Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

CIA Has Go-Ahead to Assasinate Bin Laden

12:05 / 22.10.01

In light of George the Elder's CIA history, I guess the acorn doesn't fall too far from the tree. quote: WASHINGTON -- As the U.S. military pursues its mission to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network, the CIA has been given new powers and money to wage its own war against America's most-wanted terrorist suspect.

**********
Asked Sunday whether U.S. forces would kill bin Laden on sight, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it depends on what happens when he's found.

"If it's a defensive situation, then bullets will fly, but if we can capture somebody, then we'll do that," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Asked the same question, Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN's "Late Edition:" "Our mission is to bring him to justice or bring justice to him."

President Bush signed an order last month directing the CIA to destroy bin Laden and his communications, security apparatus and infrastructure in retaliation for the Sept. 11 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, a senior administration official said Sunday.

Bush also added more than $1 billion to the spy agency's war on terrorism, most of it for the new covert action.

As they say around these here parts, "Scary Larry."

I find this most distressing in light of the ban on assasinations put in place by former President Jimmy Carter. I mean, I know the CIA honored this ban only overtly, but still.

This is a very disappointing time to be an American, IMHO.

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: Cherry Bomb ]

A

13:19 / 22.10.01

I don't think they'll whack him. he's worth so much to the US as their new "go-to" bad guy. remember how useful Sadam was in that role? Popularity falling because you asked some woman for a blowjob, Mr. President? Just bomb Sadam and those figures will be just fine. the US should be able to get at least ten years out of launching military strikes at Bin Laden when the prez is slipping in the polls (and seeing as the man in the job is an illiterate, people fryin' coke-monkey, this will come in handy), before they have to find a new Creepy Arab Guy who is the Embodiment of All Evil to be National Enemy #1.

or am i just cynical?

13:19 / 22.10.01

Do we really give a fuck what they do to him anymore?

Loads of people are already dead / are gonna die, so does it really matter about this one guy?

The Damned Yankee

13:31 / 22.10.01

Thing is, alive he's a potential threat.

Dead, he's a full-blown martyr and cause celebre to the fundies that admire him. How much more horror would be perpetrated in his name after his death at the hands of USA forces?

Also, his death won't solve the problem, as much as the PR mandarins would like us to believe. There are a LOT of bastards who hate the US and would gladly take out a bunch of civilians to make their point.

Sadly, we seem to be doing the same thing to them, which, of course, will only give them more cause to hate us.

Frances Farmer

14:55 / 22.10.01

Cherry, I'm quite sympathetic in regards to your disappointment with U.S. policy at this point. However, it might be pointing out that Carter's bend ostensibly focused on political assassinations, while killing Osama bin Laden might be seen a surreptious military action, on account of the fact that he's already a clear target.

Still, though... I'm not so worried about what the CIA does to Osama. I'm worried about the pure power of justification this whole bit is going the Federal Government. I'll bet we're going to hear it argued in the Supreme Court: "But do we want another Osama?". Geh.

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: Frances ]

15:00 / 22.10.01

I seem to recall that the ban only applied to heads of state. The US does not recognize the Taliban as the ruling power, and Bin Laden would be even further removed from that. So, in fact, they don't have to lift the ban. But they probably will anyway, if only to flex even more CIA muscle.

15:03 / 22.10.01

Clearly, it sets a bad precedent as Frances points out. We don't want the CIA to have carte blanche to kill whoever they deem a threat to US interests. However, bin Laden is already a a legitimate military target, so in this case the difference between him being shot by CIA operatives and delta force is pretty much nil.

Of further interest on this subject might be the fact that if you read between the lines in the various articles about the CIA directive, it becomes clear that CIA is not going to be targetting bin Laden with human operatives; rather, "Predator" unmanned spy drones (also used by the US airforce) are being outfitted with air to ground missiles in order to destroy "targets of opportunity."

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:54 / 22.10.01

Bin Ladin killed Americans, I can't see how they'd let him get away with that. And as someone else mentioned, by being part of a mobile terrorist network rather than being a head of state, like Hussein, it would be rather difficult to keep track of him and so ensure his atrocities are only against people the American Government care about.
If they find him, they'll kill him, and worry about the martyrship issue some other time.

Ronald Thomas Clontle

16:03 / 22.10.01

quote:Originally posted by todd:

it becomes clear that CIA is not going to be targetting bin Laden with human operatives; rather, "Predator" unmanned spy drones

like Imperial Probe Droids in the Empire Strikes Back?

16:12 / 22.10.01

Nah, they look like this:

Lots of info about CIA involvement in Afghanistan

Ronald Thomas Clontle

16:15 / 22.10.01

[naive little boy]It'd be a lot cooler if they built it to look like an Imperial Probe Droid. It'd be a lot scarier looking. And we should interrogate suspects with that electric needle bed that Vader used on Han Solo![/nlb]

19:42 / 22.10.01

Whoa whoa, slow down people. I think you're all missing the most important part of the story. Bush gave the order LAST month which means the CIA has had the go-ahead to kill bin Laden before the attack on Afghanistan even started! I'm at school now so I won't list the implications of all this but you can figure it out and post it here.

School, yeah right, I'm just a lazy ass.

08:40 / 23.10.01

This scares the hell out of me, frankly.

Though part of me can't help thinking that it would indeed be better just to assassinate one guy than to bomb an entire country, I can't see any good things that would result from killing Bin Laden. It won't stop Al-Quaida, which appears not to be a rigid hierarchical institution but a loose viral affiliation of people with similar beliefs & aims, so it's not like they won't have any idea what to do once he's gone. It certainly won't prove he was behind the 9/11 attacks, and eliminates any possibility of *ever* proving it (and thus getting at least some, limited, retrospective apparent justification for the bombing of Afghanistan). It 'outs' the US/UK as not having any interest in justice or the truth behind the situation at all, which can't be good for moral high ground/credibility.

And since we're on Star Wars anyway, I can't help thinking that if they strike him down he will become more powerful than they could ever imagine. How are they going to prove they killed him anyway? It'll be like Elvis, only worse... (The Emperor Nero - popularly believed to be the Antichrist at the time - was spotted by lots of people after he died.)

Really. He's just a man. What good is this supposed to do? Maybe if they'd managed to kill him - and him only - straightaway within a few days of the attacks, it would have proved that the US/UK were able to retaliate swiftly, efficiently and accurately. Bombing in ever-decreasing circles round where he's thought to be, while authorizing his assassination but not managing to carry it out, surely has the opposite effect.

13:10 / 23.10.01

I hear you, Deva. Definitely the U.S. have given him more power simply by focusing on him.

Perhaps he was behind the 911 attacks. Perhaps he wasn't. Either way, I can't really say with certainty that he was until I see some hard evidence, regardless of what the U.S. says about "security purposes." I mean, that may well be true but still and all, show me the money as it were.

As far as the U.S. and the U.K. behaving like big bullies, well I find it exceedingly difficult to believe the neither country's military officials can see that the actions they engaged in in Afghanistan are creating more anti-AMerican and ant-Western sentiment among the people, and it is "the people" who have formed terrorist groups as Al Quaida. Will this plan of action come back to bite them in ass? Most likely.

moriarty: I believe you're right about that no-assasination rule. For some reason I always get a bit confused on that one. Still, I think it's pretty frightening that there's an order to take out just one guy - and yes, Enamon, the fact that that directive was issued before the ground war on Afghanistan began is worrying.

I just wonder what are we attempting to accomplish in Afghanistan? I mean, I know the stated objective, but I just keep thinking what is left to bomb there? It's like trying to crush a building that's all ready been crushed. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Ronald Thomas Clontle

13:43 / 23.10.01

Quite frankly, I think the odds of the US killing bin Laden are very slim if just because of how much more likely he is to kill himself... let's face it - the guy is more or less a junior league Hitler. all the little Hitlers are the same...

"two little Hitlers will fight it out til one little Hitler does the other one's will..."

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:07 / 23.10.01

How exactly is he like Hitler? Apart from not being mad keen on Jews?

And Hitler killed himself when about to be captured and disembowelled in horrible, horrible, fashion by the Russians. The West has no idea where Bin Laden is. I very much doubt that the Taliban know where Bin Laden is, nor that they could hand him over if they did. On the whole, I know where I'd rather be.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:22 / 23.10.01

Yeah, the whole "Bin Laden=Hitler / Taliban=Nazis" thing is really unhelpful - not least of all because it's been used by people like Labour party whips to tro to bully dissenting ministers into silence.

"Peace not war? That sounds like the kind of thing Chamberlain would say!"

14:34 / 23.10.01

quote:Originally posted by The Damned Yankee:
Thing is, alive he's a potential threat.

Dead, he's a full-blown martyr and cause celebre to the fundies that admire him. How much more horror would be perpetrated in his name after his death at the hands of USA forces?

Alive, he’s proof that one can get away with killing US servicemen. I expect that the current US administration is less worried about a new crop of suicide bombers, who seem to be in plentiful supply, as it is worried about a new crop of terrorist financiers. They’re trying to create a credible deterrent: discouraging nations from harboring anti-US terrorists, discouraging private citizens from funding anti-US terrorists.

14:45 / 23.10.01

quote: HA: War is not a matter of conscience. Abortion and embryo research are matters of conscience, but not wars.

Holy Christ! This Hillary Armstrong sounds, er, interesting.

14:55 / 23.10.01

I just hope he cries and pisses himself before they kill him. And I hope they get it on tape. (Of course if he yells "Shoot straight, you fucks" or some sort of religious shit the whole video thing would be a bad idea.)

[ 23-10-2001: Message edited by: Bio K-9 ]

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:01 / 23.10.01

quote:Originally posted by Bio K-9:
I just hope he cries and pisses himself before they kill him.

%Yeah. Like a fag.%

(Think I need the '%' symbol then, H?)

[ 24-10-2001: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:04 / 23.10.01

Help.....me....

Can't.....distinguish.....brilliant....satire....and.....incoherent......vitriol....

[ 23-10-2001: Message edited by: The Lower Haus ]

15:52 / 24.10.01

It was better when it was more ambiguous.

Damn you people are funny sometimes.

17:06 / 24.10.01

Uh...hmmm, yeah, back on track...

I may have briefly mentioned this in another thread...but I can't help but wonder, if bin Laden is killed, where does all his lovely money go? Who inherits it? What will they do with it? Has anyone bothered to look into that before the assassination order was given?

Like Cherry said, Show Me the Money!
except in this case, his money...

[ 24-10-2001: Message edited by: Ierne ]

17:14 / 24.10.01

You know, I read... although I can't remember WHERE I read it and as I have a habit of reading the tabloids while in line at the supermarket, it coulda been "The Enquirer" or "The Globe" (Hi grant!), but I read that bin Laden's children are supposed to get at least the inheritance from the bin Laden family, and his family is in the process of changing that so Osama's children won't inherit anything. I'll have to see if I can verify that however.

He has a lot of children, I'm sure as far as his money goes, some of it's going there, and some of it's probably going to other leaders but let's see what i can figure out..

A

11:13 / 25.10.01

if i'm not mistaken, and i often am, Islamic Law dictates that a father's property be divided equally between all of his sons. i could be mistaken, and it may just be his land that gets divided. i'm dimly remembering a high school geography lesson from 7 or so years ago.

How many kids does Osama have? I know he's one of like 6000 siblings.