RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Excerpt: "Look at the Nuremberg Trials. We didn't just pop a bullet in the heads of the worst scum in history. We thought it was important to put them on trial and expose their evil. In a democracy we believe in a system of justice and we believe in a judicial system that gives people a day in court ... and then we hung them." - Michael Moore

Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)

go to original article your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+88 # Kayjay 2011-05-05 19:35
When the Nuremberg trials were held 1945-46, our society still had a semblance of decency and democracy. Today, our government just lies to us.
+15 # lynn rudmin-chong 2011-05-06 04:44
Self-important John Kerry is explaining the Bin Laden death on the radio as I write. George Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind. Power rests on secrecy then and now. The government can always (and does) claim "classified" for the info we all need but that government holds back, like a games-player seeing an advantage by keeping secrets.
+19 # rf 2011-05-06 04:49
Not to mention a justice system that still worked. Trials didn't take 7 years just to make lawyers rich.
-76 # muffy7 2011-05-05 22:58
Why doesn't Moore just shut his big fat mouth? What does he know, is he trying to cause trouble for our President? I have lost all respect for the messy cretin.
+24 # DaveW 2011-05-06 09:46
"Dead Man's Curve Ball"
I am an old man
I walk barefoot on shattered glass
Yet it’s my “heart” that bleeds
Automatic weapons fire tracers towards Orion
A twenty six year old woman changes diapers
in nearby tattered apartment. She has 13 teeth.
A kid’s head emerges from a graffitied dumpster
Half eaten slice of pizza in his mouth
Red, White and Blue Bunting
Hangs on a bank like a rapper’s trousers
A stern looking man appears on a huge video monitor
in garbage strewn park. Old Glory ripples behind him.
His words begin soft, a tenor totalitarian singing
A crescendo of carping castigation
CELEBRATE! He does so order
‘Tis “Bin Laden Dead Day”
+2 # Ralph Averill 2011-05-07 04:51
The author of the wonderful poem?
+24 # GI Resister 2011-05-05 23:16
While workers around the country and around the world were celebrating International Labor Day – May Day 2011– in memory of the Haymarket Martyrs and US Labor’s victories to win the 8hr work day –

Unfortunately those in the highest office in our land were watching a “snuff film” after which the President of the United States set to boasting the end results (the assassination of Osama bin Laden) in a televised address to the Nation.
Killing is becoming a science see:
This madness will end when we teach violence is deplorable, when we see we are all of one family, when nations are just geography and borders are natures creations (mountains, rivers, oceans…) when we recognize labor’s longstanding motto “An Injury to One, Is An Injury To ALL”
+1 # paula eckardt 2011-05-06 17:41
Yes, I agree.
+9 # Irishding 2011-05-07 06:22
Quoting GI Resister:
While workers around the country and around the world were celebrating International Labor Day – May Day 2011– in memory of the Haymarket Martyrs and US Labor’s victories to win the 8hr work day –

Unfortunately those in the highest office in our land were watching a “snuff film” after which the President of the United States set to boasting the end results (the assassination of Osama bin Laden) in a televised address to the Nation.
Killing is becoming a science see:
This madness will end when we teach violence is deplorable, when we see we are all of one family, when nations are just geography and borders are natures creations (mountains, rivers, oceans…) when we recognize labor’s longstanding motto “An Injury to One, Is An Injury To ALL”

I agree wholehearedlty, with "GI" there is no rejoicing in delivering death and destruction to any living thing. We are all one, we all came from the same source, we are connected to everyone and everything. Until our leaders and those in power and influence(and indeed all mankind) embrace this,set aside narrow minded predjudices, become truly enlightened, to live life connected to the creative life force within, we are doomed to the continual cycle of perpetrating pain and suffering on each other.
+7 # RM 2011-05-07 14:04
Wow -- GI Resister, you said it all.

The really important things in life such as the gains made by labor unions to the quality of work life and to the oneness of the whole human family are simply not talked about enough. We can't stop Obama from joining the psychopaths who exchange corpses and think they are getting somewhere. They are not. The unionists who challenged Gov. Walker in Wisconsin did 10,000 times more for the human race than Obama and his kill team did. Obama is now as irrelevant to the progress of the human soul as Osama is. May they both rest in peace, while the human race moves forward.
+23 # Douglas Jack 2011-05-05 23:20
What most would like is the opportunity to speak equally about the issues which affect us. If the role of the military was to guarantee formal recorded debates everywhere for everyone and to publish these widely in appropriate media, then picking up a gun would be the mark of an inarticulate bully. Thanks Michael for standing up to the bullies!
+10 # lotuslover 2011-05-05 23:24
Nobody needs another shrine--a place to worship the fallen leader. More jihad, more demonstrations, more children used as suicide bombers? Nah. Don't need it. He sleeps with fish. That's good.
0 # jeenious 2011-05-06 09:54
Are you implying that the continuing suicide bombs, killing women, children and other non-combatants, are not martyrs, but the leaders who direct recruitment, training and timing of the bombs are the only martyrs?

Rhetorical question.
+9 # Mad Angel on FB 2011-05-05 23:24
I used to be a HUGE fan of MM.....but here's where I have a problem...
"I have a lot of faith in Obama"

How could he be so clear on Bush- and so blind on Obama....
0 # Freedom 2011-05-05 23:36
Zionists are and have been fighting the Arabs for many years using ruthless tactics of torture, murder, theft and any underhanded method available. It is a fight between Arabs and Zionists and the Zionists, of course, use Washington DC and our taxpayer money because they control Washington DC. Bin Laden means nothing to the people of the USA but everything to the Zionists so why does anybody care about any of the Zionist mess???
+1 # jJ D Matthews 2011-05-05 23:54
This was a covert raid to get the mastermind of 9/11 attacks on America. They had to land scale inside firefight with security if not with binLaden gater all the intell blow up the crashed helo, and get out quick enough to save their skins. Commander on the sceine had to make that decision. If they are trained as well as we believe, then we have to trust them to carry out the mission.
+8 # billy bob 2011-05-06 13:29
Apparently they just weren't trained well enough to take an unarmed man alive.
+15 # Ralph Averill 2011-05-07 05:01
The had no intention of taking him alive.
+7 # billy bob 2011-05-07 06:45
I agree.
-6 # cherylpetro 2011-05-07 16:46
Perhaps the situation didn't allow for it! We weren't there; you can't make judgments! That is why the Navy Seals are an elite group of experts; I'll bet you are NOT!
+13 # Jaquelyn McCandless 2011-05-06 00:09
Michael, goodbye! I've now lost one of my former heroes. Invoking Catholicism and the pope totally discredits your opinion on this one as far as I am concerned. How many millions of totally innocent adult bodies not to mention countless children's souls have been executed by this misogynist nstitution?
+21 # Dave W. 2011-05-06 10:01
Jaquelyn, I agree with your Catholicism/Pop e analogy. I still think Moore is one of the "good guys" but he totally missed the hypocrisy of using his church as a "symbol" of virtue. He knows...and we know, that this "misogynist institution" as you state, is responsible for far more deaths and suffering than Bin Laden could have inflicted in 100 lifetimes.
The "core" of Moore's message is sound. I'd suggest he leave his religious baggage at the door next time.
+11 # billy bob 2011-05-06 12:48
I agree to a point. I know I'll get slammed for this, but I think it's a HUGE mistake on the part of the left, to willingly say, "we don't trust people who call themselves 'Christians' ". The problem is that the far right has gone SO FAR down the road of destroying the seperation of church and state that many liberals (often myself included) feel the need to denigrate all religion wherever it raises its ugly head.

To me, religion is a mixed bag. Just like government, it's only what people make of it. I hate what are governmnet has been up to for the past few decades, but I think we need a government. We just need to hold it to a higher standard. The exact same applies to religion. I believe that there is more to religion than the collective hypocricy of many of its adherents.

I agree that right-wing hypocrites have hijacked most of our organized religions across the spectrum, BUT I refuse to cave in to them and just let them take over completely. From a pragmatic angle, deciding to unilaterally grant the far right the religious vote is political suicide. Personally, I'd rather just TAKE BACK my government and our religions, before the other side starts dictating to all of us with legislation what we're allowed to think.

Michael Moore was almost a priest. He's also an NRA member.

Most Catholics are Democrats.
+5 # Dave W. 2011-05-06 13:41
billy bob, I don't believe either of us (myself or Jaquelyn) said "we don't trust people who call themselves Christians." The Catholic church HAS been involved in a massive cover-up for decades concerning sexual abuse perpetrated on children. No ambiguity there. The Catholic church, generally through its mouthpiece, the Pope, HAS worked feverishly to deny women's reproductive rights or even to allow the distribution of condoms in third world countries. No ambiguity about that either. Much suffering and death has been the DIRECT result. Again, unambiguous. You're on target about right-wing hypocrites "hijacking" organized religion. I have NO trouble trusting people who call themselves Christians until they prove conclusively that its merely a front. Its simple. If you're a Christian, act like one. I believe they have a "rule book" that some, not all, cherry pick to fit their own particular ideologies. The NRA is a terrorist group. That's what they'd be called anywhere else "American interests" were at stake. Moore has a right to his guns. He should consider renouncing his membership in the NRA. Just my opinion.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-06 15:41
You have to realize Catholicism isn't just a religious organization. It's also a religion. Michael Moore isn't a sexual pervert. Then again, I've heard many local stories of Protestant ministers getting in trouble for the same thing. These stories just never make it as national news, so the perception (which I think is incorrect) is that it's somehow worse among Catholic priests. It might be, but I doubt it.

I'm not defending criminals and hypocrites. I'm defending people who honestly are trying to practice their faith, while being discounted due to guilt by association. If the left can side itself with the good guys who adhere to any particular religion it won't turn them away. The right is forming a strong alliance with the bad guys in Catholic and Protestant religions and is gaining very loyal voters for its effort. The left, by ignoring the good, is turning potential voters into no shows.

I disagree with Moore's membership in the NRA as well, but his opinion is that the NRA didn't become a terrorist organization until the late 70's when it was hijacked by the far right. He feels that he can remind people of what its actual charter once was and bring people back to it. Before the late 70's the NRA was a strong proponent of gun control.

I'm not
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-06 15:50
Oh boy! I just realized what happened!

I AM a strong proponent of gun control. I was beginning a new sentence when RSN's word count cut me off. I decided not to finish the sentence, but forgot to delete the first two words of it.

By the way, I didn't mean the two of you necessarily don't trust all Christians. I'm a practicing, church going Christian, although I find it extremely difficult to listen to other Christians discuss their faith at all anymore - even when I agree with them. The reason is that I don't want to further contribute to the erosion of what used to be a line between private beliefs and public display of those beliefs. I find myself ashamed of my own beliefs because of the righties who've hijacked the public face of my religion. Now that I have children, it's a balancing act sometimes between teaching them religious beliefs which I believe will help them deal with life and teaching them to be responsible citizens, which involves not imposing those beliefs on others.

The voice I take on when I'm confronting NCMike and forteaparty is different than the one I'm using with you. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I think you speak from a place of genuine conviction which I respect. I just like the give and take of the conversation.
+1 # Dave W. 2011-05-07 16:25
Ralph Averill, That would be me: Dave Waldon Thank you very much for your kind words. I am "disturbed" when Americans find cause for celebration in the murder of another human being. I'm not defending Bin Laden and not saying he didn't get what was coming to him. We have right-wing politicians, in both parties, who, if their policies are enacted, will eventually lead to the decay of whatever remains of our national character and ultimately to many, many premature deaths. I don't believe Americans will be "celebrating" then and that was what the poem was implying.
As we both know, in many we're at or near that point already. My blog site is I would be honored if you visited and left some feedback. Thanks again Ralph, and may I also say I've found your comments on these posts to be well thought out and uniformly excellent.
+2 # Dave W. 2011-05-07 16:46
billy bob, You've no reason to "be ashamed" of your own beliefs for a simple reason: "YOU BELIEVE THEM" and from everything I can garner of you on these posts "YOU LIVE THEM" as well. I am not a religious man per se but I am NOT anti-religion either. I've tried to teach my two daughters to be respectful of others beliefs (as long as they're peaceful) and now that they've grown into young women a father can be proud of my wife and I believe we did a pretty fair job in that respect. My wife, by the way, is a Christian and periodically attends church services. We both attended the Unitarian church in our town for about a year. I'm still wrestling with the concept of faith and belief in a "particular" God. I do believe there must be some kind of higher power, some supreme entity. I simply don't know what that is. I'm not sure anybody has ever "really" known. But of course that is the nature of faith. We both are well aware of the right's hijacking of organized religion and the danger inherent in that act. If you've not read "The Family" by author Jeff Sharlett, may I suggest you do. Truly frightening some of the acts and ideology perpetuated in the name of Jesus. You are my favorite commenter on these posts. I admire your intellect, your sense of humor as well as justice and its articulation. Take care Billy.
0 # George D 2011-05-09 08:39
As a person that was raised in the Catholic religion and now has no religion and truly believes in no god at all, I can agree with most of the comments here.
To me though; People need to believe in themselves and understand that the common thread we all share is humanity itself. It's a simple saying; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
And add a little common sense and reasoning to that and understand that the world has good and evil; Not in the form of devils and angels but people that don't understand that simple truth and perpetrate death, torture and other evil behavior on others. THEY deserve to "reep what they sow".
Call it situation ethics; I'm fine with that term. I don't need a "good book" written with loopholes to fit any thought process or a reward of "everlasting life" to know how to live THIS life.
Evil people (and we do all understand what good and evil is don't we?) deserve evil treatment. Everyone else deserves the benefit of the doubt; Even Obama.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-06 15:53
What I was going to say was, "I'm not....

going to defend the NRA or what it has become."

0 # Name: Hors-D-whores 2011-05-07 00:50
I don't know why MM would include the not so free of shame Catholic thing into all this, but I'm remaining a big fan of his anyway because I think that MM has his ethics firmly sound and that he is trying to hold our basic ideals in check.
Could he be right, that having the live OBL might have been more civil? I would have preferred it too, but that is not what happened. If info is what he is after, I think we are going to get more from what was found in his compound than what he would have told us with or without torture techniques. (Certainly NOT with torture techs.)
It might be important for us to question what happened anyway because not questioning is giving up our rights as involved citizens and giving into complacency.
+5 # Roger Briand 2011-05-07 09:28
I gave up on Michael Moore when he tried to talk Ralph Nader into getting out of the election against Kerry. People, watch this movie: Ralph Nader- an unreasonable man. He has been marginalized by the repugnican party and vilified by the democrats for being a spoiler during the election. Notice at the end of the movie all the credits for legislation Nader passed in his time as a public citizen. Nader once said he could do more as a citizen than as a president. he was right. Look at the list. he puts most legislators to shame by the amount he could get done.
As president, he would have been bogged down in petty behavior that has no place in politics. Compromise?!! The repugnicans are totally oppositional. They don't do compromise. It's not in their lexicon.
-1 # George D 2011-05-09 08:26
This has truly been an interesting week and it reminds me why Democrats have had such a hard time governing.

I usually agree with most things posted here. Some of the names I have considered "friends" of sorts in the past. MM is one of the prominent names I refer to but I also refer to opinion posts as well.

What is it about this issue that is so divisive? Bin Laden was killed. Much of his record keeping material is in our hands. In my mind, he was never a "Timothy McVey figure but a Hitler figure. He started and perpetuated a war on America, and American troops killed him. Did he "go for a gun"? Are you joking? (I cleaned that comment up a lot)
These men rappelled into a dark unknown, behind enemy lines, at HUGE risk and you want to second guess whether they were there to take him alive or not?

I sure wish some of you would stop embarrassing the rest of us Progressives with this kind of stuff. If you EVER want America to move in our direction, we need to pay attention and take Obama's example on how to do that. To say talk of taking bin Laden alive and "giving him a fair trial" is misguideded is a huge understatement.
+15 # foxfilm 2011-05-06 00:19
Amen. I feel so sorry for those who get healing from killing someone else. The healing was to come from the trial. The laying out of the facts before a jury, and then the outcome. This way there will always be questions, and quite frankly, rightly so.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-06 13:47
Actually, most of the interviews I listened to with relatives of 9-11 victims showed that they didn't get any sense of "healing" from shooting bin laden. Nothing can bring back the dead. Still, justice would have a lot more healing power than attempted revenge.
0 # X Dane 2011-05-06 15:12
"The healing was to come from the trial. The laying out of the facts before a jury, and then the outcome. This way there will always be questions, and quite frankly, rightly so".

REALLY foxfilm??????? Bringing OBL to trial would be an impossibility. They were not allowed to bring Khalid Sheik Muhammad to trial, and although he is a big fish, he is certainly not the size of OBL.

The threat of terrorists trying to free him or threating the country with dangerous attacks would be waaaaaay to dangerous. How many years has Khalid been in costody???? It would be much too dangerous.
As for his guilt? we have videos of him bragging to some of his compadres how they had planned it; but how surprized he was that the towers totally collapsed.
He has convicted himself, and if he was executed??..... ....Thanks a million to the seals. They certainly spared the country monumental headaches, and ditto costs. It was the perfect outcome
+9 # Burkey 2011-05-06 23:12
You're kidding, right? We can send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women to shoot at people but we're not sufficiently equipped to hold a safe trial?

It sounds like justice is a "headache" to you, and the remedy a bullet in someone else's head.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-07 00:15
Well said.
+2 # angelfish 2011-05-06 00:36
Re: Osama Bin Ladin. Someone, John Donne, I think(?), once said, "Any man's death diminishes me". However, Moms Mabely used to say, "Never say anything bad about the dead. He's dead? GOOD!"
0 # Imtiaz 2011-05-06 01:06
It is obvious that like a lot of the most-wanted people, Osama was hiding in plain sight by keeping a very low profile. From his perspective, this was may be the right way to go about it. After all, he was able to get away with it for quite a few is being alleged. I've always been a big fan of Michael's but here I have to disagree with him on alleged protection by the Pakistanis. Michael should ought to know better thank that: with over 6,000 military personnel + 35,000 civilian dead, Pakistan tops the list as the country with the most al Qaeda inflicted casualties.
-3 # tj 2011-05-06 01:35
i'm with pamela and kayjay. our country's political system can't handle a situation like this, and the catholic church has nothing to say that would interest me regarding this matter.
some group or groups would cherry pick it to a sham. remember o.j. simpson & gang.
if that was osama bin laden, i said IF, he met with the justice that he deserved.
+13 # abdullahiedward 2011-05-06 01:58
I agree with Michael 100%. The US government has NEVER charged bin Laden to ANY court alleging his involvement it 911. Even the famous FBI Most Wanted List doesn't include such allegations. Yet it has allowed this perception to permeate, both officially and editorially through its mouth piece main stream media. Another example is the allegations that President Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton constantly use this reference when speaking about Iran. However it has been proven by well known Farsi language scholars that Ahmadinejad NEVER said that!.These perceptions are allowed to maintain in order to support the militaristic foreign policy objectives can more readily be justified by the gullible and unquestioning American public. Finally, whatever happened to "Innocent until proven Guilty"?
+23 # Lestrad 2011-05-06 02:10
Either there's such a thing as law and order or there isn't. If there is, it's for everybody. Once it's gone (and it is, because the world's leading power has thrown it in the toilet), then if somebody who knows how to use the media can convince a lot of people that you or I are terrorists, then they can come and blow you or me away whenever they want to. If power makes the law, there is no law.
+3 # dalegood 2011-05-06 08:44
well of course power has a profound effect on the law and you or anyone else who doesn't see that is in denial; this osama thing is just another demonstration of that; it is IMPOSSIBLE for the people in power to let go of the fact that they are at an advantage when it comes to the law. thus has it always been and thus it will always be.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-06 13:20
I agree. I think there's also an untapped source of power to be had from a government or a people willing to stand up for a consistent law that allows the chips to fall where they may, in a Constitutional justice system.

The role being "the good guys" played in winning WWII cannot be overestimated. We can't beat anyone we determine to be bad guys by stooping to the level we claim they're at. The crusades didn't exactly bode well for "Western religion".

Manipulative nationalism, and supreme arrogance are the biggest enemy the U.S. has ever faced. No foreign enemy can ever do as much harm to us as those two things have already done.
+16 # Ralph Averill 2011-05-06 03:07
A trial of OBL would bring to light many grievances that the US and western European nations would rather not, especially concerning Israel. At Nuremburg, the Nazi's only defense was "I was only following orders." OBL in his defense would have a great deal to say about recent history in the Middle East that the powers that be would rather not have said.
BTW, the past tense of "to hang", as in execute, is "hanged". Laundry is hung, mass-murderers are hanged.
+7 # Dave W. 2011-05-06 10:07
Ralph, Well said! The "last" thing our corrupted government wants at this point is for someone of Bin Laden's stature, and inside knowledge, to testify in open court. This is why the prisoners at Guantanamo will be tried in "military tribunals." Many Arabs use the term "the night of a thousand cuts." They'd inflict them upon us metaphorically in a public trial. We've far too much to hide to allow that.
+1 # cherylpetro 2011-05-07 16:53
They got his "knowledge" from all the evidence in his home. They were in a hostile environment! The Pakistan government would never have allowed Bin Laden to be taken out of the country, and he would have escaped again, and off to set more US destruction in motion (which is what he had planned!) Is that what you would have wanted? A trial would have led to the inevitable...hi s death. Sometimes life isn't pretty.
-3 # minmouse 2011-05-06 05:48
He is dead, that is the main point. I will not look but I think the photo's of him should be shown as some people will believe any thing, look at Obama's birth certificate. Even after the photo's are shown some people from Fox will say the photo's were fake. As far as the Pentagon goes, they are far from truthful. Look at the photo's and made your own conclusions, but remember he is dead, that is the main thing.I t helps some what to some of the families from the twin towers.
-6 # Homer 2011-05-06 07:18
I've been a supporter of you, but I have to disagree with you on this call....
+18 # rm 2011-05-06 07:24
The real criminals of the new century remain free and alive -- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfled, Rice, Obama, Patraeus and the rest of the gangsters of the military-indust rial-banking complex. They have killed and destroyed the lives of tens of millions of people in half of the earth. But sadly we do not have a criminal justice system capable of taking them on. Bush's dream has come true -- Texas Justice, the law west of the Pecos.
-1 # Headzup 2011-05-09 14:43
Agreed - our "judicial" system doesn't prosecute the worst of the bad-guys. But, I'm glad we got OBL.
+18 # fredboy 2011-05-06 07:24
Of course he was executed. That was the only way to silence the facts he may have known about 9/11 and our government.

And they probably realized they have, during the past 10 years, made such a mess of justice that they could not have managed a trial. That's what happens when you drive a nation into an emotional frenzy of fear and hatred--justice , and logic, are thrown out the window.
-6 # fhunter 2011-05-06 07:51
Usually, Michael is the smartest commentator, but now he was the dumbest. You should have gone there, Michael, and risk that Bin Laden had his suicide custom on.
-1 # George D 2011-05-09 08:50
Sadly, many in this venue fail to understand that point. While I am constantly labeled a "lib" myself, this is one topic where people of my similar world view, and I are completely opposed.

These men carried out a very dangerous and brave operation and they succeeded. All of this hand wringing over Bin Laden's rights etc, actually harms the Progressive cause in the end. Any extreme thinking, left or right, untimately hurts the moderate majority of that group.
Absent these extreme comments, America just might continue in the direction of civil rights that were accomplished in past decades. Crazy talk just divides us more.
PICK YOUR BATTLES PEOPLE. Extreme analysis of this issue will kill your goals at election time and set us back another decade or two.
+3 # granny 2011-05-06 08:21
rm's right - the real criminals remain at large, fat, happy, and living in the taxpayer-suppor ted welfare of retirements and health care plans that few of us would dream of. So much for justice. So much for the American way.

But Michael Moore should just give it a rest. Stop picking at scabs and start working positively to get rid of the Koch-head criminals who support the kinds of stuff the $$ criminals are doing.
+1 # judith ackerman 2011-05-06 09:02
Gangsters all die violent deaths, and that's what is coming to them. You wanna be violent? You'll risk a violent death and that's that.
+3 # jeenious 2011-05-06 09:29
Factors to consider:
The people in the trade towers, on 09-11-01, and the first responders who died then were not given a trial;.
Bin Laden had himself videoed on multiple occasions admitting (boasting) he was the 9-11 king pin;.
Bin Laden, if he had a case on which to base a plea of innocent, he had years to turn himself in and be tried;
There were armed men guarding Bin Laden;
Each time Pakistani officials were provided information and asked to assist in an arrest, Bin Laden got tipped off, and got away;
An abundance of evidence showed that Pakistani politicians and police "looked the other way" and showed deferrence to Bin Laden, his couriers, members of the thirty-plus known, identified,terr orist groups in Pakistan;
Due to the fact that Pakistani officials could not be notified (lest there be another tip-off) there was a risk that
local police or Pakistani military might have responded, and a fire fight could have ensued between the Seals and those responders;
There was a possibility that many backup members of terrorist groups associated with Bin Laden would have time to assemble a shootout;
The worst case scenario was that a shoot out with Pakistani police and military might have ensured and Bin Ladin turn out to have escaped.

Had Bin Laden not made a move...

Oh oh. He moved.
-2 # abdullahiedward 2011-05-06 11:15
You better watch those videos again jeenious, bin Laden NEVER boasted about being the king pin of 911. The only one I've seen turned out to be a CIA production with a OBL look alike that didn't fool anybody, with the possible exception of you!
+11 # mdtoronto 2011-05-06 09:59
Michael raises the important issue of what "freedom" actually is. Due process in a court of law is something we use to justify having laws. Leaders espouse democracy around the world and then pass secret laws, covert assassinations, misguided foreign policy...etc. What's wrong with the truth exactly?
-8 # skylinefirepest 2011-05-06 11:07
Hey fat boy, what's your point?? I saw the photos of Americans hanging from a bridge, I saw the video of Daniel Pearl getting his head hacked off, I know that Muslims died on 9-11 along with the 343 firemen who were part of my extended family! Assassinated? Who cares? And some of you nut jobs are breathing air that a good person could use! 9-11 conspiracy? Why fly perfectly good aircraft into a building if you knew that U.S. subversives had spent days hauling thousands of pounds of explosives into the towers and surrounding buildings in order to blow them up so we could go to the sandbox and steal their oil?? And if we stole their oil why am I paying an arm and a leg to fill my Tacoma? Some of you people need to quit the juice before it permanently ( maybe too late ) affects what little brain power you have! You can sign me as a twenty year fireman, ex U.S. Air Force, dude who simply does not care how OBL was killed as long as he was killed.
0 # George D 2011-05-09 09:00
You could have made the point without the denegrating comments but I also do not care how Bin Laden died. No more than I care how Hitler died.
I DO care how Sadaam died (and why we were even in Iraq) but I think a lot of the division on this topic comes from the stench of how we ended up in this place to begin with.

Americans understand "war" at least from an historical perspective. They generally all come together and agree on the death of an enemy when they undertstand the person to be an "enemy" in the context of a declared "war". But the "war on terrrrrerrr" was never a rational or well understood label for what America and other countries fight today. We are truly in a war but it hasn't been declared on a country. Heck; It hasn't even been declared on a "group" yet. I wish the declaration of war was made on al Qaeda. Then maybe people would have understood that Bin Laden wasn't a Timothy McVey but rather a Hitler or Rommel. He was the enemy and was actively engaging in war against America to the moment he was killed. I'm fine with that.
-3 # rock 2011-05-06 11:39
Another thing, Michael: The trials at Nuremberg took place AFTER the war, when we were [relatively] safely at peace, the nazis had been disarmed, and the "criminals" were securely under lock and key. Many of them were in that hazy zone between implicit and complicit crimes, so it made sense and was just to give them a fair trial.

With Bin Laden and AQ, we are still at war, a war they started, a war which has largely been fought on their terms, and which shows no signs of dying down. He may not have had a huge bunker with lots of armaments stored there, but no doubting it was a command post. Every so often, he would issue instructions to his soldiers, neh? "Executed" sounds terrible, but it isn't really the right word in the middle of a war. "Dispatched" would be much more like it.

As has been pointed out above, was there a shred of doubt that Bin Laden committed the crimes he himself boasted of?
Isn't that sort of like pleading guilty? What's the point of a trial? Spend a lot of money and tie up our resources and energy for another couple of years?
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-06 12:52
We're in a war that is intended to never end.

What's the point of a trial? The point is to show them that we are better than they are. If we can't do that, then we aren't.
-3 # rock 2011-05-06 17:54
"We're in a war that is intended to never end."

They want war, I guess we'd better let 'em have it.

I suppose you think we are just as bad as they are for fighting back?
+9 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:00
Who's "they"?

Yes al quaida wants war. It's a great recruiting tool for them.

Which country do we invade to get al quaida? They weren't in Iraq until we were. That certainly didn't help.

What if, instead of treating this like a "war" against "one particular enemy", we treat this like what it is: going after criminals. We don't have to invade entire countries and steal their oil just to get revenge on terrorists. Terror isn't a person, place or thing. It's a tactic. We can no more wage a war on terror than we can wage a war on "meanness" or "evil".

If we want to wage a "war on terror", our battle front will be the entire Earth. Can we afford that?

You know what else they want? To make us bankrupt and make us turn on ourselves and start stripping away our own freedoms. I guess we better give them that too then, huh?

When in war, as I understand it, the point is TO WIN, correct? Do you think it does much for the cause of promoting freedom or democracy, or even the idea that we are the good guys, if we can't hold ourselves to a higher standard than a handful of crazy schmucks in the desert?

I think we are a lot bigger than we are. We don't need to act like al quaida to punish them. If we start acting like them, haven't we already lost?
+1 # rock 2011-05-06 22:26
Billy, I agree that "War on Terror" is a poor choice for the war we are in. We can't say that it is a "War on Islam," though some claim that it is. Obviously we have to make sure that it does not become that. Can you say "World War III?" [or IV, perhaps, if the Cold War was WWIII].

Fact is, though, certain Muslims are at war with us. I guess when they identify themselves and perpetrate crimes against us, we are at "War" with them.

I don't expect they are going to change their minds if we try to be nice to them.

I don't think they would change their minds if we dropped our support for Israel and called every American home from the Middle East.

I doubt they will ever change their minds unless we convert.

Not ready for that, and most Americans are not ready for that.

As for "The Higher Standard," I believe we have already done a fabulous job of that. A slip here or there, granted, but hey! Nobody's perfect.

Sure, we could call it "going after criminals." But when they hide in Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Pakistan, and we don't get any cooperation . . . how do we go after them then? The UN?

Sounds like we agree that the point is TO WIN!

Let's figure out what that looks like and get down to it.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-07 00:26
Who is the enemy? Define it. If you can't define the enemy a little more than "some Muslims", it's going to be hard to defeat them.

Whether or not we change the minds of terrorists is not the point. We ARE changing the minds of innocent people who are bombed and tortured. We are turning people who would not otherwise be terrorists INTO terrorists. That doesn't sound like very good strategy to me. In addition, by not caring whether or not we are the good guys or the bad guys, we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we expect anyone to cooperate with us.

We definitely HAVE NOT held ourselves to a higher standard, unless you thing TORTURE is something to be proud of.

Your argument about when they hide in Pakistan is moot. We just shot a guy in Pakistan. Pakistan didn't stop us. We didn't need to invade Pakistan to make that happen. Your joke about the U.N. is also off point. Is it better strategy to get help from other countries, or is it better for us to absorb ALL of the costs ourselves?

+1 # billy bob 2011-05-07 00:27

If we agree we want to win, I'd like you to define for me what "winning" would be. What are we trying to "win"? Can you define what that would entail?

You can't "win" against a non-existent entity and you can't "win" against an idea or a tactic. All you can do is deal with it.

If you have ideas what "winning" looks like, I'm all ears.
-1 # rock 2011-05-07 20:28
Don't know what happened to my earlier reply . . .no way was it offensive, but I'll try again. Of course I'd like to hear your ideas too, but I'll start.

How about the basic premise that "winning" means defeating those who have chosen to be our enemies and have attacked us or our allies?

For "defeating," how about that they are either killed or captured and put into indefinite detention?

No doubt what it really boils down to is resolving what "weapons" or "rules of engagement" we subscribe to. For example, are we bound by the Geneva Convention when we are facing an enemy which does not observe it? Is it fair to the innocents whose lives would be taken to tie our hands when resisting an implacable foe which does not operate on the same code?

Then there are issues such as surveillance, eavesdropping, searching premises, treatment of detainees and what not. Most of the world would agree, I think, that someone who participates in attacking unarmed, innocent civilians, blowing up buildings and crashing airplanes, etc, has forfeited certain civil rights. Like the basics in the Bill of Rights.

We have to decide where to draw the line on treatment of captives. Obviously, we stop short of mutilation [though our enemies do not!] and causing any kind of permanent physical harm.
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-08 10:42
"winning" means defeating those who have chosen to be our enemies and have attacked us or our allies?

How many people have “chosen” to be our enemies? Do you think that’s a number that can be counted since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and torture-gate and all the trophy hunting? bush jr. said al quaida was established in 100 different countries. There are only 195 countries in the whole world. Does that sound like a war that is meant to have an end to you? Meanwhile, inhumane actions on “our” part only create more enemies than we kill.

It sounds like a losing proposition to kill one fly while letting 1,000 more into the room.

If the idea is to “defeat” those people, then why don’t we do just exactly what I suggested? That is to DEFEAT THOSE PEOPLE. In other words, like I asked, was it necessary to colonize a few third world countries and steal their oil to get bin laden? Now that we got bin laden, are we done? Afterall, it was bin laden that planned the attacks. The 19 terrorists who carried out the act will be pretty hard to RE-kill.

How many more people need to be “killed or captured and put into indefinite detention?” before we’ve had our revenge on bin laden?

-1 # rock 2011-05-08 22:16
Sounds like you are satisfied that we are done. You think none of these other attacks that are in the making will ever happen?

Sure, I wish it were over. But that's not going to work . . . just a feeling I have.
-2 # billy bob 2011-05-09 06:02
Sounds like you finally agree with me that this is a war intended to never end.

I'll give you an example of other attacks that will NEVER end: DOMESTIC VIOLENT CRIME.

Here's an idea: What if we wage a ware against ourselves until we "solve" crime? Maybe we could instate martial law until there is no more crime. Maybe we could shoot all citizens who are our after curfew. That would certainly cut back on "violent crimes" not committed by the state, right? As long as we decide to call it a "war", we can guarantee it will never have to end. What a gravy train of profit we can create!

Terrorism is a crime. The criminals who perpetrate the crime should be punished. Taking over entire countries that happen to have a lot of oil has NOTHING to do with terrorism. This is OBVIOUS when a terrorist attacks and we "respond" by attacking a country where we know he isn't hiding.

I am satisfied that we are done killing bin laden. Do you think violent crimes in the U.S. are behind us? I wish they were, but that's not going to work. HERE'S A SOLUTION! LET'S INVADE OURSELVES AND STEAL OUR OIL! YAY!!!
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-08 10:43

It DEFINITELY DOES involve resolving issues about what rules we choose to abide by. If we believe in the Geneva Conventions we are bound by them. PERIOD. If we expect to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions we are bound by them. PERIOD.

Hitler and Hirohito posed a GENUINE threat to the very existence of the United States of America. That threat was literally THOUSANDS of times more dangerous than a few lunatics in the desert could EVER even dream of. They DEFINITELY DID NOT respect the Geneva Conventions, and YET we did ANYWAY. Do you think we could have won WWII quicker or “better” if we’d started torturing German P.O.W.s? Japan was so vicious and cruel that we still seemed like the good guys after sending thousands of Japanese Americans to detention camps. Then again, they weren’t sent there to be tortured. My mom lived about 2 blocks from a P.O.W. camp with captured German soldiers. She says she watched them standing around playing basketball and telling jokes. In fact, MANY Germans willingly surrendered to U.S. forces because of the reputation we had for treating them humanely.

-2 # rock 2011-05-08 22:19
So you're saying that when we captured some German or Japanese soldier/courier , whatever, with information we needed, we read them their rights under the Geneva Convention and made sure they were comfortable and content?
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 06:17
I'm saying that we didn't have an official policy to torture them. I'm saying that torture doesn't create information. I'm saying that when Japan tortured American soldiers we used it as a recruitment tool and CONSTANTLY harped on about the fact that we were better than them, because we were fighting for "FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND THE AMERICAN WAY". I'm saying that sticking to that message helped us win the war and solidified our resolve. I'm saying that terror attacks aren't prevented by torturing people until their brains turn into mush. I'm saying that the purpose of torture is TORTURE. It's NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN "information gathering". I'm saying that if you think torture has ANYTHING to do with gathering information, you disagree with the CIA. I'm saying that it's a well known fact that the CIA reported several decades ago that torture gets LESS information than the interrogation tactics we used BEFORE 9-11. I'm saying that this country got by for 225 YEARS WITHOUT TORTURE as an official policy. I'm saying that the nazis were 100 times WORSE than al quaida, and WE NOT ONLY BEAT THEM, but we BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THEM. I'm saying that we didn't just beat the hell out of them, despite the fact that we stuck to our prinicples.

0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 06:18

I'm saying that we beat the hell out of them, BECAUSE we didn't sacrifice who we are, to do it. I'm saying that nervous nellies on the right, like you, would rather let bin laden win, than fight back without caving in to their demands that we sacrifice many of our own beliefs. I'm saying that if we become a nation of terrorists, how do we tell the difference between ourselves and our enemies. I'm saying that we can't "win" this attempt to prevent all future international crimes from ever happening again, by turning into international criminals ourselves, and creating so many foreign enemies that NO NATION ON EARTH will have any incentive to help us.

I've been saying this all along, by the way. I guess you just haven't been reading my comments before responding.
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-08 10:44

Think about the psychology of a foreign soldier knowing he’s fighting for a nation that proudly tortures people, and that his “enemy” is willingly treating captives with respect. Germany didn’t want to blow up a few buildings. It wanted to take over the world and enslave 90% of the people who lived in the world. Yet, we somehow managed to beat them without become as bad as Hitler ourselves.

“someone who participates in attacking unarmed, innocent civilians, blowing up buildings... etc, has forfeited certain rights”

Of course you’re well aware that our military has openly done the same thing, right? You’re also aware that we didn’t just start doing those things in the past 10 years, right? In fact we have a long rich history of doing that sort of thing that goes at least as far back as the inception of the C.I.A.
-3 # rock 2011-05-08 22:22
Your version of "Torture" is so laughable. Every single one of our fighter pilots, SEALS, and others have been waterboarded. I was horrified to find out that they exposed some of the prisoners to menacing dogs, and put female underwear on their heads, but Paleeeese, you make is sound like we really hurt their feelings!
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-09 06:26
You're leaving out a few tactics, like raping children in front of their parents, like pummeling people in garbage bags, like mutilating people's genitals, like sodomizing people with flourescent lights, like allowing people to freeze to death, like stick people in cold dark rooms without food or water in positions that cause distress to their hearts (not their "feelings", but their hearts). You're forgetting that waterboarding only works be making people go into shock and "die", then reviving them. We aren't temporarily "killing" our own soldiers. You're forgetting that being "waterboarded" for a few minutes in a controlled situation as part of a training exercise to give you a "taste" of what you might expect if you're ever kidnapped by terrorists who are as bad as we are, IS NOT THE SAME THING as being ACTUALLY waterboarded, which involves killing you, reviving you; and doing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, etc..........


Paleeeese! YOUR version of torture is laughable, because it's intentionally avoiding the truth of what torture actually is. Our beloved SEALS couldn't handle being REALLY tortured any more than anyone else could. There is NO WAY to train for torture. That's why torture is such a great tool for TORTURING people.
-2 # rock 2011-05-09 23:42
"You're leaving out a few tactics, like raping children in front of their parents, like pummeling people in garbage bags, like mutilating people's genitals, like sodomizing people . . ."

Billy, it sounds like you have been reading too many comic books. This stuff is not in the slightest funny, but if you buy into the lie that our troops do this stuff, . . . I think you got our people confused with Saddam's people. Oh, I know Murtha and Durbin ranted about this kind of thing, but turns out they were getting their information from . . . the enemy!
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-10 07:49
No, I just haven't been getting my news from fox.
+7 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:17
Besides, we are in a "war" against a tactic that has been around since it was invented thousands of years ago. Does that sound like a war that can ever be "won" to you?

Do you think bush, cheney and rummy were so stupid that they thought you could wage a successful war against a tactic of war?

I think it's pretty obvious then, that this is a war that is intended to be without end. McCain accidentally admitted this fact when he was running in 2008. It was one of the reasons he lost.

Why would would anyone sane wage an UNBELIEVABLY expensive war, knowing full well that it can never be won?

If you ever read 1984, it's pretty well laid out. There are two reasons:

1. To give the government extraordinary powers they wouldn't be able to grab without the pretext of a war. Invoking cartoonish nationalism and overblown fear is a good way to keep people in line. It's worked like a charm for the past 10 years.


Military contractors and multi-national oil cartels are literally SWIMMING IN MONEY!!! Who are we to take it away from them.

"Winning" the "war on terror" WOULD take it away from them. Therefore, the "war on terror" can NEVER be won.

Ssshh! Don't tell anyone! It's a secret!
-5 # rock 2011-05-06 22:29
While I share your obvious respect for George Orwell [I believe I've ready about every book he ever wrote], I disagree with you if you are serious about 1 & 2 above describing our current situation.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-07 00:37
1. Do you disagree that our government has grabbed extraordinary powers for itself since 9-11? Do you disagree that the "patriot" act was written almost instantaneously after 9-11 even though it's several thousand pages long? Do you disagree that the new powers grabbed by our government conflict with the Bill of Rights?

2. Do you disagree that it's strange we chose to invade the country with the largest oil reserves on Earth (other than Russia and Saudi Arabia) because we were looking for bin laden even though we knew he hated Iraq and DEFINITELY was not there? Do you think it's strange that we had no problem with the destruction and looting of museums, but got pretty defensive as soon as the Iraqis starting blowing up oil wells? Do you think we just found out 6 months ago that, "by the way" Afghanistan has the largest mineral wealth of any nation on Earth? Do you disagree that the past decade's "war" has been ABSURDLY profitable for the oil industry and other war profiteers, like the "defense contracting" industry? Are you unaware that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, and Wolfowitz co-wrote a manifesto in the early '90s detailing why we NEEDED to strip the Middle-East of its natural resources and needed another "Pearl Harbor" to make this happen?

I think this "describes our current situation".
-2 # rock 2011-05-07 22:17
Yeah, I disagree.

1. The powers our government "grabbed" were less than those grabbed by Lincoln's Administration in the Civil War [Can't even imagine what the Confederacy must have been like!], Woodrow [Now THERE's a progressive hero!] Wilson's in WWI, and FDR's in WWII. I believe the Patriot Act is non-permanent [unless, of course we continue to come under attack] and could, hopefully, expire someday. I certainly don't feel any less free because of it, and hey! What is Freedom Worth if we're all dead?

2. I don't understand why you [all] keep obsessing about OBL and Iraq. I never ever heard a single claim by any administration official or Republican for that matter that OBL was in Iraq. Your claims about the mineral wealth border on paranoia and hysteria. Your reading of the "Blueprint" is very creative, but . . .let's just say that, yes, I disagree.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure Mr. Orwell would take opposite sides from you in the present "situation." Too bad we can't ask him.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-08 11:20
1. I think it was a great pinko lefty who once said, "Give me liberty or give me death". Obviously he didn't realize that someone could drive a plane into a building. Afterall, the Revolutionary War was a peaceful time.

2.a. We're "obsessing" about bin laden, because the "war on terror" was a "response to 9-11", remember? Did your "never forget" bumper sticker fade and you can't remember what it once said?

2.b. About the "mineral wealth hysteria", apparently you haven't been reading the news for past few months.

2.c. (concerning my "creativity"):

Let's just say you can easily look it up. Let's just say, no, I wasn't the one with the "creativity".

2.d. Some 1984 quotes:

"We have always been at war with eastasia"

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

"by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. ... War is Peace"

“imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions... -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened”

-3 # rock 2011-05-08 22:32
The great pinko lefty was talking about himself, personally. I don't think that applies to a whole nation. 99% of all Americans - well, maybe 75% - are willing to give up some of their freedoms for the sake of public security. YOu don't want to fly, OK you don't have to subject yourself to being searched. But most people realize it's a price we have to pay now.

2a. You keep obsessing that we went into Iraq because of Bin Ladin . . . never heard anyone in the Admin. state that.

2b. The hysteria is about claiming we are in Afgh. because of this fabulous mineral wealth. Dumb.

2c. Will check it out. Maybe it was somebody else's creativity.

2d. I disagree that any of these fit the current US. But they sure fit the former Soviet Union, present Cuba et al.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 07:28
What if the terrorists attack our highways and shopping malls next? Do you want to become an agoraphobic to avoid the 1 in 10,000,000 chance you might be a victim?

2a. Why DID we invade Iraq then? Tell me a story...

2b. "Dumb" is thinking we aren't in Afghanistan for that reason. Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? Don't worry. You'll have a few decades to think about your answer.

2c. You're right. It was the creativity of the people who actually wrote the document and said those things. But, I think it's pretty telling that without BOTHERING to check it out first, you just automatically ASSUMED it was my "creativity", rather than a fact that would disagree with your narrative.

2d. I AGREE that they fit the former Soviet Union. I ALSO am willing to admit that they fit the current U.S. -

that is, unless you can tell me how the "war on terror" will ever end...
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 07:39
By the way, the great pinko lefty was Patrick Henry and he was one of the founding fathers of the United States of America.
-2 # rock 2011-05-09 14:07
Yeah, like I didn't know that!!!!
-2 # billy bob 2011-05-09 15:24
Yeah, it IS surprising. I thought everyone knew that!!!
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-09 08:00
2a. Obviously your "never forget" sticker DID fade, huh!? Well, if bin laden was behind 9-11 and "no one claimed he was in Iraq", why were WE in Iraq?

After Pearl Harbor, I don't recall the United States attacking Mexico to retaliate. And, Pearl Harbor wasn't just a terrorist attack perpetrated by some individuals, but an act of war perpetrated by a nation. Neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor Iran invaded us or even attacked us on 9-11.

Why did we invade Iraq? Why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Under what circumstances can you imagine that we will EVER leave? If a terrorist from China or Russia attacks us, will we invade them as well? If a terrorist from Saudi Arabia attacks us (like the ones who ACTUALLY DID on 9-11), will we "retaliate" by starting a nuclear war with Russia?
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-09 10:02
Obviously, your "Freedom Isn't Free" sticker has faded too, huh?
0 # billy bob 2011-05-08 11:25

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”
“The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened.’ ”

I think Orwell predicted the "present situation" rather accurately.

Luckily, we don't have to "ask him". We can READ HIM.
-1 # rock 2011-05-08 22:38
Well, I didn't challenge your ability to read. Just continue to disagree that we are anything like what Orwell was imagining. Good thing is, it's still a free country, you can still share your views without having to fear getting taken away, and there is none of this "persecution for persecution's sake" or any bombs dropped by our own government to keep people frightened.

Of course, the freedom to indulge in paranoid fantasies about the US Government planning 9-1-1 doesn't do a thing to make it more realistic.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 07:16
Are you arguing with my quotes of George Orwell, or are you arguing with Orwell himself?

You know, this is getting a little absurd. I have a job, a wife and kids and yet I'm puting a little thought into my responses to you. You're not exactly keeping up your end of the argument.

By the way, I AM challenging your ability to read. You have a remarkable ability to reduce arguments into nonsensical snippets containing no information but a lot of attitude. Like in our attempted conversation about war, the idea is to "win", right? It's hard for me to imagine that you honestly think you're doing that without investing anything into the debate.

This is why I usually ignore you and focus on NKMike and fortheteaparty. They're not good at what they're doing either, but at least they put a little effort into it.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 07:34
By the way, I challenged you to tell me how the "war on terror" could ever end, several remarks ago. You STILL haven't done that. Is it your intention, just to just keep the back and forth going endlessly without saying anything? So far, your only argument has been that this is a "war" that DOES have a definable end, BUT that we can't allow terrorists to attack without waging a war as a response.

Once again, do you think you can "defeat terrorism", when it was invented thousands of years before the United States was a country? I know I asked you that several days ago, but you obviously didn't read the question.
-2 # rock 2011-05-09 14:08
I'm still waiting for YOUR version of how we win.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-09 15:27
You obviously can't read.

My entire argument is that, as long as this is a "war on terror", we can't win, and that no one expects us to either.

If you wanted to know what we COULD do to "win", I guess that would be my MANY comments that we treat this like a crime and go after the criminals.

-2 # billy bob 2011-05-09 07:51
Might I suggest you repeat your "torture and why it's a good thing for America" argument on the new thread created by today's article, ""No Torture, No Exceptions"?

If you're looking for a good debate on the topic, that might be a good place to start, but DO IT TODAY, while others are still reading the article.
+1 # George D 2011-05-09 09:19
I read this thread between yourself and billy bob and I had to chime in.
First; Kudos to both of you! I wish such a civil, and HONEST dialog went on between our politicians in prime time T.V.

As I have stated before; I think most of the consternation about Bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan was born out of the stupid way America was governed under GWB and Cheney. We all need to understand that 9/11 was an attack by an organized enemy; Not one person and not one country.
Perhaps, if the war had been clearly declared on al Qaeda, and people understood who the leaders, generals, fighters etc, of al Qaeda were, we would have different views of how it proceeds and when it ends. Instead we have Iraq; A completely fabricated war; And Afghanistan; A war on a country that harbored terrorists? Why not Pakistan then? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why doesn't this become WWIII as noted when more entities (Hamas and the Taliban) or countries (Pakistan etc) became allies of our enemy?
Maybe THEN people would understand what this whole "war" thing is all about.
-1 # rock 2011-05-09 14:09
Thank you. Lots to think about.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:19
Correction: We are a lot bigger than THEY are. Not, "we are a lot bigger than 'we' are".
+3 # CJW 2011-05-06 12:39
There was no trial because that would require the government to provide a case including facts that Bin Laden actually was behind 9/11...somethin g which they wanted no part of because there is no case and no evidence. I wish MM would not have used the Catholic Church as his reason to be against violance because that really is an oxymoron...he could have just said "I don't condone violence period".
+8 # realist 2011-05-06 13:22
All this is irrelevant. Do you really think that al Qaeda will disappear because Bin Laden is gone? Already they have named his successor, and if that man is killed there are more. Do you know the legend of Hydra, the monster of many heads, who grew another when one was lopped off? That is what we have. The whole event was an act of self-gratificat ion, "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." (Shakespeare.)
-5 # X Dane 2011-05-06 15:41
realist, I agree, that al Queda will not disappear; but we are better off with OBL gone. He was planning other attacks, he certainly was not retired from terrorism.
Also, it is good that others realize that no matter how long, they are not safe. We WILL get them.
-2 # George D 2011-05-09 09:26
I do not agree; Al Qaeda will go away when people in that region are no longer led by, employed by, and convinced by them that their world view is correct and worth dying for.
Segregation never would have gone away unless leaders forced an entire country to engage in a different mindset. As obvious as that goal was, it still took decades and acts of bravery. We still struggle with the remnants of that bygone time today in America. So yes, Al Qaeda CAN go away; It will take time. Probably less time than it took us to abandon slavery and ethnic prejudice in our own country.
-5 # bobby t. 2011-05-06 14:20
would you like to have the president's kids kidnapped and used for hostages? think people. think.....
-1 # rock 2011-05-06 22:14
What's the answer to this threat?
+8 # Sheila Cook 2011-05-06 14:23
It seems so obvious to me that Osama bin Laden, with no weapons, could have been taken alive. But then what? A trial...One in which bin Laden could have told many stories of his US connections would have been exposed? Unless, that is, his testimony would have been concealed from the public as it was with Sadam Hussein.

Remember the trial of Sadam Hussein? (sp?) All we heard about what his outbursts. We didn't hear one word of his testimony which would have told of his alliances with the US. (Remember the buddy/buddy photos of him and Donald Rumsfeld?) We supported him until he got in the way of our plans for taking over oil in the middle east. He also wanted to switch to the Euro instead of the dollar which would have been detrimental to our oil industry. So Saddam's testimony was kept secret. He took stories of his involvement with the US with him to his grave. Now we see the same thing with bin Laden. No trial, no stories. I'm happy to see bin Laden gone, but I wonder, what stories embarrassing to the US government would have been exposed in a trial.
0 # CMI 2011-05-06 15:11
While I'm a huge fan of yours and always seem to be in complete agreement, I disagree on this. Imagine if you were in the shoes of those who were charged with getting bin Laden. Would you really want to be sure to first read Osama his rights, and fumble for the handcuffs? Those Navy Seals had no idea if he was prepared to blow them all up or not. Have some empathy for those brave men Michael. This view seems too small for you!
+3 # Hatu 2011-05-06 15:21
Buried at sea...are you kidding me?
As much as I would love to trust that notion...
I’m certain it could be, but some would really like to see
Some kind of proof that y’all chucked him in the ocean.

I know you wish to not offend, but this may not be the end
Of the drama and ten years of tribulation
And though you’re tryin’ to be nice, you could have packed his ass in ice
and saved the evidence for my examination.

My experience is that history is often steeped in mystery
And the truth is often buried with the dead
And although it may sound messy, just to save us all from guessing,
You prolly should at least have kept his head.


+4 # jimmyjames 2011-05-06 16:44
There is a point being missed here. Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even the FBI reported that they had no evidence to indict him. I agree with Michael Moore that OBL was executed for some reason yet untold. There was no justice served here - only another PR move by the Obama team. Justice for 9/11 will not be served until there is a new and thorough investigation of what really happened on 9/11/2001.
+6 # Roger Briand 2011-05-07 10:06
Yes, remember, Bush scuttled any attempt at independent investigations for over a year. Even though there was tons of evidence of lies and cover-up, nothing ever was investigated and reported in the mainstream (corporate) news.

Let's be thankful we have the internet or we'd never know WTF is going on. Too bad most people are too busy in their lives to care about the constant litany lies.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:28
I'm just going to throw this out there:

Every day, we hear how the official story keeps changing. It turns out it wasn't a 40 minute fire fight, but shooting one guy with a gun and only took a second. It turns out bin laden was unarmed so it would have been possible to take him alive. It turns out that instead of shooting bin laden once in the head HE WAS SHOT TWICE!

Did you catch that? As far as I know, that's a new revelation as of TODAY!

Let me say it again. bin laden was shot TWICE.

Think about that.

One of the shots was to his head. Do you think he was shot in the head FIRST, and THEN shot in the stomach? I don't.

What if...

bin laden was shot once and incapacitated, THEN he was shot at close range in the head, execution style?

I'm just curious, would that matter to anyone on this thread?

Is it possible that one guy was overzealous and got carried away? Is it possible that the order was to exterminate him? Is it any different to kill him in person without a trial than to drop a bomb on his head that will also kill others? Is it possible that there was a reason no one wanted him to face a trial - not even a secret military one?

Any thoughts on this?
-2 # billy bob 2011-05-06 21:18
I suppose it's possible that he was shot by two people at the same time, but I think that would also disagree with the story as I've heard it.
-3 # rock 2011-05-06 22:17
Yeah, I think is very possible that no one [up there] wanted him to face a trial. Too much of a hassle.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-07 00:47
Justice is always a hassle. War is always a hassle. Trying to "win hearts and minds" is a HUGE hassle. Going behind the backs of the Pakistani government created an ENORMOUS potential hassle. Spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on an adventure that has mostly served to line the pockets of multi-national corporations with no American loyalties DURING THE BIGGEST RECESSION SINCE THE MID-1930's has created a HUGE hassle for all of us.

I'm not claiming to have a good answer here, but I think it's a bit more complicated than the "naw, it's too much of a hassle" theory.
-2 # rock 2011-05-08 01:08
Well, I meant in their minds, that's what it boiled down to.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-08 10:15
"In their minds" you might be absolutely correct.

The problem is that our system of government, and everything we claim to believe in would argue against what may have been in their minds.

Was the killing of bin laden part of a war? If so, was it bound by international rules for acceptable conduct in war, which were largely written by Americans?

It's hard for me to wrap my head around the whole, "the rules are different when we do it" theory.
-2 # rock 2011-05-08 22:42
I guess the arguments about this will go on indefinitely. Fact is, most people believe justice was served, feel a little safer now that a pathological mass-murderer has been eliminated (I still say "dispatched"), and a lot of crazies are probably going to have second thoughts about getting into that business. Works for me.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-09 09:59
So you're saying the "war on terror" is now "over", because we dispatched justice? Or, are you saying that we'll have to keep killing people without trial for the rest of time and accept the official line as to why it would be a hassle to capture them and convict them first?

I think there may be A WHOLE LOT MORE CRAZIES than you imagine there are.
-1 # rock 2011-05-10 23:10
OK. You are obviously right. Let's all roll over.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-11 16:14
Isn't that what you've already chosen to do? I'd rather keep my rights as an American citizen than "roll over", thank you.
+2 # motamanx 2011-05-06 22:39
Is everyone so sure that OBL hatched the 9/11 attacks? I'm not. For ONE thing--it sure was not an airliner that hit the Pentagon. And if that part of the story is a lie....
+4 # Name: Hors-D-whores 2011-05-07 01:16
I am a little conflicted as to how this OBL killing went down. Are we better? I'm not sure anymore. When I first heard OBL had been killed I felt happy I must say. But then, when images of people celebrating about the death of ANYONE started to make feel queasy and then repulsed. Nothing would have made me join those people celebrating, but then most were young people that act on impulse and not think about the macabre aspects of such glee.
+2 # Name: Hors-D-whores 2011-05-07 01:24
In the heat of things, I do think that MM is a little wrong in making a thing of it. If I had to remember the many times in my lifetime when I've heard initial reporting of an incident where it was later changed or completely reversed, it would be in the hundreds. In a few cases I was actually there and didn't recognize the story when I heard it was first reported. So why is MM having such a hard time with the first reporting, I'm sure he can name even more than me of stories that were wrongly reported, until facts were known. Our media works to outdo each other before knowing all the facts.
+4 # Truther 2011-05-07 12:58
Follow my thread on this one. I believe Obama did what he needed to. I'm not acquitting him of any cover up or lies, this is just an extended lie reaching it's final conclusion.

Look at the history of Obama's presidency. He caved on convicting the Bush administration on torture. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you have to believe that Obama has to have some sort of evidence that it was. To "follow through" on his track record of covering up for the previous administration, he would need to keep any questions about 9/11 and it's attacks out of the courts fine tooth comb.

You wouldn't be just putting Osama on trial, you'd be putting EVERYONE on trial. Bush administration, 9/11 commisssion, Pakistan, Afghanistan. What if it came out that bin Laden was just a pawn in the whole game?

Would it be easier to just kill Osama and avoid anymore headache? Especially with the way the world is in turmoil. Not to mention how a trial would empower the radical Muslim community, who craves attention.

I would love for the real truth to come out, but I know that America or the World is not ready for the real truth. 9/11 was an inside job and Osama was the fall guy.
0 # lizardlking 2011-05-08 15:20
very well said man! couldn't said it better..
Whoever was behind 9/11 for sure there was more than what we've been told. No doubt there was an inside job involved from the usual "puppeteers". OBL was just a muppet in a show that run too long.
For sure we are not ready for the truth.. yet i doubt if we ever learn it and even if we ever do that will be too late..
+4 # Thomas R. 2011-05-07 14:10
Has anyone ever considered what the reaction of our fellow americans would be if a group of "them" sneaked into the "mansion" of one of "ours," and murdered the unarmed person in his home in front of his wife and children? Let's pretend it was Bush, lolling around in his pjs and robe, imbibing of course and watching the cartoons, with Laura in attendance, and all of a sudden, an armed group of avengers (relatives or countrymen of the victims of his mass murders) popped in and cut his throat--then dumped his body in the castle moat. Oh my oh my--!
No "dancing on the grave" in this scenario, no matter how well-deserved his death, in the eyes and hearts of the survivors of the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims left in his wake.
WHY are americans so blind? What goes around comes around. If it is great strategy for us to torture, assassinate, bomb to ashes their people in order to steal their resources, then it is perfectly permissible for them to do likewise to OURS. And we have LOTS for them to purloin...LOTS!
Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. It has already begun.
-2 # skylinefirepest 2011-05-07 15:48
Truther...9-11 conspiracy was all between Islamic extremists. Read after me...the planes flew into the towers and physics being what it is they collapsed. What conspiracy?? Two shots is called a "double tap" and all military (not just spec. ops.) are taught to do it. Recruiting tool?? Let's see, they shot Bubba Bin Laden in the head so I'm going to run right out and sign the line so I can catch one in my head too!! Ooh!! Sounds like a perfect recruiting tool to me!
+2 # Truther 2011-05-08 03:48

Why did building 7 collapse? Where is the wreckage from the plane that hit the Pentagon?
-4 # cherylpetro 2011-05-07 16:33
Michael, So what? Stop making a problem where one does not exist! Take situations on a case, by case basis! You weren't there, you cannot make judgmental assessments of a situation of which you took no part! Easy to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" not so easy to be in a situation of WAR! How many wars where the target was asked if they want to go to a trial? How about dinner and a movie too? Come on, Michael, it makes you look like a fussy, complainer and a spoiler of a victory! I don't get why there are people who can't take an obvious good thing and spoil it! This was not a Wall Street thief! This was a murderous criminal, wanted "Dead, or Alive" who killed many thousands, here and in the Middle East! He even said he would never be taken alive! He had more US disasters planned!It is a stretch to compare the situation with Nuremberg! How many similarities can you find between the two? The Navy Seals were in a hostile environment, in a country that was most likely harboring Bin Laden! Do you think a court situation would EVER be possible? Get REAL Michael!! You weren't there, and putting your idea of morality on the situation is both unfair and just WRONG! Stop spoiling the feeling of closure on an ugly part of American history! It doesn't do anyone justice! To cast doubt on the Navy Seals is tantamount to being UnAmerican!
+3 # tomo 2011-05-07 19:12
If Bin Laden had just suddenly died of a heart-attack, I think I and most people would probably breathe a little easier with him no longer able to initiate harm to us and others. But, with Michael, I feel the glee across the media and across America was not really about that. We would not have celebrated that death-by-heart attack as we celebrate this. My hunch is that the outpouring of celebration I see is less about that he is dead than it is about that WE KILLED HIM. And somehow that leaves me uncomfortable. If this is really a celebration of our hatred triumphant, I cannot see that it is doing us any good.
0 # George D 2011-05-10 00:16
Wow... WOW....
I can't believe the crap I have been reading here the past few days. I keep getting replays in my head of "If you elect Gore, or Kerry, or (name a Democrat) they'll want to just try to "arrest" al Qaeda and read them their Miranda rights".
I thought back then; These are just the typical rantings of neo-Cons that make no real sense to a thinking person. But now I read these posts and I think; "OMG! They'll have a hayday with that same line of attack when they quote some of these comments".

I just hope MOST of America has a more grounded take on what is going on and vote for Obama again.

Yep; I was ready to throw in with the first real Progressive to challenge Obama and was advocating that someone should run but not any more.

I think I'm done here too. No wonder America is divided. People on both sides seem to be actively trying to make it so.
0 # opieee 2011-05-12 10:57
I see no need to conflate the death of OBL with our conception of ourselves as Americans, and the proper way for Americans to behave.

From listening, it seems that many have the idea that it is ok to kill a combatant in a war out of hand, but that a criminal requires trial before being executed. Hence, if there is a "war on terror" or a criminal conspiracy assumes an importance it does not in this case, deserve.

Think of precedents in our own history: Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger come immediately to mind.

OBL, out of his own mouth, was guilty of mass murder many times over and had a fanatical following ready to commit more at his whim. That alone made him more dangerous than a vial of plague.

With guilt not an issue and his demonstrated capacity to continue inflicting death and suffering more than evident, there was nothing to be gained by, and no purpose to a trial.

He should have been shot on sight, the sooner the better. It was well and properly done.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.