By Hanlon, on March 17th, 2010 at 05:54 PM
 It sounds like a stupid question on the surface, but deciding whether US forces would capture or kill Osama bin Laden if he’s ever snagged in the battlefield reveals a lot concerning our war on terror. What the goals are, what the likelihood is of achieving those goals, etc.
What to do with al Qaeda leaders and others plotting attacks on U.S. targets is a major issue in the United States as the Obama administration pushes ahead with plans to prosecute some terrorism suspects in traditional criminal courts.
Holder in particular has faced fierce criticism for planning to try the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a criminal court, with many calling for military trials for him and four alleged co-conspirators.
See, there are two factions of those when it comes to fighting terrorism: those who look toward strategy and those who look toward retribution. For all their jawing, the reason these people want to torture and hold terrorism suspects indefinitely isn’t for strategic reasons; if every military expert said the best way to get information out of terrorists was to give them video games and cushy hotel rooms, you think McCain and Lieberman would be fighting tooth and nail to empty out the nation’s Hiltons for them?
It’s a good chance that bin Laden, if we were to find the guy, would die in battle. I kinda doubt he’d be willing to go into American custody, but that should be our goal (and is, at least nominally). As satisfying as it might be to hook his nuts up to car batteries and drag him over hot coals by the beard, it wouldn’t really do anything useful except satisfy bloodlust. If that’s what we’re after, well then we’ve already lost the war.
By Hanlon, on January 24th, 2010 at 11:08 AM
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this for a second.
In another section of the audio tape that Al-Jazeera broadcast, the voice says: “God willing our attacks will continue as long as you support the Israelis and may peace be on those who follow guidance.”
Bin Laden also claims responsibility for the foiled attack on Delta flight 253 in December.
“The message intended to be sent to you was through the hero fighter Omar Farouq, may God release him, confirming an earlier message that the [September] 11th heroes delivered to you and it was repeated before and after [that event],” he says.
Seriously, Osama?
Look, I get it. No one cares about you any more, and that’s tough to deal with. Eight years ago you were the topic of conversation, and it felt like you were the absolute apex of fear to a level Americans had never really felt. I’m sure it really stings that your star has faded, but that doesn’t mean you should just start claiming credit for every stupid terrorist attempt worldwide. You’re the guy behind 9/11, and now you’re down to saying some doofus with an underpants bomb that failed is your doing? That’s like having a #1 record and then doing radio promo jingles.
Unless, of course, you’re dead. In which case disregard.
By Hanlon, on December 6th, 2009 at 06:45 PM
Far and away the most telling, and frustrating, part of the dual-fronted war we’re currently involved in is the complete lack of Osama bin Laden throughout it all. Oh sure, he started the thing and every once in a while we get an audio/video tape that the media can have an orgy over, but by and large OBL isn’t really in the picture.
There are any number of reasons why this may be. It could be the official explanation that bin Laden has been neutralized and is no longer a priority, so putting any significant resources on one guy is a waste. It could be the theorized death of Osama that would obviously make it an even bigger waste to put any resources toward finding him. Or it could be that we just don’t really know where he is.
Warning, this article may depress you. What with things like this:
[National security adviser James] Jones described it as “very, very rough, mountainous area. Generally ungoverned and we’re going to have to get after that to make sure that this very, very important symbol of what al-Qaida stands for is either, once again, on the run or captured or killed.”
Since when did “on the run” become an adequate conclusion to the hunt? Are there murder investigations where making sure someone is “on the run” means they’re doing their job? For a guy that orchestrated the murder of a few thousand American citizens, it seems like James Jones is being terribly cavalier about the chase.
He might be in Pakistan, he might be in Afghanistan, he might be alive or he might be dead. Now Pakistan’s getting angry at Washington for starting to aim the guns on their soil. And here’s a potentially frightening possibility: with all of our efforts going into strengthening the Afghani forces, who’s to day the US won’t try and pour them into Pakistan should the Obama administration decide to chase the Taliban over the border?
By Hanlon, on November 29th, 2009 at 06:23 PM
Here’s the important bit, though:
“Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat,” the report says. “But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism.”
See, they let bin Laden go back in ’01 because we had Iraq to start getting ready for. No one gave a damn about Afghanistan really, it was just a convenient pretext to go ahead with the already-planned Iraq assault. Turns out that doing so (surprise) made the situation far worse than it should have been.
Anyone still want to claim that we were safer with the Bush administration in charge?
By Hanlon, on May 10th, 2009 at 03:54 PM
The Pakistani president, talking about bin Laden.
Sunday morning, Zadari went further: “I don’t think he’s alive,” the president told NBC’s David Gregory. “I have a strong feeling and reason to believe that.” Zadari continued: “I have asked my counterparts in the American intelligence services and they haven’t heard [from] him in seven years.”
I wonder where all those audio tapes came from.
By Hanlon, on March 15th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
 I wonder what it feels like to be Osama bin Laden. There was a time, oh back in the glory days, when just hearing his name struck fear in the hearts of all Americans. These days, he can release another tape calling for jihad and all that razz and the reaction’s more like hearing Winger is going on tour again: just hang it up, dude.
“The Gaza holocaust, amid this prolonged embargo, is an important historic event and a catastrophe that shows the necessity of distinguishing Muslims from hypocrites,” he said. “It is not right that our situation after Gaza will be as it used to be before. There should be serious work and preparation for jihad to fulfill righteousness and defeat evil.”
Bin Laden called on faithful Muslims to support militants in Iraq and said that country should be used as a departure point for attacks on Israel. He suggested fighters use a route from Iraq through Jordan and into the West Bank.
He said supporting fighters in Iraq was a “rare and precious chance” for ultimately taking control of Jerusalem. After taking control of Iraq, he said, fighters should then head to neighboring Jordan.
Osizzle bin Lizzle, we get it. After your big hit in 2001 you want to show the world that you’ve still got that magic, but you just don’t. I’m sure you’ve got some hangers-on that are going to be all over this and are pulling out their old Al Qaeda t-shirts ready to strap on the dynamite jacket and run into a market, but they’re few and far between. The only buzz that this creates will be the buzz generated by our side in response to it.
By Hanlon, on January 14th, 2009 at 04:32 PM
 I don’t know, maybe I’m turning into an old cynic, but at this point when I hear about a new tape from Osama, I’m less than terrified. It sounds more like an old man trying to remain relevant, surrounded by his old buddies who haven’t figured it out either. Case in point:
Q: Is bin Laden still relevant? Do people still listen and respond to him?
Bergen: I think if he were irrelevant, we wouldn’t be doing the coverage.
He’s less relevant than he might have been a few years ago because a lot of Muslims have turned against al Qaeda because of its tactics and suicide operations. But there are clearly people who still think he’s important.
He can put out general messages, you know, inciting people to violence, and this is the way it happens. So he puts out the strategic guidance to al Qaeda, through the jihadi network, through the audio and videotapes.
Sometimes he makes specific calls for attacks on particular places. For instance, he called for attacks on Spain, and there were attacks in Madrid in 2004. He called for a response to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, and there was an attack by al Qaeda on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan last year. And I can give you several other examples.
Hey, quick note to Peter Bergen and the media at large: something like this is only as relevant as you guys make it. Relevance is based upon the effect it has on the public’s lives at large. A story about the DOW dropping 4,000 points or an earthquake swallowing an entire car manufacturing plant is news because even if no one talks about it, its effects will be massive.
Bin Laden making some kind of public pronouncement is propaganda, and propaganda isn’t relevant if it isn’t spread.
By Hanlon, on August 6th, 2008 at 12:59 PM
As they say, third time’s the charm.
A military court on Wednesday convicted Osama bin Laden’s driver of supporting terrorism but acquitted him on the more serious charge of conspiring with al Qaeda in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two.
…
It was the Bush administration’s third attempt to try Hamdan, who won a Supreme Court victory that scrapped the first version of the Guantanamo court system in 2006. The charges were twice dropped and refiled.
Okay, I’m not a legal expert, but it seems to me if a guy’s been already brought up on charges before and had them dropped, twice, that repeatedly trying to get him again just seems… peculiar. We couldn’t do that to OJ, I don’t get why a dude that just ferried bin Laden around can be repeatedly brought to trial for the same things.
“The travesty of this verdict now is that had the case gone to trial in 2004 he would have been acquitted of all the charges,” said Deputy Chief Defense Counsel Michael Berrigan.
UPDATE: It’s a good thing he was found guilty of something, because even if he wasn’t he apparently would have been held as an “enemy combatant”. That’s what passes for justice in the “War on Terror”. Get found innocent, go back to your cell anyway. Excellent.
By Hanlon, on June 16th, 2008 at 03:58 PM
 I speak in hyperbole a lot on here, talking about things blowing my mind or giving me a nosebleed, but by and large I’m just embellishing. This, however, is no joke. I got a legitimate headache after seeing this.
President Bush has delivered an ultimatum: catch Bin Laden before his term ends.
The Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have been taking part in the US-led operations to capture Bin Laden in the wild frontier region of northern Pakistan. It is the first time they have operated across the Afghan border on a regular basis.
The hunt was “completely sanctioned” by the Pakistani government, according to a UK special forces source. It involves the use of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles fitted with Hellfire missiles that can be used to take out specific terrorist targets.
One US intelligence source compared the “growing number of clandestine reconnaissance missions” inside Pakistan with those conducted in Laos and Cambodia at the height of the Vietnam war.
We’re within three months of the seventh, the seventh anniversary of 9/11, and suddenly Dubya decides it’s high time to catch the guy who was responsible for it. What’s really painful though, is the reasoning. This one’s going in bold because you cannot skip it.
“If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.
Not “if bin Laden is captured, the world will be a safer place”, no. It’s if he can capture bin Laden, he can claim he left the world a safer place.
This man has no shame. Absolutely no shame. He doesn’t give two shits about bin Laden for the years following the attacks, but when he’s about to leave office all of a sudden he really, really wants to get ‘im. Not to protect the world, not to bring a murderer to justice. Just to salvage his own reputation.
By Hanlon, on March 20th, 2008 at 05:32 PM
 Is he alive? Is he dead? This is throwing a bit of a wrench into the mix, but Al Jazeera got their hands on an audio tape purportedly made by the Al Qaeda leader, this one having the terrorist leader going off on Israel-Palestine peace negotiations.
In the first recording, bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of helping in a “new Crusade” against Muslims and warned of a “severe” reaction for Europeans’ publication of cartoons seen by Muslims as insulting Islam’s prophet.
In the audio on Al-Jazeera, bin Laden said the sufferings of Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip began when Arab leaders supported the U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., and the “Zionist entity,” the militant name for Israel
The mention of the Annapolis summit in November was the only time reference given in the audio.
Is it just me, or is bin Laden sounding more and more like an old man who really wants to remain relevant?
However, I really do wonder how history will look at things like this. Is the lesson that you can murder a few thousand Americans, so long as you go into hiding and become “neutralized”?
|
|
|
