Quote:Bin Laden videos give a remarkable insight into life in his lair

Clips from the al-Qaida leader's 'home videos' show him obsessively watching himself on TV news programmes

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The Bin Laden "home movies" (as PsyOp Central has termed them) are truly pathetic.

The US Volkland Security clowns have just delivered another risible scene in quite possibly the worst War On Terror production yet.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:So, Jan, you don't think any of these or the earlier ones are up for Oscars? [Best supporting actor; best special effects?]

Quote:The Osama bin Laden operation must be made transparent lest it's seen as frontier justice

The US needs to clarify the thinking behind the operation that led to the death of the al-Qaida leader so others don't take the stance of might over right

Michael Mansfield guardian.co.uk, Sunday 8 May 2011 00.06 BST Article history

George W Bush's remark about wanting Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" reminds us that many people have not moved on from the concepts of "frontier justice". The events provide an important opportunity for re-examining the role and respect to be accorded to the rule of law and the principles of international justice. If they are to mean anything when applied to other people, everyone needs to know the basis upon which the operation was launched that led to the killing of Bin Laden.

There is a growing and conscientious feeling of "discomfort" that can be allayed only by a thorough and transparent revelation about the objectives and actions taken. Unless this happens quickly, the powerful forces that work in our world, whether nation states or otherwise, will interpret this as a licence to take the law into their own hands, circumvent international norms and convert "might" into right.

President Barack Obama made a measured and carefully drafted announcement . The terms he used are specific. He began his speech with the inevitable reference to 9/11 and stated: "We were … united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice". He then moved on to deal with the development of intelligence, and a lead that arose last August in relation to the location of Bin Laden. "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorised an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."

It is noticeable here that there was nothing about an operation in self-defence against a commander in the field during armed conflict; nor any hint of an operation conceived in vengeance and in order to avenge the multitude of deaths in cities around the world. It was an entirely proper and judicious expedition against a man who was undoubtedly responsible for persistent crimes against humanity.

Since Obama spoke these words, however, different interpretations and discrepancies have unfolded. Many of the observations have come from American commentators. For example, Michael Scheuer (CIA) told the BBC World Service: "This operation was not a capture operation, it was meant to kill him." Daniel J Coleman, who in 1996 was the first FBI agent attached to the CIA's Bin Laden investigation, told the New York Times that in relation to the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in 2000 "that the deaths of those young men and women were never avenged".

What therefore needs to be ascertained are the rules of engagement and briefing given to the taskforce, because if its real objective was not to bring Bin Laden to justice but to kill him this begins to have the appearance of an extra-judicial killing or assassination.

The president had little more to say about the operation itself other than: "After a fire-fight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

For most listeners this gives a clear impression that the Navy Seals were caught up in an exchange of fire with an armed man or men wherein Bin Laden was killed as a matter of necessary self-defence. This description, however, is deficient in two important respects: there was no exchange of fire and Bin Laden was not armed.

How these errors could have arisen is perplexing, because the president, Hilary Clinton and many other officials were, unusually, watching the operation on a live feed through to the situation room in the White House.

While it is entirely understandable that there should be a reluctance to publish any images at the present time, the availability of film and photographic evidence must be preserved for the benefit of an independent judicial examination.

There are other discrepancies concerning the actions of Bin Laden's wife, which also need to be considered.

The principle of self-defence
Self-defence is a long-standing and well-recognised principle of domestic and international law. While the United Nations has a monopoly on the use of force internationally, Article 51 of the UN charter makes an exception to this in its preservation of the right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.

Article 31 (1) c of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague also excludes criminal responsibility for an accused whose actions might otherwise constitute a crime in order to defend himself or another.

Article 2 (2) of the European Convention of Human Rights contains similar provisions, with a proviso that no more force than "is absolutely necessary" is used.

Underpinning this body of law is a consistent prerequisite that the force of the attack or threatened attack to be resisted is imminent. Hence the need for and significance of the "dodgy dossier" and the "45 minute" warning in the case of the Iraq war.

It is far from clear that these preconditions have been satisfied in the Bin Laden case. Normally, one might expect the UN or its security council or its secretary general to have raised these matters, but the euphoric and unquestioning speeches in the council suggest once more that an independent judicial body should be appointed to investigate these issues. Without it, public confidence in the point and utility of international law will be severely undermined.

Beyond the law?

There are some who argue that Bin Laden was above and beyond the law and that his case was not susceptible to the complexities and dangers of bringing him to justice in the Hague or even for that matter in the US. It is worth remembering that a case against Bin Laden had begun in the federal district court in Manhattan on 10 June 1998 and has been on-going and substantially amplified since then. According to the New York Times (May 5th), the original indictment was kept secret at first, coming at a time when the CIA was considering a plan to capture Bin Laden and turn him over for trial either in the US or in an Arab country.

In any event, the whole thrust of international treaties and conventions has been towards ensuring "due process" on the basis that no one can be considered to be above the law. Hence there has been a string of international tribunals dealing with equally heinous crimes committed by equally vicious perpetrators, stretching from Nuremburg and Tokyo to Yugoslavia and Cambodia. The US has steadfastly refused to sign up to the ICC for fear, no doubt, of the risks that it might end up in the dock. Nevertheless there have already been significant and successful prosecutions in the universal endeavour to bring about accountability and fair trial.

We should not allow truth and justice to become victims to the law of retribution along with other innocent victims of terror.

Magda Hassan Wrote:I heard they also found porn lol.

:flypig::flypig::flypig:

Quote:Barack Obama has ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan, demanding that the Pakistani government investigates whether its own people were involved in a network to support Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad hideout.

The US president's comments are his most direct yet on the subject of Pakistan's possible complicity with terrorism. He told the CBS show 60 Minutes that Bin Laden must have had "some sort of support network" inside the country.

"We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, outside of government, and that's something we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate," he said.

Obama's words add to a sustained verbal attack by the US administration on the Pakistani government in the wake of the raid on the al-Qaida leader's lair in the middle of a busy garrison town that is home to three regiments, a military academy and thousands of soldiers.

Last week the CIA director, Leon Panetta, told Congress that Pakistan had been "either involved or incompetent".

Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, said on ABC's This Week that there was no evidence Pakistan had foreknowledge of Bin Laden's presence. But he said the al-Qaida chief "was living, and we now know operating, in a town 35 miles away from Islamabad, a military town. So questions are being raised quite aggressively in Pakistan."

Quote:Bin Laden: Pakistan instructs global media to stop 'illegal broadcasts'

TV regulator imposes new licence requirement after critical coverage from Abbottabad

Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Saeed Shah in Abbottabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 8 May 2011 14.58 BST

The Pakistani government has introduced curbs on international media in the garrison town where Osama bin Laden was killed, ordering television stations to cease broadcasting and some reporters to leave town.

On Saturday night the television regulator, Pemra, ordered nine international channels, including the BBC, CNN and Fox, to stop "illegal" broadcasts from Abbottabad, where Bin Laden's house has been the subject of intense media coverage

It suggested the channels could not broadcast from Abbottabad or anywhere in Pakistan without obtaining a licence, a previously unknown requirement. Simultaneously, government officials contacted several British, Australian and American journalists, instructing them to leave Abbottabad because their visas did not permit them to stay.

The government also took measures to stop more journalists entering Pakistan. At diplomatic missions in London and New Delhi, Pakistani officials said there was a temporary hold on media visas.

The measures appeared to be part of a concerted government effort to stem a tide of critical media coverage over thorny questions about how Bin Laden lived for up to six years in a garrison town that is home to three regiments, a military academy and thousands of soldiers.

Implementation, however, has been haphazard. The BBC foreign editor, Jon Williams, said the station had not received the government letter instructing it to quit broadcasting, and a BBC reporter in Pakistan said operations were continuing as normal.

But a Channel 4 journalist said the station had been told to return to Islamabad and seek permission to work in Abbottabad. The broadcaster's crew left at lunchtime on Sunday.

Until now most western criticism has been directed at Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies. Some US officials have insinuated that the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) helped to harbour Bin Laden.

Now the ISI is hitting back with judicious media leaks. In a move bound to infuriate the US, on Friday several Pakistani television stations named the CIA station chief in Islamabad as Mark Carlton; the stations said he had been given a verbal roasting by the ISI chief, General Shuja Pasha.

The naming is sensitive because the previous CIA chief in Islamabad quit his position over security worries last December after being named in a court case and the national media. Some US officials blamed the ISI for the leak.

The military's other weapon in the media war has been leaked accounts of life with Bin Laden from his surviving wives and children, who are believed to be in military custody near the general headquarters in Rawalpindi.

Bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter, named as Safiya, reportedly told Pakistani investigators that she saw her father being shot by US forces. Local media have reprinted a copy of the passport of one of Bin Laden's wives, 29-year-old Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, a citizen of Yemen, although some versions of the image appear to have been digitally altered.

Other leaks have sent journalists on apparent wild goose chases. On Saturday the New York Times and the Pakistani paper Dawn, quoting Pakistani officials, said Sadah had claimed that Bin Laden lived for two and a half years in a small north-western village before moving to Abbottabad in 2005.

The news triggered a media stampede to Chak Shah Mohammad, near Abbottabad, where journalists discovered a hamlet of a few hundred houses and about 2,000 inhabitants with no internet or telephone connection. But at the time there was little sign of Bin Laden. Most houses were small, mud-brick dwellings, while the only one with high walls was that of the local mullah and still under construction.

As reporters swarmed the village, shops sold out of bottled water, one school closed for the day, and the villagers denied any connection with the Saudi. Some wondered whether there was a connection between a local cave complex and Tora Bora, Bin Laden's hideout in late 2001. "Bora means cave. So yes, both places have caves," one elder laconically told the Daily Times newspaper. "Will we be bombed now?"