The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed(esquire.com)
esquire.com
The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed
http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313?src=rss
9 comments
I wish HN had an option to change the URL after submission. Obviously the domain would have to be the same, but it would be nice to change the ending if it meant showing all pages, the print version, or what have you.
I hear you. That said, I think there are several good reasons for preferring to submit the canonical URL, which on most websites will include links to specify other page formats. Among other things, that helps HN's duplicate submission detector work much better.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4624933
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4624933
Thanks. I read all the way to the end and then realized I still had eight more pages to go! It's certainly going to take some time to read it all so, like you, I've added the "one long page" to Instapaper.
So what's the take away here? We need to pay even more money to the US military? $800 BILLION a year isn't enough?
> The ones Vice-President Biden called "the finest warriors in the history of the world"?
Does anyone think this level of appalling ignorance and arrogance helps the US in any way? I know Biden was excited about Bin Laden's death but come on. These so-called warriors followed a tip and snuck up on some people who they massively outgunned and managed to kill them. I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.
P.S. Can we please keep this political nonsense off HN? I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.
> The ones Vice-President Biden called "the finest warriors in the history of the world"?
Does anyone think this level of appalling ignorance and arrogance helps the US in any way? I know Biden was excited about Bin Laden's death but come on. These so-called warriors followed a tip and snuck up on some people who they massively outgunned and managed to kill them. I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.
P.S. Can we please keep this political nonsense off HN? I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.
‘We need to pay even more money to the US military? $800 BILLION a year isn't enough?’
Here's an alternative takeaway: we should use those $800 billion better. Perhaps spend more of them on people who come home after war.
‘I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.’
Killing someone isn't super impressive, I guess. Doing so with minimum collateral damage in hostile environs is.
‘I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.’
Considering the general tendency of people to be interested in the US's interventionist policies, they may be interested in discussing a side that is rarely discussed. Also, please look up the definition of a mercenary. It seems reasonable that, like many, you meant to use it in a derogatory fashion; instead, you simply used it incorrectly. SEALs are US citizens fighting in their country's army, not a foreign one.
Here's an alternative takeaway: we should use those $800 billion better. Perhaps spend more of them on people who come home after war.
‘I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.’
Killing someone isn't super impressive, I guess. Doing so with minimum collateral damage in hostile environs is.
‘I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.’
Considering the general tendency of people to be interested in the US's interventionist policies, they may be interested in discussing a side that is rarely discussed. Also, please look up the definition of a mercenary. It seems reasonable that, like many, you meant to use it in a derogatory fashion; instead, you simply used it incorrectly. SEALs are US citizens fighting in their country's army, not a foreign one.
The take away here is in the US we pump a ton of money into our military for what happens on the battlefield and then forget completely about the people who come back and have to reintegrate into society. US soliders have extremely high rates of suicide, depression, divorce, ect because we do nothing to get these people support afterwards.
I agree though, this has no place on HN.
I agree though, this has no place on HN.
I'm a big supporter of returning veterans, and I've worked pretty closely with a number of national veterans' support organizations. And this is indeed a touching story. But, at the risk of sounding a bit insensitive, I have to wonder: precisely what is the author asking us to do about this situation?
The fact is, a career as a combat operative does not prepare you for a civilian life at home. Sure, you get some fantastic team training and basic skills. You get some international experience. You get (in theory) a strong peer network. But you don't get a guarantee when you come home. You're back in the game like everyone else, and you make what you can of your life. And in the case of today's vets, you're back in the game with the deck stacked against you.
The WW2 generation came home and, in many cases, achieved a great deal of success in the civilian sector. What is it about today's military that prevents the same from happening on a similar level? Certainly it's not the talent or the caliber of the individuals involved. Many of the vets I know today are outstanding and capable individuals.
Instead, I think it's got something to do with the way the military is organized today, and the way we fight our wars. Today's professional military is nothing like the military of old. It's made our military an incredibly effective force, but it has completely isolated the military and civilian sectors from one another. We almost have a separate warrior caste within our society these days, and we have no idea what to do with them when they transition out of it. Nor are they prepared to do so. And their repeated deployments certainly haven't done them any favors in making a steady or stable transition.
Where I'm going with this is to suggest that funding more government assistance programs for veterans is probably not the answer. It feels like the right thing to do. But ultimately, it's a crutch. It's a band-aid. These folks need job training. So I think we should be giving our active duty personnel some practical training, in addition to martial training. Not just indirectly -- the kind of training often bragged about in recruiting ads -- but directly. And we should be finding ways to interchange talent, skills, resources, and knowledge between the civilian and military worlds. The complete separation of one sector from another is the root of the problem.
In as much as the service branches have recruiting issues, and in as much as the civilian sector has a very hard time reabsorbing vets, it seems like a return to real ties between the two worlds is in order.
The fact is, a career as a combat operative does not prepare you for a civilian life at home. Sure, you get some fantastic team training and basic skills. You get some international experience. You get (in theory) a strong peer network. But you don't get a guarantee when you come home. You're back in the game like everyone else, and you make what you can of your life. And in the case of today's vets, you're back in the game with the deck stacked against you.
The WW2 generation came home and, in many cases, achieved a great deal of success in the civilian sector. What is it about today's military that prevents the same from happening on a similar level? Certainly it's not the talent or the caliber of the individuals involved. Many of the vets I know today are outstanding and capable individuals.
Instead, I think it's got something to do with the way the military is organized today, and the way we fight our wars. Today's professional military is nothing like the military of old. It's made our military an incredibly effective force, but it has completely isolated the military and civilian sectors from one another. We almost have a separate warrior caste within our society these days, and we have no idea what to do with them when they transition out of it. Nor are they prepared to do so. And their repeated deployments certainly haven't done them any favors in making a steady or stable transition.
Where I'm going with this is to suggest that funding more government assistance programs for veterans is probably not the answer. It feels like the right thing to do. But ultimately, it's a crutch. It's a band-aid. These folks need job training. So I think we should be giving our active duty personnel some practical training, in addition to martial training. Not just indirectly -- the kind of training often bragged about in recruiting ads -- but directly. And we should be finding ways to interchange talent, skills, resources, and knowledge between the civilian and military worlds. The complete separation of one sector from another is the root of the problem.
In as much as the service branches have recruiting issues, and in as much as the civilian sector has a very hard time reabsorbing vets, it seems like a return to real ties between the two worlds is in order.
> The WW2 generation came home and, in many cases, achieved a great deal of success in the civilian sector. What is it about today's military that prevents the same from happening on a similar level?
Could it be the general economic climate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econo...
WW2 ends, you come home the victors, and the economy is doing great and there's a ton of opportunity out there.
The War on Terror is ongoing, it's too early to declare anyone a victor and so the whole thing is tainted, and the economy is in the dumps.
Could it be the general economic climate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econo...
WW2 ends, you come home the victors, and the economy is doing great and there's a ton of opportunity out there.
The War on Terror is ongoing, it's too early to declare anyone a victor and so the whole thing is tainted, and the economy is in the dumps.
I'm confused why he didn't take a medical retirement at 16 years; wouldn't be that hard (they bend the rules for combat and SOF). That would have gotten him a pension and health care.
If you can't say what you did, aren't willing to use the skills you spent 16 years getting, and don't take a pension, and don't make an effort to learn/do something new (when you have ~hundreds of thousands in free tuition assistance available), uh, you're kind of screwed. But largely self-inflicted screwing.
If you can't say what you did, aren't willing to use the skills you spent 16 years getting, and don't take a pension, and don't make an effort to learn/do something new (when you have ~hundreds of thousands in free tuition assistance available), uh, you're kind of screwed. But largely self-inflicted screwing.
For someone who fears for their own safety (training your wife how to shoot through a door with a shotgun, trying to scrub your name from public records, etc), talking to a reporter seems like utter madness.
I don't know much about this guy's particular details (obviously), but he knew the rules. To break it down into something easy to understand, here are the the only two ways to continue getting money from the government after you quit:
1. Serve for at least 20 years so you get a (retirement)pension, OR
2. Become permanently injured/disabled so you get a (medical) pension and benefits.
Unfortunately for this guy, scar tissue doesn't count as a disability. But he knew all that when he joined the SEALs. When you join the special forces community, they tell you straight up that you are probably going to get injured and you will live a tough life. You know that you don't get any special treatment.
There are thousands of ex-SEALs and other special forces guys out there living with bad knees and lingering injuries like bullet wounds, broken bones, etc. Why should this guy get anything beyond whay they get? Complaining to the media makes him hand his entire community look bad.
Source: I'm in the military and am friends with a few Air Force Pararescue Jumpers. Not the same as the SEALs, but they work with them and know when a guy is being a whiny b*h.
Unfortunately for this guy, scar tissue doesn't count as a disability. But he knew all that when he joined the SEALs. When you join the special forces community, they tell you straight up that you are probably going to get injured and you will live a tough life. You know that you don't get any special treatment.
There are thousands of ex-SEALs and other special forces guys out there living with bad knees and lingering injuries like bullet wounds, broken bones, etc. Why should this guy get anything beyond whay they get? Complaining to the media makes him hand his entire community look bad.
Source: I'm in the military and am friends with a few Air Force Pararescue Jumpers. Not the same as the SEALs, but they work with them and know when a guy is being a whiny b*h.
.. here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No pension, no health care, and no protection for himself or his family.
Can anyone speak to the truth of this? I'd never thought much about it, but if that's true it's a pretty terrible gig. I was under the impression that most members of the military get substantial tuition assistance? That seems like a benefit most Americans don't have the luxury of.
No pension? Really?
Can anyone speak to the truth of this? I'd never thought much about it, but if that's true it's a pretty terrible gig. I was under the impression that most members of the military get substantial tuition assistance? That seems like a benefit most Americans don't have the luxury of.
No pension? Really?
He probably means that they don't get a pension when they "retire". Well, of course not. I don't get a pension either if I "retire" from a company at <30.
Correct me if I'm wrong in your case, but I'm under the impression he has undergone more stress in those few short years than I will go through in my entire life. The country that employed him to undergo that stress should take care of him.
He wasn't forced to take on such a hard job, he chose it, over and over again by re-enlisting; it's a voluntary military. While I think we should do more for our vets to help them transition back to civilian life, we don't owe them a lifetime of babysitting because of their personal choices, no matter the job they performed. -- A vet myself
So what? Certain positions in certain sports last less than 10 years before they can't play any position any more. They don't get a pension either. Granted, they do get paid much better but that's just the market prioritizing what's important. :)
But how many of those jobs involve working in an environment anywhere close to that of the armed forces? It's not like you can up and quit any time you want, either.
I have a hard time feeling sympathy for unrepentant murderers, regardless of who they have murdered.
Murder is unlawful killing; Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful.
More to the point, Personally? I think the 17 year olds we throw into actual battle are the least morally culpable of us all. They have to face the physical consequences of an enemy who actively fights back; they have to face the psychological consequences of having killed another human.
And they have to make the decision (the decision to become part of the military machine or not) usually at an age where none of us are equipped to make that sort of decision.
You and I? we're paying for it. If our government is right (and I don't know that they are) we are benefiting from it.
I think that you and I, assuming you are a tax paying US citizen like I am, are in many ways more culpable for the unjust killings our country commits than the 17 year olds that actually pull the trigger.
(well, that, and while the war in Iraq looks completely unjustified from my perspective, with the information I have, killing bin laden, well, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but it certainly has more justification than invading Iraq.)
More to the point, Personally? I think the 17 year olds we throw into actual battle are the least morally culpable of us all. They have to face the physical consequences of an enemy who actively fights back; they have to face the psychological consequences of having killed another human.
And they have to make the decision (the decision to become part of the military machine or not) usually at an age where none of us are equipped to make that sort of decision.
You and I? we're paying for it. If our government is right (and I don't know that they are) we are benefiting from it.
I think that you and I, assuming you are a tax paying US citizen like I am, are in many ways more culpable for the unjust killings our country commits than the 17 year olds that actually pull the trigger.
(well, that, and while the war in Iraq looks completely unjustified from my perspective, with the information I have, killing bin laden, well, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but it certainly has more justification than invading Iraq.)
> Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful.
Because you say so? Because your president thinks so? That doesn't make it any more legal. In short, killing people without trial is 100% unlawful, except in a declared war (and that means between countries, not "against terrorism" or "against drugs") or in self defense. As far as I know, Osama bin Laden has never been tried before a regular court of justice and even if he had been, breaking into his house and shooting him would likely not have been a proper execution of the death sentence.
Because you say so? Because your president thinks so? That doesn't make it any more legal. In short, killing people without trial is 100% unlawful, except in a declared war (and that means between countries, not "against terrorism" or "against drugs") or in self defense. As far as I know, Osama bin Laden has never been tried before a regular court of justice and even if he had been, breaking into his house and shooting him would likely not have been a proper execution of the death sentence.
>Murder is unlawful killing; Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful.
Uh... wtf? Are you under the impression that the laws the US makes apply to the entire planet? Some group of people claimed they had the right to kill someone, then they went into a foreign country (in violation of numerous laws, etc.) and killed someone. That's very clearly murder, among other crimes.
If you think it's ok because you country made some decision that said it's ok then I guess my country can do that too? I think I'm going to lobby for a law that says I can legally go to your country and take lots of money by force.
Uh... wtf? Are you under the impression that the laws the US makes apply to the entire planet? Some group of people claimed they had the right to kill someone, then they went into a foreign country (in violation of numerous laws, etc.) and killed someone. That's very clearly murder, among other crimes.
If you think it's ok because you country made some decision that said it's ok then I guess my country can do that too? I think I'm going to lobby for a law that says I can legally go to your country and take lots of money by force.
[deleted]
I agree with everything you've said here. But just for the sake of argument...unlawful is sort of subjective isnt it? Might the unannounced raid and killing of a man on Pakistani soil be considered unlawful in Pakistan?
"lawful" certainly depends on what laws you follow. I am, of course, speaking as an American.
I think that everyone would agree that the soldier in question was also an American, working under US law.
I mean, yes, I'd bet a Pakistani would see the matter differently; But usually, to charge someone with a crime like murder, you need something of a "Mens rea" - the state of mind of the person doing the killing matters quite a lot. In this case, the soldier could reasonably have thought he was acting lawfully under US law, and was reasonably justified in believing that US law was what he had a responsibility to follow.
How should conflicts of law be resolved between countries? I don't know. Usually, it seems, the laws of the more powerful country prevails, which obviously has little to do with justice. But personally, I think that if blame is to be assigned, blame ought to be pointed at our government (or, at the very least, higher ups in our government; not the kid who actually had to pull the trigger.)
I think that everyone would agree that the soldier in question was also an American, working under US law.
I mean, yes, I'd bet a Pakistani would see the matter differently; But usually, to charge someone with a crime like murder, you need something of a "Mens rea" - the state of mind of the person doing the killing matters quite a lot. In this case, the soldier could reasonably have thought he was acting lawfully under US law, and was reasonably justified in believing that US law was what he had a responsibility to follow.
How should conflicts of law be resolved between countries? I don't know. Usually, it seems, the laws of the more powerful country prevails, which obviously has little to do with justice. But personally, I think that if blame is to be assigned, blame ought to be pointed at our government (or, at the very least, higher ups in our government; not the kid who actually had to pull the trigger.)
[deleted]
You wouldn't get all these downvotes if you put any amount of thought into your comment. Right now it's a one-line potshot at someone who is widely seen as doing a good thing.
In a more civil society, people go to trial for accusations, especially ones as serious as terrorism.
I think it says a lot about our society that it is widely seen as a 'good thing' that we kill out of passion.
I think it says a lot about our society that it is widely seen as a 'good thing' that we kill out of passion.
Love the rose colored glasses but we are at war. The only reason we even got trials in WW2 was after the conflict ended, this conflict seems to be almost endless.
He killed a man who declared war on my country, attacked it successfully twice (both WTC bombings), carried out attacks on my country's assets overseas, and was (apparently) plotting new ones.
I would have preferred it if bin Laden stood trial, but he knew the risks he was taking when he did these things. We have many admissions of guilt on video, so I don't think it would be a long trial if he got one.
I would have preferred it if bin Laden stood trial, but he knew the risks he was taking when he did these things. We have many admissions of guilt on video, so I don't think it would be a long trial if he got one.
If you think he was killed 'out of passion', then you are not thinking. It was an execution of a war criminal.
> It was an execution of a war criminal.
Proof? Due process?
Even Saddam Hussein got a trial and he was known to have been responsible for war crimes at the time, not just declared as such by media, politicians etc. ...
Proof? Due process?
Even Saddam Hussein got a trial and he was known to have been responsible for war crimes at the time, not just declared as such by media, politicians etc. ...
Who has done more wrong US army or Al Qaeda? Killed more civilians? Done for money or faith? Which is more important money or faith? What about Trial and Bin Laden's rights? Why wouldn't Obama be killed for killing civilians?
My country's actions should be litigated separately. We're talking about Osama bin Laden and the man who shot him.
What do you think would have been a better alternative to the raid in which Osama Bin Laden was killed?
Not rushing to war just because you want oil?
Please, tell me about all the oil in Afghanistan, and all the oil gained in a night border raid in Pakistan. Seriously, stop spewing rhetoric. It's embarrassing.
I didn't ask about the wars. I asked about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
Bin Laden was an admitted architect of mass murder. I'd have felt better if they carried out a trial with him in abstentia and sentenced him to death before his execution, but so be it - his killing was justified.
Bin Laden gave the money , he did not plan 911 attacks. All he did is finance terrorism , Saudis and Pakistanese gvt still do , yet I did not see USA invade S.A and Pakistan.
[deleted](2)
Since esquire wants you to click through 9 pages and I like to add it to Instapaper.