Obama gave orders to kill, not capture, Bin Ladin

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Obama gave orders to kill, not capture, Bin Ladin
23
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 4:56pm

I know a lot of people (myself included) are happy that Bin Ladin is no more.

There is a disturbing article from Reuters that the goal was to kill, not capture Bin Ladin. I'm not certain, but believe this is an extra judicial assassination. Either an assassination or a war crime, take your pick. I know many were not happy when Bush was invading Iraq. I'm uncertain if our President, on his own authority, can or should ever order a summary execution of an individual. It is doubtful Bin Ladin would surrender, and it is for the best that he is gone. However, establishing a doctrine that a President can kill someone via our military without any judicial or other process (than his own judgment) seems dangerous to me.

My concern is Obama may be targeting and killing people, who could be taken alive for trail and debriefing. IF Obama is killing people to avoid repopulating Gitmo, I believe we have a war crime. If not, then it may just be a debate about what is a war crime. I know when Bush targeted people, many news stories were published about armed drone use as being a war crime.

The story is here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502


(Reuters) - The U.S. special forces team that hunted down Osama bin Laden was under orders to kill the al Qaeda mastermind, not capture him, a U.S. national security official told Reuters.

"This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.


Regardless of the figures used, the case that extrajudicial killings are justified is extremely weak, and the number of civilian casualties is far too high to justify their continued use.

A further twist to the Obama Doctrine is the breaking of a taboo that the Bush administration balked at – the concept of treating US citizens outside of the US constitutional process. During the Bush era, the treatment of detainees such as John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla showed reluctance by officials to treat their own nationals in the way it had all those of other nationalities (by, for instance, sending them to Guantánamo Bay and other secret prisons). The policy of discrimination reserved for US citizens showed that there was a line the US was not willing to cross.

At least, today, we can strike discrimination off the list of grievances against the current president. The National Security Council of the US has now given specific permission to the CIA to target certain US citizens as part of counter-terrorism operations. Specifically, Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out for such treatment, as it has been claimed that he was directly involved in the planning of the Major Hasan Nidal killings and the Christmas Day bomber attacks. Indeed, it is claims such as this that bring the entire concept of targeted assassinations into question. The US would like us to believe that we should simply trust that they have the relevant evidence and information to justify such a killing, without bringing the individual to account before a court.

The assumption that trust should be extended to a government that has involved itself in innumerable unlawful and unconscionable practices since the start of the war on terror is too much to ask. Whatever goodwill the US government had after 9/11 was destroyed by the way in which it prosecuted its wars. Further, the hope that came with the election of Barack Obama has faded as his policies have indicated nothing more than a reconfiguration of the basic tenet of the Bush Doctrine – that the US's national security interests supersede any consideration of due process or the rule of law. The only difference – witness the rising civilian body count from drone attacks – being that Obama's doctrine is even more deadly.

Another discussion contrasting Bush and Obama doctrines is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/11/obama-national-security-drone-guantanamo

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 6:04pm

A bit late to be worried!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 7:33pm
I don't know if it is a good idea to allow a single man to have the power to kill another without any accountability of process. Aren't we fighting people who do this?

Additionally, there are stories now that the name of the courier who was the beard for OBL was obtained via the waterboarding of KSM. This means that waterboarding obtained viable, actionable, good intelligence. Intelligence that lead to us eventually locating OBL.

I read for so many years, on so many progressive blogs and news sites that waterboarding doesn't work. All those who said it doesn't were wrong. It did.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 7:37pm
Where'd you hear that this info came from waterboarding of KSM?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 8:16pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 8:26pm

I don't get how they are making the leap that waterboarding KSM got them the courier's name since they didn't discover the courier's name until four years ago, which was after waterboarding was stopped.

Additionally, Rumsfeld came out and said that no enhanced interrogation techniques were used to obtain that info.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-gitmo-waterboarding-osamabinladen/2011/05/02/id/394820?s=al&promo_code=C30F-1

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 9:20pm
jabberwocka wrote:

(snip)

OBL's death, if it truly took place, rids the world of one of its greatest scumbags.



Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 9:51pm

Osama went down firing his gun, so it's not like he surrendered peacefully, and we executed him.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 10:45pm
At the gut level that doesn't give a tinker's damn about law, logic, or the innate negative nature of revenge, it really doesn't matter to me whether he died with guns blazing. He's gone (hopefully). Good riddance to bad rubbish. Even if it was an execution, one cannot argue that Bin Ladin was anybody's innocent victim.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 11:11pm

Uh......are you saying that assassination is bad but torture is OK?

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Tue, 05-03-2011 - 12:50pm
And, from what I've heard, he used one of his wives as a shield & she died too.

 nwtreehugger  

Pages