Bin Laden, two others didn't fire on SEALs: sources

[steve2470]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

The account of Monday's daring 40-minute raid has new descriptions of the event, including that Navy SEALs shot an occupant of the compound who they thought was armed, but apparently was not.

It confirms that bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers, according to the first source and a second U.S. government source who is familiar with briefings on the raid.

They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the record.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-binladen-raid-idUSTRE74482G20110505

---

This looks at first glance like old news, but here is the Reuters post time: WASHINGTON | Thu May 5, 2011 7:10pm EDT

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. Seems to be coming from NBCs Pentagon Correspondent, but my one question..

... WHAT? SO?

You wanted them to say 'Knock Knock" OBL: Who's There "Grab your gun" OBL: Grab your gun who? "Grab your gun cause we're coming to shoot you and we don't want any stupid reporters saying that you didn't have time to GET a gun and be firing at us so it would 'sound better' altho maybe that happens in movies but NOT in real life and REALLY not in War Situations... HERE we come!"

[still_one]

5. I agree. You have a limited time in a hostile country to get your target. You are NOT going to

request a search warrant or give anyone his Miranda rights

I understand some people are disturbed because this was not done in the proper way, but I disagree, it was done in the proper way.

There is no way he could have been taken alive without posing risk to the soldiers doing the operation

In that type of situation you cannot assume they are unarmed

[bowens43]

2. Who cares?

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Seriously , who the fuck cares?
The asshole is dead, the asshole deserves to be dead.

[Grassy Knoll]

28. Exactly, Maybe the seals should have produced.......

a search warrant and said " Do you guys have a long form birth certificate "
and " Hey Guy, please put down your weapon " . If Bush did this , stocks for large
chisels would go up for the new addition to mount rushmore.

[harmonicon]

34. I care, as do many other people.

This just proves that it was - of course - a political assassination, which is very illegal, and incredibly wrong. To suggest that killing individuals who are not directly involved in combat is acceptable is to justify terrorism.

[piedmont]

46. He recruited, trained, planned, and bankrolled terrorism. To say he wasn't directly involved...

is a major stretch, analogous with saying Hitler didn't kill Jews. Enemy generals and commanders are and have always been fair game for killing.

[harmonicon]

49. You may want to look up your history with that.

Political assassination has never been "fair game", including generals and commanders. Sure, he may at times have been directly involved with a criminal terrorist organization, but my point was that that warrants criminal prosecution, not assassination. At the time he was killed, he was not involved with combat, which makes the killing criminal.

Since you've gone and invoked Godwin's law, and I still responded, I'll play: Hitler? How were Nazi criminals treated? Were they tried in courts, or hunted down by special forces and murdered unarmed in their homes?

[piedmont]

53. You don't know history as well as you think you do

"Were they tried in courts, or hunted down by special forces and murdered unarmed in their homes?"
There are no protections in the Geneva Conventions for generals and commanders who have not surrendered. Admiral Yamamoto and German SS official Reinhardt Heydrich were successfully targeted during WWII and were not protected in any way by law. The trials at Nuremberg were only for Nazis who surrendered and thus became protected persons. If bin Laden had turned himself in at any point in the last 13 years and still was killed without trial you might have a point.

If you want to call this a law enforcement situation then there is plenty of precedent for the use of deadly force in arresting suspects who are a threat to the arresting officers. The president has the power to authorize the use of deadly force and I believe he already confirmed that he did in this case.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Fortunately for the SEALS, they didn't fire.

For them, well,.....tough.

[TheEuclideanOne]

4. This is sick.

What a perverted spin they are trying to put on this. Unbelievable.

You know who else was not armed when they were killed? The 3000 victims of 9/11.

The whole point of using this elite group is that you are not able to get a gun to fire. The only way you know they are there is when you feel the bullet go through your head.

[Blue State Bandit]

17. Hear, here!

n/t

[EFerrari]

18. The "sick spin" is known as reporting the facts

and in this case, on the story of the decade.

:wtf:

[uppityperson]

25. I don't trust "facts" by unnamed anonymous unauthorized sources.

[EFerrari]

33. Has anyone asked you to?

However, the White House has already acknowledged that there was no firefight in the main house. There was one guy that shot and he was in the guest house.

Osama raid: only one gunman among dead, White House admits, blaming 'fog of war'

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/osama-raid-only-one-gunman-among-dead-white-house-admits-blaming-fog-of-war-20110506-1eapx.html#ixzz1LX9a2Xvt

[uppityperson]

50. Oh yes, lots of people ask me to believe their "facts". And "the White House" has differing stories,

depending on whom you listen to. The story keeps changing because the true facts take a while to come out.

[EFerrari]

54. The White House doesn't have differing stories on this part.

They corrected the initial story Brennan gave to no firefight in the main house and not armed. But you're right. The story will move around a while before it settles down.

[TheEuclideanOne]

44. If you are reporting the facts, it is not a spin.

The part that I find particularly loathesome is that there seems to be an attempt to focus on the fact that OBL was unarmed. The same people that argue the "24" scenario where it is quite okay to torture people to get information are now trying to position OBL like some innocent, defenseless puppy.

Isn't the idea of spinning the facts, still reporting information that is factually correct, but in a way that changes the way people perceive it for the purpose of fulfilling some agenda (pardon my layman's definition). So, you can still be "reporting the facts" and spinning. Right?

[EFerrari]

52. Maybe. But it's more that the White House first reported a firefight. n/t

[harmonicon]

35. So you're agreeing that terrorist tactics are ok, or is it a case that two wrongs make a right? nt.

[JaneQPublic]

40. "Two wrongs make a right"? Seriously?

So what's your answer to Al Qaeda? Turn the other cheek? Be extra nice to them and hope they see the error of their ways?

We have been at war with Al Qaeda since 2001, and Bin Laden as the head of that organization was a fair target, whether he was armed or not.

[harmonicon]

42. So you think it would be ok for US leaders to be assassinated?

Is that now a legitimate tactic in war? If Obama were murdered in the street, would you just chalk that up to us being involved in wars, or is that different than soldiers being killed in combat? All of that is really irrelevant though, because we have not "been at war" with al qaeda or any other terrorist organization, unless you accept George Bush's rationale that it's possible to wage war against a concept. What's my answer to them? Law enforcement, because that's how criminals should be handled.

[JaneQPublic]

43. If we had a leader who crashed airliners into skyscrapers, YES!

But of course, we don't, so it's not an apt comparison.

Yes, certainly we have been at war with Al Qaeda. Your concept of war is the traditional one where we can only be at war against other countries, and because Al Qaeda isn't a country, we can't really be at war. We aren't fighting a "concept" but an actual group of real-live terrorists hell-bent on killing Americans--unarmed ones.

I would rather have a few ring-leaders of a terrorist movement killed the way Obama did it than to wage endless war in which hundreds of thousands more innocent lives are lost.

If your answer is law enforcement, then bin Laden would live out his life safely in Pakistan. The government of Pakistan won't give U.S. officials access for questioning to the other people taken from the bin Laden compound; they certainly wouldn't agree to extradition of bin Laden for a trial. For that matter, it would never get that far, because the Pakistanis would never have agreed to a search warrant or arrest -- at least not without tipping bin Laden off first.

It's fine if you are morally opposed to war or military action, but the result of that stance is that evil murderers like OBL are not stopped.

[harmonicon]

47. I'm not necessarily opposed to all war, but I am opposed to terrorism.

War is between two countries. Labeling something a war does not make it so. War with al qaeda? Give me a break. They're criminals; murderers. If they aren't, you accept that the victims of their terrorist attacks are also legitimate targets in war.

[JaneQPublic]

56. So, the U.S. Civil War wasn't a War?

Your definition of war would rule out every civil war and probably our Revolutionary War, since two separate countries weren't involved.

At one time, it wasn't considered "real" war unless two opposing forces dressed in uniforms and carrying flags stood in formation and fired at each other at close range. That definition has changed over the years and now includes actions taken, not against sovereign states, but against forces such as Al Qaeda that have declared war against us. The old rules no longer apply.

[harmonicon]

58. So terrorism is legitimate? The world trade center attacks were just a part of war?

I don't think so.

[appleannie1]

6. So? No one at the WTC fired on the planes. They were killed anyways.

[christx30]

11. no one

on the plans was armed either. But the bad guys had box cutters and slit the throats of men and women just doing there jobs (serving drinks, trying to make a nice flight).
I agree with you. To hell with OBL and anyone that questions the legality of the raid.

[Ikonoklast]

7. They made the first mistake of leaving their weapons out of reach.

They also made the mistake of thinking they were safe.

Enemy combatants do not get to ask those shooting at them for a 'time out' whilst they search for their weapons.


Thank God that they were stupid, and now dead and stupid.

[KoKo]

8. Another "Unamed Source" from Reuters...How much more of this stuff is believeable?

This is ridiculous. Obama needs to root out these folks in his administration or the Pentagon who are leaking this stuff. It's confusing to the public to keep seeing sources that don't want to put their name out.

If you have something to say then say who you are and your Position in Government ...but, don't go spouting off when you could just be some person with an axe to grind that stopped a reporter on the street to leak when you could be nobody in the Pentagon or Obama Administration.

This is ridiculous:

Look at this from the subhead of the headline:

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Shouldn't we readers be allowed to know who the hell this "person familiar with latest government reporting" IS? SHEESH! Osama is Dead. It frees up space to talk and push to get us out of Afghanistan. Give it Up. Yes there are Legal Issues...and Yes, we have a right to ask about how Osama was Executed...but it's DONE! Let's hope this allows Obama to get us OUT OF THESE WARS before what's left of our American Economy goes into the Crapper!
.

[emulatorloo]

19. Saxby Chambliss (R) has been leaking like a sieve today. Probably another congressperson n/t

[KoKo]

22. I'd bet Lieberman, too...he's a known Gossip and a NeoCon...

[uppityperson]

26. "a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid"=WTF?

[4nic8em]

9. After careful study of all the the different media reports

of the events at Bin Ladens compound, here are some of the facts which I have garnished to date:

After the SEAL team landed, they encountered 2 AK toting Pakistani men accompanied by no less than 6 squirrel monkeys who scattered immediately causing one of the women (who was painting her toenails out on the pool deck) to trip, which startled Osama while he was saddling his zebra because he wanted to run to the tastee freeze for a mocha deluxe. No, No wait...

After the commandos entered the upstairs bedroom (believed to be Osamas), a badger, or a single wombat (facts a little cloudy) grabbed one of the coffee mugs (still hot on the nightstand next to the bed) and threw it out the window and into one of the helicopters intakes causing it to crash...No, wait, Hold on just a second...

Osama and the seven dwarfs were staying up late watching Charlie Sheen and Donald Trump talk about birth certificates and such, when all of a sudden, a bunch of men ran inside with guns and started making popcorn and dancing the "Dougie". Osamas 19 year old son got pissed and threw a bottle of Cerveza at one of the women who shot herself in the leg and got really really mad because she had to stop folding laundry. hold on, damn it...

You get my point...

This was a SEAL team, we all know what they do (and they do it very well). This was a "sweep and clear" event, plain and simple, wait and see...

Synopsis: Sumbitch is dead...end of story.

repost

[KoKo]

10. That is worth a chuckle... Seriously! Definitely a Chuckle...

[kestrel91316]

12. I honestly don't care. The world is better with those mass murderers dead.

[daa]

13. Ever hear of Nirenberg? They didn't shoot them they gave

then a TRIAL. Remember the Rule of Law? Just remember summarily shooting bin Laden today can be YOU tomorrow.

[Confusious]

15. They all surrendered

Osama didn't. that's the difference.

I guarantee you, if any one of them hadn't surrendered, they would have been just as dead in the same manner.

[Muskypundit]

27. Maybe if I kill and then admit to the world I killed

over 3000 innocent people in a day, and much more after that. Maybe then it could be me. Im not seeing the slippery slope, sorry.

[harmonicon]

36. +1 (but it's Nuremberg) nt.

[Blue State Bandit]

14. They achieved operational surprise. It's what they do. So why should we care?

He could have been caught in the bathroom with his ginger root in his hand for all I care.

Hats off to Obama and Seal Team VI for doing it face to face and STILL deny bin Laden his blaze of glory!

[Hoyt]

16. In that situation, one assumes they are armed and pointing a weapon at you.

Nor can you afford to get wounded and put the rest of the guys in danger.

That's how we should have been dealing with terrorism all this time. Quick strikes and get back to the base/ships.

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. yet again the official narrative doubles back on itself; the story is changing every few minutes now

real-time revisionism is a curious thing to witness.

[piedmont]

45. There is nothing official about "unnamed sources." nt

[NYC Liberal]

21. They should have just bombed the place, but...

they needed the body as evidence/proof.

The fucker got what he deserved.

[C_U_L8R]

23. Sources? What sources?

These news organizations should be ashamed.
Unattributed sources do not automagically make a fantasy into fact.

[uppityperson]

24. Anonymous and unauthorized report? ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spicegal]

29. Does it really matter whether he was armed? Seriously, who

cares? I sure don't. It was a night time raid of a hostile compound. OBL didn't want to be taken alive. . They didn't know what they were going to run up against. I can't believe anyone would actually make an issue of this.

[harmonicon]

37. I can't believe that I live in a time where your position is widely acceptable. nt.

[JaneQPublic]

41. Especially since the armed/unarmed question is different for Al Qaeda members

When have they ever been known to use conventional weapons like firearms? Their weapons of choice are commercial airliners and exploding underwear.

For all the Navy SEALs knew, Obama could have had a 747 pointed right at them, or he could have been packing a bomb in his shorts.

[Barbara2423]

30. Some people are just bored to make up this stuff

Who Cares?

[Historic NY]

31. Its not coming from the WH...there will be no further comment...........

so I assume its someone who thinks they are important and can spin the story for their own puffery.

[Mz Pip]

32. So what

OBL created this battlefield. As far as I'm concerned he was hiding in a bunker, a big fat expensive bunker but a bunker none the less.

So he didn't have a chance to draw a weapon. Bummer for him.

[tabasco]

38. I promise...

I'll be outraged next week, or maybe the week after that.

[truthisfreedom]

39. When you've gone to great lengths to ensure that the world recognizes you as the most notorious

terrorist in history, you really can't expect to be taken alive unless you're completely naked, alone in an empty room with handcuffs on when you're found. Seriously. For all they knew he could have had a bomb under his clothing, ready to take everybody with him in one final act of terror.

[guitar man]

48. The whole damn place could have been wired up

With c4 for all the SEALs knew. There was no way to know because they had never been in there. These guys aren't just homicidal, they're known to be suicidal also. You don't fuck around with maniacs like that. Every second they are alive is another second they have to possibly get their hands on a detonator.

The SEAL Team knew all this going in and still went anyway. I'm damn sure not going to second guess them or shed any tears over a bunch of murdering scumbags. They were going up against cold blooded,mad dog killers here. If they had to use cold blooded tactics to succeed and survive, so be it. In a perfect world, yeah, they would go in and arrest him. But them again in a perfect world, OBL wouldn't exist.

Bottom line is, he financed and orchestrated a heinous act of war against our country that resulted in the massacre of thousands of innocent citizens. The sumbitch needed killing and that's exactly what he got. Sorry if my attitude isn't "bleeding heart" enough for some, but that's just the way I see it.

[JaneQPublic]

57. +!,000 (nt)

[mvd]

51. May be "bleeding heart" but I prefer anyone be taken alive

However, if OBL resisted arrest and they were shot at, I'm not sure there was any choice.

[dipsydoodle]

55. Time stamp looks correct

I heard that news breaking on BBC Radio News , driving home here in the UK , at about 10 BST. I then looked for a link but it had yet to show at that time a couple of hours before you found it.

[Cass]

59. The SEALS did a great job in a very dangerous situation.

I'm not going to sit here in the comfort of my den and second-guess their actions.

OBL is dead and that's a good thing.