to turn it around: if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans? Or, would you hope to foreclose that possibility by doing as Obama did and, for all practical purposes, order OBL’s death?
Isn’t this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn’t it, uh, not happened?
Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming. But, to turn it around: if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans? Or, would you hope to foreclose that possibility by doing as Obama did and, for all practical purposes, order OBL’s death?
Holding OBL alive wouldn’t produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected.
At least, those things would be more likely if he were alive and in custody, I think. We can’t un-kill him, so there’s no reason for anyone to demand it.
Holding OBL alive wouldn’t produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected.
At least, those things would be more likely if he were alive and in custody, I think. We can’t un-kill him, so there’s no reason for anyone to demand it.
Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming.
“As such.” How lawyerly. Is that a synonym for “at all?”
I think it’s, at this point, a lot of academic foofaraw that’s allowing a lot of people to get away with playing Internet Hardman, is what I think. Still, as always, it’s conservatives who are the first to dispense with principles and defer to pragmatism the minute it becomes inconvenient to hold them. Thus has it always been, thus shall it ever be.
But hey, as long as you can convince yourself that your speculations are in reality inevitable results — despite the lack of any supporting evidence and a plethora of contradictory evidence — you can believe whatever you want!
Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming.
“As such.” How lawyerly. Is that a synonym for “at all?”
I think it’s, at this point, a lot of academic foofaraw that’s allowing a lot of people to get away with playing Internet Hardman, is what I think. Still, as always, it’s conservatives who are the first to dispense with principles and defer to pragmatism the minute it becomes inconvenient to hold them. Thus has it always been, thus shall it ever be.
But hey, as long as you can convince yourself that your speculations are in reality inevitable results — despite the lack of any supporting evidence and a plethora of contradictory evidence — you can believe whatever you want!
We took KSM alive and got valuable intelligence from him (and my understanding is that the valuable intelligence we got from him was NOT gathered when he was tortured, but under standard interrogation.
McKT, “many think they are coming” is a vague appeal to authority. Who thinks that? What support is there for that belief? We’ve had KSM for a while now.
if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans?
Yes. Don’t you see that the logic of what you propose is “if the other guys behave badly, we’ll abandon our principles and join them in the gutter?” It just occurred to me what an ironic notion “the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists” is. We do it all the time. They destroy the WTC, we start kidnapping and torturing people on a large scale. Then we invade Iraq. They make an underwear bomb, we start molesting airline passengers.
The knee-jerk reflex to terrorism has consistently been to choke back liberties in exchange for security or (worse still) the appearance of security.
If that’s not a negotiation I don’t know what is.
We took KSM alive and got valuable intelligence from him (and my understanding is that the valuable intelligence we got from him was NOT gathered when he was tortured, but under standard interrogation.
McKT, “many think they are coming” is a vague appeal to authority. Who thinks that? What support is there for that belief? We’ve had KSM for a while now.
if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans?
Yes. Don’t you see that the logic of what you propose is “if the other guys behave badly, we’ll abandon our principles and join them in the gutter?” It just occurred to me what an ironic notion “the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists” is. We do it all the time. They destroy the WTC, we start kidnapping and torturing people on a large scale. Then we invade Iraq. They make an underwear bomb, we start molesting airline passengers.
The knee-jerk reflex to terrorism has consistently been to choke back liberties in exchange for security or (worse still) the appearance of security.
If that’s not a negotiation I don’t know what is.
KSM isn’t OBL, so, for me, that’s not the issue. OBL was “THE Man” for AQ.
I also don’t think deciding between killing or capturing and trying OBL is the same as deciding whether or not to trump up wars and roll back civil liberties. One can defend the killing of OBL without advocating the invasion of Iraq and the passing the Patriot Act. I don’t think it’s hard, certainly not unreasonable, to make the argument that OBL was not simply a criminal or that the evidence against him obviated the need for a trial. The charge that killing him, under the circumstances, represents and abandonment of our principles just doesn’t move me.
Whether we would have gotten intel from him is another question, one I don’t have much of an opinion on so far.
And I’m no conservative internet tough guy. (Anyone disagree?)
KSM isn’t OBL, so, for me, that’s not the issue. OBL was “THE Man” for AQ.
I also don’t think deciding between killing or capturing and trying OBL is the same as deciding whether or not to trump up wars and roll back civil liberties. One can defend the killing of OBL without advocating the invasion of Iraq and the passing the Patriot Act. I don’t think it’s hard, certainly not unreasonable, to make the argument that OBL was not simply a criminal or that the evidence against him obviated the need for a trial. The charge that killing him, under the circumstances, represents and abandonment of our principles just doesn’t move me.
Whether we would have gotten intel from him is another question, one I don’t have much of an opinion on so far.
And I’m no conservative internet tough guy. (Anyone disagree?)
The President of the United States can’t move some prisoners from Gitmo to (for instance) Leavenworth?
yes, seriously.
in the last budget, Congress specifically forbade the use of funds to transfer non-American prisoners out of Guantanamo.
The President of the United States can’t move some prisoners from Gitmo to (for instance) Leavenworth?
yes, seriously.
in the last budget, Congress specifically forbade the use of funds to transfer non-American prisoners out of Guantanamo.
Parades come at the end of the war, not before.
this “war” will never end in a way that would warrant a parade. Colonel Evil, High Commander Of Terrorismland, will not be signing any treaties. the last terrorist will never be killed.
cheering at small victories is all we’re going to get.
Parades come at the end of the war, not before.
this “war” will never end in a way that would warrant a parade. Colonel Evil, High Commander Of Terrorismland, will not be signing any treaties. the last terrorist will never be killed.
cheering at small victories is all we’re going to get.
I don’t think it’s hard, certainly not unreasonable, to make the argument that OBL was not simply a criminal or that the evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.
Do you mean a right or winning argument? I propose that trials are good. Goering and Eichmann received trials.
“The evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.”
I hope this is facially absurd to someone besides me.
If OBL was killed because he was resisting capture / was an immediate threat, that’s fine. If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
I don’t think it’s hard, certainly not unreasonable, to make the argument that OBL was not simply a criminal or that the evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.
Do you mean a right or winning argument? I propose that trials are good. Goering and Eichmann received trials.
“The evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.”
I hope this is facially absurd to someone besides me.
If OBL was killed because he was resisting capture / was an immediate threat, that’s fine. If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
Also in previous legislation, IIRC. Or have I got that wrong, somehow? Seems I recall the 111th Congress having some issues with Obama’s grand plan as well.
But all of that aside, I don’t know that Congress can micromanage Gitmo’s budget to the point where they cannot transfer even one prisoner from Gitmo to e.g. Eglin.
Also in previous legislation, IIRC. Or have I got that wrong, somehow? Seems I recall the 111th Congress having some issues with Obama’s grand plan as well.
But all of that aside, I don’t know that Congress can micromanage Gitmo’s budget to the point where they cannot transfer even one prisoner from Gitmo to e.g. Eglin.
McTX: But, to turn it around: if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans?
The United States, in no small part to get OBL and dismantle the organization he headed, killed tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people and suffered more than 5,000 deaths among its own troops (to date). But hey, we can’t have a trial because there might be hostage takings and executions? Really?
McTX: But, to turn it around: if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans?
The United States, in no small part to get OBL and dismantle the organization he headed, killed tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people and suffered more than 5,000 deaths among its own troops (to date). But hey, we can’t have a trial because there might be hostage takings and executions? Really?
Good point.
Cheney’s assassination squads are not Cheney’s anymore.
Good point.
Cheney’s assassination squads are not Cheney’s anymore.
This seems about right.
This seems about right.
Who thinks that? What support is there for that belief?
Greenwald for one, and the administration for another. It’s kind of all over the news. Of course, no one can predict what might happen. My guess, perhaps wishful thinking, is that the intel gathered at OBL’s sanctuary will be used to further rock Al Qaeda et al back on their heels and nothing bad will come to pass.
Yes. Don’t you see that the logic of what you propose is “if the other guys behave badly, we’ll abandon our principles and join them in the gutter?”
We actually don’t have any guiding principles that support giving someone like OBL a trial (begging the question of what kind of trial and in what forum?), absent his voluntary surrender. 9-11 wasn’t a domestic bank robbery.
I propose that trials are good. Goering and Eichmann received trials.
They surrendered. They weren’t captured at the end of a fire fight.
If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
If by “within our power”, you mean having peacefully surrendered and in custody, I agree. He’d have to be tried. Not in a civilian court and not in public. But tried before a military tribunal with counsel and the right to confront the evidence.
But hey, we can’t have a trial because there might be hostage takings and executions? Really?
No, you could have a trial. You could do a lot of things. Whether it’s smart or productive or produces risks that outweigh benefits is another thing entirely. There is nothing about OBL that merits any special effort whatsoever to bring him in alive. If he were to have surrendered, we could not gun him down in cold blood. I never said otherwise. But, absent him turning himself in, he is a live target. The hassle and risk of having him in captivity, not to mention the hassle and risk of trying to capture him, merits the order to the troops, “if he doesn’t immediately surrender, shoot to kill, not to wound.” If that was Obama’s order, I support it.
Who thinks that? What support is there for that belief?
Greenwald for one, and the administration for another. It’s kind of all over the news. Of course, no one can predict what might happen. My guess, perhaps wishful thinking, is that the intel gathered at OBL’s sanctuary will be used to further rock Al Qaeda et al back on their heels and nothing bad will come to pass.
Yes. Don’t you see that the logic of what you propose is “if the other guys behave badly, we’ll abandon our principles and join them in the gutter?”
We actually don’t have any guiding principles that support giving someone like OBL a trial (begging the question of what kind of trial and in what forum?), absent his voluntary surrender. 9-11 wasn’t a domestic bank robbery.
I propose that trials are good. Goering and Eichmann received trials.
They surrendered. They weren’t captured at the end of a fire fight.
If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
If by “within our power”, you mean having peacefully surrendered and in custody, I agree. He’d have to be tried. Not in a civilian court and not in public. But tried before a military tribunal with counsel and the right to confront the evidence.
But hey, we can’t have a trial because there might be hostage takings and executions? Really?
No, you could have a trial. You could do a lot of things. Whether it’s smart or productive or produces risks that outweigh benefits is another thing entirely. There is nothing about OBL that merits any special effort whatsoever to bring him in alive. If he were to have surrendered, we could not gun him down in cold blood. I never said otherwise. But, absent him turning himself in, he is a live target. The hassle and risk of having him in captivity, not to mention the hassle and risk of trying to capture him, merits the order to the troops, “if he doesn’t immediately surrender, shoot to kill, not to wound.” If that was Obama’s order, I support it.
This seems about right.
Wars change things, even this kind of war. Change can go both ways and often does over time. But, by this definition, if we didn’t lose WWII, we certainly didn’t win it. Why? Look all the lives that were expended trying to undo the status quo as of 12/6/41 and just because of the loss of a couple of thousand people at Pearl Harbor. And suspended civil liberties, press censorship, etc. And the naked racism our propaganda used routinely. And how we scared ourselves into building an atomic bomb and opening that Pandora’s box. And all the people who fell under communism, both in Europe and in Asia. Then the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. all have their roots in the end of that stupid war. Look what we could have avoided. I mean, really, was it worth it? I’d say the jury’s still out because, after all that effort, the lion still hasn’t lain down with the lamb.
War is unpredictable and chaotic. Always has been, always will be. Hindsight is 20/20. The problem with playing ‘what if’ is that the player gets to assume that, if only things had been done differently, the outcome would have been better. Like history of full of great outcomes. We got what we got after WWII because people and countries will continue to do s****y things to each other, and it’s human nature to act in self defense, whether the act is wise or not.
This seems about right.
Wars change things, even this kind of war. Change can go both ways and often does over time. But, by this definition, if we didn’t lose WWII, we certainly didn’t win it. Why? Look all the lives that were expended trying to undo the status quo as of 12/6/41 and just because of the loss of a couple of thousand people at Pearl Harbor. And suspended civil liberties, press censorship, etc. And the naked racism our propaganda used routinely. And how we scared ourselves into building an atomic bomb and opening that Pandora’s box. And all the people who fell under communism, both in Europe and in Asia. Then the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. all have their roots in the end of that stupid war. Look what we could have avoided. I mean, really, was it worth it? I’d say the jury’s still out because, after all that effort, the lion still hasn’t lain down with the lamb.
War is unpredictable and chaotic. Always has been, always will be. Hindsight is 20/20. The problem with playing ‘what if’ is that the player gets to assume that, if only things had been done differently, the outcome would have been better. Like history of full of great outcomes. We got what we got after WWII because people and countries will continue to do s****y things to each other, and it’s human nature to act in self defense, whether the act is wise or not.
This seems about right.
I agree. And Radley Balko seems to agree that killing OBL was not problematic.
Do you mean a right or winning argument?
Maybe.
I propose that trials are good.
So do I.
This seems about right.
I agree. And Radley Balko seems to agree that killing OBL was not problematic.
Do you mean a right or winning argument?
Maybe.
I propose that trials are good.
So do I.
If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
Well, I can’t, and I wouldn’t want to try. But that’s a different proposition, based on circumstances that did not exist.
Let me put it this way – how badly did we need to try OBL and for what purpose? To echo McKinney, what risk was it worth taking to ensure that trying a living OBL would be possible? Was there too much doubt about what he did for us to justify storming his compound, knowing there was a very strong likelihood that he would end up dead?
Or let me put it this way, Julian – what specifically is your complaint about what happened?
If he was within our power and executed, I ask that you find me a legal basis for his summary execution.
Well, I can’t, and I wouldn’t want to try. But that’s a different proposition, based on circumstances that did not exist.
Let me put it this way – how badly did we need to try OBL and for what purpose? To echo McKinney, what risk was it worth taking to ensure that trying a living OBL would be possible? Was there too much doubt about what he did for us to justify storming his compound, knowing there was a very strong likelihood that he would end up dead?
Or let me put it this way, Julian – what specifically is your complaint about what happened?
McKT, can you cite a law or treaty that says the U.S. may dispense with trials for captured individuals and instead summarily execute them if the U.S. thinks the trial might provoke a violent responde somewhere in the world?
My guess, perhaps wishful thinking, is that the intel gathered at OBL’s sanctuary will be used to further rock Al Qaeda et al back on their heels and nothing bad will come to pass.
Then why do you cite fear of reprisals as a justification for dispensing with a trial?
We actually don’t have any guiding principles that support giving someone like OBL a trial (begging the question of what kind of trial and in what forum?), absent his voluntary surrender. 9-11 wasn’t a domestic bank robbery.
How are you defining “someone like OBL?”
How about a war crimes trial in the ICC?
I feel like you’re using a weird form of “surrender.” You claim that Eichman surrendered, but that is not what WP says:
The plan was almost abandoned when Eichmann was not present on the bus he usually took home. Tension rose when many by-passers inquired of the disguised Mossad agent who pretended to be fixing their broken down vehicle. Finally, almost a half hour later, Eichmann got off a bus. A Mossad agent engaged him, asking him in Spanish if he had a moment. Eichmann was frightened and attempted to leave while blinded by Mossad headlights. Two Mossad men wrestled him to the ground and he was brought to the car. While in the car he reportedly told the Mossad, “I have already surrendered to my fate”.[citation needed]
Then the Mossad ran into a police checkpoint and managed to evade the police when they checked their license plates. He was then brought to the Mossad safe-house. There, he was tied to a chair, ungagged, and interrogated. It was concluded that Klement (Clement) was undoubtedly Eichmann.[28] Eichmann was given a choice between instant death or trial in Israel.
Why is it that capturing someone at the end of a firefight would have any affect on our ability or need to try them? If he’s captured at all, it means he’s caught. Once he’s caught, we have absolute power over him.
If by “within our power”, you mean having peacefully surrendered and in custody, I agree.
What does “peacefully surrendered” mean? Do you mean submit without any preceding armed
resistance? That sounds to me not like “killed resisting arrest” but “killed after being arrested.” What is the justification for that position?
HSH, can you elaborate on this assertion you made:
The evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.
I apologize for being glib earlier. I propose that trials cannot be dispensed with regardless of the strength of evidence against the suspect. You asserted otherwise. Go on?
Please keep in mind that I agree that killing OBL in a firefight is fine. My objection is to making his death the sole objective of the mission, which I strongly suspect was the case.
McKT, can you cite a law or treaty that says the U.S. may dispense with trials for captured individuals and instead summarily execute them if the U.S. thinks the trial might provoke a violent responde somewhere in the world?
My guess, perhaps wishful thinking, is that the intel gathered at OBL’s sanctuary will be used to further rock Al Qaeda et al back on their heels and nothing bad will come to pass.
Then why do you cite fear of reprisals as a justification for dispensing with a trial?
We actually don’t have any guiding principles that support giving someone like OBL a trial (begging the question of what kind of trial and in what forum?), absent his voluntary surrender. 9-11 wasn’t a domestic bank robbery.
How are you defining “someone like OBL?”
How about a war crimes trial in the ICC?
I feel like you’re using a weird form of “surrender.” You claim that Eichman surrendered, but that is not what WP says:
The plan was almost abandoned when Eichmann was not present on the bus he usually took home. Tension rose when many by-passers inquired of the disguised Mossad agent who pretended to be fixing their broken down vehicle. Finally, almost a half hour later, Eichmann got off a bus. A Mossad agent engaged him, asking him in Spanish if he had a moment. Eichmann was frightened and attempted to leave while blinded by Mossad headlights. Two Mossad men wrestled him to the ground and he was brought to the car. While in the car he reportedly told the Mossad, “I have already surrendered to my fate”.[citation needed]
Then the Mossad ran into a police checkpoint and managed to evade the police when they checked their license plates. He was then brought to the Mossad safe-house. There, he was tied to a chair, ungagged, and interrogated. It was concluded that Klement (Clement) was undoubtedly Eichmann.[28] Eichmann was given a choice between instant death or trial in Israel.
Why is it that capturing someone at the end of a firefight would have any affect on our ability or need to try them? If he’s captured at all, it means he’s caught. Once he’s caught, we have absolute power over him.
If by “within our power”, you mean having peacefully surrendered and in custody, I agree.
What does “peacefully surrendered” mean? Do you mean submit without any preceding armed
resistance? That sounds to me not like “killed resisting arrest” but “killed after being arrested.” What is the justification for that position?
HSH, can you elaborate on this assertion you made:
The evidence against him obviated the need for a trial.
I apologize for being glib earlier. I propose that trials cannot be dispensed with regardless of the strength of evidence against the suspect. You asserted otherwise. Go on?
Please keep in mind that I agree that killing OBL in a firefight is fine. My objection is to making his death the sole objective of the mission, which I strongly suspect was the case.
There is nothing about OBL that merits any special effort whatsoever to bring him in alive.
And yet special effort there was.
There is nothing about OBL that merits any special effort whatsoever to bring him in alive.
And yet special effort there was.
But that’s a different proposition, based on circumstances that did not exist.
Why do you have such certainty that those circumstances did not exist?
Or let me put it this way, Julian – what specifically is your complaint about what happened?
My complaint is I strongly suspect that the orders were for OBL to be dead at the end of the raid regardless of the amount of resistance offered. I think that’s bad because I think that the intelligence we could get from OBL could be very valuable, and I also think having a trial is the ideal outcome.
I agree that capturing OBL alive could, depending on the scenario, entail a cost in lives that might make live capture not justifiable to pursue. I am not claiming that his live capture was justifiable because I don’t know what the logistics were and what data we had at the time that we decided to go after him. What I am claiming is that the U.S. most likely decided that it wanted him dead no matter what, that a trial would be inexpedient, and so that he would be executed at the conclusion of the raid.
But that’s a different proposition, based on circumstances that did not exist.
Why do you have such certainty that those circumstances did not exist?
Or let me put it this way, Julian – what specifically is your complaint about what happened?
My complaint is I strongly suspect that the orders were for OBL to be dead at the end of the raid regardless of the amount of resistance offered. I think that’s bad because I think that the intelligence we could get from OBL could be very valuable, and I also think having a trial is the ideal outcome.
I agree that capturing OBL alive could, depending on the scenario, entail a cost in lives that might make live capture not justifiable to pursue. I am not claiming that his live capture was justifiable because I don’t know what the logistics were and what data we had at the time that we decided to go after him. What I am claiming is that the U.S. most likely decided that it wanted him dead no matter what, that a trial would be inexpedient, and so that he would be executed at the conclusion of the raid.
I apologize for being glib earlier.
No problem.
I propose that trials cannot be dispensed with regardless of the strength of evidence against the suspect. You asserted otherwise. Go on?
I don’t know if you saw my last comment, but going on was what I was trying to do.
My objection is to making his death the sole objective of the mission, which I strongly suspect was the case.
Do you think if OBL somehow found out about the planned raid and had walked out of the compound alone in his underwear with his hands in the air to a location where he easily could have been apprehended that the Seals would have killed him?
I strongly suspect not, but I don’t really know.
I think what we’re talking about here isn’t simply kill v. don’t kill, as we’ve been framing it, so much as how hard to try not to kill him, which might be why we think we disagree when we really don’t, at least not much.
I apologize for being glib earlier.
No problem.
I propose that trials cannot be dispensed with regardless of the strength of evidence against the suspect. You asserted otherwise. Go on?
I don’t know if you saw my last comment, but going on was what I was trying to do.
My objection is to making his death the sole objective of the mission, which I strongly suspect was the case.
Do you think if OBL somehow found out about the planned raid and had walked out of the compound alone in his underwear with his hands in the air to a location where he easily could have been apprehended that the Seals would have killed him?
I strongly suspect not, but I don’t really know.
I think what we’re talking about here isn’t simply kill v. don’t kill, as we’ve been framing it, so much as how hard to try not to kill him, which might be why we think we disagree when we really don’t, at least not much.
HSH, I understand where I went wrong; I thought that you meant the strength of the evidence against OBL obviated the need for a trial even if we had already captured him. I now understand that you meant it mitigated the urgency of trying to capture him alive, especially in the face of the possible cost in lives.
HSH, I understand where I went wrong; I thought that you meant the strength of the evidence against OBL obviated the need for a trial even if we had already captured him. I now understand that you meant it mitigated the urgency of trying to capture him alive, especially in the face of the possible cost in lives.
McKT, can you cite a law or treaty that says the U.S. may dispense with trials for captured individuals and instead summarily execute them if the U.S. thinks the trial might provoke a violent responde somewhere in the world?
No, and you are moving the goal posts. Did you read the part about not being permitted to shoot someone who surrenders? OBL didn’t surrender, he was shot. That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.
Then why do you cite fear of reprisals as a justification for dispensing with a trial?
Because there is no guarantee, just my hope that the intel permits that kind of sustained attack on AQ.
What I am claiming is that the U.S. most likely decided that it wanted him dead no matter what, that a trial would be inexpedient, and so that he would be executed at the conclusion of the raid.
I skipped down and found this, which is the nub. You have a suspicion which shifts the burden of defending what happened to those who don’t share your suspicion.
FWIW, here’s my suspicion: you are right. Unless OBL made it provably impossible not to accept his surrender, he was dead as soon as that helicopter landed. I suspect those were the orders. I also believe that the gov’t version of what happened is substantially correct, i.e. that he and his associates put up a fight, which moots any further discussion since all of the evidence is that he actually did “resist arrest” and got what comes of that. They never got to the point of having him in custody and then putting a bullet in the back of his head.
As an aside, Eichmann, as you remind me, was captured after the war, by the Israelis. However, the goal was to capture him and put him on trial, not simply take the man out. Further, he was apprehended on a public street, not in an armed compound. There are differences.
McKT, can you cite a law or treaty that says the U.S. may dispense with trials for captured individuals and instead summarily execute them if the U.S. thinks the trial might provoke a violent responde somewhere in the world?
No, and you are moving the goal posts. Did you read the part about not being permitted to shoot someone who surrenders? OBL didn’t surrender, he was shot. That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.
Then why do you cite fear of reprisals as a justification for dispensing with a trial?
Because there is no guarantee, just my hope that the intel permits that kind of sustained attack on AQ.
What I am claiming is that the U.S. most likely decided that it wanted him dead no matter what, that a trial would be inexpedient, and so that he would be executed at the conclusion of the raid.
I skipped down and found this, which is the nub. You have a suspicion which shifts the burden of defending what happened to those who don’t share your suspicion.
FWIW, here’s my suspicion: you are right. Unless OBL made it provably impossible not to accept his surrender, he was dead as soon as that helicopter landed. I suspect those were the orders. I also believe that the gov’t version of what happened is substantially correct, i.e. that he and his associates put up a fight, which moots any further discussion since all of the evidence is that he actually did “resist arrest” and got what comes of that. They never got to the point of having him in custody and then putting a bullet in the back of his head.
As an aside, Eichmann, as you remind me, was captured after the war, by the Israelis. However, the goal was to capture him and put him on trial, not simply take the man out. Further, he was apprehended on a public street, not in an armed compound. There are differences.
Drudgereport has a link to a White House revised version, nowt Tending to prove Julian’s suspicion, up to a point, the heat of battle being what I can only imagine it to be.
Drudgereport has a link to a White House revised version, nowt Tending to prove Julian’s suspicion, up to a point, the heat of battle being what I can only imagine it to be.
HSH, I understand where I went wrong; I thought that you meant the strength of the evidence against OBL obviated the need for a trial even if we had already captured him.
Which is probably my fault. I don’t like typing much, so I tend to leave some nuance out sometimes.
HSH, I understand where I went wrong; I thought that you meant the strength of the evidence against OBL obviated the need for a trial even if we had already captured him.
Which is probably my fault. I don’t like typing much, so I tend to leave some nuance out sometimes.
OBE
OBE
the Ottawa Board of Education is interested in OBL ?
the Ottawa Board of Education is interested in OBL ?
There’ll always be an England
There’ll always be an England
So I see we get to have the torture debate again as a result of this. Feh.
So I see we get to have the torture debate again as a result of this. Feh.
OBL didn’t surrender, he was shot. That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.
Why didn’t we shoot KSM?
OBL didn’t surrender, he was shot. That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.
Why didn’t we shoot KSM?
Different circumstances? Ask the ISI?
Different circumstances? Ask the ISI?
HSH – I guess I’m just questioning the accuracy of the statement “That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.”
Apparently, it’s not. In fact, there are a lot of people walking around the world right now who are as responsible for killing 3000 plus people as OBL was, some under the active protection of the U.S. gov’t.
HSH – I guess I’m just questioning the accuracy of the statement “That’s what happens when you kill 3000 plus people.”
Apparently, it’s not. In fact, there are a lot of people walking around the world right now who are as responsible for killing 3000 plus people as OBL was, some under the active protection of the U.S. gov’t.
Ugh,
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
Ugh,
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
DaveC,
Ugh,
In fact, there are a lot of people walking around the world right now who are as responsible for killing 3000 plus people as OBL was, some under the active protection of the U.S. gov’t.
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
Admittedly in some cases one would have to check, whether they haven’t by now died of natural causes like one of the anti-Castro terrorists who blew up that airplane that carried (among others) the Cuban Olympic team. That one died a few days ago. Less than 3000 people killed maybe but with repeated direct intervention from Washington to keep him out of US and foreign jails.
The US supported (and may clandestinely still do) anti-Iranian terrorists like the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (spelling?) that even the State Department has high on the list of terror groups.
Then there is the support of (RW) coups and governements in Middle and South America, including active support of some actions that amount to genocide (e.g. Guatemala). That included and still includes bullying foreign government to prevent their courts from going after main culprits should these make the mistake to travel into the wrong places.
It’s of course open to debate to what degree US officials themselves could be said to be responsible for e.g. the Salvadorean death squads (~75K dead).
Some rather unsavoury regimes still depend on Washington’s protection (we had the discussion around here about whether Saudi Arabia is actually worse than Iran in many aspects and the claim had significant support including mine).
The US is of course also known for rather hypocritical turnarounds, just ask a certain Mr.Saddam Hussein.
Going further back in time, the US government protected a lot of ‘useful’ Nazi criminals from both foreign and US courts. Most prominently probably Wernher von Braun (no, his real crime was not the development and use of the V2 but his direct involvement in the murderous slave labour system to produce them that killed more than the rockets themselves). Less known, some guys personally responsible for the human experiments in service of the Luftwaffe. As some British documentary filmmakers found out just a few years ago the US still is eager to prevent investigations on that.
Before someone starts a tu quoque: No one sane claims that the US is the only state with such a record.
DaveC,
Ugh,
In fact, there are a lot of people walking around the world right now who are as responsible for killing 3000 plus people as OBL was, some under the active protection of the U.S. gov’t.
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
Admittedly in some cases one would have to check, whether they haven’t by now died of natural causes like one of the anti-Castro terrorists who blew up that airplane that carried (among others) the Cuban Olympic team. That one died a few days ago. Less than 3000 people killed maybe but with repeated direct intervention from Washington to keep him out of US and foreign jails.
The US supported (and may clandestinely still do) anti-Iranian terrorists like the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (spelling?) that even the State Department has high on the list of terror groups.
Then there is the support of (RW) coups and governements in Middle and South America, including active support of some actions that amount to genocide (e.g. Guatemala). That included and still includes bullying foreign government to prevent their courts from going after main culprits should these make the mistake to travel into the wrong places.
It’s of course open to debate to what degree US officials themselves could be said to be responsible for e.g. the Salvadorean death squads (~75K dead).
Some rather unsavoury regimes still depend on Washington’s protection (we had the discussion around here about whether Saudi Arabia is actually worse than Iran in many aspects and the claim had significant support including mine).
The US is of course also known for rather hypocritical turnarounds, just ask a certain Mr.Saddam Hussein.
Going further back in time, the US government protected a lot of ‘useful’ Nazi criminals from both foreign and US courts. Most prominently probably Wernher von Braun (no, his real crime was not the development and use of the V2 but his direct involvement in the murderous slave labour system to produce them that killed more than the rockets themselves). Less known, some guys personally responsible for the human experiments in service of the Luftwaffe. As some British documentary filmmakers found out just a few years ago the US still is eager to prevent investigations on that.
Before someone starts a tu quoque: No one sane claims that the US is the only state with such a record.
i suspect many people would put Bush into the “responsible for killing 3000 plus people” category.
i suspect many people would put Bush into the “responsible for killing 3000 plus people” category.
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
Well let’s see, I guess the key phrase in that quote is “as responsible….as OBL…for killing 3000 people.”
On the one hand, you’ve got KSM, who it seems to me is as responsible as OBL for the 9/11 attacks, and certainly he’s under the active protection of the US gov’t insomuch as it’s not going to just let anyone kill or otherwise harm him (at least not anymore, it seems).
OTOH, there’s cleek’s suggestion. Obama probably fits these days too.
tell us who exactly you think those people are, so I can figure out where you are coming from.
Well let’s see, I guess the key phrase in that quote is “as responsible….as OBL…for killing 3000 people.”
On the one hand, you’ve got KSM, who it seems to me is as responsible as OBL for the 9/11 attacks, and certainly he’s under the active protection of the US gov’t insomuch as it’s not going to just let anyone kill or otherwise harm him (at least not anymore, it seems).
OTOH, there’s cleek’s suggestion. Obama probably fits these days too.
…and then there’s Lyndon Johnson.
Going back a bit further, there’s always FDR, Harry Truman, and Woodrow Wilson.
Those were all wars of choice, arguably.
…and then there’s Lyndon Johnson.
Going back a bit further, there’s always FDR, Harry Truman, and Woodrow Wilson.
Those were all wars of choice, arguably.
Well, you could argue that all wars are wars of choice, no one says you have to fight back or defend yourself.
I guess my original point is the meaninglessness of McTex original comment, that getting shot is “what happens” when you kill 3000 people. No, clearly not.
Well, you could argue that all wars are wars of choice, no one says you have to fight back or defend yourself.
I guess my original point is the meaninglessness of McTex original comment, that getting shot is “what happens” when you kill 3000 people. No, clearly not.
I know no one, and no one says you damned well better fight back if attacked.
;/
I know no one, and no one says you damned well better fight back if attacked.
;/
I guess my point of view FWIW is that if you live by the sword, it’s likely that you will die by the sword.
The SEALs probably could have taken, or at least made an effort to take, bin Laden alive. The latest word is that he didn’t have arms on him, but that he did have an AK-47 and a pistol within reach.
How much risk should they have taken on to attempt a live capture? They had been fired at on the way in, should they wait and see if bin Laden would try to reach his weapons?
I appreciate folks’ desire to respect the rule of law. But I’m not sure what value there would have been to us in taking him alive, and yes that is a factor. And I’m not sure what level of risk we should have required the SEALs to take on in order to attempt a live capture.
Bin Laden richly did not deserve or earn any benefit of the doubt as far as his interest in killing Americans, or any extra effort on our part to ensure his safety. My opinion.
He died like a dog, but it was a fate he earned. There is such a thing as karma, whatever name you wish to give it.
IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.
I’m not sure we have a good framework for that, still.
But I’m not sure we should have spent, or even risked, more American lives in any kind of extra effort to keep bin Laden alive.
If he had met them at the door with his hands up, directed his people to offer no resistance, different story. That’s not what happened.
I guess my point of view FWIW is that if you live by the sword, it’s likely that you will die by the sword.
The SEALs probably could have taken, or at least made an effort to take, bin Laden alive. The latest word is that he didn’t have arms on him, but that he did have an AK-47 and a pistol within reach.
How much risk should they have taken on to attempt a live capture? They had been fired at on the way in, should they wait and see if bin Laden would try to reach his weapons?
I appreciate folks’ desire to respect the rule of law. But I’m not sure what value there would have been to us in taking him alive, and yes that is a factor. And I’m not sure what level of risk we should have required the SEALs to take on in order to attempt a live capture.
Bin Laden richly did not deserve or earn any benefit of the doubt as far as his interest in killing Americans, or any extra effort on our part to ensure his safety. My opinion.
He died like a dog, but it was a fate he earned. There is such a thing as karma, whatever name you wish to give it.
IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.
I’m not sure we have a good framework for that, still.
But I’m not sure we should have spent, or even risked, more American lives in any kind of extra effort to keep bin Laden alive.
If he had met them at the door with his hands up, directed his people to offer no resistance, different story. That’s not what happened.
Dammit Slarti, I had to read that three times to get it.
Dammit Slarti, I had to read that three times to get it.
How much risk should they have taken on to attempt a live capture? They had been fired at on the way in, should they wait and see if bin Laden would try to reach his weapons?
Well, they already took on the bulk of the risk by deciding to stage the raid in the first place, rather than sending in a B-2. Or, you know.
So, I’m not sure how much extra risk we’re asking anyone to take on, especially when compared to the potential reward in terms of intelligence value, etc. That is to say, if they decided to do the raid rather than bomb the place because they wanted to be sure the dead people included OBL rather than having to guess from what was left in a crater, why not have similar considerations with respect to capture vs. kill (which they may have)?
That said, I don’t think there was anything illegal about this raid (unless they did, in fact, secure OBL first and then killed him).
How much risk should they have taken on to attempt a live capture? They had been fired at on the way in, should they wait and see if bin Laden would try to reach his weapons?
Well, they already took on the bulk of the risk by deciding to stage the raid in the first place, rather than sending in a B-2. Or, you know.
So, I’m not sure how much extra risk we’re asking anyone to take on, especially when compared to the potential reward in terms of intelligence value, etc. That is to say, if they decided to do the raid rather than bomb the place because they wanted to be sure the dead people included OBL rather than having to guess from what was left in a crater, why not have similar considerations with respect to capture vs. kill (which they may have)?
That said, I don’t think there was anything illegal about this raid (unless they did, in fact, secure OBL first and then killed him).
That’s nothing; I didn’t get that we were actually agreeing until my third time through it.
That’s nothing; I didn’t get that we were actually agreeing until my third time through it.
russell: IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.
I think you have assumed the conclusion here (or at least part of it), i.e., that we have some how already reliably identified the “folks whose activites are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors,” that can then be subject to the special handling.
The entire fight (or at least most of it) over the “detainees” at Gittmo and elsewhere has been over whether they will get a fair chance to prove that they are not who the executive branch says they are in front of an independent arbiter.
The Bush Administration, and now to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, claimed that those people had no such right and, further, that they basically had no rights at all, solely because of accusations of the executive branch.
Further, IMHO, any attempt to create such a third category of persons erodes the protections afforded to the first two, whether the rights of the accused in a criminal trial or POW status/humane treatment of those captured on the field of battle. I mean, after all, once special procedures are created for “terrorists”, are “child molesters” or “rapists” any more deserving of full criminal due process? Etc., etc., etc.
In any event, we seem to have managed to make our way down the road to some kind of third category of persons in this “War on Terror,” so it may be too late.
russell: IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.
I think you have assumed the conclusion here (or at least part of it), i.e., that we have some how already reliably identified the “folks whose activites are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors,” that can then be subject to the special handling.
The entire fight (or at least most of it) over the “detainees” at Gittmo and elsewhere has been over whether they will get a fair chance to prove that they are not who the executive branch says they are in front of an independent arbiter.
The Bush Administration, and now to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, claimed that those people had no such right and, further, that they basically had no rights at all, solely because of accusations of the executive branch.
Further, IMHO, any attempt to create such a third category of persons erodes the protections afforded to the first two, whether the rights of the accused in a criminal trial or POW status/humane treatment of those captured on the field of battle. I mean, after all, once special procedures are created for “terrorists”, are “child molesters” or “rapists” any more deserving of full criminal due process? Etc., etc., etc.
In any event, we seem to have managed to make our way down the road to some kind of third category of persons in this “War on Terror,” so it may be too late.
I think you have assumed the conclusion here (or at least part of it), i.e., that we have some how already reliably identified the “folks whose activites are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors,”
I’m not talking about Gitmo, which I think is a different kettle of fish. Gitmo was basically created to avoid the legal requirements for handling prisoners, of whatever type. I’m not recommending that.
To be honest, I think that the attempt to deal with folks like bin Laden in purely criminal terms has actually ended up undermining the civil rights of people who are actually just criminals.
The boundaries between national security and plain old law enforcement have gotten extremely blurry.
To me, it makes practical sense to use limited military force – like a SEAL team – to capture or kill a guy like bin Laden. The problem is that the legalities are not crisp.
Are we obliged to notify Pakistan?
Are we obliged to attempt live capture, or can we simply shoot the guy?
If this was a clear case of a state aggressor, there wouldn’t be a question of legitimacy. It’s a war, you use military tactics.
If bin Laden was a bank robber, it would be obviously insane overkill to send SEAL teams after him, let alone a B-52.
Bin Laden is neither, and I don’t think we have an adequate legal infrastructure for dealing with guys like him.
And as a result, the existing legal infrastructure is compromised and undermined in the name of “national security”.
I think you have assumed the conclusion here (or at least part of it), i.e., that we have some how already reliably identified the “folks whose activites are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors,”
I’m not talking about Gitmo, which I think is a different kettle of fish. Gitmo was basically created to avoid the legal requirements for handling prisoners, of whatever type. I’m not recommending that.
To be honest, I think that the attempt to deal with folks like bin Laden in purely criminal terms has actually ended up undermining the civil rights of people who are actually just criminals.
The boundaries between national security and plain old law enforcement have gotten extremely blurry.
To me, it makes practical sense to use limited military force – like a SEAL team – to capture or kill a guy like bin Laden. The problem is that the legalities are not crisp.
Are we obliged to notify Pakistan?
Are we obliged to attempt live capture, or can we simply shoot the guy?
If this was a clear case of a state aggressor, there wouldn’t be a question of legitimacy. It’s a war, you use military tactics.
If bin Laden was a bank robber, it would be obviously insane overkill to send SEAL teams after him, let alone a B-52.
Bin Laden is neither, and I don’t think we have an adequate legal infrastructure for dealing with guys like him.
And as a result, the existing legal infrastructure is compromised and undermined in the name of “national security”.
russell – I’m not so sure it’s that hard to distinguish here. I think the problem is that the Bush administration wanted to treat their actions like we were involved in a full blown war when it was to their advantage, e.g., when the laws of war give them certain privileges (like to kill combatants), but then wanted to wholly or partially dispense with the notion when it was to their disadvantage.
The point Joseph Margulies makes in his book on Guantanomo over and over is that the Bush administration was happy to accept the rights and freedom of action of “war” without accepting any of the responsibilities or limitations. A particularly awful case of hypocrisy and having it both ways.
Maybe if we were starting from scratch and dealing with thoughtful and responsible political leaders there might be some sort of room for a “third category.” But instead we are where we are and had the Bush Administration at the start (with the Obama Administration only distinguishing itself on these issues when compared to Bush’s).
As to how we should have dealt with OBL, from the beginning and now, well, I think the Bush Administration started off on the right foot. IIRC they fingered OBL and his compatriots as the responsible party for 9/11 and demanded the Taliban hand them over. When the Taliban refused we went to war to get bin Laden. I think that’s how it’s supposed to work. They also worked with, e.g., foreign gov’ts and intelligence agencies to track down other conspirators including KSM. That’s also how it’s supposed to work.
As to now, IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind. What other int’l legal obligations we may have violated I don’t know, but I believe SCOTUS has sanctioned kidnapping foreign nationals for law enforcement purposes, so it’s potentially legal under U.S. law, assuming we went in intending to capture him and were unable to do so.
Anyway, not sure any of that helps much in this discussion, just some random thoughts on why I don’t think we need to start creating special other categories of persons.
russell – I’m not so sure it’s that hard to distinguish here. I think the problem is that the Bush administration wanted to treat their actions like we were involved in a full blown war when it was to their advantage, e.g., when the laws of war give them certain privileges (like to kill combatants), but then wanted to wholly or partially dispense with the notion when it was to their disadvantage.
The point Joseph Margulies makes in his book on Guantanomo over and over is that the Bush administration was happy to accept the rights and freedom of action of “war” without accepting any of the responsibilities or limitations. A particularly awful case of hypocrisy and having it both ways.
Maybe if we were starting from scratch and dealing with thoughtful and responsible political leaders there might be some sort of room for a “third category.” But instead we are where we are and had the Bush Administration at the start (with the Obama Administration only distinguishing itself on these issues when compared to Bush’s).
As to how we should have dealt with OBL, from the beginning and now, well, I think the Bush Administration started off on the right foot. IIRC they fingered OBL and his compatriots as the responsible party for 9/11 and demanded the Taliban hand them over. When the Taliban refused we went to war to get bin Laden. I think that’s how it’s supposed to work. They also worked with, e.g., foreign gov’ts and intelligence agencies to track down other conspirators including KSM. That’s also how it’s supposed to work.
As to now, IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind. What other int’l legal obligations we may have violated I don’t know, but I believe SCOTUS has sanctioned kidnapping foreign nationals for law enforcement purposes, so it’s potentially legal under U.S. law, assuming we went in intending to capture him and were unable to do so.
Anyway, not sure any of that helps much in this discussion, just some random thoughts on why I don’t think we need to start creating special other categories of persons.
I guess my original point is the meaninglessness of McTex original comment, that getting shot is “what happens” when you kill 3000 people. No, clearly not.
Well, surely not totally meaningless . . . maybe I should have said “That is one of the things that can happen to someone who murders 3000 people.” Or, “that’s a risk one assumes when he orders the death 3000 innocents in another country.”
But, really, I think I was clear enough. You order 3000 people killed in that or a similar fashion, you pretty much seal your own fate, save that should you surrender, you’d probably get a trial and a lethal injection instead of a bullet.
That said, I agree with Russell’s last two comments as well.
I guess my original point is the meaninglessness of McTex original comment, that getting shot is “what happens” when you kill 3000 people. No, clearly not.
Well, surely not totally meaningless . . . maybe I should have said “That is one of the things that can happen to someone who murders 3000 people.” Or, “that’s a risk one assumes when he orders the death 3000 innocents in another country.”
But, really, I think I was clear enough. You order 3000 people killed in that or a similar fashion, you pretty much seal your own fate, save that should you surrender, you’d probably get a trial and a lethal injection instead of a bullet.
That said, I agree with Russell’s last two comments as well.
I buy that.
OTOH I’m not at all buying the idea that bin Laden existed cheek-by-jowl for freakin’ years with Pakistan’s military academy without anyone at any level of government having a clue. Where I expected bin Laden to be hiding undetected was somewhere in BFE Waziristan. That he lived where he did for so long is…well, it’s really a head-scratcher.
I could be wrong about that, but I’m not in the decision loop.
For which you can all be thankful.
I buy that.
OTOH I’m not at all buying the idea that bin Laden existed cheek-by-jowl for freakin’ years with Pakistan’s military academy without anyone at any level of government having a clue. Where I expected bin Laden to be hiding undetected was somewhere in BFE Waziristan. That he lived where he did for so long is…well, it’s really a head-scratcher.
I could be wrong about that, but I’m not in the decision loop.
For which you can all be thankful.
IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind.
Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace. I share Slarti’s lack of confidence in our Pakistani allies.
IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind.
Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace. I share Slarti’s lack of confidence in our Pakistani allies.
Yes. Particularly seeing how nice we’ve been to them.
Yes. Particularly seeing how nice we’ve been to them.
I lacked the energy to follow the OBL dead news, and as a result, am picking thru google results, so I may have missed any number of things, but the Pakistan-US thing is something that really caught my attention. Given that we used a stealth heli, some are suggesting that there was little Pakistani cooperation, which seems to underlie the initial Pakistani reaction, though there is some pushback to that view. At the very least, it adds a layer of complexity to the ‘why didn’t we take him alive’ debate. Maybe I’ve watched too many Tarentino flicks, but you imagine one of those scenarios where Pakistan demands the prisoner, but is more than happy to have everyone killed so they can assert their sovereignty. It is also going to be interesting if talk of information taken in the raid, such as computer hard drives and stuff, is going to be revealing. So I, like Slart, am happy I’m not in that decision loop.
I lacked the energy to follow the OBL dead news, and as a result, am picking thru google results, so I may have missed any number of things, but the Pakistan-US thing is something that really caught my attention. Given that we used a stealth heli, some are suggesting that there was little Pakistani cooperation, which seems to underlie the initial Pakistani reaction, though there is some pushback to that view. At the very least, it adds a layer of complexity to the ‘why didn’t we take him alive’ debate. Maybe I’ve watched too many Tarentino flicks, but you imagine one of those scenarios where Pakistan demands the prisoner, but is more than happy to have everyone killed so they can assert their sovereignty. It is also going to be interesting if talk of information taken in the raid, such as computer hard drives and stuff, is going to be revealing. So I, like Slart, am happy I’m not in that decision loop.
I think the problem is that the Bush administration wanted to treat their actions like we were involved in a full blown war when it was to their advantage, e.g., when the laws of war give them certain privileges (like to kill combatants), but then wanted to wholly or partially dispense with the notion when it was to their disadvantage.
I agree 100% with this analysis.
Maybe if we were starting from scratch and dealing with thoughtful and responsible political leaders there might be some sort of room for a “third category.”
I guess what I’m arguing for is that we now revisit a lot of the Bush-era crap and provide some legal direction. Not from the executive OLC but from Congress, the law making branch of government, and the courts, the law-interpreting branch.
And actually “arguing for” is probably too strong. All I’m saying is that it’s something we need. I’m not sure it’s politically even feasible, IMO we’re still in “OMG terrorist!!” mode.
We don’t have a way to address guys like bin Laden that is both effective and legally well defined. It would be good if we did.
That’s pretty much the extent of my point.
As to now, IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind.
I think this is also correct. And it’s only the most recent example.
But I think it’s also clear that we did not and do not intend to actually initiate a shooting war with Pakistan.
IMO it’s equally clear that significant players in Pakistani government and military have given support to folks who are our clear and immediate enemies. So, no clean hands.
I don’t think Pakistan will go to war with us over this. Basically, we could get away with it, so we did.
I think the problem is that the Bush administration wanted to treat their actions like we were involved in a full blown war when it was to their advantage, e.g., when the laws of war give them certain privileges (like to kill combatants), but then wanted to wholly or partially dispense with the notion when it was to their disadvantage.
I agree 100% with this analysis.
Maybe if we were starting from scratch and dealing with thoughtful and responsible political leaders there might be some sort of room for a “third category.”
I guess what I’m arguing for is that we now revisit a lot of the Bush-era crap and provide some legal direction. Not from the executive OLC but from Congress, the law making branch of government, and the courts, the law-interpreting branch.
And actually “arguing for” is probably too strong. All I’m saying is that it’s something we need. I’m not sure it’s politically even feasible, IMO we’re still in “OMG terrorist!!” mode.
We don’t have a way to address guys like bin Laden that is both effective and legally well defined. It would be good if we did.
That’s pretty much the extent of my point.
As to now, IIRC what we did in the Seal raid was essentially an act of war against Pakistan, to which they could respond in kind.
I think this is also correct. And it’s only the most recent example.
But I think it’s also clear that we did not and do not intend to actually initiate a shooting war with Pakistan.
IMO it’s equally clear that significant players in Pakistani government and military have given support to folks who are our clear and immediate enemies. So, no clean hands.
I don’t think Pakistan will go to war with us over this. Basically, we could get away with it, so we did.
“But all of that aside, I don’t know that Congress can micromanage Gitmo’s budget to the point where they cannot transfer even one prisoner from Gitmo to e.g. Eglin.”
Um, by passing a law. Which they did. You know, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by” laws? “He shall take care that … be faithfully executed.” laws?
I know we’re getting increasingly used to living in a functional dictatorship, but Presidents are, theoretically, bound to obey the law.
“But all of that aside, I don’t know that Congress can micromanage Gitmo’s budget to the point where they cannot transfer even one prisoner from Gitmo to e.g. Eglin.”
Um, by passing a law. Which they did. You know, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by” laws? “He shall take care that … be faithfully executed.” laws?
I know we’re getting increasingly used to living in a functional dictatorship, but Presidents are, theoretically, bound to obey the law.
We don’t have a way to address guys like bin Laden that is both effective and legally well defined. It would be good if we did.
When a nation-state declares war, does it HAVE to be against another nation-state? Or can a nation-state “legally” declare war against a non-state actor who has declared war against it?
I know next to nothing about the history of, or the legal doctrines surrounding, the old-time high-seas pirates. But I have the impression that they were in some respects like bin Laden: non-state actors waging war against nation-states. Maybe there’s some legal precedents to be found there.
–TP
We don’t have a way to address guys like bin Laden that is both effective and legally well defined. It would be good if we did.
When a nation-state declares war, does it HAVE to be against another nation-state? Or can a nation-state “legally” declare war against a non-state actor who has declared war against it?
I know next to nothing about the history of, or the legal doctrines surrounding, the old-time high-seas pirates. But I have the impression that they were in some respects like bin Laden: non-state actors waging war against nation-states. Maybe there’s some legal precedents to be found there.
–TP
My own self-taught take on this is that no, a nation-state cannot ‘declare war’ on a non nation state. The basic notion is that the person’s government defends that person, but also has the right to prosecute that person, which is why you get that boilerplate on a lot of passports. This is why you have a notion of extradition and treaties have to be agreed to in order to sort that stuff out. In fact, this was a motivating grievance for Meiji era Japan, in that the treaties made with the Western powers specifically prevented Japan from prosecuting foreign nationals who misbehaved on japanese soil because they did not have a legal system in the Western sense. This led to a lot of interesting decision making as to what was the best way to cobble together a legal system from scratch (and also explains why there are oodles of law graduates, but so few lawyers in Japan, short explanation, law schools were set up to train administrators rather than lawyers)
As for the pirate=terrorist equation, there was a lot of discussion about that on various lists. This pdf link is to a forthcoming book on the subject, so I hope that gives an entry to the subject. There was also a spin off of a lot of economic analyses of pirates and this Freakonomics post has some links to follow that up. Hope that is of interest.
My own self-taught take on this is that no, a nation-state cannot ‘declare war’ on a non nation state. The basic notion is that the person’s government defends that person, but also has the right to prosecute that person, which is why you get that boilerplate on a lot of passports. This is why you have a notion of extradition and treaties have to be agreed to in order to sort that stuff out. In fact, this was a motivating grievance for Meiji era Japan, in that the treaties made with the Western powers specifically prevented Japan from prosecuting foreign nationals who misbehaved on japanese soil because they did not have a legal system in the Western sense. This led to a lot of interesting decision making as to what was the best way to cobble together a legal system from scratch (and also explains why there are oodles of law graduates, but so few lawyers in Japan, short explanation, law schools were set up to train administrators rather than lawyers)
As for the pirate=terrorist equation, there was a lot of discussion about that on various lists. This pdf link is to a forthcoming book on the subject, so I hope that gives an entry to the subject. There was also a spin off of a lot of economic analyses of pirates and this Freakonomics post has some links to follow that up. Hope that is of interest.
When a nation-state declares war, does it HAVE to be against another nation-state? Or can a nation-state “legally” declare war against a non-state actor who has declared war against it?
As I understand it, international law doesn’t much care about “declarations of war” per se. It regulates actual conflict. In part, this is to ensure that states can’t escape the obligations of international law when invading another state if they don’t bother with a declaration. What matters is what you do, not what you say.
In that light, “declaring war” on a non-state actor is a bit pointless. I guess you can do it but it doesn’t mean anything. What matters is what you do. Killing members of said group in your own country? Tis as legal as you want it to be. Killing them in another country that doesn’t object? No problem. Killing them in another country that does object? Problem. Is that an act of war? It is if the other country says it is.
I think the term international law leads people to think that there exists a unified coherent legal system for nations from which you can draw conclusions in advance. Its not really like that. International law boils down to a bunch of ad-hoc rules that allow states to resolve conflicts or claim rights under certain circumstances. If Pakistan doesn’t complain about our killing OBL, then as far as international law is concerned, there’s no problem.
But I have the impression that they were in some respects like bin Laden: non-state actors waging war against nation-states. Maybe there’s some legal precedents to be found there.
I think piracy tends to muddy the waters. There are parallels, but international waters don’t fall under the sovereignty of any state. You can argue that about Afghanistan or the North West Frontier Provinces, but I don’t think that would fly and I’m fairly certain that the US government is not willing to make such claims publicly.
When a nation-state declares war, does it HAVE to be against another nation-state? Or can a nation-state “legally” declare war against a non-state actor who has declared war against it?
As I understand it, international law doesn’t much care about “declarations of war” per se. It regulates actual conflict. In part, this is to ensure that states can’t escape the obligations of international law when invading another state if they don’t bother with a declaration. What matters is what you do, not what you say.
In that light, “declaring war” on a non-state actor is a bit pointless. I guess you can do it but it doesn’t mean anything. What matters is what you do. Killing members of said group in your own country? Tis as legal as you want it to be. Killing them in another country that doesn’t object? No problem. Killing them in another country that does object? Problem. Is that an act of war? It is if the other country says it is.
I think the term international law leads people to think that there exists a unified coherent legal system for nations from which you can draw conclusions in advance. Its not really like that. International law boils down to a bunch of ad-hoc rules that allow states to resolve conflicts or claim rights under certain circumstances. If Pakistan doesn’t complain about our killing OBL, then as far as international law is concerned, there’s no problem.
But I have the impression that they were in some respects like bin Laden: non-state actors waging war against nation-states. Maybe there’s some legal precedents to be found there.
I think piracy tends to muddy the waters. There are parallels, but international waters don’t fall under the sovereignty of any state. You can argue that about Afghanistan or the North West Frontier Provinces, but I don’t think that would fly and I’m fairly certain that the US government is not willing to make such claims publicly.
By the way, I had dinner last night with two (low-ranking) Pakistani government officials. It turns out that the State Dept is running an exchange program where government officials from Pakistan are coming over to the US to learn and observe from their counterparts here. One of my friends works in a nearby municipal government and was responsible for shepherding these two gentlemen around, so I got to have dinner with them in a nice Afghani restaurant.
One gentleman was stationed in Balochistan and the other in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. They both emphasized that we really don’t know if the Pakistani government knew about OBL’s presence and that if the US did inform them before the mission, they probably would not be able to admit that publicly for domestic political reasons.
Also, they were appalled at how stupid our newscasters are. It really shocked them.
By the way, I had dinner last night with two (low-ranking) Pakistani government officials. It turns out that the State Dept is running an exchange program where government officials from Pakistan are coming over to the US to learn and observe from their counterparts here. One of my friends works in a nearby municipal government and was responsible for shepherding these two gentlemen around, so I got to have dinner with them in a nice Afghani restaurant.
One gentleman was stationed in Balochistan and the other in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. They both emphasized that we really don’t know if the Pakistani government knew about OBL’s presence and that if the US did inform them before the mission, they probably would not be able to admit that publicly for domestic political reasons.
Also, they were appalled at how stupid our newscasters are. It really shocked them.
russell: I guess what I’m arguing for is that we now revisit a lot of the Bush-era crap and provide some legal direction. Not from the executive OLC but from Congress, the law making branch of government, and the courts, the law-interpreting branch.
I don’t think I’d have a problem with that, in theory. But alot of the Bush-era crap involved dubious (or beyond dubious) legal theories internally asserted by the executive, claiming things were unclear when they weren’t, etc. Basically, my impression (I’m no expert) was that there was a system set up to deal with guys like OBL and Bush et. al. jettisoned it in favor of their pet POTUS uber alles worldview (this from the “small gov’t conservative” party in this country). That said, not sure how you design a system to prevent it from being abused by sociopaths working from the inside.
I don’t think Pakistan will go to war with us over this. Basically, we could get away with it, so we did.
Yep. We sure are putting a lot of eggs in the “we’ll always be the big kid on the block so fnck all y’all” basket. Probably was in no small part a motivation for folks inside the Bush administration too, externally and domestically.
McTX: Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace. I share Slarti’s lack of confidence in our Pakistani allies.
Well we’re presuming that the Pakistani gov’t is in control of the country the way the Federal and State gov’ts are in the U.S., but I don’t think I disagree here.
Here’s a question for people generally (if anyone cares), suppose the current Iraqi gov’t raided the current GWB residence in exactly the same manner that we did with OBL and obtained the same result, their justification being he was responsible for the Iraq war and thus the associated, er, damage, what should the US response be? Does the average Iraqi look at Bush the same way the average American viewed Bin Laden?
russell: I guess what I’m arguing for is that we now revisit a lot of the Bush-era crap and provide some legal direction. Not from the executive OLC but from Congress, the law making branch of government, and the courts, the law-interpreting branch.
I don’t think I’d have a problem with that, in theory. But alot of the Bush-era crap involved dubious (or beyond dubious) legal theories internally asserted by the executive, claiming things were unclear when they weren’t, etc. Basically, my impression (I’m no expert) was that there was a system set up to deal with guys like OBL and Bush et. al. jettisoned it in favor of their pet POTUS uber alles worldview (this from the “small gov’t conservative” party in this country). That said, not sure how you design a system to prevent it from being abused by sociopaths working from the inside.
I don’t think Pakistan will go to war with us over this. Basically, we could get away with it, so we did.
Yep. We sure are putting a lot of eggs in the “we’ll always be the big kid on the block so fnck all y’all” basket. Probably was in no small part a motivation for folks inside the Bush administration too, externally and domestically.
McTX: Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace. I share Slarti’s lack of confidence in our Pakistani allies.
Well we’re presuming that the Pakistani gov’t is in control of the country the way the Federal and State gov’ts are in the U.S., but I don’t think I disagree here.
Here’s a question for people generally (if anyone cares), suppose the current Iraqi gov’t raided the current GWB residence in exactly the same manner that we did with OBL and obtained the same result, their justification being he was responsible for the Iraq war and thus the associated, er, damage, what should the US response be? Does the average Iraqi look at Bush the same way the average American viewed Bin Laden?
Also, they were appalled at how stupid our newscasters are. It really shocked them.
What? Don’t they understand that the job of newscasters is to be pretty, and the weatherpersons jolly? Primitives.
Also, they were appalled at how stupid our newscasters are. It really shocked them.
What? Don’t they understand that the job of newscasters is to be pretty, and the weatherpersons jolly? Primitives.
Money is already available for the general transfer of prisoners. There isn’t a bill that has to get passed every time any of the military bases does a prisoner transport.
So: fail. I mean, it may very well be that all of the budget for a given year would be eaten up very quickly, but there’s absolutely nothing that I can think of that could prevent one, two, half a dozen or more prisoners from being transferred from one military base to another. Transportation cost is essentially nil, because there are planes going that way a few times a week.
Or I could be wrong, somehow. If so, some more specifics than the old (in essence) unconstitutional assertion would be useful, Brett.
Money is already available for the general transfer of prisoners. There isn’t a bill that has to get passed every time any of the military bases does a prisoner transport.
So: fail. I mean, it may very well be that all of the budget for a given year would be eaten up very quickly, but there’s absolutely nothing that I can think of that could prevent one, two, half a dozen or more prisoners from being transferred from one military base to another. Transportation cost is essentially nil, because there are planes going that way a few times a week.
Or I could be wrong, somehow. If so, some more specifics than the old (in essence) unconstitutional assertion would be useful, Brett.
The last fr’instance by Ugh raises in my mind an interesting question. Iraqis raiding the US to kill GWB doesn’t work as a parallel, because he’s one of us, even if we don’t like him. That’s an act of war, IMHO. But what if someone had come into the US to assassinate one of the (ex)-dictators we harbored: Marcos, the Shah, etc.? Certainly an unfriendly act, and one that we would rightly take umbrage at, but is it as clearly an Act of War? I tend to think not.
The last fr’instance by Ugh raises in my mind an interesting question. Iraqis raiding the US to kill GWB doesn’t work as a parallel, because he’s one of us, even if we don’t like him. That’s an act of war, IMHO. But what if someone had come into the US to assassinate one of the (ex)-dictators we harbored: Marcos, the Shah, etc.? Certainly an unfriendly act, and one that we would rightly take umbrage at, but is it as clearly an Act of War? I tend to think not.
Obviously not a complete parallel, but assassinations by foreign powers have occurred on US soil and little has been done.
Obviously not a complete parallel, but assassinations by foreign powers have occurred on US soil and little has been done.
Slart, I cited TWO, count ’em, TWO, constitutional provisions which are relevant, and each entirely sufficient for a law abiding executive.
Article 1, section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”
If the appropriations bill specifically says that the money shall NOT be spent for a particular purpose, then any spending by the federal government for that purpose would violate this clause.
Then in Section 3, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
You can’t faithfully execute laws by VIOLATING THEM.
Understand that we have a constitution which was designed for legislative supremacy, not executive. While the legislature is lazy enough to let the executive grab a lot of power, constitutionally speaking it’s still the case that the executive is under the legislature’s thumb, not the other way around.
Slart, I cited TWO, count ’em, TWO, constitutional provisions which are relevant, and each entirely sufficient for a law abiding executive.
Article 1, section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”
If the appropriations bill specifically says that the money shall NOT be spent for a particular purpose, then any spending by the federal government for that purpose would violate this clause.
Then in Section 3, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
You can’t faithfully execute laws by VIOLATING THEM.
Understand that we have a constitution which was designed for legislative supremacy, not executive. While the legislature is lazy enough to let the executive grab a lot of power, constitutionally speaking it’s still the case that the executive is under the legislature’s thumb, not the other way around.
Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace.
Hypothetically speaking, what if bin Laden had turned up in, say, Switzerland?
Well, it’s a bit of the cart before the horse: allowing OBL a safe harbor is not an act of peace.
Hypothetically speaking, what if bin Laden had turned up in, say, Switzerland?
Or to broaden the hypothetical, a western country with whom we do not have an extradition treaty. Russia? The Vatican? Would we then be arguably at war with the Vatican?
Gosh, this gets a lot more complex when you imagine it happening somewhere other than some country who we can easily kick around and whose politics we are largely indifferent to.
Or to broaden the hypothetical, a western country with whom we do not have an extradition treaty. Russia? The Vatican? Would we then be arguably at war with the Vatican?
Gosh, this gets a lot more complex when you imagine it happening somewhere other than some country who we can easily kick around and whose politics we are largely indifferent to.
dr ngo: Iraqis raiding the US to kill GWB doesn’t work as a parallel, because he’s one of us, even if we don’t like him. That’s an act of war, IMHO.
That’s fair, of course. It just occurred to me that if such a thing were to occur, could we really blame them?
I guess I’m also still musing on McKinney’s statement about killing 3000 people, now modified, and to what extent we can distinguish Bush and the Iraq War from OBL in terms of whose life should be forfeit for doing what.
dr ngo: Iraqis raiding the US to kill GWB doesn’t work as a parallel, because he’s one of us, even if we don’t like him. That’s an act of war, IMHO.
That’s fair, of course. It just occurred to me that if such a thing were to occur, could we really blame them?
I guess I’m also still musing on McKinney’s statement about killing 3000 people, now modified, and to what extent we can distinguish Bush and the Iraq War from OBL in terms of whose life should be forfeit for doing what.
On the “no funding for transferring Gittmo prisoners to the US” issue, I tend to think Brett is correct, in that Congress, if it tries hard enough, could prevent that via the spending power. Whether they’ve done that in this case is a separate question (IIRC they limited the prohibition on funds for transfers to the Defense Department budget, thus, e.g., the Justice Department could transport the prisoners).
On the “no funding for transferring Gittmo prisoners to the US” issue, I tend to think Brett is correct, in that Congress, if it tries hard enough, could prevent that via the spending power. Whether they’ve done that in this case is a separate question (IIRC they limited the prohibition on funds for transfers to the Defense Department budget, thus, e.g., the Justice Department could transport the prisoners).
The technical term for that third category would traditionally be hostis humani generis. Yoo the Infamous actually argued along that line if the wikipedia entry is correct.
The main difference between private pirates and international terrorists is from my point of view that the former are in it for the profit, the latter for ideological reasons (with fuzzy edges of course).
In case of doubt the ‘third category’ should be constructed within criminal statutes. For example Germany has a specific law making ‘membership in a terrorist organisation’ a punishable offence. The organisation has to be (afaik) officially designated as such before the law can be applied. Iirc the courts had to step in on some occasions (and did) where the state tried to charge someone with this, although the membership preceded the designation.
The technical term for that third category would traditionally be hostis humani generis. Yoo the Infamous actually argued along that line if the wikipedia entry is correct.
The main difference between private pirates and international terrorists is from my point of view that the former are in it for the profit, the latter for ideological reasons (with fuzzy edges of course).
In case of doubt the ‘third category’ should be constructed within criminal statutes. For example Germany has a specific law making ‘membership in a terrorist organisation’ a punishable offence. The organisation has to be (afaik) officially designated as such before the law can be applied. Iirc the courts had to step in on some occasions (and did) where the state tried to charge someone with this, although the membership preceded the designation.
War is politics (by other means). Pakistan could consider what we did an act of war, but, politically, they don’t have to. When someone comes onto your soil and assassinates your former president, politically, you don’t have much choice but to consider that an act of war.
I don’t see this as being so hard to figure out, and I really can’t disagree with Phil, but, frankly, I don’t think Pakistan and Switzerland are equivalent, so I’m okay with less respect for Pakistan.
We wanted bin Laden, dead or alive. The circumstances, as they were, allowed us to get him, as it turns out, dead.
We still don’t know what (at least someone of high rank in) Pakistan knew about the plan or what approval we received. But even if there was no Pakistani knowledge or approval, under the circumstances, I don’t care.
I wouldn’t trust Pakistan’s cluster of a government to keep a secret. I would trust Switzerland’s. I also can’t imagine bin Laden living an hour’s drive outside of Zurich next to their largest military academy (hypothetically – I have no idea if they have one near Zurich) for five years, particularly supposing Swiss intelligence had the sort of contact with the Afghan populace that the ISI did.
Now the Vatican, they can kiss my a$$. 😉
War is politics (by other means). Pakistan could consider what we did an act of war, but, politically, they don’t have to. When someone comes onto your soil and assassinates your former president, politically, you don’t have much choice but to consider that an act of war.
I don’t see this as being so hard to figure out, and I really can’t disagree with Phil, but, frankly, I don’t think Pakistan and Switzerland are equivalent, so I’m okay with less respect for Pakistan.
We wanted bin Laden, dead or alive. The circumstances, as they were, allowed us to get him, as it turns out, dead.
We still don’t know what (at least someone of high rank in) Pakistan knew about the plan or what approval we received. But even if there was no Pakistani knowledge or approval, under the circumstances, I don’t care.
I wouldn’t trust Pakistan’s cluster of a government to keep a secret. I would trust Switzerland’s. I also can’t imagine bin Laden living an hour’s drive outside of Zurich next to their largest military academy (hypothetically – I have no idea if they have one near Zurich) for five years, particularly supposing Swiss intelligence had the sort of contact with the Afghan populace that the ISI did.
Now the Vatican, they can kiss my a$$. 😉
Of course bin Laden would have had more difficulty blending in in Switzerland. I doubt he could have passed as an Almöhi.
Of course bin Laden would have had more difficulty blending in in Switzerland. I doubt he could have passed as an Almöhi.
Brett, you’re right.
The bill says:
Among other things.
So, my above statement is retracted. I’d initially read this as refusal to fund specific transfers, but on re-read it’s a blanket prohibition on transferring prisoners.
Plus there’s lots of other things in there of the TL;DR variety that probably emplace other kinds of prohibitions on prisoner transfer or release.
Funny: this bill was signed into law by President Obama, and 187 Democrats voted for it. Not sure what to make of that, honestly.
Brett, you’re right.
The bill says:
Among other things.
So, my above statement is retracted. I’d initially read this as refusal to fund specific transfers, but on re-read it’s a blanket prohibition on transferring prisoners.
Plus there’s lots of other things in there of the TL;DR variety that probably emplace other kinds of prohibitions on prisoner transfer or release.
Funny: this bill was signed into law by President Obama, and 187 Democrats voted for it. Not sure what to make of that, honestly.
IIRC, a lot of Dems share the keep-em-in-Cuba demagogue/phobia/stupidity.
IIRC, a lot of Dems share the keep-em-in-Cuba demagogue/phobia/stupidity.
“IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.”
This isn’t a high priority for me (not that my priorities matter). I’d rather see the existing rules of war be applied to state actors in some sort of consistent fashion.
It won’t happen, and that’s why I look at the happiness over bin Laden’s death with a certain degree of cynicism. Bin Laden is no different from the sort of people we’ve supported and lionized–Jonas Savimbi comes to mind. Plus there are a few American politicians (and not just Republican) who ought to have their Nuremberg trials.
“IMO what is needed at this point is some legal consideration of how to handle folks whose activities are not merely criminal, but are in fact indistinguishable from warfare, but who are not state actors and so are outside the existing rules of war.”
This isn’t a high priority for me (not that my priorities matter). I’d rather see the existing rules of war be applied to state actors in some sort of consistent fashion.
It won’t happen, and that’s why I look at the happiness over bin Laden’s death with a certain degree of cynicism. Bin Laden is no different from the sort of people we’ve supported and lionized–Jonas Savimbi comes to mind. Plus there are a few American politicians (and not just Republican) who ought to have their Nuremberg trials.
@Donald Johnson:
Strongly agree about the unexceptional nature of bin Laden, contra those stating that his case was just so unique and requires a re-writing (or ad hoc ignoring) of existing law for it to be even conceivable to handle. It’s yet still more American exceptionalism, in all its traditional majestic ugliness. 9-11 changed very, very little, as reluctant as some of us still might be to admit…
@Donald Johnson:
Strongly agree about the unexceptional nature of bin Laden, contra those stating that his case was just so unique and requires a re-writing (or ad hoc ignoring) of existing law for it to be even conceivable to handle. It’s yet still more American exceptionalism, in all its traditional majestic ugliness. 9-11 changed very, very little, as reluctant as some of us still might be to admit…