Osama Bin Laden Dead
May 2nd, 2011, in Asides, by PatungReports that Osama Bin Laden killed in a special operation, Obama to give speech.
Video of Obama speech:
Here is the text version:
Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was dark-ened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreck-age of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an or-ganization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Af-ghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intel-ligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we devel-oped more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take ac-tion, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary cour-age and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most signifi-cant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and coun-terterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a gen-eration that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that pre-vailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
120 Comments on “Osama Bin Laden Dead”
-
Stevo says:
AB I notice your concern for the proper administration of (American) Justice, did not extend to any of the other victims in the Military operation, to capture Osama.
That sorta makes my point rather well I think.
Or are you suggesting we arrest Obama for ordering an illegal act under American law (or for war crimes) and if not, why?
You have made it clear you think it was an illegal act under American law, and Obama was happy to take the credit, for what you see as a crime.
-
Arie Brand says:
It was not a Judicial operation it was a Military one.
Oh yes that makes it all fine and dandy. Even in a military operation one is not supposed to shoot an unarmed man from nearby execution style in the head.
AB I notice your concern for the proper administration of (American) Justice, did not extend to any of the other victims in the Military operation, to capture Osama.
We have been told that there was a firefight with these others lasting about forty minutes. They were armed and put up a fight. OBL was found at the end of this period, on the third floor, in his bedroom, unarmed.
To return to the Eichmann example: he too was only found after many years of searching, abroad (in Argentina I think), by a semi-military team. The simplest thing would have been to finish him off there and then. Instead he was put on trial – a process in which many things came to light.
Is it the latter possibility that was feared on the American side?
I notice that a well known human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, writing in the Independent, shares my feelings:
I am off to Sydney for the day.
-
AB is there any evidence to support this statement you made? :
“Even in a military operation one is not supposed to shoot an unarmed man from nearby execution style in the head.”
I would make the observation that Judges don’t usually get shot at with assault rifles while sitting on the bench. I am a little heasitant to condem the soldiers who carried out the operation, based on what we know so far.
I note the well known human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, (you provided a link to), had this to say:
“The joy is understandable, but it endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination ordered by a president who, as a former law professor, knows the absurdity of his statement that “justice was done”.”
My question was simply this; ….. are you suggesting we arrest Obama for ordering an illegal act under American law (or for war crimes) and if not, why?
Have a safe trip to Sydney. Maybe they have stopped all those silly security checks, now that the world has been made safe……………. Ha ha ha 😉
-
berlian biru says:
Thanks for that very concise explanation timdog.
Lawrence, although born in India, was actually from my home town, like so many of the great British imperial adventurers and soldiers he was Irish (if not Irish more often than not they were Scottish).
You make me want to dust down my old collection of Flashmans and get reading again, it really was a fascinating time and peopled with such amazing characters.
-
timdog says:
It certainly was a fascinating time, BB; brim full of fabulous rogues and ripping yarns.
When you’ve done with the Flashmans have a look for a book by Charles Allen called Soldier Sahibs, which is a very sharp overview of “Lawrence’s Young men” (in a more Indonesia-relevant neck of the woods, Allen’s Tales from the South China Sea – put together from the reminiscences of Britishers who lived in SE Asia in the first half of the 20th Century, is excellent too).Back in the wilds of the Northwest Frontier, this chap is one of my favourites:
-
Lairedion says:
Fascinating for bules, not for natives….
-
You’d be surprised just how much fascination for these episodes and these characters there is in India and Pakistan today, Lairedion.
The “literate classes” lap it up, and then at another level altogether, as mentioned above, Abbott is a figure of popular folklore in the hills of the Middle Indus.The gouty old colonel’s approach to this history is a bit tired, certainly (though there is, believe it or not, still a good market for it in India), but you’ll find other approaches available, putting the bules-with-turbans firmly in the local context, and drawing out to the impacts their actions had on local society and politics, then and now. It’s perfectly possible, at a juncture of a century and a half, to relish the ripping yarns romanticism of it all, while being perfectly clear-eyed about the brutal pragmatism of the colonial policy in which these men travelled…
-
Rizki says:
oh My god,,Thank u 4 Obama,,Thank u.
Stop War from Now -
I guess it’s a British thing to get excited about such stuff…
-
Clyde says:
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”~Martin Luther King, Jr
-
Lairedion,
Addressing the matter kind of semi-seriously for a moment – without understanding what went on in that part of the world in the 19th Century, you’ll be at a total loss to understand what is happening there now.Why Afghanistan exists in its current form, why Peshawar is on the Pakistan side of the border when culturally it has far more in common with Kandahar than Lahore, why Kashmir ended up under a non-Kashmiri, non-Muslim dynasty, why Ladakh is part of Kashmir, why India claims the far north of Pakistan as part of Kashmir when historically and culturally it clearly is not part of Kashmir, and… well, why the town where bin Laden was caught was called Abbottabad – if you know the answers to those questions, you’ll have much firmer footings for considering what’s going on in those places now.
Now, you could plunge headlong into heavy slabs of unimpeachable academia to make sense of that stuff – enjoy that.
But here’s the good thing: the 19th Century crucible in which all those contexts were cooked up is absolutely brim-full of characters amusing, bizarre, and, yes, fascinating (Britishers and “natives” both – see above mention of Ranjit Singh). All those big, important contexts can be hung very readily on any one of their stories. You could, let’s say, read and enjoy a sparky biography of our James Abbott, and as a sort of “knowledge by-catch” come away knowing a great deal more about why the Northwest Subcontinent is in such a mess…And as I mentioned before, the crusty-old-colonel practitioners of colonial history are rapidly dropping off their perches; you’ll find plenty of healthy post-post-colonial outlooks in more recent takes on the period and its players, and ultimately, well, a good story is a good story, whatever your point of departure.
Maybe that’s why Indians and Pakistanis seem to enjoy reading about those turbaned Victorian bules?You wouldn’t be at all interested in an Indonesian equivalent?
-
The story on OBL’s execution is still ‘developing’ as they say in the media. The first version was that there was a forty minute firefight with various occupants of the house and that Obama was armed and hiding behind a woman. Subsequently we heard that Obama was unarmed, that he was not hiding behind a woman but that he tried to resist (how a 54 year old man suffering from various ailments could resist a bunch of highly trained commandos remains unexplained). Now the New York Times quotes various American officials saying that there was no forty minute firefight after all but that only one person within the compound got a few shots in at the beginning of this episode. Meanwhile it is reported that OBL’s twelve year old daughter, who was present at her father’s execution, has declared to Pakistani officials that OBL had already been captured (which presumably means bound) before he was executed.
The” fog of war”is blamed for all of this. So what to make of that photograph showing Obama and about a dozen high ranking politicos and officials (among whom Clinton and Gates) following the action ‘live’.’? Didn’t they believe their lying eyes? That photograph can of course be faked as well. Who is trying to fool whom?
I will have to say more about all of this.
Meanwhile I can’t resist quoting the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who could be relied on for a pithy comment:
We should have captured him and put him on trial,” Livingstone said. “It’s a simple point – are we gangsters or a Western democracy based on the rule of law? This undermines any commitment to democracy and trial by jury and makes Obama look like some sort of mobster.
The Archbishop of Canterbury couldn’t go as far as that but stated that the whole episode “made him feel very uncomfortable”. Yes, and so it does me.
-
I now want to quote a few American voices , one from the past and one from somebody who is still very much alive.
When 9/11 happened at least one public intellectual had the courage to write openly that, yes a terrible thing had happened, but it was not due to motiveless malignity but had a lot to do with American policies and actions. Susan Sontag got into a lot of trouble for stating the obvious. She wrote, inter alia, in the New Yorker of 24/9/2001:
The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a “cowardly” attack on “civilization” or “liberty” or “humanity” or “the free world” but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?
This time around no special effort seems to be required to “infantilize” at least a large part of the public. I don’t know whether it has struck anybody else but the majority of those I saw celebrating this whole thing as a tremendous feat of American arms seemed to my aged eyes barely out of infancy.
My second American voice comes from Professor Gary Leup, historian at Tufts, who also takes exception to the tendency to never ask “why you’re hated or what you have done to deserve such loathing”. He wrote:
… this operation plainly violates a host of U.S. and international laws. It reflects the general Israelification of U.S. policy. Present yourself as the victim of the world—never asking why you’re hated or what you’ve done to deserve such loathing—and wrap yourself in self-righteousness. Assert your right to lash out at any foes, regardless of international law. Engage in preemptive strikes. … Send attack squads to foreign countries to assassinate your enemies. Rest assured your people will applaud
Are we dealing here with the “Israelification” of American policy or the Americanization of that of Israel? Fact is that both countries now engage in “targeted assassinations” as a matter of policy.
.
-
timdog,
No.
-
Good to see you back AB…….. how about an attempt at answering my question?
1) You made it clear that a crime has been committed (in your view)
2) You have argued that the appropriate jurisdiction is American law.
3) You have stated the killing of Osama is against both civil and military law.My simple question was, should the offender be arrested and put before the Court?
The offender has proudly announced his crime (in your view) to the world. Why the reluctance to address my simple question.?
I suggest that, had the offender inherited more of his mothers skin tone, as opposed to his fathers, you would have answered my question far sooner.
-
AB……. Don’t feel at all isolated in your view, a great many academic liberals, like yourself, feel the same way. Your own references support the criminality of Osama’s tragic murder.
The only question that remains is when will Obama be brought to trial?
(I started off defending Osamas killing, but you convinced me I was wrong in my view. )
Do they have the death penalty in the presidents State?
-
Lairedion, fair enough; that’s a matter of taste.
But don’t be quite so quick with the “fascinating for the bules, not the natives” and “guess it’s a British thing” sneers. As I mentioned – go into any bookshop in India and Pakistan and have a look at the history section. A lot more active “fascination” for that sort of thing there today than there seems to be in the UK, which makes sense, really, given that what bules in turbans did in their countries 150 years ago has an impact on their lives today.
And as I said, a good story’s a good story… -
1) You made it clear that a crime has been committed (in your view)
2) You have argued that the appropriate jurisdiction is American law.
3) You have stated the killing of Osama is against both civil and military law.The offender has proudly announced his crime (in your view) to the world.
Where and when did Obama acknowledge that his orders were to execute OBL and not to arrest him? He has not ‘proudly announced’ that at all.
If that was his order – which I believe to be the case – there would be grounds for impeaching him (not that it will ever happen). Look at the proceedings of the1975- Senate Committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church (the “Church Committee”) and the subsequent presidential orders. These had to do with the ‘assassination’ of ‘foreign leaders’. Wasn’t OBL one (a ‘foreign leader’ not necessarily being a head of state)? And if these don’t fit the bill the common law article regarding ‘incitement to murder’ will do the job.
On another note:
Your earlier suggestion that the term ‘war on terror’ justified forgetting about judicial procedures amounted to a sort of nominalism gone crazy. Why not talk about ‘war on crime’ as a justification of doing away with courts altogether?
Anyway here is a news item on that terminology (from The Atlantic) that might interest you:
Today, Barry Schweid writes for the AP about a new Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation report:
Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term “war on terror” and replace it with “counterterrorism.”
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism,” said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.
(FR
-
Patrck says:
Wow! The mayor of London questioned the legality of the operation and the Archbisop of Canterbury felt a little queasy about it? Funny thing I don’t remember either of these two gentlemen protesting the assinations of Irish Republican Army suspects by members of the Briish military forces (specifically SAS) during the troubles in Northern Ireland? Let us not forget “Bloody Sunday” where British troops fired on peaceful marchers in Londonderry (where was the outcry for justice anywhere in Britain)? or the very public assinations of IRA suspects at a British check point in Gilbralta. This action was vehemently protested by the Spanish government but there was hardly a peep coming from anyone in Great Britain. And let us not forget the “Special War Powers Act” passed by the British Parliament and specifically applied to the minority population of Northern Ireland that basically suspended their individual rights in what was supposed to be a democratic nation. The American Patriot Act likely was modeled after this act but it was not anywhere near as severe as its British forerunner. So please spare us any quotes from these British hypocrites telling us what is morally correct or what defines rule of law in a civilized society.
-
“Your earlier suggestion that the term ‘war on terror’ justified forgetting about judicial procedures amounted to a sort of nominalism gone crazy. Why not talk about ‘war on crime’ as a justification of doing away with courts altogether?”
That is a distortion (deliberate or otherwise) of the point I was making. I was simply stating it was a military operation and not legal proceedings. The guys on the ground may not have had time to ponder the finer points of law!
Other than that, I tend to agree with your most recent posting.
I return to my original remark that I hope Osamas killing does not cause more deaths than it prevents. I would like it to be a catalyst for withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. It would also give Obama, a much needed, opportunity to earn his peace prize.
-
Stevo this is what you said:
t was not a Judicial operation it was a Military one. Accordingly Osama did not have his grievances heard in a dispassionate way, anymore than the thousands of others who died in military operations.
Probably why they called it “The War On Terror” as opposed to calling it “the legal proceedings on terror”.
I will leave it to others to judge whether this leaves room for my interpretation.
Patrick said:
Wow! The mayor of London questioned the legality of the operation and the Archbisop of Canterbury felt a little queasy about it? Funny thing I don’t remember either of these two gentlemen protesting the assinations of Irish Republican Army suspects by members of the Briish military forces (specifically SAS) during the troubles in Northern Ireland?
I don’t know about the Archbishop of Canterbury (he has criticised so many things that it is not impossible that British policies in Ireland were among them) but about Livingstone you are dead wrong. From the Wiki:
Livingstone was influenced by Ted Knight, a Trotskyist who convinced him to oppose the 1972 Housing Finance Act that would force those living in council accommodation to pay higher rents, and to oppose the sending of British Army troops into Northern Ireland.[35]
…
Livingstone made perhaps his most controversial move in December 1982, when the GLC extended an official invitation to the leaders of the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin. In the event the leaders, Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison were denied entry into the mainland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and they met Livingstone in Northern Ireland instead.
After meeting him, Livingstone said that Britain’s treatment of the Irish over the last 800 years had been worse than Adolf Hitler’s treatment of Jews. For his opinions on Ireland, The Sun newspaper called Livingstone “the most odious man in Britain”. It also made him a potential target for Ulster loyalists: in 2003 it was revealed in Michael Stone’s autobiography that there was an Ulster Defence Association plot to kill Livingstone while on the Tube,[37] though it came to nothing as the UDA agent (revealed in 2006 to be Stone himself)[38] became convinced the security forces were on to him.
…
In his maiden speech to Parliament in July 1987, Livingstone used parliamentary privilege to raise a number of allegations made by Fred Holroyd, a former Special Intelligence Service operative in Northern Ireland. Despite the convention of maiden speeches being non-controversial, Livingstone alleged that Holroyd had been mistreated when he tried to expose MI5 collusion with Ulster loyalist paramilitaries in the 1970s and the part Captain Robert Nairac is alleged to have played.(emphasis added – AB)
In my previous post I shouldn’t have used the term “common law article” – articles are bits of statutory law.
-
wong jaksel says:
Might not be entirely related, but back in 2001, the good man Anis Matta wrote this little poem:
http://beritapks.com/keagungan-osama-bin-laden-dalam-puisi-anis-matta/
-
I understand how you arrived at that interpretation. That does not change my intended meaning.
-
@AB – OK I will concede “Livingstone” lent his voice, to address the Irish question on a few occasions to a deaf English audience. My point is none the less valid that “people living in glass houses should not throw stones”.
-
What – no Britisher is ever allowed to talk in a critical vein about any foreign policy question because of what his/her nation did to Ireland?
We all belong to nations that have committed scandalous deeds at one time or another. Should we then all become mute?
-
Well, I for one love Timdog’s historical take on things from sources I would have never ever heard of in most cases (and most likely never picked up and read anyway). I have gotten some nice prompts for some good reads from this site now.
Although the one question remains, what on earth does Timdog do for a living to support this life of a modern day Mark Twain? Just jealous here.
Speaking of Mark Twain..and to get back on thread track..paraphrasing “I have never wished death upon anyone but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”
It amazes me that anyone rational has anything but contempt for OBL who has brought so much misery to the world and made life far harder for Muslims than any one else. As for bringing him in for legal charges, are they serious, with every two bit, ranting nutter making mileage out it. Hard to make political capital out of fishfood.
-
nobody says:
the term “evil” “misery” etc is such a subjective words that everyone can stretch and fit it to their special needs. What makes it OK to go around and send missiles raining on places where there will be big chance of civilian casualties?, or send execution squads to kill without trial? 3000 death? 2000? 100? 1? What about the rule of evidence? once upon a time people will get punishment only if they are found to be “guilty without doubt”, but nowadays they can get death sentences without trial just on suspicions, or just for being somewhere with the wrong person. How can you justify killing people just for being “millitant”? what is the meaning of that phrase? Are people getting killed for something they “might or might not” do in the future?. Soon we might have government sending killing squads for silly things such as an internet posting.
-
Although the one question remains, what on earth does Timdog do for a living to support this life of a modern day Mark Twain? Just jealous here.
Couldn’t help thinking whether timdog was doing a little guerilla marketing there,….. I wonder whether he’s become a minor or possibly even major literary celebrity among the educated classes in India/Pakistan yet…
Comment on “Osama Bin Laden Dead”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
I think your missing my point AB. So I will put it another way for you…………..
It was not a Judicial operation it was a Military one. Accordingly Osama did not have his grievances heard in a dispassionate way, anymore than the thousands of others who died in military operations.
Probably why they called it “The War On Terror” as opposed to calling it “the legal proceedings on terror”.
I thought it strange you would think this one particular death was some how worse than all the others. Do you believe the people pulling the strings should receive special consideration, while those under them die like flys?