13 ms·

Getting Bin Laden: What happened that night in Abbottabad

245 points by AngryParsley 15y ago

gwern 15y ago
Points of interest to me: - distrust of Pakistan runs high - the article is almost coy about how OBL's safehouse was so close to a military academy and the contacts with another group tightly linked to ISI; this says to me the sources did not want to discuss anything more than was already public. (And do keep in mind that this sort of article is usually a tissue of deliberate leaks, so what is not said is almost as interesting as what is said. If one were particularly cynical, one might read this into the general downplaying of the downed chopper, the one major flaw of the operation.) - the Pakistani retaliation with the newspapers was very interesting indeed - the dumping-the-body-at-sea thing had precedent! I had not known that. The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior. - the bombing suggestion would have been... interesting. All things considered, the SEAL team does seem like a better idea.
- jcitme 15y ago
  I personally believe that bombing would be safer, much the same way a loyalist in the the Revolutionary war is "safer". Sure, the other way turned out to be correct, but it was a hard decision to make.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "All along, the SEALs had planned to dump bin Laden’s corpse into the sea—a blunt way of ending the bin Laden myth." Yeah right. The only reason his body was dumped into the sea is because if they had paraded it around, everyone would be able to see that OBL isn't the same as the guy in the video who claimed credit for 9/11.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Man, these guys went to a lot of effort to get a fake body, then. Oh well, I guess that's government projects for you.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      "Man, these guys went to a lot of effort to get a fake body, then." You're missing what I'm saying. Assuming the body the recovered was actually OBL, then any high-res photographs and videos released could have potentially proven that the evidence used as a pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan was fake. Before that video, there were less than 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan. Today there are 90,000. Is it really that difficult to see why this matters?
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        So you are saying that the US faked the OBL videos? I'm really not clear on what you are implying here, but it reeks of conspiracy theories.
        Alex3917 15y ago
        I'm saying that if you watch the actual video I linked to that was the pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan, it's extremely clear that the man in that video looks nothing like every other photo/video of OBL from both before and after. The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter? How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        We know their "evidence" for Iraq was multiple kinds of shit. They didn't even go out of their way to conceal that once they got into there. Why should they worry about protecting the lies of a disgraced ex-president this time? And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest. And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    What are you suggesting? Are you saying it's because he would be an old frail man? Or that the name actually belongs to an entirely different body but for unexplained reasons this is being covered up? Very confusing comment.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      "Are you saying it's because he would be an old frail man?" Yes. The only video 'evidence' linking OBL to 9/11 was a video of someone who looks nothing like him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs If the government had released actual high res photos and videos of the body it would be clear that the 'fat osama' in the video above wasn't really him, and therefore that the only evidence that OBL was behind 9/11 was completely fabricated.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        What makes you think they shot some fat guy, and not some skinny guy? bonus tip: linking to youtube videos called "9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE!" marginalizes yourself, no matter the content. Edit: seriously now. I'm not getting this. The public thinks that osama is tall and thin, regardless of whatever video bush was pointing at or whatnot. If they shot a tall thin guy, nobody would think anything of it (except perhaps the people that are predisposed to making "CONSPIRACY" videos on youtube...) If they shot some fat guy (which wouldn't even make sense to do, since the public doesn't recognize him as the guy...), then that should just match up with this apparent evidence video.... which is no big deal? Explain this to me, if you are going to downvote me.
        Alex3917 15y ago
        "What makes you think they shot some fat guy, and not some skinny guy?" I do think they shot a skinny guy, which would show that the video from 2001 was almost certainly fake.
        krschultz 15y ago
  - jmtame 15y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea The photos are highly classified, and they've stated why they don't want to release them. If Osama was shot with a high caliber bullet in the face, you probably can't even recognize him anyway. Did any of the news outlets ever confirm the photo released was actually from the government? I haven't seen any of them say "we obtained this photo from the government," I have only seen one station run the single photo, and they explicitly said it was unconfirmed.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      "I'm surprised you're making such accusations, and without knowing the facts." The reason why I'm asking for the facts is because I don't know the facts. That's the whole point. If I already knew the facts then I wouldn't be asking for them.
- flipbrad 15y ago
  This article says saudis weren't offered the body, mind you - john brennan phoned "a former counterpart in Saudi intelligence" to ask if it was a good idea.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    The article does not say the Saudis weren't offered the body. In fact it implies they were: Did the Saudi government have any interest in taking the body? “Your plan sounds like a good one,” the Saudi replied.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- runjake 15y ago
  | The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior. Dichotomy? What dichotomy? While the Saudi rulers have a good relationship with the Bin Laden family, they despised Osama Bin Laden. They thought that Osama was a threat to their leadership. Osama criticized them and wanted their overthrow. And Osama thought that the Saudis were American puppets. And Re: Pakistan. It's a hard-to-tread situation. The most powerful in the Pakistani government are dispersed into groups of "Love the Taliban/Al Qaeda"/"Love the Americans ('s money)/"We just want to be left alone. And nobody from one group wants to piss off someone in another group, so it's this cloak and dagger situation.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  I'm also impressed by the lack of trust in the Pakistanis. By far my favorite MSM reporting on the raid is the WSJ article by Siobhan Gorman and Julian Barnes, "Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid". Google for the title and you can read the full version from Google's cache. If the article is to be believed, Barack Obama's role in the planning is quite impressive. He choose the riskiest of the options offered to him; the military consensus was leaning toward heavy bombing that would have guaranteed civilian casualties, but would minimize exposure to U.S. personnel. Apparently, Somalia still looms large in the memories of military leadership. Obama took the bombing option off the table completely, and told them to do it the Hard Way -- sending commandos 128 miles into Pakistan's interior. But the best part is that Obama explicitly equipped the SEALs to blast their way out if the raid went bad and Pakistanis showed up shooting. That as opposed to throwing up their hands and surrendering, and then letting the diplomats try to arrange their release in the ensuing months (or maybe years; it took us months to get back one single CIA contractor arrested earlier this year). From the article: "Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on stand-by in case of an emergency." Now that, my friends, is risky. The ways in which this thing could have gone bad are almost too ugly to contemplate. How could Obama & co. possibly not have crapped their pants watching the raid live from the white house?
  - clarkevans 15y ago
    Even so, having the backup option didn't negate the political option; while, not having the backup (in hindsight) would have guaranteed a political showdown.
  - mturmon 15y ago
    Just to take one of your points farther, I think the beefiness of the escape plan illustrates how little Obama values the Pakistani relationship. And how much he wanted OBL, and how much he trusted DEVGRU.
  - cschmidt 15y ago
    They do look a little worried watching it all go down: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
throwaway628 15y ago
really interesting article, but a few questions: 1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? 2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed? 3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him? 4) why did "no one want detainees"?
- Volpe 15y ago
  When did it come "okay" for governments to send kill squads into another country?
  - palish 15y ago
    About... 1200 BC.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      Is that a reference to the Trojan War?
  - ovi256 15y ago
    In polite society, it's frowned upon. In the real world, they laugh and say "Oh what a sweet kid" when you ask such a question.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    When said country is harboring (whether intentionally or ignorantly) an international terrorist and mass-murderer.
    - mcantelon 15y ago
      We believe in rule of law (when convenient).
- demallien 15y ago
  Well, I don't know about the rest, but question 1 is a direct consequence of unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms. You know, the reason that we use uniforms is so that combatants are easily identified, which indirectly protects civilians, by clearly indicating that they aren't targets. If you're going to hang out with someone that has made a habit of launching attacks against a country whilst running around in civilian clothing, then yeah, you're at risk of becoming collateral damage. Don't do that.
aniyoder 15y ago
USA! USA! USA!
martinkallstrom 15y ago
As a non-native English speaker, I wonder: what's the story behind using umlauts in the word "coöperating"? Never seen it before.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Technically it's a diaeresis, not an umlaut. It indicates the syllable break in the word "cooperate". It's not a common thing in written English, but the New Yorker has a certain writing style that calls for that sort of thing.
  - martinkallstrom 15y ago
    You're not joking, here's an extract from the Wikipedia entry [1]: "Nowadays in English, the diaeresis is normally left out (cooperate), except by The New Yorker, or a hyphen is used (co-operate). It is, however, still common in loanwords such as naïve and Noël." This made me smile. Thanks! :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)
  - shapoopy 15y ago
    It's pretty deeply preferable to "co-operating," if you ask me.
- showerst 15y ago
  philwelch is right on, but to give a less technical explanation, it's a signal to pronounce the world (co)(operating) instead of (coop)(erating). The New Yorker does it for all doubled vowels that aren't pronounced as long vowels.
quattrofan 15y ago
Great article and well written, the thing that struck me the most was the references to god, he was killed for "god and country", well Osama thought he was doing his gods work, whose god is right? Religion is such a giant fail.
- rezaprima 15y ago
  well, both sides claim to protect their own land and people from invasive other. I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people".
  - baha_man 15y ago
    "I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people". Pacifism?
    - rezaprima 15y ago
      Thanks. Though I need to look it up whether it really teaches to not defend one's right and how it works in reality.
  - noahc 15y ago
    There is a strain of Christianity called Anabaptist that are pacifist, and do not believe in using violence or coersion.
    - gaius 15y ago
      ... And have the freedom to practice their religion because there are people willing to defend their right to do so, on their behalf.
      - wensing 15y ago
        Not true. They practiced it when they were being slaughtered, too.
shalinmangar 15y ago
From the article: "They observed that residents of the compound burned their trash, instead of putting it out for collection, and concluded that the compound lacked a phone or an Internet connection." How do you go from burning trash to lack of phone or internet?
- sambeau 15y ago
  They didn't. Note the use of 'and' not 'therefore'.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
"For God and country-Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo." "We should all go to Mass tonight," he said. That definitely ruins it for me.
- nickpp 15y ago
  Soldiers and politicians. Did you expect works of science from them? Ones kill for a living, the other ones lie for a living. Definitely expected.
- abdulhaq 15y ago
  Funnily enough, according to wikipedia, Geronimo was a prominent Native American leader of the Chiricahua Apache who fought against Mexico and the United States for their expansion into Apache tribal lands for several decades. I don't think his assassins had that in mind though. Don't get me wrong BTW, I'm firmly one the 900 million muslims who are against the killing of innocents.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    It's hard to assign meaning to those kinds of code words. After all, they're specifically chosen not to betray their meaning. I know that the Apache were upset by the implications, and there is some historical irony lurking in it, but I wouldn't take that too far, esp. for a code word. If I'm not mistaken, "Geronimo" is probably best known as a battle cry that Americans learned from the movies. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that most Americans don't know anything about the man, Geronimo. EDIT: Also, on Biden's comment about attending mass: that's just Biden being a good Catholic. Fortunately, Joe Biden isn't the type to actually demand that others practice his religion. The religious aspect of this story didn't bother me, because these guys, like all Americans, have the right to express their religious beliefs as long as they don't force everyone to follow them. The policy of killing bin Laden is supported by many people who don't belong to a religion. Bin Laden's attacks killed all sorts of different people. It's hard to argue that the Obama administration was carrying out a religious vendetta with this operation. I read this article in my office a stone's throw from Ground Zero. I found the details about the policy-making and military operation fascinating. I'm glad I didn't wake up that morning to read that we leveled a suburb in Pakistan with 32 2000lb guided bombs (and we think we might have gotten Bin Laden)!
shawndumas 15y ago
print version -- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true&currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_...
davidw 15y ago
"The owner of the house, who we reached for comment, had been residing in the UK, and was not aware of current events, and was distraught to discover the state of the home on his return. 'Between the crashed helicopter, burned animal stalls, and bullet marks everywhere, I can safely say I will not be utilizing AirBnB again - the place is completely trashed', Haddad told us"
- hk43 15y ago
  Are we are witnessing the birth of the AirBnB jokes here? ;-)
flipbrad 15y ago
the US military invades Bin Laden's compound, calmly shoots him, searches the place, takes his body, disposes it at sea, whilst america's top brass follows... and the only recording of any of this is two DNA shots and a video taken from a drone 5km above it all - not even one photo of the face? He's not even recognisable to the soldiers sent in on the mission, so one has to lie down next to him as a human ruler (yep - about 4 inches bigger than your are, Joe!) Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen. Also: this article is gloating, snuff pornography that betrays a total lack of journalistic instinct. When a journalist explicitly makes excuses for discrepancies in the story he is reporting, rather than examining them, you know that an article was not worth your time and attention.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I don't know why you're getting down votes. This story seems well written, but for the majority of the story (all of the important parts), it relies only on information released by the government. Why should we believe this story? It seems to be a perfect tale that can't be corroborated now.
  - showerst 15y ago
    The downed helicopter is certainly evidence that _something_ happened involving a US operation in Pakistan. There was a statement mourning his death that has been accepted as originating with Al Qaeda (by the US Govt, organizations that monitor militant activity, as well as parties like Al-Jazeera). By the situation's very nature there are only a handful of people with the facts, and they're all going to work for either the US or Pakistani governments. At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I'd say that the evidence is conclusive, but I suppose one could work up a conspiracy involving dozens (hundreds?) of people in the administration from the president down to rank & file soldiers. As for the photos, There was supposedly a heated debate within the administration about releasing the pictures, but it was decided that the harm they would do to the US' image was worse than the value of a photo as a piece of evidence. The piece's author not questioning the discrepancies can be put down to believing in a "Fog of war" in the exact recollections and communications, plus the fact that not a single difference was really material to the story. I think it's interesting that they mentioned them at all.
pointyhat 15y ago
We will never know what really happened, just what people want us to know.
- pointyhat 15y ago
  I've been watching this post and the karma on it is up and down like mad. Peaking at 5, and a low of 1. It's surprising how many people think that what they are told is the full picture. Having worked for a couple of nefarious defence-related organisations over the years, I've observed that it's quite simply true that propaganda is just as easy to get into people's minds as facts.
  - joejohnson 15y ago
    I am surprised there aren't more comments like the parent comment. Are people really going to swallow this whole thing without any corroboration by another source? I guess I can understand that; it's easier to believe what you read. However, when people (in the comments here) raise objections or have opposing views than the picture being painted in this article, they are being harshly downvoted. I would have hoped for more skepticism on HN. :(
    - pointyhat 15y ago
      Spot on. I don't get the whole "we dumped the body in the sea" crap. That's not proof. My children tell better lies.
zwieback 15y ago
I was a little surprised that they used wire-link fence in the simulated compound. Regardless of whether it caused the first helicopter to crash it seems to me a real wall would have made the training more effective. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that defense contractors have already come up with quickly deployable simulated walls.
- runjake 15y ago
  I think the article's a bit wrong on that part. DEVGRU, Special Operations outfits, and even conventional US forces have access to walls and don't use chain-link simulations.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    Chain-link can be taken down and moved quicker than a standard wall. This used to be an important factor when you didn't want 'stuff' to be seen by satellites, needed to setup and take things down quickly. I don't know if it's still a factor today.
    - runjake 15y ago
      It's not. And modular walls are quicker than chain-link. Army SF commonly uses framed plywood walls with locking, thick metal drop hinges on each side, roughly how a ranch gate works. They're modular so that they can be quickly re-arranged, not to hide from satellites.
joejohnson 15y ago
I'm disappointed in the discussion here. Any comment that remotely alludes to any information that might contradict the US gov official story is being downvoted. Why are people resistant to entertain opposing viewpoints on this story? It seems unscientific (and bad journalistic practice) to rely only on one source.
- mcantelon 15y ago
  Especially given the number of times the US military has lied to the public.
arjunnarayan 15y ago
Amid all this collective celebration, I would like to point out one excerpt (that nobody seems to have mentioned here) that leaves me disgusted: "The C.I.A. intensified its intelligence-collection efforts, and, according to a recent report in the Guardian, a physician working for the agency conducted an immunization drive in Abbottabad, in the hope of acquiring DNA samples from bin Laden’s children. (No one in the compound ultimately received any immunizations.)" From a global health policy perspective, doctors and campaigners in third world countries already face huge uphill battles in education and decreasing fears about vaccinations. It probably isn't amiss to say that in helping fuel the FUD about vaccinations being a CIA plot, more people have been killed due to these fears than in acts of terrorism in the last decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-the-cias-vaccination-ploy-in-pakistan/2011/07/15/gIQASu12GI_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-the-...
- yid 15y ago
  There's a huge difference between vaccinations themselves being a CIA plot, and a vaccination drive being a CIA plot. I have no problem with the latter.
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    The people who need the vaccinations won't see the difference. That little detail would have been better kept under wraps. Nobody needed to know about it.
  - Goladus 15y ago
    Slightly more important (which isn't saying much) is the difference between the vaccination drive being a CIA plot and the CIA exploiting its existence.
vinodkd 15y ago
Great article. I had to comment on this bit, tho: "ordered sandwich platters from Costco" Nice to see the White house doesn't splurge willy-nilly :))
vegai 15y ago
"At one point, Biden, who had been fingering a rosary, turned to Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman. “We should all go to Mass tonight,” he said." Not to ask forgiveness for breaking a commandement, I would wager.

245 points by AngryParsley 15y ago

gwern 15y ago

Points of interest to me: - distrust of Pakistan runs high - the article is almost coy about how OBL's safehouse was so close to a military academy and the contacts with another group tightly linked to ISI; this says to me the sources did not want to discuss anything more than was already public. (And do keep in mind that this sort of article is usually a tissue of deliberate leaks, so what is not said is almost as interesting as what is said. If one were particularly cynical, one might read this into the general downplaying of the downed chopper, the one major flaw of the operation.) - the Pakistani retaliation with the newspapers was very interesting indeed - the dumping-the-body-at-sea thing had precedent! I had not known that. The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior. - the bombing suggestion would have been... interesting. All things considered, the SEAL team does seem like a better idea.

jcitme 15y ago
I personally believe that bombing would be safer, much the same way a loyalist in the the Revolutionary war is "safer". Sure, the other way turned out to be correct, but it was a hard decision to make.
Alex3917 15y ago
"All along, the SEALs had planned to dump bin Laden’s corpse into the sea—a blunt way of ending the bin Laden myth." Yeah right. The only reason his body was dumped into the sea is because if they had paraded it around, everyone would be able to see that OBL isn't the same as the guy in the video who claimed credit for 9/11.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Man, these guys went to a lot of effort to get a fake body, then. Oh well, I guess that's government projects for you.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "Man, these guys went to a lot of effort to get a fake body, then." You're missing what I'm saying. Assuming the body the recovered was actually OBL, then any high-res photographs and videos released could have potentially proven that the evidence used as a pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan was fake. Before that video, there were less than 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan. Today there are 90,000. Is it really that difficult to see why this matters?
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      So you are saying that the US faked the OBL videos? I'm really not clear on what you are implying here, but it reeks of conspiracy theories.
      - Alex3917 15y ago
        I'm saying that if you watch the actual video I linked to that was the pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan, it's extremely clear that the man in that video looks nothing like every other photo/video of OBL from both before and after. The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter? How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        We know their "evidence" for Iraq was multiple kinds of shit. They didn't even go out of their way to conceal that once they got into there. Why should they worry about protecting the lies of a disgraced ex-president this time? And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest. And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  What are you suggesting? Are you saying it's because he would be an old frail man? Or that the name actually belongs to an entirely different body but for unexplained reasons this is being covered up? Very confusing comment.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "Are you saying it's because he would be an old frail man?" Yes. The only video 'evidence' linking OBL to 9/11 was a video of someone who looks nothing like him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs If the government had released actual high res photos and videos of the body it would be clear that the 'fat osama' in the video above wasn't really him, and therefore that the only evidence that OBL was behind 9/11 was completely fabricated.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      What makes you think they shot some fat guy, and not some skinny guy? bonus tip: linking to youtube videos called "9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE!" marginalizes yourself, no matter the content. Edit: seriously now. I'm not getting this. The public thinks that osama is tall and thin, regardless of whatever video bush was pointing at or whatnot. If they shot a tall thin guy, nobody would think anything of it (except perhaps the people that are predisposed to making "CONSPIRACY" videos on youtube...) If they shot some fat guy (which wouldn't even make sense to do, since the public doesn't recognize him as the guy...), then that should just match up with this apparent evidence video.... which is no big deal? Explain this to me, if you are going to downvote me.
      - Alex3917 15y ago
        "What makes you think they shot some fat guy, and not some skinny guy?" I do think they shot a skinny guy, which would show that the video from 2001 was almost certainly fake.
        krschultz 15y ago
- jmtame 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea The photos are highly classified, and they've stated why they don't want to release them. If Osama was shot with a high caliber bullet in the face, you probably can't even recognize him anyway. Did any of the news outlets ever confirm the photo released was actually from the government? I haven't seen any of them say "we obtained this photo from the government," I have only seen one station run the single photo, and they explicitly said it was unconfirmed.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "I'm surprised you're making such accusations, and without knowing the facts." The reason why I'm asking for the facts is because I don't know the facts. That's the whole point. If I already knew the facts then I wouldn't be asking for them.
flipbrad 15y ago
This article says saudis weren't offered the body, mind you - john brennan phoned "a former counterpart in Saudi intelligence" to ask if it was a good idea.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  The article does not say the Saudis weren't offered the body. In fact it implies they were: Did the Saudi government have any interest in taking the body? “Your plan sounds like a good one,” the Saudi replied.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
runjake 15y ago
| The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior. Dichotomy? What dichotomy? While the Saudi rulers have a good relationship with the Bin Laden family, they despised Osama Bin Laden. They thought that Osama was a threat to their leadership. Osama criticized them and wanted their overthrow. And Osama thought that the Saudis were American puppets. And Re: Pakistan. It's a hard-to-tread situation. The most powerful in the Pakistani government are dispersed into groups of "Love the Taliban/Al Qaeda"/"Love the Americans ('s money)/"We just want to be left alone. And nobody from one group wants to piss off someone in another group, so it's this cloak and dagger situation.
nate_meurer 15y ago
I'm also impressed by the lack of trust in the Pakistanis. By far my favorite MSM reporting on the raid is the WSJ article by Siobhan Gorman and Julian Barnes, "Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid". Google for the title and you can read the full version from Google's cache. If the article is to be believed, Barack Obama's role in the planning is quite impressive. He choose the riskiest of the options offered to him; the military consensus was leaning toward heavy bombing that would have guaranteed civilian casualties, but would minimize exposure to U.S. personnel. Apparently, Somalia still looms large in the memories of military leadership. Obama took the bombing option off the table completely, and told them to do it the Hard Way -- sending commandos 128 miles into Pakistan's interior. But the best part is that Obama explicitly equipped the SEALs to blast their way out if the raid went bad and Pakistanis showed up shooting. That as opposed to throwing up their hands and surrendering, and then letting the diplomats try to arrange their release in the ensuing months (or maybe years; it took us months to get back one single CIA contractor arrested earlier this year). From the article: "Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on stand-by in case of an emergency." Now that, my friends, is risky. The ways in which this thing could have gone bad are almost too ugly to contemplate. How could Obama & co. possibly not have crapped their pants watching the raid live from the white house?
- clarkevans 15y ago
  Even so, having the backup option didn't negate the political option; while, not having the backup (in hindsight) would have guaranteed a political showdown.
- mturmon 15y ago
  Just to take one of your points farther, I think the beefiness of the escape plan illustrates how little Obama values the Pakistani relationship. And how much he wanted OBL, and how much he trusted DEVGRU.
- cschmidt 15y ago
  They do look a little worried watching it all go down: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

throwaway628 15y ago

really interesting article, but a few questions: 1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? 2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed? 3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him? 4) why did "no one want detainees"?

Volpe 15y ago
When did it come "okay" for governments to send kill squads into another country?
- palish 15y ago
  About... 1200 BC.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Is that a reference to the Trojan War?
- ovi256 15y ago
  In polite society, it's frowned upon. In the real world, they laugh and say "Oh what a sweet kid" when you ask such a question.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  When said country is harboring (whether intentionally or ignorantly) an international terrorist and mass-murderer.
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    We believe in rule of law (when convenient).
demallien 15y ago
Well, I don't know about the rest, but question 1 is a direct consequence of unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms. You know, the reason that we use uniforms is so that combatants are easily identified, which indirectly protects civilians, by clearly indicating that they aren't targets. If you're going to hang out with someone that has made a habit of launching attacks against a country whilst running around in civilian clothing, then yeah, you're at risk of becoming collateral damage. Don't do that.

aniyoder 15y ago

USA! USA! USA!

martinkallstrom 15y ago

As a non-native English speaker, I wonder: what's the story behind using umlauts in the word "coöperating"? Never seen it before.

philwelch 15y ago
Technically it's a diaeresis, not an umlaut. It indicates the syllable break in the word "cooperate". It's not a common thing in written English, but the New Yorker has a certain writing style that calls for that sort of thing.
- martinkallstrom 15y ago
  You're not joking, here's an extract from the Wikipedia entry [1]: "Nowadays in English, the diaeresis is normally left out (cooperate), except by The New Yorker, or a hyphen is used (co-operate). It is, however, still common in loanwords such as naïve and Noël." This made me smile. Thanks! :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)
- shapoopy 15y ago
  It's pretty deeply preferable to "co-operating," if you ask me.
showerst 15y ago
philwelch is right on, but to give a less technical explanation, it's a signal to pronounce the world (co)(operating) instead of (coop)(erating). The New Yorker does it for all doubled vowels that aren't pronounced as long vowels.

quattrofan 15y ago

Great article and well written, the thing that struck me the most was the references to god, he was killed for "god and country", well Osama thought he was doing his gods work, whose god is right? Religion is such a giant fail.

rezaprima 15y ago
well, both sides claim to protect their own land and people from invasive other. I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people".
- baha_man 15y ago
  "I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people". Pacifism?
  - rezaprima 15y ago
    Thanks. Though I need to look it up whether it really teaches to not defend one's right and how it works in reality.
- noahc 15y ago
  There is a strain of Christianity called Anabaptist that are pacifist, and do not believe in using violence or coersion.
  - gaius 15y ago
    ... And have the freedom to practice their religion because there are people willing to defend their right to do so, on their behalf.
    - wensing 15y ago
      Not true. They practiced it when they were being slaughtered, too.

shalinmangar 15y ago

From the article: "They observed that residents of the compound burned their trash, instead of putting it out for collection, and concluded that the compound lacked a phone or an Internet connection." How do you go from burning trash to lack of phone or internet?

sambeau 15y ago
They didn't. Note the use of 'and' not 'therefore'.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

"For God and country-Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo." "We should all go to Mass tonight," he said. That definitely ruins it for me.

nickpp 15y ago
Soldiers and politicians. Did you expect works of science from them? Ones kill for a living, the other ones lie for a living. Definitely expected.
abdulhaq 15y ago
Funnily enough, according to wikipedia, Geronimo was a prominent Native American leader of the Chiricahua Apache who fought against Mexico and the United States for their expansion into Apache tribal lands for several decades. I don't think his assassins had that in mind though. Don't get me wrong BTW, I'm firmly one the 900 million muslims who are against the killing of innocents.
- sunchild 15y ago
  It's hard to assign meaning to those kinds of code words. After all, they're specifically chosen not to betray their meaning. I know that the Apache were upset by the implications, and there is some historical irony lurking in it, but I wouldn't take that too far, esp. for a code word. If I'm not mistaken, "Geronimo" is probably best known as a battle cry that Americans learned from the movies. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that most Americans don't know anything about the man, Geronimo. EDIT: Also, on Biden's comment about attending mass: that's just Biden being a good Catholic. Fortunately, Joe Biden isn't the type to actually demand that others practice his religion. The religious aspect of this story didn't bother me, because these guys, like all Americans, have the right to express their religious beliefs as long as they don't force everyone to follow them. The policy of killing bin Laden is supported by many people who don't belong to a religion. Bin Laden's attacks killed all sorts of different people. It's hard to argue that the Obama administration was carrying out a religious vendetta with this operation. I read this article in my office a stone's throw from Ground Zero. I found the details about the policy-making and military operation fascinating. I'm glad I didn't wake up that morning to read that we leveled a suburb in Pakistan with 32 2000lb guided bombs (and we think we might have gotten Bin Laden)!

shawndumas 15y ago

print version -- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true&currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_...

davidw 15y ago

"The owner of the house, who we reached for comment, had been residing in the UK, and was not aware of current events, and was distraught to discover the state of the home on his return. 'Between the crashed helicopter, burned animal stalls, and bullet marks everywhere, I can safely say I will not be utilizing AirBnB again - the place is completely trashed', Haddad told us"

hk43 15y ago
Are we are witnessing the birth of the AirBnB jokes here? ;-)

flipbrad 15y ago

the US military invades Bin Laden's compound, calmly shoots him, searches the place, takes his body, disposes it at sea, whilst america's top brass follows... and the only recording of any of this is two DNA shots and a video taken from a drone 5km above it all - not even one photo of the face? He's not even recognisable to the soldiers sent in on the mission, so one has to lie down next to him as a human ruler (yep - about 4 inches bigger than your are, Joe!) Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen. Also: this article is gloating, snuff pornography that betrays a total lack of journalistic instinct. When a journalist explicitly makes excuses for discrepancies in the story he is reporting, rather than examining them, you know that an article was not worth your time and attention.

joejohnson 15y ago
I don't know why you're getting down votes. This story seems well written, but for the majority of the story (all of the important parts), it relies only on information released by the government. Why should we believe this story? It seems to be a perfect tale that can't be corroborated now.
- showerst 15y ago
  The downed helicopter is certainly evidence that _something_ happened involving a US operation in Pakistan. There was a statement mourning his death that has been accepted as originating with Al Qaeda (by the US Govt, organizations that monitor militant activity, as well as parties like Al-Jazeera). By the situation's very nature there are only a handful of people with the facts, and they're all going to work for either the US or Pakistani governments. At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I'd say that the evidence is conclusive, but I suppose one could work up a conspiracy involving dozens (hundreds?) of people in the administration from the president down to rank & file soldiers. As for the photos, There was supposedly a heated debate within the administration about releasing the pictures, but it was decided that the harm they would do to the US' image was worse than the value of a photo as a piece of evidence. The piece's author not questioning the discrepancies can be put down to believing in a "Fog of war" in the exact recollections and communications, plus the fact that not a single difference was really material to the story. I think it's interesting that they mentioned them at all.

pointyhat 15y ago

We will never know what really happened, just what people want us to know.

pointyhat 15y ago
I've been watching this post and the karma on it is up and down like mad. Peaking at 5, and a low of 1. It's surprising how many people think that what they are told is the full picture. Having worked for a couple of nefarious defence-related organisations over the years, I've observed that it's quite simply true that propaganda is just as easy to get into people's minds as facts.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I am surprised there aren't more comments like the parent comment. Are people really going to swallow this whole thing without any corroboration by another source? I guess I can understand that; it's easier to believe what you read. However, when people (in the comments here) raise objections or have opposing views than the picture being painted in this article, they are being harshly downvoted. I would have hoped for more skepticism on HN. :(
  - pointyhat 15y ago
    Spot on. I don't get the whole "we dumped the body in the sea" crap. That's not proof. My children tell better lies.

zwieback 15y ago

I was a little surprised that they used wire-link fence in the simulated compound. Regardless of whether it caused the first helicopter to crash it seems to me a real wall would have made the training more effective. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that defense contractors have already come up with quickly deployable simulated walls.

runjake 15y ago
I think the article's a bit wrong on that part. DEVGRU, Special Operations outfits, and even conventional US forces have access to walls and don't use chain-link simulations.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  Chain-link can be taken down and moved quicker than a standard wall. This used to be an important factor when you didn't want 'stuff' to be seen by satellites, needed to setup and take things down quickly. I don't know if it's still a factor today.
  - runjake 15y ago
    It's not. And modular walls are quicker than chain-link. Army SF commonly uses framed plywood walls with locking, thick metal drop hinges on each side, roughly how a ranch gate works. They're modular so that they can be quickly re-arranged, not to hide from satellites.

joejohnson 15y ago

I'm disappointed in the discussion here. Any comment that remotely alludes to any information that might contradict the US gov official story is being downvoted. Why are people resistant to entertain opposing viewpoints on this story? It seems unscientific (and bad journalistic practice) to rely only on one source.

mcantelon 15y ago
Especially given the number of times the US military has lied to the public.

arjunnarayan 15y ago

Amid all this collective celebration, I would like to point out one excerpt (that nobody seems to have mentioned here) that leaves me disgusted: "The C.I.A. intensified its intelligence-collection efforts, and, according to a recent report in the Guardian, a physician working for the agency conducted an immunization drive in Abbottabad, in the hope of acquiring DNA samples from bin Laden’s children. (No one in the compound ultimately received any immunizations.)" From a global health policy perspective, doctors and campaigners in third world countries already face huge uphill battles in education and decreasing fears about vaccinations. It probably isn't amiss to say that in helping fuel the FUD about vaccinations being a CIA plot, more people have been killed due to these fears than in acts of terrorism in the last decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-the-cias-vaccination-ploy-in-pakistan/2011/07/15/gIQASu12GI_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-the-...

yid 15y ago
There's a huge difference between vaccinations themselves being a CIA plot, and a vaccination drive being a CIA plot. I have no problem with the latter.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  The people who need the vaccinations won't see the difference. That little detail would have been better kept under wraps. Nobody needed to know about it.
- Goladus 15y ago
  Slightly more important (which isn't saying much) is the difference between the vaccination drive being a CIA plot and the CIA exploiting its existence.

vinodkd 15y ago

Great article. I had to comment on this bit, tho: "ordered sandwich platters from Costco" Nice to see the White house doesn't splurge willy-nilly :))

vegai 15y ago

"At one point, Biden, who had been fingering a rosary, turned to Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman. “We should all go to Mass tonight,” he said." Not to ask forgiveness for breaking a commandement, I would wager.