Will John McCain never learn? On Wednesday, the 2008 presidential hopeful was busy banging the drum for increased American presence in the civil war raging in Libya. Arguing that a stalemate in the conflict between Libyas leader Colonel Moamer Gadaffi and rebels in the countrys east would harm American interests, McCain suggested that we could do the same thing that we did in the Afghan struggle against the Russians. There are ways to get weapons in [to the rebels] without direct US supplying.
Little does McCain know (we have to hope), but he was advocating for aiding and arming some of the same people that were actively trying to harm the United States just a few short years ago. As an embassy cable released months ago by WikiLeaks made clear, some of the rebels fighting Gadaffi got their chops battling American forces in Iraq as insurgents following the US invasion in 2003. And now this week comes word that one of the rebel leaders was a former detainee in Guantanamo Bay.
#1
"Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD"
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/03/2011 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
for extra credit: name that movie without googling
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/03/2011 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
One European's view of the bin Laden action, and the WoT in general. (He neglects to discuss the Libyan action.)
Americans are celebrating, but there are serious doubts about whether the targeted killing was legal under international law and the laws of war. I personally don't find it cause for public celebration or joy, though it doesn't much bother me. I do. U-lu-lu-lu-lu-lu!!!
What is just about killing a feared terrorist in his home in the middle of Pakistan? Uh, we hadn't had any luck getting Pakistan to arrest and extradite him? Uh, Binny and the ISI were joined at the hip?
Justice for crimes is "not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial." That may be the ideal path, but in this case Plan B was required. Consider him tried and sentenced in the court of American public opinion, with execution carried out by our Special Forces. He can take up his appeal with Allan. Binny wasn't a criminal. He was a terrorist. Criminals get trials. Terrorists get whacked. Happy to explain it.
Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him.
And what business did the United States even have acting within the territory of Pakistan, a foreign power? A military strike that crosses national borders, barring acts of self-defense, is generally viewed as an infringement on sovereignty. They had their chances and chose, either through inaction or discreet action, this path. Those who don't respect the rules of sovereignty won't have their sovereignty respected. Harbor a wanted terrorist and someone's going to come get him.
#1
I've always been puzzled by this line of reasoning. You go to war against a state or state-like organization that is itself committing war crimes and acts of aggression at the direction of its head of state/leader. It's illegal and immoral to take out the guy who's masterminding it all and bears the greatest responsibility therefor, but it's perfectly acceptable to kill his footsoldiers--even the ones who were conscripted or coerced into joining--by the bushel? How is that in any way moral?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/03/2011 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Legal. Under the Anglo-Saxon-Nordic tradition of outlawry. Being declared an outlaw didn't just mean you operated outside the law. It meant you had no protection under the law. Anyone could hunt you down and kill you. If islam can claim 7th century jurisprudence to still be in effect, then an even older justice system may also be applied.
#3
We have an inherent right of self defense. This right goes beyond any international law or treaty. UBL had declared war on the USA, it was official, we have every right to hunt the leader of any organization, be it political, national, religious, and hunt them down to capture or kill by whatever means appropriate. Any nation that safeguards our enemy is defacto supporting the war and our enemy. They have no right or rights as far as we are concerned. At the end of the day we "Support and Defend the constitution of the United States" Not the UN, not some convention or international panel. Not now, not ever! UBL can rot in hell as he is certainly rotting on the bottom of the ocean.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/03/2011 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal?"
Who gives a sh*t what the EUros think? They've been accepting - no, demanding - our military protection and our money while bad-mouthing us for decades.
Here's a free clue, Mr. Kress: WE DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW NANCY-BOYS THINK.
I'm so grateful my ancestors got on those boats.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/03/2011 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The real international law [not to be confused with made-up wishful thinking] says that if you do not comply with the article of the Conventions, you do not get the protection of those Conventions. Not a legal government, no uniform, wanton killing of civilians - seems the person in question had no basis to expect the 'protection' of law.
#6
Mercutio's got it. Outlaws, brigands and pirates are all outside the law -- the law simply doesn't protect them. That's why you can have a summary field trial and hang them.
Ditto for terrorists.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/03/2011 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Perhaps Obama could have issued a Letter of Marque and Reprisal.
#8
But Chili, the man is just a simple community organizer. He would've had to go to law school to learn about all that legal stuff!
Seriously, "was bin Laden's killing legal?" is the stupidest question I have ever heard. Sure, "there are serious doubts about whether the targeted killing was legal under international law and the laws of war" - IF you are a total retard.
Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him.
No. That might be this dink's fondest wet dream, but in reality it would be completely abnormal. "It is difficult to find examples of nations that refrained from the aggressive use of force out of respect for international law. If custom is what counts, it favors aggression." - Robert Bork
Mark Hemingway reminds us that back in the bad old days of the Bush administration, when the Joint Special Operations Command carried out extra-judicial, theoretically "illegal," and highly effective raids, liberals referred to them as "Dick Cheney's Assassination Squad:"
Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad:
Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."
"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
The horror! Now that JSOS has become Barack Obama's "assassination ring," it will be interesting to see whether Hersh and his fellow liberals are able to mount the same indignation.
#1
Did anyone catch the dipshitettes on The View gloating about Obama? You know that if it happened on Bush's watch they'd be screaming bloody murder. Mental illness is when your hypocrisy and fecklessness doesn't even register with you.
Posted by: jack salami ||
05/03/2011 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I LIKE Cheney. I always have.
Posted by: de Medici3489 ||
05/03/2011 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
His five draft deferments and poor shotgun safety record aside, so do I.
#5
If Cheney and Bush had gotten ULB during their administration, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama and a host of other leftists politicians would have bitched that they had done something wrong/illegal and would have called for Congressional investigations and impeachment. One doesn't have to look too far back to recall Harry Reid crying we have lost--doom and gloom. Or references to Gen. Petraeus as Gen. BetrayUs during hearings. Or Hillary suggesting he was a liar.
I'm glad our military got UBL. Our military and intelligence community was outstanding. Seal Team 6 was heroic. I'll give credit to Obama for making the right call despite it being the first time I'm aware of. Kudos.
#6
How much sooner would we have caught this animal if the NYT had not blown the cover on so many intel operations?
The reason OBL/UBL (who cares he's dead) used couriers is because the NYT blew up a story about how well the NSA could monitor cell phone traffic.
I venture with those programs still in place, the tracking of money through the world banking system, the real time monitoring of cell phones and the monitoring of international telephone calls between selected countries, we would probably have nailed him years ago.
Thanks to the NYT for making our lives difficult. Of course, I wonder why those little backstabbing jerks in the CIA that were feeding all of this stuff to the NYT out of "righteous indignation" didn't feed the story on us tracking al-Kuwaiti.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/03/2011 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Some of the final conclusions are already becoming clear. The O-Teams "actionable intel" resulted from the platform that Obama himself repeatedly said violated American principles. The composite picture of the AQ courier network was indeed developed over a number of years proceeding Obama's election. And the cruel truth is that the base intelligence was most likely extracted from multiple detainees and some through enhanced interrogation tactics. Further, the detainees were obviously debriefed at GITMO, Bahgram, and multiple other CIA black sites - all of which Obama denounced as both illegal and immoral. And as Hemingway reminds us here, the team that actually took out Bin Laden was also developed during the proceeding administration. This is the platform of which confidential details were leaked to the press and then ridiculed by the Professional Left. Bottom line, President Obama and his team deserve credit for exploiting this particular courier and taking out UBL - BIG TIME. But one wonders if anyone on the Left will have the courage to acknowledge that the accolades being heaped on Obama are a direct result from policies he has routinely castigated.
#8
"But one wonders if anyone on the Left will have the courage to acknowledge that the accolades being heaped on Obama are a direct result from policies he has routinely castigated."
This one doesn't wonder, DepotGuy.
And I doubt you do either.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/03/2011 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Let's put it this way: the other day a Leftist I know went on a rant about class discrimination in America, punctuated repeatedly by the phrase "stupid Rednecks." When I pointed out that rural Americans were also a social class, he became agitated and baffled.
That's the level of "intellect" you're dealing with.
#2
As a Somalian guy i know says the problem with muslim mentality is they are muslims first british,American,French second and they will never give up a fellow muslim!
#3
Black Bart- yes, correct. A Christian Ethiopian cabi told me that his 20 year friendship with a fellow Ethiopia, but Muslim, ended after 9/11 and the Muslim cited that he had to "stick with his brothers".
Posted by: jack salami ||
05/03/2011 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
With Hitler dead, things changed rather quickly in our dealings with Stalin too.
#5
If we've known that, which I suspect we have despite the multicultural fog and verbal cowcrap our leaders have been spewing, it amazes me we haven't enlisted a whole army of Christian Arabic speakers to work as translators instead of trusting other Muslims.
#6
Pakistan HAD to be at least somewhat complicit in this raid - hard to imagine getting those helicopters that far into the country and that close in to a sensitive location, hanging around for 40 minutes, and getting back out again without someone high up in the Pak governement/military putting serious restraints on their defense forces (that acadamy has to be a prime target for the feared Indian attack, & it must have strong defenses, & they were not activated.)
Hillary & other high-ups have been spending a lot of time over in Pakistan lately, & now we know why - negotiating some kind of deal for Binny. Whether the deal was bribe-based or threat-based (or both) I don't know, but there had to be a deal.
Next question is 'Why now?' Presumably at least in part because we finally had 'certainty' of where he was, but perhaps we at last developed the needed leverage or perhaps Binny finally wore out his welcome? (And of course, perhaps we just needed it as a political diversion.)
#7
There are only two reasons for the US to still cultivate Pakistan. The first is that they have half the population of the US, a big chunk of which is dangerous, so we can't just ignore them or they will attack again.
Second, is that China is more than ready to become Pakistan's buddy, with their mutual interest against India, and to help extend Chinese dominance in the Pacific. This is the reason the Chinese built the huge civilian-military port in Gwadar, Pakistan.
#8
Anonymoose: have you heard the reports that there are now Chinese troops reinforcing the Pakistani troops on the Pakistani side of the line of control in Kashmir?
#9
it amazes me we haven't enlisted a whole army of Christian Arabic speakers to work as translators instead of trusting other Muslims.
rjschwarz, remember how after 9/11 the Iraqi-Jewish community volunteered en masse as translators for the FBI, et al? They were turned down because the Muslim translators refused to work with them... or even if they were there, was another way I heard the story. I suspect the Christian Arabs experienced the same treatment.
#10
There are two people that the US had every chance to "neutralize" who have been the "godfathers" of the problems we have today.
First Yasser Arafat as the leader of the PFLP. His terrorist training camps trained the IRA, FARC, Shining Path, the Red Army Faction, components of the Moslem Brotherhood and the list goes on.
Second, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Seventh "President" of Pakistan. He overthrew the Bhutto regime and instituted a campaign that effectively established the madrassah system in Pakistan that fed radical Islam in Pakistan. He was very radical in his beliefs.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/03/2011 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
it amazes me we haven't enlisted a whole army of Christian Arabic speakers to work as translators instead of trusting other Muslims. I am not amazed but rather saddened that the USA hasn't CREATED / TRAINED a whole army of loyal non-Muslim Arabic speakers to work as translators here and abroad. It's been TEN YEARS since 9/11. As difficult as Arabic might be to learn, surely TEN YEARS would be enough to create a cadre to competent and loyal translators in Arabic and any of the languages involved in the WOT.
Those Iraqi-Jewish volunteers should have been hired as trainers. Our former military 'terps who have proved their loyalty should be brought here with their families to serve as trainers in the other languages. The US still isn't serious about its role as a world leader.
#12
As per CNN + FOX NEWS AM > Rising tide of US Lawmakers = Congress-critters are DEMANDING THAT POTUS BAMMER + ADMIN SERIOUSLY PUNISH PAKISTAN FOR HIDING OSAMA Lo' THESE SEVERAL YEARS.
OBL was hiding or residing in what is basically a PAK ARMY-CONTROLLED MILPLEX + REGION, a "GARRISON CITY/REGION", + may had been there for as long as SIX YEARS [not THREE] according to Pak Locals as per AM News, thus of course Islamabad didn't know???
[Al Jazeera] After years of former Pak military dictator General Musharraf assuring the world that the late Osama bin Laden ... who has made the transition back to dust... was either dead or in Afghanistan, he was found and dispatched by US special forces in the town of Abbottabad, a mere 30 miles -- 50km -- as the crow flies from the capital Islamabad.
Abbottabad is a colonial era army "cantonment" or garrison town and home to the Pakistain Military Academy PMA Kakul, less than two miles from the compound in question. To put it in perspective, it is like capturing Carlos the Jackal just down the road from West Point or Sandhurst.
The notion that Pakistain's all pervasive Army-controlled Inter-Services Intelligence was unaware of bin Laden's presence beggars belief.
Although Bush-era National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley feigned total surprise about the location and its implications in an on-air interview after the news broke, WikiLeaks, as well as other sources such as investigative journalist Bob Woodward's most recent book, tell a very different story.
By 2008, the United States political and military leadership had lost all remnants of faith in the trustworthiness of the Pak military and its intelligence wing, the ISI, internally acknowledging that it consistently "hunted with the hounds and ran with the hares", including the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqanis, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba -- and was involved in planning terrorist attacks from Kabul to Mumbai.
Pak intelligence has had a close relationship with bin Laden since the early 1980s, when he acted as a courier, transferring funds from Saudi intelligence and its establishment to the Pak Jamaat-e-Islami to support the anti-Soviet jihad. Qazi's Jamaat is such an obvious terrorism support organization that it would be asking way too much for the Pak government to crack down on it or even disband it.
It is no surprise that bin Laden chose to relocate to eastern Afghanistan, an area within Pakistain's sphere of influence, in 1996 -- after he was expelled from Sudan under US pressure.
Of course, the relationship has never been smooth -- Pakistain's opportunism alienated al-Qaeda just as much as such behaviour alienated the United States -- but also made it just as indispensable.
Funded by the US taxpayer
Despite this, the United States continued to funnel billions to the Pak armed forces in sophisticated weapons and cash -- most recently a $2 billion package announced in October 2010 under the State Department's Foreign Military Finance Program.
The US is paying, not only for the use of Pakistain as a logistical corridor to its troops in Afghanistan, but for the privilege of conducting an increasingly aggressive covert counter-terrorism campaign on Pak soil -- often against the Pak government's client groups.
Analysis by SISMEC, the New America Foundation and others showed a massive increase in drone strikes in the tribal area of North Wazoo after the summer of 2008, largely aimed at pro-ISI groups such as the Haqqani network.
Most recently, US security contractor Raymond Davis was held in Pakistain for almost two months (17 January to March 16, 2011) after fatally shooting two alleged ISI agents, when he was believed to be surveilling the LeT in Lahore.
As for Davis' claim that he thought he was being robbed, well that one's for the birds. The Davis saga came at the same time that the B.O. regime was reportedly finalising plans for the killing of Osama bin Laden, a coincidence that we are sure we will be hearing more about.
America's first attempt to kill Osama bin Laden came 13 years ago in August 1998, when president Bill Clinton launched "Operation Infinite Reach" in retaliation for the suicide kabooms that devastated US embassies in Nairobi and Daressalam.
Sixty six cruise missiles were launched from the Arabian Sea at camps in eastern Afghanistan to kill Al Qaeda's senior leadership who were due to meet in a shura council.
Pakistain's military leadership was informed by US counterparts shortly before the missiles entered their airspace, just in case they mistook it for an Indian attack (India and Pakistain had just tested nuclear weapons earlier in May).
Shortly after, bin Laden cancelled his planned meeting. Many US officials believe the Pak Army and the ISI tipped bin Laden off.
Covert operations
It is this long and frustrating history that explains why the US chose to conduct this mission covertly and unilaterally.
In spite of face-saving Pak claims of joint execution, it was conducted in much the same way the US might have in a semi-hostile country, such as Syria in October 2008, rather than its proclaimed "frontline ally" in what used to be called the "war on terror".
It seems that Pak authorities had no clear idea of what was going on until it was all over, and a US helicopter bearing the SEAL team and bin Laden's body touched down at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
There is an inevitable question about timing. Why on earth did it take the US so long to succeed?
The standard, official defence was that this was a rugged area, filled with implacably hostile rustics. Today, questions are being finally asked about the Pak Army's complicity.
The truth is deeper, and more unpleasant, and has much to do with the ways in which dictators around the world manipulate US policy with embarrassing ease.
For almost seven years after 9/11, General Musharraf, a warmonger who seized power in a coup in 1999, assured Bush that he was the only man who could hold back the violent fundamentalists and prevent them from seizing control of Pakistain's government and its nuclear weapons.
The US should not push too hard, but rather leave Musharraf to crush the jihad boys.
The reality was that the Pak government deliberately supported the takeover of jihad boy parties -- such as the Islamist MMA alliance in 2003 -- and facilitated the comeback of the Taliban, all the while profiting handsomely from generous US aid and the lifting of nuclear sanctions.
This was despite the fact that democratically elected governments in both Afghanistan (Karzai's 2004 election was accepted as free and fair) and India complained vociferously of the Pak military's support of jihad boy groups in both their countries.
Eventually a newly amalgamated Pak Taliban turned on their former patrons in the government.
Despite this, Pakistain continued to support the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani group, and the LeT, and the politicians in the US continued to enrich a militarist dictatorship that fanned the flames of extremism at the cost of thousands of Asian and American lives.
A new approach
Since Bush's final year in power, freed from the baleful influence of Donald Rumsfeld, the US has taken a much firmer line with Pakistain's military -- calling its bluff by acting more directly against jihad boys, and demanding ever greater accountability (for example the Kerry-Lugar bill) for the billions in assistance poured into Pakistain.
However these measures were totally inadequate for the stew of militarism, illiteracy, and bad governance.
The Arab Spring has eroded many of the conventional assumptions about the relationship between dictators, Islamists and the West.
In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria, we heard dictators playing the Islamist card for three decades -- "support us unless you want the faceless myrmidons to win".
The reality has been quite different. Dictators from Musharraf to Mubarak have relied on faceless myrmidons and Orcs and similar vermin to bring in the US aid they so desperately need to survive.
In the case of the Pak Army, they have been only too happy to feed the hand that bites them.
Musharraf, having worn out the patience of both the Pak public and his US patrons was finally forced out in August 2008.
He has been replaced with a weak civilian government that has served as little more than a useful facade for an army that remains addicted to both jihad and US money.
It is a stark warning of what the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt can turn into unless people remain vigilant.
Today, the US continues to lavishly fund the Pak military, while using drones and secret soldiers such as Raymond Davis to attack the jihad boy forces that the same regime supports. It is up to the US to stop feeding the beast.
This article starring:
New America Foundation
SISMEC
Posted by: Fred ||
05/03/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
None of this is news. Aside from the folks who have been claiming for years that OBL was dead (you know who you are), who didn't think he was in Pakistan?
Which begs the question, what did Bammo trade the Pakistanis for OBL's life?
#3
what did Bammo trade the Pakistanis for OBL's life?
I'm thinking back not too long ago about the uproar over the station officer in Pakland and the shooting of two 'suspected' ISI agents before they shot him and the ensuing diplomatic hissy fit. Obama might have been facing a mutiny over at the agency. Regardless of his man at the top, with his numbers tumbling, he didn't need to have the place start leaking as during the Bush administration. In effect, Pakland got thrown under the bus. Given the man's tendency to be petulant, it fits the scenario.
#4
I suspect a lot of folks at the top in Pakistan might not have known about this, or were afraid of the ISI. This raid exposes the ISI internationally. We are fools if we don't drop some names of bad people indicating them as informants in order to get them killed or at least scurrying for cover.
As for Pakistan. We should not declare them as an Enemy. We are involved in too many places now. But we should increase friendly relations with India and set up some ops that are designed to root out informants within the ISI, or set them up. Say let them in on a mission to extract someone, then bomb that extraction point instead, sewing distrust between the ISI and Al Queda and killing any ISI that hope to help prevent such an extraction.
#5
#1 None of this is news. Aside from the folks who have been claiming for years that OBL was dead (you know who you are), who didn't think he was in Pakistan?
that would be me on both counts
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/03/2011 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Obambi was trapped into it.
He would have had a full blown riot on his hands if word had leaked that he knew where OBL/UBL(who cares, he's dead) was and did not take action.
He also was looking at plummeting poll numbers. He did it for the votes and he did it for the PR.
As for where OBL/UBL(who cares he's dead) was, I always thought he was living in Detroit working for CAIR or was in Riverside down the street from me or running a Motel 6 in Daggett.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/03/2011 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think that's the fake pic, newc - I'm eagerly awaiting the real one.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/03/2011 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Ummm, Newc, your picture's gone.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/03/2011 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The US should start permanently dispatching ISI people promptly and in large numbers. There must be a price paid by directly the Pakistani intelligence rank and file as well as leadership for screwing with us like that. Cutting funding does nothing in the long run.
#12
Speamble Wittlesbach8094, a price will be extracted. As long as the Executive branch and certain legislative persons don't get in the way. Its just taken a while for the bulk of the IC to catch up to the view that the ISI is not only not our friend, but is an active enemy in many instances. This raid hammered the point home rather well.
#13
One other thing to consider. The US does not want to be seen killing all these people off. But that's not an obstacle in the region if you approach it right. An indirect approach might take a bit longer but can be more effective. For instance: if other agencies of nations hostile to Pakistan are active there, simply revealing the ISI person of interest to the right people is enough to guarantee their disappearance (for interrogation) or demise without a whiff of US involvement. And it does wonders in improving the other agency/nation's relationship with the US, clandestinely. Just something to consider.
#14
The pic is available at the link, you just have to look around and find the link and click it. There are a couple right below the "missing" picture.
#3
Yeah, and after getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan, staying engaged in the aftermath just looked foolish too, so we turned our attention elsewhere. Where did that get us? Who's really the fool?
#4
I am an unashamed neo-colonialist, therefore the vast, untapped, mineral resources in the afghan entity, are imperial fodder. Dump Karzai, restore the Northern Alliance warlords, carpet bomb the pashtoonis, then dig in. Yum.
As much as I am now embarrassed to admit it, if you had asked me 48 hours ago whether Osama Bin Laden would ever brought to justice I would have probably answered "no." Like many Americans I had all but abandoned hope that we would ever capture or kill the 9/11 mastermind, and had resigned myself to the idea he would die an old man thumbing his nose at us from some comfortable cave in Waziristan. Well, I can happily report that I completely underestimated the skill, courage, and perseverence of America's military. And, almost as happily, I can report that I also completely underestimated the capacity of America's erstwhile "peace community" for turning on a dime and embracing the kind of all-American xenophobic flag-waving bloodlust they only recently decried. So today I stand proudly with my new friends of the formerly antiwar left in a mindlessly jingoistic salute to President Obama for an extralegal military assassination well done.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Al Jazeera] After years of former Pak military dictator General Musharraf assuring the world that 
The notion that Pakistain's all pervasive Army-controlled Inter-Services Intelligence was unaware of bin Laden's presence beggars belief. 
