..."if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body...

[nashville_brook]

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

On one very slim level, that might actually make MY day, but I with many other DUers would be outliers in the mass reaction of the rest of the United States -- and, all joking aside, I believe that regardless of the hyperbolic sense of justice of this imagined action, we'd all quickly rally around the flag/troops/etc, outraged at the violation of our borders/security/sovereignty.

Here's Noam Chomsky's take on the bin Laden assassination. Worth a read whether you agree with him or not.


http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/


Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death

(snip)

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

(snip)

[Zorra]

1. That's a tough one. nt

[The Straight Story]

2. What if they did so with Obama - since he ordered the raid, is carrying on the wars, etc?(nt)

[nashville_brook]

7. don't think Obama rises to the level of international villain that W achieved

point is taken -- but likely, Obama wouldn't fall under the doctrine of "It's OK if they're really really hated."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=581121&mesg_id=581121

[Puregonzo1188]

14. You don't think to the victims of drone strikes or the civilians killed in Afghanistan Obama is a

villain?

I mean a lot more people have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than on 9/11, what if they claimed a right to the same sort of "justice"? Would anyone support it?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

121. that's cuts right to the point -- this debate is not unlike the torture debate, in that

we have rules of engagement in order to protect both sides, and once one side tosses those rules out, there's anarchy. in this case as with torture, given that the hegemon is the rule tosser, it empowers the political adversaries to adopt terrorists (extrajudicial, outsider) tactics while knee-capping our ability to use their actions against them. the final outcome is world where anywhere there's a targeted population (muslim) becomes a theater of "war" without restraint.

[diveguy]

38. My thought exactly

Bush invaded Iraq. Obama continued in Iraq, and then, moved into Afghanistan. Then moved into Pakistan. Oh, and started bombing Libya. Diff party, same monsters.:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

84. So, you think Obama=bin Laden.

I am afraid you are not on my side of, well, anything.

[diveguy]

135. where did you get that

I said obama= lets forget everything we promised on the campaign trail and expand on bush's policies

[themadstork]

82. In either case

they should be tried for their crimes, not executed.

[geek tragedy]

83. President Obama is an elected official, ergo that would be a crime.

I do hope you are not trying to equate Obama and bin Laden.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Minor detail . . . . .

. . . if it were Idiot Son, it is more likely they'd drop him in the Gulf, not the Atlantic, the Gulf being closer.


;)

[nashville_brook]

9. extra points for dropping him at the Macondo well site?

:evilgrin:

[RC]

20. The Gulf is more fitting because of the oil damage there.

[patricia92243]

4. Didn't we do that with Hitler? Break into the country, etc. or maybe it was some other country -

I'm not too good at history.

[EFerrari]

5. Hitler committed suicide. n/t

[nashville_brook]

8. a lot of people aren't aware that we put the nazis on trial

we were at war with Germany -- we're not at war with Pakistan...yet

the relevant historical references would probably be Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention

[WinkyDink]

31. You could have stopped with "A lot of people aren't aware." J/S.

[nashville_brook]

94. totally. :)

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. But we won that war. We had the time to set up trials.

A war against an al Qaeda leader where his soldiers cross borders and Muslim leaders are secretly giving them haven presents a new problem for our time.

[WinkyDink]

30. This is a joke post, right?

[patricia92243]

60. Wrong

[dkf]

6. Do Iraqis hate Bush for getting rid of Saddam?

Personally I think it was a waste of our blood and treasure but do they?

[nashville_brook]

10. it's likely the +/- 110,000 other Iraqi deaths that get their dander up.

[drokhole]

11. Not sure, but they may hate him for the 100,000+ civilians killed since the start of the war...

...not to mention the countless others maimed, injured, fatherless, motherless, homeless, etc...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[nashville_brook]

12. or, as Seth Meyers said..."you broke the world."

[bvar22]

24. "Iraq better off under Saddam"

"Saddam Better for Women"
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693

"(CBS) Many Iraqis think conditions have gotten so bad in their country, they'd like to see Saddam Hussein back in power,"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml

"UN Human Rights Chief: Iraq Better Under Saddam"
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-still-insists-on-civil-war-in-iraq

Annan, others: Iraq better off under Saddam
http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=27

Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam, Says Former Weapons Inspector
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1025-01.htm

Health Care in Iraq Was Better Under Saddam Hussein
http://www.alternet.org/world/46856/

[dkf]

25. Those were older reports. Are they still feeling that way?

[sabrina 1]

28. Have you been following what's been going on in Iraq at all?

They have been demonstrating for months now against our puppet government there, a government that has been shooting peaceful demonstrators down in the streets and arresting hundreds of them and throwing them in jail. The country is a mess. Their resources signed over to Global Corps, their infrastructure destroyed, over 4 million displaced, half of them still in refugee camps outside of Iraq.

When asked about the murders of peaceful demonstrators several weeks ago in our so-called 'democracy', the US ambassador claimed it was not 'usual' or some such prevarication.

Not to mention what Abu Ghraib did to the psyche of those people. And the ongoing war crimes, some revealed in the Wikileaks documents against Iraqi civilians perpetrated by US trained 'police'.

It's amazing how little coverage this gets on the MSM. But the information is available online from other sources.

Generations of Iraqi children will be born deformed because of the chemicals dropped on them and their healthcare system which was excellent and free under Saddam H. is now destroyed also.

So if that is old news, the new news is even worse. There are many organizations in Iraq that oppose the government set up by the 'allied forces' demanding that foreign agents leave their country.

[Ramulux]

72. Are you being serious?

[lame54]

117. they thank him from there refugee tents in the desert every day

[LadyHawkAZ]

13. I'd be doing the exact same happy dance.

A dead mass murderer is not something to be sad about, be it a white American or a brown guy in a turban.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Oh, for crying out loud. I've been one of the loudest to insist that

OBL deserved a trial before his execution.

Well, guess what? Bush deserves a trial too, before whatever punishment is meted out.

The general principle: all people are entitled to a trial BEFORE being executed or punished in any other way by the state. NO EXCEPTIONS!

[dkf]

17. OBL and Bush have something in common then...

Neither would have been brought in for trial.

[LadyHawkAZ]

35. A trial at the Hague would be a lovely thing.

Not gonna happen though. Even if by some miracle they ever got around the politicking and filed charges, we'd never hand him over. And that's the problem right there: all people are indeed entitled to a trial, but you have to have an authority willing to prosecute and a cooperative authority willing to hand them over to be prosecuted.

Given the option between having him live a comfortable, wealthy rest of his life with no fear of paying for his crimes, or the Iraqi strike force, I'd take the strike force with a clear conscience.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. Vincent Bugliosi (of Helter Skelter fame) argues that any district

attorney in the U.S. serving in a district with even one fatality from the Iraq War has jurisdiction to file charges. Whether any prosecutors have the poltiical will or courage to do so is another matter entirely.

If I had to choose between having Bush live a comfortable easy life or suffer the fate of an Iraqi strike force, I would reluctantly choose the former, if only because I consider due process of law to be game, set and match.

[Solly Mack]

16. Thanks for posting this article!

[sixmile]

18. A FLAWED ARGUMENT FROM THE START

A more appropriate comparison would be the killing of a hate group leader. Not a U.S. President. Come on, Professor, I know you're smarter than that.

[Politicalboi]

21. A more appropriate comparison would be the killing of a hate group leader.

Bush was the leader of a hate group. They call themselves Republicans.

[RC]

23. Explain what makes us so special, that we are exempt from punishment for doing the same terrorism

we destroy countries for.

[Taitertots]

27. It is flawed because Bush caused the death of orders of magnitude more people n/t

[ProSense]

29. Nonsense

The "Bush is worse than bin Laden" argument is ridiculous. If that's the case, might as well consider Nixon worse than bin Laden for Cambodia.

Bush committed a war crime by launching the Iraq war based on a lie. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when he went in, but they found their way there. Bush triggered the violence, but tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths can be attributed to terrorists. Bush gets blamed for launching the war and the resulting instability and violence. Most civilian deaths were not at the result of actions by the American military.

Al Qaeda is responsible for the death of a lot of people, including Muslims, around the world since its founding more than 22 years ago.

Bush was President for eight years. He should be held accountable for his crimes, but he is no longer a threat to anyone.


Osama bin Laden was the active head of the world's deadliest terrorist organization. His actions were crimes against humanity.

[Taitertots]

34. Bush's actions were crimes against humanity and several orders of magnitude worse

"Deadliest terrorist organization" which means they were several orders of magnitude less deadly than the US military. I don't think Nixon's actions in Cambodia make a good case that he is better than Bin Laden.


"but they found their way there"
Occupation breeds resistance. The invaders bear the responsibility for the response to their invasion.

[ProSense]

37. BS

People die in wars, all wars.

Bombing embassies and other buildings, using suicide bombers and blowing up bus stops and other places where people gather to go about their daily lives is pure evil!

[Taitertots]

39. Dead is dead, whether the bomb is on a vest or on a drone

We bombed Iraq for years on several orders of magnitude larger scale than any terrorists could have dreamed. Did you think our thousands of bombs didn't hit any places people gather to go about thier daily lives?

[ProSense]

41. Hmmm?

"Dead is dead, whether the bomb is on a vest or on a drone"

Or flying a plane into the WTC?

Are you trying to justify bin Laden's terrorist activities?

[Taitertots]

42. I'm saying flying a plane into a building is just as evil as dropping a bomb on one

And we bombed far more than they flew planes.

[ProSense]

45. Oh please

bin Laden was and al Qaeda is at war with the world. They have and will continue to attack people around the world who have nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

[Taitertots]

47. The same could be said about the US repeatedly attacking countries with nothing to do with 911 n/t

[ProSense]

54. Here's what the U.S. should do:

Let the terrorists attack whomever and whatever they want to. No need to hunt them down and disrupt their operations.

They are the good guys!

Outside of the Iraq war, and most people who object to that war believe Bush was wrong and should be held accountable, what other countries is the U.S. attacking?

[sixmile]

55. Stop making sense

You're upsetting the cart.

[A Simple Game]

71. Outside of the Iraq war, wow where to begin.

How about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Bosnia,Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Then if you really want to compare to terrorist activity, how about the CIA in almost every South and Central American country at one time or another,
and most of the Eastern European countries during the cold war and after.

The good old USA is far from perfect. Don't believe everything you read in the approved history books.
There are always two sides to a story.

[Taitertots]

113. Wow, your plan is really bad

Or we could stop murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with 911.

Afghanistan
Libya
Pakistan

[nashville_brook]

100. when politics precedes principle you get Dems defending George W Bush's Iraq war. Go Team!

[ProSense]

108. Defending Bush?

Is that what some have to read into the comment to justify their whitewashing of bin Laden's image?

Bush is a war criminal, and I don't have to down play bin Laden's murderous attacks to believe that.

"Go Team!"

Yeah, typical self-righteous bullshit!

[nashville_brook]

115. squeeeeeee! they're so cute when their feathers ruffle.

[The Backlash Cometh]

133. Who is defending Bush's Iraq War?

I've seen nothing but admonishment because he took his eye off the mission to get bin Laden, and went into Iraq unjustified.

I have a suspicion that's the reason why Bush will never feel safe traveling outside the U.S. borders. Because International Law works against him in this instance.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

70. EXACTLY...

for the analogy to be correct it would have to read like:

What if the Mexican Army came into Tucson and found and executed a fugitive Mexican drug kingpin and then dumped his body in Pacific Ocean?

[coalition_unwilling]

77. OK, so what if the Mexican Army did come into Tucson and

found and executed a fugitive Mexican drug kingpin and then dumped his body in the Pacific Ocean? Would you have a problem with it? Should all of us have a problem with it?

IOW, instead of nit-picking Chomsky's analogy to death, why don't you give us a sense of your position vis-a-vis extra-judicial executions no matter where carried out and no matter by whom?

[nashville_brook]

103. interesting -- the Mex/drug/kingpin argument could cut both ways...a side must be chosen.

[nashville_brook]

102. Very astute -- Chomsky's going for the dazzle, but that's more analogous.

[nashville_brook]

95. it's the allcaps that makes this so compelling.

[DirkGently]

97. So make it Mexican commandos landing in LA to execute a drug lord. We wouldn't complain?

[hack89]

131. Only if America was sheltering and protecting the drug lord.

of course you know very well that if Mexico asked, we would arrest him.

We also know that Pakistan was sheltering and protecting OBL.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Because OBL got his attorney's FIL to declare he won the election?

Oh, wait -- there was no election.

A bad analogy is like a beehive without a bookcase.

[PCIntern]

22. LOL! n/t

[CJvR]

26. CNN - "We are standing...

...at the rim of the radioactive crater that until yesterday was Pakistan."

[WinkyDink]

32. Indeed, since the OP's analogy was IRAQ. ;-)

[CJvR]

40. LOL!

Unintended slip...!

[Arugula Latte]

33. Bin Laden wasn't the leader of a country, like a president or prime minister.

Now, if they dropped into Westboro Baptist and did in that freak Fred Phelps, that might be a closer comparison.

[Arkansas Granny]

36. Yes, as much as I despised Bush, he was the recognized political head of state,

not the self appointed leader of a terrorist group. There is a big difference.

[EFerrari]

53. Organized violence kills just as well as ad hoc violence. n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

112. Sovereign immunity doesn't apply to war crimes under international law.

Sovereign immunity protects official acts, however, war crimes can never be deemed official acts. Seem goes for Unconstitutional acts under US law. While you can't sue a US official personally for an official act you don't like if said act can be proven to be unconstitutional it is deemed by its very nature not part of their official duty.

[nashville_brook]

124. when laws are ignored, how do you tell the difference?

[quakerboy]

81. Actually, I think there is an even better comparison to be made

Perhaps the head of an international corp. What would we say if they came in and did a surgical strike to take out David Koch.

[Arugula Latte]

92. I like it!

And his brother, too! (say in Wicked Witch voice)

[Zhade]

43. Insightful question, and one worth asking.

NT!

[malaise]

44. Thoughtful comments from Chomsky

as usual

[AlabamaLibrul]

46. Haters gonna hate. K&R

[coalition_unwilling]

48. An emphatic K&R! I'm reminded of sosmething by Chomsky's

observation here.

In October 2001, the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to a competent authority upon presentation of detailed evidence. The U.S. summarily refused to provide such evidence and instead allied itself with the Northern Alliance in an Afghan civil war that continues to this day. This is a matter of historical record and if there are any who deny that this took place, I challenge them to show their cards.

My question (a la Chomsky): Let's say the Taliban alleged that you had killed some of its civilians and demanded the U.S. surrender you to the Taliban. Wouldn't you want, expect and have every right to expect that the U.S. government would demand satisfactory evidence before turning you over? Only in "Double-Standard-stan" (the U.S.) do we expect other countries to abide by one set of standards while we adhere to another and think nothing of it and see nothing wrong with it.

[Karenina]

93. There ya go!

Tante K.

[Hannah Bell]

49. kr

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Considering that he spit upon the Geneva Convention, I'd have no problem if Iraqis grabbed him

and put him on trial for war crimes.

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

[coalition_unwilling]

66. Ding, ding ding - Key phrase is "put him on trial" imho. If prosecutors in

the U.S. have jurisdiction (see Bugliosi) and refuse to exercise it, the case for a foreign power to arrest Bush on U.S. soil becomes more compelling. But only if he is to be placed on trial. No summary executions. NO exceptions!

[nashville_brook]

126. that day could be coming given the world we're creating

[Angry Dragon]

51. I would be willing to fly bush to Iraq so he could explain

to the people why so many had to die.

I would not be willing to fly him back..........

[ProSense]

52. The logic is interesting.

The Nazi trials would be more comparable to Bush, not bin Laden, who was still the head of an active terrorist organization.

Still, this reminds me of John Yoo's argument that Osama should have been taken alive. Forget for a second that outcome was completely unrealistic.

Yoo likely would have used the opportunity of bin Laden's capture to criticize Obama for not torturing bin Laden.

Can you imagine the arguments to free bin Laden because Bush hasn't been held accountable?

Actually, it would have a different spin: If bin Laden deserves to be tried, then so does Bush.

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s..."

Not only is that complete nonsense, but would Chomsky have seen the assassination of Bush as justifiable? He's asking the question.

[HopeHoops]

56. And the problem would be?

[zbdent]

57. Aside from the outrage I would feel (even as a lib), this

is not exactly comparing apples to apples.

George W. Bush was the leader of a country (like Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, etc.)

bin Laden was not the leader of a country ... he was the leader of a group of people who claim they are "Muslim"/Islamic and "following Mohammed".

How about this comparison?

The storming of ObL's compound compared to the storming of the Branch Davidian compound? Forgotten in the "facts" is the fact that FEDERAL AGENTS (law enforcement persons) were killed by the B.D.s prior to the event (which, btw, was carried out by people who were in the ATF long before Clinton assumed command). Usually, when a federal agent or a policeman is killed by someone, there's outrage at the murder. In the case of Waco, it is forgotten that one of the main reasons why they barricaded themselves was because they were thought a threat, after the killing of the agents.

But hey, maybe that pales in comparison to a guy who blew up a toilet in the Pentagon, killing nobody ... he's constantly touted as a terrorist (mainly because he has been associated with a young teenager who later would grow up and become the first African-American President ... whose main crime was that he ran as a Democrat).

[coalition_unwilling]

63. Let me get this straight . . . you are defending the government's conduct

at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco? All the while comparing that raid to the raid that killed OBL?

OK, brother, you do what you have to do. The FBI's own behavioral science experts advised their superiors simply to wait Koresh and BDs out. That advice was ignored and some 20 children were killed, thanks to FBI\ATF militarized cow-boyism. The government then even had the gall to lie about its first use of incendiary devices until called on it and its lies exposed. Maybe those incendiary devices didn't start the fire, maybe they did. I don't suppose it really matters much to the 20 dead children.

Somehow, I don't think you want to equate a raid that resulted in the death of the most-wanted criminal in recorded history to a raid that resulted in the deaths of 20 children. But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

I write this as someone who fully endorses Chomsky's line about our hypocrisy and constant double standards. That said, I embrace the principle of the rule of law and would say no person should be executed before being tried, not even Bush or OBL.

[zbdent]

136. Oh, right ... I forgot the part where the Navy Seals gave Osama bin Laden all the notice in

the world to let his wives go free ... are you using the doctored footage from the RWers where the tanks have flamethrowers?

Good job on your comparison ...

[intaglio]

58. Chomsky is wrong. It is false equivalency

The cases are not identical and Chomsky of all people should be aware of it.

Firstly, it requires the assumption that an international arrest warrant would be issued for Dubya.

Next it requires that the USA does not act on the warrant, and does not challenge the validity of that warrant and insists that they will act on the warrant if Bush is found within the country.

Lastly the USA denies that Bush is resident in the country, starts false rumours of his death (say from alcohol overdose) and does not intervene to stop Bush funding, organising and otherwise supporting acts of terror.

The cases are far from identical. It grieves me to say it, but Chomsky is been talking out of his ass in this case.

[lunatica]

61. This was my first reaction too

A better comparison would be if they came in and killed a guest of the US who had planned terrorist strikes in other places in the world. Someone not even a citizen.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. Um, like Orlando Bosch? Chomsky mentions him and could have

easily mentioned Posada Carilles.

[lunatica]

68. That's a good example. We wouldn't be offended in the least

If it were one of them who ended up like Osama.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. Hold on a sec, there. I believe everyone is entitled to a trial before

getting punished, even Satan himself. I don't favor extra-judicial executions or punishments under any circumstances.

My mentioning of Bosch and Posada Carilles was intended to counter the first poster's charge of 'false equivalence' by fleshing out your point with a specific example, in defense of Chomsky's larger point about the pervasive double standards we constantly exhibit.

Another DUer called me an 'Absolutist' and I'll plead guilty. Please don't execute me for it :)

[lunatica]

76. I don't have any problem with people who believe in people's rights

[coalition_unwilling]

79. We need more rights and less (fewer) wrongs. Reminds me of a

sign I saw a cute 5-year old boy carrying at an anti-war demo a few years ago: "No hitting!" :)

[DirkGently]

101. "International arrest warrant?" So, the world got together & gave America permission to do this?

We gave ourselves permission. This act was not legal in any sense of the word, under any analysis. Nor would the United States ever condone or forgive another nation for conducting a similar operation on our soil.

[intaglio]

134. Why are you misreading what I wrote

Or putting in what your prejudice wishes was there?

There was an international arrest warrant issued for OBL. There could be one issued for Dubya, I believe there are several private attempts at such but no country party to the relevant treaties has bothered to do so.

Pakistan did ignore that warrant, ignored the presence of the criminal and may have actively helped conceal him, refused to assist in finding him, issued rumours about OBL's death and was known to have those in power who applauded OBL's motives. What would you want to do in that case?

Don't bother answering I suspect you always think "My Country - wrong and wrong"

[DirkGently]

138. You implied an "international arrest warrant" authorized this. It does not. Still illegal.

So, the question isn't why someone who would question the policy here hates America so much. It's why people who claim to care about America would not.

[krispos42]

109. Bingo.

You read my mind!

[JI7]

65. equating Osama Bin Laden to an "elected" Head of State

yeah, i know all about how BUsh wasn't elected. but he still is different from Osama who was in a country he is not even from.

it's getting pathetic the lengths people are going in trying to argue their opposition. it's kind of reminding me of conservatives and their stupid on things like sex education or saying happy holidays instead of merry christmas will lead to God being erased and other stupid shit.

[coalition_unwilling]

67. Hitler was "elected" (actually appointed by Hindenburg after Papen

signed onto Hitler's appointment as Chancellor) and the head of state. So your logic would mean Hitler should not have been executed by, say, a team of Free-French or Polish commandos, but OBL should have been?

Talk about pathetic lengths

[bluestate10]

78. The OP was an incredible reach. Has the far left become this silly? nt

[DirkGently]

107. Has RW logic become so pervasive it can longer be questioned?

[nashville_brook]

116. actually, it's the center-right throwing trampling international law that's overreaching.

the left is just pointing out your folly.

[ddeclue]

69. FAIL for invalid analogy..Osama bin Laden was NOT the head of state of Pakistan

nor the former head of state nor was he even a citizen of Pakistan.

Moreover the concept of comparing Bush to Bin Laden is preposterous in that no one elected Bin Laden to anything - he was never a chief of state of any legitimate government - just an outlaw.

The things that Bush did, we as a whole country are culpable for - he was elected and re-elected by the American people who chose to look the other way.

Bin Laden did NOT represent any country or religion just a band of outlaws. That he is dead does not pain me nor does the manner in which he died pain me. Had we gone to Pakistan and said arrest him, we know he is there, they would simply have denied it and hidden him somewhere else. It is quite clear that he did not manage to live in a highly populated military town in Pakistan for 6 years without the knowledge and aid of the Pakistani government.

Doug D.

[DirkGently]

96. So it's not what you've done that matters, but who you are when you do it?

[nashville_brook]

106. it should pain some people, at least, that international law is no longer relevant.

[The Backlash Cometh]

132. I think, Brook, that enough of us have seen in our lives that the law doesn't mean

squat anymore. Some of us live with constant examples of this fact. And the people who liberate and loosen the law, looking for loopholes to justify these behaviors ARE lawyers. You look at everyone who made the decisions that got us where we are today, and you will find a lawyer behind them facilitating their decisions. Until these lawyers get reprimanded by their own profession (because nobody else can touch them) I think you're fighting a losing battle to try to shame ordinary people who are trying to make sense of all the hypocrisies that are allowed around us.

[The Backlash Cometh]

128. You found the fatal flaw. I see it that way too.

[Nailzberg]

73. First off, I don't think Iraqi commandos could get two miles into Texas

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

129. You assume they're going to send in dark skinned Moors?

[sudopod]

86. In after "WHY DON'T YOU LOVE AMERICA?" nt

[themadstork]

87. What is it about the analogy that upsets? Specifically.

Is it the idea that Bush be summarily executed? I'd argue that this idea is intentionally absurd, and doesn't invalidate the analogy. It's supposed to be absurd in order to point out the ostensibily absurd execution of OBL. Where the difference lies is if you agree that OBL was executed.

Or is it that Bush be held accountable for his crimes? That being a head of state makes even this absurd? This angle I don't understand.

[seabeyond]

88. regardless of error, we target soldiers. osama targets innocents. there is a difference between

the two that is pretty damn big and pretend that is not their is wrong

[themadstork]

89. freudian slip?

[seabeyond]

90. thank you. no. i have done that 80% of the time talking about osama

i just dont think about osama much, and way more likely to be typing obama

thanks

[DirkGently]

105. At some point, results trump declared intentions. And undermine their credibility.

You can't kill 1,000 civilians every day and keep saying, "sorry, we were aiming for the bad guys." Much less if the war is itself is not based on self-defense in the first place.

[seabeyond]

111. i am opposed to both wars. not gonna argue for them. and yes... the is a huge difference

from targeting in war and targeting innocence.

[DirkGently]

125. You lose that distinction when the war has no valid basis. Iraq did not attack us. We were not

defending the United States. It is not the same thing to say that civilians will be killed when their country launches an attack on another country, which retaliates, and to say that civilians will be killed when the U.S. decrees "regime change" based on false and manufactured evidence.

That's more like murder.

[seabeyond]

130. and still.... there is a difference in targeting soldier and targeting innocents

you dont not jsut lose al argument because commander in chief is a fuck head and lied us into war. the soldiers, the military are not saying, oh gee.... lets see how amny innocent people we can kill.

the difference is clear

your unwillingness to acknwoledge that simple difference bespeaks agenda

[Autumn]

91. Took me a minute to come up with the down side but

I figure it's our place to punish him for that so yeah, it would really piss me off.

[Vidar]

98. As per usual, I agree with Chomsky.

[Kaleva]

99. Has Iraq ever accused Bush of commiting war crimes?

Seems to me that they are more interested in going after Baathist diehards, remnants of AQ, and members of a few other groups within Iraq itself.

[nashville_brook]

104. by "Iraq" do you mean the government we put in place?

[Kaleva]

110. So President Obam would order the Iraqi govt. to order its commando's to take out Bush?

If one accepts the notion that Iraq is a puppet state of the US and its military, by extension, is also controlled by the US, then the scenario in the OP gets to be pretty far fetched.

[nashville_brook]

114. omg -- it's a meta-phor. not prognostication.

[TNLib]

118. I have the sense that the Pakistanis are just fed up with the US and Terrorist

I'm getting the sense there isn't as much protest going on about the Mission as initially suspected. I think they just want us out and the terrorist out as well.

[Nye Bevan]

119. I hate it when people ask awkward questions like this that disrupt my unambiguous joy

in OBL's demise.

[nashville_brook]

120. :) you're welcome -- it's ok to celebrate the demise of the ultimate symbol of the GWOT

however, let's not accept that "extrajudicial killings" or more accurately, political assassination can now be a normal feature of our foreign (or domestic) policy.

[chrisa]

122. That's a pretty terrible piece.

[The Backlash Cometh]

123. It's already happened, hasn't it?

With 9/11. Once our sovereignty was violated we were obligated to retaliate, because, if we didn't, these retaliations would have continued. This is why Clinton was criticized for not attacking bin Laden sooner. The person who spoke, who was either a General or Richard Clark, claimed, that because bin Laden got away with one attack, he just kept attacking.

Also, one major flaw in Chomsky's reasoning is that Bush was a democratically elected leader (albeit, that's debatable on this forum), where bin Laden was not. I think they call it, a head of state. This was one of those lawyered strategies that Clinton used to justify his desire to go after bin Laden once he set his mind to do it. Bin Laden was not a head of state, therefore, there was not as much red tape to go after him.

The Iraqis on the other hand, would have a better argument to go after Bush because Sadaam was a head of state and Bush went after him unprovoked.

[Orsino]

137. All those voters who elected Osama would certainly be outraged.

Their UN representative should call us out!

Call it killing, certainly, or even murder...but "assassination"? I dunno. Perhaps bin Laden's status a a civil un-rights leader qualifies?