Death of bin Laden. Who will receive the reward?

The money should go to all the civilians caught in the middle of this WMD chase around 3+ countries.

The US government posted the reward, the US government tracked him down. No one will get the reward

It is just like you were to post a reward for your missing puppy and then found it yourself, The reward does not get paid to anyone.

@DrBill so… the US government knew where bin laden was all this time but only now bothered to go and execute him? I don’t think so. Someone has tipped em off as to his location.

@Lightlyseared,

The NYT says that we had been tracking his courier since 2004. We knew the courier’s identity because of intel from Guantanamo Bay. The courier was eventually tracked to the compound. They didn’t have any actionable intelligence until last August, and until now it’s been all planning. Considering the location of the compound and Pakistani anger to American attacks on their sovereign soil, it seems some planning was in order.

Obama said the ISI was somehow involved though that might have been a political pablum considering all the shit they’ve pulled over us.

I have heard rumors that the courier’s identity was obtained through torture and that bin Laden’s capture justifies keeping prisoners at Guantanamo. Has anyone heard anything about this?

I haven’t heard it was obtained by torture. But I did here it was obtained at Guantanamo. And it wouldn’t surprise me that people would use that to justify keeping prisoners at Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is really just a symbol, though. We still imprison suspected “enemy combatants” at Bagram air force base in Afghanistan.

Give the $50 Mil to the guy who tortured the SOB in Guantanamo and got the intel!

@gene116, why do you think the information was obtained by torture?

@Qingu ” @gene116, why do you think the information was obtained by torture?” That’s a pretty naive question, what do you think happens in prisons? Our government is in the process of torturing Bradley Manning, what make you think they treat potential war criminals any better?

@Ron_C, I understand that our government has tortured al-Qaeda detainees. I also know that torture is actually a pretty shitty way to get good intel. So I’m curious if there’s any evidence that this particular trail—namely, the name of the courier—came from “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Also, I really have to say, I don’t give a shit about Bradley Manning and I don’t really understand why he is lionized as this martyr figure. Solitary confinement is not “torture”; if he was threatening suicide then that is exactly what you do with such people. You can assert that the Pentagon made that up, but he has had mental health problems before.

Saw it on CNN, so you know it must be true. ;)

@Qingu I have a real problem with torture, for any reason.

Solitary imprisonment for 9 months IS torture. The only prosecution Manning should have faced was a trial to see if he broke his security clearance oath. If he did, he deserved to be dishonorably discharged. Now that he has been imprisoned without a trial and declared guilty by the president, he needs to be immediately released and honorably discharged. After-all, his only crime was releasing information that should never have been classified as secret. The information was gossip and innuendo that should have been temporarily classified as confidential. The worse thing that happened is that some “diplomats” were embarrassed. Any-other descriptions of his crime is simply propaganda,

@Ron_C, I also have a real problem with torture, for any reason. I think there is some misunderstanding here; I’m not defending or advocating torture.

I disagree with your assessment of Manning on several counts:
• He was active military. Like it or not (and for the record, I don’t) the military is a separate world. He is not entitled to the same standards of justice that civilians are.

• Releasing the largest leak of secret documents in history is not something that gets you dishonorably discharged; it could well get you shot.

• Much of that information absolutely should be classified as secret, and releasing it very well could have endangered lives. Even Wikileaks agrees with this, as they have censored a lot of that information; the NYT and other papers feel even more strongly that the information poses a threat. I’ve browsed a few of the Afghan docs, for example, and a lot of the information is both pointless and dangerous. For example, one doc describes a friendly translator that has gone missing. It has the date and location. This information is pointless to release to the public; it serves no purpose and gives no insight about malfeasance in the Afghan war. It does, however, potentially allow the Taliban to line up the date and location with someone they picked up.

As for the state department cables, again, journalists who have actually reviewed them disagree with your assessment. Human rights organizations and sources in despotic countries may well have been put in danger by the cables, which quote them. I agree that, in general, a lot of the stuff in the cables is gossip and innuendo—but our diplomats have the right to conduct their job in privacy, just like the rest of us. The fact that they are government employees doesn’t mean the public should have access to every one of their e-mails.

Manning unilaterally decided that the public should get such access. The decision was not up to him, and it was based on what I think is a childish, illogical, and ultimately dangerous ideology, with “transparency” as the ultimate moral goal. I don’t go nearly as far as some; I think Wikileaks deserves the same protection as the NYT did when they published the Pentagon Papers. But nobody should be surprised when the person who leaked these documents gets punished for breaking the law.

@Qingu even in the military, you are entitled to a speedy trial. I was in for 12 years and can attest to the fact that a court can be convened at the drop of the hat. I can also attest that solitary confinement is only used for the most egregious offenders and even then, it is limited.

The only soldiers that I have heard being put in solitary confinement for more than a few weeks were held in Vietnam. I happen to think that our country and our military is better than were the North Vietnamese.

I have no real disagreement with your other statements except that much of the information was blow out of proportion for political propaganda reasons. I have also been in positions where state department interference has put my life in danger or interfered with my business efforts. I have always thought that one of the greatest impediments to our country’s progress and international relations in an incompetent and corrupt state department.

I guess I dont’ think it’s safe to assume that Manning is perfectly in the right about this and the Pentagon are just wantonly torturing him for kicks. Maybe I have more faith in the military establishment than is warranted (and I didn’t think I had much).

On torture leading to the courier: There are conflicting reports. Peter King says it did, along with other Republicans who have defended torture; Diane Feinstein (chair of the intelligence comm) says it didn’t.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/

Though really, the question to me is moot. Even if we did get the courier’s name through waterboarding, that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have also gotten his name through legitimate interrogation techniques; torture might have even made it harder to put the pieces together.

none

@Qingu “Though really, the question to me is moot. ” on that point you are correct. A long grueling interrogation is acceptable, torture is never acceptable.

As to Bradley Manning, I have been subject to confidential military justice and the problem is that no one claims responsibility so there is no recourse. Manning has no recourse because one of those anonymous military judgments, that is unacceptable, period.