Would Obama Take the Shot?

The more Obama talks about things like this, the more he sounds like he’s not ready to be POTUS.

“First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden’s head,” the Illinois senator said at a news conference. “And if I’m president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive.”

Obama’s campaign said he was referring to a classified Memorandum of Notification that President Clinton approved in 1998 — revealed in the 9/11 Commission report — that would allow the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture weren’t feasible.

Obama said he wouldn’t discuss what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended. But he said the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders are an inspiration because the victors acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order.

“What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

1) At the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials, the worst offenders were PUT TO DEATH.  For the people for whom Bin Laden would be a martyr if he were killed, what difference would it make if he’s killed in a firefight or executed after a trial?  Answer… none. 

2) The only purpose for a trial of this sort is to discover the level of culpability.  During the Nuremberg trials, the goal was to find out how much the Nazi individuals knew and how involved they were in war crimes and genocide.  Once that was determined, punishment was meted out.  In the case of Bin Laden, he has frequently and publicly confessed to ordering terrorist attacks around the globe.  Does Obama think that a trial will find anything different? 

3) The executive order to which Obama refers says that killing Bin Laden is authorized “if capture weren’t feasible.” Is Obama saying that if we knew exactly where Bin Laden was but couldn’t feasibly capture him that we should let him go?  For example, what if we know that Bin Laden is in a villa in Pakistan.  He’s surrounded by guards and it would be next to impossible to send in a team to capture him.  If we send in a large unit, he will surely slip away.  BUT, we can kill him with a Hellfire off of a Predator.  Would Obama take the shot?  Sounds like the answer is “no.”

Obama is showing a dangerous naiveté regarding history and world affairs. 

1. I get the feeling Obama would let him go, yes.  Things that make you go “hmmmmm”.

   And how asinine is it that we have a candidate for President named Obama - one letter difference from our worst nightmare, anyway.  Scary IMHO.

   Posted by Jeni on June 18, 2008 at 2133 hrs




2. Owen, I am reading this a bit differently then you. I don’t see where he says that he would refrain from using deadly force. I think that first quote used would imply that by “not capturing him alive”, we would be taking him in dead. Of course, he does not want to be as asinine as to make the “dead or alive” statement that Bush made, as even Bush has seen that statement as a mistake (even if the underlying intentions are not).

   One of things that should be balanced with this is how Bin Laden’s capture effects the terrorist network. If he is martyred (or is perceived to be martyred) does this embolden the terrorists? Does it not? What is the best case scenario? Do we proceed with an eye to potential fallout..or not?

   I also think that we have to prepare ourselves should Bin Laden be captured alive (BTW, I think this scenario is highly unlikely). What happens then? Do we have an international trial similar to Nuremberg or Milosevic? I would guess that this is the point to the Nuremberg reference, that if we capture Bin Laden, we more than likely are not going to just march him against a wall and shoot him in the back of the head. Even if the end result is the same, we need a way to get from Point A (capture) to Point C (Execution). After all, we are not some third world banana republic.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 0903 hrs




3. Seriously, where are you guys getting the idea that president Obama will “let him go”?  He says they’re authorized to kill him if they can’t capture him alive.  From this you’re somehow getting that he won’t “take the shot”? 

   Also, the purpose of a trial--any trial, including Neuremberg--is to serve justice in a valid and fair process.  If bin Laden is captured alive, of course he should go to trial.  What, we should just execute him without one?  Surely you’re kidding.  Establishing his guilt in a fair process is an absolute requirement, both for us morally and for the rest of the world to see that he was convicted fairly.

   Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 0918 hrs




4. I don’t see where there Obama has said he wouldn’t authorize Bin Laden’s death, although it would probably be beneficial of him to explicitly state he would authorize killing Bin Laden.

   Everyone sounds worried about making Bin Laden a martyr, but if he died in a prison he would still be a martyr.  Also, if you try and imprison the man then you have to take responsibility for the possibility that there will be numerous hostages taken and held as ransom for Bin Laden.  Bin Laden would also use a trial as a show for his views.  It would probably best for everyone involved if he were to die of a large explosion and not be taken alive.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 0941 hrs




5. I have to agree that I don’t get the Obama would let him go argument.  I read it the same way Scott did.

   I don’t like these international war crimes kind of trials.  They (including Nuremburg) are just show trials.  The bigger problem with Bin Laden is a jurisdictional problem.  Bin Laden is not a state or fighting on behalf of a state thus, he could argue that he is not bound buy the terms of the Geneva conventions – this is especially true as to the US.  We have not (for good reasons) ratified the convention on irregular troops/non-uniform gorilla types.  This is the convention that extends the same rights and obligations to terrorists as are given to regular troops.  He could argue that he is not subject to the rules of war and thus is entitled to a criminal trial in the US.  This would truly turn it into a circus. 

   I think who ever the next president is, he needs to make sure Bin Laden can’t be captured alive.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 1227 hrs




6. Clinton had him and let him go. How is Mr. Obama going to be any different?

   Frankly - I don’t think it would get to that level - because any solider who sees him is just going to shot - hopefully with as many and as large a caliber bullet, bomb, etc that’s available.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 1635 hrs




7. The only purpose capturing Osama Bin Laden alive would be to interrogate him for information. The Sudan offered him up on a plate and Clinton turned the offer down, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of anything. Even at that time, people knew Osama Bin Laden was a seriously bad guy. They should have took him from the Sudan, choppered him out into the middle of the Sahara and administered a couple doses of .45 lead.

   I am serious about that too Scott. What more does Osama Bin Laden have to do to establish guilt? Its not like he is shy about admitting his intent to destroy the US and the West.

   As far as they martyr argument goes, who cares? Osama himself noted people prefer the strong horse over the weak one, surely no horse is as weak as a dead one.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 20, 2008 at 0929 hrs




8. You’re a genius.  You should work for the pentagon or the CIA.

   Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 0955 hrs




9. Clinton had him and let him go?

   Only in right-wing-world could something so stupid be mentioned and left at that.

   Hey, right-wingers, I know I’ll be accused of bashing poor Bush, but, um, didn’t Bush/Cheney allow his family fly out of the US secretly the day after 9/11?

   The only plane in flight that day?

   From one of the right-wing bibles, the National Review:

   http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

   I assume some the readers are so far to the right here that they’ve fallen off of the political spectrum, and consider the National review to be a left-wing rag.

   Only in the land of the John Birch Society.

   Or maybe, letting these people escape to Saudi Arabia was Bill Clinton’s fault.

   Remember that part of the Bush/Cheney presidency when every thing that went wrong was Uncle Bill’s fault?

   The only thing is, Uncle Bill was the best Republican President we’ve ever had in modern times!

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1624 hrs




10. Even for a strawman argument Adam yours is extremely pathetic.

    Byron’s article refers to important Saudi nationals & Bin Laden family members after 9/11. Bin Laden & his family for the most part are not close. Did you know Bin Laden is one of like 40+ children sired by his father?

    I don’t recall anyone saying Clinton let his family out or even talking about the post-911 flight you refer to. No, rational person is going to accuse National Review of being a leftist publication. Take your prozac & calm down.

    Of course, if the Bush administration had held up those flights and so much as said boo to them, you would be screaming about that too.

    Its simple, a lot of people do not believe if Obama would not approve a hit on Osama bin Laden. The last paragraph of his statement puts all sorts of conditions on such approval as to be an out to NOT approve a hit, essentially the statement if read closely is vague and full of lawyerly loopholes. No change there, but more of the same.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 21, 2008 at 0822 hrs




11. Um, Mr. Aurelius, I was merely responding to the comment in #6 by Mr. Bill, who noted that Uncle Bill had OBL and let him go.

    You seem to know me very well. I suggest you not jump to such conclusions.

    Posted by on June 21, 2008 at 1920 hrs




12. Sorry for the lack of subtlety, but I just have to point out one thing: This is total bullshit.  There is nothing in Obama’s statement that would lead a rational person to believe that he would let bin Laden go if he could not be captured.  Nothing whatsoever.  You may believe this to be true, but there is nothing in the article to indicate it.

    Posted by scott on June 21, 2008 at 2004 hrs




13. What is it with this thread that has all the leftoids bringing out their strawmen?

    Adam, looking at comment #6 shows me your reply is even more out of whack than my original sentiment. I am in support of #6’s sentiment, The Sudan had offered Osama Bin Laden and Clinton refused to take him, even if only to have him capped in the desert. Your comment is still nothing but a pathetic strawman.

    Scott,

    Nice polemical statement. It isn’t about capture, you might as well say “Obama would not pardon Osama if convicted”, its about killing Osama if the opportunity presented itself.

    There is a lot indicating Obama would not pull the trigger. The old saying is the devil is in the details. It seems Obama is very Clintonesque in his ability to stand in a crowd and tell them what he wants to hear, or at least sound like he is telling them what they want to hear, but yet saying nothing.

    Lets look at the last comments:
    What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

    That whole passage is loaded with caveats, hedges, and hesitations. In fact, I would claim the idea of not making Osama into a martyr pretty much says it all. That coupled with the idea of making a noble demonstration of him, how can both be done? They can’t.

    I am quite at a loss to understand how Obama is going to get the world to understand Osama’s murderous acts than the actual acts themselves already have proven.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 21, 2008 at 2218 hrs




14. Marcus you are sooo RIGHT.

    I have seen the light a will be voting for McCain. Is that OK with you, your highnass?

    I just hope Cheney and company doesn’t swift boat him like they did in 2000.

    Posted by on June 21, 2008 at 2309 hrs