Bin Laden is under house arrest. I know they denied it last night, but Fox News just reported from a reporter in Pakistan that the report is accurate.

9/13/2001 12:00:50 PM

bartleby: there are international laws stating you cannot specifically target the leadership of a nation...

Bin Laden is most definitely a target we could go after fully... Unless the government of that country would not allow us entry, in which case all shit is going to break loose... But if we can find him, and we choose to go after him, we have no international laws stopping us...

9/13/2001 12:01:21 PM

yeah but who can you trust? the media throws all kinds of rumors around, and who knows what a pakistani news reporter might want us to think? or might be being TOLD that isnt actually true?

9/13/2001 12:02:04 PM

Bin Laden is under house arrest by a group that apparently supports him. It sounds more like a way to protect him than to keep him at bay.

9/13/2001 12:02:37 PM

ok but listen - the media says it's true, and the government denies it. The government knows for sure, but hte media coudl be wrong. They could also be right. We don't know yet

9/13/2001 12:04:32 PM

More importantly, it's an acknowledgement that they know his whereabouts and are intimidated enough to let us know where he is.

DG: It was a CNN reporter who is in Pakistan. He asked a Taliban official and the official confirmed the report.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2001 12:04:57 PM

ooooooh

well thats interesting


the bastards BETTER let us know where he is, if they don't want to be turned into puddles in the sand

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:07 PM. Reason : word]

9/13/2001 12:06:44 PM

Something tells me that we're going to have to go to war with them in order to get them to give him up. Their government has gone into hiding already.

9/13/2001 12:11:59 PM

from President Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905: United States Foreign Intelligence Activities


5. RESTRICTIONS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.




basically EO 11905 was issued after if was revealed that the CIA was going wild and just assassinating people all over the world.



[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:14 PM. Reason : clarification.]

9/13/2001 12:12:50 PM

So it's basically like I said. Any agency funded by the US gov't can't participate in a political assasination. BTW - you don't have to be a political leader to be a political target.

9/13/2001 12:14:48 PM

A terrorist attack is NOT politics, it is CRIME. Those "political" assassination laws DO NOT APPLY.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2001 12:14:56 PM

It's not easy to bring someone to trial that's being harbored by another country unless they just turn him over to our authorities.

9/13/2001 12:17:23 PM

Harboring a criminal is ALSO a crime. That makes those who harbor him/her subject to law enforcement actions.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2001 12:17:59 PM

and the government still can't just assassinate people we believe to be criminals.

9/13/2001 12:18:12 PM

^^^^ I agree.

CNN will interview Laura Bush within the hour.

9/13/2001 12:19:22 PM

Government agencies might not be able to... But I bet the Military has no such restrictions...

9/13/2001 12:23:57 PM

NYC is expecting rain tonight, which will have a great effect on rescue efforts and building stability.

9/13/2001 12:31:10 PM

damn that really sucks

9/13/2001 12:32:21 PM

I don't think that the killing of Bin Ladin is an assassination, although I'm not 100% sure of that...he's not a foreign government official, so he may not fall under the Law of War.

9/13/2001 12:33:39 PM

He may not be considered a political leader, however, the US military is a government agency. This rule applies to them as well. Do you know of anyone that you could ask about that Mav?

Everyone should just hope that it doesn't rain. I'm just going to have faith that their weathermen are as bad as ours (except Fishel).

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2001 12:36:05 PM

I think that dude deserves to be punished just as bad as you guys, but I don't see what his death will solve. I actually fear that it may cause an uproar amoung his brainwashed followers to assult the free world even worse ... punish-yes, assassinate or otherwise kill-no. That's just my $0.02

9/13/2001 12:37:10 PM

Okay, here's some info on assasination from Field Manual 27-10 "Law of Land Warfare"

Quote :

"31. Assassination and Outlawry HR provides: It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. (HR, art. 23, par. (b).) This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy "dead or alive". It does not, however, preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere. "

And here it is from the 1907 Hague Conventions, Article 23, Para b.

Quote :

"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden...to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; "

Looks pretty vague as far as I can tell. I mean, as far as I know, the whole point of warfare is to kill your enemy through treachery (well, to a certain degree). I mean, an ambush is a perfectly acceptable (as far as LoW is concerned) form of combat, but that's pretty treacherous, don't you think?

I can't spend all day looking for the legal provisions, but I'll be sure to ask around.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2001 12:42:29 PM

How can we not consider to kill bin laden? he deserves to be assassinated whether he did this or not. not short of that will stop him from funding more terrorists cells than his death. if the people do cause an uprising on bin laden's behalf, i am sure it is nothing that the united states can't take care of. the struggle between our free world and terrorists has reached a breaking point and the decision of action that we take will be the turning point in that struggle. those terrorist have to expect a reaction after what they did and i hope that the us will react accordingly.

9/13/2001 12:43:55 PM

true, but we need to be careful not to make a martyr out of him

9/13/2001 12:46:29 PM

Ah, I see what Gamecat's referring to now...

Yes, the US Military is very much subject to this law. The question is whether or not the killing of Osama Bin Ladin is considered an assasination. That's one of those terms that has a lot of grey area, and I'm almost certain that some people will take a very liberal interpretation of that.

9/13/2001 12:48:50 PM

I think we have to officially target a nation or country or at least a group. We can't just send our military out to kill one specific individual.

9/13/2001 12:49:57 PM

no they will not assasinate him, he is recognized as the leader of a group, which for the US at least means hands off, doesnt matter if his group holds any land or posessions, we wont *offcially* be able to assasinate him...now what the CIA/Seals/other small tactical military units do that we never know about do is another issue, id say its probably a good bet he's going to eventually *disappear*

9/13/2001 12:52:17 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0913/1251077.html

9/13/2001 12:53:29 PM

to make a martyr out of bin laden is the only way. there is no way out of it but i think we can use that to make an example out of him, this is what happens when you fuck with the us.

9/13/2001 12:53:58 PM

Right, that's not reactionary aggression at all. That wouldn't make America look bad in the slightest.

9/13/2001 12:55:02 PM

why the fuck do you care whether we will look bad or not, we have just lost thousands of lives.

9/13/2001 12:56:37 PM

'Cause we're AMERICA, stupid, and there are lots of other countries who lose more lives in a day than we do in a month.

9/13/2001 12:58:53 PM

i don't care about that, we have a direct action toward us killing innocent civilian lives. those other countries losing lives to terrorism will benefit anyway. we are talking about american soil not foreign

9/13/2001 1:00:21 PM

"i don't care about that, we have a direct action toward us killing innocent civilian lives. those other countries losing lives to terrorism will benefit anyway. we are talking about american soil not foreign"

This is the reason this kind of shit happens to us in the first place.

9/13/2001 1:02:15 PM

to back up curbwax, we are the great nation and need to show that we will not take these actions lying down, it will set an example to other nations to take a zero tolerance towards terrorism also. Although I still disagree with his death, but that's just me.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 1:03 PM. Reason : spelling]

9/13/2001 1:02:44 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=18286&page=10


Check out what my friend told me today.

[Edited on September 13, 2001 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2001 1:04:40 PM

this kind of shit hasn't happened to us since as long as i remember. and it was never a major operation like this and it struck american soil. that already makes us look bad, it shows that we can be touched. don't you want any kind of retribution or should we just take this one in the ass?

9/13/2001 1:04:47 PM

"to make a martyr out of bin laden is the only way. there is no way out of it but i think we can use that to make an example out of him, this is what happens when you fuck with the us."

THIS is what I'm disagreeing with, idiot. It's reactionary because WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER HE'S BEHIND IT. Why the FUCK is taking Osama bin Laden out THE ONLY WAY?

REACTIONARY AGGRESSION. I am beating you in the head right now.

I AM IN FAVOR OF TAKING OUR REVENGE...I just want to KNOW who's responsible FIRST. Misplaced justice is just as bad as no justice at all.

9/13/2001 1:07:08 PM

alright, i see that. so if it is bin laden would you agree with me then? i was just saying that whether he did it or not he still shouldn't be around. he is still dangerous and capable of pulling off a similar attack on us, not saying he did it, but whether or not he did or not, he is still capable of doing it or doing another one.

9/13/2001 1:11:05 PM

Yes. If he is responsible, I say he should be beaten to death on live national television.

9/13/2001 1:13:52 PM

I apologize for posting an article here, but it was too good to ignore.

---

From the Miami Herald

You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.

What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed. Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause. Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve. Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together. Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae-a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people-you, perhaps-think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

IN PAIN
Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, probably, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before. But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future. In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.

THE STEEL IN US
You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started. But you're about to learn.

9/13/2001 1:25:04 PM

Damn anybody watching CBS? Byron Pitts was reporting from the scene on his cellphone and the damn American Express building just about collapsed on him. They all took off and dunno if more people are trapped.

9/13/2001 1:55:09 PM

I'm watching that. They aren't sure it's the AMEX building, but that's what people are saying.

9/13/2001 1:57:28 PM

Yea, that was pretty wild though.

9/13/2001 1:59:59 PM

well Pakistan is going to back us, and I'm not sure if a lot of people know the significance of that...so let me explain graphically...



(save the part where we go into Iran...that was a Paint error)

9/13/2001 2:01:32 PM

Okay, the AMEX building is still standing. It looks like no building collapsed, but one is in danger of falling.

9/13/2001 2:01:58 PM

8 buildings collapsed or partially collapsed, more than a dozen are in danger of coming down, according to Ed Bradley.

190 presumed dead in Pentagon.

5-7 firefighters rescued from WTC since around noon today.

9/13/2001 2:05:39 PM

the AmEx building is structurally disturbed, as is one liberty plaza; both could come down. a structural engineer is talking on CNN--said that the effect of the towers coming down not only rained debris down, but caused earthquake-like seismic disruptions/vibrations. very dangerous situation.

9/13/2001 2:42:00 PM

five firefighters were pulled out of an NYFD suburban in the rubble at the base of tower one... they survived for 2 days in the car under the rubble...

9/13/2001 2:45:53 PM

i am so happy for the pulled out firefighters!!!

also they are hearing tapping from under the rubble which could be signs of further life!

9/13/2001 2:48:26 PM