Details Emerging on Osama Bin Laden's Killing

U.S. officials say Osama bin Laden's son was one of three adults besides Osama killed in the attack that killed Osama bin Laden.

Here's a thread for you to post updates with details on the killings, and your thoughts about them.

Via The Guardian, from a late night briefing by senior administrative officials:
An administration briefing revealed that the CIA had been following the so-called "couriers" a pair of brothers for years, but only two years ago found where they lived, in the town of Abbotabad 35 miles outside Islamabad.

The group lived in a large compound built in 2005, with 12ft high walls, few windows, and with no phones or internet connection in an effort to avoid detection. As well as the brothers, a family was living inside that matched the profile of bin Laden's.


The full operation lasted 40 minutes, with bin Laden killed alongside two of his couriers and his son. Three women injured.
The compound was 3 blocks from a police station.
< Thoughts on the Killing of Osama bin Laden | The Death Of bin Laden >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks JOC (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by dissenter on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:42:39 AM EST
    Well done! And I thank you.

    For those in the other thread that think a trial should have taken place, I respectfully disagree. No matter what your position is on the wars, we are in two wars. Psychologically, this is huge for this country, our troops and everyone that has been scared by what bin laden started.

    The US did not need a trial to further rip the country apart. In the long run, it would have also been worse for national security.

    Does this change the chess game. No. Does it psychologically matter to this country, absolutely. It is how we move forward. And it might open a door out of the darkness.

    We are not at war with (none / 0) (#12)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:11:08 AM EST
    Pakistan; the action was taken there.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 06:29:24 AM EST
    you shut down the computer early at night and look what happens? I didn't find this out until I logged onto Facebook this a.m.?

    Anyway, props to Obama and the military!

    And he's buried at sea (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 06:31:30 AM EST
    Har har har

    You've (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 07:34:27 AM EST
    got to love this more than anybody. Barry McCaffrey was on TV and he was talking about how this was a real shot in the arm to the armed forces and a real morale booster for them.

    My husband left for work as soon as the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 07:39:08 AM EST
    sun was up and it wasn't because today is going to be a heavy workload day :)  I can't say they will be chanting or anything like that, they seem a bit somber but it has been a long ten years and it looks like they all (that brotherhood/sisterhood of the military) want to be together right now.

    Good day to be an American (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Slado on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    and a great day to be in service to our country.

    Have a beer, kiss your wife, husband, partner, girfriend and your kids, and enjoy that all your hard work and the work of your family made this possible.



    Thank you (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:21:56 AM EST
    It won't fix everything.  We all know that.  The reality is that because of the neglect of the Bush administration, nobody is coming home tomorrow.  But one of my friends said this morning...FINALLY!  FINALLY THE FIRST MISSION HAS BEEN COMPLETED.  This really was the first mission, until suddenly it wasn't and they rounded everyone up and somehow got Iraq underway.

    One minor quibble (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    The Bush administration established the same policies that Obama used and enhanced to get our guy.

    I'm no Bush apologist and yes major mistakes where made by him but let's put partisanship aside.

    Everyone together made this happen.  

    Congrats all around.


    I hate to be a nitpicker (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:59:38 AM EST
    in the middle of our joint festivities.  But what policies did the Bush administration establish that only needed to be further and enhanced?  I just can't for the life of me see it that way.  Mostly because non of us wanted our loved ones sent to Afghanistan prior the Obama administration because it was hell there, and there weren't enough soldiers, and nobody cared that could do anything about it.  Everyone and everything was in Iraq and there was no danger in Iraq.

    I am only mildly concerned (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 06:42:03 AM EST
    about new danger now.  Osama was Al Qaeda, so that organization has been psychologically permanently damaged.  The Taliban can make threats, but they do that everyday anyhow.  Bullies and abusers always attempt to get us to not seek justice against them though by promising us even more pain.  It is exactly what abusers of women do, and I don't go for it.  Bullies and their threats will not run and ruin my life.  I will not be beaten into submission and live like that.  And the reason why they hate you.  They hate you because they like hate, they like the power of hate and they will find a list of reasons to hate you that you will never be able to quench.  If you were to get one item removed by making ammends they would only add another.

    "Killing Resolves Nothing". (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Nemi on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    Nothing makes for peace like ceasing to wage war.

    But let's return to the morality of cheering for the killing of a human being. [...] A decade ago torture was considered irredeemably evil. A decade ago we believed people should have fair trials before they are declared guilty or killed. A decade ago, if a president had announced his new power to assassinate Americans, at least a few people would have asked where in the world he got the power to assassinate non-Americans..

    davidswanson's blog

    A decade ago (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:52:36 AM EST
    Nobody had flown three planes full of people into three buildings full of people.

    the heinous acts of the Nazis (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    were not anticipated beforehand, but Nazi war criminals were still brought to trial.  To me, a true trial of war criminals, just like the Watergate hearings, provide the opportunity for a lesson in what at least used to be our system of government and the principles of our Constitution.  Another missed opportunity, IMO.

    Whether it was a decade ago or (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:42:39 AM EST
    yesterday, nothing justifies torture, the selective use - or non-use - of our judicial system to guarantee convictions, the orders to assassinate, or the massive intrusions into our privacy.

    Not sure it would be possible to be more repulsed by your comment, but it exemplifies for me the real legacy of Osama bin Laden.


    Not Murder! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    I continue to be surprised by the claim that Bin Laden's death was murder, much less cold blooded murder, and I am a longstanding ACLU member who serves on an ACLU affiliate executive committee, so I do not take lightly the civil rights I defend daily or tolerate police misconduct.  So here's a thought experiment:

    Suppose Joe Jones had beaten his wife to death and shot their daughter, and then barricaded himself in a house.  Police arrive with an arrest warrant, attempt to make an arrest, and upon their entry into the house, Jones opens fire.  The police at whom he is shooting return fire and kill him.  Who would call that murder?

    What are the differences here?  Surely not the absence of a warrant (there was one outstanding) since U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in Pakistan.  Surely not the use of Navy Seals instead of Officer Krupke since Officer Krupke has no jurisdiction in Pakistan.  

    We violated no constitutional or ethical norms in attempting to seize a well armed wanted killer, and when he refused to surrender or drop his weapons, shooting in self defense.

    Justice -- no; justice comes through the court system.  But neither was this murder; those who resist arrest with firearms have no claim to be the victims of unlawful homicide.

    Thougt experiment (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Rojas on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    those who resist arrest with firearms have no claim to be the victims of unlawful homicide.

    Since this seems to be a general statement about American jurisprudence and not confined to the specific facts of this case, which are unknown by the way, it's damn sad someone speaking for the ACLU would post such tripe.

    The lawful use of deadly force to resist arrest is codified in statute and supported by case law. While as a practical matter it may be dead issue as is much of the BORs these days, your statement is not accurate.


    Resisting arrest? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Peter G on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    A wanted fugitive from a federal indictment (which bin Laden was - for the 1998 Africa bombings, and probably on the KSM indictment for 9/11 also, though I haven't re-checked that) can be arrested and brought to justice in court.  It violates international law to arrest him in a foreign country rather than extradite him, but even if kidnapped abroad, he could be lawfully tried in the U.S., so far as U.S. law is concerned.  Deadly force cannot be used in attempting to arrest someone unless he resists arrest by using or threatening serious physical harm to another.  But I don't think the U.S. is even making a claim here that the special forces intended to arrest OBL or even to take him into custody as an enemy soldier.  As far as I've heard and read, the intent was to assassinate ("kill or capture," with "capture" coming in a distinct second) him in an act of warfare.  Under the law governing "war" that may or may not be lawful, but I have to disagree with Michael M (who is not speaking for the ACLU and didn't say he was) that this is about the law governing arrest. Rojas's comment that "The lawful use of deadly force to resist arrest is codified in statute and supported by case law," is misleading.  Some states' laws recognize a justification to resist an illegal arrest with the use of proportionate force (while many do not), but not federal law, and this was a federal government action, taking place outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. state.  And in any event, as I already mentioned, I don't think our government is claiming here that they intended to "arrest" OBL.

    The Texas statute (none / 0) (#29)
    by Rojas on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    (c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    Menudo is not thought (none / 0) (#31)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    The Texas right to resist arrest presumes a lack of probable cause,  Last time I checked, Texas law creates no rights enforceable against the United States, or perhaps I overlooked the repeal of Article VI.  

    You may wish to clarify why you think there was no probable cause to arrest OBL or why you think Texas law trumps U.S. law.

    The ACLU is a civil liberties organization, not a group of anarchists; we do not support interposition either.  


    This is what I was afraid might happen (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania. AP

    Claims that the now closed interrogation and detention program and CIA use of torture was successful will be used to validate these actions in the past and possibly in the future as well.

    I think this is what many of us feared. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    Not only will torture be validated as an acceptable tool in the GWOT, but Obama's decision not to hold any of the Bush/Cheney cabal accountable will be validated as well.

    I also don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Guantanamo ever gets closed, and I'm really worried about Bradley Manning.


    Hmm? (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides  [emphasis supplied]

    Who are these "former U.S. officials" spouting off about the sources of information?  It sounds like typical B.S.  These vaguely sourced people always pop up to promote torture.


    The purpose of propaganda is to define (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    a particular action as good or evil. Whether or not this is typical B.S, it will be used to validate past actions and sell the use of torture. According to 2009 polls, just over half of Americans already believe that torture is justified in some cases to thwart terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, I think that number will increase based on this type of reporting.

    That's what I mean (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    that reads as straight up propaganda to me.  Pro-torture folks will always take any opening they can get to promote torture in the media.  When nothing so far suggests that torture was necessary or an essential element to getting bin Laden.

    AP reporting one woman killed and (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    two injured instead of three women injured.

    Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden's sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden's sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured. link

    Women (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    used as human shields. Not surprised by this.

    All details of how the raid went down (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Peter G on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    should be assumed to be propaganda and taken with a grain (at least) of salt.

    Absolutly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Rojas on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    It's sad (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    Last nights events should only result in congrats. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    First let me say job well done President Obama.  I am obviously not a fan of his but in this area I can hardly quibble with his previous and current actions.

    He took the fight to Al Qaeda both in Pakistan and Afghanistan and after taking office almost seamlessly continued and enhanced in some cases the programs established under Prescient Bush.

    Good job President O, the military and all the men and women who together worked for almost a decade to get the guy that killed almost 3,000 Americans.

    We all have to realign our current political thinking as now republicans have to admit that President O is the one who got the guy that President Bush couldn't.  Critical dems have to acknowledge that the increased war in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, the drone strikes, the continued operation of Gitmo and the original interrogation that brought us the courier in the mid 2000's is what led ultimately to this happening.

    Without all those things Osama would still be hiding out and to everyone that made this chain of events possible I say congrats.

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    Bush was all about Iraq and left Afghanistan with our much going on there.

    If Bush's programs were so good why didn't he get him? I think because he simply was not interested in getting OBL. He even said as much himself.