The Glade 4.0

I am unsure what is extraordinary about having killed an enemy leader during a war (of sorts)



I do not see that it has made verification impossible, or even that repeatability is needed. This is not a science experiment. More and more is coming out about the compound and circumstances he was killed in, and all of them are consistent with him really having been there. This is merely a matter of being unable to, specifically, take more DNA samples.



I have not denied that doubt exists. Obviously there is some doubt, but right now I have seen no evidence that takes it beyond the level of "It might possibly be untrue."



They can be considered, but they are not evidence of anything. Killing OBL would create this regardless of who was responsible or when. This is simply suspicion of Obama/government motives and is singularly unconvincing to me, since he could hardly avoid it being politically expedient.



There are reasons, but again, I see these reasons as pretty weak ones in comparison to those to think it is true.



I simply do not see this as that problematic, especially in light of the excessive concern for muslim sensibilities we have exhibited. As Midgen has illustrated, there is only a narrow segment of muslims for which this procedure would mollify them in a way that would be significant to their future choices. I would prefer that the body had been retained, but this action is consistent with an excessive, and often clumsily-executed, over-concern for muslim beliefs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are ***** and complaining about people ascribing positions to you that you do not hold, and then turn around and do it to others. I would love a softer word to avoid offending you, but I don't know one. I do not want to attack, but I do want to illustrate your behavior. I do not know how illustrating the hypocritical nature of your responses would make me look smart. That doesn't make sense, or is this an attempt to get me back for calling you out on your standard operating procedures?

Now you are once again being a bit disingenuous. I addressed your position prior to dismissing it. Suggesting that Obama should be impeached if he can't come up with a body is laughable.

Now, if you don't believe that's a fringe position, by all means - show me some evidence of significant support for that position.

I see, so since I currently believe the reports, I'm a Leftist and/or Democrat?

Talk about a dismissal....

LMFAO

You are a Glade Leftist.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get more absurd...

swing and a miss.

Compare this to the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein. Now, this might surprise you, but I'm not saying Bin Laden needed a trial; nor, for that matter, do oppose a summary execution in the field. In fact, the latter seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to me. That said, the coverage of Hussein's capture, the evidence released, and the multiple video feeds of his trial by more than one reporting agency gave the situation evidentiary credibility. It also served to remove as much doubt as possible from the situation.

This, however, is extraordinary for two reasons:

1. Bin Laden remained a fugitive for 10 years.

2. Material evidence was destroyed before any doubt of the events could be dispelled.Actually, you're specifically unable to verify the DNA evidence that is now claimed. The source of sample is paramount in maintaining the credibility of that evidence.Again, in the purely rational and agnostic sense, removing the primary avenues of verification makes it "not true". This doesn't require a conspiracy as much as it requires proof that can no longer be given. I assume that there exists combat recordings of the events in question. I have no reservations that these recordings should remain unconsumed by the general public or any persons not immediately and necessarily involved in the action in question. Consequently, other evidence must be used and maintained to substantiate these claims.While it is true Obama could not avoid it being politically expedient, the nature of this announcement still makes it dubious. At some level, this is simply expecting transparency from an Administration that has demonstrated no respect for transparency. That said, it is a matter of integrity and apperance: as President, Obama should (hence moral imperative) do everything he can to divorce himself of any political capital this creates. There should be no political hay reaped from doing actual due diligence and performing in the capacity of his office admirably. However, since this is particularly the kind of singular success that overshadows any number of failures (for ANY President), it must be treated with a different level of care and cautionExcept, there exist no publically knowable reasons to think it is true at this point. Because the means of proof (body) have been destroyed, and because the Administration stands to gain politically in terms of election and re-election power from an unprovable and unchallengeable assertion, one must question their motives and rationatle.Midgen also demonstrated that such a disposal was not consistent with Muslim beliefs.

_________________

Rynar:

To be fair, Arathain is far from "Left". He's simply has a bit more deference for authority than you would like.

_________________

perhaps there is no body to protect both the President and the soldiers on the ground from accusations of war crimes etc.


You still have not provided a material benifit (other than shutting you up, which admittedly is a noble goal) of producing the body. What would it accomplish?

I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but isn't it against the law (or at very least against U.S. Policy) to assassinate political leaders?

You can't seriously be this dense?

I would place him slightly to the right of RangerDave, but soundly to the left of the majority of the regular hellfire contributors.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

My responses are not hyprocritical in the least. You have failed to demonstrate why the government should be subject to a lower burden of proof than our Courts demand in criminal trials. You have, likewise, failed to demonstrate why asking for concrete proof of a manner that DOES NOT compromise national security is irrational.As I said to Diamondeye, because this is precisely the kind of event/action that can change election and political outcomes regardless of any other performance, it must of necessity be divorced from the political process. What good does it serve to the United States to continue with the current administration, if the only success is this? That's not to say Obama has failed at every other aspect of the office; the question is whether or not a singular, emotionally and politically charged success should be sufficient in the wake of predominantly poor performance in the execution of that officeI have made a complete argument as to why this announcement and subsequent government actions are unacceptable. You have, likewise, demonstrated why it is unacceptable: destroying the body allows the situation to be politicized and arbitrarily fracture the voting public. Stathol, likewise, makes a solid argument: increasing the ambiguity by destroying evidence that can satisfy the general public while making all other evidence fundamentally inaccessible (due to National Security concerns) means you create an either/or situation that allows for two choices: acceptance or marginalization.

_________________

Oh god, we're delving into placing people on the political spectrum again. I got 500 posts worth of ZOMG YOU DONT KNOW WHAT LIBERAL MEANS type crap last time.

Try to comprehend this:

Its not always about you.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

For ****'s sake, half of the republican party is to the left of the majority of regular hellfire contributors.

Nowhere did I imply it was.
But nice of you to make it partially about me.

I suspect you are mistaking my distaste for dogpiling with ideological support.

I'd estimate I'm around the right 1/3.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/morning/ ... n-20110504




More fuel to the fire...

I have not yet seen any good reason why this, or for that matter, any other national security matter ought to be subject to any sort of legal or court standard. In fact, I would say that a major problem is that people worldwide have gotten it into their heads that the national security actions of nation-states against foreign targets are subject to international laws, and the processes that Western nations expect their governments to follow when dealing with domestic criminals. Normally, this is the sort of issue I expect to see brought up by the Liberal side of the spectrum who are, from what I have already seen, all busily trying to find ways that shooting OBL is "legal" as if Navy Seals are the police and OBL a common robber.



Pretty much any event or action can change political and electoral outcomes to one degree or another. I would agree the effects of this would be much more significant than average. However, I do not see that this event will ensure Obama's re-election regardless of other events, and I do not see that claims of military successes ought to be subject to "independent" verification simply because they pass some arbitrary line of political significance.

George Bush was not re-elected in 1992 despite overwhelming approval in 1991 due to a crushing military victory; I am not at all convinced the popularity boost from this event will brace Obama in the face of the shift in electorate attention to economic issues in the past few years.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So you didn't complain about being assigned positions you did not hold, or you didn't say the following, which was not my position?





Oh, that's easy. It's not a trial.



Never suggested asking for anything was irrational. I suggested demanding impeachment if there is no body is irrational. Please continue ascribing positions that don't belong to me...



I reject your entire basis for the argument. There is no burden for actions of politicians to be divorced from the political process.



Never made that argument. Try again.

Wait, what? Confusing article is confusing.

Also, WTF? He says directly "I've seen the picture. He's definitely dead. And if there's [sic] any conspiracy theories out there, you should put them to rest, OK?"

I think he means the hacked-together photo that was "released" as a hoax, and, according to local radio this morning, is the host for a Facebook virus, is not authentic.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not a matter of legality; it's a matter of accountability. If the government makes a claim, then substantiating that claim should be a first priority of action. Assuming there are national security interests in play, then means of verifying that claim which do not compromise national security must be preserved. In this case, it's the bodyYou are confusing this with a general claim of military success, when in reality it is the ostensible assassination of the man on top of the United States's effective International Most Wanted List for the last 10 years. It is the death of the guy responsible for the single largest act of terrorism against the United States; the guy that gave impetus to two military engagements over the same period of time. I'm fairly certain this goes beyond "Mission Accomplished" in Baghdad or Islamabad.This would be more comparable to Roosevelt announcing the assassination of Emperor Hirohito.

_________________

Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...