[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: How can I forget that Patrick made it onto Hot Air again?
This is just another set of random stories related to bin Laden’s death.
First, Obama visits ground zero.
It’s good to know he doesn’t ever want to be seen as “spiking the ball.” Seriously, if he isn’t there for a victory lap, what is he there for?
Update: Let me add this for clarity. I’m not upset at Obama for taking a victory lap. I am upset at him for the hypocrisy of doing so after his condescending claim that he won’t released photos because we as a people shouldn’t be spiking the football.
Speaking of non-spike-atude of the ball, Ace notices that someone set up a site called www.gutsycall.com and if you go there, it immediately redirects you to Obama’s reelection site. Ace is right to say it isn’t necessarily Obama who did it, but possibly one of his worshipers. I predict that as the sheer boneheadedness of this act becomes more obvious to the left, they will try to claim it’s a false flag thing, probably by Karl Rove in conjunction with the Koch brothers.
Oh God, are we returning to messiah mode with Obama, again? You want to know who made the gutsy call? The SEAL team, especially because apparently they might be prosecuted by Eric Holder for what they did. Not that Holder is fool enough to be threatening that now, but we learn via Ace that they are still considering whether to prosecute CIA interrogators for doing things like waterboarding. Ace’s original draft said, “Holder’s holding indictments over the heads of CIA interrogators — the same ones who delivered Obama to him.”
(Emphasis added.) Well, thank God they helped us kill Obama bin Biden Osama bin Laden! No malice, Ace, we all do it once in a while. I’m just amused. And of course his post is making a serious point, that shouldn’t be lost in the joke. I know “just following orders” is not an excuse for committing a clear violation of human rights, but waterboarding is not a clear violation of human rights, period. You can see Burlingame discussing her meeting here.
Meanwhile, David Beamer, father to Todd Beamer, feels that Obama is putting too much of the spotlight on himself. I actually don’t agree, but listen for yourself and decide.
Next, Obama explains to us why they buried him at sea within 24 hours:
About bin Laden’s burial at sea executed within 24 hours of his death as prescribed by Muslim law, the president said, “Frankly, we took more care on this than, obviously, bin Laden took when he killed 3,000 people. He didn’t have much regard for how they were treated and desecrated. But that, again, is something that makes us different. And I think we handled it appropriately.”
Kroft asks President Obama if it was his decision to bury the al Qaeda leader at sea. “It was a joint decision. We thought it was important to think through ahead of time how we would dispose of the body if he were killed in the compound,” says the president. “And I think that what we tried to do was – consulting with experts in Islamic law and ritual – to find something that was appropriate, that was, respectful of the body.”
Well, first Mr. President, there is a world of difference between not desecrating a body and giving it a full Islamic funeral. The first is accomplished by not relieving yourself on it into the hole left where his eye was, to give a specific example. Now I am all for desecration in the form of wrapping his body and the body of every other terrorist in bacon, so that his followers will know that they won’t be getting their seventy-two virgins, but I can appreciate and respect the desire to show we are decent and not even do that. But why on Earth would you want to not only avoid actively desecrating it, instead revere it with a proper Islamic funeral. Seriously, frak that.
Second, Mr. President, dumping him in the sea was not correct by his faith. So you destroyed evidence without attaining the benefit you wanted to get from it—to show the Muslim world we are so decent toward even our enemies.
Third, isn’t that all offensive toward good Muslims? Someone, I forgot who, said this was just like as if someone decided that the proper way to treat Tim McVeigh was to give him a proper Christian burial at Arlington Cemetery. It’s offensiveness in the guise of courtesy.
And, by the way, apparently they are upset over in Pakistan:
Hundreds of people marched through Multan, burning U.S. flags and waving placards as they warned the terrorist’s death could produce many more radical figures to take his place.
It comes after crowds of weeping mourners were pictured offering funeral prayers for the Al Qaeda mastermind widely blamed for thousands of deaths at 9/11.
Pakistan warned America Thursday of “disastrous consequences” if it carries out any more unauthorized raids against suspected terrorists like the one that killed Osama bin Laden.
However, the government in Islamabad stopped short of labeling Monday’s helicopter raid on bin Laden’s compound not far from the capital Islamabad as an illegal operation and insisted relations between Washington and Islamabad remain on course.
Hey, here’s how it works, Pakistan. If you don’t allow terrorists to live in your country, we won’t go into your country. Deal?
Also Castro isn’t happy. Of course not, he’s afraid he is next. Can’t have people thinking it is okay to take down terrorists and dictators…
In Germany, the media reaction has been especially noteworthy for its near unanimous criticism of the American raid. Many German analysts say the American action was illegal under international law and some Germans have called for an international commission (similar to the Goldstone Commission in Israel) to investigate the U.S. foray into Pakistan.
I know what you are thinking. Frak those Euroweenies. And I agree. But I thought electing Obama would make them all like and support us again?
Of course it doesn’t help that the story keeps changing:
Sources involved in the operation that took down Usama bin Laden told Fox News the terrorist leader acted “scared” and “completely confused” in his final moments, “shoving his wife” at the Navy SEAL who ultimately shot him.
I mean seriously, I want to believe all that, but why the hell should I? We have been jerked around enough already. They are going to have to do better than that if they are going to convince me that this is finally the actual series of events. And both that account and this one suggests that most of the people killed were not armed. But official White House position number 12 says that there was a firefight. But you should be skeptical because let’s remember, the Pakistanis are suspect now—especially the ones who lived in bin Laden’s neighborhood. So when we see them call the raid “cold blooded” you wonder, “I am sorry, are our SEALS supposed to do what? Give them a square chance to fight back? Risk their lives for your sense of fair play?” I don’t think so.
And via the Daily Mail we get an explanation of why it isn’t unsporting to kill apparently unarmed men. Because they are fraking terrorists:
The elite U.S. Navy Seals team that killed him was told to assume he was wearing a suicide vest if he was clothed, according to a briefing given to a congressional aide.
The aide – briefed on the rules of engagement – revealed that Bin Laden ‘would have had to be naked for them to allow him to surrender’.
Of course that is subject to the caveat the White House can’t seem to get its story straight, and that it sounds more like they were authorized to fire in that situation, rather than required to.
I am reminded of the false surrender and suicide attacks of Japanese soldiers during WWII. After enough of that dishonorable behavior, we stopped letting the Japanese soldiers even pretend to surrender. I don’t think there was anything wrong, morally, with that, and I don’t see why bin Laden should be treated any different. And if the terrorists don’t like it, then whose fault is it that they find themselves in that situation?
While I suspect that the risk of capturing bin Laden would have been worth it for the intel value, I am not going to second guess the SEALS for deciding not to try to take him alive.
There is a rising tide of voices saying, more or less, “release the damn photo.” Giuliani agrees, and “Jeannie Evans, of Elmont, who lost her baby brother firefighter Robert Evans on 9/11[,]” says more generally, “Why not show us proof, that Bin Laden was killed? I would like to see that[.]“ You should read that whole article for the shabby way they have treated the September 11 families generally, with form letters and the like. Jim Treacher has a funny take that finds the same irritation I did at the President’s sanctimonious justification for withholding the photos:
How about this for a reason: I want to see the pictures because they show Osama Bin Laden with a big hole in his head. I saw people jump out of the Twin Towers. I saw those buildings fall down. I saw the people who ran for their lives down the streets of New York in front of an avalanche of ash. I saw the faces of the people who lived through it. Now I want to see what happened to the guy who did it. I want the world to see how that turned out for him.
And if Reprimander-in-Chief Barack Obama wants to scold me for it, he should’ve thought about that before he called in Dick Cheney’s secret assassination squad. It really is hard to keep track of what you’re supposed to be proud of these days, isn’t it? Remember: Pouring water on a terrorist’s face goes against our core values as Americans. You gotta break into his house and shoot him in the eyes.
Fundamentally Obama thinks he is here to teach us to be better people. And yeah, that is pretty insufferable.
And Alan Dershowitz chimes in, in a brilliant essay pointing out how idiotic both disposing of the body and not releasing photographs really is:
Burying his body at sea constituted the willful destruction of relevant evidence, which naturally gives rise to suspicions that there was something to hide. I fully credit the administration’s explanation that the reason for the hasty burial at sea was the desire not to offend religious Muslims and not to create a shrine to a dead mass murderer. But many reasonable people around the world will wonder whether the decision may also have been based on a desire to suppress the whole truth.
In my nearly half-century of representing defendants charged with homicide, I have come to know that the best evidence of how a person died comes from the body of the deceased. Dead bodies often talk more loudly, clearly and unambiguously than live witnesses. Bin Laden’s body should have been preserved as long as necessary to gather all relevant evidence, notwithstanding the requirements of Shariah Law.
When a Muslim or a Jew is the victim of a homicide in the United States, religious considerations do not trump civil requirements. Their bodies are generally sent to the medical examiner for thorough examination. Notwithstanding religious prohibitions, autopsies are performed and organs removed for testing. No special exception should have been made for bin Laden’s body.
That was my impression, too—we try to work around religious sensibilities, but if you have to keep the body unburied for investigatory purposes, tough. Read the whole thing.
And I remember shortly after 9-11 there was this great unity. And even on the night we learned that bin Laden was killed, there was a similar unity. And now we might be seeing it again as Eugene Robinson (!) also argues for releasing the photos:
[W]hile gory photographs would have inflamed some jihadists and wannabes, I believe they would have disillusioned and deflated others. A heroic myth of invulnerability had been built around bin Laden. He was supposed to have cheated death while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, walking tall through fields of fire as the bullets somehow missed. He escaped the Americans who cornered him at Tora Bora. He evaded capture for a decade, despite the best efforts of the West’s spies and soldiers.
Showing him in death would definitively refute any notion that bin Laden enjoyed some kind of divine protection. The myth would die with the man.
I mean he can’t make it through the whole post without swiping at conservatives, but still, wow, is there anyone supporting Obama on this?
Oh, right there is Andrew Sullivan. He’s ready to accept the official story without investigation and Pejman Yousefzadeh has waaaay too much fun asking Andrew Sullivan why he isn’t as interested in investigating the truth about bin Laden’s death as he was about the truth of Trig’s birth.
Doug Powers writes that Sen. Scott Brown assures america bin laden is dead based on a fake photo. Indeed three Senators might have been fooled.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]