Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

[Mal_Adjusted]

Interesting snippet in Imran khan's article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 78033.html

Equally disturbing is the tremendous level of distrust the US has for the Pakistanis, which led it to jam the radars during the duration of the operation.

 

[Quake42]

Equally disturbing is the tremendous level of distrust the US has for the Pakistanis, which led it to jam the radars during the duration of the operation.

Unsurprising if true, given the conflicted loyalties of much of Pakistan's political and military class; however I also suspect there the US is downplaying the extent of Pakistani governmental knowledge of the operation.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I agree, we'll have to disagree on that. I'll just add 1) that I mean that both sides would be affected, and 2) that while fanatics may seem, from an outsider perspective, motivated purely by a selfless ethereal ideology, in fact influence from and thrust in their leaders has always been a crucial factor. There are many historical illustrations of that. I cited Nazis, but Crusaders or Communists are good examples too. Loss of leaders = loss of troops.

I agree they're not motivated only by a sense of ethics. They are motivated by a sense of gain. There's a fantastic opportunity for them here to expose America for what they claim it is once and for all. They might never have such an opportunity to do so again.

Although for 1), I don't believe that many westerners (expect those you call 'conspiracy theorists') would listen to them, beginning with the media. Firstly not because they don't deem AQ as reliable, but just because they wouldn't want to hear of that.

I think that's a fairly misanthropic view of westerners and a rather arrogant view of conspiracy theorists (those whose advocate conspiracy theories but get prissy about being labelled as such).

This is a strange reasoning. Trust in the office of president is diminished by the wrongdoings of the president, not by their revelations. Putting the blame on the revelations and not on the thug in office is the reasoning of a mafioso. But then, isn't it what they are : mafiosi ?

No, it's diminished by their revelation. If you can show me an instance of public opinion being affected by something which remained unrevealed I'd be prepared to change my mind although, apparently, I wouldn't need to hear of it to do so.

But the main reason of the dismissing of Bush's impeachment is that many Democrats were involved, directly or indirectly, in the wrongdoings leading to the criminal war in Iraq.

In which case it's a uniquely bad example to cite since they're implicated in the same lie. It may be for the same sinister reason or because they were easily fooled dupes. Neither of them do a good electoral pitch make.

Relating to the matter of extraordinary rendition, I would note that many westerners see no problem at all with that. Only with those who denounce it. It didn't cost Bush and his followers many votes.

And yet there was a policy of obfuscation. That aside it 100% misses the point about the purpose of lying. If the purpose of the lie is to hoodwink the public into doing something against their interests - losing their lives in far off lands for the benefit of a shadowy cabal, for example - then people will be less sanguine about it than a lie which is carried out for their benefit.

True international law says that a sovereign state does not have any obligation to extradite any resident. If there is no extradition treaty, extradition may be allowed only on a case-to-case agreement. If said resident is accused of waging hostile activities against a foreign state, it may be seen as an act of war. The country of residence has an obligation to stop his or her activities. But the supposedly attacked state has to prove its claims.
In this case, the US government did nothing of the sort. That makes of it an agressor.
Nor have the US ruled proved their claims since, despite that they had promised to publish their proofs. Nor have in any case any foreign government asked them to keep their promise.

He was wanted for crimes other than 9/11. The bombings of US embassies in East Africa were legitimate cause for his extradition. In any case, an illegal war is your description not an internationally recognised one. There's no point bleating about the Iraq war on the basis that it was illegal according to the UN and then ignoring their judgement on Afghanistan.

 

[McAvennie]

The picture of Obama and Hillary and their crew watching it live, I can't help but think they took that pic on Friday during the Royal Wedding coverage... :lol:

 

[ramonmercado]

It strikes me that the people most dismayed by this news are Islamist fascists, Leftist appeasers of said fascism and Tea Party nutters watching their 2012 US election hopes vanishing. That alone gives considerable cheer.

I guess there may be still some leftist supporters of the islamists left but the SWP have really flip flopped:

Weekly Worker 861 Thursday April 14 2011

Unlikely bedfellows

In a change of policy that Alex Callinicos calls "entirely consistent", the Socialist Workers Party now supports the same group of Britain-based Iranian exiles that enjoy the backing of the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers' Liberty. Tina Becker reports

Image: The horror of Iraq: principled solidarity requires consistent anti-imperialism
The horror of Iraq: principled solidarity requires consistent anti-imperialism

When the Socialist Workers Party does one of its many political U-turns, it usually does so without any attempt to theorise the change and certainly any public admission of the fact it has even taken place. One of the more startling examples of the organisation's crass opportunism (or 'programmatic flexibility', as the comrades might call it) can be seen in its position on Iran and the green movement.

Readers of the Weekly Worker will remember how, just a couple of years back, the SWP rejected all criticism of Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of the 'unity' of the anti-war movement. The affiliation of Hands Off the People of Iran to the then SWP-run Stop the War Coalition was rejected on the grounds that Hopi opposes not only any imperialist intervention in Iran, but also the theocracy, arguing instead for active solidarity with the tens of thousands of women, worker and student activists who have been fighting against their regime.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004356

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

(I'll leave comment on the weakly worker vs SWP spat for another time)

seems the news got it wrong again ...

Osama bin Laden 'was not armed and did not use wife as human shield

Osama bin Laden did not use one of his four wives as a human shield in his dying moments, contrary to earlier reports, as White House officials began to "clarify" early accounts of Monday's commando raids by US special forces.

By Peter Foster 12:39PM BST 03 May 2011

US officials had claimed that Osama Bin Laden had been "firing behind" his wife when he was shot through the eye by a US Navy Seal, painting a powerful image of the world's most wanted man cowering behind a defenceless woman.

In the original account of the firefight, John Brennan, a US counter-terrorism official briefing the media, said "There was family at that compound, and there was a female who was, in fact, in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Osama from the incoming fire".

However US officials have now conceded that Bin Laden was not armed during the assault, did not fire back and that his wife was only injured in the assault, most likely in the crossfire, according to unnamed officials quoted by the US website Politico.

"A different guy's wife was killed", said the website, quoting an unnamed official who had briefed US television media, with the official adding that Bin Laden's wife was "injured not killed", having been shot in the calf.

"Two women were shot here. It sounds like their fates were mixed up," said the US official. "This is hours old and the full facts are still being ascertained as those involved are debriefed." The website also quoted another official saying "I'm not aware of him [Bin laden] having a weapon."

The discrepancy between earlier accounts and the new version of events was put down to "confusion" by the White House, who said that the "fact pattern" on the assault was only now becoming clear as more of the participants were interviewed.

The contradictions came despite the fact that other reports suggesting that President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state and other senior officials had watched the assault on a live feed provided by a camera mounted on the commando's helmets.

The identity of the dead woman has not been made public, however officials quoted by the Reuters news agency added that she had been in a different part of the compound from bin Laden when he was killed.

Twenty-three children and nine women were in the compound at the time of the assault and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, added the US official who requested anonymity to discuss an intelligence matter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hield.html

what next I wonder?

 

[Yithian]

Is there any truth to the reports that Chuck Norris has just returned home from a vacation in Pakistan?

 

[GNC]

Is there any truth to the reports that Chuck Norris has just returned home from a vacation in Pakistan?

It sounds like an 80s action movie, doesn't it? Minus the homoeroticism, maybe.

 

[GNC]

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni10216917/

Osama Bin Laden Death to Be Featured in Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Project

A new untitled military project from The Hurt Locker team of director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal received a welcomed push after an elite American unit killed Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden on Sunday.

We first reported on the project back in December, when all that was known about the movie was that it centered on a team of special ops soldiers. It seems Mark Boal, who has contacts in military intelligence and a background in investigative journalism, based his project on the exact same team that took out Bin Laden, with the screenwriter following the mission this whole time.

Mark Boal will now rewrite the script to include the 40-minute firefight which ended in Osama Bin Laden's death. The death occurred at just the right time for Mark Boal, who still has time to tweak the script, while still ensuring the movie will be timely upon it's released.

I spoke too soon, it's like a modern day action movie. With any luck it'll feature a surfin' Osama.

 

[Yithian]

Is there any truth to the reports that Chuck Norris has just returned home from a vacation in Pakistan?

It sounds like an 80s action movie, doesn't it? Minus the homoeroticism, maybe.

The Seals probably took a communal shower when the got back to barracks, with a saxophonist accompanying.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Is there any truth to the reports that Chuck Norris has just returned home from a vacation in Pakistan?

It sounds like an 80s action movie, doesn't it? Minus the homoeroticism, maybe.

I don't remember any 80s films with homo-eroticism. But then, I'm an innocent like that.

 

[Spookdaddy]

It strikes me that the people most dismayed by this news are Islamist fascists, Leftist appeasers of said fascism and Tea Party nutters watching their 2012 US election hopes vanishing. That alone gives considerable cheer.

At least many in the Tea Party will be able to anaesthetise themselves somewhat by wallowing in other conspiracies. Which to choose - Obama's birth, or Osama's death? There's a certain poetry, I feel.

I spoke too soon, it's like a modern day action movie. With any luck it'll feature a surfin' Osama.

'Terry don't surf!'

 

[shruggy63]

Thanks to all for the pointers to the pictures.
One thing that strikes me about all this is a potential overturning of the churchillian maxim that history is in the gift of the victor. It seems entirely possible, in the internet age, that the defeated could create the dominant mythology in this case.
Which leads me to a question that I'll have to answer to myself. Can I simply remain neutral & comment with no repercussions as a web user or should I follow my instinctive beliefs & back a position I believe & thus strengthen a particular public version of events?

 

[GNC]

Is there any truth to the reports that Chuck Norris has just returned home from a vacation in Pakistan?

It sounds like an 80s action movie, doesn't it? Minus the homoeroticism, maybe.

I don't remember any 80s films with homo-eroticism. But then, I'm an innocent like that.

One word: Commando. Makes Julian Clary look like Julian Clary.

 

[Quake42]

I don't remember any 80s films with homo-eroticism. But then, I'm an innocent like that.

Top Gun?

 

[OneWingedBird]

And his wristwatch beeps so loud counting down how long his daughter has to live that the bad guys should have heard him coming about a quarter of a mile away :lol:

Die Hard and Top Gun probably as well.

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

I seem to have missed those films - are they the ones where the hero shoots unarmed men and women?

 

[Analis]

I agree they're not motivated only by a sense of ethics. They are motivated by a sense of gain. There's a fantastic opportunity for them here to expose America for what they claim it is once and for all. They might never have such an opportunity to do so again.

O yes, they should spill the bloods, and comit suicide. Because it would be suicide. Revealing that they had been de facto allies of Bush and co.

On a second thought, commiting suicide would really be their best strategy. And their only strategy. They have lost everything. They're hated in the West. They're more and more despised in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where they have almost no influence left (and less and less Arabs believe they were behind the attacks of September 2001). The Arab people are uprising, calling for Democracy. They don't even have any more influence in the Afghan insurrection. They recruit less and less fighters. So, all what is left to them is a grandiose suicide and to drag their ennemies down in their fall.
But they couldn't afford even this. Because, apart from truthers, nobody would hear them. Additionally, I believe that there is no way to prove definitely any version of the death of OBL - except if his (?) body had been made available, but now that it is confirmed that it was dropped in the sea, the US wasted the last possibilty of determining the truth. How silly of them ! The few photos that they're beginning to release won't change things.

Although for 1), I don't believe that many westerners (expect those you call 'conspiracy theorists') would listen to them, beginning with the media. Firstly not because they don't deem AQ as reliable, but just because they wouldn't want to hear of that.

I think that's a fairly misanthropic view of westerners and a rather arrogant view of conspiracy theorists

No, no misanthropy involved. This is the way public opinion works. This is called the group-mind. We had many examples in those last years. How the public put a blind eye on growing corruption, on countless war crimes, on the involvment of the government, the president and military commanders in the torture in Iraq etc...

(those whose advocate conspiracy theories but get prissy about being labelled as such).

You mean all those who advocate the official version.

No, it's diminished by their revelation. If you can show me an instance of public opinion being affected by something which remained unrevealed I'd be prepared to change my mind although, apparently, I wouldn't need to hear of it to do so.

Self evident truth, and irrelevant to the discussion, as you surely understand that it was not what I meant.

In which case it's a uniquely bad example to cite since they're implicated in the same lie. It may be for the same sinister reason or because they were easily fooled dupes. Neither of them do a good electoral pitch make.

Well, it is a similar situation : in both cases we have a shared lie. So the parallel is very relevant.

And yet there was a policy of obfuscation. That aside it 100% misses the point about the purpose of lying. If the purpose of the lie is to hoodwink the public into doing something against their interests - losing their lives in far off lands for the benefit of a shadowy cabal, for example - then people will be less sanguine about it than a lie which is carried out for their benefit.

Hopefully, there is still an opposition, hence the need for obfuscation. But the fact is that many people don't make anymore the distinction between what is against their interests and what is made for their benefit. Your distinction misses the point.
In any case, the moral inclination of the public should not be overestimated. If it came to reject the war in Iraq after many years, it was not so much on moral grounds than because it was a failure, and a costly one. Similarly, after the subprime crash, people were not angry because the system was bad in itself, despite that it was ; but just because they could not make money anymore.

He was wanted for crimes other than 9/11. The bombings of US embassies in East Africa were legitimate cause for his extradition. In any case, an illegal war is your description not an internationally recognised one. There's no point bleating about the Iraq war on the basis that it was illegal according to the UN and then ignoring their judgement on Afghanistan.

So, now, the purpose of the attack on Afghanistan was to bring OBL for the Kenya bombings ? It was not deemed at the time as a good enough motive, and it shouldn't be ; this was not an act of war. And it shouldn't distract us from the fact that the Taleban had agreed to surrender OBL if enough proof was given of his involvment.
Yes, the US took advantage of the situation in the Fall of 2001, to have an agreement from the UN. But 9 years later, it shouldn't blind us to the fact that this war lacked justifications.
Maybe you mean that Spain and Italia should be at war with the USA, because they refused to hand over CIA and military thugs (some of them already convicted) ?

This drives us from what is really important :
Maybe OBL died in 2001-2002, 2004-2005, or two days ago. But what matters is that the "hunt for OBL" was a mere farce. That he could not live in a luxury house, close to military headquarters, without the authorities knowing. And given the close links between the ISI and the CIA, the US could not have ignored it. Despite his clumsy denials, Obama needed help from the Pakistanis. He wanted to end the charade, because he couldn't afford it to last until the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

 

[Anome]

Going back a bit, before all the squabbling over something to do with old photos or something.

The problem is they buried him at sea before anyone could perform an independent autopsy and identification.

Is that confirmed?

If so, it's an incomprehensible decision.

Can't guarantee it, but I have a source (who'd have thunk it? I don't know anyone, and here I have a source) with connections to the crew of the ship the funeral was held on.

The main reason for it, as given, is to follow Muslim law that states the body must be disposed of within 2 (I think) days. Much the same as the Jewish law that requires burial inside 3 days.

I also remember some rumours that he was living in a mansion somewhere in Pakistan from a year or so back. Mostly coming from a journalist who had spoken to the kind of people who would know. (People connected to Al Qaeda, that is. Clearly not anyone in the US.)

I don't celebrate the death of anyone, even someone as unpleasant as Bin Laden. He should have been brought back alive to face charges of War Crimes. In a way, killing him lets him get away with it.

 

[sherbetbizarre]

Today Is Not a Day of Celebration for Me

 

[Quake42]

Can't guarantee it, but I have a source (who'd have thunk it? I don't know anyone, and here I have a source) with connections to the crew of the ship the funeral was held on.

The main reason for it, as given, is to follow Muslim law that states the body must be disposed of within 2 (I think) days. Much the same as the Jewish law that requires burial inside 3 days.

Yeah. I have to say that, if the reports of his "burial at sea" are accurate, then it does sound as though his body was treated as respectfully as could be expected in the circumstances.

I don't celebrate the death of anyone, even someone as unpleasant as Bin Laden. He should have been brought back alive to face charges of War Crimes.

It was never going to happen. As I've said earlier in the thread... imagine the kidnappings, hijackings and beheadings that would have taken place while Bin Laden was held awaiting trial, and then for several years after while appeals against the inevitable death sentence took place. No way that Obama was going to risk that.

 

[OneWingedBird]

I seem to have missed those films - are they the ones where the hero shoots unarmed men and women?

Not in Die Hard afaik, some of the bad guys get it in nasty ways but only in defence.

Top Gun I don;t remember, haven;t seen since 1980something and really don;t want to again.

Try Commando: Best of Stupid Scenes. The bad guy giving the ultimatum at the start doesn't appear to be armed and Arnie's 'reply' is to turn around and shoot him dead.

 

[OneWingedBird]

No way that Obama was going to risk that.

It seems a very inadequate reason not to try Osama, and if there was loss of life caused by it, that would have to sit in the context of the loss of life in that whole sad sorry matter so far, which is very considerable.

 

[Quake42]

It seems a very inadequate reason not to try Osama

I think we probably have to agree to disagree on that: IMO the virtual certainty of terror attacks arising from the detention of Bin Laden trumps any wish he or his supporters may have for a trial. Additionally, there would be a question as to where he could be tried and whether he had been seized illegally in Pakistan.

This case is unique: the world's most wanted man being sheltered for the best part of a decade by a supposed ally of the West. I think the US did the right thing.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Might is right.

 

[Quake42]

Might is right.

If you say so. That certainly wasn't my argument.

I admit, however, to being baffled by the amount of handwringing and condescension over this in publications and websites such as the Guardian.

The man was responsible for the worst act of peacetime terror ever seen, as well as the inspiration for the Bali, Madrid and London bombers. His followers are responsible for countless other deaths in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I'm afraid I won't shed any tears for him.

Hopefully his death can help draw a line under much of the last decade.

 

[GNC]

I can't say I'll miss Osama, but we were supposed to be better than his lot and this assassination was too close to the cold blooded murder he endorsed. For some, it diminishes our side to an extent.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Interesting article about the vibe in Pakistan atm.

Pakistanis have been shocked into silence by the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

There have been few protests - or public expressions of any kind - since US Navy Seals killed the al-Qaeda leader in Abbottabad on Sunday night.

"I feel numb - I really don't know what to say," Arsalan Mateen, a manager in a Karachi-based multinational company, told the BBC.

"Frankly speaking, I think this is just going to lead to more bloodshed in Pakistan.

"They have just killed one person - not destroyed the operational command and control structure of al-Qaeda. There are grave implications for Pakistan's internal security. I really don't think it's going to make this region, or the world any safer."

But it's not just the fall-out from the special forces' raid that has Pakistanis worried.

Many believe the whole incident was just a ruse to portray the country in a bad light - and that Osama Bin Laden was never in the compound in the first place.

"We don't know whether Osama was there - we never saw their bodies or the bodies of the others killed in the attack," says Shaista Bukhari, a housewife from Islamabad, echoing a widely-held view here.

"There are so many lies coming out of all governments that the truth seem like lies and lies like the truth. We can't believe their version of events till we have absolute proof."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

America has killed the man they said was responsible for all those attacks - it's time for them to leave us in peace”

End Quote Arsalan Mateen Karachi manager

Like Mrs Bukhari, many here are suspicious about the claims that Pakistani officials were not told of the raid and were unaware about Bin Laden's hiding place.

"Our armed forces are always assuring us that they will protect us. I can't believe they let this happen," says Mr Mateen.

"This means the entire world can now point fingers at Pakistan and call it a state that supports people the West calls terrorists and militants."

This is another point on which most Pakistanis differ from the West - whether Bin Laden was responsible for all he has been accused of.

"They say he was responsible for the New York (9/11) attacks, but have never given any concrete evidence," says Shahnawaz, a shopkeeper in Islamabad.

"He was just fighting for the rights of oppressed Muslims everywhere - that was his real fault."
'Struggle goes on'

This view is shared by many Pakistanis - especially the religious hardliners.

"Sheikh Osama Bin Laden is a hero of Islam and symbol of our struggle against the West," says Maulana Asmatullah, a Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) MP, said to have close links to the Taliban leadership.

The JUI is one of the few parties to come out on the streets so far - holding several demonstrations in Quetta against the killing of Bin Laden.

In Karachi a small prayer ceremony was organised on Tuesday by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an Islamic charity accused of links to militant groups.
Supporters of the banned Islamic organization Jamaat-ud-Dawa embrace each other after taking part in a funeral prayer for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Karachi May 3, 2011. Public expressions of grief have been small scale

Several hundred of the group's members attended the gathering in the east of the city, many openly weeping as the last rites were conducted. The public were invited, but few turned up.

Maulana Asmatullah wants the government to explain how the attack took place without its consent.

"I would also like to add that if Sheikh Osama is indeed dead - then there is no more rationale for the US to be in this region," he told the BBC.

"They wanted to kill him, and now he's dead they should leave immediately."

Many ordinary citizens believe that too.

"America has killed the man they said was responsible for all those attacks against the US. Its mission is accomplished - and it's time for them to leave us in peace," says Arsalan Mateen in Karachi.

Ahmed Nadeem, a bank executive in the city, says: "It's not just security - our economy has also been severely damaged due to the conflict. Osama is dead and they should now go."

For the militants, however, it's not the end of the story.

Mohammad Younis, a young Taliban member who has fought for four years on the fronts of Ghazni, Helmand and Kandahar, says Bin Laden was "like my father".

"I can't really describe my grief to you," he told me in southern Pakistan.

"But jihad is not and never was about one man. We mourn his loss, but the struggle will never stop.

"We will make all those responsible for his death pay - in Afghanistan and across the world.

"Let them rejoice now - soon they will feel fear again."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13280814

 

[lawofnations]

Might is right.

If you say so. That certainly wasn't my argument.

I admit, however, to being baffled by the amount of handwringing and condescension over this in publications and websites such as the Guardian.

The man was responsible for the worst act of peacetime terror ever seen, as well as the inspiration for the Bali, Madrid and London bombers. His followers are responsible for countless other deaths in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I'm afraid I won't shed any tears for him.

Hopefully his death can help draw a line under much of the last decade.

The handwringing is part and parcel of the central problem with the war on terror.

In the name of justice and the rule of law, in the name of upholding our freedom, we have at various points over the past ten years violated the law, restricted fundamental freedoms, committed war crimes and from all appearances engaged in summary and extrajudicial execution of a criminal suspect.

By characterising this as a clash of ideals, we lock ourselves into abiding by them, if we wish to maintain that "we" are "better" than "them". Conversely, by advocating that the above are natural and correct in the circumstances introduces a moral relativity that means "they" have as much right to engage in the tactics they have.

I can't countenance that this would have gone down any other way than it did. Bin Laden was never going to see a courtroom. That doesn't mean it isn't legitimate to question whether he was killed in the course of a mission to capture him, or was captured then executed in a fashion not dissimilar to some of the executions AQ have carried out (and been condemned for). I'm disturbed by the possibility that he was executed in this manner.

I expect terrorists to behave like terrorists. That's what makes them terrorists. But I also expect and demand that our governments and their agencies abide by the standards they promote as correct or are held to account for their failure to do so.

 

[solsticebelle]

The handwringing is part and parcel of the central problem with the war on terror.

In the name of justice and the rule of law, in the name of upholding our freedom, we have at various points over the past ten years violated the law, restricted fundamental freedoms, committed war crimes and from all appearances engaged in summary and extrajudicial execution of a criminal suspect.

By characterising this as a clash of ideals, we lock ourselves into abiding by them, if we wish to maintain that "we" are "better" than "them". Conversely, by advocating that the above are natural and correct in the circumstances introduces a moral relativity that means "they" have as much right to engage in the tactics they have.

I can't countenance that this would have gone down any other way than it did. Bin Laden was never going to see a courtroom. That doesn't mean it isn't legitimate to question whether he was killed in the course of a mission to capture him, or was captured then executed in a fashion not dissimilar to some of the executions AQ have carried out (and been condemned for). I'm disturbed by the possibility that he was executed in this manner.

I expect terrorists to behave like terrorists. That's what makes them terrorists. But I also expect and demand that our governments and their agencies abide by the standards they promote as correct or are held to account for their failure to do so.

Well said.