End Quote
Mark Mardell
BBC News, Washington
----------------------------
Read Mark's thoughts in full
The White House backtracks on Bin Laden
Mark Mardell | 06:51 UK time, Wednesday, 4 May 2011
The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.
Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot-to-kill operation.
Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.
The president's press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.
I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president's assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message - this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.
Jay Carney said that Bin Laden didn't have to have a gun to be resisting. He said there was a great deal of resistance in general and a highly volatile fire fight. The latest version says Bin Laden's wife charged at the US commando and was shot in the leg, but not killed. The two brothers, the couriers and owners of the compound, and a woman were killed on the ground floor of the main building. This version doesn't mention Bin Laden's son, who also died.
By this count only three men, at the most, were armed. I do wonder how much fight they could put up against two helicopters' worth of Navy Seals.
Does any of this matter? Well, getting the fact right is always important. You can't make a judgment without them. We all make mistakes, and journalists hate doing so because it makes people trust us less. For those involved an operation like this, time must go past in a confused and noisy instant, and they aren't taking notes. Confusion is very understandable. But you start to wonder how much the facts are being massaged now, to gloss over the less appealing parts of the operation.
And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive. Here at least many see a trial as inconvenient, awkward - a chance for terrorists to grandstand. Look at all the fuss about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In the confusion of a raid it's hard to see how the Seals could be sure that Bin Laden wasn't armed, didn't have his finger on the trigger of a bomb, wasn't about to pull a nasty surprise. If he had his hands in the air shouting "don't shoot" he might have lived, but anything short of that seems to have ensured his death.
I suspect there will be more worry about this in Britain and Europe than in the US. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong. It is a cultural difference. We are less comfortable about frontier justice, less forgiving about even police shooting people who turn out to be unarmed, perhaps less inculcated with the Dirty Harry message that arresting villains is for wimps, and real justice grows from the barrel of a gun. Many in America won't be in the slightest bit bothered that a mass murderer got what was coming to him swiftly, whether he was trying to kill anyone in that instant or not.
________
Comments:
Page 1 of 5
First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
1. At 07:30am 4th May 2011, Jay_Dubs wrote:
As a law student in the US, I can say with first hand experience that this is a country deeply concerned with notions of justice and legality. Foreigners whose own opinions of the US are shaped by cultural exports like Hollywood's Westerns and, yes, Dirty Harry, seem to have an almost cartoonish vision of America. It's just not that simple. This is a country that spans a size-able part of a major continent and is home to over 300 million people, of all races, religions, and nationalities.
I recommend reading "Murder in Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp" for a short lesson in just how surprisingly developed the legal system of the Old West was.
Yes, this is a nation of high rates of gun ownership, and of capital punishment, but it is wrong to say that this is a nation of "frontier justice." That phrase carries a negative connotation that does a disservice to the America that I know.
2. At 07:33am 4th May 2011, load_of_bull wrote:
This just confirms that you should never believe any sort of authority as they always looking out for themselves. Dis-information has become away of life .
3. At 07:42am 4th May 2011, ray vison wrote:
can anyone clarify the reports of women and children being tied up and taken away by US helicopters
4. At 07:47am 4th May 2011, klh wrote:
I think it's important to recognize that they didn't have to make the corrections at all. They could have said nothing and the world would have gone on believing the original account being none the wiser. Although they clearly should have had all the facts straight before going on record to begin with, they at least deserve some credit for acknowledging the errors and being willing to take the inevitable criticism that would follow.
5. At 07:50am 4th May 2011, Artur Freitas wrote:
One needs to have been involved in situations under fire to understand that when one’s life is at risk and has a few minutes to accomplish a mission, one cannot make lengthy judgements of a situation. It is easier for people, after the event, to sit on an armchair and think about every detail for hours and even days. I have the experience and suggest that those people should join the next operation and then be subject to judgements.
6. At 07:57am 4th May 2011, KScurmudgeon wrote:
Oversharing! Too much detail. Loss of 20 yards and introduce confusion.
It's as if every one of the unknown number of seals involved and the boy carrying the water was telling his own version of it.
Couldn't we have had a simple message, and then shut up? This may be Obama's biggest mistake - explaining the story after telling it.
The Republicans in the House will be dragging the Arabian Sea for evidence of misdoing.... just watch.
KScurmudgeon,
howling in pain.
7. At 07:58am 4th May 2011, Jay_Dubs wrote:
As to the method of the operation. Surely one concerned with the value of human life, whether "innocent" life or not, must prefer this sort of operation to some sort of aerial strike, where the collateral damage could have been much greater.
8. At 08:00am 4th May 2011, LesE wrote:
Isn't this simply what America does - try to justify its actions by blaming the other side? Check out the initial reports on the death of Linda Norgrove - strikingly similar.
9. At 08:03am 4th May 2011, Mick wrote:
Does any of this matter?
Of course it doesn't. The fact that there were armed "body guards" (Read as Pakistani troops) a few hundred metres away in the military compound that could have been called upon to interfere with the operation meant that it had to be as swift as possible. There just simply wouldn't have been the time to sit a debate on the morals of taking prisoners.
Picking things like this out of such a high risk operatin to rid the World of one tyrant is just simply laying bait for the conspiracy theorists and his supporters.
At least his death wasn't uploaded to Youtube, his head was still attached to his body and he wasn't just dumped in the desert like his unarmed victims were.
10. At 08:07am 4th May 2011, foscari wrote:
As for Dis-information all I ask is that the BBC is at very least "balanced" on its reporting of the death of Osam Bin Laden. We all know how they respect the feelings of the Islamic Fundamentalists in the UK who have lost one of their heros.The anti American sentiments of many of the editors on this website must be watched carefuly by the hierachy and they must not be allowed to get their own opinions across by using " moderation" as their excuse in not publishing articles praising the USA and displaying leaders by contibuters vehemently opposed to the USA and its policies.
11. At 08:08am 4th May 2011, enraf wrote:
Why all the supposed surprise that Bin Laden was killed in cold blood.... Listen to the President's announcement....
... compound... stormed........a fire fight ensued...... AFTERWARDS Bin Laden was shot dead.....
12. At 08:09am 4th May 2011, Lividov wrote:
Thanks Mark - another balanced report and one which highlights the difference in culture. To see the crowds in Times Sq looking no different to crowds in the centre of Teheran in venting their anger. The use of the word "revenge" too in so many articles makes poor reading and hope that this world will ever change more remote than ever. This just confirms for both governments and terrorists alike that violence really does get results.
13. At 08:11am 4th May 2011, PeterMacZero wrote:
Long gone are the days when the news media or "reporters" reported the news. Today the news is created by these entities. The headlines Bin Laden slain in ferocious fire fight sells more copies than Bin Laden executed while asleep. Who really cares what the details were the population is only interested in the outcome. I would guess that Hollywood is already scrambling to make a film about the action and the last thing they want to see is the the headlines "Worlds most wanted terrorist executed in cold blood while asleep". Let's be quite clear in some circumstances the end does justify the means, however in this case the declarations by J.Carney must now raise the question, was Bin Laden really executed and buried at sea or is he actually stashed away in one of the C.I.A.s covert torture camps being milked for every last bit of information on his terrorist organisation? to be executed and disposed of later on? No questions asked as he is "officially" dead already. Please do no get the idea that I am complaining about this possibility but it would be nice to be told the truth occasionally. Lets face it it is the tax paying public of many countries who are paying the salaries of these "public servants" and the armed forces who executed the raid.
14. At 08:16am 4th May 2011, dunny wrote:
I recommend Mr Mardell review his own nation's activities in Ireland in the period known as the Torubles which is not too distant.
a great Brit said: 'We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.'
This is no frontier justice; this is reality.....get with it
15. At 08:20am 4th May 2011, jkinjapan wrote:
Nice post, spot on.
One doesn’t take notes when engaged on such an “exercise”….and really, why bother to take notes. The MO is clear, just do it and end it. To debate or explain the rationale and sequence of events plays into the hands of those that wish to criticise it. A simple statement should have been read out and be the end of it.
#1. Jay-Dubs
So, when a US President says “We have saying out west wanted dead or alive”..that wasn’t frontier talk?
US law is not about justice nor legality, US law is more cornered with portioning blame, providing a clear black and white “answer” to a person’s grievance. Laws are supposed to be for the protection of individuals, no matter who they are. Heading off to with the sole intent to short to kill, where is the justice there? There is none. That is the cultural aspect, the US view on an eye for an eye, which does not ring with the same resonance in the EU/UK, as it does in the US.
16. At 08:28am 4th May 2011, Oldloadr wrote:
It is partially the administrations fault that lots of people, especially those from the left seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between law enforcement and warfare. Osama declared war on the USA. He ran a super-national paramilitary organization. Therefore, he was a legal, military target. As such, Mark was right to say that his only chance of survival would have been to put his hands in the air and yell, “I surrender!" as soon as he saw a SEAL. There were no rules broken in his death, but (to reiterate) the Obama WH has a fixation with lawyers and court-rooms whether they are warranted or not. However, as klh said above, the WH deserves credit for editing the original message, especially when it is not to their benefit to do so.
17. At 08:33am 4th May 2011, Vyv for truth wrote:
I was appalled yet not surprised at the revised accounts of te american propaganda machine. To sum it up just look at Clinton's facial expressions whilst watching her wonderful country murder an unarmed (yet to be proven criminal). How disgusting to hear the state propaganda machine suggest he was armed and cowering behind a women, This was clearly a pathetic attempt at debunking what has become (wrongly) an iconic figure for anti western values [OBL]. The look on Clinton's' face should be challenged. Come on BBC ask the question no doubt she was worried her well trained stormtroopers were going to break a fingernail or two. What was she really grimacing at? America has done it again its WMD part 2 or is that 3, 4, or 5, I have lost count on the untruths this nation spews out as the truth and nothing but truth.
18. At 08:33am 4th May 2011, Brian wrote:
"Well, getting the fact right is always important. You can't make judgement without them. We all make mistakes, and journalists hate doing so because it makes people trust us less."
Well, in theory, but in practice.....
At the end of the day i'm as liberal as but imho i'm not fussed if it was a shoot to kill operation.
And there's going to be fog around this. How they found him, how they couldn't trust Pakistan etc. etc.
19. At 08:33am 4th May 2011, athena07 wrote:
If Mardell is correct in stating that Europeans are so averse to what he calls "frontier justice," why is that the French do the same things in the Ivory Coast (using French helicopters to try and kill Laurent Gbagbo under the guise of the UN protecting civilians) or the British do the same things in Libya (sending secret SAS commando missions into the country without any UN mandate)?
Those countries certainly have never shown an aversion to so-called "frontier justice" if they have always practiced the same types of covert activities the US does. Though I admit Mardell's assessment may be the case for countries like Germany or Spain which have been protected by the military might of others for many years now.
20. At 08:40am 4th May 2011, factorsof42 wrote:
#4 suggests they didn't have to make any corrections. . . . i think that's a touch naive. . . IF they produce photos and perhaps video footage or stills then their account needs to be consistent with what we will be shown . . . .
that said, MM's point is very well made that it's almost impossible to know at the time whether OBL was armed or able to retaliate . . . we are all right to question the US and hold them to the high moral standards that should govern those protecting and defending us. . . the deep empathy with this position is what separates Obama and his administration from the previous thugs who were in charge in Washington . .
21. At 08:44am 4th May 2011, Mak wrote:
PR Mistakes or no PR mistakes, the fact is that the man is no longer around to plot and plan the murder of innocent people. Don't lose sight of who he was and what he did. In my mind, he was the modern day equivalent of Hitler and we all know where that went. Do I care about the circumstances of his demise? Or the finer details of the deaths of the people surrounding him? Not in the least bit - and why should I? He was a murderer and any one supporting is really just as guilty. I am OK with the fact that he was shot. Maybe as a result of this, my kids will live longer. For now, the world is a slightly safer place for people of all races and religions. Although how long this will last only time will tell.
22. At 08:48am 4th May 2011, tk8456 wrote:
They shot a woman in the leg who charged at a US SEAL....?
I'm sure these guys can shoot a bird in the eye flying, so why not shoot Bin Laden in the leg also?
Instead they shot his head and he was un armed.....?
Very noble of them to go back and correct the orignal story, but there are too many questions being raised by the original facts, let alone the second version.
Either that or he's alive, in captitvity.
I know this isn't Call of Duty, but a flash bang grenade and a rugby tackle of an unarmed old man by a super fit, highly trained Navy SEAL in his prime, shouldn't be that difficuly surely.
23. At 08:51am 4th May 2011, Michael wrote:
I think the news of Bin Laden, whilst unarmed, being shot twice in front of his 12 year old daughter diminished the glow of success for me. After hearing this, I find it very difficult to understand how the U.S can claim to have any moral high ground.
24. At 08:52am 4th May 2011, Daniel_Archer wrote:
if they'd dropped a 1000lb bomb on him and confirmed his death we wouldnt be agonising over whether or not he couldve been taken alive. the reason they sent guys in was to confirm 100% that he was dead not to bring him to trial.
the west is killing taleban commanders with targeted raids and air/drone strikes regularly (you dont see any off them getting a trial), this had a higher profile target but was no different.
25. At 08:52am 4th May 2011, Rabbit in the Hat wrote:
Frontier justice? Such baseless assertions! You forget yourself, good sir! The honour of our nation must be avenged! Pistols at twenty paces!
This new information makes me a little disappointed, but such is the reality of the maelstrom that is fighting, though I wouldn't claim to understand it myself. I can't imagine it will do much to change my view on the killing - more concerning to me is the violation of territorial sovereignty that it entailed. Maybe it won't matter - do we still like Pakistan? What about what the rest of the international law-abiding world? Perhaps those are the questions we should be asking ourselves.
26. At 08:55am 4th May 2011, puakene wrote:
"And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive". There is no doubt about that, and the US is not making that a secret. The comments by Leon Panetta (CIA) as reported on CNN, makes this clear:
"The U.S. also considered running a high-altitude bombing raid from B-2 bombers or launching a “direct shot” with cruise missiles but ruled out those options because of the possibility of “too much collateral,” Panetta says. The direct-shot option was still on the table as late as last Thursday as the CIA and then the White House grappled with how much risk to take on the mission."
http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/?hpt=T1
27. At 08:58am 4th May 2011, CazzaS-B1 wrote:
Isn't this pot calling the kettle black ? I agree it's annoying for journalists not to be given "the facts", but they're also jolly good at making up facts themselves half the time. Before reporting on it, maybe they should have double-checked their facts first ... hmm ... ?
As far as whether it was a shoot-to-kill operation or not, I don't honestly see how the US could have done anything else. A trial would have been an absolute disaster.
28. At 08:58am 4th May 2011, darkillas wrote:
Few logical questions come to my mind:
1, I would expect the compound would be heavily armed - 40 minutes of firefight. How much damage to the walls and surroundings can be caused by firearms during 40 minutes fight? I could not see any holes on the video. (It can take you to walk through whole compound maybe in a 5 minutes in everyday situation) 40 minutes that`s a long time.
2, Usually the whole action is streamed by cameras on soldiers helmets (must been if Obama was watching it) whats the deal with releasing the whole video including OBL being shot? It`s not a wedding video to be cut and edited.
3, So what`s the story about dropping soldiers on the roof by helicopter? True or not? Noise? Alarm? Precautions from OBL`s side?...
4, I really do not understand how did the carrier who brought US soldiers to the compound (compromised OBL) get into the action and get shot. Did the US military leave him to just walk around? I would expect from the carrier: "Ok, this is the house. Now go and do your job. I`ll wait here or just in case wait hundreds of meters away to do not get shot." If I overlook the fact to just showing the compound on the map or satellite images.
This looks like an very amateur lye, which fixing is making it looks even worse.
29. At 09:00am 4th May 2011, the_Sluiceterer wrote:
Firstly, I admire the USA for finally telling the truth. Sadly the response to all modern conflicts is now mindless violence. Killing un-armed people in cold-blood means that you are no better than the perpetrators of terrorism. One man`s freedom fighter is another man`s terrorist. The UK did simmilar in N. Ireland. It is a sad fact of life that we have been regressing away from civilisation in the late 20th/early21st century. The USA does not pretend to treat anyone with kit gloves. If you are the enemy of the USA, you will be killed. Maybe it will be another 1000 years before we may become civilised. Telling the truth is a step in the right direction.
30. At 09:03am 4th May 2011, chazzacant wrote:
I can't see how producing a photo of a dead man disfigured by the circumstances of his death will prove anything to anyone. Release of the live video feed streamed from the attacking SEALs to the White House may be more persuasive. But I am still troubled by the fact that the man was shot first and identified only later. What if they had got the wrong man? Would that just have been shrugged off as 'colateral damage' in the war on terror? The myth that this is a US administration pathologically concerned with legalities should be laid to rest.
(to be continued ..)
(còn tiếp .. )
___________
SỰ THẬT muôn đời vẫn có GIÁ TRỊ để được TÔN TRỌNG và TIN TƯỞNG.
Các anh chị có suy nghĩ gì về ý kiến, suy nghĩ của Mark Mardell và những ý kiến đóng góp khác với Mark Mardell ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
05052011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment