Bin Laden is dead, official

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by tater

The rationale for not publishing is lousy. It's to avoid offending people who are not even Americans. Quite frankly, who cares what muslims think? Not my problem. It's exactly the same rationale not to publish "offensive" cartoons. It's ridiculous, and sets a terrible precedent.

Releasing the photo only accomplishes placating the skeptical. It would serve no other purpose. The skeptical will still be skeptical of the photos as well. It is a waste of good bandwidth.

[vienna]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110505/ts_yblog_thelookout/debate-confusion-on-bin-laden-photos

Meanwhile, three Republican senators yesterday said they'd seen the pictures--before walking back on those claims later in the day, raising the possibility that they had been duped by fake images on the Internet.
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts told the cable station NECN: "I have seen the photos." But later he told the station that he now understood the photos weren't authentic.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee, also claimed to reporters that he had seen the photos, before backing off in an email to The Ticket. A spokeswoman blamed the slip on a "miscommunication."

And Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire told reporters: "I saw a photo of him deceased, the head area." But later she said in an email to The Ticket: "While I was shown a photo by another senator of what appeared to be a deceased Osama bin Laden, I do not know if it was authentic."

This is how so many various versions of "facts" come about; the press, in its fever to get the "scoop", seek comments from people who have marginal to no connection to those who really know what is going on and the broadcast the comments as reliable "fact". The "source close to the administration", the "government offical who asked to be unnamed", the "Pentagon official speaking on condition of anonimity", all contribute to the ongoing game of 'Telephone' where something is said and warped, transformed, and mutated to fill the purpose of whoever is reporting. Then, when the Administration tries to clarify or correct the "reports", they are accused of trying to coverup or backtrack. This is not a defense of the Obama White House; this has been going on with a vengeance since probably the Nixon Administration, if not longer. A probable good rule of thum is to regard initial reports in the media with large and several grains of salt. Here, in Los Angeles, a local radio station, when informed of a major coming announcement from the White House, spent the hour or so leading up to the actual announcement wildly speculating on the possible subject matter. The gamut of possible subjects was mind-boggling. The situation got so frenzied, the station was actually reporting Twitter tweets as if they were reports from wire services, press secretaries, or government spokespersons.

[Growler]

Ah, the Internet. Misunderstanding each other at near-real-time has never been so convenient.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Growler

Ah, the Internet. Misunderstanding each other at near-real-time has never been so convenient.

Right up to the BSOD!

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by vienna

You can't handle the truth!!!

[MH]

Carefully US
It might turn into war crime lol
United Nations whats wrong with those people

UN questions U.S. on legality of bin Laden killing


Steven Edwards, Postmedia News

Published: Tuesday, May 03, 2011
UNITED NATIONS - The UN's chief human rights official led calls by rights activist organizations on Tuesday for Washington to explain whether U.S. forces lawfully killed Osama bin Laden.

The request by Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, came even as the world body continues to falter over its multi-year bid to define terrorism.

Pillay's bid also appeared to contradict the position held by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who on Monday described the U.S. action as a "watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism."

The mixed messages are likely to heighten critics' claims that the UN's human rights apparatus is frequently quick to probe for abuses by Western democracies - even as it appears to limit its criticism of some of the world's established human rights abuser states.

In an example of UN human rights scrutiny involving Canada, the UN's Working Group on People of African Descent announced this week it will visit the country May 16-20 to probe for discrimination against African-Canadians. In recent years the committee has visited the United States, Ecuador and Belgium - but shunned such destinations as Libya, where independent human rights groups such as UN Watch have said black Africans face persecution, and Sudan, where the United States has accused the Arab-led government of committing genocide in Darfur.

On the U.S. action in Pakistan Sunday, Pillay agreed that bin Laden was a "very dangerous man" who had acknowledged having "command responsibility for the most appalling acts of terrorism" - including the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States that killed almost 3,000. But she also said the United States had always "clearly stated they intended to arrest bin Laden if they could."

Admitting that taking bin Laden alive was "always going to be difficult," Pillay nevertheless signalled the United States needs to explain more about what happened in the compound.

"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing," Pillay said. "The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law."

Amnesty International said it was seeking "greater clarification" about what went on, while New York-based Human Rights Watch said "law enforcement" principles should have applied.

"If he wasn't shooting at the soldiers, the killing should be investigated," Brad Adams, Human Rights Watch Asia director, said in Bangkok at the launch of a report on Thailand.

"People are saying that justice has been done, but justice has not been done. Justice is when you arrest someone and put them on trial."

The White House on Tuesday scrambled to release a so-called "narrative" of the events leading to bin Laden's death after various government sources a day earlier suggested the al-Qaida leader had both been armed and used a woman as a human shield.

While the narrative said bin Laden had not been armed, it recounted a fierce firefight with others as the special operations forces fought their way to the compound's second and third floors, where the al-Qaida leader and family members were located. Bin Laden was also said to have offered resistance, while a woman identified as a wife lunged at the operatives, leading to her being wounded with a shot to the leg.

"There was concern bin Laden would oppose the . . . operation, and indeed he did resist," said Jay Carney, White House spokesman. "Bin Laden's wife rushed the U.S. assaulter, but was not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed."

Carney stated that "resistance does not require a firearm" after a reporter pressed him on how bin Laden could have posed a threat.

Speaking earlier, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the operation was "lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way."

"The people who were responsible for that action both in the decision making and in the effecting of that decision, handled themselves, I think, quite well," he told the judiciary committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A U.S. executive order signed in 1981 prohibits the United States or anyone acting on its behalf from conducting assassinations, but U.S. officials have argued there is legal latitude to target individuals in an ongoing conflict - including the current one in which bin Laden himself declared war on the United States and other nations.

"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the U.S. applies are . . . implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law," Harold Koh, legal adviser at the U.S. State Department, told a meeting of the American Society of International Law last year.

[Growler]

Next up, the ACLU, Reverend Jesse, and Al "Big Hair" Sharpton, for their moments of stolen spotlight.

[August]

US out of UN. UN out of US!

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

US out of UN. UN out of US!

Can we give them Al and Jesse as parting gifts?

[August]

Originally Posted by Growler

Can we give them Al and Jesse as parting gifts?

I'd prefer parting shots. We could use a clown cannon like they have at the circus.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

I'd prefer parting shots. We could use a clown cannon like they have at the circus.

Gonna need a large-bore and a lot of powder for Al.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by MH

Carefully US
It might turn into war crime lol
United Nations whats wrong with those people

Convenient that the admin has already laid the groundwork for an alibi- Panetta stating the Seals had final authority to kill, and a 'mysterious' blackout of video during the op.


http://www.businessinsider.com/bin-l...-missed-2011-5

[Ducimus]

Last i checked their was a great big hole in NY city that gave us all the authority we needed to kill that rat bastard any way we like. Personally, id have opted for a slow painful, and humiliating death. A bullet is just too quick.

[mookiemookie]

Oh, UN...

[TorpX]

So, Pakistan is saying UBL had no weapons.

The top 5 reasons why Osama had no weapons:

1. He just left his AK-47's in the last cave.
2. He had renounced violence and was planning a peaceful "jihad" with protest marches and sternly worded letters.
3. He never really liked guns; decided to rely on kung-fu, and only if "Great Satan" attacked first.
4. Who needs arms? The neighborhood by Pakistan Military Academy is very safe.
5. Osama was completely innocent. 911 was all a plot by George Bush.