If we had Bin Ladin...

[Blackadar]

...should we tell anyone? I mean, if we got him and it was pretty secret that we did.

If we announce that we did:

1. Wouldn't we turn him into a martyr?
2. Wouldn't the radicals gravitate to new leadership?
3. Wouldn't we highten the risk of more attacks on the US in retailiation?
4. Woulnd't we then be pressured by the world to give him a "fair trial"?


If we didn't:

1. Couldn't we use his network to put out disinformation to sow confusion?
2. Leave the radicals floundering with a lack of leadership?
3. Keep him hidden so as not to make him a martyr or prevent a trial (where facts regarding the US/Bin Ladin relationship may come to light that we would like to prevent)?

Really, would we be better off just keeping him locked up with no one the wiser?

[Joe]

he's already dead and we didn't tell anyone.

[CraigSca]

This is actually a pretty good question.

[MrBigglesworth]

If we didn't:

1. Couldn't we use his network to put out disinformation to sow confusion?
2. Leave the radicals floundering with a lack of leadership?
3. Keep him hidden so as not to make him a martyr or prevent a trial (where facts regarding the US/Bin Ladin relationship may come to light that we would like to prevent)?
I don't think that would work. We may not know anything about where he is or what he is up to, but I think that if he was captured or disappeared that the people in his network would know. I think the PR victory would be too great to not announce it.

And what is so bad about giving him a "fair trial"? Seems like an open and shut case to me.

[Franklinnoble]

...if it were up to me, I'd burn off his wang on live television... with a soldering iron... one millimeter at a time. You know, just as a warning to the rest of his ilk.

[Joe]

He wouldn't get a fair "trial." He'd get a trial much like the one that Uday and Qusay Hussein got.

[MrBigglesworth]

He wouldn't get a fair "trial." He'd get a trial much like the one that Uday and Qusay Hussein got.
Ok, but what is wrong with a fair trial for those of use who haven't ditched the rules of civilization in the face of The Greatest Threat Man Has Ever Known?

[rkmsuf]

how exactly do you put the head of an invisible terrorist network on trial?

[MrBigglesworth]

how exactly do you put the head of an invisible terrorist network on trial?
I don't understand the question. What are you worried about?

[rkmsuf]

I don't understand the question. What are you worried about?

Nothing but how could you hold an actual trial?

"The defense would like to call it's first witness...Allah."

"Defense calls Allah!"

[MrBigglesworth]

Nothing but how could you hold an actual trial?

"The defense would like to call it's first witness...Allah."

"Defense calls Allah!"
5 years ago I would have said that calling a higher power as a witness would get you laughed out of court, now I'm not so sure ;)

[Blackadar]

I don't think that would work. We may not know anything about where he is or what he is up to, but I think that if he was captured or disappeared that the people in his network would know. I think the PR victory would be too great to not announce it.

And what is so bad about giving him a "fair trial"? Seems like an open and shut case to me.

The first part is questionable, but you would think with the intelligence we've gathered from other Al Quada sources that we could put a lot of disinformation out there. After all, it's not like Bin Ladin comes to work every day at an office. Most of his network rarely, if ever, see him.

The PR victory is another issue entirely. It would be very difficult for any administration not to thump their chest on something like this...

...except...

You may then have to do something with him. You never know how International Pressure can influence something.

As for the fair trial, there may be some very uncomfortable skelletons in the closet regarding our past associations with him. How would you feel if it turned out part of the money that went to planning 9/11 came from the USA for other insurgency actions (this is pure speculation and is being used as an example, not fact).

[Dutch]

I'd be afraid for him if the USA were to capture him. We might keep the AC low and/or put his Quran on the ground. The decline of western civilization folks. The horror! ;)

[Klinglerware]

Won't matter in the long run. The war on al-Qaeda eventually will turn out to be a side show that will occupy the US militarily and economically, allowing China and Russia (and Western Europe, if they ever get their act together) an opportunity to gain strategic advantage in the coming century.

When it comes to the "war on terrorism", I'm not sure we are allocating enough of our efforts to combating groups like FARC, whose links to the Latin American drug trade probably causes more damage to the US economy (through lost productivity, etc) and to the lives of everyday Americans (drug dependency) on a yearly basis than al-Qaeda does.

[JPhillips]

Blackie: I think our real concern would be the problems a trial would cause for Suadi Arabia. Would we want a public airing of all the money different Saudi royals gave to Bin Laden?

Of course I believe that its this kind of ass covering that has kept us from trying Saddam and I believe he will die well before a trial is scheduled to start.

[kcchief19]

Debate over a trial aside, I think this is a classic catch-22 if/when we capture him. If we announce it, I could certainly see scenarios where it could increase the possibility of terrorism. That's the only down side. I don't think his death or a trial would draw any more supporters to his side or make them any more rabid. I think people have already made their mind up about him. I think the Muslim world either loves him or hates him, and the ones who love him already are ready to die for him.

Much like anytime you try it, I think keeping it a secret would be worse than making it public. If we got caught hiding him in captivity -- which we eventually would -- the outcry would be even worse. Then people really would have a "legitimate" beef -- the American's said they wanted justice but all they really wanted was revenge.

If we get our hands on him and need to hold a trial, I say we do what we should do with all the other detainees -- ship their asses to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal. You think these guys will get off? Anybody here from Milosevich these days? Leave the punish up to someone else. Get us out of the equation so people can't say we're exacting a pound of flesh. That said, it works a lot better on paper.

[Blackadar]

Blackie: I think our real concern would be the problems a trial would cause for Suadi Arabia. Would we want a public airing of all the money different Saudi royals gave to Bin Laden?

Of course I believe that its this kind of ass covering that has kept us from trying Saddam and I believe he will die well before a trial is scheduled to start.

Trust me, there is enough culpability to go around. I agree that there's a good chance that Saddam never goes to a real trial before he dies.

[JPhillips]

Blackie: I agree that there is plenty to go around. I think one of the worst decisions we made was to continue pouring in hundreds of millions in weapons to the mujahideen after the Soviets pulled out.

[dawgfan]

...if it were up to me, I'd burn off his wang on live television... with a soldering iron... one millimeter at a time. You know, just as a warning to the rest of his ilk.

Right. Because this sort of warning works. Just like how when radical Muslim extremists chop off the heads of westerners as a warning, that keeps us from combating terrorists.

[dawgfan]

Won't matter in the long run. The war on al-Qaeda eventually will turn out to be a side show that will occupy the US militarily and economically, allowing China and Russia (and Western Europe, if they ever get their act together) an opportunity to gain strategic advantage in the coming century.

It is in the long-term best interests of all of these governments - China, Russia, the European Union - to combat terrorism and the root conditions that breed and nurture it. To that end, if the U.S. fails to bring these various regions together to help address these issues, the U.S. will indeed lose some strategic advantage. As wealthy and militarily advanced as we are, we can't adequately address all the problem areas of the world (and thus both reduce the threat to us as well as improve economic conditions around the world). We need the rest of the advanced governments around the world to help share the burden.

I do think it's extremely unlikely that China, Russia or the European Union will approach the military supremacy of the U.S. in our lifetimes.

[rexallllsc]

...should we tell anyone? I mean, if we got him and it was pretty secret that we did.

If we announce that we did:

1. Wouldn't we turn him into a martyr?
2. Wouldn't the radicals gravitate to new leadership?
3. Wouldn't we highten the risk of more attacks on the US in retailiation?
4. Woulnd't we then be pressured by the world to give him a "fair trial"?


If we didn't:

1. Couldn't we use his network to put out disinformation to sow confusion?
2. Leave the radicals floundering with a lack of leadership?
3. Keep him hidden so as not to make him a martyr or prevent a trial (where facts regarding the US/Bin Ladin relationship may come to light that we would like to prevent)?

Really, would we be better off just keeping him locked up with no one the wiser?

If we had him and it was announced, imagine the hijackings to try and get him back.

If we had him/have him, my guess is we'll never know.

[rkmsuf]

If we had Bin Ladin
And you think he's sexy
Come on baby let me know.

[mrsimperless]

I was always of the opinion that if we ever got to Bin Laden you would never hear word of it. Think of it, the best thing from our perspective really, is if he would just disappear. And for the most part, hasn't he already?

[MalcPow]

It is in the long-term best interests of all of these governments - China, Russia, the European Union - to combat terrorism and the root conditions that breed and nurture it. To that end, if the U.S. fails to bring these various regions together to help address these issues, the U.S. will indeed lose some strategic advantage. As wealthy and militarily advanced as we are, we can't adequately address all the problem areas of the world (and thus both reduce the threat to us as well as improve economic conditions around the world). We need the rest of the advanced governments around the world to help share the burden.

I do think it's extremely unlikely that China, Russia or the European Union will approach the military supremacy of the U.S. in our lifetimes.

Completely agree. The global capability of the US military is not something that is going to have a rival in this century. That's not to say that the US is incapable of losing a regional war, because it's vulnerable to a number nations in that timeframe in a conflict like that. But nothing shy of some terrible world event is going to change the fact that the US is the only nation capable of projecting force anywhere in the world. And it would frankly take something extreme to happen for any of the industrialized nations to aspire to those capabilities, nobody wants to spend as much on defense as we do.

[Bee]

...should we tell anyone? I mean, if we got him and it was pretty secret that we did.

If we announce that we did:

1. Wouldn't we turn him into a martyr?
2. Wouldn't the radicals gravitate to new leadership?
3. Wouldn't we highten the risk of more attacks on the US in retailiation?
4. Woulnd't we then be pressured by the world to give him a "fair trial"?


If we didn't:

1. Couldn't we use his network to put out disinformation to sow confusion?
2. Leave the radicals floundering with a lack of leadership?
3. Keep him hidden so as not to make him a martyr or prevent a trial (where facts regarding the US/Bin Ladin relationship may come to light that we would like to prevent)?

Really, would we be better off just keeping him locked up with no one the wiser?

1. I don't see turning him into a martyr is going to affect most people's opinions either way. This was argued with Saddam and it didn't really cause an uprising with the moderate arabs that was expected. I don't see OBL's capture being much different.

2. Don't they already have new leadership? OBL releases a message occasionally, but otherwise it's the guys on the ground handling most of the stuff.

3. I don't believe the terrorists are holding anything back, so I don't believe they have the capacity to increase their attacks.

4. Haven't we already demonstrated what we think of world pressure during our invasion of Iraq? I think it's a non-point and wouldn't be a factor in deciding if we announce the capture of OBL.

1b. I'd think trying to use his network would be almost impossible and considering our intelligence community, would probably backfire on us.

2b. Isn't this the opposite of 2 above? In any case, I think there are already leaders in place that would step up if OBL disappears for a long period of time (whether his capture is announced or kept hidden).

3b. umm...that's quite an assumption and the first time i've heard this theory. I'd think if there were any concrete evidence of anything suspicious with the relationship of the US and OBL, it would have come out by now.

The positive political gain that the White House would receive with the capture of OBL would outweigh any of the negatives I can see with announcing OBL's capture. I might see the announcement being delayed for a couple weeks to try feeding false information as you outlined above and capturing some of the other leadership, but otherwise I see no reason to keep his capture hidden beyond that.

[WSUCougar]

Release him on the streets of Manhattan as a new reality show, "Got Osama?"

[rkmsuf]

Release him on the streets of Manhattan as a new reality show, "Got Osama?"

Put him on "The Apprentice"

[JeeberD]

Release him on the streets of Manhattan as a new reality show, "Got Osama?"

Sounds like "The Running Man" (the novel, not the crap Ah-nold movie)...

[Klinglerware]

I do think it's extremely unlikely that China, Russia or the European Union will approach the military supremacy of the U.S. in our lifetimes.

A very fair comment, but strategic power is not always measured in military might. Economic power is also of significance, and the other powers have an opportunity to make relative economic gains, as the US expends resources fighting Islamic terror groups that these other states do not have to (or are unwilling to) expend.

Many hegemons have fallen when their economic capacity diminishes relative to their rivals. This is not to say that the US will cease to become the pre-eminent economic and military power in our lifetimes, but relative gains made by other states will eventually make it more difficult for the US to act unilaterally. For example, the US will find it more difficult to dictate the terms of the international monetary system as rival economies gain strength and other global currencies as the Euro become seen as a vaible alternative to the dollar.

I'm not sure there really is a solution to this. The war on Islamic terror is probably in the US' short term interests--so the US has very little choice in making the expenditures necessary in fighting this war. However, I disagree that combating al-Qaeda is really in the interests of Russia or China. If they were smart, they would be content to allow the US to do the dirty work. Al-Qaeda has had little impact on these states historically, and allowing the US to bear the costs of the war would allow both Russia and China the opportunity to grow their economies relative to the US, while keeping the attention of the terrorists focused on the US and away from the other powers...

[panerd]

The positive political gain that the White House would receive with the capture of OBL would outweigh any of the negatives I can see with announcing OBL's capture. I might see the announcement being delayed for a couple weeks to try feeding false information as you outlined above and capturing some of the other leadership, but otherwise I see no reason to keep his capture hidden beyond that.

Agree 100%. No question we will find out the second he is in custody. Don't get me wrong had Kerry been elected president he would have done the same thing. No Republican or Democratic administration will ever choose the best interests of the country outlined by all kinds of posters in this thread over the potential political gain of being in power when Bin Laden was caught.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

If it were up to me I would go to his family estate and torture and shoot all members of his family on Pay Per View (To help pay for GWOT).

[st.cronin]

If we did catch Bin Laden I would be in favor of cloning him multiple times and executing him every Sep. 11 in various horrific ways.

[sovereignstar]

If I was a major terrorist, I'd want my name to be spelled right. Otherwise I'd just blow up more things.

[dawgfan]

A very fair comment, but strategic power is not always measured in military might. Economic power is also of significance, and the other powers have an opportunity to make relative economic gains, as the US expends resources fighting Islamic terror groups that these other states do not have to (or are unwilling to) expend.

Certainly, and this is an issue that the U.S. needs to address. The fact that the Bush administration couldn't convince more of our traditional allies to support us in the Iraq invasion/occupation is one of two primary reasons I didn't support our going in when we did. I wouldn't have expected China to tacitly approve given how, since the end of the Soviet Union, we've done all we could to build up China as the next great superpower threat to the U.S., but there is reason to think that Russia could have eventually been pursuaded to help.

Many hegemons have fallen when their economic capacity diminishes relative to their rivals. This is not to say that the US will cease to become the pre-eminent economic and military power in our lifetimes, but relative gains made by other states will eventually make it more difficult for the US to act unilaterally. For example, the US will find it more difficult to dictate the terms of the international monetary system as rival economies gain strength and other global currencies as the Euro become seen as a vaible alternative to the dollar.

I think it's likely that China and Russia will make relative gains on the U.S. economically, but I'm not so sure about the European Union - they've collectively been in a pretty stable economic situation for quite a few decades now, and I think any gains they might make economically relative to the U.S. would be minimal. India will make more relative gain than the European countries.

As long as the U.S. is willing and able to spend what it does militarily, and thus be the only power with the capability to act anywhere in the world, we'll command the respect of other major powers. Some of these countries may harp on the role of U.S. as 'global cop', but the job often needs to be done and I don't see much evidence of any other powers stepping up to fill that role.

I'm not sure there really is a solution to this. The war on Islamic terror is probably in the US' short term interests--so the US has very little choice in making the expenditures necessary in fighting this war. However, I disagree that combating al-Qaeda is really in the interests of Russia or China. If they were smart, they would be content to allow the US to do the dirty work. Al-Qaeda has had little impact on these states historically, and allowing the US to bear the costs of the war would allow both Russia and China the opportunity to grow their economies relative to the US, while keeping the attention of the terrorists focused on the US and away from the other powers...

Al Qaeda may not be a direct threat to Russia and China at present, but they're not immune. Russia especially should be sensitive to issues with radical Islamic terrorists as they've had their own issues, and they should also have a fundamental understanding of the problem in Afghanistan. In the larger context, combating radical Islam is just the most publicized problem of a larger issue of underdeveloped countries and regions that spawn the kinds of issues that threaten economic expansion and globalization.

I won't try and paraphrase his ideas here, but you might find it worthwhile to read Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map if you haven't already, which discusses many of these issues (albeit from mostly a military planning point of view). I don't agree with all the conclusions he makes in the book, but I can't argue with his underlying concepts about globalization, the haves and have-nots and where we should be focusing our attention (i.e. away from China and the single super-power opposition, cold-war style thinking and toward the collective problems of the underdeveloped regions of the world).

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Bin Laden isn't even real. He is a creation of the CIA used to control fanatic muslims. The man who plays Bin Laden is an actor from St. Cloud, Minnesota named Josef Goldstein. He was with my cousin in the theatre company at South Dakota State in 1979. He also played small forward on the basketball team. He was pretty good until tearing his achillies.

[andy m]

Bin Laden isn't even real. He is a creation of the CIA used to control fanatic muslims. The man who plays Bin Laden is an actor from St. Cloud, Minnesota named Josef Goldstein. He was with my cousin in the theatre company at South Dakota State in 1979. He also played small forward on the basketball team. He was pretty good until tearing his achillies.


bullshit. he actually blew out his knee.

[MalcPow]

Bin Laden isn't even real. He is a creation of the CIA used to control fanatic muslims. The man who plays Bin Laden is an actor from St. Cloud, Minnesota named Josef Goldstein. He was with my cousin in the theatre company at South Dakota State in 1979. He also played small forward on the basketball team. He was pretty good until tearing his achillies.

He played even longer than his frame too. Sort of a Rasheed Wallace type, and he could wet that eighteen-footer all day. He was soft on the other end though. Ultimately a better actor, you could see he had huge upside as a psuedo-Islamo-fundamentalo-puppet, and he was a great pickup for the Company.

[Klinglerware]

Bin Laden isn't even real. He is a creation of the CIA used to control fanatic muslims. The man who plays Bin Laden is an actor from St. Cloud, Minnesota named Josef Goldstein. He was with my cousin in the theatre company at South Dakota State in 1979. He also played small forward on the basketball team. He was pretty good until tearing his achillies.

I was under the impression that he went to the University of South Dakota, but then again, your cousin would know better than me...

[Klinglerware]

I won't try and paraphrase his ideas here, but you might find it worthwhile to read Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map if you haven't already, which discusses many of these issues (albeit from mostly a military planning point of view). I don't agree with all the conclusions he makes in the book, but I can't argue with his underlying concepts about globalization, the haves and have-nots and where we should be focusing our attention (i.e. away from China and the single super-power opposition, cold-war style thinking and toward the collective problems of the underdeveloped regions of the world).

Yes, Barnett is a powerful thinker (I tend to respect authors like him and Jared Diamond, who have the gumption to think and write on a grand scale). Like you, I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions and prescriptions, but I appreciate his logical thought process. I wrote a couple of general comments about it when Bubba started a thread about the book a few months ago...