"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us?

[Bonobo]

That was a phrase just used by President Obama and trumpeted by a DU'er here in another thread as a shining example of why we should be excited for the upcoming election.

Hooray for the fact that the Democrats never have to suffer the political liability of being attacked for being weak on national security.

But come on now, can't you even admit one little teenie bit that we had to sell a part of our souls for that?

Do you not see that we have swallowed, adopted and owned the very notions of what defines ourselves as being "strong on security" directly from the Republicans.

Can you not see how this represents a loss of identity, a failure of moral courage even as it is a "political home run"?

Yes, OBL was bad. Quadaffi was bad. Alkawi and all the other minor "Al Quaeda operatives bad, bad bad.

But who ARE we now? What is the long term price if we had to become them to "take away their issues"?

[JI7]

1. why do you get offended by such things ? it's about winning the election

glad Obama and other Dems and any supporters SHOULD bring these things up.

[Bonobo]

2. "It's about winning the election"

Is that what it is ALL about?

Is there nothing deeper at stake?

Maybe?

[JI7]

4. of course there is a lot we can lose like Roe v Wade,all the accomplishments

in the area of gay rights. and many other things if we lose the election.

so i'm all for bringing up these accomplishments in order to win.

[Bonobo]

9. It has been said in many ways by many people...

Here is one way the same bit of wisdom has been said. You may also have heard similar things from your mother, father or grandparents but in different language.

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?"
~Matthew 16:26


Here is another:

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee
~Friedrich Nietzsche

[FarLeftFist]

6. Not at this time. Please try back in 2016.

[SixthSense]

3. we are murderers and assassins and bullies and thieves

this is the face of modern America

we treat each other just as poorly

Unless you agree this is who we are it is incumbent upon you to do what you can about it.

[Confusious]

5. Still upset we couldn't bring a violent criminal to trial? nt

[JackRiddler]

59. Supposedly he was the leader of a terrorist network.

You'd think as a captive he'd be a valuable intelligence resource, and to kill him when he could be captured would be considered irresponsible and reckless.

[Confusious]

109. What makes you think he could

or would let himself, be captured?

He was a fanatic, 70 virgins and all, he probably preferred dying to being captured.

Our soldiers should have held their fire when he made threatening moves?

Ivory tower thinking.

[rug]

7. Yes. It's the reason the United States of America was created.

[bluestateguy]

8. I care about winning, not what makes me feel good inside

And Obama got Osama.

[phleshdef]

10. The 2 principal war criminals won't have to come to trial and I'm very happy they are out of the way

"The 2 principal war criminals won't have to come to trial and I'm very happy they are out of the way"

- Harry Truman, on the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini, confirming for the first time the death of Hitler to the public.

Did we sell part of our soul when Harry Truman basically said the same kind of thing?

[pinto]

15. Good analogy. (nt)

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Here's a good article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-bin-laden-had-been-captured-not-killed-an-alternate-history/2011/05/05/AFl7EO8F_story.html

All speculation, of course, but it does give you an idea of the headache associated with bin Laden had he been captured and not killed.

[phleshdef]

20. Er. I was quoting Harry Truman on the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini.

The OP asked (paraphrasing) if we sold part of our soul by basically endorsing rhetoric of that nature whenever the "enemy" is dead. I was just pointing out that Harry Truman expressed a similar kind of sentiment regarding Hitler and Mussolini upon their deaths.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. Yes, I know...

I was tying this back to bin Laden, which the OP was talking about and how we might not have been better off if bin Laden was never killed - just as your quote from Truman suggests about Hitler & Mussolini.

[phleshdef]

32. Why don't you read my entire post next time instead of just the title?

Then you won't end up asking irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with what I said.

[phleshdef]

35. I said Truman's statement was an example of a Democrat using the same kind of rhetoric.

The subject of this thread is not another rehash of Bush/Cheney war crimes stuff. The subject of this thread is Democratic Presidents using celebratory type rhetoric in regards to the death/killing of a foreign enemy. I think its impolite to try to change the subject of a thread so that you can discuss your own pet issue. You can make your own thread anytime you want.

[JackRiddler]

40. As you prefer.

[Zalatix]

62. Civilized societies do trials, summary executions is what savages do.

One side thing: Mussolini was summarily executed but Hitler killed himself.

Truman was wrong for saying that. Summary executions are always wrong. A civilized society puts war criminals on trial and finds them guilty before even considering any sort of execution.

In fact, in a civilized society, the only legitimate kind of killing is that done in self-defense. I'm not even sure anymore that the death penalty is acceptable.

[sabrina 1]

97. I thought you were talking about Bush and Cheney at first.

Please, we don't care about War Criminals. Killing Bin Laden without trial is a stain on this country as are all the killings we are engaged in. And most Americans at this point are, sadly, not particularly interested in who we kill, they are busy trying to hold on to their jobs and homes and their main issue is the economy.

Someday maybe this country will stop feeling the need to boast about how many people we can kill. How sad is it that this is what we are so proud of? Killing.

I hope we overcome this someday and can boast about our high moral standards starting with taking care of our own citizens.

[downwardly_mobile]

11. I'm sorry, we have not "become them."

We just haven't. Extreme OWS types want to call America fascist because mayors use cops to stop them from camping out. Nonsense. You want real fascism? Try Libya under the Qaddafi regime.

Has American firepower killed civilians in Afghanistan? Yes. As collateral damage. (Damage to people or property that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.) And rogue US troops occasionally commit murder upon civilians, as rogue troops of all nations always have, in every war. But does America pursue tactical goals like, oh, say, purposely bringing down buildings filled with a couple thousand civilians? No.

I have no problem with Obama's rhetoric at all.

[JackRiddler]

30. Did Libya ever invade a nation on the other side of the world...

on a false pretext, in a war of aggression, killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Did Libya have bases and carriers and submarines with missiles and warplanes and nuclear weapons at the ready around the world, claiming the right to strike in any country at any time entirely at its own discretion?

Was Libya, for all its human rights violations, imprisoning the highest proportion of its own people of any country in the world? Most of them for dealing drugs?

You don't experience these things, therefore you can treat them as less than real. Fascism (by whatever name, I'm using the one you chose) occurs for now in neatly separated compartments. In another compartment, down the street, all seems peaceful and prosperous and free, and the people there don't have to think about it. Fascism? Ridiculous!

.

There is no "collateral damage" by the way. If you make a decision to start a war, it is also a deliberate decision to kill the unarmed civilians who will inevitably die from it in large numbers as a statistical certainty. You kill enough of these thousands and a few of them might feel justified in retaliating more directly against your own civilians. The ratios are still many more of them killed. And what are you doing in their countries, again?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, but...

[JackRiddler]

48. The case against Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is dubious.

Mr. Boffin, obviously your intervention here is not an answer to what I wrote.

Nevertheless, to reply:

The Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-east-fife/police_chief_lockerbie_evidence_was_faked_1_1403341

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

Published on Sunday 28 August 2005 00:14

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.

The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison.

The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

SNIP

By 2009, the one man convicted for the Lockerbie bombing, Megrahi, was released by the UK on humanitarian grounds while his appeal, which looked set to overturn his conviction, was still in process.

You're not unfamiliar with the fact that even in the unlikely case that Megrahi had anything to do with the 1989 bombing of the Pan Am flight, the CIA still apparently saw a need to frame him by manufacturing the key evidence. In denial perhaps, but not unfamiliar:

So, how have they managed to cover up the Lockerbie frame-up for 17 years?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x177149

As emerged in 2007, CIA offered millions to the key witnesses in the case against Megrahi - a piece of information the prosecution forgot to tell the defense, as would have been required.

The Herald, Scotland

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1730667.0.0.php

SNIP

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found document during its three-year investigation, which concluded earlier this year that Megrahi should have a fresh appeal.

The document, thought to be from the CIA, contains highly classified information about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb. The Crown, for national security reasons, is still refusing to hand the material over to the defence.

SNIP

The Crown ultimately released Megrahi, avoiding the chance that his conviction would be reversed.

Again, your reply does not speak to my own post, or the subthread.

Nevertheless, there is a more clear-cut case:

Locater map depicting Iran Air 655's origination point, destination and approximate location of the shootdown. (The air corridor is not necessarily a direct path)


A missile departs the forward launcher of Vincennes during a 1987 exercise. The forward launcher was also used in the downing of Iran Air 655.

From Wikipedia: Iran Air Flight 655

What happened in that case is not in dispute.

Just more collateral murder.

Updating one of my posts from that Lockerbie thread:

Recalling the context

1) 1988: Vincennes downs Iranian airbus.

2) 1989: Lockerbie.

3) Circuit board found.

4) U.S. officials insinuate Syria as terror-sponsor state blew up Pan Am as contractor for Iran.

5) 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.

6) U.S. switches to openly accusing Libya of Lockerbie bombing.

7) Bush Sr. visits Assad Sr. to recruit him for upcoming Gulf War. They appear together in Damascus.

8) Sanctions on Libya for more than decade.

9) Libya caves in, produces 2 suspects for Scottish trial (held in Netherlands).

10) One conviction. Libya pays ransom to lift sanctions, even as Gaddafi continues to deny the verdict.

11) After 9/11, Libya and U.S. reconcile, Gaddafi takes a moral membership in the GWoT, practically makes love with Bush Jr. (and Blair. Many arms deals with West, joint friendly summits with Western leaders follow.)

12) 15 years after Lockerbie, Scottish police chief says CIA planted circuit board.

13) Scottish review board orders retrial of convict.

14) 2009: Convict is released prior to completion of retrial.

15) 2011: Arab Spring, uprising in Libya. Overnight, Gaddafi is enemy again, US-UK propaganda rediscovers Lockerbie as an unpunished atrocity.

I think any U.S. credibility in making a case against Libya vanished somewhere between 6 and 7.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Poor old Gaddafi.

He was so misunderstood.

[JackRiddler]

51. Who cares what the truth is, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. The truth is, Libya bombed Pan Am 103 the hell out of the sky.

And they did the same thing to UTA Flight 772 the next year with the exact same method.

[JackRiddler]

56. The Scottish review board does not share your certainty.

They ordered a retrial of Megrahi, which was interrupted by the UK decision to release Megrahi.

Your assertion is dubious and presented without support.

Do you have no answer for this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=157706

[Bolo Boffin]

60. The circuit board is impeached by one person. Other evidence shows that Libya had possession

of timers like that. There's plenty of other evidence that ties this to Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories#Alleged_framing_of_Libya

The Lord Advocate's comment seven months after the conviction shows how all the evidence was connected to Libya, not just the timer fragment, and how all of it combined points to Libya alone.

And nothing at all to say about UTA Flight 772, downed by exactly the same method the next year, and with six Libyans convicted in France for that crime? One being Gaddafi's brother-in-law? Nothing at all?

It's funny how no conspiracy theories sprung up about UTA Flight 772, only Pan Am 103.

[JackRiddler]

69. False. The circuit board is impeached by at least two persons.

The former Scottish police chief says the circuit board, already dubious because it was found months after the crash, was planted by the CIA. The manufacturer, Edwin Bollier, says that the CIA offered him millions of dollars to lie in support of its preferred story. The CIA also offered $2 million to another key witness. That's two impeaching the circuit board as evidence and two separate claims of CIA bribe attempts to manipulate the outcome of the court case. Strange that the truth needs so much financial support!

The lord advocate's comment you cite was not final. A retrial was later ordered by institutions of the same UK. The retrial was not completed because other UK authorities chose to release the convicted man prior to his possible exoneration. Curious.

The details of another crime in another jurisdiction may or may not be relevant; there have been many attempts to bomb passenger flights in history. All of the scenarios in this case, including your preferred story, involve more than one criminal planning together and thus are "conspiracy theories." In the Lockerbie case, the US accused Syria at a time when Syria was enemy and immediately switched to accusing Libya the moment when Syria was needed and Libya was enemy. Later Libya was friend again, and the recipient of Western arms; when it turned enemy a final time in 2011, Lockerbie was suddenly revived as an issue in the US-UK propaganda. If France had pulled such transparent political stunts with UTA 772, there might be similar doubts about that case.

For those who wish to review this argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=157706

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x177149

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Edwin Bollier? The guy who also claimed Gaddafi offered him $200M to get Megrahi free?

The guy who British officials contemplated charging as a co-conspirator, whose company had a long association with Gaddafi?

Really? Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/800094.stm

In court, he has sought to claim fragments of a timer circuit board found in the crash site could have been made by an American firm which supplied the CIA.

But under persistent questioning by Mr Turnbull, he had accepted that could not have been possible.

During the court hearing on Tuesday, Mr Bollier was shown a fragment of circuit board from an MST-13 timer which he accepted was manufactured by his company.

Suddenly, he's got this story about being offered a bribe and he delivered green, but the board was brown...

He does fit into your USA-bad-Libya-good narrative, though, doesn't he?

[JackRiddler]

75. My "narrative" is not "USA-bad-Libya-good."

Your phrase is meaningless. The peoples and their governments are not the same. The governments also have different agencies and actors. Generally I have rarely found myself supporting the actions of either, the USG or the former Libyan government. Your personal cheap shot indicates insecurity and resort to overkill and amounts to self-impeachment. Isn't your evidence and argument enough on its own? This case is either one way or another; it doesn't make me a "Gaddafi lover" or you a "CIA stooge."

The BBC story you link is a report on the 2000 Scottish trial (in the Netherlands) of Megrahi and Fhima (the latter of whom would be acquitted). From it I gather the prosecution (whose side you seem to prefer) disliked Bollier as a witness, and they leaked ("revealed&quot that they "considered" indicting him as well, which they did not do and sounds like witness harrassment. The defense complained about this prosecution maneuver. Bollier was not indicted. In the BBC writeup he accepts that the timer shown in court was from his company, but that doesn't make it the same timer used in the bombing and doesn't say that the CIA didn't plant it (as later accusations held). There is no contradiction in Bollier claiming the CIA tried to bribe him (the second such allegation of CIA bribery in this case) and also that Gaddafi made wild promises in the hope Bollier could help get Megrahi freed, so I don't know what you think you're saying by that. Gaddafi was known for his obsession with this case and his bizarre extravagance.

Regardless, the story's out of date, because about seven years later a Scottish review board assessing allegations of CIA manipulations and planted evidence ordered a retrial of Megrahi. I submit they knew more about this case and why they thought it was flawed than either of us. Before this retrial was completed, UK authorities puzzled the world by ordering Megrahi's release. Curious.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. The fuck it ain't.

If you'd had the kind of things I cited on Bollier to hang on Jack Lew, Bang, Zoom, to the moon!

UK authorities did not order Megrahi's release. Scottish officials did.

ETA: You keep finding it curious that Megrahi was given compassionate release before he could appeal (based on the CIA offer of $2 million to Gauci).

Why is it that Libya's innocence in Pan Am 103 the only answer to this conundrum? Why couldn't it simply have been that an appeal would have taken too long and fouled up BP's plans with Libya at the time?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-bp-help-get-lockerbie-bomber-released-from-prison/

Isn't this a more immediate and sufficient reason why the UK worked to get Megrahi released on compassionate leave? Why does it HAVE to be Libya-got-framed-we're-about-to-get-caught?

[JackRiddler]

78. Scotland is in the UK. Scotland is why it's called the UK.

If Bollier were made Obama's budget director or chief of staff, then yes, I'd have problems with it.

I suppose Libya's "innocence" is not the "only answer." If Mark Furman can frame a guilty man, so can the CIA. Neither should be surprised if their case falls apart when they get caught.

We can debate, pointlessly, the motive for why Megrahi was released. It's all speculation. Fact, by contrast, is that his appeal had been cleared on the grounds that the evidence against him was impeached. The appeal would have gone ahead, but was interrupted by this release.

Cease abusive rhetoric.

Reader, if you've wandered into the middle of this exchange, you might want to go back and scroll down from the start:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=157300

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. So your rationale for invading Libya is PanAm/Lockerbie?

You're not much for swift justice, are you? More importantly, you're arguing the point that we were justified with invading Libya because of a 25 year old incident. Has the White House or Pentagon used Lockerbie as a rationale for invasion? No? Then why are you using this line of reasoning? Lockerbie doesn't justify attacking Libya in 2011, and no rational person could make the argument that it does.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Is that what I said? I don't think I said that.

We technically didn't invade Libya, first of all. No boots on the ground, right?

What we did was pound the hell out of Gaddafi's armed forces when they were about to commit a massacre. What we did was in assistance and at the request of our allies in Europe who helped us in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Gaddafi would have been a severe impediment to the spread of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt after he stomped it out in his country.

The reason I brought up Libya's bombing of Pan Am 103 was to counter a notion I was seeing that Libya was some innocent little flower that no one had any issue with. Yes, that's my biased characterization, but seriously, Libya got plenty of blood on its hand.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

92. Watch this trick:

You were right. I was wrong. I'll bet you didn't expect that, but it's a hallmark of people who value the truth, no matter where it leads.

I looked back at the posts that led to this one, and you did not use Lockerbie as a justification for invasion (no, we didn't have infrantry go in. Yes, tactically speaking, infantry vs. only air power is a very different thing, but no, if you're a citizen of Libya under the bombs, you're not going to parse it much one way or another--do permit the term invasion so that we don't go down a 20-post rabbit hole arguing the point).

You used Lockerbie to characterize Khadaffy and his brutality, and not to characterize a war started some 25 years later. Fair point. I was wrong. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. No worries.

I appreciate people who want and value the truth. May we all have the courage and decency to admit when we see we're wrong and to stand up for what we think until then.

[sabrina 1]

99. That's all you got out of that excellent summary of

what really happened? For years Europe has doubted the involvement of Libya and suspected a huge cover-up in the Lockerbie bombing. But hey, scapegoats, especially ones sitting on all that oil, are better than digging too deeply for facts that could be embarrassing.

What matters is not Gadaffi or any other individual, what matters is that we are so constantly lied to people have little faith in anything they are told anymore. Anywhere, which is why all across the globe, the people are uniting to try to create something better so the can just live their lives in peace.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. #94. New facts have come to light. n/t

[frylock]

106. poor old bolo. proven wrong and resorting to strawmen..

tsk tsk

[Bolo Boffin]

107. Really? I've been proven wrong? I'm not noticing a lot of responses to my #94.

Maybe you're in the know on that one?

[Zalatix]

64. JackRiddler I used to think Megrahi did bomb the plane, but your logic and facts are solid.

Also, considering how often the American Government has LIED to the people, I'd be an idiot not to have doubts about the Lockerbie bombing.

Consider me open-minded on this issue because I hadn't really thought of this angle before: the reason for letting the "Lockerbie Bomber" go was... compassion, over cancer? After he killed nearly 300 people? Seriously? That's a load of bull. Let him rot in prison. Unless... his conviction appeal was destined to succeed and the evidence against him was indeed faulty. Release him so he'll STFU and not embarrass the West...

[whatchamacallit]

93. American scales of justice

Jack provides a litany of US aggression, and you cough pan am 103. Call it even lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Poor old Gaddafi.

That delicate innocent flower, that font of human lovingkindness. Mean old USA!

Yeesh.

[inna]

49. Bravo and thank you. Needs to be an OP.

You're one of the very few posters who make DU worthwhile at this point.

Wish I could read more of your writing, preferably in different setting.

[JackRiddler]

54. Thank you inna.

Although the case that the Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing is MSM sourced and comes within a known, uncontroversial historical context - although Scottish authorities ordered a retrial! - I'm not sure there's a forum on this board right now where an OP on it is allowed.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. " Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing is MSM sourced" Gross overstatement

The MSM source is only talking about how one controversial witness is saying the timer was faked. It has not been reported and it is not reality that Libya is generally understood not to have done this.

Creative Speculation is the only group on this forum where an OP on Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories that exonerate Libya would be allowed.

[Zalatix]

65. See Post #48. Please show the factual errors in that post.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. One piece of evidence is said to be faked by one person. That's true.

But it's hardly a substantive critique. If you want to overturn the overwhelming evidence against Libyan culpability because this one person said this one piece of evidence was faked, that's your problem.

[Zalatix]

68. Who in the world releases someone who kills 300 people for "Compassion" reasons? Really?

Also, you forget the key witness who was offered $2 million by the CIA.

Does that not damage the credibility of the case?

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Overwhelming evidence. None of it has any kind of rational dispute.

Is that all you have? One person says the timer was faked. A $2 million payment which could have been for any reason. A release which also could have been for a number of reasons.

That's it? That trumps the physical evidence? That trumps the parallels between Pan Am 103 and UTA 772? Not hardly.

[Zalatix]

82. And despite all this overwhelming evidence, a re-trial was planned for him. How do you explain that?

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Because the defense wasn't told about the CIA offer to Gauci. A technicality.

It doesn't mean the evidence was off. It doesn't say anything about the evidence. He may even have gotten off because of prosecutorial misconduct, and that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[Zalatix]

85. Gotcha. So re-trials are routine for cases settled with overwhelming evidence

and the issue of the CIA offer is nothing big, but by itself it's big enough for a re-trial of such a huge case.

Gotcha...

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Yes. Take for example the incredibly guilty Ted Stevens...

...whose otherwise just conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Remember him?

[Zalatix]

90. Apples & Oranges. Ted Stevens was accused of political corruption, not terrorism/mass murder.

And I sometimes wonder how it is that his DC-3 crashed with him in it. Yeah, I know, that's conspiracy territory. Crashes are quite rare in the U.S. though... what are the odds?

That said, prosecutor misconduct is unlikely to cause a retrial when the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming.

Then there was that "Compassionate" release bullshit. For a guy who killed almost 300 people?

Seriously?

With all these things going on, "Cover up" never comes to your mind? Seriously, you just buy the media's line on this? Then again, I remember when I once bought into the MSM's and Dubya's line about Iraqi WMD's... then the Downing Street memos came out.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Check out #94 for a response. But also

Megrahi applied for both compassionate release and prisoner transfer to Libya, two different programs right around the time the appeal was granted. He dropped the appeal in order to facilitate one or the other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8201188.stm

[JackRiddler]

80. This is a good point (the release) but even more important...

is that the Scottish review board, after re-assessing the case in the light of new evidence, had already cleared the way for Megrahi's retrial. They, who had months to consider and all the evidence available to them, no longer thought the case for his guilt was overwhelming. We'll never know how the retrial would have gone, because Megrahi was then released on other grounds.

And of course, the CIA offer of millions in bribes doesn't help the case's credibility.

[Zalatix]

83. Don't you know? He had OVERWHELMING evidence against him. Yet a re-trial was approved.

You, sir, are not delusional enough. I sentence you to four gallons of CIA-sanctioned kool-aid, comra-er, citizen.

[JackRiddler]

88. You know, when you put it in ALLCAPS like that, it feels more overwhelming!

Perhaps I should try this drink you speak of, traveler.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Here's another good point - the actual summary of referral from the Scottish review board

I looked up the referral we're all yammering about here.

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

That's a summary.

The six grounds for referral are listed in there. Guess what?

The Bollier allegations are not among them. Neither is the timer possible being fake. Neither is the police sergeant who claimed the timer was planted.

Here are the sole grounds for referral:

A number of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant challenged the reasonableness of the trial court’s verdict, based on the legal test contained in section 106(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The Commission rejected the vast majority of those submissions. However, in examining one of the grounds, the Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant’s case.

New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.

Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification
of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the date of purchase.

So most of the things you've been trumpeting long and loud to weave your conspiracy theory? Bullshit. In fact, a couple of these things are mentioned in the report, but are expressly rejected. For example, the retired police sergeant turned out to have more contradictions in his story than claims videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers were faked. Also, claims the timer part was faked or planted? Also completely dismissed by the Scottish review board. As the report says:

In particular the Commission has found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.

The referral is not based on "maybe Libya did not do this." It's based largely on "was it proved that Megrahi had the ability to purchase the items purchased in Malta." Since that was a key part of his conviction, the prosecution needed to clear these problems up or offer evidence he was in Malta on December 6.

The other two had to do with Gauci's lineup ID being tainted and "other evidence" undermining Gauci, which may well be the CIA offer.

So the possibility of fitting Meghari into a role he may not have had in the Libyan plot to bomb Pan Am 103 is what the Scottish review board referred to appeal.

I hope we can dispense with silly conspiracy theorizing about faked evidence framing Libya for the Pan Am 103 bombing.

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. I agree on all counts.

Needs to be an OP

You're one of the very few posters who make DU worthwhile at this point

Wish i could read more of your writing, preferably in a different setting

[pinto]

12. US or international politics of it all aside, bin Laden's demise was bluntly necessary, imo.

I say that even in light of my strong opposition to the death penalty.

Would I have preferred he be captured and tried? Yes.

Was capture and detention for trial doable? Not that I know of.

Was he a viable lethal threat to much of the world? Yes, from most accounts.

[JackRiddler]

55. Bluntly necessary? To shoot rather than capture the best source of intelligence?

Was he or wasn't he the big mastermind and leader of a terrorist network? Why wouldn't they want him alive to roll up the network?

[RZM]

89. I can't help but wonder

How many people who now say he was a great source of intelligence were saying for years before that he was either dead, irrelevant, or both.

Not saying you're one of them, but I'm sure they are out there.

[JackRiddler]

95. This is not a contradiction.

Group 1: Those who were saying he was dead or irrelevant (and I've been among them) aren't the ones who shot him in the head.

Group 2: Those who ordered him executed are among those who were saying he's the spider in the web of a world-spanning terrorist organization.

It is not a contradiction for Group 1 to point out that Group 2, if they believed what they said, cannot justify shooting him if they could have captured him for interrogation.

In fact, what else should one say? If he's the mastermind of many plots you want to stop, why in the world would you kill him?

[RZM]

101. 'If they believed what they said' is a really big 'if'

I just don't know. But I can see the argument for killing him and announcing that publicly whether or not he was still active in planning attacks and managing al-Qaida.

First is the obvious political gain from it. He was a symbol and killing him was a clear triumph over that symbol. It's simpler and easier to understand and appreciate that he's dead. Plus there would be a lot of questions if he had been taken alive. There would be a lot of secrecy about where he was, what he knew, and how he was being treated. Given the bad press the US has gotten over torture etc., I can see why they wouldn't want to go down that road. Plus that would keep him in the game as a symbol until he was eventually executed, which is the same outcome in the end as killing him right off the bat.

Killing him was the quickest and easiest way to handle it. Plus it lessened the risks involved for US personnel. It's harder and more dangerous to take somebody alive and the more precautions you take involving how you handle your prey, the more risks you take yourself. Imagine if he had barricaded himself in a room and while the SEAL team was working on extracting him, one of his underlings had managed to detonate a device that killed everybody in the building. If that got out, Republicans would have had a field day with it. They would have said things like: 'Obama cares more about Bin Laden's life than the life of our brave SEALs!'

It was a tough call, but I support the president's decision. Given what I know (which is probably a small fraction of what the insiders know), I believe he went about it the right way.

[JackRiddler]

110. I understand your rationale politically.

Don't find it right, but do understand it. Summary killing legitimates and invites summary killing. Nevertheless, the rationale you present is clear enough, up until:

Imagine if he had barricaded himself in a room and while the SEAL team was working on extracting him, one of his underlings had managed to detonate a device that killed everybody in the building. If that got out, Republicans would have had a field day with it. They would have said things like: 'Obama cares more about Bin Laden's life than the life of our brave SEALs!'

Please, don't imagine. This didn't happen and by the time they had him (this is according to their own story), they were in control of the situation, knew all about the complex and anyone in it, and this could not have happened. They had him, then they shot him. Let's be clear about that much.

[RZM]

111. But I'm talking about orders here

From what I know, the SEAL team was ordered to take him out. But let's imagine the orders were to take him alive at all costs. They might not have gone in with guns blazing like they did and the scenario could have been different. We'll never know, of course, but no doubt those who made the decision took this into consideration when they decided on the orders they actually issued.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Nope. He's dead and rotting of his own choice. I have no qualms about it

[Muskypundit]

14. If osama truly was the criminal mastermind behind deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents

I personally would kill him a thousand times, and feel no sympathy.

So yes, that is the rhetoric and action I want representing me.

[RevStPatrick]

16. I'm not happy about that kind of rhetoric.

I wasn't happy about it at the time, and I'm not happy about in the service of winning an election.

[joshcryer]

17. That what sells. Want to get elected? That's what you talk about?

Want to self-marginalize, self-factionalize, be impotent politically?

Then don't sell it.

Simple.

Me, I let them do what they want and don't cheer on the sidelines over immoral targeted killing.

[frazzled]

18. This rhetoric has been representing Democrats since 9/11

I remember what John Edwards said in his VP nominating speech at the Democratic Convention: "And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you."

Yes, he said (in perfect GW Bush fashion): "we will destroy you." And then most everyone here was rooting for him four years later as the best thing since sliced bread. Kerry repeatedly talked about how we should have gotten bin Laden at Tora Bora, and criticized Bush for not having done so. Now Obama has accomplished what the American people, including prominent Democrats (not me particularly, because I didn't think he had much currency anymore; but what do I know: I don't read the daily intelligence briefings) apparently wanted: retaliation, whether symbolic or otherwise, for the 3,000 deaths that resulted in a flash from an attack on the US.

Agree with it or not, but Obama is not the first Democrat to have said this; he merely carried out what Democrats had been calling for for a decade. So if you're going to put the blame anywhere, don't save it exclusively for Obama. Don't act as if it is some moral failing that he alone has foisted on the country.

And don't act like this is the same as, say, the role the US played in the assassination of Salvador Allende during the Nixon administration. Allende hadn't done anything to us, never attacked us; he was a democratically elected leader of his nation. It was a purely ideological, imperialist move. It's not pretty, but at least, as happens in war, there was a reason bin Laden was attacked.

I don't like this kind of talk either (I have been solidly opposed to the death penalty for many many decades, even for the most heinous criminals): but it's what our party, and the vast majority of the nation, has been saying for years. I think it's too late to be shocked by it now. It's the end of a story. Now a new chapter can begin.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Personally, I'm glad that particular shithead is dead. If that makes me a bad man, I'm a bad man.

But the quote in question is confusing; we could have achieved the same result just by cutting off his feet.

[Bonobo]

23. I didn't mean to confront THAT issue again. I am trying to get people to see...

that there is a larger issue of who we portray ourselves as and what that does to us in the long term.

If our implicit message is that w should go around killing people to strengthen our defenses, then we have become something far different than my own ideals were growing up and those I intend to pass down to my kids.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. This is the first I've heard of this particular statement by the President

if it really becomes one of the core planks of his re-election, then, maybe I'll revisit it. As it is, Obama got him, Bush didn't. Like it or not, that sort of blows a big hole in the "GOP is better on national security" line. And again, this wasn't just any old 'people'- this was one particular individual who was sort of key to the entire deal.

[NashvilleLefty]

22. I understand what you're saying,

and it is a serious question, especially under the previous Bush Administration.

The real question is; at what point do we become just as bad as they are?
This is a fine line, and one that needs constant discussion.

The bottom line is that we need to maintain our moral integrity. The Christian idea of "turn the other cheek" is basically a good idea if you use the time to seriously consider why you got your cheek slapped in the first place. In the Real World if you just keep turning cheeks, you end up with red cheeks and the bully slapping you in the first place just laughs at you because he can do whatever he wants and you won't do anything to stop him.

So, as much as I support the whole "turn the other cheek" philosophy, eventually you are going to have to make a stand against the bully who doesn't believe in your philosophy.

Personally, I am a Pacifist. But, that is me and it doesn't help me negotiate with non-Pacifists.

I don't want war. But it's stupid and arrogant for me to think everyone thinks the same way that I do.

If I am a National Leader, if I turn the other cheek at every turn then I no longer have a Nation to lead, and the people I hoped to lead to Freedom are now enslaved.

If I am a National Leader, and I overstep my bounds in order to protect my people from oppression, I run the risk of creating new oppression just as bad or possibly worse than the Replacement.

I guess my point is: don't be so quick to judge.

[Bonobo]

24. "if you use the time to seriously consider why you got your cheek slapped"

Precisely.

And did we do that?

Did we figure out why so many want to destroy America? was it just Bin Laden? Did getting him strengthen us? Did it reduce the amount of people that want to kill us? I think it is obvious that it did not. In fact, a decade at war has created more almost certainly. few would argue that point I think.

[aikoaiko]

26. I can live with it.

[MilesColtrane]

27. I considered the capture or killing of Bin Laden as a worthy goal of our government.

The fact is the previous administration either paid lip service to that goal or was too incompetent to achieve it. Take your pick.

How's the old saying go, "It's not bragging if you can back it up"?

Frankly, we can't "become them" (Republicans) because we actually accomplish what we say we will, whereas they just talk shit.

[Summer Hathaway]

29. ...

[greyl]

36. "we can't "become them" etc.

[greyl]

31. It deserves to be in the Top Ten of rhetoric. nt

[ProSense]

34. Better:

What was done right this year?

Posted by Heather Hurlburt

<...>

2. Finding its feet on human rights. Few will have noticed even among the wonk-erati, but from institutionalizing government procedures for catching potential genocides in advance, focusing on women's role in international peace and security and improving Pentagon training on human rights, the Administration put several long-fought initiatives into place this year. Secretary Clinton's LGBT initiatives only got noticed at home when conservatives tried to make political hay out of the radical idea that sexual orientation should not be a death sentence; her speech that accompanied the women's initiative in December didn't even get that much attention. but in the rest of the world, where sexual and gender violence are all-too prevalent, and three women were among the Nobel Prize winners, this kind of US leadership will matter. The relevance of the US intervention in Libya for human rights will be debated for decades; what should be remem bered is how it also allowed a UN Security council-backed mission to remove a sore election loser in Cote d'Ivoire and end developing carnage.

3. South Sudan. That the new nation was able to come into existence successfully, and relatively quietly, this year is due in no small part to the Administration's interventions at the UN and on the ground.

4. Iraq troop withdrawal. Not so long ago, this didn't seem a foregone conclusion at all.

<...>

6. Decline of Al Qaeda. US military actions, including but not limited to the killing of Bin Laden, have hastened the organization's decline and its loss of support among the global Muslim community, dramatized so vividly in the Arab Spring.

<...>

An interesting problem. These achievements-- which are real and substantial-- are for the most part downpayments on a better future, on a set of global institutions and relationships which work better and function smoothly in a different, more prosperous time. It is hard, from either a security or an economic perspective, to stack that long-range view up against the real or perceived challenges we face, or that we hear shouted about on cable.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/12/what-was-done-right-this-year.html

Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413

[LiberalAndProud]

37. People like you are

the conscience of our party. I appreciate very much that your have raised these concerns.

I don't believe that we have become them any more than we have always been. Keeping OBL alive served Bush's purposes. I can think of no other reason that we couldn't bring him in "dead or alive" through the Bush years except for absence of will.

Looking at our Democratic history, our leadership has never been of a pacifist mindset. Our party has been framed as weak on defense because no matter how much our leadership budgets for the military, the other party will promise more. Look at Carter's military budget in comparison to previous years. Compare that to Reagan's military spending, then tell me if I am wrong. It has always been and will always be a matter of degree, I'm afraid -- at least until we are finally too bankrupt to continue the madness.

If we ever held the moral high ground in this arena, I don't remember that time. Maybe we have simply finally stopped fooling ourselves.

I am encouraged by the new commitment by this administration to reduce military spending, as I was with Clinton's administration. That, at least, is encouraging.

[msongs]

39. well that and all those dead women and kids killed by drones & our military nt

[truth2power]

41. Right up there with Americans screaming, USA! USA!, teeth clenched and veins

popping out, as far as I'm concerned.

I admit to having a bias, though, as I think Cheney & Co. should have been incarcerated long ago for the events of 9/11.

[DCBob]

43. 9/11 changed everything..

many who were peacemongers became warriors that day.

[bigtree]

44. killing that bastard wasn't about defining Democrats

It was about killing the bastard. Imagine if Bush had done this in the time frame it took this president. I think it will actually save lives in the long run because there's little left to justify the long war against al-Qaeda with the rag-tag remnants and ghosts that hawks used to rationalize so much militarism abroad fading into a mere memory.

Do you believe Democrats shouldn't take responsibility for our national security?

[jefferson_dem]

45. Sure. It's an awesome talking point.

And it's true. Personally, I'm pleased to hear POTUS is "bringing it."

"We had to become them"? Please don't be surprised that most do not care to join in your silly exercise of self-loathing.

[JCMach1]

46. Don't like that phrase, but winning the war against terrorism sounds pretty good...

and pretty accurate concerning Obama's record.

For the first election cycle since 9/11 Obama has done his job so well on foreign policy that it will practically be a non-issue this Fall unless something dramatic happens.

[quaker bill]

47. It is the truth

I never have problems with telling the truth. Anything that telling the truth says about us, is true. Speaking truthful words about what has been done cannot be a loss of identity, as identity is truly established by the actions already taken. We have done what we have done, not speaking of it would be a greater failure of moral courage.

You may think that the actions taken "sold a part of our souls", but if so, that happened when we did it, not when we speak of it later.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. Removing the advantage (R)s have in security

is a major advantage for us both in the short and long term.


(D)s running on the body count since Pres. Obama took office is not my first choice either but you need to talk to voters in terms that they understand. This is the garbage that some people understand, we need to keep it out there.

[Romulox]

57. Just run Gingrich as a (D)--if we are EXACTLY like them, they won't be able to criticize us!

[Motown_Johnny]

100. They wouldn't be able to criticize ?!?!?

Socialist

Kenyan

Muslim

Class warfare



Need I go on?

They will criticize no matter what. We are not exactly like them, in fact we are nothing like them.

The (R)s went to war with Iraq because of 9-11.

The (D)s eliminated the man most responsible for 9-11.

Not the same at all.

[Romulox]

104. Not if Gingrich (D) is the nominee, as I suggested earlier. How could they criticize ANYTHING,

so long as we adhere to the exact same policies as the Republicans? That's the only way!

[Motown_Johnny]

105. Gingrich as a (D) is right up there with Sanders as an (R)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. Yep! He was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people

among them, some that I knew! And yet didn't have the courage to do anything himself. May he rot in hell!

[Welcome_hubby]

112. He should be dead

agree

[snooper2]

66. First off, their is no such thing as a soul, but to go ahead and continue your thought process...

I have 0 regrets or frets about killing that POS...

I also have no problem with the ongoing killing of fundie fucks who enjoy killing girls who just want to go to school.

[JoePhilly]

70. Yes.

The GOP uses that kind of rhetoric to claim that Democrats are totally and completely unwilling to take action when action is warranted.

A simple example

This is a Karl Rove quote ... "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. (Conservatives) saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

So the question at hand is "Are democrats afraid to take action, even when it is warranted?"

The answer to that question is no, but we are far more circumspect than the GOP is, or ever will be.

Killing OBL proves that. Bush should have captured or killed OBL, and the Al Qaeda leadership immediately following 9/11 . But he got distracted, and stumbled America into a pointless mess in Iraq.

Obama deserves credit for doing what should have been done much earlier.

So it isn't simply about "taking away one of their issues", its about demonstrating that Obama is not afraid to take action when action its warranted, and he's doing so in a far more thoughtful and circumspect fashion than anyone in the GOP would ever do.

[msanthrope]

73. Yes. It shuts the other side up quite well. nt

[WI_DEM]

74. Sure, I have no problem with it. He was a piece of shit who killed a lot of innocent people.

[gratuitous]

77. Please to trim your ideals

You simply must get over this unnatural attachment you seem to have to a bunch of quaint old documents and outdated notions such as due process. This is all about winning, scoring political points and taking away issues. You don't see the administration getting all worried about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution - and the Chief Executive swore an oath to do that!

This year's fashion is what's important, and we can't risk "ideals" or "principles" getting in the way. If enough people agree (or the right people say so), we can be sure that anyone our faultless military has killed was very, very bad. Now, get with the program! There's an election to win, Win, WIN!

[Solly Mack]

79. I'm not thrilled by that type of rhetoric. It does appeal to some.

As an appeal to emotion it does work. (As appeals to emotion always do)

Politicians love appeals to emotion (because they do work).

Because they do work, they won't be going away anytime soon.

I think the entire "War on Terror" or, as Obama now calls it, the "Overseas Contingency Operation" has been a destructive clusterfuck.

[Raffi Ella]

91. No,

I do not admit that or see it like that. I do not think he deserves the consideration that your post gives him, to be honest.

I get the point you're trying to make but, speaking as a person who is against the death penalty, all I can admit to is that I am very happy that "he no longer is walking the earth."

[WilliamPitt]

108. Fine by me.

.