[LINK] bin Laden is dead

[Karl Auer]

On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 09:37 +1000, Darrell Burkey wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 09:29, Karl Auer wrote:
> > Th US stepped outside the law for petty gratification and gung-ho
> > patriotic symbolism. 
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing your legal qualifications and sighting your
> evidence to make such claims.

Well, what are yours, for goodness' sake? I make no claim of any
qualifications beyond my own intelligence and willingness to think about
what appears to have happened.

An argument is an argument. It's right or wrong, testable or not
testable, plausible or not plausible.

Here is mine, perhaps if you see it laid out you will understand it,
even if you don't agree with it.

Very few people (relatively speaking, remember - as a percentage of all
deaths) have actually ever been killed by terrorists. Vastly greater
numbers die every year from causes that are truly preventable. Those
other threats are *not* addressed with anything remotely approaching the
enthusiasm with which the bin Laden threat was approached.

Even if bin Laden managed one World Trade Centre a year, he would
*still* be a minor threat compared to the others that face US citizens -
accident, disease, poverty... There was no present need to capture or
kill him at any cost; there was time for due process, diplomacy,
international cooperation etc, however frustratingly long that may have
taken.

Therefore it seems to me that the US Government cannot have been acting
from any genuine belief that capturing or killing bin Laden would have
any statistically significant impact on the safety of US citizens or
indeed anyone else. Ergo, their motive was something else.

It cannot have been a desire to uphold the law, because as far as we can
tell they broke the law to achieve their aim.

The US Government has made enormous political capital out of the
killing. The killing has given the incumbent president a huge lift, at a
time when he was in dire need of one. The killing has distracted the US
population from the many other major problems they face, and given them
a "win".

So all in all, I think my statement that their motives were "petty
gratification and gung-ho patriotic symbolism" is probably pretty much
correct.

This does assume that the decision-makers were acting rationally. It is
possible that they were not; that they were driven by emotion and a
desire for vengeance. I'd almost prefer that to be the case. Sadly I
think that they *were* acting rationally - but in pursuit of short term
political interests rather than the genuine long term interests of their
nation or the world.

> I'm finding it very difficult to consider that your comments have any
> credibility at all but it's interesting to finally get to the bottom of
> where your views originate.

I think they originate from thinking about things.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20110504/da36cf8d/attachment.sig>