What if Theater: What if we had captured Osama Bin Laden alive?

Do you think he would have value in terms of intelligence?

Do you think a trial would have helped the US or Al Queda? Or both?

Do you think he would have provided disinformation?

Do you think he would have tried to kill himself before being interrogated?

---------------------------------------

Just wondering...not making a value judgement

Took alot to get rid of him, but still have to break the patterns of the spells. The value of that symoblic value is being that it is gone.

Well done President Obama, and Intelligence.

I've never heard that term before...

The guy who stands in the back behind the fighters with all the hit points and armor and casts spells. Always off that guy first, before he shoots a fireball.

By loading thoughts in peoples minds.

An ideology of a concept, not anything you ever contact, but a symbol of something.

Bin Laden loaded into many people using distortion of religion and observational injustice ideas of doing terror.

Also in USA his name was loaded with the symbol that the USA had to be vigilant and scared, and had to give up the rights of the constitution, then the fear and hype around him were the spells that created lack of rational thought around concepts of security and freedom.

A symbol that is used to create thought process, but have no real contact with people is a back row caster.


An Astroturfer is an example of a back row caster, if he can move people to act by ideology or thought concepts that do not have real effects. Propaganda is a back row cast if used to load macros of what things mean, without attachment to reality. It is illusion, and distortion to form beliefs that allow for people to accept or do actions.

When think tanks use radio to make certain words have loaded meaning, like the word liberal was loaded with distain, that was a back row cast. While the tanks of Rush and Glenn are the tanks up front on that topic. So if you go after Rush or Glenn, you don't go after the problem of the loaded macros, and both of them can take alot of damage.

A tank is someone on the front row that absorbs damage, and keeps people from going after the ideology that causes the problems, mostly by people being distracted attacking card board cut outs, not the ideological problems in a position.

in Bin Laden case it would be the idea of using terror to fight, or the idea to be afraid of terror to remove rights, that would be the cast.


In the same way, their is observational injustice that can radicalize people, and that is part of the real problems of consolidations that create many wars, as said by Rev Wright. He was going after the ideology in his speech about chickens come home to roost, pointing out the imbalances that radicalize some people. If a person sees injustice, and a person is in sad hardship, they become easy to radicalize, so establishment of justice, where people can see things as fair, helps remove terrorism. And that can't be done unfairly, but requires some balancing of society.



In truth the ideological problems that drive people to extreamism is what Osama promoted to arab world, and fear of terror was leveraged by back row casters in the USA, to remove rights by things like the patriot act.



This song is against back row casters that create problems. Although it is also a cast.

The Wall - Pink Floyd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SlKA2Rgq20

Although he cast on the arab world, Some groups cast on the USA, by using him.

So there is a layer behind him that used his actions to try and remove USA rights or create divisions that allow war. That is the point that could get lost in the discussion.


So the group that painted the war on terror for other reasons, is also back row casters, and they are still trying to paint things.

So we can unwind those cast, and the painting of what he is by groups in many places. Including the USA also.

Or as Seth said, he is on CSpan an hour every day.

Again, not saying we should have

Remember, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sung like a canary after being waterboarded

And Osama would still have died.

1. Maybe. Worth a try.
2. The U.S.
3. Maybe. All information coming from enemy sources has to be verified.
4. Maybe. You would have to put him on watch.

But you can guess all you like, I suppose. :shrug:

He was a dangerous man

However, I think every time we 'take someone down' these questions should be asked.

exercise.

How can you understand any action you take, whether its mowing the lawn or shooting a terrorist, if you don't do a post-mortem? (no pun intended)

My guess is we did the smart thing, by taking him out.

But the old adage still applies - The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living

cannot come from a dead man. There is nothing to learn, because there is no answer. It's a hollow exercise, and of no value whatsoever.

I can tell you that for me, asking these questions, made me understand why we had to take Bin Laden out, not capture him

You play out each scenario, and there is the possibility of unintended consequences

You take him out, and the unintended consequences are reduced

2. al Qaeda is pretty universally loathed; it would have helped the US.

3. Yes.

4. No.

Am I sorry he was treated as military instead of criminally? Nope, not in the least--he bought that cookie when he killed 2500 civilians in the WTC.

If I were one of the Navy Seals that day, I would have shot first, asked questions later

And I would have been in the right

But any time you do something of this scale, you should ask these questions. Not to make yourself feel guilty, but to greater understand what has been done

... and earning more recruits for his cause. No matter what happened to him he would have publicly gloated about all the death and destruction that was coming to his enemies; the light of truth would shine upon the evils of Western society; his actions were heroic whereas the tyrants against him would burn in hell, etc. etc. Yada, yada, yada.

Instead of that bullshit we got "BLAM!" "SPLASH!" and the world moves on.

King John and that fucking Magna Carta he signed.

Seriously, I agree with your projection of what would go on in a trial. I share your relief that he was killed instead of captured. But if he'd been captured, it would have been a black mark on our stewardship of the Constitution if we'd gone with a military tribunal "trial."   I don't doubt that the officers involved would've done their best to be fair to a man who was obviously guilty by his own admission. But the world would have seen it as Star Chamber justice. Regardless of the attempt by accused terrorists to turn it into a circus, out justice system has consistently convicted those who were charged with terrorism. I don't support civilian trials for terrorists just because of ideology, but because history shows they work well and get the job done.

I think he knew a lot but would have never given it up. I bet he hoped he was captured instead of killed because that would have made him a HUGE martyr. I bet if he had been captured and detained, Americans abroad would never be safe from capture and torture in exchange for releasing his royal evil-ass. I think being killed was the best of all possible solutions.

May be getting "interrogated" as we type.

Every other appearance has been "pre-taped" footage

And no matter what happened, they would have blamed Obama -- hey, just like with OBL dead.

1. No. Because he didn't have any intell because he hasn't been part of AQ operations for a loooong time.

2. No one. It would have been a spectacle, with both side desperately trying to spin it to their advantage.

3. Who knows? Probably. It wouldn't have mattered, because they never would have interrogated him because they know #1 very well.

4. No. He was a coward that lacked the fortitude for suicide. He proved that out based on where he lived. He wasn't some rugged holy crusader, he was a spoiled rich kid.

Who's to say?

And I would have wanted him to get the best possible representation for a court of law, conducted openly under the rules of evidence and procedure established under the United States Code. Then, when he was fairly tried, if a conviction was obtained, sentence would be imposed. We would then exhibit to our own people, and to the nations of the world, that despite everything, even in the face of a terrorist attack, we did and do believe in our Constitution and our form of government as superior to anything that can be thrown at us. We didn't, and we won't, compromise our principles or our ideals of freedom and liberty and trust the laws that make those ideals possible. Those laws and our faith in them are durable, sustainable, and will stand up to whatever those who would destroy them can inflict on us.

Now? Well, I guess we can say that "They did it, too! We're no worse than the terrorists!" But surely we can't claim to be any better.

That, to me, is taking the high road

Collapsing a building on 3K is the low road

There's no dispute about that, at least. We also said that bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks, but silly me, I'd like to see some evidence and proof of that before locking him up for the rest of whatever or carrying out a death sentence.

"I know Bush didn't do it because it worked!"

And there was quite a bit of evidence

Now whether Bush knew about 9/11 and didn't do anything? Maybe but who knows...

And indeed, the fact that they were so successful would mitigate against that. Har de har har. The Bush administration certainly took every political advantage it could from the attacks, but an ability to take advantage of a situation isn't evidence of complicity. I recall, however, that the Bush administration also promised a white paper laying out the case against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly after the attacks, but the white paper never did quite see the light of day.

I'm aware that bin Laden, as was his wont, voiced approval or endorsement of the 9/11 attacks, but I am unaware that he ever claimed any responsibility or credit for them. Likewise, bin Laden's ability to take advantage of the various results of 9/11 (fear, confusion and anger in the United States, fear or jubilation in other quarters, etc.) isn't evidence of complicity, either.

We have a perfectly serviceable mechanism in place for working through such conundrums, and it's the American legal system. With its rules governing evidence and procedure, admission of evidence and testimony, availability of cross-examination and the right of the accused to confront witnesses, it's a system that works pretty well. It would also demonstrate to our own people and the world that we really do believe in all that Constitutional mumbo jumbo, even at the risk of failing to convict someone as notorious as Osama bin Laden. But that surely wouldn't be a problem, would it?

posts like yours that keep me coming back to DU, despite enduring the cyber equivalent of being spat upon. I had enough of that from RWers during the Bush interregnum, thank you very much.