The Thrill
Banger Level: 108
Posts: 369/2781 EXP: 13124157 For next: 396386
Since: 16.4.02 From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 3624 days Last activity: 223 days
| #1 Posted on 21.5.03 0730.00 Reposted on: 21.5.10 0730.55 | We could've had him years ago, if this plan had gone through, but then-Attorney General Janet Reno killed it. (ABCNews.com)
Thanks a lot, Janet. You'll send in the tanks to Waco to capture a nutjob and a bunch of armed followers, but you won't send one plane to Afghanistan, to nail a guy with an outstanding warrant. Funny...al-Qaida didn't have a problem sending in 4 planes.
Now 3,000 people are dead...'cause you were afraid that "people around the bin Laden compound would be killed." Uh, Janet...odds are those people were al-Qaida footsoldiers. "Loss of life would be significant." Yes, it was...in New York, Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.
Ye gods.
(EDIT: Gender reference.)
(edited by The Thrill on 21.5.03 1000) Promote this thread! | | CRZ
Big Brother Administrator Level: 239
Posts: 2271/17694 EXP: 212291213 For next: 1869586
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 18 days Last activity: 9 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #2 Posted on 21.5.03 0749.58 Reposted on: 21.5.10 0752.21 |
Originally posted by The Thrill Mr. Reno
Come on, you know better than that. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 1493/4700 EXP: 28678899 For next: 656182
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3158 days
| #3 Posted on 21.5.03 0843.27 Reposted on: 21.5.10 0843.36 | OBVIOUSLY proving thatr 9/11 was solely Bush's fault...
To get off of the sarcasm for a moment, is anybody truly surprised that the Clinton administration would find a way to botch the potential capture of OBL like this? | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 1093/2042 EXP: 8310263 For next: 46425
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6468 days Last activity: 2723 days
| #4 Posted on 21.5.03 0845.37 Reposted on: 21.5.10 0848.49 | Originally posted by The Thrill You'll send in the tanks to Waco to capture a nutjob and a bunch of armed followers, but you won't send one plane to Afghanistan, to nail a guy with an outstanding warrant.
If you can't see the difference between sending armed law enforcement officials to enforce the law in Texas (no matter how badly the operation was botched) and having them INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY that the US was not at war with...
Let's try it this way: The nation of Cambodia decides that Henry Kissinger is guilty of crimes against the state. They arm their best intelligence agents, put them onto a plane, sneak it into the United States, pluck Kissinger off his front porch at gunpoint, declare "You're under arrest," and haul him back to Cambodia for trial and likely execution. (Substitute "Iraq" and "Donald Rumsfeld" for "Cambodia" and "Kissinger" if you like, to make it more contemporary.) How do you think America (and the world community) would react?
Not executing this snatch-and-grab in 1998 didn't cause 9/11. Intelligence and security failures in 2001 caused 9/11.
EDIT: Better example...
Country X decides that a citizen of Country Y is guilty of crimes against Country X, even though Country Y disagrees and feels no need to prosecute that citizen for his actions. Country X sends an armed team to capture the citizen, bring him to a location outside of Country Y's borders, and place him on trial.
When this scenario was floated with regard to the International Criminal Court, lots of right-wingers here screamed and howled at the implications. How would this scenario have been different? (edited by vsp on 21.5.03 0650)
(edited by vsp on 21.5.03 0654) | messenoir
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 80/449 EXP: 854280 For next: 29609
Since: 20.2.02 From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 3980 days Last activity: 3847 days
| #5 Posted on 21.5.03 1119.06 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1123.04 |
Originally posted by Grimis OBVIOUSLY proving thatr 9/11 was solely Bush's fault...
To get off of the sarcasm for a moment, is anybody truly surprised that the Clinton administration would find a way to botch the potential capture of OBL like this?
I know, it's a good thing Bush has done such a better job... | Gavintzu
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 282/443 EXP: 839776 For next: 44113
Since: 2.1.02 From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada
Since last post: 6301 days Last activity: 6301 days
| #6 Posted on 21.5.03 1127.44 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1128.42 | In addition to what vsp sez ...
Would the capture and imprisonment of Osama have really prevented 9/11? He didn't fly any of the planes and he surely wasn't the only one who planned the attack. It's possible that he would have spilled the beans if captured, but I think it's more likely he would have gone down fighting in Afghanistan and died a martyr.
I think the current trend of personifying evil in one figure, while making good propaganda, is a mistake. Osama, like Saddam and Arafat and all the others like them, cause a lot of pain and suffering. But eliminating the man won't eliminate the causes they fight for.
| vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 1094/2042 EXP: 8310263 For next: 46425
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6468 days Last activity: 2723 days
| #7 Posted on 21.5.03 1206.00 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1210.01 |
Originally posted by vsp Country X decides that a citizen of Country Y is guilty of crimes against Country X, even though Country Y disagrees and feels no need to prosecute that citizen for his actions. Country X sends an armed team to capture the citizen, bring him to a location outside of Country Y's borders, and place him on trial.
When this scenario was floated with regard to the International Criminal Court, lots of right-wingers here screamed and howled at the implications. How would this scenario have been different?
One more addition, so that I'm not doing an Edit of an Edit of an Edit:
There is at least one clear difference between the Reno-nixed operation and a similar, theoretical ICC abductment. With the ICC, there would be an international body overseeing the choice of targets, method of retrieval and charges filed against the defendant. With the Operation Fetch Osama that was described, it would simply be one country's administration saying "X has displeased me," sending a strike force out to capture X, and trying X under its own laws.
If the latter doesn't sound so bad, look at my examples again, and imagine if someone applied those principles and actions to us.
I'm clarifying this because I have been consistently in favor of the concept of the ICC in past discussions -- or at least substantially more favorably inclined towards it than my usual sparring partners. It's a different animal than a simple snatch-and-grab operation of this nature. | PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 671/1528 EXP: 5379437 For next: 52807
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6265 days Last activity: 6107 days
| #8 Posted on 21.5.03 1654.58 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1655.03 | Your argument in favor of the ICC boils down this: "I'm against one country strong-arming another country. I have no problem, however, with several countries getting together to strong-arm another country." | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 1097/2042 EXP: 8310263 For next: 46425
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6468 days Last activity: 2723 days
| #9 Posted on 21.5.03 1727.49 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1728.27 |
Originally posted by PalpatineW Your argument in favor of the ICC boils down this: "I'm against one country strong-arming another country. I have no problem, however, with several countries getting together to strong-arm another country."
I didn't say I had NO problems with the ICC. There are obvious concerns about national sovereignty and jurisdiction, and it should not be used trivially. Making such a legislative coalition work smoothly and effectively would be a feat worthy of Houdini.
Still, there are precedents for multi-national prosecutions under compelling circumstances. Nuremberg comes quickly to mind. People mocked the UN as being somewhat impotent during the Iraq build-up; a multi-national court could become a UN with some teeth, if handled properly, allowing multiple nations to become a more effective check against rogues. I view that potential as a positive, not a negative. | Nate The Snake
Liverwurst Level: 73
Posts: 482/1136 EXP: 3446919 For next: 38966
Since: 9.1.02 From: Wichita, Ks
Since last post: 7183 days Last activity: 6653 days
| #10 Posted on 21.5.03 1951.54 Reposted on: 21.5.10 1957.23 |
Originally posted by The Thrill We could've had him years ago, if this plan had gone through, but then-Attorney General Janet Reno killed it. (ABCNews.com)
Thanks a lot, Janet. You'll send in the tanks to Waco to capture a nutjob and a bunch of armed followers, but you won't send one plane to Afghanistan, to nail a guy with an outstanding warrant. Funny...al-Qaida didn't have a problem sending in 4 planes.
Now 3,000 people are dead...'cause you were afraid that "people around the bin Laden compound would be killed." Uh, Janet...odds are those people were al-Qaida footsoldiers. "Loss of life would be significant." Yes, it was...in New York, Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.
Ye gods.
(EDIT: Gender reference.)
(edited by The Thrill on 21.5.03 1000)
The implication that Bin Laden's capture would have prevented 9/11 is a little naive, at best. Bin Laden wasn't the man who planned the majority of that attack. He's a figurehead, if you will, a source of money and spiritual rhetoric.
Hell, his capture may well have pushed any 9/11 style plans they had ahead by several years, providing a handy excuse for anger against the US.
Reno does bear a considerable amount of responsibility for Waco. But putting 9/11, and the deaths caused by it, on her shoulders is ridiculous. | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 1266/1761 EXP: 6568521 For next: 82169
Since: 1.8.02 From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 197 days Last activity: 154 days
| #11 Posted on 21.5.03 2052.37 Reposted on: 21.5.10 2055.58 | Gotta say I agree. Apprehending Osama prior to 9/11 would have accomplished little. And without 9/11 as a reason, his apprehension would have been virtually meaningless. I for one find the partisian "placement of blame for 9/11," be it on Bush or Clinton's shoulders, distasteful. I am no fan of Clinton by any means, but it is real out there to try and pin 9/11 on anyone's shoulders.
Sure it would have been NICE to have him, but that is just one piece of the puzzle.
| Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 1495/4700 EXP: 28678899 For next: 656182
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3158 days
| #12 Posted on 22.5.03 0600.19 Reposted on: 22.5.10 0600.28 |
Originally posted by vsp Still, there are precedents for multi-national prosecutions under compelling circumstances. Nuremberg comes quickly to mind.
But there was a difference at Nuremburg. Germany was a defeated nation. Imagine, for a second, that we had tried this with Iraq. Iraq was not a defeated nation(at the time) and therefore would pretty much have no reason to be compelled to participate in the ICC. Even if they did, Old Europe would've found a reason (i.e. Oil, suplying weapons) to acquit Iraq.
The ICC is very bad news. Hell, it's probably only designed to screw the US... | The Thrill
Banger Level: 108
Posts: 370/2781 EXP: 13124157 For next: 396386
Since: 16.4.02 From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 3624 days Last activity: 223 days
| #13 Posted on 22.5.03 0745.13 Reposted on: 22.5.10 0746.36 | Considering the Clinton administration did send a bunch of cruise missiles into bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan following the African embassy bombings of 1998, it's not really a question of "we can't take action because we might hurt somebody's feelings." But the plan of actually sending the cops in to capture Public Enemy #1 (or whatever Osama was back then) sounds better to me. Hell, it usually worked for the FBI chasing gangsters back in the 30's, didn't it?
I don't think the "how would you like it if somebody did that to us" argument washes. Let's face it: no one would ever try that. The USA flexes its power where and when it has to. It's part of being the world's only remaining superpower. Forward defense, if you will.
And as for minimizing bin Laden...come on. He's the @sshole who put Al-Qaeda together. He's the commander, the head honcho. Plans of that size, scope and budget do not happen without his express consent, and to think that he didn't do any planning of the 9/11 attacks is pretty ludicrous. Why make excuses for this murdering bastard?
And I'm not really trying to pin 9/11 on Janet Reno or anybody's shoulders but Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The attacks were THEIR FAULT. But considering he was a wanted terrorist even back then, to pass up a chance to capture him is negligent then, tragic now.
In short: never again must we fail to go after the bad guys because it might be icky, or people's feelings might get hurt. Too bad...it's called a war on terror for a reason.
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." --President George W. Bush | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 1098/2042 EXP: 8310263 For next: 46425
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6468 days Last activity: 2723 days
| #14 Posted on 22.5.03 0844.39 Reposted on: 22.5.10 0844.42 |
Originally posted by The Thrill I don't think the "how would you like it if somebody did that to us" argument washes. Let's face it: no one would ever try that. The USA flexes its power where and when it has to. It's part of being the world's only remaining superpower. Forward defense, if you will.
The USA flexes its power where and when it _wants_ to, not where and when it _has_ to. That's half the problem right there. | Nate The Snake
Liverwurst Level: 73
Posts: 487/1136 EXP: 3446919 For next: 38966
Since: 9.1.02 From: Wichita, Ks
Since last post: 7183 days Last activity: 6653 days
| #15 Posted on 22.5.03 2136.33 Reposted on: 22.5.10 2139.52 |
Originally posted by The Thrill And as for minimizing bin Laden...come on. He's the @sshole who put Al-Qaeda together. He's the commander, the head honcho. Plans of that size, scope and budget do not happen without his express consent, and to think that he didn't do any planning of the 9/11 attacks is pretty ludicrous. Why make excuses for this murdering bastard?
Who's minimizing him? Bin Laden's a big figure in Al Qaeda, no doubting that. But he wasn't even CLOSE to the primary idea man for the 9/11 attacks, we've known that for a long time. The fact that he signed off on it makes him an accessory, not a mastermind.
His capture most likely would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the planning and execution of 9/11, or any other terrorist acts, and as I said would more likely do just the opposite. Bin Laden is the heart and the pocketbook, not the brains. Put him in prison and all you've done is give his followers something to be really, really pissed about.
Originally posted by The Thrill And I'm not really trying to pin 9/11 on Janet Reno or anybody's shoulders but Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The attacks were THEIR FAULT. But considering he was a wanted terrorist even back then, to pass up a chance to capture him is negligent then, tragic now.
"Now 3,000 people are dead...'cause you were afraid that 'people around the bin Laden compound would be killed.'"
That's a pretty straight-up accusation, there.
The reality of the situation is, capturing the boss does NOT cripple the organization. If Bush were to, say, vanish in the Bermuda Triangle or something, would the US grind to a halt? Hell no.
Originally posted by The Thrill In short: never again must we fail to go after the bad guys because it might be icky, or people's feelings might get hurt.
And who, exactly, are the bad guys today? And who, exactly, knows whether or not they'll continue to be the bad guys tomorrow? A few years ago, the Taliban were freedom fighters. A few years ago, we were training Bin Laden. A few years ago, Hussein was our buddy. Arguments over moral absolutes aside, we have no way of telling the future. We don't know who's going to turn on us down the line, not for sure, and we can't go charging in to every country busting every single person who could potentially cause trouble for us in a few years. We're disliked enough already. | PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 673/1528 EXP: 5379437 For next: 52807
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6265 days Last activity: 6107 days
| #16 Posted on 22.5.03 2341.13 Reposted on: 22.5.10 2342.09 |
Originally posted by Nate The Snake And who, exactly, are the bad guys today? And who, exactly, knows whether or not they'll continue to be the bad guys tomorrow? A few years ago, the Taliban were freedom fighters. A few years ago, we were training Bin Laden. A few years ago, Hussein was our buddy. Arguments over moral absolutes aside, we have no way of telling the future. We don't know who's going to turn on us down the line, not for sure, and we can't go charging in to every country busting every single person who could potentially cause trouble for us in a few years. We're disliked enough already.
I'm gonna disagree with you on this. We do know who the bad guys are. It's just that in the past, they were "our" bad guys, because they fought worse guys. | Nate The Snake
Liverwurst Level: 73
Posts: 489/1136 EXP: 3446919 For next: 38966
Since: 9.1.02 From: Wichita, Ks
Since last post: 7183 days Last activity: 6653 days
| #17 Posted on 23.5.03 0409.02 Reposted on: 23.5.10 0414.11 |
Originally posted by PalpatineW I'm gonna disagree with you on this. We do know who the bad guys are. It's just that in the past, they were "our" bad guys, because they fought worse guys.
That's my point. We have a lot of that sort of bad guy, always have and always will. And, of course, one nation's villain is another's hero. Henry Kissinger comes to mind. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |