Capturing bin Laden: Classic or Dud?

They should tie him up and make him listen to "I Kiss You" by Mahir for 10 days straight.

Seriously though, I think capturing him would be good for everyone. Afghanistanis aren't exactly thrilled with his political ideals to begin with, plus it ends the bombing (hopefully). Americans have something symbolic to tear up and show to the rest of the world. Basically, it's a single sacrifice to help many, many people, and quite frankly I don't know if it's much of a sacrifice to get rid of Bin Laden.

if only Golda were alive . maonkrybot and his Raygun slim pickens ride the bom like a braha bull fuckwits will destroy us as much as osma .

I like the idea of him roaming free as a vigilante fugitive. Insensitive I know but the whole situation is rather remote to me. I cant think what the hell would happen if he was caught except it would give ample opportunity for more boring patriotic drivel and self congratulation.

The fact taht the Taliban wont turn that bastard over is very depressing. I hate those bastards. They are as bad as the kkk.

If Osama is captured, I hope they tear out each hair in his beard with an epilady.

I think the idea that the Taleban should turn anyone over at America's request quite ridiculous.

If an International Criminal Court orders them to then, and only then, maybe they should.

Also, there is a difference between the Taleban and al Qaeda. UBL does not lead the Taleban, he leads al Qaeda. They are two separate entities.

Seeing as the terrorists were apparently hanging out in America for a long time before they smashed the planes into the buildings then surely America should be bombing itself for harbouring them rather than bombing Afghanistan.

What to do with Osama? To steal an idea from Ice Cube -- tie him up, and then feed the bitch pork.

Your points are wryly amusing, Toraneko, but don't answer the question. Especially since putative international courts can't function without some form of governmental backing or acquiesence (ergo US participation by default or that of its allies, thus the World Court in the Hague, part of the EU set-up), while the question of who controls what in Afghanistan is so utterly fluid -- I've read any number of differing opinions on the matter, some saying that the Taleban control Bin Laden, others vice versa, still others a separate but equal situation -- that targeting the Taleban is inherently no more or less obvious an approach that targeting anyone else there. This presents its own problems, of course, and currently who knows how many people are now dead over there. Yay us, the wonderful place and its bombs. Whee.

Let's perhaps turn around the point to something you don't state but imply -- namely, the question of proof of Osama Bin Laden's involvement. The US says it has it but won't spread it out publicly due to security issues, which has actually caused some debate here and hopefully elsewhere as well. Let us say it was made publicly available, however, and considered beyond reasonable doubt in terms of getting an arrest and indictment. In US terms, this would mean that someone, specifically identified, had 5000 people murdered on US soil, the vast majority of whom happened to be American either by birth or by emigration. It's a crime carried out in the States, and can therefore be tried as a crime *in* the States. Were Bin Laden simply found and arrested in most countries, he likely would have been shipped to the States via extradition. There was a lot of understandable talk before the US started its attacks about extradition from Afghanistan, except that it was made by well-meaning people who apparently missed the minor facts that the lack of diplomatic relations with the Taleban, the understandable desire of Bin Laden (having already been indicted for previous attacks, viz the African embassy bombings etc.) to avoid ending up in the US and the fact that he has some sort of bodyguard who aren't going to let him just be handed over for the hell of it would tend to complication any such extradition procedure. Oh, and there's no Santa Claus.

For these reasons, capturing him alive would be both instructive and, frankly, satisfying. I think the whole dead or alive talk from BushCo has been one of that team's worst rhetorical moves, since it leaves Bin Laden the out of glorious martyrdom. Saying 'we want him alive, period' consistently removes that sting, to an extent, but that can't happen now. Regardless -- capture the guy, put him on trial, show the evidence. Is it worthy? A jury then decides.

Were I on that jury and found the evidence convincing, or were I a judge deciding the penalty assuming he was found guilty, the answer is clear -- life imprisonment without parole. No, don't let him die. In fact, keep him alive, humiliated, away from his self-fulfilling wish to be a martyr for his faith, held by his own self-created greatest enemy and treated by example in a much different way that he treated those who both followed him (hey, that's 17 people he sent to their death -- I can't imagine their families were all thrilled to bits) or who happened to be in the buildings and gave not a fig for. Far more entertaining and just, it seems to me, to implicitly show that the one gave death where we will preserve life -- but constrict it until it becomes a slow misery of years, held in a superprison like where McVeigh and the Unabomber ended up.

Then, of course, there are plenty of others we could put on trial. The intelligence officers who failed their duties, the airlines who resisted security measures to keep their profits high, the persons in the chain of command at the Pentagon who didn't relay the warning about the incoming plane until it was too late and a further 180 people needlessly perished, the past policymakers of previous US governments, the entire ring of Taleban commanders for willfully harboring Bin Laden, the Israeli and Palestinian governments for their cynical moves in all directions to make use of 9/11 for their own bloody ends...oh, the list goes on.

But even if it's Bin Laden alone, it's something to work with. A start.

Ned's central point is right. Bid Laden dead = a martyr. Bin Laden alive = opportunity for the US to win the propaganda war, which it is not currently doing. I mean, Islamists across the Muslim world are rioting against America in support of a guy who is turning up in his propaganda videos wearing an expensive American watch?? And the US is making no play of this? Capture OBL, put him in a superprison, leak videos of him eating expensive food and watching the cartoon network!

He is OBL = he thinks Bubbles is the cutest

Capturing Bin Laden is the last thing on earth the US are going to want to do. Far too politically sensitive. Much better for him to get blown to smithereens by one of those cluster bombs, in order to sidestep that dreadfully encumbering straightjacket of "international justice".

Plus the US Constitution imposes a blanket ban on the use of torture. Jolly inconvenient that. That's why the US govt. are currently considering extraditing the 900 or so suspects in US jails to other countries that lack such rigorous constitutional safeguards.

Of course, that won't bother the Pakistani suspect who died recently in a New Jersey cell under suspicious circumstances. The official explanation of that should make rather interesting reading.....

Capturing Bin Laden is the last thing on earth the US are going to want to do. Far too politically sensitive.

Uh, how? It's already common knowledge he was parting of the CIA funding in the eighties and all that, so what could be covered up there?

That's why the US govt. are currently considering extraditing the 900 or so suspects in US jails to other countries that lack such rigorous constitutional safeguards.

I haven't seen any mention of this either in domestic or overseas sites of any stripe. Care to back this up?

'parting of' -- more like 'part of,' oh yes.

Care to back this up?

here.

Ah, thank ya Kerry. *reads* Fascinating -- not beyond them either, to be sure, but as of yet only one anonymous source. I think the point of the other fellow quoted needs to be kept in mind -- not merely in terms of getting the wrong person and all the potential lawsuits and exposure and more, but simply the larger issue of trying to use this practice anyway. I'd expect a rapid response from conservative and liberal pressure groups both against it if it was openly discussed, and it would likely lose Bush the election in 2004.

As it is, sending them overseas seems pointless and counterproductive. I'd rather have the key suspects where they are -- but there is the much larger problem of the whole 800+ people in custody without public discussion or review of the charges or rationale right now anyway, which is the bigger problem and the worst travesty on American soil after everything happened. Not good at all.

Capturing OBL = Classic, yes. Tom E is right, BUT I think he underestimates that the Martyr Factor would work in the event of capture as well (though *perhaps* less than in the event of death).

But anyway, capturing OBL for International Court seems to be Morally and Legally Right, as far as I can see, regardless of Propaganda War factors.

Oh, and here is the original Washington Post article which the Times article references.

Is there any evidence that proves that OBL did it?

Is there any evidence that proves that OBL did it?

The $64,000 question, or $64,000,000 question if you like. The US says yes and has shared it out with NATO/the EU and Pakistan, at the least. There was some random quote from a Pakistan higher-up who said that the evidence was definitely enough to indict Bin Laden. The logical and understandable response to this has been, if the evidence is so straightforward, just make it public. US gov't response: 'Can't, this would compromise contacts/agents/people in place/etc.' Potential implication: there's somebody on the inside of Bin Laden's organization they're relying on. Equally potential implication: they're covering their own blunders.

yeah, I guess by "evidence" i don't mean saying "trust me".

Like Ned and Tom, I'd personally like to see bin Laden eventually dispatched to some specially-built prison in the Aleutian Islands, in a cell with all the corrupting influences of the West at his disposal, "cozy and snug, sipping cocoa and watching Tiny Toons" while the world went about its business. Talk about your banality of evil.

Unless the govt. made some ingeniously Draconian restrictions on his ability to make contact with the outside world, I'm not sure bin Laden would be harmless behind bars. Think of all the mobsters and thugs who've been able to conduct their dirty work in the big house. Think of Mannheim Prison, supposedly the most secure maximum-security prison in the world, and yet also the site of the simultaneous suicide of several Baader-Meinhof members with weapons presumably smuggled in by their lawyers. Plus, the inevitable spate of interviews with Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Oprah, Ricki Lake, et al. could always be used for propaganda purposes, no doubt. (And I'm sure his capture will never squelch the inevitable rumors that the USA has – wittingly or unwittingly -- a fake Osama in the prison.)

Unless the govt. made some ingeniously Draconian restrictions on his ability to make contact with the outside world

The Colorado-based superprison I mentioned pretty much has that going for it, I gather. It's where the Feds put their worst case scenarios in one place precisely to keep a very close eye on them -- I understand everyone's in solitary, only a one-hour exercise period allowed per day, no communication with any other prisoner or pretty much anyone else allowed, and the whole place is somewhere tucked away from any public access in the mountains. If someone can correct/trash this picture of the place, speak up, but it seems pretty effective. Big mob case convictees are there, as is the feller who took the heat for the 1993 WTC bombing, etc.

the whole place is somewhere tucked away from any public access in the mountains

sounds like the u.s. enforcement effort here is already accomplished.

Mike: there's widespread distrust of the Baeder-Meinhoff story. We'll probably never know the full truth, but odds are the govt. killed 'em.

sounds like the u.s. enforcement effort here is already accomplished.

Hurrah! It was so simple! *Rocky* Mountains, thank you very much, not the Hindu Kush or thereabouts. ;-)

Good to see that innocent until proven guilty is still the rule.

*bows to Toraneko* I humbly note that it's generally practice when suspecting someone of a crime to lay hands on the person to begin the legal process in full. This procedure is known by some as 'arresting.'

Actually I need to apologize to you there, Toraneko, I was in a very grouchy mood, so sorry about ratcheting up the sarcasm -- assuming you're talking about the people here in America being held as opposed to Bin Laden, which was my first thought, then yes, a major fuck-up and a half. I'll be interested to see what happens here over the next few weeks given the new laws signed in today.

We often hear of people over here who get, lets say, three year sentances but only have to go to gaol for one year because they've already been in custody for two. No-one ever mentions the people who've been held in custody for two years only to be found not guilty. I wonder how (and if) such people are compensated.

It seems to me that "innocent until proven guilty" cannot and does not really work. Unless an arrest/detainment cannot happen until after all the evidence has been presented and "beyond reasonable doubt" has already been established.

there's been a lot of talk about how obl symps in afgh and pakistan "really want evidence" or else they won't accept retaliation as a valid response. a kind of patronization goes along with this, like boy those simple people have really traditional and crude imaginings of fairness and law. well let me tell you: my mom and dad were Known Lefties in the hills of Tennessee before I was born. they rented a big old house in Blount County and apparently were watched. my father was mistaken for someone else with a beard who'd blown up a ROTC base at some college. in the middle of the night the police kicked their door in, barged into their bedroom and, with their flashlights in my folks' faces, started questioning them, calling them by name. now i'm not saying that these simple afghanis and pakistanis (and bangladesh..ians? and etc) regard obl as a parent, but i think the idea of 'proof' here, especially with the consequences that are already being parceled out along with the food drops (i.e. destruction of what incredibly frail infrastructure was already there, over and above actual killing of innocent people, which has happened) -- is not some quaint notion. it's passionately real. the u.s. has a responsibility - not to obl - but to the people of afgh and the possible future western victims of re-(re-?)retaliation (!!) to show their cards. one spy's life is not worth all that. tell him to get out now.

Actually, I was aware of the controversy about whether or not the Baader-Meinof were in fact murdered by the government, though it was my impression that the "conventional wisdom" in Germany was that as incredible as it may seem, they probably did off themselves.

In fact, I was initially going to bring this subject in my first post because it suggests another difficult post-capture scenario for bin Laden. What would happen if Osama died -- for whatever reason -- in jail? I think you can pretty much guarantee that a significant number of people will say THE GUMMINT DID IT, regardless of what evidence the govt. might present to the world to prove otherwise.

I wonder how (and if) such people are compensated.

I seem to recall cases in America where the authorities are sued for false arrest/imprisonment/etc. Can't speak about the potential success rate.