The W
Views: 97745016
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.7.14 0926
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pre-9/11 Plan to Nab bin Laden Called Off by Janet Reno
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2020 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 102 days
Last activity: 87 days
#1 Posted on


"America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team...then you should get the hell out of the stadium. Go America." --Stan Marsh, South Park


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)


Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.

.
.
THE THRILL
ACW-NWA Wisconsin Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life!

All-Star Championship Wrestling...now a proud member of the NWA!


Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on

    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Mr. Reno
Come on, you know better than that.



©CRZ™
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1182 days
Last activity: 979 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
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?



These Democrats up in Texas they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    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)

"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 458 days
Last activity: 325 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on

    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








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 2779 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
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.






Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    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.




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2743 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
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."



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    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.




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 3131 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on

    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.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1228 days
Last activity: 28 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on
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.







Still on the Shelf #9
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1182 days
Last activity: 979 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    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...



These Democrats up in Texas they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 102 days
Last activity: 87 days
#13 Posted on

"America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team...then you should get the hell out of the stadium. Go America." --Stan Marsh, South Park

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



Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.

.
.
THE THRILL
ACW-NWA Wisconsin Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life!

All-Star Championship Wrestling...now a proud member of the NWA!


vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    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.




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 3131 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on

    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.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2743 days
Last activity: 2585 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    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.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 3131 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on

    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.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Holy jeeeeebus
Next thread: Wonder where those barrels are?
Previous thread: The New Gender Gap
(2020 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
What are the odds that the people that tried to block supplies from getting to our troops are going to get brought up on federal charges of sedition? I would support it, but it won't happen.
- Michrome, Sedition (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pre-9/11 Plan to Nab bin Laden Called Off by Janet RenoRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.