Osama Bin Laden Dead

[southsider2k5]

I am 99.999% sure this was a misstatement, trying to make an analogy. I highly, highly doubt she thinks this is a crime. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might though.

 

Having heard her speak in person, and listened to what she said away from the microphone, I have no doubt she said exactly what she meant.

[BigSqwert]

Having heard her speak in person, and listened to what she said away from the microphone, I have no doubt she said exactly what she meant.

I take it you're not a Christian.

 

"Forgive your enemies"

 

"Thou Shall Not Murder'

[Steve9347]

I'd guess video game

Action figures?

[StrangeSox]

If police shoot a suspect resisting an arrest with a warrant, it's still described as a crime scene, no?

[southsider2k5]

I take it you're not a Christian.

 

"Forgive your enemies"

 

"Thou Shall Not Murder'

 

Christianity has nothing to do with calling our soldiers murders.

[Balta1701]

Christianity has nothing to do with calling our soldiers murders.

But it might well have as much to do with calling our soldiers murderers as that statement.

[southsider2k5]

But it might well have as much to do with calling our soldiers murderers as that statement.

 

She is ferociously anti-military. It meant exactly what it sounded like.

[Balta1701]

She is ferociously anti-military. It meant exactly what it sounded like.

I'll await your additional evidence/statements from her backing that up, because that's a very vague statement to go off of.

[southsider2k5]

I'll await your additional evidence/statements from her backing that up, because that's a very vague statement to go off of.

 

If you want it, google it. She has been around here forever.

[Balta1701]

If you want it, google it. She has been around here forever.

Item 4 on the Google.

Gratitude to U.S. military and CIA for persistence & courage. This is a momentous victory against Al Qaeda.

 

2 May via web

[southsider2k5]

Item 4 on the Google.

 

Like I said, she said exactly what she meant to say.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/201105...lafteroblmurder

 

It was huge, according to Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who said the bin Laden operation helped change some Americans’ perception of their country. On Wednesday’s “Hardball” on MSNBC, Schakowsky made her case.

 

“I agree with you,” Schakowsky said. “I think that that was seminal event in their lives, you know? This is the big deal for them growing up. And so I think that there is just a feeling now, not just with young people but getting over this feeling that maybe America’s kind of a loser. And now that we’re a winner, I think it’s very important.”

 

She also explained why she agreed with President Barack Obama’s decision not release the Osama bin Laden post-mortem photos, suggesting that doing so would be bragging about a kind of “murder.”

 

“I can’t imagine — what service would it be to the public to provide those kinds of photos,” Schakowsky said. “[T]hat kind of chest-thumping and you know, being — bragging about this kind of murder, no I think the president has handled it just right and most people absolutely believe that he is dead and certainly, those who don’t are not going to be convinced. They’re going to say, ‘Oh, it is Photoshopped or whatever. And for anyone to say that this is a good idea to send those around, don’t they understand the kind of incendiary effect that it would have?”

[Milkman delivers]

I am 99.999% sure this was a misstatement, trying to make an analogy. I highly, highly doubt she thinks this is a crime. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might though.

 

This is what I thought.

[GoSox05]

The right is convinced that Jan Schakowsky hates America and is a socialist. So whatever she says they turn into that.

Edited May 16, 2011 by GoSox05

[NorthSideSox72]

Like I said, she said exactly what she meant to say.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/201105...lafteroblmurder

You mean how she says it was a victory?

 

Technically, it was a homicide. Some people interchange that with murder, though they really have different connotations.

 

I really think this is a non-issue.

 

[southsider2k5]

The right is convinced that Jan Schakowsky hates America and is a socialist. So whatever she says they turn into that.

 

The funny thing is that I actually saw her speak in person at a Democratic Socialists of America event in Chicago years ago.

[Texsox]

You mean how she says it was a victory?

 

Technically, it was a homicide. Some people interchange that with murder, though they really have different connotations.

 

I really think this is a non-issue.

 

 

My school filter blocks searching for the difference, could you share?

[southsider2k5]

You mean how she says it was a victory?

 

Technically, it was a homicide. Some people interchange that with murder, though they really have different connotations.

 

I really think this is a non-issue.

 

Like I said earlier, nothing I have seen or heard from Jan Schakowsky over the years indicates she makes a mistake like that.

[Balta1701]

Like I said earlier, nothing I have seen or heard from Jan Schakowsky over the years indicates she makes a mistake like that.

As NSS and I just pointed out...because you only hear the words you want to hear.

 

I could probably say "I haven't heard Glenn Beck say anything which doesn't indicate that he hates and fears black people" and be just as honest...because I haven't heard all that much from Glenn Beck (and I have no intention to).

[southsider2k5]

As NSS and I just pointed out...because you only hear the words you want to hear.

 

I could probably say "I haven't heard Glenn Beck say anything which doesn't indicate that he hates and fears black people" and be just as honest...because I haven't heard all that much from Glenn Beck (and I have no intention to).

 

So you are telling me you don't think Glenn Beck is a racist? Ok.

[Balta1701]

So you are telling me you don't think Glenn Beck is a racist? Ok.

I haven't a clue what goes on in his head. He's said some eminently racist things and I hear those things...but if he's said any redeeming things, I wouldn't have heard them.

 

Has he said any? You've just been confronted with a couple statements that you completely brushed off and said "everything I have heard..." in response. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

[southsider2k5]

I haven't a clue what goes on in his head. He's said some eminently racist things and I hear those things...but if he's said any redeeming things, I wouldn't have heard them.

 

Has he said any? You've just been confronted with a couple statements that you completely brushed off and said "everything I have heard..." in response. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

Yes, listening to people speak is no longer a reason to believe.

[Balta1701]

Yes, listening to people speak is no longer a reason to believe.

Well clearly the statements of her office on the matter aren't enough to convince you otherwise, so yeah.

 

Washington, DC (Monday, May 2, 2011) – Rep. Jan Schakowsky issued the following statement regarding the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Congresswoman Schakowsky is a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“Last night Americans finally heard the long-awaited and hoped for news delivered by President Obama himself: Osama bin Laden is dead, killed as a result of a well-planned and brilliantly executed attack conducted by our intelligence community and the U.S. military.

 

“The President and the brave men and women responsible for this victory deserve our gratitude for their persistence and courage. Al Qaeda has suffered many defeats over the last ten years, but none as significant as the death of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and the leader of the terrorist organization that declared war on the United States.

 

“It is my hope that this event will once again unite the world against the wholesale violence that we all witnessed nearly a decade ago and provide an opportunity to work together building a world in which people of all religions and beliefs can live in peace. We must remain vigilant, but this development should give all people of goodwill hope for the future.”

[southsider2k5]

Well clearly the statements of her office on the matter aren't enough to convince you otherwise, so yeah.

 

Actually her statements are exactly what convinced me. When you start talking about murder and crime scenes in the same breath, and have a lot of anti-military votes and statements out there, it makes perfect sense. The irony here is that you keep quoting from her "official statement" which nothing more than a prepared press release, that was probably written by a staffer. I am quoting her actual spoken words. So yes, I think taking Jan Schakowsky's actual statements, versus taking her office's written statements, is a more accurate portrayal of how Jan Schakowsky feels about this.

[NorthSideSox72]

My school filter blocks searching for the difference, could you share?

I am not about to go Google that from work.

 

But homicide is an act, and murder is a violation of law. Homicide may or may not be illegal, murder always is, in the US legal sense of the terms. Or at least, that is my understanding. But I hear people use them interchangeably.

 

Killing UBL was obviously homicide. Murder is in the eye of the beholder, though I certainly am in the "no" camp.

 

[Balta1701]

Btw, different topic but dealing with something many pages earlier in this thread. Solid legitimate scoop from the Washington Post today.

CIA chief Leon Panetta has written a private letter to Senator John McCain that offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship between torture and Osama Bin Laden’s death — and undercuts the claim by former Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.

 

The letter has not been released publicly but was sent my way by a source. Marie Harf, a CIA spokesperson, confirmed the letter’s authenticity to me, but declined further comment.

 

Last week, Senator McCain published a widely discussed Op ed in the Washington Post calling into question claims that torture was instrumental in tracking down Bin Laden. McCain cited Panetta as a source for his information, but didn't release any material provided to him by Panetta, and conservatives like former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey subsequently dismissed McCain’s account. The CIA has not publicly taken sides in the dispute.

 

But Panetta’s letter, dated May 9th, bears out McCain’s version of events.

 

To be sure, there are a couple of lines in the letter that conservatives will seize on to bolster their case. But the overall thrust of the letter clearly undercuts their larger version of events.

 

The case being made by conservatives — that Bin Laden’s death vindicates torture — was spelled out last week by former Bush

 

AG Mukasey in an Op ed in the Wall Street Journal. Mukasey argued that the trail to Bin Laden “began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.”

 

The account in Panetta’s letter clearly contradicts this. Here are the operative three paragraphs from the letter, which represents a response from Panetta to McCain’s earler request for information about torture and Bin Laden’s death:

 

Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

 

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

 

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.