Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6709)

Bloggingheads 05-05-2011 11:29 PM

Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 

uncle ebeneezer 05-05-2011 11:40 PM

Re: Deja Vu?
 
From the old Axis of Evil Days??? Don't worry David. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld made the same mistake ;)

Diane1976 05-05-2011 11:43 PM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
I just started listening. Glenn isn't the only person on the planet who isn't overjoyed that OBL was killed. There's at least one other, me. I don't feel overjoyed by anybody dying.

For me it's not about legality, though. I'm personally happy that he was killed on the spot rather than being put through the ludicrous US "justice" system. And, unlike Glenn, I don't really care about how it looks. I'm sick of "show trials" in some effort to make it all look better.

Why is David thinking we're obligated to feel happy or else there's something wrong with us. He can feel happy if he wants.

I think it's tragic that OBL misguidedly went the way he did in his life, caused all the misery he did, and ended the way he did, except his ending was better than any alternative I can think of. It's not something to feel happy about.

hamandcheese 05-05-2011 11:55 PM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

operative 05-05-2011 11:57 PM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207604)
I just started listening. Glenn isn't the only person on the planet who isn't overjoyed that OBL was killed. There's at least one other, me. I don't feel overjoyed by anybody dying.

For me it's not about legality, though. I'm personally happy that he was killed on the spot rather than being put through the ludicrous US "justice" system. And, unlike Glenn, I don't really care about how it looks. I'm sick of "show trials" in some effort to make it all look better.

Why is David thinking we're obligated to feel happy or else there's something wrong with us. He can feel happy if he wants.

I think it's tragic that OBL misguidedly went the way he did in his life, caused all the misery he did, and ended the way he did, except his ending was better than any alternative I can think of. It's not something to feel happy about.

Tbh the fact that OBL died doesn't bother me. I'm not fully comfortable with what was pretty clearly an extrajudicial execution order (I imagine that a President Bush or McCain would've done the same thing). If OBL had been armed and died in a shootout, I likely would've had no qualms at all (so long as none of our SEALS were hurt). I have no problems at all recognizing OBL as an existential evil force that has been vanquished from the world.

operative 05-05-2011 11:58 PM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)
This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

Like it or not that OBL execution is a pretty big story. Tbh I think its significance in the realm of transnational security is being hugely overhyped, but there's not much we can do about that, and we can't really ignore that this is a huge story.

That being said, I do hope we get a Canadian election diavlog soon...and one on Peru!

Diane1976 05-06-2011 12:08 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 207608)
Tbh the fact that OBL died doesn't bother me. I'm not fully comfortable with what was pretty clearly an extrajudicial execution order (I imagine that a President Bush or McCain would've done the same thing). If OBL had been armed and died in a shootout, I likely would've had no qualms at all (so long as none of our SEALS were hurt). I have no problems at all recognizing OBL as an existential evil force that has been vanquished from the world.

The "evil" thing kind of depends on your perspective. Personally, I think any killing of innocents is wrong in the name of any cause. I do recognize the difference between "targeting" civilians and "collateral damage" and I'm a big believer in just war theory, especially as Michael Walzer explains it. All the same, not everybody sticks as close to that principle as I would. PS, I do believe in the different value of causes too, but that's something else. For that you have to know a lot about what a particular cause entails.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 12:10 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)
This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

We can -- and should -- do both. You're right that there should be discussion of the elections in Canada. But I don't agree we should not talk about our huge victory in the ongoing war against the organization that trapped thousands of innocent people inside burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

operative 05-06-2011 12:22 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207611)
The "evil" thing kind of depends on your perspective. Personally, I think any killing of innocents is wrong in the name of any cause. I do recognize the difference between "targeting" civilians and "collateral damage" and I'm a big believer in just war theory, especially as Michael Walzer explains it. All the same, not everybody sticks as close to that principle as I would. PS, I do believe in the different value of causes too, but that's something else. For that you have to know a lot about what a particular cause entails.

I don't really disagree with much there. I would also agree that the killing of civilians is wrong in the name of any cause. But I wouldn't call every figure who has been responsible for killing innocent people evil. For instance, I don't think Fidel Castro or Pinochet are/were evil. They are/were people who did very bad things, but they didn't have an expressly eliminationist ideology. OBL on the other hand genuinely desired to cause a great deal of suffering, and in the name of a bizarre and horrendous distortion of Islam.

Diane1976 05-06-2011 12:24 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)
We can -- and should -- do both. You're right that there should be discussion of the elections in Canada. But I don't agree we should not talk about our huge victory in the ongoing war against the organization that trapped thousands of innocent people inside burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

I don't think anybody is sticking up for OBL. Any survey I've seen anywhere shows there's no, or minimal support, for his ideas. That's why I'm saying it's more like a tragedy than something to feel victorious about. It's not like having defeated a major army in a massive world struggle, like WWII, where people danced in the streets, but some people are trying to make it like that and it's just different, to me. It's more like defeating some rag tag group of seriously wrong minded people who never had a chance anyway, in terms of existential threat, whatever damage they inflicted through their wrongful thoughts and actions.

Hume's Bastard 05-06-2011 12:27 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)
We can -- and should -- do both. You're right that there should be discussion of the elections in Canada. But I don't agree we should not talk about our huge victory in the ongoing war against the organization that trapped thousands of innocent people inside burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

We don't need any diavlogs about a mass murder. But, discussing elections and people in other countries is a good thing. I don't need everyone to hear me bloviate about OBL. But, and the point hamandcheese was making, a lot of pundits do need to hear their voices often.

bjkeefe 05-06-2011 12:36 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)
This whole Osama story has gotten tedious.

Agreed.

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 12:55 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207613)
I really can't believe that people don't get they are destroying their own reputations and the agendas they care about by appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden.

Maybe because they care about the reputation that comes with following the rule of law.

India managed it after Mumbai, Iraq managed after Sadam, Europe managed it after Nazism, yet America can't after Bin Laden?

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 12:58 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)
The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.

You are certainly living up to your username with this misquotation.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 01:01 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207622)
I don't think anybody is sticking up for OBL. Any survey I've seen anywhere shows there's no, or minimal support, for his ideas.

Oh, I agree. But when your reaction to his death is to wring your hands about how wrong it was, how sorry you are that he was killed, and how Navy SEALS should have put themselves in greater danger to give the far left the satisfaction of seeing him arrested and placed on trial, you give the appearance of sticking up for Osama bin Laden, and you will strike most people as, basically, crazy. (If you go back and look at look at what I said it was that the hand-wringers risk "appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden." I realize, they aren't actually sticking up for him, but rather principles of law and the humane treatment of criminals, but to most people, who are unambiguously (and properly) delighted that bin Laden has been killed, it looks nuts to be playing the role of Osama's defense lawyer. And it's not just a tactical mistake; it's a strategic mistake: People are now more likely to dismiss everything else they say because their judgement on this question is so bad.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207622)
It's more like defeating some rag tag group of seriously wrong minded people who never had a chance anyway...

Rag tag?

David, of David & Goliath fame, wore rags. But armed with a single stone and sling, he was able to defeat a giant. Firearms have been called "equalizers" because with them, small, weak, even prostrate individuals can kill the tallest, strongest man. And with airplanes filled with fuel, Osama and his ragtag band of murderous fanatics were able to kill thousands, and change the course of history.

One thing every American should have learned on 9/11 is that there are people in this world who will commit any crime on any scale in the name of their ideology. If Osama had nuclear weapons, he would not have hesitated to detonate them in New York or Washington or London or Paris.

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.

What's particularly offensive and shocking is the suggestion that the Navy SEALS should have increased the already incredible danger facing them by arresting bin Laden instead of killing him.

Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)

Furthermore, if we had injured bin Laden and then taken him into custody, we would have had to administer medical treatment before loading him aboard a helicopter. This would have delayed egress from the compound by several minutes, during which bin Laden or Pakistani reinforcements could have arrived on the scene, putting the lives of all of the SEALS involved in the mission at risk. One man with a SMAW could have brought down 2 or 3 helicopters before they could escape. Bin Laden's life simply isn't worth that level of risk to our SEALS, and its the height of arrogance to suggest that they had some kind of obligation to take that risk.

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 01:15 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)
One thing every American should have learned on 9/11 is that there are people in this world who will commit any crime on any scale in the name of their ideology. If Osama had nuclear weapons, he would not have hesitated to detonate them in New York or Washington or London or Paris.

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.

What's particularly offensive and shocking is the suggestion that the Navy SEALS should have increased the already incredible danger facing them by arresting bin Laden instead of killing him.

Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)

Furthermore, if we had injured bin Laden and then taken him into custody, we would have had to administer medical treatment before loading him aboard a helicopter. This would have delayed egress from the compound by several minutes, during which bin Laden or Pakistani reinforcements could have arrived on the scene, putting the lives of all of the SEALS involved in the mission at risk. One man with a SMAW could have brought down 2 or 3 helicopters before they could escape. Bin Laden's life simply isn't worth that level of risk to our SEALS, and its the height of arrogance to suggest that they had some kind of obligation to take that risk.

If we really are at war with an combatants rather than criminals, then they have a right to use nuclear arms don't they?

As for your hypothetical it seems rather fanciful and we know that the events you outlined didn't even come close to happening.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 01:16 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)
Maybe because they care about the reputation that comes with following the rule of law.

I am not a lawyer, so I won't pretend to be able to make claims about what is legal and what is illegal. But I'm hearing laywers on different sides saying different things. I haven't watched the Frum/Greenwald diavlog, yet, but I won't be surprised if Harvard lawyer Frum says the action was legal, while esteemed lawyer Greenwald says it wasn't. I'm not in a position to evaluate the competing claims.

In any case, if "reputation" is what we are concerned with, there seems to be overwhelming support for what happened in Abbotabad last Sunday, so I think our reputation was significantly helped, not hurt.


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)
Iraq managed after Sadam

My memory might be fuzzy, but as I recall, Saddam was basically lynched after a show trial not unlike the "trial" of Romania's Nicolae Ceaușescu, a "trial" that was really a murder.



Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)
Europe managed it after Nazism

US and Allied forces in Europe and Japan killed a hell of a lot of Axis officers in direct combat. Some surrendered after the war, and those who weren't pardoned were taken into custody and tried. Bin Laden did not surrender. Had he turned himself in, he very well may have been given a trial in a US or international court.


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207626)
yet America can't after Bin Laden?

Oh, we could have, sure. But why would we have? It takes some nerve, I think, to ask the world to leave bin Laden roaming free to realize more of his murderous ambitions until such time as he turns himself in or we can cleanly arrest him.

Earlier someone said that it would have been "easy" to arrest bin Laden. Easy! Is that incredible, or what? If people can't grasp the enormous danger the SEALS were facing, they can't make rational judgments about how they should have conducted themselves once they found bin Laden.

piscivorous 05-06-2011 01:22 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)
...
Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)
...

That is somewhat different from what I actually said but I would not argue with it either if it contained a caveat about not shooting dead the target if capturing that target is the mission objective.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 01:31 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)
If we really are at war with an combatants rather than criminals, then they have a right to use nuclear arms don't they?

I honestly don't know how to respond to that. You're defending al Qaeda's right to nuke the major centers of Western society?


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)
As for your hypothetical it seems rather fanciful and we know that the events you outlined didn't even come close to happening.

There's nothing fanciful about it at all. How do you know the compound next to bin Laden's didn't have some of his henchmen living in it, and that they weren't waking up and grabbing weapons when the SEALS were leaving the scene? More to the point, how were the SEALS to have known in advance that no one in the neighborhood was armed and would intervene? There was a Pakistani military training school just hundreds of yards from bin Laden's compound. The live tweets from Abbotabad indicate that Pakistani military were on the scene within minutes of the attack.

Also, I should not have implied they would have needed a SMAW to bring down the helicopters. A couple of guys with automatic weapons could have done it. Helicopters are extremely vulnerable aircraft, and again, it's the height of hubris to ask our SEALS to put themselves in even greater danger than they already faced.


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207630)
...we know that the events you outlined didn't even come close to happening.

(1) No, actually, we don't know that. You have no idea whether there were a half dozen bin Laden loyalists hoofing it up the road towards the compound, or jeeps full of Pakistani soldiers, as the SEALS departed the scene. You act like they could have hung out all day if they wanted to.

(2) Even if we did know, now, in retrospect, that the events I'm describing didn't come close to happening, there was no way to know that in advance of the attack. It's easy from the comfort of a recliner in Ohio to second guess the judgments made by the most highly trained military professionals in the world.



.

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 01:33 AM

Luis Posada Carriles - an act of war?
 
David mentions that Pakistan hiding Bin Laden was an act of war. Pakistan probably has plenty of good reasons to keep him in hiding.

In 2005, the US refused to extradite Cuban Airplane Bomber and CIA asset Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela, the judge cited concerns about the potential threat of torture he faced. I also expect this ruling was a relief to any US administration that was worried about what potentially embarrassing details Carriles might reveal about the CIA and US government.

Just as Carriles had powerful protectors in the US establishment, Pakistan may have faced the same problem and his 'house arrest' may have been a tactical concession to gain leverage with those who would otherwise be more of a threat to the Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 01:35 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by piscivorous (Post 207632)
That is somewhat different from what I actually said but I would not argue with it either if it contained a caveat about not shooting dead the target if capturing that target is the mission objective.

Well, that's another point. The Administration was clear from the first reports that this was a mission to kill and not capture bin Laden. The initial reports stated that months ago, when the compound was first identified, the teams that were trained to undertake this mission were informed that it was a mission to kill a high value target.

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 01:46 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Do they, as an army, have the same right as the Allies did in 1945?

Maybe they have more of a right, seeing as Japan was no longer occupying foreign soil in 45, where as the US is today - surely the Taliban have a right (that's assuming they were the legitimate government in 2001).

Quote:

>There's nothing fanciful about it at all. How do you know the compound next to bin Laden's didn't have some of his henchmen living in it, and that they weren't waking up and grabbing weapons when the SEALS were leaving the scene? More to the point, how were the SEALS to have known in advance that no one in the neighborhood was armed and would intervene? There was a Pakistani military training school just hundreds of yards from bin Laden's compound. The live tweets from Abbotabad indicate that Pakistani military were on the scene within minutes of the attack.
They had been under surveillance for months, and I am not sure how the speed of the Pakistani response helps your argument. There is a much more reasonable hypothetical for shooting on sight, and that would involve the potential use of the suicide vest.

In England, just after the 7/7 attacks, which involved suicide bombs, a Brazilian guy was gunned down by armed police, and this was one of the arguments used. The country was nonetheless outraged, and an enquiry was held into the shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_o...les_de_Menezes

It's pretty easy to issue a command to the SEALs along the lines of capture the target, unless it compromises your security. I'm guessing carrying the corpse of OBL would have slowed down the SEAL team as well and therefore made them more vunerable to attacks from whoever, should they have just left it in the compound?

ohreally 05-06-2011 01:50 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Good of Frum to tell us that Nuremberg conveniently left out the willing executioners. I agree. Which is why I wish Frum would be tried for complicity in crime against humanity.

David Frum helped engineer the murder of 100,000 to 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. The guy's hands are dripping with blood. That Robert Wright should have this perfectly disgusting creature on his show illustrates the pernicious banality of evil. Oh, it's only mass murder, I hear, and he's a speechwriter, so that's OK. If I must rejoice in the death of a man who killed 3,000 Americans, then how must I feel about one, grinning on my screen, who stands behind the murder of 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis? The shamelessness of this little man is a sad sight to behold. Every appearance of Frum on this site is a new low for bhtv.

Diane1976 05-06-2011 01:57 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207629)
Oh, I agree. But when your reaction to his death is to wring your hands about how wrong it was, how sorry you are that he was killed, and how Navy SEALS should have put themselves in greater danger to give the far left the satisfaction of seeing him arrested and placed on trial, you give the appearance of sticking up for Osama bin Laden, and you will strike most people as, basically, crazy. (If you go back and look at look at what I said it was that the hand-wringers risk "appearing to be sticking up for Osama bin Laden." I realize, they aren't actually sticking up for him, but rather principles of law and the humane treatment of criminals, but to most people, who are unambiguously (and properly) delighted that bin Laden has been killed, it looks nuts to be playing the role of Osama's defense lawyer. And it's not just a tactical mistake; it's a strategic mistake: People are now more likely to dismiss everything else they say because their judgement on this question is so bad.



Rag tag?

David, of David & Goliath fame, wore rags. But armed with a single stone and sling, he was able to defeat a giant. Firearms have been called "equalizers" because with them, small, weak, even prostrate individuals can kill the tallest, strongest man. And with airplanes filled with fuel, Osama and his ragtag band of murderous fanatics were able to kill thousands, and change the course of history.

One thing every American should have learned on 9/11 is that there are people in this world who will commit any crime on any scale in the name of their ideology. If Osama had nuclear weapons, he would not have hesitated to detonate them in New York or Washington or London or Paris.

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.

What's particularly offensive and shocking is the suggestion that the Navy SEALS should have increased the already incredible danger facing them by arresting bin Laden instead of killing him.

Regarding something pisc said: American soldiers and marines are trained to shoot to kill, never to incapacitate or disarm, because the singular priority in combat is to eliminate the enemy -- and the threat to themselves. If you try to injure an enemy instead of killing him, you are increasing the risk to your own life in a number of ways. (Bin Laden could have, for example, had a grenade, or a pistol. And leaving him alive diverts attention from other potential threats.)

Furthermore, if we had injured bin Laden and then taken him into custody, we would have had to administer medical treatment before loading him aboard a helicopter. This would have delayed egress from the compound by several minutes, during which bin Laden or Pakistani reinforcements could have arrived on the scene, putting the lives of all of the SEALS involved in the mission at risk. One man with a SMAW could have brought down 2 or 3 helicopters before they could escape. Bin Laden's life simply isn't worth that level of risk to our SEALS, and its the height of arrogance to suggest that they had some kind of obligation to take that risk.

I didn't say most of the things you mentioned, so maybe you don't mean me personally. I wasn't sorry he was killed. I wasn't concerned about it being legally wrong, and I don't think it was, as far as the president's authorization was concerned, and not, so far as I know, in the execution. OBL declared war on the US, and was no doubt still conducting that war in some sense, so it was within its right to kill him, as I would see it. I also think killing him on the spot was better than a show trial at Gtmo, from any point of view.

I don't feel joyful about any of it though, and I was reacting to David's suggestion that there was something wrong with not feeling joyful.

I see him as a murderer because he targeted civilians, but I wouldn't see him as one of the greatest murderers in history, though, but I guess that depends on your point of view. Or perhaps in an indirect sense the numbers of deaths he caused was much larger than directly. I don't find anything to celebrate about any of it, so I guess we just feel differently and I think you can't tell people how they should feel.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 01:58 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)
Do they, as an army, have the same right as the Allies did in 1945?

Maybe they have more of a right, seeing as Japan was no longer occupying foreign soil in 45, where as the US is today - surely the Taliban have a right (that's assuming they were the legitimate government in 2001).

Okay. Let's test your belief in this theory.

Suppose you're on a subway train in Manhattan and encounter a jihadist about to detonate a nuke. You have a pistol and a cell phone. Do you shoot him in the head? Do you call the cops? Or do you tip your hat and not interfere with what you are calling his right to destroy New York City?



Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)
They had been under surveillance for months

Yeah, and it was on the basis of that surveillance that the assault plan was devised, including the need to complete the mission in <30 minutes, and to not attempt to administer medical treatment to the injured or take bin Laden into custody. Unlike the backseat generals, the people planning the mission actually knew what was discovered during that surveillance, and the risks to the mission. I don't understand why you believe your judgement is better than theirs.


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)
...and I am not sure how the speed of the Pakistani response helps your argument.

The SEALS needed to get out of the area before those troops responded, because it would have been exceptionally easy to shoot down the two or three helicopters used in the assault. Do you not agree?

The live tweets of the event suggest that the Pakistani military was at the scene within minutes of the departure of the US troops. Had we been administering medical care to bin Laden and arresting him, the entire mission would have been in jeopardy. It's asking quite a lot of our SEALS to suggest that they should have sacrificed themselves in this way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 207636)
There is a much more reasonable hypothetical for shooting on sight, and that would involve the potential use of the suicide vest.

In England, just after the 7/7 attacks, a Brazilian guy was gunned down by armed police. The country was outraged and an enquiry held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_o...les_de_Menezes

Maybe it's because I've been awake since 4:30 AM ET, but I don't understand what you are getting at with this.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 02:05 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)
I didn't say most of the things you mentioned, so maybe you don't mean me personally.

Right -- I didn't mean you; I meant the generic "you." I've read everything you've said on this matter and understand your actual position. Sorry for the confusion.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)
I wasn't sorry he was killed. I wasn't concerned about it being legally wrong, and I don't think it was, as far as the president's authorization was concerned, and not, so far as I know, in the execution. OBL declared war on the US, and was no doubt still conducting that war in some sense, so it was within its right to kill him, as I would see it. I also think killing him on the spot was better than a show trial at Gtmo, from any point of view.

Yes, that's what I understood to be your position, and I agree with all of it. (Though I remain unqualified to comment on the legal questions.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)
I see him as a murderer because he targeted civilians, but I wouldn't see him as one of the greatest murderers in history

Not in terms of his own body count, but he did light the fuse that led to the catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which many hundreds of thousands have died, and many tens of millions have been harmed. Indeed, there's an argument that the spending on the wars contributed to the global economic meltdown of 2008, meaning that bin Laden indirectly harmed hundreds of millions of people. So, one of the greatest monsters in history is certainly a fair characterization, in my opinion, but of course he had help (of a kind) from Bush and Cheney (in that they reacted exactly the way bin Laden wanted them to react).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)
though, but I guess that depends on your point of view. I don't find anything to celebrate about any of it, so I guess we just feel differently and I think you can't tell people how they should feel.

The only difference between us that I can detect is on this very narrow question of whether one should "celebrate" or feel good about bin Laden's death, and I personally think it's the least important of all the questions at issue.

opposable_crumbs 05-06-2011 02:10 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207639)
Okay. Let's test your belief in this theory.

Suppose you're on a subway train in Manhattan and encounter a jihadist about to detonate a nuke. You have a pistol and a cell phone. Do you shoot him in the head? Do you call the cops? Or do you tip your hat and not interfere with what you are calling his right to destroy New York City?

I shoot to kill, but that doesn't test my theory. If we are in a war with an army, then that army has a right to bear arms, and those arms can include guns, grenades and bombs. And if we had a right to bomb Japan, who where occupying no one, then do the Taliban have the right to bomb the US? It's not a morale question, but one of law.


Quote:

Maybe it's because I've been awake since 4:30 AM ET, but I don't understand what you are getting at with this.
My failing, I have updated my post to include more details. Basically the Brazilian who was shot was a suspected suicide bomber, and a it naturally makes sense to shoot an unarmed man on sight if you suspect they are infact secretly armed and ready to detonate on being spotted. That is one argument as to why it is reasonable to shoot an unarmed Al-Q member on sight.

The downside to killing OBL, or any Al-Q member, is that you just lost a potentially vital intelligence source. There are some reports that OBL/Al-Q where plotting an attack for September 2011. This was garnered from the hard drives they extracted - another luxury they could have avoided for the sake of brevity.

Diane1976 05-06-2011 02:23 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 207641)
.....Not in terms of his own body count, but he did light the fuse that led to the catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which many hundreds of thousands have died, and many tens of millions have been harmed. Indeed, there's an argument that the spending on the wars contributed to the global economic meltdown of 2008, meaning that bin Laden indirectly harmed hundreds of millions of people. So, one of the greatest monsters in history is certainly a fair characterization, in my opinion, but of course he had help (of a kind) from Bush and Cheney (in that they reacted exactly the way bin Laden wanted them to react).....

You're right about indirect consequences. I amended my message after I first posted it.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 02:49 AM

Canada Election Vlogging
 
I've been following this Canadian vlogger on YouTube for years. He's just posted a vlog on the recent elections:

The Canadian Election - No Worries

I actually tried to get him to do an Apollo diavlog a year or so ago. He's quite brilliant.

JonIrenicus 05-06-2011 03:01 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hamandcheese (Post 207607)
This whole Osama story has gotten tedious. Canada just had a landscape changing federal election, on which David Frum could give an excellent analysis. Instead, it's virtually the same discussion of the last 3 diavlogs. The death of one man is a victory for what's good and just, the governance of 33 million a statistic.




http://wabcradio.com/getpodcast.aspx...bs_050411c.mp3


link to the third hour of the john batchelor show yesterday


For Harper talk skip to 29 minutes in.

Wonderment 05-06-2011 03:36 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

I realize, they aren't actually sticking up for him, but rather principles of law and the humane treatment of criminals, but to most people, who are unambiguously (and properly) delighted that bin Laden has been killed, it looks nuts to be playing the role of Osama's defense lawyer.
All accused persons have the right to defense attorneys. It's not "nuts" to suggest that even Osama Bin Laden had human rights. If anything, it's crazy and un-American to suggest the contrary, that he didn't.

It's reasonable to argue that the killing of OBL was necessary, but it's not a given. It has to be demonstrated by the facts, not just by the facile answer that he was a Very Wicked Man.

Quote:

If pacifists care about peace, they should celebrate the end of one of the greatest murderers in history.
If warists care about security, they should question the legalization of targeted assassinations.

Starwatcher162536 05-06-2011 03:44 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
I tried watching this one, but gave up after the first ten minutes consisted of largely nothing but Frum asking the same thing over and over in various permutations in order to try and straitjacket Greenwald into a soundbite that only sounds bad to those not paying attention.

Such a high level of discourse we have here.

miceelf 05-06-2011 06:35 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Yeah, I don't get it, either.

On a not completely related note, am up early and saw Cindy Sheehan on Dr. Drew (!!!), which alerted me to this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/wei...m-is-born.aspx

To his credit, I suppose, Dr. Drew was very polite.

osmium 05-06-2011 08:33 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Enjoying the conversation. Glenn is one of the only people in any media I've heard use the phrase "begs the question" correctly, so if for no other reason I would like to nominate Glenn and David to the Bloggingheads A Team.

Ocean 05-06-2011 08:52 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207604)
I just started listening. Glenn isn't the only person on the planet who isn't overjoyed that OBL was killed. There's at least one other, me. I don't feel overjoyed by anybody dying.

And you're not the only additional person unable to feel overjoyed here.

I can intellectually understand, justify, accept and even prefer OBL's death considering all circumstances.

But at an emotional level, I don't rejoice on his death. I think it's sad that we're still such a brutal, violent species that these kinds of acts are necessary.

On the other hand I wouldn't blame those who were more directly affected by his acts and feel the need to celebrate his death. I'm sure that to some degree, or at least momentarily, it can bring a sense of closure.

Tara Davis 05-06-2011 09:15 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 207661)
And you're not the only additional person unable to feel overjoyed here.

I can intellectually understand, justify, accept and even prefer OBL's death considering all circumstances.

But at an emotional level, I don't rejoice on his death. I think it's sad that we're still such a brutal, violent species that these kinds of acts are necessary.

On the other hand I wouldn't blame those who were more directly affected by his acts and feel the need to celebrate his death. I'm sure that to some degree, or at least momentarily, it can bring a sense of closure.

While I've disagreed with him many times about many things, put me on Team Glenn for this issue as well.

I do not mind that bin Laden is dead. I do, very much, mind some of the ways our society has transformed for the worse in order to get to this point. As the facts emerge to indicate (as they seem to be emerging at this point) that bin Laden was not simply shot to death in the struggle to apprehend him, but outright ASSASSINATED in cold blood... Yeah. I have a pretty big problem with that.

Freddie said it best:

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

bjkeefe 05-06-2011 09:23 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 207659)
Enjoying the conversation. Glenn is one of the only people in any media I've heard use the phrase "begs the question" correctly, so if for no other reason I would like to nominate Glenn and David to the Bloggingheads A Team.

Heh. That used to be one of my big pet peeves, too. However, I once heard Rebecca Watson argue fairly persuasively that people like me should just get over it, that is is ridiculous to insist upon the proper use of this term, due to its highly narrow applicability in everyday life. Though she did not say so, I was reminded of a similar argument about the word decimate.

My current position is that there is a perfectly good phrase for those more common instances: this raises the question. Therefore, I myself continue to restrict use of begs the question to the narrow, logical sense in which Glenn used it, though due to Rebecca, I no longer get irritated by others using the term more casually.

Well, as irritated, anyway.

Florian 05-06-2011 09:45 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 207638)
I didn't say most of the things you mentioned, so maybe you don't mean me personally. I wasn't sorry he was killed. I wasn't concerned about it being legally wrong, and I don't think it was, as far as the president's authorization was concerned, and not, so far as I know, in the execution. OBL declared war on the US, and was no doubt still conducting that war in some sense, so it was within its right to kill him, as I would see it. I also think killing him on the spot was better than a show trial at Gtmo, from any point of view..

Exactly. As I pointed out elsewhere, if OBL had been killed soon after 9/11, either by assassination or by some other means, his death would have been considered an act of war and justified as such. No one would have talked about "human rights," for the plain and simple reason that there are no rights, human or civil (though perhaps divine.....) when there is a state of war between individuals or states. Soldiers on the battlefield have no rights vis a vis the enemy.....until they surrender. It is only when they lay down their arms that the so-called humanitarian "laws of war" come into play....and often not even then. (This is also the basis for Hobbes' theory of the state: the state comes into being when all men give up their right to self-defense and surrender it to the "sovereign").

Al Qaeda, obviously, is neither a state nor an army; it is more like a band of pirates ("enemies of mankind" in the European tradition of jurisprudence going back to Cicero and the Romans). As far as I know, when pirates on the open sea take hostages or kill passengers who are citizens of a sovereign state, the state is under no obligation to treat the pirates as anything other than enemies. There have been several incidents in recent years. (It is interesting that Grotius, the father of international law, began his career as a jurist with a treatise on piracy).


Quote:

I see him as a murderer because he targeted civilians, but I wouldn't see him as one of the greatest murderers in history, though, but I guess that depends on your point of view. Or perhaps in an indirect sense the numbers of deaths he caused was much larger than directly. I don't find anything to celebrate about any of it, so I guess we just feel differently and I think you can't tell people how they should feel.
I agree. Nothing to celebrate, but nothing to mourn either.

TwinSwords 05-06-2011 09:53 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 207668)
Exactly. As I pointed out elsewhere, if OBL had been killed soon after 9/11, either by assassination or by some other means, his death would have been considered an act of war and justified as such. No one would have talked about "human rights," for the plain and simple reason that there are no rights, human or civil (though perhaps divine.....) when there is a state of war between individuals or states. Soldiers on the battlefield have no rights vis a vis the enemy.....until they surrender. It is only when they lay down their arms that the so-called humanitarian "laws of war" come into play....and often not even then. (This is also the basis for Hobbes' theory of the state: the state comes into being when all men give up their right to self-defense and surrender it to the "sovereign").

Al Qaeda, obviously, is neither a state nor an army; it is more like a band of pirates ("enemies of mankind" in the European tradition of jurisprudence going back to Cicero and the Romans). As far as I know, when pirates on the open sea take hostages or kill passengers who are citizens of a sovereign state, the state is under no obligation to treat the pirates as anything other than enemies. There have been several incidents in recent years. (It is interesting that Grotius, the father of international law, began his career as a jurist with a treatise on piracy).

I am in awe of your erudition. It's amazing how much detailed knowledge is packed into those few words.

herpderp 05-06-2011 10:37 AM

Re: Law, Power, and Bin Laden (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum)
 
that was clearly a rhetorical device. specifically a 'snowclone.'


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.