Summary/teaser US broke deal with Osama hit — The messy case of a United States spy operating in Pakistan strained relations to such an extent that the countries sought international mediation to hammer out a new strategic agreement. A key part of this was that the US would be allowed to go after high-profile targets, with Pakistani assistance, provided Islamabad was given all the credit. This never happened with the killing of Osama bin Laden, leaving the Pakistanis angered and embarrassed. Such operations will continue, though. - Syed Saleem Shahzad
May 11, 2011 US broke deal with Osama hit By Syed Saleem Shahzad Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 “ ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's military and intelligence community was fully aware of and lent assistance to the United States mission to get a high-value target in Abbottabad on May 2. What it did not know was that it was Osama bin Laden who was in the crosshairs of US Special Forces, and what angered the top brass even more was that Washington - in clear breach of an understanding - claimed sole ownership of the operation.
In an address to parliament on Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that unilateral actions such as the US's killing of Bin Laden ran the risk of serious consequences, but he reiterated his earlier stance that the US Special Forces had reached the compound of Bin Laden in Abbottabad with the help of the ISI.
But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear that even if Pakistan asked for one, it would not receive an apology from the United States. "We obviously take the statements and concerns of the Pakistani government seriously, but we also do not apologize for the action that we took," Carney said.
Despite this setback, Asia Times Online contacts say the spat does not mean the end of operations - they will go on as agreed, with all credit taken by Pakistan.
"This relationship is too important to walk away from," Carney said this week. ”
I read the article, but frankly, i see no merit, when judging about the legality of OBL's killing, that Holder would rely solely on his own opinion, he being part of the accused party. Here the BHO administration will for obvious reasons maintain its actions were always legal.
"US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was 'not an assassination'.".
US Attorney General "Gonzo" showed us during the past administration, that the incumbents can, —at least in some cases— consider the opinions emitted from this post of US Attorney General as unequivocal truths,… something that may not be so, as we learned on that occasion.
I'll put my 2 cents on the side of a different opinion:
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. - Noam Chomsky
May 6, 2011 My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death By Noam Chomsky Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are a new edition of Power and Terror, The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, Gaza in Crisis, with Ilan Pappé, and Hopes and Prospects, also available as an audiobook. “ It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition […]. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.”[…]
[…]the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."
I disagree with Chomsky, arm chair quarterbacking.
My understanding from other news talking heads.
1 - US invoke its right for self determination/protection, simply self defense - under International Law. Sorta consider Osama a enemy General. Very similar to all the world wars where countries flew into other countries and dropped bombs or other missions. We have to keep in mind that Osama declared a Holy War and the war powers act is now involved.
Assassinations ? ? Well, yes and no - consider that the intent was dead or alive - assassination only intent is to kill. So with the intent of the seal team six, the word assassination is incorrect.
IMO the intent, the mission of the seal team was to kill. Which according to your book = assassination.
A group of 24 fully trained, armed, experienced assault military team with the highest, newest military technology, could not capture a sick unarmed man enclosed in a box with his wives and children?
They had time to shoot in the leg one of the women when she tried to protect him with her body, but no time to tase him, stun him, or immobilize him with some time proven technique.
Then, after the killing, they throw the body —from a helicopter i imagine— into the sea. (They don't even leave us the dead body! Could they have tortured him?)
They then make up stupid fake versions of what happened during the raid and afterwards. Nothing makes sense. One can even joke about Obama's birth certificate and Osama's death certificate. Was it him? Is he really dead?
What do we want to believe? Whatever they say?
What do they want us to believe? Something unbelievable; that they tried to save him but were unable! Ha, ha, , , LOL, ha, ha.
Frankly i don't understand how the world in general accepts this that, to me, is an illegal killing of a valuable prisoner that's been on the run for 20 years and, on capture, is wasted without interrogation nor questioning.
Like keymaker said it's a farce, it's ludicrous, "es una cogida de pendejo" = they take us for ar$eholes.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.