1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16740/that-bin-laden-killing/

That Bin Laden Killing

May 2, 2011 by

I have some vague sense that many people are opposed to capital punishment, and for good reason, and especially when there is no trial and conviction, and yet we are expected uncritically to celebrate the death of Bin Laden at the hands of the U.S. state. The government needs glory and we are supposed to provide it, regardless of the cost (which, as Anthony Gregory points out, has been American liberty itself, in addition to possibly millions of lives). Lew Rockwell points out that there is a reason for the timing of this announcement. Regardless, so intense is the pressure not to question any aspect of this that the Cato Institute took the trouble to issue a note of congratulations and inform us all of what a “huge debt” we all owe to the government for its magnificence. The killing also permits simple minded people to imagine that all U.S. foreign policy struggles with Islam are due to one bearded guy with a grudge and have nothing to do with, for example, the American penchant for invading other people’s countries and stationing troops in the lands that Islam considers holy.

{ 197 comments }

Bruce Koerber May 2, 2011 at 8:16 am

At last the U.S. will leave Afghanistan and stop bombing in Pakistan!

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 8:59 am

I don’t think it is over yet. It is just an interesting turn of events.

Bruce Koerber May 2, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Burial at sea after DNA confirmation of identity, what more could be done to prove the ‘facts?’

newson May 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm

i’m still waiting for abhilash nambiar’s version of 9/11. perhaps now he’ll indulge me.

Richie May 3, 2011 at 8:51 am

Abhilash Nambiar is a typical chickenhawk, coward warmonger.

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm

@Richie
Right. I am the war mongerer. Not Osama Bin Laden. And of course let us not consider the prospect of just war.

Seattle May 2, 2011 at 10:36 am

BAHAHAHAHAHA

Tyrone Dell May 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm

LOLOLOLOL

newson May 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Ryan S May 2, 2011 at 8:20 am

I love how all these news stories are referring to bin Laden as the mastermind behind 9/11 when he was never proven to be connected with the attacks. Even the government admits this.

Stefano May 2, 2011 at 9:24 am

He did take credit in numerous videos. Still, to me, the larger point is this. How are Americans partying in the streets over the assassination of Bin Laden fundamentally different than Afghans partying in the streets when they kill one of ours? How do we maintain a sense of moral superiority when we prove ourselves just as bloodthirsty as they?

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:31 am

There is a fundamental ideological difference between people partying over the death of a person who violates private property to people partying over the death of innocents who died from that property right violation (like in Palestine). If you can recognize that difference, you can recognize who has the morally superior position.

Stefano May 2, 2011 at 10:38 am

Abhilash,
I am not saying that Osama wasn’t a bad dude, but I do deny that there is a significant difference between our partying in the streets because he was killed and their partying because, say, an American helicopter was shot down.

When we glory in killing, even of the evil, we lose some part of our humanity.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 10:46 am

There is a significant difference and it is one that is easily recognizable. Those people are celebrating because the death of Osama Bin Laden helps them preserve their humanity. How can you not recognize that?

Stefano May 2, 2011 at 12:01 pm

I can’t recognize it because it’s complete nonsense. It is mindless patriotism and vengeance thinly veiled as “justice.” There is nothing high-minded about it. It’s the way you choose to disguise your approbation of bloodlust.

I believe that there is a time to kill, and I concede that Osama’s was perhaps a necessary death. But taking joy from killing? That is inhuman.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 1:00 pm

The joy is not from killing. The joy comes from the victory. Victory may require killing but people do not generally derive joy from senseless killing. And this is certainly not the case here.

Martin OB May 2, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Honestly, I take joy from the killing, and I’m not even American. That’s what justice is about, to each their due; those who do good should be happy and those who do evil should be punished. All the truther babble notwithstanding, this scumbag was the confessed mastermind behind 9-11 and many other murderous attacks on civilians.

I also enjoy seeing all those wannabe terrorists with long faces, and those dhimmi handwringing defeatists trying to rain on the parade. This is a big day for America and for the free world.

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm

These pictures warm my heart:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383011/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-David-Cameron-stands-Pakistan-650m-gift-aid.html

Grey-and-henna-bearded old men weeping for Osama the mass murderer. Sweet. No more Western tax money for them, please.

matt470 May 4, 2011 at 6:40 am

“helps them preserve their humanity”?

What garbage. I fail in every way to see how this state-sponsored murder achieves that. Others commentators here are right – this nonsense demonstrates you have no moral superiority over those celebrating the death of a coalition soldier. If the shoe fits…

matt470 May 4, 2011 at 6:46 am

Get a grip Martin OB. Clearly you don’t understand that a war against an ideology is futile.

I’m really glad for you that you feel all warm and fuzzy about the murder of another human – and that makes you different from Osama’s supporters how?

FAIL

Abhilash Nambiar May 4, 2011 at 6:46 am

@matt470

I fail in every way to see how this state-sponsored murder achieves that.

The state of United States is the State that sponsors liberty. It derives it legitimacy by preserving liberty. Granted it does not always do a good job, but in this instance, I have no doubts.

It is the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing that liberty is a bit more secure.

Martin OB May 4, 2011 at 7:59 pm

matt470,

It’s not the first time an imperialist ideology is defeated and largely eradicated through a variety of means always including war or the threat thereof (see Fascism, Communism and Japanese Imperialism, to name a few), and it’s not the first time the West defeats imperialist Islamism (See Al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire). So, yes, I’m quite confident it can be done, and it would be much easier if only the West started believing in its own values again and told the liberal left to shut up already.

I like to see a mass murderer die and I like to see his pathetic supporters weep. I’m such a sick person, you see. Yes, justice is sometimes dirty and gruesome. So is surgery.

I leave the task of explaining why killing a terrorist in action is not the same as killing children in cold blood to Abhilash, because he’s great at it and I can’t be bothered. You know, division of labor.

BTW, Abilash, I liked your blog
http://elitistjerks.com/

;)

Ryan S May 2, 2011 at 9:36 am

Actually, he initially denied taking part in it and then later took credit. And simply “taking credit” for something doesn’t prove one’s guilt. People do this all the time.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 10:43 am

People do this all the time! Really? Can you give me other instances?

Grant May 2, 2011 at 11:20 am

Abhilash, it only takes .23 seconds to find half a million pages indexed by Google with the phrase ““false confessions”.

Try harder.

Grant May 2, 2011 at 11:21 am

Abhilash, it only takes .23 seconds to find half a million pages indexed by Google with the phrase false confessions.

Try harder.

Drigan May 2, 2011 at 11:50 am

I’d imagine the average false confession was under duress, so I’m not sure that’s a real great piece of evidence there.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm

There is a difference between providing a false confession under duress and taking credit for a crime with a sense of impunity. You really do not know?!

BlackAeronaut May 7, 2011 at 6:40 am

Agreeing with the other two. That argument was fail, Grant, unless you can prove otherwise.

Daniel May 2, 2011 at 11:44 am
Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm

You are confusing the issue. Was it a confession under duress? If not why lie?

Greg May 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm

There are many, but one recent one that was widely reported was John Mark Karr. From Wikipedia:

John Mark Karr confessed to the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. He had become obsessed with the details of her murder and was extradited from Thailand. His story did not match details of the case, and his DNA did not match that found at the crime scene. His wife and brother said he was home in another state at the time of the murder, and had never been to Colorado where the murder occurred.

Joel May 2, 2011 at 10:52 am

I had the same reaction: how is the celebration of his death any different than the celebration of the death of an american soldier? I remember clearly how self-righteous and indignant the american public was following news that certain Arabs were dancing in the streets after 9/11, and at the first opportunity americans are partying like their team won a playoff game. It is unsettling to say the least.

Drigan May 2, 2011 at 11:06 am

There certainly is a difference between partying over non-combatants being killed and an alleged ring leader being killed.

If Bush or Obama were killed by jihadists, I think the average American would understand partying in the streets in the Middle East. We certainly wouldn’t like it, but we would understand the reason. Celebrating the deaths of thousands who don’t oppose you with partying in the streets is despicable. Celebrating the death of one who contributed to the deaths of thousands is poor form, but quite understandable.

Sandre May 2, 2011 at 11:12 am

If Bush or Obama were killed by jihadists, I think the average American would understand partying in the streets in the Middle East.

I doubt it.
However I agree with your larger point. There is a difference between dancing at the death of 3000 innocent people versus the one that is rightly or foolishly claimed reponsiblity for killing those innocents.

Stefano May 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm

But that is a false juxtaposition. A better comparison is the images we have seen where they party in the streets because American troops are killed or helicopter shot down. And we are filled with indignation and demonize them as monsters and animals. But when we take to the streets in a show of mindless bloodlust? We are rejoicing “that justice has been served.”

Maybe we are just giving voice to the darkness that is within us. It may be understandable, but it still is a dangerous omen.

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm

Yes, because celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocents all the while proclaiming this was your god’s will is the same as celebrating the death of one murderous son of a bitch who probably bankrolled the deaths of the aforementioned thousands of innocents. This is exactly why most libertarians/anarcho capitalists are considered doofuses. BTW, I consider myself a libertarian/anarcho capitalist. There is no equivilence here. None. So stop trying to make any.

matt470 May 4, 2011 at 6:55 am

Understand the true nature of democracy RFN (perhaps start with reading Hoppe’s book Democracy the God that Failed) and you’ll understand why some foolish people celebrated the death of US innocents.

Democracy makes for total war because it can be said that the actions of democratic governments represent the wishes of it’s citizens (even though we know how tenuous this link can be). Why be surprised when many foreigners show hate towards an “innocent” American citizen or in 9/11′s case thousands of them. I’m not justifying that hate (and I absolutely condemn what happened on 9/11) but it’s surely not difficult to see how many people that hate US foreign policy also hate the citizenry that “supports” it!

Terrorism will never be understood (and therefore minimised) unless one opens one’s mind to how others may perceive things – for right or wrong!

Daniel Kuehn May 2, 2011 at 8:28 am

Sir, the vast majority of people satisfied with this justice are not “giving glory to the state”. And those of us who were critical of Patriot Act incursions, torture, and adventurous imperialism before still maintain these positions after this mass murder has been dealt justice. Seeing the injustice in what the United States has done does not free us from expecting and seeking justice for other enemies of peace and liberty like Osama bin Laden.

Dan May 2, 2011 at 9:21 am

You, sir are missing the point. What you call “justice” is what is in question here. The point is that the man’s death we are supposed to be praising is an execution without due process, and indeed without any proof that he ever committed the crime(s). You are so eager to assume he really is evil that you do not stop to question the state’s actions here.

Tucker is right, the killing only attempts to vindicate the U.S. Federal Government’s unceasing wars and meddling in the worlds business. I’ve seen posts by the Heritage Foundation which are using this act in this manner.

Austro-Libertarian May 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

You, Sir, need to recognize that the US went in to capture bin Laden. It is Osama who put up the fight in which he was shot.

newson May 2, 2011 at 11:07 am

afghanistan was always about control of the opium trade. the taliban were cutting the poppies down. the coalition of the willing put an end to that wicked nonsense.

Grant May 2, 2011 at 11:23 am

And an oil pipeline.

newson May 2, 2011 at 6:25 pm

touché! no more phony photo-montages. i’ll miss them. but i guess they’ve got some new bad guy already lined up, so i won’t have to worry about whom to hate for long.

Dither May 2, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Actually, it has been reported that Obama gave the order to kill Bin Laden, not arrest him. He was shot twice in the head. This was an execution.

Dan May 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm

Actually, you don’t know what your talking about. This was an assassination that was planned for months prior, with the kill order given by the commander in chief himself.

“Between March 14 and April 28, Obama personally presided over five highly-secret National Security Council meetings where the plans to assassinate Bin Laden were forged.”

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/05/while-gop-criticized-president-obama-planned

My original assertion stands. I will not support the execution of people who have not had a trial. If Americans support this, then they turn their back on civilization and submit to barbarism.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm

You are a dogmatic anti-statist who has thrown reason to the wind. I am sure that you won’t stop criticizing if there was a trail. The court after all is an arm of the nation-state, it must be discarded for that very reason.

The government on the other hand being the agent of the state can be criticized for not capturing Bin Landen, taking too long to capture him, capturing Bin Landen, but not putting him on trial and for putting him on trail. Criticism of the government is situation independent.

The government being the agent of the state can do no right and Osama bin Laden being the agent of no state can do no wrong for which a government can punish him. But no one else right now has the resources to go after him. So let the treason to the innocent continue, any successful effort by a state will only undermine anarcho-capitalism. Surely the death of the innocents who Osama is responsible for is only a small price. Right?

Austro-Libertarian May 3, 2011 at 10:07 pm

Forget that… it has now come out that Bin Laden was NOT armed when he was shot in the head…

matt470 May 4, 2011 at 7:01 am

Have you even attempted to ascertain the facts. He was unarmed (oh yeah – some massive resistance against Navy Seals in full body armour) and even the CIA Director said the aim had been to kill him.

If Navy Seals are unable to capture alive an unarmed man then perhaps you should swap them for the SAS?

J. Murray May 4, 2011 at 7:21 am

There wasn’t going to be any capturing of him alive. There are too many emotions surrounding the man to have ever made that possible. The SAS would have taken the opportunity to pop him in the head, too. Do you have any idea how much cred you’ll get by being THE guy who put a bullet between OBL’s eyes? That’s basically free beer for life.

BlackAeronaut May 7, 2011 at 6:57 am

Something that everyone seems to be missing here.

So what if the order had been given for an assassination? It is morally questionable, sure… until you realize that locking him up in a federal prison is only going to bait Al Qaeda into a ‘rescue attempt’. It’s gonna be bad enough with the retaliatory attacks that are surely in the pipeline (pun not intended).

And honestly – knock it off. You’re trying to pick fly shit out of the pepper.

BTW: SEALs and SAS deal in only one kind of diplomacy – bullets and bombs. If they get sent in, chances are good someone’s gonna die unless the other dudes make themselves one with the deck and makes damn sure their hands are visible. Bin Laden got shot probably because he zigged when the SEAL told him to zag.

fundamentalist May 2, 2011 at 9:50 am

You can only have due process if the criminal surrenders to the process. Bin Laden didn’t surrender. He was given ample opportunity to surrender and go through the process. In the process of arresting him, his resistance to the process proved fatal to him.

Seattle May 2, 2011 at 10:42 am

Oh please. As if the US government actually does rational fact-seeking. If he had surrendered he’d have been tortured and put through a show trial before being executed. Fighting back was his only chance at survival.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 10:48 am

Is your definition of a show-trail any trial that the US government conducts? Is your definition of a hero anyone who defies the US government. With such simplistic definition, you will get lost.

Seattle May 2, 2011 at 11:33 am

Do you seriously believe that, if Osama had surrendered, he would have had the slightest chance of being found innocent? His odds were much better with fighting back.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 11:43 am

The reason he had no chance if caught alive because he had committed enough crimes to be executed. That certainty does not make the trail he receive a show trial. By that definition all open and shut cases are show trails. Do you seriously believe that?!?

Daniel May 2, 2011 at 11:47 am

Circular reasoning :S

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Daniel, you do not know anything about circular reasoning. In case you are wondering there is such a thing as an open and shut case and sometimes evidence for guilt is so strong that defense is impossible.

Gil May 2, 2011 at 11:37 pm

How can Osama be innocent of anything?

Sione May 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Fundy

You write, “He was given ample opportunity to surrender and go through the process. In the process of arresting him, his resistance to the process proved fatal to him.”

This is too funny! Written as if by an eye witness! As if you were there!

Sure your were.

Yeah.

Riiiight.

A more refined example of fuckwittery at its extreme would be difficult to find!

Sione

newson May 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm

obl should have been interrogated on his weapon technology. an opportunity wasted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJEHI1izVM

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:50 am

Suspects are sometimes killed in encounters when law enforces are trying to apprehend them for trial. Now why does that happen? Why do people investigated for deadly crimes shoot back when they are about to be caught? Could it be because they do not want to get caught? Could it be because they want to get away with the crime? Too bad you can’t ask them once they are dead. And now do you blame the law enforcer for denying due-process to the suspect? Technically the suspect is still innocent until proven guilty.

Remember the law enforcer is also a person just like you. He used deadly force to protect himself, his team and the innocent people that the suspect may harm if he escapes. It is his understanding of the crime that leads him to the criminal who (not surprisingly perhaps) resists capture. And some people are too dangerous to be taken alive anyway. He uses his understanding to protect you. Please don’t demean yourself by unjustly criticizing him.

Joel May 2, 2011 at 11:05 am

“Remember the law enforcer is also a person just like you. He used deadly force to protect himself, his team and the innocent people that the suspect may harm if he escapes.”

Laurance Vance had something to say about soldiers using deadly force to “protect themselves,” I’ll try and convey it here: Would it be justified “self defense” for a thief to kill you if you fought back his attempts at robbing your house? Of course it wouldn’t, it would be a case of robbery (or in this case, kidnapping) escalated to murder.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 11:24 am

Supposing a thief comes to your house robs you, leaves some people dead in the process. You go to his house, sneak in to capture him, he puts up a fight and dies? Now what if you sent uniformed men instead of going in yourself?

Sione May 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Abhilash

“The reason he had no chance if caught alive because he had committed enough crimes to be executed.”

So no need for a trial, according to you.

“That certainty does not make the trail he receive a show trial.”

Hey, genius! He didn’t receive a trial- not even a show trial.

Sione

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 4:31 pm

@Sione

There is no sense talking to you. You are putting words into my mouth. And you seem to have no capacity to appreciate the fact that suspects can get killed in encounters. Yes, it happens, especially with the armed ones. And law enforcers are not keen enough to capture them alive if it involves sacrificing their life or the life of their partner or other potential innocent people. When the bullets are flying, there is no trial. To get your day in court, you must be willing to go to court. Suspects that shoot back obviously have other plans.

Wildberry May 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Carry on Abilash. Some of us here appreciate your expressions of common sense.

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 7:19 pm

@Wildberry

Now they are saying that Osama was not armed when he was killed, but he put up a fight. There is no way to independently verify any of this. But if acquiescing to the lesser evil means allowing things like this to happen, then so be it. It only takes common sense to recognize that Osama’s death has value because liberty has value.

Gil May 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm

So the home owner should be arrested and tried for murder if he kills a burglar?

Sione May 3, 2011 at 7:27 am

Abilhash

“You are putting words into my mouth”

Not so. Those were YOUR words. Read what you wrote. Consider the implications of your sentiments.

You did not address Seattle at all. The point was not “sometimes suspects get killed in encounters.” Nor was it that “in order to have your day in court you must be willing to go to court” (the latter assumes the enforcers are interested in taking the “suspect” to court in the first instance- they might want to, they might have other orders though). This is just another example of your wriggling around trying to avoid proper consideration of what others point out to you. Seattle’s point was worth sound analysis, not the opposition of an silly automaton. So do try to so better and improve yourself.

You wrote this as well, “There is no sense talking to you.”

In one specific sense I agree with you. There is no sense in your talking, talking, talking…. (or more accurately arguing, arguing, arguing…). As has been explained on previous occasions you need to spend less time arging for the sake of it (and less time stroking your wee ego) and a lot more time actively listening and learning. Fact is, a great deal of what you posit is purile nonsense. Sometimes you have a few good ideas, but mostly you just don’t. Listen and consider- learn.

Time to do those basic readings you were recommended to a while back. Time to actually try to learn from other people instead of automatically opposing them just because your ego needs a bit of a fondle.

Sione

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 7:47 am

@Sione

Yup. You put words in my mouth. I did not say there was no need for a trial. Those where words you attributed to me.

I have addressed all of Seattle’s points. You are just indulging in mud slinging hoping it will stick.

Martin OB May 7, 2011 at 6:22 am

Sione,

You misread Abilash’s post. He said “The reason he had no chance [of being declared innocent in a trial] IF caught alive [are his crimes]“, not “The reason he had no chance OF BEING caught alive and having a trial [are his crimes]“.

In fact, I don’t even think a formal trial would be necessary in this case. He gave all the evidence himself while he thought he could get away with it. In my opinion, the legal procedure for a fugitive terrorist should be public trial in absentia, which, if found gilty, would grant legal coverage for execution on the spot.

In any case, the latest news indicate he had an AK-47 at arm’s reach, and he threw one of his wives to SEALs.

Butters May 2, 2011 at 10:17 am

I’m not totally convinced that this was in fact an “execution.” Assuming the government’s story is correct (bear with me here), it sounds like Bin Ladin was given a legitimate chance to surrender and refused. I don’t know how the event unfolded, but if the Americans were under fire then they had every right to respond with deadly force (assuming they had the right to enter the compund, which is where I question the legitimacy of the operation – see below). An officer carrying out a properly issued arrest warrant who faced those circumstances would be perfectly within his rights to defend himself.

This of course begs the question of the morality of preparations for the raid itself, which is where I think the real issue is. Here are some questions I have:

- What does due process entail according to Pakistani law (if there is even a standard) and was it followed in this case (I’m guessing probably not)?
- How would this change if Pakistani due process standards are immoral (I’m guessing they are)?
- Did the US government coerce Pakistan to allow it to conduct the raid, thereby violating state sovereignty?
- Would the US government be out of line prosecuting him (in a proper civilian court) had he been arrested solely by the Pakistanis but not according to due process and was eventually extradited (yes I know this never would have happened)?

The proper scenario would have been for the Pakistanis to arrest him according to due process, put him through a proper extradition process, and have him tried in a US civilian court. How does this change, though, seeing as how the Pakistanis likely don’t have a moral due process standard (or at the very least one that’s properly followed)? Does this essentially prevent him from being tried in the US, where I’m assuming there is at least one warrant out for his arrest.

This seems to be a complex issue that I’m not sure how to answer. What would have been the proper course of action given the reality that the justice system in Pakistan is likely completely immoral?

Dave Albin May 2, 2011 at 8:16 pm

Don’t worry about Pakistani law – if you hired a bounty hunter to capture a fugitive and bring him back alive, and he tried to kill the bounty hunter, then the bounty hunter could defend his own life with deadly force, could he not? Sometimes, in any system of justice, people end up dead. This will always happen.

Daniel Kuehn May 3, 2011 at 6:37 am

And we can disagree over whether this is truly justice or not. But don’t tell me that it has anything to do with “giving glory to the state”. And don’t tell me that the case of justice for Osama bin Laden implies any position on torture, the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, etc.

iawai May 2, 2011 at 9:27 am

If it was “justice”, why not capture and try him? If we’re worried about “peace and liberty”, why is violence the answer? In fact, because of the killing the US govt is predicting more terror – so their choice has fanned the flames of further violence, further wars, and therefor less peace and liberty abroad and at home.

Bin Laden will do more violence from his watery grave than he ever could have done hiding in a bunker. Celebrating his summary execution is celebrating the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act, and the general notion that it must be the state who exercises violence, and that whenever it does so it is a glorious exhibition of righteousness.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:52 am

Have you tried blaming Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for the War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act? As for due-process, do you think all suspects will submit to due-process?

Sione May 3, 2011 at 7:36 am

Right, because it is well known that Senator Bin Laden wrote the Patriot Act and passed it and enforces it on behalf of US voters.

Yeah. Riiiiight.

Abhilash, you are avoiding the point again. Is this deliberate or just plain silliness?

Sione

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 7:50 am

It is because of Bin Laden that the law makers felt pressured into passing the Patriot Act. You cannot see it. You do not want to see it. The US government is the repository for all blame. No action they perform can ever change that. You are a dogmatic anti-statist.

Sione May 3, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Abhilash

So one bewhiskered feller in a dress “pressured” the entire US political class to write, pass and enforce that legislation- all cause they “felt pressured”.

Yeah.

Riiight.

Do you even realise how stupid you are being?

The fact remains, as uncomfortable as it might be for dishonest apologists such as yourself, that Bin Laden did not write, pass or enforce that legislation. While he may be responsible for great crimes and shocking displays of inhumanity and the like, that one he certainly was not responsible for.

You can’t justify legislative totalitarianism on the basis that Osama was a bad guy. Nor can you pass off the responsiblity for its implimentation to him, as he was not the one who created and implimented it. What was passed, was and remains an unjustified negation of the individual rights of what should be a free people. Finally, you can’t blame Osama for the actions of other people, for actions he did not take. They did that.

You are an apologist for that gravest of evils Benjamin Franklin was referring to when he wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Sione

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm

I am a dogmatic anti-statist, too, but I see what you are saying. WTF is wrong with these people. The patriot act was a god awful piece of legislation, but it was borne because of Islamism and more precisely Al Queda led by Osama Bin laden. This is every bit as bad as blaming a rape victim.

Slim934 May 2, 2011 at 10:35 am

Due process pre-supposes that the party in question can be brought in for due process to even occur.

This is one of the things that always put me off to the whole notion of pacifism (at the individual level not at the level of the nation-state). there seems to be this idea that everyone can be peaceably brought in for pure justice (restitution) to be enforced. This is an unbelievably naive notion. There exist human beings who will simply refuse to be punished for their crimes, and will forcibly oppose any action to do so.

I will be the first to admit that the U.S government is a killer and rights violator of the highest order, but that does not mean that I should feel bad for a vile and disgusting subhuman animal like Osama bin Laden just because he was killed by the US government. It is true that justice in the libertarian sense was not served, but that is only because his victims were not the ones who killed him, not because he was killed.

The worst effect of killing bin Laden is not that he was killed, but that the government and media will hype this up to the stratosphere as some sort of symbol of the supposed necessity for the state’s existence and functions.

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Yes, I suppose he was just sitting on his plush leather ottoman, smoking from the hookah, listening to a little Kenny G and playing some grand theft auto and the big mean soldier men came in guns a blazing. Poor little innocent Osama just was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Damn, you people are unbelievable. I’m betting he probably resisted the little old arrest. Listen, Bin laden being room termperature is nothing. The real terrorist has been dead for over 1400 years and the islamist cockroaches are still going.

Inquisitor May 2, 2011 at 12:07 pm

Think of all the lost GDP given the prospect that the US might end its terrorist witchhunt. Must give a Keynesian shivers.

newson May 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm

there’s never a shortage of witches.

BlackAeronaut May 7, 2011 at 7:03 am

I keep on hoping and praying for the day that the Bush family faces theirs. Damn people have been screwing around with American politics for too damn long.

Nikolaj May 2, 2011 at 9:17 am

Hm, I can understand the necon government-worshipers who celebrate this. They are consistent, if nothing else. But, it is a bit curiouser to see all those left-wing beautiful souls who were so upset over the Patriot Act, water-boarding and putting the caterpillars in the cells of terrorists in Guantanamo, as well as the military tribunals for convicted terrorists, who now celebrate a government-sanctioned murder without any trial whatsoever! Astonishing.

Horst Muhlmann May 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

Apparently, you didn’t get the memo.

As of 1/20/2009, war is good again. If you disagree, you are racist.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 10:17 am

War becomes a necessity when your self-declared opponent glorifies it. The other option is to submit to his tyranny. Acquiescing to the lesser evil becomes a necessity.

Horst Muhlmann May 2, 2011 at 12:50 pm

You missed Stossel’s and my point completely.

The Left was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for one reason and one reason only. The occupant of the White House at the time had an “R” after his name.

War becomes a necessity when your self-declared opponent glorifies it. The other option is to submit to his tyranny. Acquiescing to the lesser evil becomes a necessity.

In the third war in Libya, the West had no enemy. The one positive outcome of the war in Iraq was that Khadaffy gave up his WMD program and began to behave. He was rewarded by being bombed by NATO. Every other tin-horn dictator sees this, and you can bet that no one will ever give up any weapons program ever again.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 1:43 pm

I did note Stossel’s point. To a large extent I am in agreement with him. In the case of Libya it is possible that intervention is in fact acquiescing to the lesser evil. Being a tin-horn dictator is not what it used to be. Arms are harder to come by, and your impoverished people are not of much help to you. I think we are getting to a stage where tin-horn dictators are being nipped away. And there is a domino effect to these things, as you can see in the middle east.

Also have you noticed something funny? The Mises Institute has come out against the pro-american dictator Hosni Mubarak, but also come out against American intervention towards the anti-american dictator Muhammar Khadaffy. It is this consistent anti-Americanism that violates common sense that bothers me.

Dither May 2, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Define “America,” re: your designation of “pro-American” and “anti-American.”

The Mises Institute is consistently opposed to interventionism, i.e. those “entangling alliances” the American founding fathers warned against. You assume the interests of our predatory government are aligned with the interests of its prey (that being us). But I don’t wake up in the morning worrying about the affairs of Egypt and Libya. My interests are not served by my being taxed, with the proceeds going to prop up a foreign dictator whose subjects will hate me for it. Mubarak was not “pro-American” in any meaningful sense of the term; he was an imperial provincial governor — or, less charitably, a U.S. puppet.

Horst Muhlmann May 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm

In the case of Libya it is possible that intervention is in fact acquiescing to the lesser evil.

No it isn’t. Khadaffy’s replacement will be worse than he is. They certainly will not , unlike Khadaffy, will not more or less behave themselves on the “international stage.” Come to think of it, the same can be said about Egypt.

I don’t necessarily march in lock-step with the Mises Institute on foreign policy either. There’s nothing funny about not wanting to get involved in Egypt or Libya.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm

@Horst
Isn’t it a bit premature to say Khadaffy’s replacement will be worse than he is? It is possible of course. Time will tell.

@Dither
In this instance pro-american seems to mean blindly supporting any stand the US government takes and anti-american means blindly opposing any stand the US government takes. That I see happening here a lot. As for Jefferson’s comment on entangling alliances, it was made at a time when most people lived in a state of relative isolation. You can’t turn back the clock. There are things that the founding fathers notes that transcends time, and there are things that do not. This is one of them. The web of life is more tightly integrated than ever before. Any problem in to any part of it effects the whole. The fire in your neighbor’s house can spread to yours and the radiation leak in Japan can end up on your food.

Make the sort of intervention that will help liberty and prosperity thrive and you give everyone, including yourself the best chances. And if you fear predatory governments, you can start by fearing the present government of Libya or North Korea, you need not worry about Saddam’s government or the Taliban government of Afghanistan anymore, because the US government took them out. Certainly when it comes to predatory governments, the US government must fall last on the list. Get your priorities straight.

I don't need to be lead May 4, 2011 at 4:26 pm

A government that actively dismantles other governments should fall last on the list of predatory governments?

Gary Chartier May 2, 2011 at 9:20 am

Lots of excellent points, Jeff. Gleeful celebration of anyone’s death is sickening. And this announcement is certainly very convenient for an administration that’s seeking to rally support for its many pointless wars. I can only hope that opponents of war and the national security state will use this development, instead, to undermine support for the administration’s misadventures. But I’m not holding my breath.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:27 am

I was waiting to hear the reaction here and I must say, I am disappointed. Jeffrey, you can make more sense than that if you tried. You are an extremely intelligent man.

Russia invaded Afghanistan to prop up the Communist regime, the US trained Afghans to repel them. Saddam’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US sent its own troops to repel them. And from this situation a rich Saudi lunatic emerged, one that lacked the understanding to distinguish between an occupation force and a liberation force. He turned the groups trained and armed by the US to fight communists against the Americans. And by doing that he committed extremely thankless and evil deeds. Why are you soiling your otherwise good reputation by criticizing those that did him in? Why are you acquiescing to the greater evil?

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 3:33 pm

I really like Mr Tucker’s post most of the times (really, love them!), but if you expected any other kind of coverage of Bin Laden’s death, you were not paying attention.

http://blog.mises.org/14776/that-oregon-terrorist/

Augie May 2, 2011 at 9:43 am

Lew Rockwell points out that there is a reason for the timing of this announcement.

The announcement came 10 minutes before what was supposed to be the Desperate Housewives two hour season finale. Pretty much the biggest show on network TV. Strangely, it was only a one hour show when it finally ran after the announcement. Someone might want to look into that.

Augie May 2, 2011 at 9:51 am

Sorry, next week is the season finale. Still the announcement did time with the biggest show on TV. Pacific time.

Augie May 2, 2011 at 10:01 am

And actually it timed an hour and 10 minutes before the show. The show was knocked back and aired an hour past its actual schedule. Leaving, I’m sure, many service members wives Desperate for the return of their loved ones.

fundamentalist May 2, 2011 at 9:46 am

“The killing also permits simple minded people to imagine that all U.S. foreign policy struggles with Islam are due to one bearded guy with a grudge and have nothing to do with, for example, the American penchant for invading other people’s countries and stationing troops in the lands that Islam considers holy.”

While it’s stupidly simplistic to think our only problem in the Middle East was Bin laden, it’s also simplistic to think our problems began with the first Iraq war. Our problems with Muslim terror began with the spread of Islam outside of the Saudi peninsula.

Islam spread primarily through military conquest. Where the military couldn’t win, Muslims resorted to terrorizing the Christian population on the border. For example, they would wait until the men of a village were in the fields working, raid the village and take the women and children as slaves.

The Christians on the border would tire of the terror and move away from the border, leaving the villages empty. Muslims would then move into the empty villages and Islam would creep forward through constant terror.

The West has been fighting Muslim terror for almost 1,500 years.

J. Murray May 2, 2011 at 11:23 am

The first terror attack against US interests by an Islamic group was in 1954, 9 months after the CIA installed the Shah in Iran against the wishes of the locals.This following conversation did NOT happen:Muhammed: “Akhbar, look over to the west. That’s America, they’re not Muslim.”Akhbar: “Let’s blow up their buildings until they see the error of their ways!”The US didn’t seem to have any international problems until her politicians decided they needed to be part of the international community. People don’t turn their heads to a nation on the other side of the globe for no reason. And no, it’s not because we’re the richest country on Earth. We’ve held that crown since 1873 yet there wasn’t anyone out to bomb America from the Arabian Penninsula.The west has not been fighting Muslim terrorism for 1,500 years. What you see as Islamic terror is nothing more than a government using Islam as an excuse to gobble up trade routes. Do you think anyone would have given two flips about the Holy Land if the Silk Road didn’t travel right through it? Even today, Jerusalem is a huge tourist attraction, that’s why everyone is fighting over it so visciously.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 11:35 am

You are wrong, the conversation did happen. Not in 1953, but in 1793. It culminated with the Treaty of Tripoli signed in November 4, 1796. At that time, the US government offered an olive branch. Not 1500 years ago. About 200 years ago. And that is not the only example of confrontation. There is a whole history of confrontation. The Islamization of the Byzantine empire (modern day Turkey). The Islamization and subsequent reconquest of Spain, the crusades. The list goes on and on. Over centuries the Western society has evolved from a predominantly Christian society to a secular and enlightened society with a Christian majority. The Islamic society changed little till Western firms discovered oil in those regions.

Franklin May 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm

“The Islamic society changed little *till Western firms discovered oil in those regions.* ”
[highlight my own]

Well, I can’t speak for the generality called “Islamic society” and how each and every individual feels as a member of such, but following your conjunction, then what happened?
It’s implied in Jeffrey Tucker’s final sentence above.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Society is more than just a simple aggregate of the actions of all its members. Like money, it is an emergent phenomena. The emergence stems from interactive complexity. You do not need to understand how every individual in a society acts to understand the society. You only need to understand the framework under which such actions take place. In the US that framework would be US constitution. In Islamic societies it is Shariah law.

What happened after oil was discovered? That is history in the making. Jeffrey has the wrong narrative. It has so many buried presumptions, many of which are outright wrong. The more vocal he is about his opinions on this matter the easier it would be to criticize him on it.

fundamentalist May 2, 2011 at 11:41 am

Thought he CIA takes credit for overthrowing Mossadeq in 1953, two authors claim the CIA and MI6 acted more like Keystone Cops and played almost no role in the event – Abbas Milani in “The Shah” and Amir Taheri in “The Persian Night”. Taheri was an editor of Keyhan when the Shah was overthrown and Milani is Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University.

Both writers provide a great deal of evidence that Mossadeq had made himself a dictator and was trying to overthrow the Shah when Mossadeq’s enemies in the Majlis orchestrated his downfall, not the Shah, who had fled, and not the incompetent CIA.

fundamentalist May 2, 2011 at 11:44 am

PS, the main thrust of Muslim terrorism has been directed at existing regimes in the Middle East. They attacked the US because they saw the US as helping keep those corrupt regimes in office. The overthrow of the Shah and other dictators like Mubarak shows how little help the US actually provided to keep them in power.

Drigan May 2, 2011 at 11:47 am

Usually your posts are very well thought out; I think the latter half of this one was an exception:

The answer to your question “Do you think anyone would have given two flips about the Holy Land if the Silk Road didn’t travel right through it?” is in the question itself: “the Holy Land.”

Christians, Jews and Muslims care a great deal about that land and will potentially fight over it until all three agree to coexist in it peacefully. In the past 50 years, there has been little Christian/Jewish fighting in the Holy Land, so we know both of those two are open to coexistence with members of different faiths.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen little evidence that Islam is capable of coexisting with non-Islamic faiths when it is in a dominant position. Admittedly, I haven’t looked very hard for such evidence, and a similar argument might have been reasonable about Christianity 500 years ago. Perhaps the religion will mature a bit as it approaches 2000 years old? We can certainly hope.

Peace,
Drigan

niku May 3, 2011 at 2:02 am

Drigan: “Unfortunately, I’ve seen little evidence that Islam is capable of coexisting with non-Islamic faiths when it is in a dominant position.”

Check out about the civilization of the Moors in Spain.

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 5:59 am

Tell me about the Moors.

niku May 3, 2011 at 8:01 am

I have not studied the issue properly, but from the bits and pieces I’ve come across it seems that (i)the Moorish civilization was better than any other in Europe at that time, (ii)Jews were much freer under the Islamic rule, than they were in periods before and after. There are even some claims about a “golden age” for Jews in the Moorish civilization.

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm

The Al-Andalus story was not so rosy as it is often portrayed.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/articles_and_books/the_corrosive_hagiography_of_muslim_spain/ :”Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 C.E.:“No…Jew or Christian may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual; on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to accost them with the greeting, ‘Peace be upon you’. In effect, ‘Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning. They are the confederates of Satan’s party; Satan’s confederates will surely be the losers!’ (Qur’an 58:19 [modern Dawood translation]). A DISTINCTIVE SIGN MUST BE IMPOSED UPON THEM IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND THIS WILL BE FOR THEM A FORM OF DISGRACE.”In addition to a small minority of privileged Christian notables, Muslim Spain was populated by tens of thousands of Christian slaves, and humiliated and oppressed Christian dhimmis. The muwallads (neo-converts to Islam) were in nearly perpetual revolt against the Arab immigrants who had claimed large estates for themselves, farmed by Christian serfs or slaves. Expropriations and fiscal extortions ignited the flames of continual rebellion by both muwallads and mozarabs (Christian dhimmis) throughout the Iberian peninsula. Leaders of these rebellions were crucified, and their insurgent followers were put to the sword. These bloody conflicts, which occurred throughout the Hispano-Umayyad emirate until the tenth century, fueled endemic religious hatred. An 828 C.E. letter from Louis the Pious to the Christians of Merida summarized their plight under Abd al-Rahman II, and during the preceeding reign: confiscation of their property, unfair increase of their exacted tribute, removal of their freedom (probably meaning slavery), and oppression by excessive taxes15.In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected a once flourishing Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslim community. At least three thousand Jews perished in an uprising surrounding the 1066 assassination, alone16. The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation- massacre, captivity, and forced conversion- was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors” (i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators17. Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordova with his entire family in 1148, temporarily residing in Fez- disguised as a Muslim- before finding asylum in Fatimid Egypt. Indeed, although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Muslim Spain, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews:”..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they..”18The eminent historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, observed 35 years ago that nineteenth-century “Pro-Islamic” Jews promoted a utopian view of the egalitarian nature of Islamic rule, particularly in Muslim Spain. Not surprisingly, Muslims eventually also picked up on this romantic Jewish myth about Islam, which became a standard part of their own self-image. However, Lewis concludes,”…The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”An accurate assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain, and the contemporary currents responsible for obfuscating that history, can be found in Richard Fletcher’s very engaging “Moorish Spain”. Mr. Fletcher offers these sobering, unassailable observations:”The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes- must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility…Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later)…In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism- assumed rather than demonstrated-foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization). Stir the mix well together and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the western world. Then pour it generously over the truth…in the cultural conditions that prevail in the west today the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour…do wonders for sharpening up its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.”20Finally, even if deemed “tolerant” for Medieval civilization, dhimmitude is completely incompatible with modern notions of equality between individuals, regardless of religious faith. At the dawn of the 21st century, we must insist that Muslims in the West adopt post-Enlightenment societal standards of equality, not “tolerance”, abandoning forever their hagiography of the repressive, discriminatory standards practiced by the classical Maliki jurists of “enlightened” Muslim Spain.”

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:30 pm

Jews and Christians (other faiths) were still second hand citizens or dhimmi. The Moors may be the best example you have, but still there was still a hierarchy.

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Enough with the equivalence to Christianity. Look at the progenitors of both faiths. They could not be more different. The Church, Crusades, Inquisitions, were all in direct contradiction to Christ’s teachings. They were abandoning Christianity as they were calling their evil, just that. Islam? No, we want Islam to abandon it’s Muhammedism. We need it to. It’s not a reformation that’s needed, but an overhaul. You can’t erase history and the history of Muhammed is plain and simple.

newson May 2, 2011 at 6:30 pm
newson May 2, 2011 at 6:52 pm
tlpalmer May 2, 2011 at 10:08 am

So Obama has killed Osama (during his reign, he gets the credit).

Now was Osama the Wicked Witch of the East or the West?

By this I am wondering if a new villain will arise or if we will have a period of Pax Obama?

Please note that I question everything the state states, so this discussion may be on an event that happened sometime in the past or never happened at all. We will never know the truth.

Matt Wing May 2, 2011 at 10:11 am

Terrorism and communism are ideas, you cannot kill an idea by killing people who hold that idea. That is absurd. I think Mr. Tucker is pointing out the bigger problem. That the means do not justify the ends, that you cannot defeat terrorism by declaring war, and that nothing really was accomplished other than killing an old man in a mansion.

9/11 was a great tragedy. And it is a greater tragedy when the majority of Americans take a simple minded approach in understanding who and what was responsible for the tragedy. There is more to the story than, Al Qaeda is evil, hence they commit evil deeds.

Just because there is conflict between two groups, does not mean one is good and the other bad. It’s possible both sides are bad.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 10:36 am

Depending on the ideology, you can severely undermine its adherents by disposing off its vanguards. For example, the death of Mussolini did not end Fascism, but it severely undermined it. The death of Hitler did not end Nazism, but it severely undermines it. Ideologies never die. They are out competed when they become outdated and then they fall into disuse and fade away.

Grant May 2, 2011 at 11:08 am

CATO = statists in sheep’s clothing.

newson May 2, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Ohhh Henry May 2, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Bickering over Bin Laden’s alleged death, almost ten years after the 9/11 attack, seems pointless.

GWB was explicitly warned that OBL was determined to attack the USA, in a report from Condoleeza Rice that specifically mentioned using aircraft and probably targeting New York City and Washington DC. Despite this warning, Bush and his lackeys did absolutely nothing (or rather, Bush the lackey and the other lackeys did nothing). The FAA, NORAD, FBI and other agencies apparently did absolutely nothing to prepare themselves for the attack which was described in the warning. The FAA didn’t strengthen the security of airports and cockpits. Nor did the FAA warn its air traffic controllers to be extra vigilant, evidently, because of the extremely slow reaction by ATC to the hijacked planes going off course, turning off transponders and failing to reply to radio messages. NORAD and the US Air Force were not ready, obviously. The FBI apparently ignored repeated tipoffs about the hijackers, a couple of times from flight schools and once from the actor James Woods who apparently witnessed a dress rehearsal take place on a transcontinental flight. The department of immigration apparently did nothing to scrutinize Middle Eastern visitors, or track down and deport illegals or people overstaying visas. To say nothing of the tipoffs about the attacks allegedly received from foreign agencies.

The fact that there was never a judicial case made against OBL, no wanted poster, no indictment, no grand jury, etc. is highly suggestive. This is probably not a sign that OBL was not involved in 9/11, but indicates that the evidence against him cannot be revealed. Why not? Because the evidence almost certainly dates from before 9/11. Bush allegedly had no information that an attack by OBL was imminent. But within 1 day of the attack he had enough evidence in his hands to announce to the world that OBL was responsible for the attack. How can this be? You have the world’s largest and best-equipped security and police agencies working for you, they are unable to turn up any signs that a major terrorist attack is imminent – but somehow within 24 hours of the attack (when the actual planners would have obviously gone to ground and been out of contact with the world) they receive information pointing reliably and unambiguously to OBL? How can the incriminating data (signals intelligence, informers, etc.), which were suddenly available on 9/12 not have been available beforehand? No indictment means not having to ever reveal what they knew about OBL, and when they knew it.

Another revealing moment was documented on a website called “an interesting day”. Among other questions, it asks – if 9/11 was such a tremendous surprise and its details were not known until afterward, then why was Bush lollygagging for so long in the school in Florida? If at least 4 planes were out of control and careening around flying into major US targets, and he had no idea what was happening, and nobody knew how many planes would be hijacked, then why would the president sit on his azz, completely unprotected from air attack, in a public school on a well publicized junket? Even if the president was a moron as some allege, he was not surrounded by 100% moron helpers and security teams. And I doubt very much that he is that dumb.

And people think that America should be “celebrating” the fact that it took 10 years to track down and kill some guy that they should have prevented from doing any major harm in the first place. I wouldn’t defend OBL or any Middle Eastern government or would-be government. They can all go to hell. But anyone who thinks that the security problem in America is due to “Islamic Extremists” is just not paying attention.

Dagnytg May 2, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Well, one things for sure…we’ve made a martyr out of him for future generations to emulate.

We’re all safer now.

In the mean time, I wonder who will be the next witch for our gov’t to hunt ?

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm

There is no martyrs here except the American soldiers fighting the war. The future generations are going to think differently and think about different things, their outlook will change. All because Osama Bin Laden and the likes are not there to influence them.

Dan May 2, 2011 at 2:10 pm

You might be simply mixing verb tenses, but how is someone a martyr and alive at the same time? (I guess it depends on which definition you are using, but it’s not as if confusion doesn’t abound in your posts regarding American foreign policy.)

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm

How about for clarification is say ‘There is no martyrs here except the American soldiers that died fighting the war.’ But that won’t be enough. Because there are NATO troops and Afghan soldiers and police and ordinary people. But Osama Bin Laden is certainly not a martyr. And when this is over, no one would call him that.

newson May 2, 2011 at 10:51 pm

was it obl or the wicked witch(es) of the west that produced these effects (ff to 3:20)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJEHI1izVM

Stephan Kinsella May 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm

The Cato guy Jeff links to says:

“All Americans celebrate the news that we have been waiting to hear for over nine and a half years: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The operation that resulted in his demise is a credit to the prowess and professionalism of the men and women in our military, and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All Americans — and the world — owe them a huge debt of gratitude.”

Wow. Cato says the WORLD (much less US citizens) owe the US military and CIA and NSA …. a huge debt of gratitude? Well, this ain’t Rothbardian “do you hate the state” thinking, I tell you what.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Osama Bin Laden was the vanguard of a global insurgency, so I agree, the world owes a debt of gratitude to those that did him in and those that facilitated it. It is possible that in an alternate reality, non-state actors would have done a far more effective job of getting to him, but this is what really happened. To appreciate the good work they did is not an endorsement of statism any more than the appreciation of the Soviet Space program is an endorsement of Communism.

Chrispy May 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm

I sometimes think it’s a bit silly and counterproductive when for example, Lew Rockwell or the Mises Institute criticizes the Cato people. After all, even if they’re not anarchists, they generally at least lean in the correct direction of reducing government. But that post was very disappointing to read and I can understand the criticism.

Martin OB May 2, 2011 at 6:30 pm

As you may know, quite a few important people on the Mises institute have an axe to grind with Cato. There’s a silly feud no one should care about, IMO. Here’s LRC’s version:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/24658.html

I don’t know what the Cato people’s version may be.

Yes, there are also differences of ideology and of approach, but hey, they are almost the same compared with mainstream media and think tanks.

Jim P. May 3, 2011 at 9:44 am

I don’t see how simply being at Cato places you beyond criticism. Are you suggesting that it is not appropriate to criticize Cato, especially when the Cato Institute’s stand is found totally outside of anything remotely libertarian? Especially when a prominent, principled stand is needed the most? Do they need a hug?

Anyway, not everybody at Cato feels the same way on every issue. There are some writers at Cato that are little more than moderate neo-cons, while others are consistently libertarian. Overall I’ve found Cato by far more helpful in the cause of human liberty than not. But that doesn’t mean keep mum while they lick the boot.

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Well, there must be some middle ground between a hug and a stab. For instance, ignore them. I happen to agree with them to some extent on this particular issue (which makes me a statist fascist objectivist minarchist neocon), but even if I didn’t, they were just repeating what pretty much everyone in the media said, so why focus on them. This looks like Judean People’s Front Vs People’s Front of Judea.

niku May 2, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Hey, you, didn’t you hear that “all Americans celebrate”? Take out your gun now and fire shots in the air chanting “USA, USA”.

newson May 3, 2011 at 12:32 am

indeed, rothbard would have suspected 9/11 was a false flag from the get-go.

newson May 3, 2011 at 1:02 am

…but he would have appreciated the theatricality of it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VnZ-BMR3s

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm

The known facts about 9-11:

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/9-11

The rest is speculation.

Ned Netterville May 2, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Good show, Jeff. I doubt if there is anything of value to be learned from the never-ending wars and conflict between Christians and Muslims, but it certainly seems to me that killing Osama bin Laden or celebrating his death are acts contrary to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, particularly in the principles of forgiveness and nonviolence he preached during his magnificent Sermon on the Mount. Some excerpts:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment…You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also… \If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles…You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors [e.g., IRS agents] doing that?” Later, at the very moment when soldiers of the Roman state were crucifying him he put those principles into practice, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

I doubt if anyone in the capacity of head of state or with the power to direct armies or agents with the “authority” to kill has ever attempted to put such principles into practice in the two thousand years since Jesus addressed his followers atop a hill in Galilee. Indeed, from the point of view of Nation-States such advice must seems foolhardy if not suicidal. And there have been almost continual wars between nations ever since. I see these matters as related, and serve as another good reason for preferring individualism to statism.

RFN May 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm

I’ll keep my faith seperate from my state, thank you very much. Another conflation between Islam and Christianity, I see. Jesus was very careful to stay away from politics/governance, while Mohammed blended it all together. Should we be at war rigth now in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia? Of course not. All three are mistakes of the worst kind. However, please don’t act as if this is a Christian versus a Muslim thing.

Ned Netterville May 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm

RFN > “Jesus was very careful to stay away from politics/governance, while Mohammed blended it all together.” I disagree. Are you aware that the words tax(es) and tax collector(s) appear 32 times in the three synoptic gospels? If taxes are political, Jesus was anything but apolitical. He was, I am convinced by the Gospels, anti-statist.
RFN > “please don’t act as if this is a Christian versus a Muslim thing.” Please go back and read what I wrote. Other posts on this thread have argued Christian vs. Muslim and vice versa. I was just trying to point out that I thought there was little to be learned from such conflicts past or present.
RFN <"I’ll keep my faith seperate from my state, thank you very much." Good luck with that, but if you were, like me, a disciple of Jesus you would find the State ceaselessly interfering with and endeavoring to subvert the principles Jesus prescribed. Taxes and tax collectors, with which and with whom Jesus exhibited profound concern, are anathema to the principles Jesus preached. How, for example, can a follower of Jesus pursue his principle of non-aggression if he is required by the State and its tax-collecting agents to support with the fruits of his or her labors the State in the slaughter of human lives by his agents in the military? That is but one example, but if you look carefully at the conduct of agents of the State, I am confident you will be able to find many other such conflicting principles.

Andrew Cain May 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm

What have we learned today? I fear that it is nothing good. We cheer death over the echoes of our national name, we desire the parading of the corpses of those who have slighted our national honor, and we grow jubilant over the seeking of justice for national pride. We have been re-barbarized to paraphrase Herbert Spender. The killing will not end nor will the chanting for “blood” and “victory.” The dormant militant values have once again asserted themselves onto the people of the U.S. just like they had during previous wars. We have learned nothing of value and will continue to learn nothing of value while such barbaric natures remain at the forefront and peace, intellectualism and diplomacy remain in the background.

‘[T]he reason why liberty, of which we Americans talk so much, is a good thing is that it means leaving people to live out their own lives in their own way, while we do the same. If we believe in liberty, as an American principle, why do we not stand by it? Why are we going to throw it away to enter upon a Spanish policy of dominion and regulation? … [T]his scheme of a republic which our fathers formed was a glorious dream which demands more than a word of respect and affection before it passes away. … Their idea was that they would never allow any of the social and political abuses of the old world to grow up here. … There were to be no armies except a militia, which would have no functions but those of police. They would have no court and no pomp; no orders, or ribbons, or decorations, or titles. They would have no public debt. … There was to be no grand diplomacy, because they intended to mind their own business and not be involved in any of the intrigues to which European statesmen were accustomed. There was to be no balance of power and no “reason of state” to cost the life and happiness of citizens. … Our fathers would have an economical government, even if grand people called it a parsimonious one, and taxes should be no greater than were absolutely necessary to pay for such a government. The citizen was to keep all the rest of his earnings and use them as he thought best for the happiness of himself and his family; he was, above all, to be insured peace and quiet while he pursued his honest industry and obeyed the laws. No adventurous policies of conquest or ambition … would ever be undertaken by a free democratic republic. Therefore the citizen here would never be forced to leave his family or to give his sons to shed blood for glory and to leave widows and orphans in misery for nothing. … It is by virtue of these ideals that we have been “isolated,” isolated in a position which the other nations of the earth have observed in silent envy; and yet there are people who are boasting of their patriotism, because they say that we have taken our place now amongst the nations of the earth by virtue of this war.’ – William Graham Sumner

Drigan May 3, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Paragraphs and white space encourage reading. Personally, I gave up on this one. :(

Dither May 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Abhilash Nambiar,

On the very day the UN announced its no-fly zone over Libya for the stated purpose of protecting civilians, Obama authorized a predator drone bombing inside of Pakistan that killed 40 civilians. Just a few days ago, NATO bombs killed Gaddafi’s son and three little grandchildren. This, in flagrant contradiction of NATO’s pronouncements both before and after the bombings that it is not trying to assassinate Gaddafi.

These killings, and these lies, are not isolated incidents.

You seem to believe that the U.S. holds the moral high ground over men like Bin Laden and Gaddafi. Tell that to a mother whose child was pulverized by an American bomb. There are many such mothers, and fathers.

Obama called the killing of Bin Laden “justice.” What do you think justice would look like for the loved ones of America’s many victims?

What irks me is that, for the proponents of “American exceptionalism,” these people might as well not even exist. They certainly don’t have any standing to demand justice for the crimes committed against them by the American state.

Let me guess, the deaths of all those people that our government calls “collateral damage” are really the fault of America’s enemies, right? If only everyone would just follow our orders, then we wouldn’t have to kill anyone.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 5:04 pm

I most certainly believe that the US government does have the moral high ground when it comes to men like Bin Laden and Gaddafi. I am very comfortable in saying that. They have committed atrocious acts that even you will never defend. The orders they need to follow are the orders to march into the gallows.

If innocent bystanders are killed when attempting to take them down, it is only because these men cowards that they are hide among the innocent after committing their atrocities. They are responsible for those deaths, not the American soldiers that are trying to take them down. In fact they take measures to minimize precisely that kind of damage. Something these opponents do not care to and will not care to do.

You ought to be ashamed. In fact I would go one step further, people like you are part of the problem. You make the atrocities of Bin Laden and Gaddafi excusable by criticizing people who go after them. By making people hesitant to administer justice, you facilitate injustice. You seem to have no capacity to distinguish between the real victims of Bin Laden and Gaddafi, as opposed to the accidental victims of the people who tried to bring them down.

And I think owe me an apology. I do not expect it.

Dither May 2, 2011 at 6:44 pm

You have justified the killing of innocents on the grounds that “the ends justify the means.” I think it is you who should be ashamed. Would you feel differently if it were your family blown to pieces by a predator drone trying to kill a “terrorist”? How easy it is to accept this evil calculus when it is others who bear the burden.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm

I have justified the killing of no innocent person. But I have given a clear explanation of how you do just that. You are the one accepting evil because others bear the burden. The evils are named, Muhammar Gaddafi and Osama Bin Laden. And you have not been victimized by them.

You are right, I would react differently if I was confronted with a personal tragedy. Under such circumstances people are too overwhelmed by emotion to think straight, which is why it is a good idea if there are others around to help them. And who is responsible for this evil? The devils that hide among the innocent, not the people who hunt them down. I will now accuse once again of making the world hospitable for such devils. I want everyone who reads this thread to know I feel that way about you and Dan.

Dither May 2, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Who are the monsters, again?

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Who is the monster? Saddam Hussein of course. Is there any doubt that he is the monster? A shadow of a doubt?

Inaction would leave him with power and resources. Then he would make all his wasteful wars and the likes of you would blame the US government for allowing ‘a known tyrant’ to operate with impunity. You won’t be able to count the dead children then because independent agencies that count such things won’t be allowed to operate. Saddam like any other dictator would allow them to operate only to his advantage.

If you put sanctions you cripple his capacity to make war and then he cripples his own people to maintain his flamboyant lifestyle. Then a seemingly paradoxical truth emerges, where violations of human rights are heard where laws against such violations are strictly enforced. That makes Madeleine Albright look bad even though Saddam is the real monster.

Madeleine Albright is right. It is a hard choice. But you take the easy way out because you can. Just criticize Madeleine Albright. No thinking required.

Dan May 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm

Mr. A.- You sound like a statist troll and are making a blithering idiot of yourself. Please stop your bloodthirsty violence mongering.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm

Right, you can make such hollow accusations against me. Of course I won’t hear you make such criticisms against Osama Bin Laden or Gaddafi. They may really kill you. Now I am no longer judging the quality of my comment by the response. Rather I am judging the quality of the responder.

Dan May 2, 2011 at 7:03 pm

Well said.

William Rosen May 2, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Can we leave AFGHANISTAN now?

Tony Fernandez May 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm

I found it strange that people were singing and cheering about a death. I guess I’m still weighing out my reaction, but joy was not something that came to mind. Tu ne cede malis.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Joy was not my reaction either, but I see no need to criticize people who where in such a mood.

Beau May 2, 2011 at 4:30 pm

So you guys would rather him be alive?

Yeah 10 years and all the BS in between is a long time coming but gotta be glad it’s been done.

Shay May 3, 2011 at 8:56 am

False dichotomy. How about him going on trial for his crimes?

K. Chris C. May 2, 2011 at 5:38 pm

Oh! Oh! What Will They Do Now Without Their Goldstein?!

I vote for a new reality TV show called Name the New Mortal Enemy of the US!

We’ll have Paula Abdul, Steve Tyler, and Simon.

They can sit around and muse and clatter on all the potentials–”You were wonderfully scary, but you had an edge of humanity to you and that just won’t do.”

Adc May 2, 2011 at 6:15 pm

May I suggest to my fellow friendly Mises readers, grabbing a copy of Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower, if you haven’t already?

Wherever you stand on the War on Terror, Al Queda, US foreign policy, etc, I recommend it as an essential history of Bin Laden & Al Queda, the arrise of Wahhabism, US and the world’s involvement, etc, to add to your perspective.

I only mention this because, while I understand the sentiment of, “They are terrorists, because we are occupiers,” I feel this is a very simplistic view of the whole picture. I think there are far better rationales for opposing, or supporting aspects of counter-terrorism then: It’s really all our own fault.

That said, please don’t mistake this for some ‘no questions asked’, pro-war, “USA! USA! Everything we do is 100% justified!!!1!eleventy!” sort of comment. I just found this to be a great resource, regardless of which side you come from, and thought it would be a helpful addition and history for anyone trying to sort out their own views.

Also seemingly applicable, Ayn Rand on Force:

“I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer’s wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.”

-John Galt’s Speech: Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Anyways, just my thoughts for the day to toss into the ring.
-Adc

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Thank you. You of all people have come out with the most level headed and sensible comment on this forum. Not Jeffery who made the initial entry, certainly not those who support him, not even me who criticized him and definitely not the simpletons who agree with me. Some good has come from it.

Martin OB May 2, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Yes, thank you for the abuse. It’s so refreshing to be insulted for agreeing with someone, for a change.

newson May 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm

the perps are still at large in the usa. muslims are the patsies.

Jim P. May 2, 2011 at 7:41 pm

The sentiment of “They are terrorists, because we are occupiers” is simplistic indeed, but only because of the way that you simplified it and stuck it into the discussion. You’re making an assumption as to how people here generally think, and I believe it is incorrect and oversimplified.

I think the reason there is little revelry here is because the aggrandizement of Bin Laden’s supposed death is essentially governmental and, thus, war machine, aggrandizement. Also, there is probably little revelry here because a multi-trillion dollar manhunt-turned-occupation with a bonus unrelated war in Iraq, is not really a rational response to a criminal act. It only serves political purposes, not justice, and certainly not security. This act of killing does not protect us and does not give us any justice, just as the last ten years of war and waste have not. If there is a legitimate purpose to government at all, it is certainly not to satisfy a desire for vengeance at all cost.

I don’t think your Rand quote is applicable either, since Bin Laden’s destruction was not merely a kill-or-be-killed personal defense situation – instead it was all of us US citizens involuntarily destroyed in some way, as well as countless others in other countries in a much more literal way. You can’t really compare US v. Bin Laden with a man pulling a gun on another man at the ATM. You can’t really compare it with a government bombing its here-today-gone-tomorrow enemies, both foreign and domestic (ie, us, as in our great loss of liberty), into submission. That quote doesn’t equate to some bizarre “governmental right” to defend a vague population.

What is the difference between yesterday and today? Nothing except that the government just got a bit more cred from the Proles.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 7:58 pm

The simplistic explanation is not his invention. It is the one trumpeted by Ron Paul and the Mises Institute. Your lack of understanding comes because you are comparing a simple as robbing of an ATM with the sophisticated organized criminal network of Osama Bin Laden. The analogy cannot hold. There is nothing in common between the two, except that they are crimes.

You and your friends here are the spoilt children of liberty. Extremely sensitive to the minor infringements of liberty that is committed by the US government, a government founded to uphold the principles of liberty, while turing a blind eye to the major violations of liberty committed by the opponents of the same government.

What is the difference between yesterday and today? The enemies of liberty has gotten that much weaker. Their morale that much lowered. The morale of the soldiers of liberty has been enhanced by that much and the torch of liberty has a better chance of shining in far away lands that have remained in darkness. The common people have no problem recognizing those achievements. But they cannot be quantified, so they are easy to dismiss.

Jim P. May 2, 2011 at 8:06 pm

“You and your friends here are the spoilt children of liberty. Extremely sensitive to the minor infringements of liberty that is committed by the US government, a government founded to uphold the principles of liberty, while turing a blind eye to the major violations of liberty committed by the opponents of the same government.”

Sorry detergent guy, I just wanted to put this out here again for general mocking, and amusement purposes. Pure gold. Do you work nights for the CIA? My brain feels somehow … cleaner!

Also hilariously buffoonish:

“The enemies of liberty has gotten that much weaker. Their morale that much lowered. The morale of the soldiers of liberty has been enhanced by that much and the torch of liberty has a better chance of shining in far away lands that have remained in darkness.”

So much for that “the other, of course, involves orcs” quote. You just outdid it. Spectacularly stupid. QUICK – WHAT CHANNEL IS CNN ON!!!!?

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm

I am putting it out there for people to read. If you spread it even with the spirit of mockery, I do not mind. That is the way you seem to me. I say it as I see it.

Drigan May 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm

@Abhilash Nambiar
Settle it down a bit.

I have trouble telling which Jim is which, but I *think* this Jim tends to be pretty reasonable, and wasn’t intending his first comment as a personal attack. You escalated it to that level by saying “spoilt children of liberty.” Your comment was over the top; Jim didn’t say anything that was particularly incorrect or insulting in his first comment, although I think he was substantially incorrect to say that the Rand quote wasn’t applicable.

In general, I think you are very reasonable, but you seem to be more aware of evil than those of us in the US, and because of that, you seem to be more annoyed by sins of omission than most here. Name calling isn’t going to help anyone, but giving more examples of the evil you face might help.

Adc May 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Wow, thank you Abhilash. A very kind compliment.

Zorg May 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm

Let’s suppose it was a private bounty hunter who claimed to have found and killed Osama. He goes to the US gov’t to collect the $25 million bounty. They ask what he did with the body. He replies that he immediately buried it at sea in order to give Osama a proper burial. But he assures everyone that he did indeed do a DNA test and it came out positive. Does he get the bounty? Does the press ask questions? Is there an investigation?

When I gauge my own reaction to that hypothetical situation, I try to treat the state in exactly the same way. So as far as I’m concerned, I know absolutely nothing about what happened here. I only know that a claim has been made with no convincing evidence to support it.

And as for the dancing in the streets and the whole media spectacle, yes, I think it’s disgusting and pointless.

Stefano May 2, 2011 at 8:19 pm

How do you possibly know that bin Laden was as much a “symbol” to them as he was a bogeyman to us? And who, exactly, are these “soldiers of liberty?”

Liberty dies in small increments, not large ones. We “spoilt children” have seen it wash away over the last ten years, and are wise enough to recognize that no one benefits, and many are potentially harmed, by this execution. In fact, even the assertion of the president’s right to assassinate is a further erosion of liberty and the rule of law. But for you hawks there is no downside to violence, even if it is at the cost of human liberty and dignity.

Abhilash Nambiar May 2, 2011 at 9:32 pm

It is not some rare unknown fact. It is common knowledge that Bin Landen was one of the vanguards of that movement. I will be deliberately vague on who the soldiers of liberty are. You can use your own understanding to recognize them. Contrary to your perception, the state of liberty has improved, not degenerated over the centuries. In the past there was more liberty than before, but only with restricted boundaries, a few free states in the US and in England perhaps and it was not enduring. . Today the idea is taking over the world. There are no boundaries to liberty anymore and its scope has broadened to include all people, in a manner that transcendes ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic barriers as it should. Clearly lot of work remains to be done. But things are happening faster than ever before.

There is a downside to violence and there is value to human liberty and dignity. That is why Osama Bin Laden had to die. To preserve liberty, its enemies have to be properly dealt with. Otherwise it is just words on paper. I cannot see how anyone can with a straight face, make an argument for human dignity while criticizing those that killed Bin Laden.

Dave Albin May 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm

I don’t think anyone pointed this out in the comments. We have a half-a-trillion (at least) dollar a year military force, full of entitlement-minded volunteers, many of whom fill out forms or perform other relatively-meaningless tasks throughout their entire careers, and yet, a small number of well-trained soldiers, in a few helicopters, took down the “mastermind of 9/11″ half way around the world. If we didn’t run police states around the world, attempting to prop up nations for our “national interests”, would we need even 1% of our current military (assuming we need the state for “defense” at all, of course)? Wouldn’t several small, well-trainined private militias do just as well?

newson May 3, 2011 at 12:41 am

when things looked grim in the clinton years of demilitarization, the pentagon had to cast around for bad guys. if no crises were available, then diy.

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 3:33 am

There’s some truth to that, but special forces don’t operate in a vacuum. They act on intelligence gathered from informants on the terrain and from (GITMO) prisoners. Yes, I can think of a number of ways to make the effort much cheaper, but it’s not so simple as removing everyone not directly involved in the actual operation. You might as well count the number of bullets it took to kill OBL and declare that the rest are wasted resources.

Terrorists should not feel safe anywhere in the world, and sometimes it takes a war to destroy a terrorist sanctuary.

Dave Albin May 3, 2011 at 7:08 am

I’m also assuming we live in a world with free trade and where we don’t intervene in others’ affairs. Those you trade with will gladly help you find the trouble makers. You wouldn’t need the diplomatic connections, networks, etc., because they would all arise naturally.

Martin OB May 3, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Good, but I think you are assuming quite a bit. In the world as we know it, most people don’t believe in free trade, too many don’t believe in free anything, and their governments reflect their views. They prefer world domination over peaceful cooperation any day of the week, and they will go for it if given half a chance. I’m all for peaceful trade and cooperation with civilized countries, but some just aren’t so at present. We have to work with what we’ve got.

Dave Albin May 3, 2011 at 8:09 pm

True. However, I’ll still stick to what I said – a bunch of small, well-trained militias can do what our goliath military-industry complex can do now, probably for less than 1% of the cost. How much did the 9/11 highjackers spend? Very little, and yet, they were able to kill thousands of people, take down airliners into buildings that then crumbled to the ground, and set the USA on a course of reckless spending, warmaking around the world, and liberty destruction. Contrast this to what our monster defense department accomplishes, relatively speaking, of course. We spend trillions and get what?

Martin OB May 4, 2011 at 3:08 am

Well, unfortunately, indiscriminate violence is much cheaper than any attempt at justice and security. If America wanted to respond in kind to 9-11, it could have nuked Mecca on Ramadan, along with Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for a tiny fraction of the cost.

newson May 9, 2011 at 6:26 pm

strange that “suiciders” would make off with the gold.
http://911review.com/motive/gold.html

Gil May 3, 2011 at 3:41 am

Why so surprised? A few well-placed molotov cocktails will bring down a large house. It’s way to cheaper to destroy than build and very hard to capture perpetrators who have no intention of being found.

Sandre May 3, 2011 at 8:53 am

Thanks Abhilash for bringing logic & reason into these discussions. I’m a fellow Malayali libertarian. Not that I agree with everything you said, but you are not just arguing because you are blinded by ideology.

Abhilash Nambiar May 3, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Only my devotee can agree with everything that I say.

Drigan May 3, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Agreed. There were definitely a few things I disagreed with, but at least it was all reasonable.

Ned Netterville May 3, 2011 at 5:14 pm

I caught President Obama’s speech announcing the execution of OBL. In it he said, “This (referring to the entire operation that laid Bin Laden in his watery grave) shows that America can do anything when it sets its mind to it.” or words to that effect. I suppose this explains why he seems to think that a nation can spend its way to prosperity even if the spending money is created by inflation or extorted from productive people. Such hubris has brought down other empires.

niku May 4, 2011 at 7:08 am

@Abhilash:

“Who is the monster? Saddam Hussein of course. Is there any doubt that he is the monster? A shadow of a doubt?

Madeleine Albright is right. It is a hard choice. But you take the easy way out because you can. Just criticize Madeleine Albright. No thinking required.”

If you really think that death of 1 million children is justified so that you can get rid of 1 (human) “monster”, the common grounds for a discussion is missing.

Abhilash Nambiar May 4, 2011 at 7:52 am

I never said that. Rather my point was that this one man was responsible for the death of 1 million children and so had to be dealt with.

niku May 4, 2011 at 10:28 pm

From the same comment:

… the likes of you would blame the US government for allowing ‘a known tyrant’ to operate with impunity.

Is the U.S. government God’s Avenging Angel? Why should it be blamed for the actions of some unrelated 3rd party? Or do you mean the Saudi royal family?

Abhilash Nambiar May 4, 2011 at 10:35 pm

Taken out of context, that sentence is stripped of meaning. I won’t respond to mined quotes of mine.

niku May 4, 2011 at 10:20 pm

@Abhilash:

There are Good Guys and Bad Guys. Anything which the Good Guys do is good, and anything which the Bad Guys do is bad. Therefore, killing tens of thousands Afgani civilians is good, and killing three thousands American civilians is bad. We have to defeat the latest Bad Guys at any cost. So, if 1 Bad Guy (Saddam Hussein) can be killed, it is good, even if it means causing the death of 1 million children.

I wonder how Saddam Hussein threatened you. Could your hatred for him have something to do with the fact that he was declared an enemy by the U.S. government? Don’t you hate Kim Jong-iI? And didn’t Gaddafi recently turn into an Enemy of Liberty Worldwide overnight (years after giving his WMD program; after cooperating with U.S. over Al Quida.)?

The U.S. government is Liberty personified, so nothing those humans do can be wrong.

Another way to look at it is this: suppose 30,000 people died in the course of hunting one man. For you, 29,999, 30,000 and 30,001 deaths are equally good. That is ipso facto; by definition, the Good Guys cannot be wrong!

Abhilash Nambiar May 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm

You are asking me to defend claims I did not make. I shall not.

But there is one thing I would like to note.

There are Good Guys and Bad Guys. Anything which the Good Guys do is good, and anything which the Bad Guys do is bad.

It is precisely this sort of thinking that leads to the criticism of those that criticize the killers of Bin Laden. The US government is the bad guy. So anything the Bad guys do is bad. Killing Osama is bad. Naturally it has to be criticized. But the US government is bad even if it did not. Then it would be bad for not capturing him. If tried in court and convicted quickly, then for giving him a show trail. If convicted after a lengthy trial, for bureaucratic red tape. They are the damned.

Of course anyone who fights the bad guys become the good guy. I am forced to deduce my that reasoning that Bin Laden is the good guy!! He is innocent shouts the anti-statist because no trail was conducted to convict him. The anti-statist seems more sympathetic to Osama than to liberty, even if Osama stood completely against liberty.

The US government is not liberty personified. The claim is absurd. The US government is not even a person. The US government derives its legitimacy by upholding liberty. That does not mean the US government always does that. That does not even mean that others cannot do the same.

niku May 5, 2011 at 2:45 am

I welcome the death of bin Laden, but seeing the cost of the campaign over the years, I see no reason to celebrate. On the top of it, it was arguably counter-productive:

I was in the Middle East in the days after 9/11. And we had garnered the empathy of not only most of the world, but the Muslim world who were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. And we had major religious figures like Sheikh Tantawy, the head of al-Azhar – who died recently – who after the attacks of 9/11 not only denounced them as a crime against humanity, which they were, but denounced Osama bin Laden as a fraud … someone who had no right to issue fatwas or religious edicts, no religious legitimacy, no religious training. And the tragedy was that if we had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy, we would be far safer and more secure today than we are.Chris Hedges

He is innocent, shouts the anti-statist, because no trail was conducted to convict him. The anti-statist seems more sympathetic to Osama than to liberty, even if Osama stood completely against liberty.

That is because potency of the law is tested (and formed) only in unpopular cases. If public fury and “obviousness” can rightly condemn a man, the persecution of Jews by Nazis was right. Those protesting the assassination are not shedding tears for OBL, they are shedding tears for the law. (Self-defence, assassination in a war, etc are probably fine, but some reports say that Bin Laden was not armed.)

Abhilash Nambiar May 5, 2011 at 8:33 am

That is because potency of the law is tested (and formed) only in unpopular cases. Those protesting the assassination are not shedding tears for OBL, they are shedding tears for the law.

These are the laws enacted by a classical liberal state. The laws have limits because classical liberalism has flaws. People like Osama thrive on flaws of classical liberalism and the limits of its law. Which is why agents of such a state feel compelled to act outside of its legal framework in order to get him. The limits of classical liberal state was not the product of sinister human action or design. It merely reflects the limitation in human understanding of the time when the laws where passed. The actions of Osama and his group are sinister.

I find nothing to cry over. Certainly not Osama Bin Laden. And not the flawed laws that allowed him to operate so long with impunity. If Obama acted outside the scope of such flawed laws and protected the liberty of one and all, then he has paid his homage to the principles of liberty.

niku May 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm

Please read “1 million” in the above comment as “half a million”.

Ramesh May 6, 2011 at 12:27 am

History here is limited to events occurring past Y2K. No one seems to remember anymore on how Taliban was previously an ally of USA undoing Brezhnev’s invasion of Afghanistan and having a Soviet supported President there, like we have a US supported Karzai now, who was beheaded by the Taliban. Pakistan has always supported and partnering the US in advancing it’s interests in the region while it’s neighbors like India and Afghanistan depended on support from the Soviet Union. Taliban is like a ladder that was no longer required when the goal of achieving the exit of Russians from Afghanistan was realized.

niku June 25, 2011 at 12:28 am
niku June 25, 2011 at 12:31 am

The hyperlink was likely eaten by the Internet Overlord. So here it is again:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/yyTryShooting.shtml

Granada property August 27, 2011 at 11:42 pm

If you are seeking to find houses for rent, houses for sale, flats for rent and anything else property related in the Spain area. YespanYa Property is your number one online website if you are searching for houses for sale, you can search by an array of dimensions including bedrooms and property type, you can also narrow your search down to price or amenities. On the other hand if you are looking to sell your house or flat in Spain, then there is no better place to list it then YespanYa Property, put your ad in front of millions of local and national buyers.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: