Nightly Open Thread (Farewell to Osama Edition)
The big news this week: Osama bin Laden is dead.
The terrorist mastermind — quite possibly the most wanted man in the world — was killed yesterday in a firefight with US Special Forces soldiers in a city in northern Pakistan, at a compound just outside a military restricted zone. I’ve heard tell that the operation was specifically an assassination; there was evidently no intention of taking bin Laden alive.
He was buried at sea within the 24 hours mandated by Islamic law.
As you can imagine, all manner of things have been stirred up by this. It has emerged that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, knew about bin Laden’s compound for quite some time, and its proximity to a military installation certainly casts doubt on the idea that Pakistan is a Western ally in the “war on terror”. Recent news concerning the capture of CIA operatives in Pakistan also have to be viewed in a new light.
I have to admit that while I am certainly glad, in a Thane Krios “one less dark thing in the Universe” sort of way, that bin Laden is gone, I have to admit that I am more than a little…put off, let’s say…by the various street celenbrations that erupted all across the US. But then, I’m not an American, and I can’t say that I’d feel the same way had bin Laden masterminded the murder of over 3,000 of my countrymen. I might, but I can’t say for certain.
The (un?)luckiest Twitterer in the world?
A Pakistani cafe owner accidentally wound up live-tweeting the entire raid on bin Laden’s compound, though at the time he seemed to think of it as just some military exercise involving helicopters.
Educational gaming: teaching kids how to avoid landmines.
A team from Michigan State University has developed a computer game that is intended to help Cambodian children learn about the dangers of land mines, and teach them how to avoid the darn things.
I got my vote on this morning; results should be in by tonight. Elections in Canada are generally pretty painless things, and usually wrap up pretty quickly.
There are 308 seats in the Parliament of Canada (well, in the House of Commons, one of two houses in Parliament); the governing party needs a simply majority of seats (155 or more) in order to secure power. Minority governments are possible due to the fact that there are currently four major parties vying for the votes of Canadians, all of which are likely to secure at least a few seats in the House. The leader of the party with the most seats becomes the Prime Minister.
The most recent polls show the Conservative Party of Canada ahead of its nearest competitor, the New Democrat party (NDP), by about 5.5%; we can expect this to translate into a Conservative win with between about 130 and 160 seats.
That said, you have to be careful of trusting polls in Canada, because polls (if they are good for anything) only capture the raw popular sentiment in Canada. Seats in the house are not won, lost, or even appointed on a popular basis, though; our electoral system is “first past the post” in nature, and thanks to that fact the final results of an election can often be quite unreflective of popular sentiment.
My prediction, for what little it’s worth: The Conservatives will win around 140 seats, creating a minority government. The NDP will form the Official Opposition, and will threaten the possibility of forming a coalition with the Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois, which would result in the Conservatives forming not the government but the Official Opposition. This tentative alliance will collapse from within before it becomes official.
Wilder speculation: Six months down the road, the Conservative government will fail on a confidence motion, and another election will be held, in which either the NDP (less likely) or the Conservatives (more likely) will capture a narrow majority of House seats, at which point Canada can again enjoy a little governmental stability.
Final note: I wrote this in advance of the results coming in. I’m posting it, so it’s on the record even so, but yeah…I guess I’m not great at predicting election results.It would appear that the Conservatives are headed for a majority in this one, if a narrow one. That said, there are still plenty of polls that have yet to report; things can change. Though if this election behaves like every other Canadian election I can recall, not much will.
Tonight’s post brought to you by foresight:
I think we have all been there at least once...
Your description of Canadian politics sound much like the BS that suffices for politics around the rest of the civilized world, including the US. So let’s dismiss it universally as nothing but the grossly misinterpreted “collective will” (not that there is such a thing) of the people, as represented by those who have no allegiance or shame. The power mongers, con men, face-savers and others of ill repute.
The mistake he made was publicly announcing a state of war between his organization and those of other countries, specifically the United States of America. That elevated his status to an enemy of the state, much like any other wartime leader. No doubt the operation gave some importance to capturing him alive, but probably not at the risk of friendly lives.
The other mistake he made was deciding to kill a lot of people and after some time getting shot in the head. Always a big mistake, regardless of your ideology or other choices.
Great motivational poster. No way to escape from that one. 🙂
Also, the video game you keep posting trailers of is all about this particular kind of mission, and all its trimmings.
I am an American, and I have to agree with your disgust at the “celebration in the streets” reaction to Bin Laden’s death.
Bin laden was a bad man, but I really wish we had captured him alive… It would have been best to give him a trial.
I’m not up on politics or court systems, so I don’t know where we would try him, but I think it would be an important blow for us to show that justice prevails. I do not beleive that “two-in-the-head” in battle is justice.
The issue of where to try terror suspects is a big one indeed; look at the grief surrounding Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s trial in a New York (I think) courtroom.
I could see a military trial being an option, but that’s about it.
eh… I’m fine with all of it. They went in there, Osama supposedly used a wife as a human shield and started shooting back. He got shot in the head. It is what happens.
If it was five years ago, I’d probably have gone to some party as well. It’s a bit beyond that now though, I think. When I heard it on the radio I was just like “Huh… I didn’t expect that to ever happen”.
Since I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, I’m more finding humourous things about it. Like just how amused Obama seemed at a joke about where Osama was a night or two before at that whitehouse dinner. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him with such a huge smile.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll35/ssc5z/289229900.jpg
Dude almost gave away the game!
Capturing him alive would have been a huge mess. His trial would have given him a platform to speak to the world, and the whole thing would have been a circus in no time. Heck, I’m sure some showy lawyer would probably make a case to get the charges dropped because he wasn’t properly mirandized or some such.
Ironically, his last act in resisting arrest actually helped out America big time by giving us an excuse to shoot him in the face. The fact that we even need an excuse, even a small one, to shoot such a creep in the face says worlds about the difference between us and the enemy.
Also, using your wife as a human shield. Stay classy, terrorists.
It’s my understanding that this op was never supposed to result in a capture; it was a straight-up assassination.
My only regret is that probably no Abu Ghraib-style photos of Osama’s dead body will emerge. Love to see some proof-of-death photos with Osama playing poker or Call of Duty with the SEALs. Or maybe something like this but with Osama in the empty chair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0dvYoX17Ro
Of course that would cause the usual protests across the middle east, hopping all around with guns and burning flags and such, so they probably thought better of it.
I understand people’s sensitivities about “celebrating someone’s death”, which on the surface seems somehow intrinsically wrong, but sadly the world we live in is no fairy tale and things aren’t so black and white. Our world is seriously screwed up, mostly because of us, but nature itself is hard and cold. People like us tend to forget that while in our cozy homes protected from the realities of the natural world and the enemies that plot to kill us.
The issue I think arises from the idea that human life is sacred, or somehow more special than the life of other animals on the planet. If human life is truly sacred, then why are we always killing each other? Why do people constantly die as the result of unpredictable circumstances, such as accidents, disease and acts of nature like lightening and tsunamis? If we’re so special, why do the same rules that apply to bacteria, insects, mammals, etc. apply equally to us?
Once we embrace humility and realize that according to the unchanging laws of nature we’re in the same boat as every other organism on the planet, it becomes more logical to celebrate the death of those who wish to harm us. Celebrating Osama’s death is no different than celebrating chemotherapy successfully killing cancerous cells in one’s body. There was nothing sacred about that asshole, even though he was human.
Of course one of the main problems with this theory comes from many religions’ teachings that human life -is- sacred and that every “soul” can be redeemed. So I probably won’t be convincing anyone of that persuasion. :/
I’m generally of the attitude that either we are all, at all times, to be afforded basic human dignities, which in general includes the right to life. I can accept exceptions to that rule in cases of legitimate self-defense and in some circumstances the use of deadly force by agents of the state. But in general, we are all entitled to the same basic dignities, as human beings, that we would expect others to extend to us.
(And granted, you’ll find as much said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but you’ll note that in articulating my stance I didn’t once make the appeal either to that authority or to the higher power that informs it.)
If we’re going to start quibbling about under what circumstances we can deny those dignities to another person, that’s the sort of discussion that becomes both immensely legalistic and highly slippery in very short order, and my general attitude is ultimately that if we can contrive scenarios — outside of legitimate defense and extremely limited state-sanctioned violence — in which we can deprive others of the basic dignities they should be afforded, then we really lose all basis for arguing that we should afford anyone, anywhere, those dignities. Because while it’s true that some of us have a lot more blood on our hands than others, it’s equally true that none of us has particularly clean hands to begin with.
Plus, I’m always leery of granting anyone, especially agents of the state, large liberties with regards to the use of coercive force, torture, and the right to assassinate those deemed undesirables or enemies. Because, generally speaking, the moment you do that, it’s the first trickle of water that leads up to a dam break down the road; rare indeed is a state of sufficient moral or ethical bearing that would be able to resist the temptation to turn such powers, even if they are reserved for use against external opponents, against its internal opponents as well.
And the definition of “opponent” can always change.
As to whether it’s proper to celebrate his death or not…there’s really not much to celebrate about the death (at the hands of SEAL commandos) of a decrepit old man with advanced kidney disease, who may or may not have even been in a position (or of a mind) to defend himself. Granted, Osama’s death does represent something of a victory — however small — against terrorism in general, and it’s worth celebrating the victory itself, just as one can note and even appreciate the carrying out of justice in the execution of a duly convicted, assuredly guilty mass murderer for whom no other form of punishment is possible or sufficient.
But in general, one shouldn’t be too quick to celebrate the dealing of death itself, or the actual death of the person killed. History has demonstrated many times over that human beings do that all too well, and often with rather dire outcomes when enough people get on board with it.
This is really the key point. We can quickly and easily recognize that Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration of thousands of murdered Americans — or a handful of murdered Israelis, as is more often the case — are doing something debased and even vulgar. We shouldn’t be too quick to emulate the behaviour, even in a more pared back and restrained fashion, when it’s someone on our side that’s killed someone on their side.
Some good points, but I’d like to counter that I can find no reason for why people should be afforded rights that they themselves do not afford to others. I think the difference in our opinions (religious aspect aside, as you alluded to I don’t think it’s necessary to go there in this case either) is that in an ideal world you’d be correct, but in a world where a good percentage of the population has little or no respect for basic/fundamental human rights we are forced for practical reasons to draw an indistinct line between acting idealistically and protecting the majority’s self interest.
The idea that anyone with any experience with military affairs accepts collateral damage as an unavoidable part of war proves that acting idealistically isn’t practical in every circumstance. They make a judgement call as to whether or not neutralizing their target is worth blasting the family with child strolling down the street adjacent the targeted building. They don’t call off the mission because of the possibility (or often certainty) that an innocent person’s fundamental rights may be violated by a bomb. The difference in my opinion between our strikes against terrorist networks and terrorist strikes against us are that we try to avoid collateral damage while they specifically target civilians. One of the things modern nations have been trying to do for some time is to limit civilian casualties and move away from the rape and pillage tactic of old. Some cultures appear to have missed the memo, unfortunately.
While this is really shitty and hard to accept, so is the world when looked at through an uncolored lens. The barbarity of others, as much as we’d like to avoid it doing so, sometimes forces us to be barbaric ourselves to serve the greater good.
I actually don’t mind people dancing in the streets, whichever “side” they’re on and for whatever reason as long as they keep it to dancing. The real danger (sorry I wasn’t clear about that) is inciting additional violence. At least we know where someone stands when they publicly protest an event. Burning down buildings and lynching people is what I meant the State Department was trying to avoid, as well as longer term retaliation, recruitment and propaganda.
As far as the self defense argument, I’d argue that assassinations, military strikes and warfare itself are extensions of personal self defense that arise from people being so highly organized and social. We’re more than individuals and align ourselves in limitless hierarchies of shifting, often conflicting beliefs and loyalties. The increasing scope and complexity of our societies has lead to the need for people to kill other people who never personally violated their rights, and to feel justified in doing so. Our own social constructs combined with our primitive, violent nature compel us to continue to fight each other. How can basic human rights possibly coexist within this scenario? I think our societies are direct reflections of ourselves as humans. Even the most civil and tightly controlled of societies still have murderers, rapists and thieves.
Whether Bin Laden was youthful and strong or completely senile, I think we’re all responsible–forever–for the actions we take in life, and that justice has every man’s number. His just happened to be up, and I think ultimately justice was served. I believe that forgiveness is for the victims, but that for the perpetrator there can be no escape from what the hand of fate, or your fellow man, has in store for you.
Also, I’m as loathe as you as far as the state deciding who lives and dies and all that. I’m a big fan of small government and strong communities, so anything close to Big Brother makes my hairs stand on end. I can reconcile those feelings with SEALs reaching out and touching people as long as those people are considered enemies of the state by the vast majority of citizens. There’s a difference, for example, between assassinating Hitler and sending secret police to a citizen’s house and making them disappear for no good reason.
Once someone’s discarded our idealistic definition of basic human rights by flagrantly violating those of others, especially in cases of premeditated and undeserved murder, they lose their protected status as humans as far as I’m concerned.
Also, you’re right about all of us having some blood on our hands, literally or otherwise. Like in Unforgiven, “We all got it coming, kid.” Thought that line was pretty insightful.
I’ve never been one of those conspiracy nuts, but I don’t believe for one second that “Bin Laden” was killed in that compound. There is no evidence of it whatsoever, and the only indication that it even happened is in statements from US officials.
We have a body conveniently dumped into the sea (which, contrary to BS circulated in the news, is very unusual and DEFINITELY not recommended under Islamic law), “photos” which we will never see, no video, no press access to his “widows”…
Personally, I’m appalled that people in this day and age are willing to gobble up everything that they see in the news no questions asked.
I think I’m just honestly past the point of caring, myself.
Al Qaeda has been staging revenge attacks in the name of the “martyr” bin Laden, which I suppose is some evidence that at least they believe the official story. But personally, I don’t care; dude needed constant dialysis anyway, so it’s not like he could really get involved as easily in active operations. Planning, yes, but that’s about all.
As long as they got the part about being shot in the head right, the rest is just filler. Popped him in his “sick bed” like Nazis, as he deserved. Weakness is no defense against justice. Compassion was ruled out in this case.