Papantonio: Birkenstock Liberals Angry About Bin Laden Death

[GoLeft TV]

Run time: 02:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUMPZctib_U   Posted on YouTube: May 10, 2011 By YouTube Member: golefttv Views on YouTube: 2   Posted on DU: May 11, 2011 By DU Member: GoLeft TV Views on DU: 2754

 
Mike Papantonio and Ed Schultz take on the liberals who seem upset that President Obama issued an order to kill bin Laden, rather than capture him and put him on trial. Contrary to right wing talking points (that have now been taken up by some liberals) the operation was completely legal.

[bluestateguy]

1. While I agree with him

the number of these Birkenstock Liberals is extremely small and insignificant, and they are not even worthy of being paid attention to or taken seriously.

[GoLeft TV]

6. i disagree

It isn't a fringe group saying these things - Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Rosie O'Donnell. Those are mainstream folks out there saying these things on national media. The number might be small, but their voices are hardly insignificant.

[wtmusic]

2. Strictly speaking, the legality is dubious.

Assassination is not a legal activity - no matter who it is.

But the man organized a suicide mission that killed 3,000, and he could have easily detonated a bomb that took out 40 SEALs with him as his final act.

Justice was served, let's move on.

[dkf]

8. He wasn't the leader of a country, he was a general and combatant in a declared war.

A war we are still fighting by the way.

[wtmusic]

12. Would it be also legal to declare war against Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

All kinds of possibilities.

[DonCoquixote]

42. did julian kill anyone

Last I checked, no.

[liberation]

23. When was that "declared war" declared exactly?

The concept of "rule of law" seems to be hard to grasp for some in this country, e.g. Papantonio insulting those liberals who do not agree with an imperial presidency.

[Ignis]

28. I forsee crickets in your future.

But it's an important question to ask, so don't stop asking it. :patriot:

[freedom fighter jh]

22. And the way we know this man organized a mission that killed 3000 is . . . ? n/t

[leveymg]

3. Again, no one is addressing the 800 lb gorrilla - why didn't they capture him, given the chance?

Ed and Mike talked only about the legality of the mission. Some may have issue with that -- but, there's a much stronger argument to be made (that isn't being aired) that we wasted an opportunity to interrogate bin Laden about his high-level patrons (before and after 9/11), and that was an opportunity we'll never get again that analyzing his lastest lap top and some thumb drives doesn't fill.

You might want to read this thread from yesterday before answering, as we already covered a lot of ground in this debate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1073931

But, I'll ask the question again: if we had the chance to capture and interrogate UBL, why didn't we?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Where was a taser when you needed one?

They could have captured him alive. Clearly a choice was made not to. I think it stemmed in part from the public's reaction to having GITMO prisoners tried in American courts. Such a fuss was made I think think the Administration knew that option was out, as was a military tribunal for Bin Laden.

Also, I cannot help but think there was an element of "dead men tell no tales". Bin Laden was our man back in the day, and to have that brought out in detail in a trial would have made many "uncomfortable".

[dkf]

13. I can imagine the accusations of "torture" should we have done that.

Say what you will...there is an honor in death. The indignity of being a prisoner would have triggered more outrage in the Arab world I'm sure.

[neoralme]

5. Because the information he may have given may have made the

United States look like fools. No one needs to know who the possible false flag or its handlers was.

[Ignis]

29. You've nailed it.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[dkf]

11. There is a higher risk to our guys in capturing him vs killing him.

They didn't know what he had on him especially in the dark. What if he had detonators on his person? If he had thrown his hands up and surrendered we would have had some confidence he didn't intent to kill us with some booby trap. But he didn't.

[Mojorabbit]

18. I guess I may as well have the label

as I agree that they should have captured him. We are supposed to be founded on a rule of law. We would not tolerate another country sending helicopters into our airspace to take out someone who was living here. We used to put people on trial in the hague.
It is kind of creepy that this meme is being used.

[GoLeft TV]

25. hmmm....

you said "We would not tolerate another country sending helicopters into our airspace to take out someone..."

you are correct - we wouldn't tolerate an enemy sending in aircraft to kill Americans - AND THAT IS WHY WE WERE AFTER BIN LADEN! look, i can't stand conservatives, but i do believe bin laden deserved to die. we had permission for the mission, it was legal, that's it. he wasn't an American, nor did we do this on American soil, so the claims of "right to trial" that some liberals are making doesn't hold any water. the rights of our constitution are limited to US citizens on US soil.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Wow, Pap being a lawyer, and a very rich one, it seems that he

could make a case without the nasty language. Very creepy. Never heard anyone but a right wing bigot use that shoe brand as a term of definition and derision.
I usually like Mike, but on occasion he will use terms that make him sound like an oaf at best. Where is he from? He's sure not from around here, that's for sure.

[spooked911]

10. I am not that familiar with him, but the last video I watched with him

before this, he was pretty obnoxious and dumb; even though his basic position was fine, he really overdid it in a bad way

[spooked911]

9. Fuck Papantonio-- no one is "angry" about this

the whole thing is just part of a larger very depressing story of how we go around killing people all the time in the name of "fighting terror"

[lauramolina]

17. WTF?

Whose side is Papantonio on? Using that kind of dismissive language to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with you is the tactic of people who can't deal with ambiguities.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

15. STFU with your whining.

[sabrina 1]

19. So we are reduced to assassinations by executive order

to acquire a 'feather in the cap' of our leaders now?



And we are so misguided in this country, that we have adapted the Rightwing notion that 'tough leader' means ordering killings in far off lands is 'tough'? I wish someone would explain how that is 'tough' by any stretch of the imagination?

Happy to be one of those who believe we are capable of the real courage it takes to abide by the rule of law which is supposedly what we are protecting with all this killing.

[Plucketeer]

20. Heh......

the tone of your post would seem to indicate you've opted for the options you speak of!

[guruoo]

16. 1. Order was to capture, or kill. 2. Seals made the call. 3...

[kenichol]

21. Lawsuit material for Birkenstock?

I would think this is a huge insult to Birkenstock at the least; a basis for some kind of lawsuit at the best.

[Cleita]

24. Birkenstock liberals?

Must he use the same language wingnuts like to use against us lefties? That's as bad as Limbaugh's reference to headband liberals, referring to Hillary Clinton and her following. When I lived in the woods, I was often told I was a librul with my Birkenstuks telling them how to live. Frankly, all I was doing was standing up for women's rights that are pretty absent up in the northwest among the locals and I have never been able to afford a pair of Birkenstocks.

[prole_for_peace]

26. HEY!! I wear Birkenstocks and I am a liberal

Is that supposed to be a slur?

[Taverner]

27. Bullshit. I have Birks, and I'm glad he's dead

I also self-identify as LIBERAL not progressive

And I'm against the DP

Why kill OBL? Because he did it and he wasn't going to be captured.

[eleny]

30. I recall that bin Ladin continued to issue threats to the U.S. over the years

He took "credit" for the 9/11 attacks and continued to issue threats until at least as late as last year. He urged Muslims to wage violent jihad against the U.S.

I've also read that weapons were found all over the compound. Since the helicopters were heard by neighbors, surely the residents of the compound heard them. I can't help but think that people inside grabbed weapons.

So if the Seals weighed the circumstances and made the split second decision to kill instead of capture the men in the compound, at this point I'm in agreement with them. Different information could tip my decision but right now I don't believe that capture was the right option.

[leveymg]

34. For two days, reports were that there were no weapons or explosives in the house

Then, later, Kerry came out and claimed that bin Laden had his prized trophy rifle laying in his room. UBL was not carrying a weapon at the time he was shot twice at close range through the left eye. (Another report says once in the head and once in the heart). No weapons caches, though, of the type one would expect in a terrorist mastermind headquarters. None of the others shot were reported to be armed.

Initial reports were later denied that bin Laden was killed in a firefight and had been firing a weapon. In fact, bin Laden and the others killed presented no real threat to the SEALs, and there was no reason why they couldn't have simply grabbed him, handcuffed him, and led him to a waiting helicopter. No real reason, at all, other than their orders and reported rules of engagement which were to shoot bin Laden dead unless he raised his hands to surrender.

[eleny]

36. It sounds preposterous that nobody was armed by the time those helicopters landed at the compound

A compound with fire power all over and nobody, not a single man, grabbed a weapon? I don't buy that for a second.

[leveymg]

40. I saw reference to a pair of armed guards outside, who apparently didn't last long.

Once inside, there was no resistance, other than UBL's youngest wife who (unarmed) charged the two SEALs as they neared or entered the bedroom on the top floor. She was shot in the leg. Obama appeared at the door, one of them fired, missing him. The pair then entered the bedroom and shot UBL where he stood and died instantly, apparently at the foot of the bed. There's a second blood stain by a divan - that may have been where the wife sat after being shot.

The three couriers shot dead downstairs were also unarmed when killed.

[eleny]

41. And as the helicopters landed nobody inside heard them and moved to arm themselves?

I don't believe that.

Btw, did you just hear Cenk Uygur report on his MSNBC program that the Seals recovered OBL's personal diary. Cenk reported that diary entries revealed that OBL hoped to kill as many Americans as possible in a single attack. So now we wait to see if this is true or at least for more information about this breaking news.

[leveymg]

43. They may have been unable to arm themselves - consider those implications

As I've said, no diary or computer data that can possibly be recovered compares with the information that is inside someone's head. Now, that is gone.

[liberation]

31. Contradictions...

[Taverner]

32. Not really

[liberation]

33. Inconsistent then...

[eleny]

37. I expect that given the situation. That doesn't surprise nor disturb me at all

I'd bet that if you and I both watched a video of any sort of confrontation and we each wrote down what we saw there would be inconsistencies. Can you imagine if we were one of the Seals or we watched videos of the Seals at the bin Ladin compound?

[Taverner]

38. Not really that either

Perhaps ask why I am against the Death Penalty

[freshwest]

35. OBL played a dangerous game and lost. Those who defend him as the representative of the oppressed...

Will need to find another hero. No winners in that game, only losers.

[JJW]

39. Actually it looks like Pap is waffling

Pap didn't make a strong argument that it was legal at all. When is the last time another nation flew into the US and assassinated a President or ordinary citizen, claiming a preemptive strike or other excuse such as they viewed the target as an enemy.