Osama Bin Laden

[Bruno]

Can someone please explain to me why this bloke still hasn't been found plus why the media aren't talking about the fact nobody seems to be even looking?

The whispers used to go that the Bush Administration were never serious about finding him. Bush and his buddies have effectively been gone for almost a year now though but there doesn't seem to have been ANY progress made.

What's going on folks?

IMO it's time to put the blow-torch back on the mass murderer Bin Laden. Beyond the first 12 months of the conflict, he has effectively been given a free pass by both the Americans and the worlds media.

[London Dave]

He's probably hiding under Saddam's WMD's.

[Jason]

Or he and Kim Jong-Il are playing Monopoly in the afterlife together

[Kingswood]

Had dinner with the bloke the other night. Fascinating, fascinating guy.

[David]

Bruno, this is the exact kind of bullshit that drove Bush's 8 years in office.

Yes, Bin Laden is a criminal (presuming that he was, in fact, responsible for September 11). Yes, he deserves to be trialled and sentenced, if found. But how important is he, really? In the scheme of things, what relevance is Bin Laden to anything?

His capture will not have one iota of impact on terrorism or terrorist activities. He is not some Emperor Palpatine figure who is running the whole show. And frankly, considering the fact that the US has been trying to find him for 8 years and have failed, I would consider that things such as health, economy and international relations are far more important than the 'bringing to justice' of some figurehead.

Anyway, what's the main point of punishment? It has to be deterrence. To tell terrorists that if they organise an attack which kills 300 people, they'll get hunted down 10 years later and, say, executed, isn't much of a deterrent when most of these people are happy to die in the process anyhow.

[spoljar]

This is a battle between Good vs Evil!

The sooner we wipe out those Moslem Barbarians, the better.

[JacJacJacqui]

Maybe instead of execution which they will gladly take (to be with their, what are we up to these days, 32 virgins?) they should be subjected to repeats of The OC and Oprah while cranking Black Eyed Peas until they die in prison.

No more virgins for you!

[Kingswood]

oh its higher than 32..

[David]

[tcnthat]

I saw David Kilcullen address this very question on Monday at the National Press club - very interesting response.

Basically he said catching him would be helpful, but overall useless in the big scheme of things. What would be useful however, were he to be captured by a Pashtun group, who trialled him under a sharia court for crimes against Muslims (IE - killing Muslims, bringing down the wrath of the US on the Pashtun nation, acting against the Saudi guardians of the holy places etc etc) then it would have a far greater effect than the US throwing him in a Federal Pen or gassing him - which could convey martyrdom status.

It was broadcast on the ABC last night, but you can probably catch it on Iview/ABC website. (Watch for an incredibly handsome guy in the crowd chowing down on steak and sculling red wine - hey it WAS the press club, so when in Rome)

[5150]

[Bruno]

tctthat: That's a very interesting comment. I don't know enough about Pashtun law / politics so can't comment further on this though.

David: If anything, the Bush administration was criticised for only paying lip service re. finding Bin Laden. The Bush Administration was widely condemned for this. Did you support Bush during his Presidency for this stance (the argument being, well he has to SAY the right things to keep the folks pleased, but in truth he is fully justified in not seriously going after Bin Laden)?

I see no justification on letting this guy off. The strategic importance / non importance from a “War on Terror” (sorry, “Overseas Contingency Operations” as it is now being referred to by those in Washington), perspective has nothing to do with it. The right and good thing to do is to find and then put this guy on trial. Anything else is not justice for the people who lost loved ones.

I find it distasteful too that in a thread where you justify letting Bin Laden off, you also find the need to enter a post referring to the Geneva Convention when another poster makes a suggestion which would lead to Bin Laden’s “rights” being infringed.

So, the human rights of a mass murderer… Important. The human rights of the murdered / families & friends of the murdered… Not important.

Flawed thinking such as this is symptomatic of the “tail wagging the dog” modern world we live in. Too often good is looked for in bad and bad is looked for in good (which I guess sheds some light on how Daniel Rich slipped to number 7 in last years draft!!!).

[David]

Right. My 'Geneva Convention' reference means I think that the human rights of Bin Laden are more important than the rights of the victims of September 11. And you didn't think for one moment that my comment may have been intended facetiously? (Perhaps I should have used two winking emoticons instead of one...)

Although, it does raise an interesting question. Would you advocate actual torture, or something that might actually contravene the Geneva Convention, in a case like Bin Laden's? It certainly sounds like you would, given your serious response to my flippant remark.

It's not a case of letting him off. You either find him or you don't. I would presume that the US have done everything in their power to track him down, and have simply failed to do so. So what are they supposed to? Waste further money and resources on a guy who probably can't be found, just so they can sentence him? Or use money for more important things, like, say, helping rebuild the country they blew up looking for him? Yes, it's all about perspective, and rightly, Bin Laden is probably way down the list in priorities at the moment.

As for whether I supported Bush for his stance on Bin Laden, give me a break, I was a teenager. I don't remember. What I'm talking about is the hollow, irrelevant rhetoric that came out of the White House especially around the time of the War in Iraq, intending to simplify the situation and try to relate the War on Terror to the War on Saddam. If Bush did indeed go easy on the 'hunt down Bin Laden and bring him to justice' rhetoric, as you say, then good on him.

As for Kilcullen's response, that is quite an intelligent suggestion on his part.

[tcnthat]

[Bruno]

But then again tcnthat, I had been thinking it would be similar to Saddam situation but it actually isn't. The Crimes Saddam was found guilty of were crimes against Iraqi's.

The crimes Bin Laden has committed (re. 911 anyway) were against American people.

I think his extradition to the USA therefore should be no different to the extradition of any person who has an arrest warrant out on them.

Trying Bin Laden in America is therefore very legitimate.