Due Process and the Murder of Osama bin Laden

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Archie

unread,
May 3, 2011, 5:51:02 PM5/3/11
to
Okay class.
Pay attention.

For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
rule of law.

Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?

For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.

Charlie Yankee

unread,
May 3, 2011, 5:57:05 PM5/3/11
to

Perhaps he just needed a basketball court and a caseworker.

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:02:54 PM5/3/11
to

There is no such thing as "legal extrajudicial killing", it's a silly
oxymoron you made up. So, murdering Osama isn't what boy scouts would
do. What would boy scouts do, Archie?

Barry Bruyea

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:14:11 PM5/3/11
to

Most communist regimes practiced 'legal extrajudicial killings',
Archie.

Archie

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:34:29 PM5/3/11
to

Fail.
Sorry.

In the future try not to come to class drunk.

Archie

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:41:02 PM5/3/11
to

Fail.
You have completely missed the question on due process and its value.
Have you taken your ritalin today?

Archie

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:46:44 PM5/3/11
to
On May 3, 7:14 pm, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
> >Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>
> >For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
>
> Most communist regimes practiced 'legal extrajudicial killings',
> Archie.

And communism is bad why? State tyranny?
Like the rest of the class, you have not understood the question about
due process and why is is essential to preventing state tyranny,
fascism, and the problem you have with communist tyranny (without
providing citations).

Fail.

Charlie Yankee

unread,
May 3, 2011, 6:46:48 PM5/3/11
to
> Have you taken your ritalin today?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is this your attempt to scoop up (no pun intended) Ignatieff's old job
before he gets a chance to sign the offer?

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 3, 2011, 7:09:14 PM5/3/11
to

No, I didn't miss the question, what I wanted you to say was: "Why, Boy
Scouts would give even the most despised enemy the benefit of due
process!" A Boy Scout is trustworthy; loyal; helpful; friendly;
courteous; kind; obedient; cheerful; thrifty; brave; clean and reverent.

You seem to have just discovered that governments are known to take
"short cuts". Do you remember the outrage on the left when Bush failed
to get Osama? Do you think Obama was going to let him slip away, again,
and suffer that embarrassment all over? Get him and let God be the
judge. A trial would have been proper, and it would have been the gong
show of the century. And we don't know facts about whether they DID try
to take him alive or not.

We have extrajudicial killings going on right here in Canada, police who
shoot first and ask question later, then get paid for nothing while
government prosecutors debate and agonize for months or years whether to
even charge them with something.

And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
fair shake?

Charlie Yankee

unread,
May 3, 2011, 7:12:52 PM5/3/11
to
> fair shake?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Enemy of my enemy", you know.

Charlie Yankee

unread,
May 3, 2011, 7:17:27 PM5/3/11
to
On May 3, 7:09 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:

> And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
> fair shake?

Must...not...make...Jack Layton joke.

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 3, 2011, 7:42:15 PM5/3/11
to

What about rogues who are counting on your total faith in "Truth,
Justice, and the American Way"? In the comic book world the rogues can
do all the evil they want to you, even obliterate your planet. The
worst thing that happens to them is they get caught, tried and thrown in
a magic prison. Don't you think there is a great deterrent factor in
"we'll make an effort to treat your fair, but we're still prepared to
blow your head off to get you".

Of course, if you simply hate the United States and its club, no amount
of effort will ever be satisfactory.

Well Done

unread,
May 3, 2011, 8:07:56 PM5/3/11
to
Archie <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Okay class. Pay attention.
>
Fuck you. You're a trolling moron.
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--

gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm

unread,
May 3, 2011, 8:32:14 PM5/3/11
to

"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d16afdf8-6f2a-4939...@q21g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...

Guess the government can't complain if people interpret the law the same
way, and make unilateral decisions against their perceived illegal
activities..

Interesting that the FBI never had any evidence of BL involvement in 911,
nor was any credible evidence produced showing it. Some of the tapes
released were proven fakes.

Of course the chatter from inside some nine years ago was that Bin Laden
died of Kidney failure, but they wanted to maintain his status as "boogie
man" to scare the sheep... Assuming that is true, then don't expect any
pictures of his dead body... They will come up with some excuse as to why
they never took any pictures, or they would be too disturbing for us to see,
and/or they had to destroy the body before it reanimated, etc... No doubt
coupled with some BS about how things are even more dangerous now that he's
dead... they have bioweapons, nukes, blah blah blah all developed in secret
hideouts... so give us more of your liberty, and we'll try to protect you...
blah blah blah.

Its amazing how people are being played with this whole "terrorist"
theatrics and hysteria. This con goes back to Nero.


Barry Bruyea

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:47:29 AM5/4/11
to

The fact that you've never had a problem with communist tyranny is in
itself a problem.

Fail.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:20:55 AM5/4/11
to
On May 3, 8:09 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
> fair shake?-

Yes.

I'm worried about precedent. This is a thin edge of a wedge that can
be used against you and me. So is waterboarding, renditions, and the
bombing of civilian populations.

You often say you're worried about the state overextending itself.
Really?

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:21:46 AM5/4/11
to
On May 3, 8:12 pm, Charlie Yankee <charlieyan...@live.com> wrote:
>
> "Enemy of my enemy", you know.-

Even in formal, declared war you don't murder unarmed enemies.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:24:52 AM5/4/11
to
On May 3, 8:42 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> Of course, if you simply hate the United States and its club, no amount
> of effort will ever be satisfactory.-

I don't hate the United States. On the contrary.
I do hate the American state however but that's just a degree higher
than I hate all states.

You and pretty much everybody (not everybody) that posts here can't
seem to grasp the notion of how important legal principles are and how
important it is that the state does not rise above them.

Once that happens, anything can happen.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:29:54 AM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 6:47 am, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that you've never had a problem with communist tyranny is in
> itself a problem.
>
The fact that you just made that up is your problem.

We are not all black and white. I am not an evil communist. In fact,
the principles of individual freedom, that spirit as intended in the
legal systems of most Western democracies is as important to be as
left wing socialist principles.

That is why is rail against socialist, communist and capitalist based
states when they place themselves above basic legal principles.

The state can ruin any society, as you well know. And it will if we
let it.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:39:39 AM5/4/11
to
On May 3, 9:32 pm, "HostNotFo...@teranews.com" <gmr36v
$10h...@free.teranews.cm> wrote:
> "Archie" <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:d16afdf8-6f2a-4939...@q21g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Okay class.
> > Pay attention.
>
> > For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
> > killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
> > rule of law.
>
> > Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>
> > For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
>
> Guess the government can't complain if people interpret the law the same
> way, and make unilateral decisions against their perceived illegal
> activities..
>
> Interesting that the FBI never had any evidence of BL involvement in 911,
> nor was any credible evidence produced showing it. Some of the tapes
> released were proven fakes.

I found it chilling that when 9 11 happened, nobody claimed
responsibility. I have been watching new through the 70s, when these
thigns happen the responsible party always claims responsibility. To
them it's a huge propaganda victory and even when it isn't, for
example when the IRA or the PLO would inadvertently kill the wrong
people, they would still claim responsibility. Bin Laden would have
loved to claim responsibility for 9 11, but he didn't because he
didn't even know about it until it happened. I've seen him talk about
how he found out about it on television.

It is very strange how, once people catch the patriotic narrative, how
they cannot accept inconvenient facts that get in the way of their
story line.


>
> Of course the chatter from inside some nine years ago was that Bin Laden
> died of Kidney failure, but they wanted to maintain his status as "boogie
> man" to scare the sheep... Assuming that is true, then don't expect any
> pictures of his dead body... They will come up with some excuse as to why
> they never took any pictures, or they would be too disturbing for us to see,
> and/or they had to destroy the body before it reanimated, etc... No doubt
> coupled with some BS about how things are even more dangerous now that he's
> dead... they have bioweapons, nukes, blah blah blah all developed in secret
> hideouts... so give us more of your liberty, and we'll try to protect you...
> blah blah blah.

I don't agree. The American are not that clumsy. Claiming him to be
aloive when he is dead would shatter their credibility altogether. I
believe they found out where he was, sent in the military, and ordered
him executed and not taken prisoner.


>
> Its amazing how people are being played with this whole "terrorist"
> theatrics and hysteria. This con goes back to Nero.

What I find even more fascinating than 9 11, the murder of Bin laden
and so on is the willingness people have to give up legal principles
that are vital to a free society such as we have witnessed in this
thread.

I would love to do some research on this.

I used to wonder how tyrants can rise and adhere to modern educated
populations. I still wonder.

Barry Bruyea

unread,
May 4, 2011, 3:50:12 PM5/4/11
to

You make it sound that what was done would cause the commission of
brutality or execution to Westerners? Where the hell have you been,
Archie? Public beheadings and other brutal acts that have violated
international rules. Where were your objections then, Archie?

Barry Bruyea

unread,
May 4, 2011, 3:51:47 PM5/4/11
to

"Anything" has happened, Archie, many times.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 4:00:15 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 4:50 pm, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
> You make it sound that what was done would cause the commission of
> brutality or execution to Westerners?  Where the hell have you been,
> Archie?  Public beheadings and other brutal acts that have violated
> international rules.  Where were your objections then, Archie?

We can respond to brutality with shoring up security above all else,
as has been the response by Western nations to the 9 11 attacks. Or we
could stand our ground and proceed with legal means to arrest any
conspirators that have been involved.

Instead we have responded with all the cowardice shown by the
communists you so often decry.

We have a collective choice. We can live with freedom and due process
or we can live under arbitrary state power. There are no examples you
can provide of a state that we can trust. They all abuse power. It's
the nature of the beast.

Since I am a lone voice here, which surprises me to no end, we can
rest assured that the state, our state Canada, the USA, and all the
states we had thought of as states that operated UNDER the law will
operate above the law with impunity.

So much for standing on guard for thee.

This is perhaps the most important thing we can discuss.

But hey, I'm just a communist. Right?

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 4, 2011, 4:35:52 PM5/4/11
to

You're falling into the trap of legal positivism. Just because
something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and vice versa. Was it
moral to execute bin Laden? In my opinion hell yeah, he was an admitted
cancer to anyone who likes to live by secularist and democratic values.
Was is legal and proper? Probably not. In the court of public
opinion, if the action was perceived as moral then the legality of it is
basically moot.

David Johnston

unread,
May 4, 2011, 4:41:31 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 4:20 am, Archie <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:09 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
> > fair shake?-
>
> Yes.
>
> I'm worried about precedent.

The precedent that American operatives kill troublesome foreigners has
been ever-present since the start of the Cold War. This is nothing
particularly new.

David Johnston

unread,
May 4, 2011, 4:43:46 PM5/4/11
to

Pretty much any military operation involves extrajudicial killing. As
long as it was authorized by higher command and doesn't violate a
Geneva Convention, it's legal.

Charlie Yankee

unread,
May 4, 2011, 4:59:06 PM5/4/11
to
> before he gets a chance to sign the offer?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay, time for a less glib response.

Do I approve of extrajudicial killing as a general practice? No.
Applying the Categorical Imperative, I cannot then in all honesty say
that killing Bin Laden without a trial was a morally or legally
correct thing to do. Weighing that on the scale against the
extrajudicial killing of 3000 people for the sole crime of working in
an American office complex, however, I find it difficult to summon
much outrage about how Bin Laden left the world.

Even if we assume that OBL had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, he
was by the very nature of his profession a killer of innocents.
Deliberately targeting and killing non-combatants was and is the
raison d'etre of the organization of which he was the "emir". There
is no concept of "collateral damage" in al-Qaeda, other than perhaps
the death of one of their own. They don't try to avoid killing
civilians. That's what they do. That is the task they devoted
themselves to. So there is no valid "one man's terrorist is another
man's freedom fighter" moral equivalency cop-out here. Was killing
OBL without a trial wrong? Probably. Am I going to have any
sleepless nights over it? Probably not.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:02:36 PM5/4/11
to
> basically moot.-

This is exactly my point. The desirability of it is not the issue.
The legality of it is the issue. That the state can act outside the
law with impunity is the point.
Once you've crossed that line, you are standing on the side of the
fascists, the feualists, the mafia and Hell's Angels. Once you cross
that line and once the state crosses that line, civil order is a
farce. An illusion.

Once they are permitted to do it to Bin Laden, with impunity, we are
all at risk. We no longer live in a society under the rule of law.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:06:50 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 5:41 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The precedent that American operatives kill troublesome foreigners has
> been ever-present since the start of the Cold War.  This is nothing
> particularly new.

Doing it covertly isn't new. Doing it openly is. Since 9 11 the state
has intentionally crossed many lines that should never have been
permitted. Extrajudicial killings is but one.

The fact that they openly brag about it is not so much about the
actual crime itself. It is about setting a definition of the
situation. It is about normalizing state omnipotence. We shrug at our
own collective peril.

in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:07:07 PM5/4/11
to
Archie the class clown said..

>Okay class.
>Pay attention.
>For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
>killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
>rule of law.
>Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.

Archie how can you have due process, when Bin Laden was already dead, this
false flag operation was nothing more then a political scam...

The new boogeyman is: You, the average American Citizen.

What is it about?

Mirroring how George W. Bush stood on the rubble of the twin towers to
perform a staged public relations stunt in the aftermath of 9/11 as he
enjoyed a huge surge in popular approval, Barack Obama is attempting to pull
off the same trick, invoking “9/11-style unity” and busily head right to
ground zero to shamefully exploit the Bin Laden fairytale his administration
has crafted.

Steve R. Pieczenik prepared to tell grand jury name of general who told him
9/11 was false flag attack.Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik,
a man who held numerous different influential positions under three
different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly
told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and
that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general
told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.
Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous
different influential positions under three different Presidents and still
works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show
yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to
testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that
9/11 was a false flag inside job.

Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations,
Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and
still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy
Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the
Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.

Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for
psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for
transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and
intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while
also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later
employed around the world.

Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry
Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George
W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact
that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over
the past three decades plus.

The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was
also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is
also based on Steve Pieczenik.

Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show
that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government
was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse.
Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden
and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan
back in the early 80′s.

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special
forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA
physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had
marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead
before they invaded Afghanistan.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no
permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence
community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had
visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so
nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died
shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.

“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the
answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s
claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This
whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a
screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to
the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and
Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a
television screen.

“It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the
absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already
dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American
people,” asked Pieczenik.

“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have
attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking
that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked
a mortuary.

Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because
Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that
the birther issue was blowing up in his face.

“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,”
said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan
as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which
has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.

“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and
watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and
you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just
killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik,
calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was
absurd.”

Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a
“sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate
to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born
here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his
background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the
American public can be duped once again.”

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by
numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the
world.

Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the
emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that
had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney
created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.

During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also
asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand
down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand
jury to reveal the general’s name.

“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz,
Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as
having been directly involved.

“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the
American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general
on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and
swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it
open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had
happened”.

“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college,
I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the
American public,” he added.

Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of
the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that
we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that
was absurd.”

Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party
member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in
which his country is heading.

Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below.


http://www.fathers.ca/FEATUREDSTORIES/TheBinLadenFiles.aspx

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:09:27 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 5:43 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty much any military operation involves extrajudicial killing.  As
> long as it was authorized by higher command and doesn't violate a
> Geneva Convention, it's legal.

Killing an unarmed soldier in cold blood is certainly illegal.
Killing a man in his home amongst his family that has already been
apprehended is certanly illegal. There can be no legal justification
for that under any set of laws.

The fact is, Obama has committed first degree murder.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:16:38 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 5:59 pm, Charlie Yankee <charlieyan...@live.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, time for a less glib response.
>
> Do I approve of extrajudicial killing as a general practice?  No.
> Applying the Categorical Imperative, I cannot then in all honesty say
> that killing Bin Laden without a trial was a morally or legally
> correct thing to do.  Weighing that on the scale against the
> extrajudicial killing of 3000 people for the sole crime of working in
> an American office complex, however, I find it difficult to summon
> much outrage about how Bin Laden left the world.

This is not about emotion.
We cannot forge laws based on outrage or any emotion.
Doing so opens into another dimension and we know, from history, what
that dimension is like.

> Even if we assume that OBL had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, he
> was by the very nature of his profession a killer of innocents.
> Deliberately targeting and killing non-combatants was and is the
> raison d'etre of the organization of which he was the "emir".  There
> is no concept of "collateral damage" in al-Qaeda, other than perhaps
> the death of one of their own.  They don't try to avoid killing
> civilians.  That's what they do.  That is the task they devoted
> themselves to.  So there is no valid "one man's terrorist is another
> man's freedom fighter" moral equivalency cop-out here.  Was killing
> OBL without a trial wrong?  Probably.  Am I going to have any

> sleepless nights over it?  Probably not.-

That's not the point.
The point is that if Western law and civilization is as paper thin as
that - that not only the American Constitution but a system of laws
dating back to the Magna Carta - that's back to the year 1215, is
treated with contempt for political or military expedience, or for
emotional satisfaction, we really are no different than any barbarians
we complain about.

So, ultimately, we are no different than Al Qeada.

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:22:11 PM5/4/11
to

I got the point, I'm not unclear on it. I just look at due process in
the United States and find myself shaking my head a lot. What the US
has is better than most countries but it isn't exactly a model of
perfection. No system is.

I just think all the people screaming about bin Laden's rights (it's a
high profile media event, not just some poor sap getting the shaft by
crooked or overzealous government prosecutors) should focus on fixing
the system and protecting rights on the domestic front, first. Then we
can worry about fixing justice for terrorist thugs.

And we're doing SOMETHING right if we can at least sit here and debate
whether it was legal and proper. In many stats around the world we
wouldn't even be able to challenge government actions.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:31:37 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 6:22 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> And we're doing SOMETHING right if we can at least sit here and debate
> whether it was legal and proper.  In many stats around the world we
> wouldn't even be able to challenge government actions.-

Be careful about that patting ourselves on the back.
It wasn't so long ago we in Canada, the people in the USA and much of
the Western world woprld be outraged by extraordinary renditions,
Gitmo, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

The fact that most are not spooks the hell out of me.
I feel like I'm in some strange episode of the Twilight Zone.

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 4, 2011, 5:34:30 PM5/4/11
to

If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.

There are scores of dead, untried people in Canada and the U.S. with
police bullet holes in the back. It usually gets chalked up to
overzealous policing and rarely results in criminal charges.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:03:47 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 6:34 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
> capture then I think they are fair game.  Especially alleged terrorist
> thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.
>
> There are scores of dead, untried people in Canada and the U.S. with
> police bullet holes in the back.  It usually gets chalked up to
> overzealous policing and rarely results in criminal charges.

You're going to green light this state murder no matter what.
I'm warning you these types of events are the thin edge of a fascist
wedge.

Your problem with Stalin was what exactly?

Chom Noamsky

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:35:16 PM5/4/11
to

There are higher priority injustices to worry about.

gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:40:54 PM5/4/11
to

"Chom Noamsky" <fr...@stew.yum> wrote in message
news:jrCdnYQPus7xW1zQ...@giganews.com...

> On 5/4/2011 3:21 AM, Archie wrote:
>> On May 3, 8:12 pm, Charlie Yankee<charlieyan...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Enemy of my enemy", you know.-
>>
>> Even in formal, declared war you don't murder unarmed enemies.
>
> If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
> capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
> thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.

Still would have been an opportunity to show that civilized societies use
due process to prosecute criminals... like they did with many of the Nazi
leaders. Capturing him would have instilled more fear in the minds of
terrorists, as dying is pretty much how they become saints in their circle.
Being captured would have been seen as a humiliation. Not to mention all the
info they might have gathered.

This whole scenario seems more like a Tom Clancy novel or video game.... In
fact ABC even used video game graphics to show what supposedly occured.


gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:45:58 PM5/4/11
to

"Chom Noamsky" <fr...@stew.yum> wrote in message
news:iv6dnXo9nIYVXlzQ...@giganews.com...

The problem is, who defines what a "terrorist thug" is, you or the
government? How big is the no-fly list now.... how high on the list do you
need to be to be capped without trial or evidence?

Once you set the precedent that its ok to cap terrorists, just being on the
list makes you a target. The capping of the top guy is just to set the
precedent, not limit the means.


Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 7:41:35 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 7:35 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> There are higher priority injustices to worry about.

The rule of law is fundamental.
It's nothing to tamper with.
Giving arbitrary power to the state is an incredibly dangerous
devlopment.

This is one arguement I wish I was wrong on. But I'm not.
You'll see.

Archie

unread,
May 4, 2011, 7:43:18 PM5/4/11
to
On May 4, 7:40 pm, "HostNotFo...@teranews.com" <gmr36v

$10h...@free.teranews.cm> wrote:
>
> Still would have been an opportunity to show that civilized societies use
> due process to prosecute criminals... like they did with many of the Nazi
> leaders. Capturing him would have instilled more fear in the minds of
> terrorists, as dying is pretty much how they become saints in their circle.
> Being captured would have been seen as a humiliation. Not to mention all the
> info they might have gathered.

A trail for Bin Laden would have been quite an event.

But that is what they feared more than anything else. There's no way
they were going to let that happen.
Too many myths would be shattered.

Dave Smith

unread,
May 4, 2011, 7:43:50 PM5/4/11
to

It's sort of like giving arbitrary power to religious whackos who claim
to be acting on behalf of god.

gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm

unread,
May 4, 2011, 8:08:31 PM5/4/11
to

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Vwlwp.89445$9_7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

Yes, well the 'religion of government' is the biggest cult in human history,
and has caused more deaths than any other human endeavour... It arises out
of the misguided idea that man made government is godlike in its authority,
having universal authority over all within their border, and being above
law, and the sole source of law.. Constitutions, enacted by the people, are
supposed to limit the power and scope of their governments, but these only
last until "war measures" or "public safety concerns" are invented by their
"leaders" (gods in effect) that people then allow (through fear, misguided
patriotism and ignorance) to supersede the contract made by the people as a
license for government to exist, and be legitimate. The dog that was
supposed to protect you now growls at you.

Its usually not long after that that everything falls apart, and new
patriots are forced to build from the ashes - if any are left.

How do you win a war where your enemy supposedly "hates your freedom"....?
Every time you are attacked, you finds ways to increase freedom, or be sure
to preserve the freedom you have, so as not to encourage your enemy that he
is winning. Instead we see just the opposite.... so there is a clear
relationship between the terrorist, and the politician who assists his
goal... and its not hidden from view either. Governments have used terror to
gain ever more power over their people since before Nero.

in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1

unread,
May 4, 2011, 8:45:46 PM5/4/11
to
The mythology surrounding America’s public enemy number one took yet another
bizarre turn this week as Washington announced that after ten years of
searching they have finally located and killed their illusive adversary,
Osama bin Laden.

This means that, in theory, there can only be a limited number of actual
witnesses and that there is no body to verify that it genuinely was bin
Laden, leaving the public with only the government’s official version of
events to believe. Confusion, not conclusion, will be the order of the day.
It is likely that this tactic was an intentional one on the part of
Washington, providing pundits and conspiracy theorists with an endless knot
that will take decades to unravel.

Numerous past reports of bin Laden’s death

Since 2001, numerous reports and statements have been made confirming the
death of bin Laden. Infowars chronicled a list of these incidents recently,
reporting the following:

Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure soon after the September 11, 2001,
attacks.

This confirmed the evidence that Jones had been given by the CFR and others.

Predictable Results and the US Governments Fear-mongering tactic's too
hoodwink the public further

With little to celebrate in the US where the US dollar is plummeting,
unemployment numbers have reached record highs and government deficits are
bleeding the public resources, and the US government has a police state in
Action now... Bin Laden’s reported death has provided something for American
to celebrate with spontaneous celebrations erupting in places like New York
City and Washington DC. With a system of which has grown into an institution
since 2001, the security state’s reaction to the announcement of Bin Laden’s
demise is as routine as it is predictable. For a public who has been trained
to live in a perpetual state of fear, the alleged death of Bin Laden
translates into a brief respite and opportunity to celebrate followed by yet
another increase in the security apparatus.

The result of this latest chapter in the Bin Laden saga has been an
elevation in “Terror Threat Levels”. In near robotic fashion, all major news
outlets are running identical talking points centred on authorities in
Western countries who are advising “vigilance against possible Al Qaeda
strikes in retaliation to the death of Osama Bin Laden”.

Authorities are also advising that people “avoid travel to areas where
anti-western protests may erupt” and also to “avoid public gathering that
might attract a revenge attack”.

Questions are raised about the media’s reporting of latest bin Laden death.
It wasn’t long ago that Wikileaks files were cited where Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed told Guantanamo Bay interrogators the terror group would detonate
the nuclear device if the al-Qaeda chief was captured or killed. The alleged
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is said to have warned that al-Qaeda has
hidden a nuclear bomb “somewhere in Europe” which will unleash a “nuclear
hell storm” if Osama bin Laden was ever captured. Obama: A timely
announcement Broadcasters and pollsters will tell you that Sunday evening is
the very best time to plant a story because most Americans are home,
preparing to face another work week, and the largest percentage of Americans
watch TV on Sunday evening. When President Obama finally made his statement
about how he had located bin Laden and killed him in a firefight, the
President proceeded to take no reporter questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-N3dJvhgPg&feature=player_embedded

Obama’s bin Laden moment: the President bolsters his wartime resume this
week.

The timing of this announcement certainly carries a high political value for
a US administration soon entering a new Presidential election cycle in 2012.
In the world of modern US politics, the “patriot card” is the ace which can
be produced during any speech or Presidential debate. Obama has clearly
positioned himself as the man who will “take credit” for the killing of
Osama bin Laden, even though he died back in 2001. The ten year anniversary
for Sept 11, 2001 will take place this fall and it is certain that Obama
will rehash this week’s glorious assassination from a podium at Ground Zero.
Obama’s wartime resume will also be bolstered by this week’s event, a tool
he will likely employ in the Democrat effort to effectively stave off any
challengers from the Republican Party’s right wing next year.

Another state-sponsored assassination

In the wake of the infamous Iraqi WMD debacle and with tax payer confidence
in the abilities of US Intelligence community at an all-time low, this
latest announcement will be used by Washington to demonstrate that their
agencies are indeed competent and can actually produce valid and actionable
intel. In effect, Washington will use its latest campaign to wipe the old
slate clean and build on this apparent victory, possibly with some future
intel concerning prospective adversaries like Iran.

This latest state-sponsored assassination also re-enforces the precedent of
targeting foreign leaders outside of the boundaries of legal justice.
Currently the US and NATO are carrying out a series of targeted
extrajudicial killings in Libya, an effort that has already claimed the
lives of Gaddafi’s immediate family and one which hopes to eventually
eliminate Gaddafi himself.

Both unusual and illegal as this may appear on its surface, the Western
public has now become accustomed to seeing its governments carry out these
high level state mafia-style hits, a rather bizarre trend for evolved
Western civilization. It goes without saying that in almost all of these
cases, each of these high-profile victims could not be successfully brought
in front of any real court of justice due to an acute lack of evidence
against them. They amount to purely political targets who unfortunately will
be denied the luxury of any proper investigation into the West’s charges
against them.

A shift in focus towards new enemies

Amongst all the hype and revelry, it still seems rather implausible that
Osama bin Laden has “been on the run” for nearly a decade. Authorities would
like us to believe that it took the entire US military industrial complex 10
years to both locate and kill Osama Bin Laden, their sworn public enemy
number one. What is more plausible is that this particular moment in time
has in fact been chosen and the event has been staged and later
choreographed for mass media consumption.

Once the feel-good factor, public traction and the brief heightened state of
alert has been spent, Washington and its NATO allies will be turning their
sights further down field.

Most significant, is that this new announcement could very well be signaling
a shift in US and NATO war plans, gradually moving focus away from the War
on Terror and repositioning US public angst towards a cadre of new
nation-state enemy players. With both occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan
still on the burner, US imperial aspirations overseas are already at near
breaking point. Polls and historical trends also show that American voters
will not likely want to switch their leadership during a hot military
conflict, so we can expect that an expansion of ground troops could occur in
Libya, or that a brand new operation could be launched as early as next
spring 2012. On top of US and NATO agendas for prospective conflicts are
clearly Libya (currently in progress), Iran and possibly Syria. Any one of
these potential conflicts will require solid backing from the US public in
order to ensure their launch and longevity.

Mark Twain could not have scripted a better ending for this, the season
finale of Osama On the Run. As events unfold in the coming months, educated
members of the public will be able to better piece together the real behind
significance of Sunday’s announcement and read the long-range foreign policy
game plan of the US, Israel and their NATO allies. Watch this space.

Remember you the public will be accused of being a terrorist soon enough and
Hitler's Dreams come to life...

Erik®

unread,
May 4, 2011, 11:20:43 PM5/4/11
to
Archie wrote...

I'm curious why you consider bin Laden to be 'special' when you're
fully aware that tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent nobodies have
already been victims of what is essentially 'state murder' during the
US/NATO/UN adventures in the Middle East. Same thing is going on right
now in Libya.

If Obama really did kill Osama (which is becoming somewhat
questionable), why is it so important to heap extra condemnation on the
murder of a figurehead who is undeniably a fomentor of violent anti-
Western Jihadism?

Everything about war has changed, Archie. Until the last couple of
decades or so, for thousands of years the idea has been to boast about
how many of the enemy 'our side' has killed, while minimizing our own
casualties. Now it's the opposite. For example Canadians hear about
almost every one of our war deaths in Afghanistan but we don't have a
clue how many of the enemy we've killed. The mainstream media mostly
talks about destroyed enemy infrastructure or vehicles, but not enemy
combatants. We do hear about civilian casualties from time to time.

After the mess in Iraq things are really coming closer to their logical
conclusion in Libya. The bombing of Gadhaffi's residences in Tripoli
are called attacks on his 'command and control centres' rather than
targeted attacks on the dictator and his family - but it's pretty
obvious to most people what this is really about. The Obama
administration is trying to pretend that they're not really all that
involved in this particular war.

If the endgame becomes, by following these examples, only trying to
knock off enemy heads of state or the leaders of opposing factions, then
I'd be all for it; except by then the only collateral damage will be a
drastic increase in the loss of civil liberties we're already seeing.


Barry Bruyea

unread,
May 5, 2011, 5:10:48 AM5/5/11
to


I don't want our troops in Afghanistan and I certainly don't want them
anywhere else that is not a clear cut mandate to protect a population
under extreme danger. We should have been in Rwanda, but the
selective choices made by a ridiculously ineffective U.N. kept us out
except for a token force led by a Canadian general who could do
nothing. In Afghanistan, we are not protecting anyone. Everyday the
(in most cases, unarmed) population is being slaughtered by their own
so our presence is a useless exercise that has killed 150 Canadians.
I no longer give a damn what the Americans are doing in Iraq or
Afghanistan and the fact that the Americans chose to kill (or murder
if that's what you think) the man they hold responsible, I don't
really give a damn and refuse to make moral judgements one way or the
other.

Archie

unread,
May 5, 2011, 6:43:11 AM5/5/11