Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:
Of course the two concepts are not exclusive.

But if Manning is complaining of unnecessary suffering, then why aren't the rest of the detainees at Quantico?

They aren't? The absence of high profile news regarding the conditions in a given place does not mean that the people in that place aren't complaining, it indicates that there is not high profile news regarding complaints in that place.

Now, I'm not advocating crazy suspicion here, but when one person complains, then its generally worth considering whether or not their complaints have merit, and not simply saying " no one else seems to be doing it" when you aren't in a position which is necessarily defined by superfluous information.

Kanluwen wrote:
Manning's lawyer has made a point to say that he was being treated well by the guards and staff of the facility. The only exception was when he threatened suicide and they altered methods of monitoring accordingly.

I'm not seeing that in any statement release by Coombs. I'm seeing statements from Coombs claiming that Manning's classification is unfair, and that it is tacit to unique treatment, but no specific mention of "Manning is being treated like everyone else". In fact, I can't even imagine why they would say something like that at all, as its directly compromises their negotiating position, and therefore their responsibility to their client.

I haven't looked at this thread since late Sunday night, but I assume from the quote pyramids it has turned into a somewhat OT argument?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Anybody who has ever been arrested (by regular police or military) should have a fair idea how elastic a term "resisting" is. Navy SEALs can't subdue an unarmed individual? (Not that they were supposed to, but by the mission standard it wouldn't matter what he was doing.)

Its a bit of an odd distinction that you believe its not an execution if someone resists it. Plenty of people dragged to the gallows and the chair or decapitated or neck-shot tried to resist.

There's a distinction between 'capital punishment' which is the type of execution initiated by the state.

The type of execution you seem to be talking about is a 'execution style murder' which wikipedia describes as a murder: "where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape."

If the SEALS had subdued him, and tied him up, THEN shot him, then I'd consider it an execution. As it stands, he was resisting them even though he wasn't necessarily armed, and got shot.

That being said, Colbert is amusing me right now.

FIN LADEN!!!

ChrisWWII wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Anybody who has ever been arrested (by regular police or military) should have a fair idea how elastic a term "resisting" is. Navy SEALs can't subdue an unarmed individual? (Not that they were supposed to, but by the mission standard it wouldn't matter what he was doing.)

Its a bit of an odd distinction that you believe its not an execution if someone resists it. Plenty of people dragged to the gallows and the chair or decapitated or neck-shot tried to resist.

There's a distinction between 'capital punishment' which is the type of execution initiated by the state.

The type of execution you seem to be talking about is a 'execution style murder' which wikipedia describes as a murder: "where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape."

If the SEALS had subdued him, and tied him up, THEN shot him, then I'd consider it an execution. As it stands, he was resisting them even though he wasn't necessarily armed, and got shot.

That being said, Colbert is amusing me right now.

You're using a wiki definition to decide if something is an "execution" or not? And "no course of resistance" does not preclude the attempt to resist...but TBH thats getting a little semantic. He wasn't shot BECAUSE he was resisting, was he? He was shot because they were sent to shoot him. So he could have been on his knees in supplication and they would still have shot him, which makes it an execution.

I guess the literall definition of execution is too much for you. They shot a bad man that does bad things. Why, cause he looked at us funny. Good enough for me.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Of course the two concepts are not exclusive.

But if Manning is complaining of unnecessary suffering, then why aren't the rest of the detainees at Quantico?

They aren't? The absence of high profile news regarding the conditions in a given place does not mean that the people in that place aren't complaining, it indicates that there is not high profile news regarding complaints in that place.

It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?

Now, I'm not advocating crazy suspicion here, but when one person complains, then its generally worth considering whether or not their complaints have merit, and not simply saying " no one else seems to be doing it" when you aren't in a position which is necessarily defined by superfluous information.

At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.

I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.

Kanluwen wrote:
Manning's lawyer has made a point to say that he was being treated well by the guards and staff of the facility. The only exception was when he threatened suicide and they altered methods of monitoring accordingly.

I'm not seeing that in any statement release by Coombs. I'm seeing statements from Coombs claiming that Manning's classification is unfair, and that it is tacit to unique treatment, but no specific mention of "Manning is being treated like everyone else". In fact, I can't even imagine why they would say something like that at all, as its directly compromises their negotiating position, and therefore their responsibility to their client.

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html

That's from Coombs' own blog. I didn't have to look hard for it.

Are we now second guessing the decisions of the operator in the room who had to make a split second decision on whether to put two in the dome? A decision made with very basic risk assessment, in that a dead man poses no risk to him, his teammates, and the operation, and a live man absolutely may. Continue to recognize they had one mode of egress from a country that may not look kindly on their presence.

I'd quote Teddy Roosevelt at Sorbonne, but why bother.

The guy who made the shot was better at shooting and tactical decisionmaking than anyone in this thread is at anything in their entire life. He isn't a cop. This isn't innocent until proven guilty. It is a delicate military operation. If it was easy, jackasses like us would in the SEALs.

I won't agree with excessive celebrating and invoking jingoistic patriotism over killing OBL. That is juvenile and unworthy of a solemn moment. But it is OK to smile when I think of two in the face.

"This occasion should remind the West in general and the United States in particular - as well as all those fighting what they call international terrorism - that occupation, oppression, stealing others' rights and the absence of justice are all focal points for fanaticism. They should be reminded that anyone fighting this fanaticism should fight the reasons behind it as well as those who are trying to exploit it." A relevant quote from a Palestinian news editor.

Let's say I'm a U.S. Navy SEAL. I'm in the middle of Pakistan on a mission that the Pakistani government doesn't know about. It's thirty minutes into the mission.One of the helicopters we rode in on has just crash-landed and may need to be abandoned. All around me, I can hear gunfire. Oh, yes, and I'm trying to find and capture/kill one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. If I screw this up, it's my butt, my boss' butt, the President's butt, and United States' military reputation on the line.

I bust into the bedroom where the target is. Some chick rushes us and my buddy puts one in her leg before she can tangle us up. I see the target across the room, possibly laying in bed.

At that point, if the guy does anything other than lay very still with his hands where I can see them? He's getting two rounds, bam bam, no hesitation. If he reaches for the bedsheets, he could have a gun under that pillow, or the triggering device for a bomb, or any other manner of nasty little thingy that could feth up me and my boys.

I don't know what the hell happened in that house, but if it was anything short of lining bin Laden up against the wall and putting two in the back of his head gangland style, I ain't gonna question the judgement of the guy on the scene.

The thing of it is...it wasn't "just" a SEAL. BUDS attrites between 70-90% of candidates. About 90% of the remainder qualify as SEALs. The best 10-15% of them are considered for DEVGRU. About half of those considered make it onto one of the DEVGRU squadrons. Then they start the hardcore training to do this type of work.

But we should feel free, with our vast experience at Call of Duty and watching The Unit, to second guess decisions made during the operation.

To be fair, we found Bin Laden after 4 years of progressing intel. About 1.75 years under Bush, and about 2.25 under Obama. With that said, Obama made all of the right decisions leading up to this. He deserves all of the credit and amusing gifs and photoshops.

dienekes96 wrote:The thing of it is...it wasn't "just" a SEAL. BUDS attrites between 70-90% of candidates. About 90% of the remainder qualify as SEALs. The best 10-15% of them are considered for DEVGRU. About half of those considered make it onto one of the DEVGRU squadrons. Then they start the hardcore training to do this type of work.

But we should feel free, with our vast experience at Call of Duty and watching The Unit, to second guess decisions made during the operation.

I'm agreeing with you. Like I said, I don't know what happened, I don't know how it happened, but unless it turns out it was something blatantly out of line like gakking on the corpse, I'm not going to judge the guys on the ground for anything they did.

If you missed the Daily Show last night you missed a real treat with some hilarious graphics. You can see some of them at the link below. My favorite was, "Hairy Plotter and the Deathly Hello"

Jon Stewart on Osama bin Laden's death: 'We're back, baby!'
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/05/03/jon-stewart-osama-bin-laden/

So is it bad that the first place I heard of his death was dakka? Or do I just accept the dakka is more important than news?

UG

dienekes96 wrote:Are we now second guessing the decisions of the operator in the room who had to make a split second decision on whether to put two in the dome? A decision made with very basic risk assessment, in that a dead man poses no risk to him, his teammates, and the operation, and a live man absolutely may. Continue to recognize they had one mode of egress from a country that may not look kindly on their presence.

I'd quote Teddy Roosevelt at Sorbonne, but why bother.

The guy who made the shot was better at shooting and tactical decisionmaking than anyone in this thread is at anything in their entire life. He isn't a cop. This isn't innocent until proven guilty. It is a delicate military operation. If it was easy, jackasses like us would in the SEALs.

I won't agree with excessive celebrating and invoking jingoistic patriotism over killing OBL. That is juvenile and unworthy of a solemn moment. But it is OK to smile when I think of two in the face.

Well said, sir, that is certainly sigworthy if I did that anymore.

The bolded part especially, hats off to you.

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?

I think what you meant to say is "Where are the news stories relating to complaints made about the brig at Qunatico."

Its important to note that simply because you lack a particular piece of information does not indicate that it does not exist.

Kanluwen wrote:
At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.

I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.

Even if that's the case, why shouldn't he? Its an effective means of generating political controversy, and thus influencing the outcome of the case.

Kanluwen wrote:
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html

That's from Coombs' own blog. I didn't have to look hard for it.

It is possible for a given inmate to be subject to unnecessary scrutiny, thereby causing suffering, without being targetted by facility staff; which has actually been Coombs' argument all along. It was in that context that I took your comment regarding Manning's treatment by the guards at Qunatico, as I assumed you were making an argument regarding something other than exceptionalims towards Manning within the facility itself.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?

I think what you meant to say is "Where are the news stories relating to complaints made about the brig at Qunatico."

Its important to note that simply because you lack a particular piece of information does not indicate that it does not exist.

No, I'm saying where are the complaints.

Just because there's a news story doesn't necessarily make it true.

Kanluwen wrote:
At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.

I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.

Even if that's the case, why shouldn't he? Its an effective means of generating political controversy, and thus influencing the outcome of the case.

And it's bull. He did the crime. Suck it up and take your punishment.

I mean, let's face it. The only reason this is such an issue is because of him giving the information to WikiLeaks.
If he'd been leaking his information to the New York Times or Washington Post, we wouldn't be seeing this same outcry over Manning.

Kanluwen wrote:
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html

That's from Coombs' own blog. I didn't have to look hard for it.

It is possible for a given inmate to be subject to unnecessary scrutiny, thereby causing suffering, without being targeted by facility staff; which has actually been Coombs' argument all along. It was in that context that I took your comment regarding Manning's treatment by the guards at Qunatico, as I assumed you were making an argument regarding something other than exceptionalisms towards Manning within the facility itself.

It's also possible for a given inmate to be subject to necessary scrutiny, which the inmate then cries foul on.

There was an interesting post on Coombs' blog about why the brig commander felt this was necessary. Namely that "If Manning did anything, it's my ass on the line with all the bigwigs".

http://www.theonion.com/articles/violent-death-of-human-being-terrific-news-for-onc,20294/?utm_medium=promobar&utm_campaign=recirculation
May 2, 2011
Violent Death Of Human Being Terrific News For Once

Osama Bin Laden: Death Of A Mother F%$%#r
http://www.theonion.com/articles/osama-bin-laden-death-of-a-mother-fether,20293/?utm_medium=promobar&utm_campaign=recirculation

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Edit: Counter Ninja'd. You specifically might not claim its "fine" if its Osama getting cut up, but I wasn't aiming my point specifically at you, so much as at the general mood generated by posters here, there and everywhere.

The saying 'Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword' comes to mind you know. Criminals who murder people get killed and it makes us happy, total a-holes who get beat up make us happy. If you watched the video of Casey Haynes beating up his bully and felt bad for the bully you have some pretty fethed up ideology, but from what I'm getting from what you write you probably did feel bad for the bully.

Osama Bin Laden bullied America by having some brainwashed followers crash planes filled with everyday citizens into skyscrapers filled with even more everyday citizens. He then had some crash a plane into the Pentagon and a final plane was crashed after the passengers fought back. Bin Laden released a tape saying that he was in charge of plotting the attack so we went after him and the government that harbored him(the Taliban who were in charge of Afghanistan at the time). Just because we decided to take the law into our own hands and went after him I guess we're evil and barbaric. I guess the more civilized approach would've been to ask him why he did it, put him to trial, and let him soak up media attention so that he may potentially die as a martyr.

I for one didn't like watching people jump from a burning skyscraper when I was 11 years old, and I really didn't like learning that people hated me just because I was an american citizen. I also didn't like the fact that my dad had to go overseas on a ship to deliver troops, ammo, and fuel. I didn't like the fact that he worked below decks in a ship filled with fuel and that sometimes Iranian helicopters would fly so close that they could see the pilot's mustache from the deck. I didn't like the fact that the man in charge of this attack got away with it, the fact that justice wasn't done to an evil man.

Now that Osama is dead, killed while he used his wife as a human shield I feel that the world's karma has balanced out a bit. I feel overjoyed that those who died in the War on Terror didn't die for nothing and the fact that he was shot and killed made me ecstatic because many americans would've loved to be the ones to pull the trigger. People like those who lost a loved one on 9/11, the families of all of the dead and wounded soldiers, the families victimized by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and the world in general. We showed the Taliban that their figurehead, who was supposed to be protected by Allah, was nothing but a coward.

Most importantly it shows all of our enemies that we won't tolerate their aggression and that we will respond with equal measure along with some added interest.

You may think that we're barbaric for celebrating the death of a hated enemy, but this is a great moment for us because we got our spirit back. Ten years of fighting had been for nothing until now and now the war has been justified for many people. How many news stories portrayed the American armed services as evil barbarians who murdered civilians or showed them as bringers of wonton destruction? We've been vilified for almost ten whole years and now that we actually get the bad guy we're the heros again, we have something to feel good about now. That's why we celebrate, we killed a bad guy, we regained some status as the world's good guys, and we broke the chain of us going to wars for 'no reason' or for economic gain.

I really don't want to believe that you sympathize for Osama, I really don't but for some reason I feel that you do. Either that or you're an incredibly audacious troll.

Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.

ChrisWWII wrote:

It said he was resisting,not that American forces lined him up against a wall and shot him. It's not even an execution style murder, as he was actively resisting. I personally believe capturing would have been better, but I'm still not too bummed he's dead. To be honest, having him in custody would likely be even more dangerous.

The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...

@ halonachos: Celebrating the downfall of an enemy is perfectly acceptable, even necessary from a psychological viewpoint. Never disputed that. Its the constant need to say things like "I hope he *insert foul inhumane torture* before he died." that I disagree with, whether it come from the aforementioned "Not-Wargaming Nerd", and actual teen nerd fantasy, or serving front-line troops...mostly because its demanding of Osama the exact same terrible death as he caused for other people, civilian or military.

Look at it this way: I was IN an Arab country when 9/11 went down (and got stuck there.) and I saw firsthand how riotously happy they were that America had finally got its come-uppance. These are the same people who, when they see a video of a bombed Afghan village, think "I wish we could get some of those Americans and drag them behind a truck." As it happens they were also the same people who rose up and overthrew their own government without Al Quaeda help...

The argument about which side is "Right" is irrelevant in this topic, and I do happen to agree that killing civilians, women and children is wrong. What I'm saying is that demands for bloodthirtsy vengeance outside the rule of law, and acts of that nature, bring everybody down to the same level. We do not "murder" murderers...we give them a trial, and present the evidence etc etc...and that is the distinction that (theoretically at least) stops you being murderers.

If I sympathize with anyone, its the poor bastards who end up getting dead whilst just living their lives day to day, because of high-handed decisions made by politicians and religious leaders..often decades before the people involved were even born. ON BOTH SIDES.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Extra thought: Its also unfair to decide that I must be either a troll or a terrorist sympathiser, as if I couldn't be anything else.

Phototoxin wrote:Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.

Why? It should be televised for my amusement.

The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...

Says the guy typing on a computer in his mom's basement. What are you, fifteen? If you're older, why are you still living in your mom's basement?

I can't help but get a little pissed off over this whole thing. Seriously they are complaining because he shouldn't have been buried at sea now? I am pretty sure a lot of religious beliefs were screwed up when people were being beheaded by members of al-Qaeda. Do you think they got an appropriate memorial service as defined by their customs? To me, Osama got a lot more respect in the end then what he gave the people he murdered.

You want respect you better give respect.

Anyways hasn't there been a standing order that US forces will find and kill Osama for like almost a decade? Any naysayers who have problems with his appropriate execution should have been voicing their concern years ago, not after the fact. You have had plenty of opportunity to voice your opinions to your senators.

Now personally I think Osama should have had a go at the Running Man...




Oh wait he did! Team 6 ran him down! Oh how I wish this comic would have been entitled Team 6 instead. I could have made me some money by altering the cover with someone's corpse.

I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.

I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.

After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.

Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.

I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.

Ketara wrote:I find it very interesting that it comes out that Obama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.

Heh.

I assume that's a typo.

edit: or a Freudian slip.

Edited.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Extra thought: Its also unfair to decide that I must be either a troll or a terrorist sympathiser, as if I couldn't be anything else.

It's also unfair for you to come in here preaching all this garbage when pretty much the entire world is better off without him.

Stop posting in this thread if it frustrates you so much.

Ketara wrote:I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.

I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.

After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.

Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.

I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.

Depends where it came from. The White House has had to release further info to try and counter some of the stories that are cropping up. Apparently, Bin Laden's wife ran at the US forces and wasn't used as a human shield as was being reported. She was shot in the leg but survived.

Ketara wrote:I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.

I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.

After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.

Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.

I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.

I have to admit,I too raised an eyebrow at the reports of Bin Laden's supposed reactions moments before his death,seems a bit too "Packaged movie Villain" IMO.
Now...I'm in no way saying Bin Laden was a "Brave or Noble" man...and I'm glad he was killed,I'm simply saying that the reports of him going out like a cliched mustache twirling "bad guy" seem more like propaganda of the "America!! feth yeah!!" varitey than anything else.

EDIT:...I should note I'm in no way attempting to cast a negative light on the men who carried out the actual mission...they,of course,have my deepest respect.