SEAL book raises questions about bin Laden's death

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By KIMBERLY DOZIER

WASHINGTON (AP) - A firsthand account of the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden contradicts previous accounts by administration officials, raising questions as to whether the terror mastermind presented a clear threat when SEALs first fired upon him.

Bin Laden apparently was hit in the head when he looked out of his bedroom door into the top-floor hallway of his compound as SEALs rushed up a narrow stairwell in his direction, according to former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette, writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen in "No Easy Day." The book is to be published next week by Penguin Group (USA)'s Dutton imprint.

Bissonnette says he was directly behind a "point man" going up the stairs. "Less than five steps" from top of the stairs, he heard "suppressed" gunfire: "BOP. BOP." The point man had seen a "man peeking out of the door" on the right side of the hallway.

The author writes that bin Laden ducked back into his bedroom and the SEALs followed, only to find the terrorist crumpled on the floor in a pool of blood with a hole visible on the right side of his head and two women wailing over his body.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120829/DA0URU6G1.html

---

This book cover image released by Dutton shows "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden," by Mark Owen with Kevin Maurer. A first-hand account of the Navy SEAL mission that killed Osama bin Laden is coming out Sept. 11. Dutton announced Wednesday that Mark Owen’s “No Easy Day” will “set the record straight” on the raid in Pakistan in May 2011. “Mark Owen” is a pseudonym for the combat veteran who was one of the first fighters to enter bin Laden’s third floor hideout and also witnessed his death, according to Dutton, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA). (AP Photo/Dutton)

[CJCRANE]

1. I don't need to read the book now.

The excerpts have given away the main action.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. The butler did it. n/t

[MrSlayer]

2. No need to read it now.

They gave away the money shot.

[Botany]

3. He got shot and killed ..... end of story

I don't care if he was a threat or not and if he had or didn't have a weapon
also makes no difference to me. People who think we should have captured
him for a trial are living in a fairy land because that would have been a nightmare
for many different reasons.

The SEALs carried out the mission given to them by the POTUS and for Fox News
to out any member of that team is not only dangerous but shameful.

[redgreenandblue]

4. Out of curiousity: I'd like to hear those reasons.

Why that "would have been a nightmare" I mean.

[amerciti001]

5. Reason one...

He would still be alive and breathing, that alone is a "nightmare" enough for me-still alive.

[Missycim]

7. We have the DP

in this country that could have been remedied quite easily

[CJCRANE]

8. Where would you hold him?

Would you have his trials before or after the "9/11 masterminds" held at Gitmo? What type of trial would you have?

[Lurks Often]

9. A number of reasons

How many lives are you willing to risk to have had Bin Laden's trial in the US due to possible terrorism attacks across the country?

The cost of security for the trial would be tens of millions

What person in their right mind would want to be a juror or any play any part of that trial and wonder for the rest of their life whether some fanatical Muslim* would try to kill them or their family?

The trial would be a media circus

What happens if Bin Laden was found non guilty (rightly or wrongly)?

And that's just of the top of my head.


* I recognize that not all Muslims are terrorists and that the vast majority are decent people who just want to be left alone.

[redgreenandblue]

11. On the other hand, a trial for the leaders of the national socialist party was done.

And that trial is today seen by many as the birth of international law as it exists today.

And: Yeah, I'd sit on that jury.

[CJCRANE]

12. Bushco didn't bother with trials for the 9/11 masterminds

and when the current administration tried to convene them it became a political football.

[Lurks Often]

46. Hardly a fair comparison

and while you might be willing, a great many more people wouldn't be.

[treestar]

59. They did the killing as heads of state

And the state involved had been defeated. The Nazis were powerless.

Not so easy in these times. There's no defeated state and there are still active terrorists.

[LanternWaste]

36. And martyrdom is not a current threat in the here and now due primarily to his death...?

And martyrdom is not a current threat in the here and now due primarily to his death...?

Or is it distinctly possible that either solutions has shades of right and shades of wrong, and accepting one and only one solution as the "right course of action" is pretty dogmatic, unyielding and a rather short-sighted analysis...

[Lurks Often]

48. It's a threat, although I think

the threat would be significantly higher having a trial somewhere in the US.

And I'll add another reason, I doubt there is a city in this country that would want the trial held in one of their courtrooms

[harmonicon]

50. I have some answers for your questions.

How many lives do I think it's worth risking to have a sound judicial system? There is no limit. Once we do away with rule of law, all other functions of government are pure artifice.

Same goes for cost. There is no limit to cost that should ever be placed on justice.

Being on a jury? Sign me up. It's my role as a citizen to serve on a jury if called and available, as it is that of all other citizens. I suppose if, like you, you're happy to give up a judicial system for yourself and everyone else, you could give up that as well. Just don't ever expect to get a jury trial for yourself, because you don't think you - or anyone else - deserves it.

A media circus? The media could be kept out of the courtroom, for the most part. Besides, who gives a shit?

What if Bin Laden was found not guilty? Well, then I guess he wasn't guilty, and we would have wasted a hell of a lot of time, money, and energy on someone who wasn't worth it. However, it would also mean that an innocent man didn't get put to death. If you were to be accused of a crime, would you want the chance to be found not guilty? I can only assume you do not wish that for yourself, as you would take that right from another.

[OnyxCollie]

52. It's sad, really,

how quickly people join the "Burn the Witch!" chorus.

From Sunstein's article:

"A particular event becomes available, and conspiracy theories are invoked both in explaining it and using it as a symbol for broader social forces, casting doubt on accepted wisdom in many domains."

Rule of law? What are you? A terrorist sympathizer?

[Lurks Often]

64. We're not going to agree

I'm not willing to risk a single American life to try someone who admitted planning 9/11.

The jury system works now because 99.99 % of the time, the jury doesn't risk death by particpating in the trial.

[harmonicon]

65. "I'm not willing to risk a single American life to try someone who admitted planning 9/11."

And how many people died over the years trying to kill Bin Laden? Zero Americans?

[Lurks Often]

66. Lots

And both President Bush and President Obama made that decision and share the responsibility, along with Congress which continues to fund military operations.

I have absolutely no problem with the Seal Team Six killing Bin Laden, just wish they had killed after the first WTC bombing. Who knows how many people would still be alive.

[harmonicon]

71. Well, we'll never know.

Part of why we'll never know is because the one person who could have told us just what Osama Bin Laden's role, if any, was in that or any other terrorist attack has been murdered.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. I agree. I can't muster up enough fuck to give a damn about mass murderers...

Or their so-called "rights."

[Courtesy Flush]

15. I agree

This wasn't some kid who got swept up into a movement. This was the mastermind. If we can kill their soldiers in the field, we can kill bin Laden.

[MADem]

22. Bin Ladin was the General Eisenhower of the movement.

He was their Supreme Allied Commander, and then some...

[JDPriestly]

55. Or so we have been told.

It may be that the "movement" was not a well organized army but rather just a rag-tag group of people who sometimes communicated and other times acted independently.

I suspect that the right-wing militias are not tightly organized into military groups either.

So I think that the concept of Supreme Allied Commander may be inappropriate. That is our Western way of organizing things. That does not mean it was they way they organized things.

I have no idea how what we have been told was Al Qaeda worked.

I do not know that throughout history, governments have lied especially to achieve propaganda or political goals.

[MADem]

68. It was sufficiently organized to bring down the WTC, kill three thousand people, fuck up our lives

for the past decade, and leave a ton of US military blood soaking into the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The organization, from all accounts, was independent-yet-connected groups of cells, so that if one sector took a hit, the whole mess wouldn't fall down. That said, getting Binny--who was the spiritual if not ultimate-and-always operational leader--was a huge "get."

[JDPriestly]

72. Agreed -- propagandist supreme and would-be organizer, but I was responding

to a post calling him commander-in-chief. I doubt that really described how that "organization" worked. Although it was not completely chaotic either.

[MADem]

74. Indeed, Ike was not just a planner, either. He was Supreme Allied Commander, but he was also

a diplomat, a cheerleader and exhorter, a taskmaster, an authority figure, an icon--service personnel and people on the homefront had an attitude about him--he wasn't a "spiritual" leader, but he was a leader upon whom many draped their hopes and dreams and expectations. It's why he was such a popular choice for President -- both parties fought to get him -- in the postwar era.

Bin Ladin certainly didn't have the depth and breadth of an Eisenhower, but he did have some of the same functions and he certainly had the leadership charisma.

[JDPriestly]

75. Of course, I don't know how Al Qaeda was organized, but I suspect that it was

not a rigid military organization but from what I have read was a series of cells. They may have communicated, but judging from the number of number 2s that we supposedly killed, there must have been a lot of somewhat independent cells.

When I think of a commander in chief, I think of a traditional army, a disciplined army. I just don't think Al Qaeda was or is like that. That is probably why we seem to be still engaged in trying to ferret out what we think of as their organization in places as far from Afghanistan as Yemen.

[MADem]

76. Concur completely. They operate under a different paradigm.

The only thing that's the same is the guy at the top. One person takes the "risk" of being the spiritual, if not operational, leader, and his name/face are expose to the world as a consequence of his pronouncements that make it on to the internets. He's the guy who can make suggestions as to operations but who isn't going to get much if any feedback until the job is done. Everyone in the organization is looking upward at this leader for moral exhortations and enthusiasms, eager to please, but they're not going to get any personal "Attaboys" until they are already dead, unless they are a member of the leader's inner circle.

I think those guys have their discipline, though, and it's a consequence of religious indoctrination and in some cases, lack of economic opportunity. In other cases, it's a case of great wealth (but perhaps not enough wealth in comparison to their peers) and a certain degree of persistent ennui--something that an antidepressant or a fine romance might well cure. The whole "rebel with a cause" thing...!

[JDPriestly]

77. Yes. As long as they aren't violent, they can think what they want

and admire whom they wish. The problem with Bin Laden was that he preached hate and violence. I would define "commander-in-chief" as one with a lot of responsibility for the well-being of his troops. I think one of the worst aspects of Al Qaeda was that folks like Bin Laden thought they would not have to be held responsible for what they promoted and talked about. That, I suppose, is why we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A commander-in-chief like Obama or even Bush takes responsibility and identifies himself as the person in charge. George Washington as president is the model for this in the US.

We agree. I'm just developing the idea further.

[MADem]

78. Most certainly. There's also a difference in perspective, too, I think.

We have this "Live life to the fullest" attitude where we want "the best" for those in our care--family, troops, employees, what-have-you (unless you're a Republican, that is). In 'exceedingly, fundamentally faithful' Islam (the fundamentalists, not the regular folk who are into living life like the rest of us) life begins when you hit paradise--earth is just a way station, full of hardship and deprivation. That's the story they shop to persuade people to do something as dumb as kill themselves. And of course, the drama and hero-worship of the martyrs is beyond the pale. The surviving family gets a huge payday and enormous respect--it's like being a Gold Star Mother AND winning the lottery. If you come from a family that's having a rough time making ends meet, it is a way to contribute to the family--but just that once.

[Erose999]

43. He outed himself when he wrote the book.

[harmonicon]

49. Could you please provide a list...

of accused criminals we should murder, and those we should put on trial? I'm sure that law enforcement agencies around the world would find it to be of great use. Just think of all of the time and money that could be saved by simply murdering accused criminals.

Perhaps there are also accused criminals who shouldn't be murdered? Now, should those accused criminals go through a legal trial processes, or possibly just be kidnapped and locked in a dungeon?

[arely staircase]

86. i nominate this guy

[treestar]

58. Right wingers claiming he should not have been shot are

pure hypocrites - they would be fine if Bush got him the exact same way. Heck OBL was why we needed to give up our freedoms for our safety - he wanted to kill us all! Friggin' hypocrites.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. You are the one "living in a fairy land" where fundamental concepts like

"due process of law" and "presumption of innocence" can be brushed aside on the whim of a single individual and where infants like you blindly suckle at the teat of arbitrary authority.

Not to mention violation of the Geneva Accord's strict prohibition against burying the corpses of enemies in unmarked graves.

Whatevs.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in listening to your rationalizations for extra-judicial executions, so I'm just putting you on Ignore right now.

[JDPriestly]

6. If someone made up a totally fictional account and published it,

who would know the difference?

The parties who were really involved in the events are sworn to secrecy. Only the Seals know who they were. And they aren't talking about it. Who knows whether this is really what happened?

We don't even know for sure who killed Kennedy.

Somebody writes a book about the attack on Bin Laden using a pseudonym. Who knows whether it is true?

And if it is, what difference does it make whether Bin Laden killed himself or was killed by the Seals? Either way, assuming this book to be a true account, Bin Laden would have survived had the Navy Seals not been ordered to enter the compound.

The book appears to be either imagination or self-aggrandizement. The fact is that whether the book is true or not, the Seals could not and would not, without the order of the President and Commander-in-Chief have flown to the compound much less entered it.

[OnyxCollie]

19. Damn straight.

Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2012, 01:34 PM - Edit history (6)

I'm not falling over myself to buy anyone's account, whether it be the Obama administration or this alleged SEAL.

I'd like to hear from the Pakistani doctor who, with the aid of the CIA, set up a fake vaccination service to collect DNA from bin Laden's family.

The guy the Pakistanis view as a traitor. I'd like to hear his account.

((I think this is kinda important, since we don't have a body or pictures. All we have is the Obama administration saying, "We got his DNA. Trust us. He's dead." And since that contradicts Benazir Bhutto's (who was assassinated) claim that bin Laden was dead already, I'm skeptical.))

I think a few paragraphs from Cass Sunstein's (current administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) article on conspiracy theories is apropos.

Rumors and speculation. Of course it is necessary to specify how, exactly,
conspiracy theories begin.. Some such theories seem to bubble up spontaneously,
appearing roughly simultaneously in many different social networks; others are initiated
and spread, quite intentionally, by conspiracy entrepreneurs who profit directly or
indirectly from propagating their theories. An example in the latter category is the
French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book “9/11: The Big Lie” became a bestseller and
a sensation for its claims that the Pentagon explosion on 9/11 was caused by a missile,
fired as the opening salvo of a coup d’etat by the military-industrial complex, rather than
by American Airlines Flight 77. Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere;
others are interested in money or power, or in achieving some general social goal. Still,
even for conspiracy theories put about by conspiracy entrepreneurs, the key question is
why some theories take hold while many more do not, and vanish into obscurity.

Whenever a bad event has occurred, rumors and speculation are inevitable. Most
people are not able to know, on the basis of personal or direct knowledge, why an
airplane crashed, or why a leader was assassinated, or why a terrorist attack succeeded. In
the aftermath of such an event, numerous speculations will be offered, and some of them
will likely point to some kind of conspiracy. To some people, those speculations will
seem plausible, perhaps because they provide a suitable outlet for outrage and blame,
perhaps because the speculation fits well with other deeply rooted beliefs that they hold.
Terrible events produce outrage, and when people are outraged, they are all the more
likely to attribute those events to intentional action. In addition, antecedent beliefs are a
key to the success or failure of conspiracy theories. Some people would find it impossibly
jarring to think that the CIA was responsible for the assassination of a civil rights leader;
that thought would unsettle too many of their other judgments. Others would find those
other judgments strongly supported, even confirmed, by the suggestion that the CIA was
responsible for such an assassination. Compare the case of terrorist attacks. For most
Americans, a claim that the United States government attacked its own citizens, for some
ancillary purpose, would make it impossible to hold onto a wide range of other
judgments. Clearly this point does not hold for many people in Islamic nations, for whom
it is far from jarring to believe that responsibility lies with the United States (or Israel).

Here, as elsewhere, people attempt to find some kind of equilibrium among their
assortment of beliefs,34 and acceptance or rejection of a conspiracy theory will often
depend on which of the two leads to equilibrium. Some beliefs are also motivated, in the
sense that people are pleased to hold them or displeased to reject them.35 Acceptance (or
for that matter rejection) of a conspiracy theory is frequently motivated in that sense.
Reactions to a claim of conspiracy to assassinate a political leader, or to commit or to
allow some atrocity either domestically or abroad, are often determined by the
motivations of those who hear the claim.

~snip~

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

[JDPriestly]

54. I'm interested in conspiracy theories because they indicate what people are thinking

about.

Perhaps the best way for a government to deal with conspiracy theories would be to try to be genuinely honest in its news releases and be untiring in trying to find out the truth about events and publish them for everyone to see.

When a government lies about things as the Bush administration did about its reasons for starting the Iraq War, it causes people generally to doubt things the government says, explanations the government gives for things.

We know our government lies to us. That is not a conspiracy theory. That is true. It lied about Iraq. It lied about Jessica Lynch. It lied about the death of Pat Tillman.

The Wikileaks showed how much our government conceals from us.

So, conspiracy theories are a healthy way to cope with the lies of our government. They keep alive the questions that we have.

I do not trust the official explanations about the assassinations of the Kennedys or Martin Luther King.

And I see how people are framed and set up or how particular people's acts are prosecuted or publicized while those of others are not.

Like it or not, conspiracy theories are healthy in a world in which governments lie and conceal.

[mallard]

70. Re: What can government do about conspiracy theories?

From article you posted:

"Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

These responses are actually more active than the ones you hi-lighted. Penalties for dismissing the government's official account of 9/11 have been quietly imposed all along. Such talk will get a school teacher in Manhattan fired in a New York minute.

[arely staircase]

81. the people on the ground doing recon before the raid probably have some interesting stories

we owe that pakistani doctor a great deal. i hope he was rewarded.

[OnyxCollie]

84. You and Rand Paul.

Rand Paul blocked from adding Pakistan provision to farm bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/232435-sen-rand-paul-blocked-from-adding-pakistan-provision-to-farm-bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from attaching an amendment to the farm bill that would withhold U.S. aid to Pakistan.

~snip~

The amendment would have defunded U.S. aid to Pakistan until the country frees an imprisoned doctor who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden.

"I have an amendment that's very important," Paul said. "It's not germane, but that doesn't mean it's not important. It's very important that we send Pakistan a signal that we are not willing to send a welfare check when they're holding in prison a political prisoner who helped us get bin Laden. This amendment is of the utmost urgency — would only require 15 minutes of the Senate's time."

Nice company you keep.

[arely staircase]

85. hopefully we can cut a deal to secure is freedom

and rand paul is a red herring. if rand paul says sanduski deserves prison am i supposed to disagree? i don't form opinions by listening to rand paul and then thinking the opposite.

[Enrique]

30. depends on the credibility of the authors

I have never heard of Mark Owen, nor Kevin Maurer, so I can't say how much credibility they have.

And the publishers as well. A total fabrication would hurt them badly.

I look at it as another account of what happened. This SEAL might have reasons to distort the raid, but then again the officials that leaked the version we've heard also have reasons to distort it.

[JDPriestly]

56. Who knows what the administration was told.

The Bush administration lied a lot -- Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and on and on.

It's part of the psy-ops effort to control public opinion and insure that we support the military. It's just a fact of life.

Why do you think they are so angry at Assange?

He revealed the truth. The "news" he published was probably widely known in the places affected by it. It's just that the news he published was being kept from us, at least that part of the news he published that was new or interesting.

[harmonicon]

51. Yep. This should be taken with a grain of salt.

Books are published to make money - for someone. End of story.

[Puppyjive]

13. Treason

I think the person who wrote this book ought to be tried for treason. He obviously has no respect for his commander and chief. I see a fundamental break down of the chain of command here, something that does not bode well for our nation's military. The entire group of seals did not like the president, but went ahead with the mission that obviously had to change due to the helicopter mishap. This book is nothing but garbage. The US military needs to clean house. We can't have a military that is disrespectful of the commander in chief. We can't have a military that disrespect's their commander due to his color. President Obama is a diplomat, something they should embrace because it will keep them from fighting unnecessary wars.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "no respect for his commander and chief" is not the legal definition of treason

President Obama is a diplomat, something they should embrace because it will keep them from fighting unnecessary wars.

Like Libya?

[CJCRANE]

23. No American troops fought in Libya.

So that point stands.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. What about all the bombs we dropped?

[CJCRANE]

27. The fact is there were no American boots on the ground

and no American casualties in Libya, which was the main point the previous poster was making.

However, we can argue about whether the war was 'necessary' or 'unnecesary' (but obviously the Libyan rebels and many others would say it was necessary).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. No, the point the poster was making was about unnecessary war

Presumably that means war without clear national security objectives for the US. Reframing it as a matter solely of US casualty counts is disingenuous at best. Why was the US engaged in a bombing campaign against a nation that was not threatening the US?

[CJCRANE]

31. That was a NATO effort

sanctioned by the UN and the Arab League. There was a lot of diplomacy involved to make sure other nations pulled their weight.

No Americans "fought" in that war. It's not disingenuous to point that out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. This just gets ever more ludicrous

Yes, we did fight because we were part of an extensive bombing campaign. American bombs dropped from American planes flown by American pilots killing real people who were not a national security risk to the US. It is not the job of the US to kill people because NATO, the UN or the Arab League asked "pretty please" -- unless playing World Police suddenly became cool.

[CJCRANE]

35. You're forgetting that the US is part of NATO and the UN

and has responsibilities related to that.

Libya is in Europe's backyard. It's in the interests of America to coordinate with its European allies.

The political will in America, NATO, the UN and the Arab League was for action to prevent the massacre of the citizens of Benghazi. If no action had been taken there would've been criticism from both sides of the aisle as well as international condemnation.

You obviously favor a more isolationist approach and I favor a more diplomatic one so we're not going to agree on this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. If it's suddenly cool to play World Police just say so.

Own it. At least that's respectable.

[Erose999]

41. So "boots in the air" don't count?

[PavePusher]

42. Sigh.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-23-libyanews23_ST_N.htm

[arely staircase]

87. ask qaddafy

oh yeah, nevermind.

"The result was yet another paradox of the Arab Spring: a country that seemed to meet all of the conditions for an Islamist victory produced the sort of election results that liberals in Egypt and Tunisia could only dream about."

http://isnblog.ethz.ch/government/libyas-defeated-islamists

[knitter4democracy]

89. The hell they didn't!

They were there. We had teams "training in Jordan" who weren't in Jordan but out of communications range and told to prepare to disappear.

[LanternWaste]

38. I imagine the answer is predicated on who is asked

"Like Libya?"

I imagine the answer is predicated on who is asked-- as my Libyan co-worker believes it was necessary, regardless of who may subjectively think it wasn't, and regardless of the failures of diplomacy in many political arenas.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. But was Libya a national security threat to the US, its allies or interests?

If so, how?

[olddad56]

45. for that matter, has the US invaded another nation since WW2 that was a threat....

to the US? Forget about our allies, many of which have questionable governments, and forget corporate interests.

They call our military the dept of defense, why not the dept of illegal invasions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. I guess it depends on

party affiliation.

[JDPriestly]

57. Actually, treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Doesn't sound like the self-proclaimed Seal's story would do that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. It's nice to image UBLs compatriots reading the book

and feeling out-done and humiliated by it.

I try not to harbor malicious feelings as a rule but sometimes I do and sometimes I feel less upset about it than others.

[JDPriestly]

73. I see not reason to be upset about the book other than

that it would in my opinion have been more illegal to print it than it was for Assange to print the information that was provided to him.

This man wrote the book, as I understand it, without military authorization or permission. I don't think that what he apparently wrote should be secret, but it was, so if you consider what Assange did to be illegal, then what the author of this book did, was far more illegal.

Of course, the whole book may just be a figment of someone's imagination. I have no way of knowing. Nor do most people.

[burnsei sensei]

20. The president is not the sovereign, does not embody the sovereignty

of the United States.
If this individual had made war on the people of the United States or,
had given "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the people of the United States,
then he would be a traitor.
The people are sovereign and supreme.
The president is not.
The government is not.

[PavePusher]

40. Firstly, it's "Commander-in-Chief".

Secondly, the author of the book is no longer on active duty; as I understand it, he wrote the book after his discharge. If this is correct, it has nothing to do with any "clean(ing) house" in the active duty ranks.

Lastly, FYI, most of my fellow service-members don't really trust any politicians, regardless of flavor. We've been used hard and put up wet by all of 'em.

[4bucksagallon]

14. SEAL book raises questions about bin Laden's death, really what questions are those?

I am in no more need of information about the tyrants death, just the fact that he is dead is good enough for me and I don't care who did it or how it was done. Like the song says ding dong the witch is dead which ole witch the wicked witch. Who threw the bucket of water matters not.

[mallard]

69. Re: "... just the fact that he is dead is good enough for me."

This is pretty much the same as Jack Ruby's take on his own role in the fate of Lee Oswald. Your declared sense of closure doesn't apparently require any physical evidence that the person killed in Pakistan last year was actually OBL, regardless of that person's alleged involvement in the 9/11 events. The notion that blaming him 'enough' makes him guilty is really quite foolish, even if it is such a popular mainstream theme. Of course a trial had to be avoided!

I think you assume too much and expect others to follow along with that enthusiastic faith, as if it should provide them with closure, too. If this is the new post-9/11 patriotism, then we've lost our genuine democratic roots over the consumption of bad information.

The masterminds of 9/11 have succeeded in evading justice, by the way.

[Herlong]

83. Someone holds gun to your head

you get away and manage to shoot them. You feel relief that you can live another day!

[SCVDem]

16. The military needs to STFU

Thery do not have the big picture of ANYTHING and aren't in a position to second guess anything beyond their battlefield of the moment. Their are political consequences they are not privy to.

Besides, wasn't there a wanted poster issued by a previous failed commander in chief which stated "Dead or Alive"?

Preferrably dead, according to American sentiments.

Mission Accomplished!

[Posteritatis]

24. I got the impression it's the media doing the "ooh, different details! omgcontroversy!" thing

I can't see many people in the armed forces being terribly nitpicky about the specific details of a running firefight in the dark whose objective was to kill the guy either way, at least on levels like this which don't exactly "raise questions" (I despise that phrase) about the raid as a whole.

[burnsei sensei]

21. When I first heard this book

was coming out, I was jaded.
The would-be tell-all should have waited at least a decade or two.
This is nothing more than a prestige or glory-grab.

[Posteritatis]

26. Most media-circus stuff tends to have a book announced within a few months lately

If you're not particularly concerned about racking up literary awards a moderately frantic ghost-writer (or a very frantic non-writer) could churn one out in a month or so.

If you assume whoever wrote it finished, say, two months after the raid, almost all of the intervening time would have been dealing with agents and publishers.

[glacierbay]

28. Who gives a fuck

he's dead, that's all I need to know.

[magic59]

33. You live by the sword

you die by the sword.

[4th law of robotics]

34. As long as it's permanent I don't really care how he got in to that condition.

[RebelOne]

53. My thought exactly. He is dead and that is all we should care about. n/t

[arely staircase]

80. yeah, however it went down, at least it had a happy ending

eom

[Trillo]

44. "raising questions as to whether the terror mastermind presented a clear threat "

Oh please. If I was in the military (I'm not) and I'd been subjected to years of training to survive, evade, and kill the enemy, and I saw a target's head pop visible around a doorway, I'd do what I was trained to do. These guys were not trained to be diplomats from a Human Rights organization, pretty much the opposite, they're soldiers.

[warrprayer]

61. Swiftboating

they've been trying to swiftboat 'Bama since day one. Sorry, not falling for it.

[Mr.Bill]

62. Any Genuine Navy SEAL

Who would disclose the details of a mission has zero credibility.

[AverageJoe90]

67. Bin Laden deserved it. End of story. nt

[arely staircase]

79. well, either way he is dead and that is what really counts.

and he got to maybe experience a litlle of the terror those people on the upper floors of the wtc and in those planes felt, as jon stewert said - when he realised those helicopters weren't there to give the local traffic report.

[Herlong]

82. Wait. This is the guy who wanted kill us? bin Laden?

[SoapBox]

88. Raises questions?

...the creep is dead. Americans got him.

End of story.