4 ms·

This is in conspiracy theory territory. You really think there's no difference between sending strike teams to kill (a) the number one wanted war criminal respo

by chengiz 13y ago

This is in conspiracy theory territory. You really think there's no difference between sending strike teams to kill (a) the number one wanted war criminal responsible for the second biggest attack on your soil into a country where you already have troops for the same purpose, and (b) a regular old whistleblower into an independent country that owes you nothing?

wavefunction 13y ago
We might have some troops running around in the TAR of PK but that's not exactly where OBL was hiding.
pyre 13y ago
Prior to the Osama bin Laden strike, claiming that such a thing could happen (the US sending a strike team into Pakistan without any approval/warning) would be in conspiracy theory territory. I'm not saying that the US will send in a strike team to Hong Kong (or Pakistan or another political heavy-weight) over Snowden. I was operating under the assumption that most of the countries with no extradition to the US might not have the political clout for "anyone to care" if the US sent in a team to capture or assassinate Snowden[1]. I actually went an took a look at the extradition list[2][3], and it seems there are quite a few countries that I could see him stay in without the US caring enough to send in a covert team. [1] The assassinate is just to drive the point home about how little people might care (other than politicians everywhere decrying the act to gain possible political favour). I agree that the US is probably more interested in putting him on trial than 'taking him out.' [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_...
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Prior to the Osama bin Laden strike, claiming that such a thing could happen (the US sending a strike team into Pakistan without any approval/warning) would be in conspiracy theory territory. No it would not, because Presidential candidate Obama made it clear he would do this in a debate in October 2008: And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/01/obama-vowed-kill-osama-bin-laden/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/01/...
  - pyre 13y ago
    Well, I stand corrected. My point was that not-so-long-ago, such a thing would be unheard of. Seems not-so-long-ago would be prior to that 2008 speech. It's worth noting that what he said in his campaign speech, and what he does in office are two different things. That said, it even being in his speech would probably bump it out of conspiracy theory territory.
- reeses 13y ago
  Wha? It's been official presidential policy since the first Bush administration and re-asserted under Clinton. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm is an example of a presidential directive regarding extraordinary rendition to the US. (Never mind the extraordinary rendition to countries such as Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc., used to circumvent legal issues regarding torture.) There's plenty of historical precedent as well. Israel has many well-known cases of tracking Nazis down on foreign soil and rendering them for trial with US support and assistance. Eichmann, Entebbe, Munich/Operation Wrath of God, etc. Once you get into 'universal jurisdiction', you'll discover violations of international law committed without the assistance of the country harboring enemies of our United States. Sometimes the US has worked around official channels, such as in the case of the Achille Lauro.

by chengiz 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

We might have some troops running around in the TAR of PK but that's not exactly where OBL was hiding.

pyre 13y ago

Prior to the Osama bin Laden strike, claiming that such a thing could happen (the US sending a strike team into Pakistan without any approval/warning) would be in conspiracy theory territory. I'm not saying that the US will send in a strike team to Hong Kong (or Pakistan or another political heavy-weight) over Snowden. I was operating under the assumption that most of the countries with no extradition to the US might not have the political clout for "anyone to care" if the US sent in a team to capture or assassinate Snowden[1]. I actually went an took a look at the extradition list[2][3], and it seems there are quite a few countries that I could see him stay in without the US caring enough to send in a covert team. [1] The assassinate is just to drive the point home about how little people might care (other than politicians everywhere decrying the act to gain possible political favour). I agree that the US is probably more interested in putting him on trial than 'taking him out.' [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_...

brown9-2 13y ago
Prior to the Osama bin Laden strike, claiming that such a thing could happen (the US sending a strike team into Pakistan without any approval/warning) would be in conspiracy theory territory. No it would not, because Presidential candidate Obama made it clear he would do this in a debate in October 2008: And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/01/obama-vowed-kill-osama-bin-laden/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/01/...
- pyre 13y ago
  Well, I stand corrected. My point was that not-so-long-ago, such a thing would be unheard of. Seems not-so-long-ago would be prior to that 2008 speech. It's worth noting that what he said in his campaign speech, and what he does in office are two different things. That said, it even being in his speech would probably bump it out of conspiracy theory territory.
reeses 13y ago
Wha? It's been official presidential policy since the first Bush administration and re-asserted under Clinton. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm is an example of a presidential directive regarding extraordinary rendition to the US. (Never mind the extraordinary rendition to countries such as Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc., used to circumvent legal issues regarding torture.) There's plenty of historical precedent as well. Israel has many well-known cases of tracking Nazis down on foreign soil and rendering them for trial with US support and assistance. Eichmann, Entebbe, Munich/Operation Wrath of God, etc. Once you get into 'universal jurisdiction', you'll discover violations of international law committed without the assistance of the country harboring enemies of our United States. Sometimes the US has worked around official channels, such as in the case of the Achille Lauro.