When I heard the news of bin Laden's death, hmmm America went into another country without that country's knowledge or approval and summarily executed a man. How awfully democratic.
I also wondered how different that was from people flying planes into buildings.
Then I saw the reports of the jubiliation at his death and that reminded me of something else entirely.
Wikipedia defines lynching as an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings were more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and often were means by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.
Between 1882 and 1968 (yes, 1968), 3,500 black people were lynched. I can't exactly say such acts of violence were "extrajudicial" because often the "mob" was sanctioned by the presence of law enforcement. As a result Africans had no recourse to the "judicial" system in the same way bin Laden had no recourse to the world court and being tried for his alleged crimes.
(Of course, it could be said that the powers that be didn't want a trial because then the depth of his connection to the CIA would've come out and exposed the hypocrisy of the US gov't much more than summarily executing him would.)
Addendum:
How many in the Middle East have been killed as a result of the US "war on terror"?
Iraq? 62,570 to 1,124,000
Afghanistan? between 10,960 and 49,600
Pakistan? between 1467 and 2334 killed in U.S. drone attacks as of May 6, 2011
If numbers of people murdered is the criteria for more murder, as american foreign policy seems to indicate, then Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more than justified in having their military fly a stealth helicopter (or two) into US airspace in the dead of night, have soldiers drop down while yelling at civilians to stay in their houses and twitter the attack, enter a building, kill who doesn't surrender and then let the US gov't "question" the women and children not killed.
They would just be following the lead of the "leader of the free world".
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
skypixie0
Deborah Méndez Wilson
Michael Strode
Robert Crook
WashingtonPeaceCenter
clay ball
Salon.com
Comments
Maybe Henry Louis Gates should be hired to do DNA testing. Oh wait, we don't have the brains of the members of the lynch mob for DNA testing.
Or do we?
...and so is a lynching.
Wiki resource for help in clarifying the 'framing' of this argument: crimes against humanity
Now that the question of Bin Laden has been 'disappeared' by Barrack et. al., the trials can be initiated unfettered, perhaps starting with Kissinger and Co. (to pick an arbitrary point of departure) and running right through Clinton/Albright, Bush/Cheney/Rice, up to the current administration.
A very fundamental principle that every child learns:
"Two wrongs do not make a right."
That axiom, now in peril.
Inverted...exactly!
and thanks for the framing link.
now?
points for murder which is just gonna lead to more murder...and obama is the smartest president ever?
sure he is
If he had wanted a trial, he had 10 years to surrender. If Pakistan wanted to arrest him, they had 5 years.
The US and the world is becoming an increasingly LESS violent place if you are interested in numbers.
The 20th Century averaged 1 to 2 million deaths per year due to War. Toss in Stalin and the impact of Mao's Cultural Revolution and things look truly ugly.
This reminds me of Stalin's adage, "one death [even bin Laden's] is a tragedy but a million is a statistic.
You are over thinking this. Bin Laden organized a sneak attack on the US, killed thousands of civilians, openly and publicly took credit for the attack, and then attempted to commit further acts of asymmetrical warfare on the United States. Afghanistan was asked to turn over bin Laden and refused. Pakistan was unwilling to find and turn over al-Qaeda leaders, and is still harboring dozens. Bin Laden was still working on plans for a 10th anniversary attack on the US rail system. Obama, exactly as he had promised in the 2008 Primaries, sent US forces to apprehend bin Laden. The history of Lynching in the United States does not remotely resemble this.
I want to now see Obama to continue to deliver on his promises and rapidly cut our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How exactly does one "overthink"?
For me, it's not a question so much of what he wanted as it is a question of does the US believe in democracy and democratic ideals or does it not.
The evidence suggests it does not.
On May 30 & 31st, 1921, white citizens of Tulsa, OK organized a not so secret attack on citizens, killed thousands of citizens and openly and publicly took credit for it. Based on your and your government's way of thinking black people are justified in going on a militaristic rampage in Oklahoma even though they have been paid "reparations" in the say way 9/11 victims were paid reparations.
May 1985, the city of Philadelphia bombed the residence of the MOVE family killing 11 people (children included). Based on your and your government's way of thinking, MOVE is perfectly within its right to go on a militaristic rampage and kill, kill, kill.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are sovereign countries and as such, have the right to refuse requests from other countries.
It is bitterly funny to me that this country is so criminally arrogant as to think that what applies to it (democracy) doesn't apply when it comes to interacting with other countries; that it doesn't have to live up to its ideals in the international arena. That could be the reason Afghanistan and Pakistan refused: fed up and frustrated with the blatant hypocrisy.
Look what happened as a result of 9/11. Iraq was invaded because of a lie called weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded. Then Pakistan. Now bin Laden was (allegedly) killed. All allegedly because of the murder of 3,000 people.
Again, I ask if the number of people killed is justification for more murder, as the foreign policy of this government demonstrates, what's to stop other countries from following the US lead?
Nothing.
Given that Bin Laden for years had helped to fund and organize an international terrorist network, providing recruitment, training, communications, logistics, and strategy in support of attacks in many countries around the world, how do you think the U.S. government should have responded?
One thing to consider is that Bin Laden has not been very effective the last few years. The reason he was not is precisely because he was a hunted man, worried about being killed in a Predator attack, or killed by armed men in helicopters coming down on him -- both of which actions you seem to disapprove.
In other words, it is the threat of those kinds of actions that largely put him out of business before he was once and for all put out of business. But if we are neither going to use violence or even threaten it, what do Bin Laden and those like him have to fear -- especially if they are living in areas sympathetic to them?
this whole thing is like watching children gone mad on the playground:
you hit me so i'm gonna hit you back.
you hit me back so i'm going to kill you mother.
you killed my mother, so i'm going to burn your house down.
you burned my house down so i'm going to bomb your neighborhood.
someone has to say enough is enough. i'm only one person but i'm gonna say it and keep saying it. i'm gonna sound like a broken damn record.
violence is crazy and irrational and people who support it as the only viable option are crazy and irrational and i refuse to say differently.
on another thread, i was told that since i believe this society is uncivilized, i shouldn't expect civilized behavior. the person who told me that was correct. i shouldn't.
let the murders continue.
We are less violent now? Really? You forget about the over 5 million people who have died as a result of the ongoing war in the Congo, perhaps as many as 1 million people who died in Iraq, throw in thousands more in Mexico, Columbia, Palestine, Sri Lanka, and on and on. Many of these directly related to U.S. policies. Let's not forget about the thousands who die in this country alone due to a lack of healthcare, poverty and hunger--all forms of violence.
As far as Bin Laden, there is no hard evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The FBI admitted this. He denied involvement in September 2001.
Also the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over if hard evidence was presented to show his involvement. The Bush Admn ignored this offer and elected to invade Afghanistan instead. Perhaps because they knew there was none or they didn't want to expose the link between the CIA and Bin Laden.
Maybe you are under thinking this.