This Forum is Closed

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bad Penny on May 13, 2011, 01:14:44 am

Title: Yet Another Response to Yet Another Piece of NeoCon Imbecillity
Post by: Bad Penny on May 13, 2011, 01:14:44 am
God, I'm getting sick of this chore!

Here's the email:

The TRUTH about Bin Laden's burial at sea.

Bin Laden Given Religious Funeral Prior to Sea Burial.

Published May 02, 2011

Osama bin Laden was given a religious funeral prior to his burial at sea, senior Military officials told Fox News.

Religious rites were conducted on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier at about 1:10 a.m. Monday in the Persian Gulf .

In accordance with Islamic practice, bin Laden's body was washed and wrapped in a white sheet before buried at sea at 2 a.m. local time, senior U.S. military and intelligence officials said.

Then, "In accordance with common US Navy SEAL practice, the Team pissed on him, stuck a pulled pork sandwich in his mouth and a kosher hot dog up his ass, and pushed the worthless bastard overboard with the other garbage," a senior SEAL officer said.

And here's my response:

Actually, even the official story regarding his burial is a lie to the extent that they say it was in conformity with Islamic practice, as the Islamic religion forbids burial at sea unless the person died at sea.  I certainly don't think the US government would have allowed desecration of the corpse of their cherished, long-term servant, neither would the bin Laden family, whose long association with British intelligence gives them effective veto power over US policy (remember the post-9/11 airlift, when all civilian aircraft were supposed to have been grounded?), allow the US government to do so.

Personally, I believe that bin Laden's body was tossed overboard to conceal evidence of his having been frozen for nine and a half years, which would have resulted in a considerable degree of "freezer burn" (dehydration mummification).  Even the idiots who came up with the "Man Who Never Was" disinformation operation knew enough not to freeze that Welsh alcoholic, as any competent pathologist would have noticed the effects of even short-term freezing.

In any case, President Obama has performed a valuable service by claiming bin Laden was killed while in custody, and, thus, hors de combat under the Geneva Convention (no small matter, as US treatment of POWs in general renders US servicemen and women non-entitled to Geneva Convention protection by their captors),  as that constitutes an admission of guilt of a war crime as well as first degree murder (a class A felony), which makes the SEALs who dumped the body over the rails guilty of hindering prosecution in the first degree, which, under New York law, is a class D felony. (Of course, they would actually be charged under the UCMJ, but I don't have a copy of that in front of me right now.)   If these SEALs are so charged, they might be forced to defend themselves by asserting the fact of bin Laden's having died a natural death nine and a half years ago.

(I'm uncertain as to the ethical validity of charging someone with a crime you know they didn't commit in order to force them to spill the beans, but there is precedent in the prosecution of Mickey Featherstone (underboss to Jimmy Coonan, in turn senior Gambino Family associate).)
Either way, it would be interesting.

Title: Re: Yet Another Response to Yet Another Piece of NeoCon Imbecillity
Post by: Bad Penny on May 13, 2011, 02:06:19 am
One point of clarification:

Some NeoCon diehards may object to my characterization of US-held captives in the "Global War on Terror" as prisoners of war, on the basis of their classification by the US government as "Unlawful Combatants".   The truth is, that the category of "Unlawful Combatants" is a non-existent legal fiction concocted by the NeoCons to deny all legal protection to anyone the US government doesn't like: in true totalitarian fashion, they're beginning with Moslems, and are extending this to loyal US citizens of all religions.  Indeed, the very promulgation of the "Unlawful Combatant" category constitutes a blatant declaration on the part of the US of her refusal to abide by Geneva Convention protections for prisoners of war, which declaration denies American servicemen and servicewomen who enter into the custody of enemy powers the benefit of these same protections.  The bottom line is this: when engaging in combat with powers not recognized as state entities, a state has two choices: treat your captives as prisoners of war with full Geneva Convention protection, or treat them as criminals with recourse to due process of law.  The very promulgation of the status of "Unlawful Combatant" by the US constitutes a declaration by the US of her status as a lawless state.