2001 do-over: evil Serbian warlords again on TV
By Thoreau
Greenwald wants to know why Ratko Mladic can be tried in a court of law, while Bin Laden gets shot in the head and dumped in the ocean. I will cite the precedent of Justice Scalia, who established the “What would Jack Bauer do?” test as an important element of jurisprudence. Jack Bauer has seen what happens when you capture a Serbian warlord instead of killing him: The guy sits in a secret Class 3 detention facility, plotting revenge and finally lashing out in a bloody rampage that begins with the explosion of a passenger plane, kills dozens of agents and civilians in a day-long battle, and culminates in the death of an agent’s wife.
It depresses me that as we redo 2001 we are failing to learn lessons that were made plain to us in the first round of 24. I can only assume that Mladic will soon be freed from prison by his two sons, one of them a meticulous schemer and the other a suave, charming assassin who is sleeping with an aid to the politician who authorized the operation.
Comment by Kolohe —
May 27, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
Well, for one, the conventional wisdom was that Mladic was hiding the plain sight in Serbia. That the *Serbians* arrested him show their government is at a significantly different place than Pakistan’s is.
One can’t accuse Greenwald of being a hack, but I’m finding he can be an incredible sophist most of the time.
Comment by Happy Jack —
May 27, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
Well, for one, the conventional wisdom was that Mladic was hiding the plain sight in Serbia. That the *Serbians* arrested him show their government is at a significantly different place than Pakistan’s is.
I wonder if EU membership would be enough of a bribe for Pakistan. Is it worth more than the bucks the US throws their way?
Comment by Wonks Anonymous —
May 27, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
I’m a fan of Greenwald, but Kolohe is right in this case. If Pakistan had arrested bin Laden, we wouldn’t have sent in the SEALs. But since he was being concealed by the Pakistani government, that limited our options. Also, Greenwald dismisses the state of war between the U.S and bin Laden (which he himself had declared) as mere “legalism”. No, it’s pretty damn relevant to the difference between him and the serb.
Comment by the innominate one —
May 27, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
I think Greenwald’s analysis of the reporting of others, and also including the government’s own ever changing statements about the raid of bin Laden’s compound demonstrates that shooting bin Laden was likely not necessary and that he could have been arrested. Sure, Pakistan seemingly was covering for him, and the raid was probably necessary to get him, but the two examples are still useful as a point of comparison, despite the differences.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 27, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
First, I agree with TIO that it appears that arresting OBL was never really in the cards.
Second, in regard to the state of war, the resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 is indeed relevant. However, Bin Laden’s own proclamations are not terribly relevant. What if some radical activist here in the US proclaims in some speech that he considers himself to be “at war” with a racist government, or something? Does this mean that the cops now have carte blanche to shoot him if they ever see him on the street?
Comment by JohnTh —
May 27, 2011 @ 4:59 pm
In reply to Thoreau’s point in #5: if there was a US radical made clear that all government agents were legitimate targets and boasted of his involvement in the deaths of a number of them then I one could understand a cop who had a extremely nervous trigger finger when going in for an arrest. To the extent that I doubt much blame could really attach to police opening fire at the slightest hint of a suspicious movement. People seem to be killed weekly in police shootings that are much less defensible
Comment by b-psycho —
May 27, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
I dunno. I’m kind of of the mind that if — IF!! — the U.S. is going to be all “fuck your sovereignty!” the least they could do is 1) kill someone that is a legit target & 2) leave alone the rest of the population as much as possible. As such, I’m nowhere near choked up about the Bin Laden hit like others that are usually on my side would be; rather, I see it as the exception that proves the rule. The U.S. likes to portray every action it takes as being that targeted and arguable, when it virtually never is.
Comment by the innominate one —
May 28, 2011 @ 3:59 am
Bit of a non sequitur there.
Couldn’t one equally well say if the U.S. is going to be all “fuck your sovereignty!” the least they could do is capture someone that is a legit target, charge him in a fair trial in a neutral tribunal and present evidence.
I’m not broken up about his death per se, but there was a lot of opportunity lost. Exposure of the elements of Pakistan’s government who are collaborating with al Queda, e.g. Also, restoring our image by living up to ideals we give a lot of lip service to.
Nah, fuck that pre 9/11 bullshit, easier to just shoot him and dump his corpse in the ocean.
Comment by lukas —
May 28, 2011 @ 8:21 am
Well, let’s not forget that the Serbians arrested him after dragging their feet for more than a decade.
But then, Mladic only killed Muslims and other Balkan people.
Comment by Kolohe —
May 28, 2011 @ 10:58 am
Well, let’s not forget that the Serbians arrested him after dragging their feet for more than a decade.
And we haven’t been giving billions of dollars to Serbia either. Paksitan’s been dragging their feet for at least as long, and worse playing a double game. Heck at this point they’re up to a triple or quadruple game, and have been playing it for going on 4 decades. Don’t forget Pakistan was BFF with the Taliban’s Afghanistan until Sept 12, 2001.
It’s a minor miracle, if you believe in those sorts of things, that the body count wasn’t significantly higher – terrorists, wives, civilians, Pakistan military, SEALS, US aviators – a lot more of any or all of which would have been killed if one more thing would have gone wrong.
What’s funny is I’ve gone near apoplectic whenever Rush Limbaugh’s 15 sec show promo has been playing over the last few weeks, making fun of Obama for having ‘a team of lawyers’ standing by for the bin Laden raid in case he was caught alive. Because when that fat fuck’s boy was president, they couldn’t contingency plan supersizing a McD’s combo meal, and literally thousands of people have been killed because their incompetence and not giving a shit.
Comment by b-psycho —
May 28, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
innominate one: I’m not saying it should be a regular thing, or cheering either. If it were up to me, it would be Declare Victory And Go Home time in Afghanistan, Pakistan would be completely cut off from the military aid spigot, relations with all of the Gulf dictatorships we’re friendly with would immediately cease, etc…overall, the U.S. would take the opportunity to start finally leaving the rest of the world the fuck alone, with the requisite sharp drop in war spending.
Alas, having the power to do that + actually attempting to do it would = being assassinated.
As for capturing OBL: While more could’ve been obtained with him alive, captured, and placed on trial, considering the humongous political shitstorm that would come with even attempting to try him, seriously expecting it struck me as “…and a pony” talk. I’m imagining that alt-scenario, and all I see is a circus, with the biggest question being whether al-qaeda’s inevitable retaliation strike got here before pent up Wingnut hit critical mass and they started mass murder of anyone they assumed was a Muslim.
Comment by Neil W —
May 29, 2011 @ 3:43 am
Aide, not aid. Unless he’s sleeping with, I don’t know, maybe the politician’s Serbian relief fund. Or his walking stick.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
May 30, 2011 @ 10:17 am
Lawyers were on standby to represent bin Laden in case he was taken alive.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_were_on_stand-by_in_case_bin_laden_was_captured_alive/
But nevermind; it was obviously a hit.
I propose we glibly dismiss this solid evidence which contradicts what we want to believe, though I can’t decide whether to dismiss it as a fig leaf, or merely toss out an accusation of being naive.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 30, 2011 @ 11:29 am
I admit, I was not aware of the lawyers. The last time I read about the raid on Bin Laden’s compound, I read that the orders were to only accept a surrender if they could verify that there was no bomb under his clothes. Which, in practice, sounded like they’d only accept a surrender if he marched naked into an area where he was illuminated from multiple angles. Which, in practice, sounds like a hit in all but name.
But I’m pleased to learn that there were lawyers on standby, just in case this somehow resulted in a live capture.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
May 30, 2011 @ 12:21 pm
Oh, did Greenwald not get around to mentioning that?
Huh.
Now here we have someone who is a lawyer, and whose primary interest is the law, writing extensively about the operation and holding forth on its legal standing on multiple different occasions – someone who has made the issue of due process in the handling of terrorism a central theme of his writing – but somehow this little piece of information that the government had secured lawyers to represent bin Laden didn’t warrant inclusion into his writing or thinking.
Comment by b-psycho —
May 31, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
Joe: If I had to guess, the reason Greenwald didn’t bring up the U.S. government getting lawyers for bin Laden was probably that the U.S. government got lawyers to represent bin Laden. That is, he doubted the likelihood of honest, effective representation*.
If my guess is correct, I would say that I’d rather have heard Greenwald express that doubt instead of holding back. But then I’m even more cynical about the worth of the government than he is, so of course I’d want him to go that far. He probably figured most of his audience didn’t.
(* – please do not interpret this as if I’m saying hypothetically with proper representation in court bin Laden would’ve walked. I’m not.)
Comment by CJColucci —
May 31, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
Mladic was hiding out posing as an alternative medicine guru. He was no longer leading any kind of military, guerilla, or terrorist operations, and had not been for some time. For all practical purposes, he was an ordinary fugitive from justice, distinguished only by the magnitude of his past crimes. Guys like that, you try to arrest, and kill only if they are shooting at you.
Osama Bin Laden was still the leader of an ongoing, organized terrorist operation. Although you should capture guys like that if you can, without undue risk and without getting too worked up over “fog of war” mistakes about whether he is actually surrendering, and an order “Kill him. Period.” would be problematic, they are legitimate targets for killing, if it comes to that.
Comment by Dhairya Parsa —
June 6, 2011 @ 10:37 pm
If you continue publishing articles just like this then I am going to continue coming back to your website. Wonderful stuff.