“It’s hard to believe now, but back in the late ’90s, most of the Washington national security establishment — including President Clinton, the State Department, the Department of Defense — simply did not view Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as a serious threat.”
It’s not hard to believe at all. In fact, it is still the case.
“CIA agents reveal Bill Clinton stopped them killing Osama Bin Laden and ‘preventing 9/11’ by signing a bill making it illegal to take deadly action – even when they had him cornered,” by Leah Simpson, Dailymail.com, April 22, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Former CIA agents have said they were prevented from killing Osama Bin Laden in the build-up to 9/11 because of a bill signed by President Bill Clinton.
New documentary The Longest War details how the agency could have assassinated the head of Al Qaeda before September 11 when they had him cornered….
But their hands were tied because of the Memorandum of Notification enacted by President Clinton in August 1998 that meant deadly action was forbidden.
The agents and officials working in intelligence in the late 90s also say that Bin Laden wasn’t considered much of a threat.
‘The CIA had a so-called “lethal finding” [bill] that had been signed by President Clinton that said that we could engage in “lethal activity” against bin Laden, but the purpose of our attack against bin Laden couldn’t be to kill him,’ then-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, Bob Grenier explains in the documentary that aired Sunday on Showtime.
A 9/11 Commission report states that it authorized the CIA to attack Bin Laden in other ways.
‘We were being asked to remove this threat to the United States essentially with one hand tied behind our backs,’ Grenier added in the documentary….
‘Our tribal contacts came to us and said, “Look, he’s in this location now. When he leaves, he’s going to have to go through this particular crossroads.” And so what they proposed was to bury a huge cache of explosives underneath those crossroads so that when his convoy came through they could simply blow it up,’ Grenier explained in the documentary. ‘And we said absolutely not. We were risking jail if we didn’t tell them that.’
The following day the language of the memorandum was upgraded so it was understood the CIA could kill bin Laden is there was no other option to capture him alive.
However decisions were made not to carry out numerous attacks on bin Laden’s camp in 1999 and 2000. The memorandum was also downgraded again in 1999 to ‘capture not kill’ language….
The Longest War is directed by Greg Barker (Manhunt: The Inside Story of the Hunt for Bin Laden)….
‘It’s hard to believe now, but back in the late ’90s, most of the Washington national security establishment — including President Clinton, the State Department, the Department of Defense — simply did not view Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as a serious threat,’ Barker told Yahoo!
‘The handful of US officials who saw the looming threat clearly — and there were some, mostly mid-level officers at the CIA’s bin Laden unit and the counter-terrorism branch at the FBI — tried in vain to raise alarm bells at the highest levels, but were often ignored and even ridiculed.’…
Just 10 hours before the September 11 attacks, Clinton admitted to an audience in Australia that he’s had opportunities to kill bin Laden.
‘I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,’ Clinton told a small group of business leaders in Melbourne on September 10, 2001.
‘I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I just didn’t do it.’…
GOLDMANN says
He looks scared in that picture ?that picture is from when voting was on for the new PRESIDENT OF THE USA with Mr TRUMP AND Mrs Clinton. and Mr trump was telling some home truths about the EVIL Clinton’s ?
CogitoErgoSum says
It does not seem logical to carry out the punishment before the crime has been committed. Would it not be unjust to kill a man for something he might do but has not yet done? Reminds me of the provision for a Muslim man to beat his wife if he fears disobedience from her.
gravenimage says
Dear CogitoErgoSum, do you believe that Osama bin Laden started his career as a Jihadist on 9/11 in 2001? This is *not* the case. He founded Al Qaeda in 1988. He declared war against the US in 1996 after American pressure made him unwelcome in Sudan. Bin Laden was on the FBI’s lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. How are these not crimes?
There’s more, of course, but this in itself should have been enough.
CogitoErgoSum says
What crime was he proven guilty of committing?
Wellington says
Echoing and seconding gravenimage, CES, waiting for a monster to commit a “mere” crime is not a winning strategy. I mean don’t you wish Hitler had been “taken out” around 1935 or so?
As Winston Churchill opined, sometimes civilization must stoop almost as low as anti-civilization in order to preserve itself. Legal “niceties” observed beyond a certain point, which “niceties” only civilization observes and anti-civilization does not, can actually be quite self-destructive at times. WWII represents a case in point. Minus Hitler WWII would not have occurred—this is a very arguable contention.
And yes, I know that “skirting the edges” of civilization to preserve civilization is a slippery slope (and Churchill sure knew this and said so), but sometimes a slippery slope to maintain civilization is civilization’s only logical, common sense recourse.
Hey, ain’t a perfect world we live in, now is it? Exceptions to the rules must occur at times if any rules are to be preserved at all. If anything is valid, this is valid. But it must be engaged in at times—for civilization’s sake.
CogitoErgoSum says
Wellington and Grave, this is a most interesting topic to me.
I am not saying that some people should not be given the death penalty for committing a crime but I think laws should be followed in carrying out the sentence. I still believe that a man should be considered innocent until proven guilty and I believe that is a consideration that should be extended even to those who are not citizens of the U.S. If we are at war and an official declaration of war has been made then, yes, the leaders of the enemy should be targets subject to being killed by our military. However, I can not go along with killing someone simply because there is a chance that at some point in the future that person may do something bad.
Perhaps if I could travel through time and find out for sure what a person will do in the future I would think differently but as far as I know time travel is impossible and I don’t believe in fortune tellers either. We can say now that killing Hitler may have been a good idea but how do we know that someone even worse would not have taken his place? It’s possible this alternate Nazi leader would have succeeded where Hitler failed in building the atomic bomb and the Nazis would have won World War II and conquered the U.S.
No, we must make our decisions based upon the information we have at the time the decision must be made. It’s fun to play what if but we can never know for sure what really would have happened if we had only done such and such a thing. I believe if we have a good set of guiding principles our decisions will usually turn out for the best. My definition of good principle does not include killing people for what they may or may not do – only for what they have actually done.
Wellington says
CES: OK, let’s cut to the quick, all theories aside (including the distinction between “mere” crimes and war crimes).
You were President in the late 1990’s and not Bill Clinton and you were given the option to take out the monster, Osama bin-Laden. What would you have done?
CogitoErgoSum says
I’m not sure what information Clinton had at the time but I do remember hearing about this many years ago and thinking that instead of killing bin Laden I would have tried to find a way to capture him and if he resisted and was killed in the process then so be it … which is pretty much what happened to him in the end.
Wellington says
CES: Guess this is a difference between you and me (and I would note for both truth’s sake and amity’s sake I like to think we have much in common). No capture of this man for me—only death. And considering all the harm he eventually did why would my “take” on this “matter” not have been the optimal one?
A rule of mine: Never let pure evil prosper and thus end it sooner rather than later. I know of no exception to this rule. Do you?
CogitoErgoSum says
Wellington, I don’t remember if it was in psychology or sociology or philosophy class or what but I remember from my college days that one of my teachers held up a pencil in front of the class and asked us if we all saw the same thing. I thought to myself of course we do; we all see a pencil. But when the teacher called upon each one of us to describe what we saw it turned out that some could see teeth marks on the side of the pencil hidden from my point of view so actually we did not all see the same thing. That’s what I think we have here. I agree with you that evil should not be allowed to prosper – if it is recognized as such. The problem is that you are seeing it from the perspective of looking back in time and knowing what happened because of it and I am looking at it from the perspective that it is not always immediately apparent to me and I can’t see into the future. I don’t know what else to say except that it’s best to try to see things from as many different perspectives as possible. I always appreciate hearing from you concerning yours – as well as from Graven and others who comment here concerning theirs.
RonaldB says
For CogitoErgoSum:
I have several points.
1) A non-citizen is not subject to the same Constitutional protections as a US citizen. A US soldier could shoot a Mexican throwing stones at him from the Mexican side. That was legal, since the Mexican was not a US citizen. I concur with the decision. A thrown stone is life-threatening. A non-citizen throwing stones at US soldiers, I have no problem with shooting them.
2) The proposed assassination of bin Laden was not simply a preventative operation. He was already responsible for the deaths of US citizens, including the embassies at Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, as well as the USS Cole. The evidence for bin Laden involvement was very strong, although he was not convicted in a US court. But, as I noted, he did not come under Constitutional protections as a non-citizen.
There is a huge problem with government overreach, as I noted elsewhere on this thread, but that is not applicable to judging this one act of assassinating bin Laden after he had already killed US citizens.
CogitoErgoSum says
RonaldB, well, as I say, it’s a matter of perspective. Killing a Mexican throwing stones across the border at an American soldier today can be considered self-defense but American colonists being killed for throwing stones at British soldiers in 1770 is called the Boston Massacre and a reason to fight a war for independence from British tyranny.
I agree bin Laden was responsible for a lot of murder and destruction and some of it may have been prevented had he been killed sooner. We know these things about him now but did we know as much 20 to 30 years ago? It seems some did but most Americans did not and if Clinton knew just how dangerous bin Laden was he needs to explain why he spared the man’s life. I would certainly like to know his reasons.
As far as non-citizens not being entitled to the same rights as American citizens I mostly agree with you on that – except for those certain unalienable rights mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence. It states that all men are endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A government which does not hold these three things as being its most sacred duty to protect loses its right to govern in my opinion. Killing a man, whether a U.S. citizen or not, whether within the U;S. border or not, should never be done without due process and proper justification with authorization coming from an official within the government who is accountable to the people of the United States – namely the President. So, though I don’t believe Clinton should necessarily have to explain why he did not kill bin Laden, events and crimes committed by bin Laden later on do seem to me to require that Clinton explain why he failed to take an action which could have been justified as being done in self-defense.
Once again, it’s a fascinating topic to me and a matter of perspective that deserves further discussion by the American people. Thanks for your comment.
mortimer says
When our government hunts and assassinates an international terrorist like OBL, it is an act of war against a political leader who has declared war against our government. Seen in that way, killing the leader of a hostile terrorist group is political self-defense. The ‘crime’ is international terrorism … warfare against us by a group that is not a state.
CogitoErgoSum says
Mortimer, see my comments to Terry Gain a little farther down. Maybe you can elaborate.
gravenimage says
CogitoErgoSum, I actually consider the Embassy Bombings to have been pretty serious.
keith says
And all that was AFTER he finished fighting the Russians in Afghanistan with the help from the CIA.
Up until that point he was useful. Then the CIA should have gotten rid of this loose end”.
Fang. says
All I would like to know is if CogitoErgoSum is immunised against anything. If so he is a hypocrite.
CogitoErgoSum says
Fang, is immunised the same as immunized? If so, yes, I’ve had several different vaccinations. Don’t know what that would have to do with being a hypocrite so you’ll have to explain that one to me a little more.
Ronald Fox says
Gravenimage,
You have it exactly right. Bin Laden was responsible for the US embassy deaths at Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi Kenya. In this case, you don’t have to wait until a jury of his peers have convicted him. In other words, an assassination is justified for a fugitive leader whose minions, with his full compliance, have murdered Americans because they are Americans.
As usual, the US government has taken it too far, and assassinates hundreds of people via drones, including American citizens. It’s always a balancing act between liberty and national defense. We see in the Corona virus panic that elements of the government are always trying to use any emergency at hand to extend government power.
I realize I’m bringing in a somewhat extraneous point.
Terry Gain says
GI and CES
You are right GI. I do not understand why CES is arguing that the killing of bin Laden was not justified because. he hadn’t done anything. In fact, he had done plenty that justified killing him.
Here is a summary of bin Laden’s attacks upon the The United States, including his declaration of war in August 1996 which by itself required his elimination. Clinton was in dereliction of his duty to protect the United States of America
https://www.ibtimes.com/timeline-osama-bin-ladens-life-attacks-end-281955
CogitoErgoSum says
Terry, my argument is that killing a man should require some sort of due process that includes more than just the President deciding someone living in another country should be killed. I think bin Laden was tried in absentia after the 2001 attacks but was that also done back in the 1990’s? And even though bin Laden and Al Qaeda may have declared war on the U.S. in 1996 did the U.S. officially declare war on Al Qaeda at the same time? Also, if Clinton signed a bill prohibiting assassinating bin Laden, wouldn’t that bill have had to have been passed by both the House and Senate? I’ll admit maybe I’m just missing something here.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Terry.
US officials indicted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda military chief Muhammad Atef on 224 counts of murder for the embassy bombings in late 1998. The State Department offered a $5 million reward for information leading to bin Laden’s arrest or conviction at the time.
rubiconcrest says
Bin Laden backed up his declaration of war with action. His involvement in acts of terrorism was known. As a non-state actor he did not have the rights we afford to citizens. I am sorry CogitoEroSum. You are engaged in weak moralizing. He was not a political activist. He was the leader of cold blooded jihadists. Better to take out the leaders when it comes to a nation’s self defense. The only reason Clinton did nothing chiefly because he was of low moral character. This was evident by his inability to put sex in it’s place. Also, he believed avoiding political blows was more important than the safety of Americans.
J WHA says
Bin Laden attacked the USS Cole and embassies in Africa. BEFORE 9/11.
Rob Porter says
CogitoErgoSum, it is evident that are gifted at writing total bollocks. Long before 9/11 Bin Laden and al Qaeda had committed crimes, not least the 1998 destruction of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, murdering more than 200 African civilians, and they bombed the USS Cole in Aden, murdering 17 sailors. Incessantly Muslims all over the world murder people innocent of any crime because they don’t believe the utter crap contained in the Qur’an.
gravenimage says
CIA agents reveal Bill Clinton stopped them killing bin Laden, signed bill making it illegal to take deadly action
………………..
And now, these many years later, many would do just the same. That is the biggest problem.
GOLDMANN says
Clinton’s Evil illuminate Satanist ?
Rarely says
We have no idea what would have happened had he been taken out pre-9/11. Perhaps the devil we don’t know would have been more lethal than the one we did know. Perhaps 9/11 would have been deadlier under his “replacement”. It’s not as if he was a lone wolf.
20:20 hindsight has its limitations. If Hitler been taken out early in WWII Germany may just have won the War.
All pretty big “ifs”.
Naildriver says
I’ve seen your annoying comments on earlier threads.
Yes, it would have been better had OBL been blown to bits into a crater along with his Koran before 9/11. I know this for sure.
What side are you on? I know what side I’m on; and people on my side have no problems in wondering about how an enemy as that sack of crap should be, or should have been, dealt with — in all tenses.
Are you a shill here or paid blatherer?
Aunty Podes says
Well said, hammer!
Rarely says
Hi Hammer.
I can assure you that I have as much hatred towards OBL as anyone and certainly would not have shed one tear had Clinton taken him out. We assume 9/11 wouldn’t have happened and perhaps it wouldn’t have if he’d been taken out earlier. BUT OBL was not acting alone and perhaps, just perhaps, his associates might have been even more efficient on that fateful day.
My objection is in tar and feathering Clinton for not taking OBL out. History (AKA 20/20 hindsight) proves him to have been wrong — probably but we’ll never know for certain.
In any event taking out OBL would likely have resulted in significant collateral damage so any decision would not have been an easy one.
Rarely says
BTW. I’m pleased that you find my comments “annoying”. I don’t share the view that many commenters do that islam should be countered by our being as barbaric and inhuman as are many of its adherents. The annihilation of all the muslims on the planet, either through war and/or mass conversion to other religions is about as likely as the Sun rising in the West tomorrow. Nor is it any more likely that islam will enter a major Reformation.
When someone comes up with a practical (and reasonable) solution I’ll be the first to jump on the bandwagon.
Naildriver says
We’re at war with Islam — even if we hear assurances from the likes of Obama that we are not.
Do you want it to drag out for 500 years or have a decisive duration between these two world views while the West still has a decisive upper hand?
You can expect far more human suffering, corruption war, and terrorism, if lies and treason are permitted to drag this inevitable fight out.
The civilized human race is also kept from concerning itself with other crucial concerns while it deals with Islam’s devotees; and. in addition to Pakistan, if other Islamic state’s develop nukes it’s likely a dual nuke war will come about on earth if Islam isn’t soon crushed as a world power. It would be better if today a renegade commander destroyed Mecca — the blowback would be minor to the culminating destruction we will see if this persists for a hundred years.
Rarely says
Nuke Mecca? And kill all the other muslims on the planet while we’re at it I suppose. Anything else I’m missing?
naildriver says
Yes, missing a great deal.
Just saying it’d be better compared to your phony humanitarian, do nothing, quips; which eventually would certainly cost far more lives — but really, what is your game, Rarely?.
Sure, my imagination, if as a script writer, would applaud a renegade sub commander taking out Mecca, packed out, mobs of Muslims, faces planted in Mohammed’s twaddle, in one fell blow. I’ve got a right to fantasize! — someday there’ll be Hollywood movies with such themes.
Muslim devotees will eventually be the new Nazi storm troopers in movies and TV.
If Muslims think it honorable to sacrifice for Islam; do not we in the West have a civilization worth sacrificing for, given it’s so much better? And is it not worth putting up a fight given what will happen if we lose it to Islamic stinkers?
I recall when a bi-partisan USA conscripted boys into the service, to fight the communists in several bloody wars, and carpet bombed Cambodia — a neutral country. But Islam’s system is ten times the enemy as communism.
But ‘quick and easy’ is not going to happen, and I know it, but, I can voice that opinion in these threads to get some attention to the stakes involved.
You do know, there are many Muslims, CORRECTLY FOLLOWING ISLAM, who plan kill RS and Pamela Gellar; simply for nonviolently opposing Islam, don’t you? It’s not these Muslims personal imaginations it’s their duty to Islam.
And, today’s bought off press will say, should the devotees to Islam succeed, Spenser and Gellar had it coming, because they provoked and insulted -dissed!- these simple but peaceful Muslim people.
I say it doesn’t’t matter if things get a little unethical in this fight, particularly, given the lateness of the day ( Islam could have been killed completely prior to WWI almost without a whimper )— in war one defeats the enemy by killing them.
Thing is, Rarely, despite other evils in the world, Islam is not just a nation of 1.5 billion we are at war with, it’s a point where humanity has to decide if it’s going to persist allowing hoards of traitors and greedy opportunists; the likes of Obama and the corrupt, like Biden’s and Clinton’s, to keep steering humanity’s future into this morass of stupidity.
You say destroying an enemy is ‘primitive’, but; I doubt you’d feel that way if it was you yourself, and family who was targeted to have your heads cut off.
One cannot uphold integrity if one is dead.
Critics of those who oppose Islamic assaults upon us routinely ‘assume the sale’ these dark days; and mention JW disparagingly in discussions.
Even just yesterday in the NY times I read such a slander; as if it’s a foregone conclusion that Islam is OK, and that Muslim immigrants are OK … OK by the millions into our societies Never mind that it’s obvious that where ever and what ever society Muslims enter, all hell breaks out:
but, the MSM assures us, these few holdouts like JW are proven loony tunes, even white supremacists now.’ In their chuckle headed self assured commentaries they say; ‘there are no other opposing voices except these white racist, right wing, Christian fundamentalists (I don’t identify as any of those — but then they ask in so many words, ‘ is that not proof of Spenser’s delusions? So, ‘everybody just calm down! and, let’s see where a seventh century Islam takes us.
‘Remember how great it was in Granada before 1492 when we all lived together happily in multiculturalism?’
Actually, no.
You are that repugnant voice too, Rarely.
gravenimage says
9/11 may not have happened at all if we had actually shown that attacking the United States had real consequences.
End PC says
Wonder how the survivors of 9/11 feel about this.
It’s clear Biden won’t be more protective of Americans, he’ll just remove the immigration bans and increase immigration. He likes the idea of a White minority here swamped by 3rd world peoples like Muslims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgrliuQW_-Q
James Lincoln says
End PC,
Much thanks for sharing this video link.
Very disturbing stuff…
GreekEmpress says
Totally agree, Mr. Lincoln.
He’s so incoherent most of the time, and when he sounds halfway lucid, he’s absolutely terrifying.
James Lincoln says
Osama bin Laden had US blood on his hands as early as 1998.
Recall the 1998 United States embassy bombings on the United States Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the other at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.
The attacks were linked to Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their terrorist organization, al-Qaeda.
12 Americans were killed including two CIA employees.
Wellington says
Seconded.
somehistory says
He was bragging that he “nearly got him.” He would have taken credit if bin laden had been killed while he was acting as president. Sounds as if he regretted not doing so…then he could have bragged like “o” did when the Seals killed the terrorist in pakistan. “o” took credit, but then ratted out the guys who actually had their own lives on the line, and they were murdered.
clinton consoles himself to rid his feelings of *regret* by telling the audience he was too concerned about the citizens…women and children…that would have died if **he had **gotten** bin laden.
bin laden was not the only member of al queda at the time, so the attack that was already in the planning, already in the works, would have happened anyway.
Paul Wheeler says
CogitoErgoSum’s argument is fairly typical of the legalistic way of dealing with jihadis. Can we prove beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt that Ali bin whoever really built, placed and then detonated the bomb that killed nnn American soldiers or civilians on this specific date at this specific time? In theory, the person could never be tried in an American court because the potential jury pool might have been contaminated by coverage of the event – much like wags joked that it would be impossible to fairly try Jack Ruby for murdering Lee Harvey Oswald because much of America saw it on live television.
It is the same legalism that led Jamie Gorelik of the 9/11 Commission (a true conflict of interest if there ever were one) to forbid communications between police and intelligence agencies before 9/11.
There is a difference between ordinary law enforcement and counterterrorism.
And I see no reason for non-Americans especially to be given the same rights as Americans.
I speak as one who opposed the Obama Administration’s droning of Americans who had not been given due process. Americans have Constitutional rights. While courts have been granting those rights to non-Americans who are not even resident aliens, I still say that non-Americans have zero right to any Constitutional rights. Droning an American in a coffee shop outside the U.S. is a clear violation of the man’s natural right to a trial by jury of his peers, right to confront opposing witnesses and produce evidence to counter the prosecution’s evidence.
Legalisms free our enemies – they are enemies, not opponents or adversaries – to take undue advantage of rights Americans fought, bled and died for and give those enemies real-world advantages over us. It is expecting Marquis of Queensbury rules in a world that runs more like a knife fight. There are no rules in a knife fight.
Why any reasoning person would not see this is beyond me.
9/11 and similar attacks are not law enforcement issues.
Period.
And it’s so great to know that Bill Clinton is still a better man the Osama bin Laden.
Unless ObL’s security detail was 300 or so innocent villagers, the plan discussed would not have killed “innocents” – but would have killed members of his security detail, who clearly are/were combatants. No one in ObL’s convoy could be considered innocent.
Besides, as the Messenger himself noted once when followers asked about killing enemies’ children in a raid, replied, “They (the children) are of them (the enemies).”
Jafo says
Don’t conflate privileges and rights. Privileges are based on status and merit, while all human beings inherently have the same rights, regardless of citizenship, status, or merit. The founders of the USA made an effort to point out that we are born with inalienable rights: they cannot be taken away, only infringed upon. They didn’t quite make the distinction as perfectly as I personally would have liked, but they got the general idea down pretty well.
For instance, voting is a privilege conferred only upon citizens. Similarly, driving on the roads we all fund is a privilege conferred on those deemed capable of doing so safely. Etc.
But when it comes to a right, like for instance the right to liberty in the 5th amendment, it is enjoyed by all, regardless of citizenship or status. We as a nation may only infringe upon your rights if we agree collectively through elected governance that you are likely to use those rights to infringe unilaterally on the rights of others (e.g. confine you to prison for being a known serial killer). However, we can never actually take your rights away. That’s why they’re described as inalienable in the constitution.
Note: I make no comment on the rest of what you say. I just think this is an important thing to keep straight in one’s head and I always take any opportunity to encourage that.
Terry Gain says
Jafo
You make a good point, but it requires some clarification.The Inalienable rights apply to non-citizens on American soil And they apply to Americans everywhere.
Those who claim that there were insufficient grounds to kill bin Laden fail to distinguish between what is permissible against ordinary lawbreakers and what is permissible against declared enemies or enemies engaged in combat. Bin Laden fell into the latter category and he was not entitled to any rights set out in the American Constitution.
In addition to granting the rights of American citizens to enemies, a second mistake In America’s defence against this latest Islamic war is to treat the enemy as if they are entitled to the Geneva convention even though it applies only to members of signatory states who are fighting the war while in uniform.
A third mistake has been to prefer the rights of enemy combatants to go about their business to the rights of ordinary American citizens to live their lives.
I disagree with the assertion that the attack upon the United States would have occurred even If bin Laden had been taken out by Clinton as compliance with his duty required after the 1996 declaration of war. Al-Qaeda is composed of fanatics who believe that their mission is blessed by Allah. Exterminating bin Laden would have undermined that belief.
In any event, the fundamental lesson of 9/11 has yet to be learned. The attack upon America was carried out by Muslims who had gained legal entry into the United States.
Jafo says
Terry,
The inalienable rights recognized (not established) in the US Constitution are human rights, rather than American, so I would say that in addition to applying to the two groups of people you listed (anyone inside America, and Americans anywhere else), I would actually expand that to these rights applying to “all humans everywhere”. We recognize these rights as being something all humans innately possess, not just Americans.
However, it would reasonable to say that we strive to _protect_ these rights on behalf of those two groups, yes. I suspect this is what you really meant in your response, so I’m not really even disagreeing with you. I think I’m just clarifying regarding our government recognizing that we possess these rights vs. our government actively protecting them. (Ideally, anyway. Politicians are just humans, and almost all humans are severely flawed when it comes to good judgement and reasoning. I try very hard myself, but I fail often, and and I guarantee that fail even more often without even realizing it.)
Similarly, I have no disagreement with anything else you said. The priorities you describe seem eminently reasonable to me. Possessing human rights doesn’t mean that exercising them is free of obligation. A person may only exercise their rights if they don’t infringe on another’s rights, and the various holy/oily wars we see so often around the world consist almost entirely of infringing on innocent people’s rights. Any group that instigates war chooses to put its own rights to life and liberty on the line, and they have no cause to complain if those rights are not preserved, nor should anyone complain on their behalf.
Roger Bost says
Typical liberal, act like a Frenchie.
Wellington says
The photo above, I would argue, captures the “essence” of the man.
somehistory says
His expression says, “Uh,oh! How much do they know and where can I hide? What was that line I used before that got me out of the hot seat?” “I did not..no wait…”
Spiro says
This is old news
Terry Gain says
It is old news which needs to be retold until more people understand that the enemies of America are not limited to adherents of the conquest ideology but also include those who refuse to deal with America’s avowed enemies even though their oath of office requires them to do so.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Previous presidents didn’t understand the canonical doctrine of hostility towards the kafir that Islam requires of all Islamic adherents. Trump gets it. He said, ‘I think Islam hates us.’
Clinton didn’t know that.
Phil Copson says
“….clinton consoles himself to rid his feelings of *regret* by telling the audience he was too concerned about the citizens…women and children…that would have died if **he had **gotten** bin laden….”
—————————————————————————————————————-
No – he’s just lying again: The account above makes it plain that there were numerous opportunities to have attacked his camp. Neither attacking his camp nor a road-side bomb would have involved blowing up Kandahar and killing 300 people.
This is just him resenting the fact that somebody else got the credit, and telling all around “I coulda done that !”
Different point: given that Obama is so notoriously pro-Ummah – who did he clear this action with ? Did he genuinely carry out this action as the autonomous President of the USA, or did he do it on a nod and a wink with his muslim allies that he would do this to bolster him at home, but give them a trade-off somewhere down the line with more influence on US domestic/foreign policy ? All the influence that CAIR etc have didn’t come out of nowhere…..
Glynnda White says
Bill Clinton passed on two chances to get Osama B…..
UNCLE VLADDI says
Why blame Clinton for this one?! Blame him for Kosovo, sure – but this one’s on Ronald REAGAN! Reagan hired Saudi Usama Bin Laden and tasked him with hiring, equipping, training and paying “the Taliban” which didn’t exist before the two of them created it to oppose the Russian in Afghanistan. See the movie “Rambo III” to get a feel for the times. Bin Laden was a CIA asset, so of course Clinton couldn’t order him killed! DUH.
gravenimage says
Uh huh. It’s all the fault of the ‘filthy Infidels’…
UNCLE VLADDI says
Reagan armed them with Stinger missiles, which destroyed the Soviet presence there. And, while the CIA certainly didn’t time-travel and create Muhammad or islam itself, they and their respective American regimes definitely DID create the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and even ISIS, too.
OLD GUY says
It’s a fine line between killing those who have attacked America or its bonafide allies and those who threaten to kill or attach America. Osama Bin Laden and his followers should have been taken down if we had the absolute truth about their terror actions against us prior to 9-11. But if it was just talk and threats its hard to justify killing him and international laws come into play. Without all the facts it is hard to say what Clinton should have done at the time. I say that not as a Clinton supporter, because I do not like Bill or his idiot wife.
Rob Porter says
OLD GUY, you’ve evidently forgotten that Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda destroyed U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998, killing more than 200 African civilians. They then bombed the USS Cole in Aden, killing 17 sailors. For that Clinton uselessly fired missiles into Afghanistan.
Read Richard Miniters ‘Losing bin Laden’ and you will know that the U.S. knew long before 9/11 that Bin Laden was a murdering son of a bitch. Clinton was gutless bag of wind, like Madelaine Albright and Sandy Burger. Their cowardly lack of spine prevented the CIA and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan from obliterating bin Laden and his top leaders. For their disgusting negligence and cowardice they have blood on their hands.
mortimer says
If the CIA had assassinate OBL before 9-11, no one in the world would have cared about it and even Al Qaeda would simply have replaced him with someone awaiting a promotion.