Capture of Bin Laden

Remove all ads!

Since Bin Laden needs to be hunted down since he's a criminal, what about all the other criminals in the USA that have done what he did? Are they going to be hunted down with the same gusto?

 

Interesting point. The state actors on the side of the victors never get prosecuted for their deeds. Neither Churchill nor Bomber Harris were prosecuted for a 911 every day during the air war on germany, targeting civillians on purpose. Churchill also wasn't prosecuted for ordering the illegal british hunger blockade of germany after the armistice of WW-I that caused the starvation of 750.000 germans. The brits used gas on as renitent as defenseless Iraqi tribes in the 1920s, Saddam is a criminal monster for repeating it. Just like Stalin never got prosecuted for all the atrocities he ordered.

Clinton (sic) will not face legal consequences for his murderous embargo policy against Iraq that killed 500.000 iraqi children, a price, according to Madeleine Albright, that was worth it for the US. Wes Clark admitted that he on purpose had targeted civilians in the NATO war on Serbia - no prosecution in sight. Serbs who did the same in Bosnia get trials in the Hague. And also Bush Jr. and his warmongering civilian advisors will not be prosecuted for ordering, planning and executing the war on Iraq and the corresponding killing of Iraqis, sodiers and civilians alike.

Such is the privilege of power.

To see Bin Laden caught is a nice thing from a crimefighting point of view. But the US don't do crimefighting in afghanistan, they chose to do war - remember? They do a War on Terror - a business with different rules and different measures for success. Getting Bin Laden doesn't equal victory there.

 

Ragusa - what do you propose then? Should someone lock up Bin Laden, Hussein, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Clinton, and Albright? What would that achieve? I'm not saying I condone the actions, but I struggle to see what would be an acceptable 'victory; or resolution.

 

Well, what has to be done is that the people, the electorate, hold those they have given power accountable for their actions, and takes care their actions follow a moral compass. And that they, if their leaders's actions don't, punish their leaders.

That's what counts in a democracy. And as long as that works, no one needs an ICC. But it doesn't.

Unfortunately democracy necessarily requires an informed electorate, where we have a key problem. The people give a rats ass for the fate of faceless masses in a distant country where the their country is conmducting a war. Only when this war intrudes their comfy live with disturbing pics on tv they take notice. Media are complicit in that.

The ever alarmist New York Times continuously reported exaggerated claims of iraqi weapons. It was them, the NYT, a public newspaper, not a whitehouse speechwriter who invented the famous line of the smoking gun that could be a mushroom cloud.
Rarely if ever they saw a need to assess the effectiveness or the consequences of the embargo. You know, critique on a horrid administrations course (like the murderous sanctions) on a bastard like Saddam equals aiding him. Well, not really. In fact, the mainstream media have become complicit in gvt propaganda. Iraq made that ever clear.

The media have to become sober again - but who can really expect that in a time where 'anchormen' rarely are experienced journalists anymore but braindead drones instead?

The media and the people have to stop to be asleep at the helm. Otherwise their leaders will continue to do what they want. And then, why not straight go for monarchy?

 

So if it was up to you, you would have prosecuted Churchill for bombing German cities ?

Seriously, i haven't laughed this hard in a long time, thanks for the chuckle.

 

The feeling was that this topic was about the hunt for Bin Laden. What that has to do with Clinton and the embargo in Iraq, or the current war in Iraq is another topic. I will take it to mean that in someway these topics were brought into the mix of the debate to be somehow taken as a defense of Bin Laden. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to take their presence in this dialogue, since what does Clinton's policy in Kosovo have to do with 9/11? Also, I, and others who are opposed to the war in Iraq have been trying to make the point that 9/11 and the Iraq War have no connection; that there is no relation to Bin Laden and his private army of followers and Saddam and the real reasons for the war. But when I attempt to look at all the different issues suddenly brought into the debate on this thread, I see that some of you feel that there is a connection between the hunt for Bin Laden and Saddam and Clinton and Chruchill and even Stalin; but I'm not sure who to blame for a British embargo of Germany during World War I.

There are two arguments being made here in defense of Bin Laden that are on two different tangents: The German Wars, earlier the last century; and recent and current American foreign policy. We also have the added benefit of maybe attacking the news media services (which might be a good thing), and how crucial an informed electorate is to a democracy, even one which had its president chosen by the Supreme Court.

We can even expand that into a discussion in an attempt to sort out if whether or not America is a true democracy, a republic or a democratic/republic (as the founding brothers referred to it). But we won't go there for now, since maybe Bin Laden should get off the hook because Hamilton and Adams supported a strong central government, while Jefferson and Madison did not. So, let's try to piece this all together.

Let's draw this one huge conclusion: For one hundred years American-Anglo policy has been so flawed and so unfair to the rest of the world that we should not bother to hunt for Bin Laden even though he is partly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in New York City; bombing embassies in Africa, which killed hundreds of people (only a few were Amercicans); attacking the USS Cole(any sovereign country would view that as an act of war), attacking American soldiers in Somalia; and maybe a connection to the bombing of the Kovar towers in Arabia.

We can say this because Bin Laden's crimes are small potatoes compared to the "evil" commited over the last one hundred years by assorted US presidents and Great Britain's Foreign Ministry. And perhaps there's a case for that. Of course, we have not even compared them to more "benevolent" and "enlightened" regimes in other regions of the world like Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc. Those are the real strongolds of human rights, especially for women. And how about those Taliban? There's a great bunch of enlightened despots who were at the forefront of fighting real crime for Allah, wherever they found it, (except in their own backyard). I suppose these are all good reasons for not hunting for Bin Laden. Hell, for two years even Shrub didn't think it was worthwhile, except now that the election will be soon be here. He must have agreed with all of you that spending time playing golf in sunny central Texas was more fun than trudging around on the snowy mountains and looking for a small-time criminal (just thinking about that much work was probably daunting), even though he wouldn't have to break-out his own winter coat and boots to go look for him.

Well, how about this? Let's at least catch Bin Laden so that he doesn't have the chance to crash anymore planes into buildings. That may be a boring reason compared to a dialogue of one hundred years of failed American-Anglo policy, but the life saved may be your own.

[ March 01, 2004, 19:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, I think you got me wrong both.

Pac-man, in the case of Chruchill - just look at what the man did. After the armistice, that is essentially: AFTER the war, he decided to continue a hunger blockade that starved 750.000 germans. That's like the whole population of Rotterdam? Some 4,8% of the actual dutch population? In WW-II he burned an urban culture of more than thousand years to ashes, killing millions.
Goering, chief of the german Luftwaffe in WW-II was accused for the war crime of rubbling Rotterdam. That is, these are all war crimes.

Goering got a death sentence in Nuremberg. Churchill got away, he was a victor. That is a dual standard, the privilege of power.

You misunderstand me further: I'm making a moral case. Imagine the UK or US trialing their politico war criminals for their deeds - that would sure have a fallout on policy. It would be less hypochritical too. Politicians wouldn't do these things if they knew they would be held accountable - by their own people.
The war crimes tribunal only is the ultimate accountability. There are milder and more practical forms - like un-electing criminal politicians.

And that is where Chandos got me wrong too. Even though Bin Laden's crimes pale in comparison to the deeds in the Big Boy league - there is a point in prosecuting him. As I said above, it is important to show criminals that they don't get away.

Unlike Bin Laden the Big Boys represent countries, and are therefor immune. No country just hands out its leaders for a war crimes tribunal - it's a question of sovereignty and national pride.

But there we are: Bin Laden is just a petty thug, and basically he gets the punishment for having the nerve to dare to play the game of the big boy league - just that they torch countries where he torched buildings.

[ March 01, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but there was a report over the weekend from the Iranian news agency that bin Laden was captured some time ago. The US promptly denied it...but there have been a ubiquitous amount of "bin Laden captured" rumors...they've almost gotten to be "Elvis sightings"

@Ragusa
I understand your point, but the leaders of the land can always be painted as heinous mass-murderers, whether they employ an active bombing policy or veto legislation that prevented food from reaching the starving in Ethiopia.

There will always be injustice and a double standard...it will never go away. This world will never achieve equality, justice or perfection...that is not its fate.

 

Where people like to brand their country as the morally superior entity of the world, blesseth by THE LORD himself, and their loco politicos do the sort of things you described above, the people have to do something to meet their own standards - elections are the way to go.

To understand that the world is a bad place is no reason for fatalism

 

@CtR

Couldn't have said it better myself. I love the sarcastic humor...

 

@ Ragusa

You make a good point, but i guess that's just the way things work in this world. The victor gets away with it, while the defeated pays the price.

 

Sure if Osama is caught, it would be a boon to Bush's election. But a CIA trained terrorist leader can't be captured so easily.

 

Well I have to admit I am suprised more people don't think it will be a major blow to terrorism.
Now I have no doubt we will always have to deal with terrorism,and there will be no end of people willing to fill these ranks, I do think that it will be a long time before someone else of his power and influence rise to the ranks.

Not many people have access to his kind of money.

 

I think they already have Bin Laden in custody, somplace isolated. He will be "unveiled" sometime in October to boost Bush's election chances. Let's just hope the average American isn't stupid enough to fall for it.