Legality of attack on Usama Bin Laden [Split]

[Thanas]

There's no point in participating in a thread that Bakustra is shitting his brain out into, and I'm a damned fool for trying. Good-day.

I would suggest you either concede or attempt to argue your point.

[NecronLord]

The problem is (and I admit I'm venturing into opinion here and not hard fact) is that the guys in power in the US during 9/11 were after revenge, not fair play or ethics.

I would think so too, and can't really blame them for wanting revenge and blood - I would (I did!) too. Of course, at some point it should probably have occured to them to ameliorate that with practicality and ethics - within the first weeks or months rather than letting the rather haphazard and very abusive system they created linger years later... oh well.

[Broomstick]

I wanted revenge, too, but even that same day I made my rational mind overrule my emotions. I might want something, that doesn't mean I should get it, or that it's in my best interests. Likewise for the county. Rulers should have the self-control to say "Hey, yeah, we'd like to see and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but rather than leaving everyone blind and toothless what is really the best response to generate the best long-term consequences for us?"

I believe (opinion again) that the Bush Administration failed in this. They let the country down. Unfortunately, they also left such a mess that it will take years to undo the damage.

At this point I think eliminating bin Laden - whether by arrest or by death - is a net positive for the US but that could change with more information. The US press reports than in many nations that approved of bin Laden's elimination the approval of the US hasn't improved. Well, I don't see those two being yoked together, really. Just because you approve of an isolated action or event doesn't mean you suddenly change your mind about someone you dislike. I'd prefer such nations to be honest in their disapproval of us, then everyone knows where everyone else stands.

Apparently, the SEALs involved in the raid were wearing helmet cams. There are multiple benefits and consequences to that. I think it has the potential to keep operatives behaving within the rules and guidelines they have been issued as they know their actions are being observed. It provides confirmation of a party's story rather than simply relying on whose word is more trustworthy. And, of course, documenting the identity of those killed is necessary in today's world. The downside, of course, is that such cameras will also record misbehavior, and may result in some rather gory evidence. I do find it fascinating that this is such a well documented event. True, in prior wars (all the way back to the US Civil War) photo documentation has been used but the trend has vastly accelerated, as well as becoming more sophisticated, since the 1980's.

In that respect it is also becoming more like normal police operations in the US, where many jurisdictions routinely mount cameras in all squad cars to document the actions of the police, and confessions of suspects much be videotaped. I believe I've stated this before, but in many ways this raid on bin Laden's residence really does have aspects of US police procedures as much or more so than a military operation. All of that does make me believe that, had he surrendered he would have been taken alive. "Assassination" implies killing no matter what. I don't think that fits here. Just because it's likely you won't take someone alive does not mean you set out with intent to kill at all costs, it's more of a realistic assessment of the situation.

[Anguirus]

They may have different reasons for doing so, unless you're going to suggest that al-Qaeda only gets followers through mass, incredibly effective brainwashing.

Again: so? How is this relevant to my point that there is a difference between terrorism and war? Moreover, if I cheer for the death of bin Laden (which I do not, incidentally), I am implicitly supporting the US military. That doesn't mean I am brainwashed by them, or that I always agree with their actions. Your thought process is distressingly incoherent, and I see no benefit to continuing this tangent.

That's not what their goal was, you know, or rather don't. Their goal was to convince the US to invade a "Middle Eastern Nation" in response, expand the war by encouraging groups in neighboring countries to attack the US occupational forces, and then simply wait until the US is forced to withdraw like the Soviet Union. At that point, and at that point alone, does it become crazy by suggesting that a Wahabbi Caliphate will be practical at that point.

Aside from demonstrating what a sucker Bush is, another point with which I agree, I am still not sure what this says as to the morality of killing civilians. Is it not relevant to you that their "strategy" is literally deranged, dependent on assets that they do not possess and never will? If I believe that twenty million people will rise to follow me if I burn down an orphanage, should I be treated as if I am pursuing a legitimate strategic goal?

I'm also not really sure that you can apply non-overlapping magisteria to propaganda and war, even with the power of capitalization.

They are not non-overlapping, but they are distinct. Let's imagine that the propaganda department of a major nation began rounding up and shooting citizens who shared ethnicity with a belligerent nation that threatened its existence. Is inciting a non-specific terror and fury in the citizens of the belligerent nation an end that justifies these means?

So how did it end the war, idiot? By frightening the Japanese government into surrender. In other words, inducing terror. If only English had a word to describe that method of activity!

This is missing the point so badly that simply quoting the point you attempted to answer (trick: you have to read it) does an adequate job of explaining what you're missing.

The point of Hiroshima was not to terrify Japanese citizens into fearing for their lives ad infinitum. It was to end a war that was itself a vortex of human suffering, and to end it in weeks, perhaps months. (Of course, it turned out ot be more like days

The typo was in my original post.

Don't you get it? Yes, the leaflets had a propaganda goal of inspiring fear, which dovetailed nicely with a specific strategic goal that existed independently of denying the Imperial war machine the benefits of that city and its industrial facilities. I said from the beginning, I don't deny that strategic bombing is ugly, possibly indefensible, and blurs the line between war and terrorism (which is a separate issue from its morality). But, given a highly specific and short-term goal of conquering Japan in less than a year and ending the Imperial government--a goal that was realistic, yet also highly difficult--I argue that the raid did not seek to kill people for its own sake with the goal of seeking to diffuse non-specific terror in the entire populace, nor was it some kind of ultimate "symbolic" expression of "we really really hate Japan."

Just to belabor the point further:

US: "We will destroy one of these cities if your government, with whom we are engaged in total war, doesn't throw in the towel and stop killing people."
Japan: *from which no towels are forthcoming*
US: *destroys one of the cities on the list*

Al-Qaeda: "We hate you and want you to go away forever!"
US: "That's nice."
Al-Qaeda: "Let's get them to take us seriously by killing a whole bunch of people in a sneak attack! Then they will blunder into the Middle East and kill even more people, so everyone will hate them more! Then ??? Then Profit!"

See, what they could have done is rammed the plane into a residential area packed with townhouses and started fires.

I eagerly await Broomstick's analysis of how easy/hard that would be to pull off. That also eliminates the symbolism, which I've freely admitted was a goal as well.

Or they could have targeted a sports event with tens of thousands of people.

IIRC there were attempts on the 1996 Olympics, but I'm uncertain if al-Qaeda had any involvement.

Those would probably have killed as many or more people. But they chose specific targets.

This doesn't hurt my argument in the least, actually. If you could show that they would definitely have killed more people with a different target strategy, you would have a stronger case. But you have to remember, I didn't rule out that the symbolism of destroying the WTC influenced its choice as a target. In fact, I think it probably did. What I asked you to demonstrate to me was that the goal of flipping off America (and as Thanas notes, doing some sort of incredibly vague damage to the US economy that I'm sure al-Qaeda had worked out in detail and that, oddly enough, had absolutely no impact on our ability and desire to project power in the Middle East) justified the sneak attack on civilians.

The Pentagon was clearly chosen for its symbolism, why do you think that they didn't choose one of the tallest buildings in the world for the same reason? Because you're uncomfortable with mass murderers possibly having reasons beyond slaughtering people? Because you think that I'm calling the 9/11 attacks a good thing?

Uh...no, none of that. Are you at all familiar with my posting history? I'm quite familiar with the bare-knuckle style of this board, but the drawback is that it can degenerate into rabid gnashing and clawing, complete with rampant speculation about your opponent's nefarious motives and moral bankruptcy. In other words, no, I don't think you're fucking evil because I disagree with you that terrorism and war can be separated into distinct concepts (with significant overlap in the middle). Now knock it off with the flailing speculative psychoanalysis already.

It is very telling how the US war machine broadcast "one of these thirty cities will be destroyed! we can't be more specific!" Clearly this was a propaganda effort designed to induce panic in the Japanese population and further induce them to surrendering- or maybe it was both. Maybe it wasn't a pure-and-simple effort to save Japanese lives. Maybe they decided to make a token effort, or maybe it was part of a cynical propaganda strategy, but pretending that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely military targets and not terrorism, while 9/11 was purely civilian and clearly terrorism, when both targeted military and economic apparatus and both sought to terrorize the population... Maybe Americans just can't come to terms with our history after all.

Again, knock it off with putting words in my mouth. One of the first fucking things I said is that strategic bombing blurs the line between war and terrorism. So implicitly, I'm not defending the thesis that only "pure" war and "pure" terrorism exist. I think both do exist in principle but are incredibly rare.

I simply think that comparing Hiroshima to 9/11 is an extremely poor analogy, chosen for emotional reasons rather than any inherent similarity, other than "people died, and airplanes were involved." When a belligerent nation with massive technological superiority with whom you are engaged in a near-suicidal fight to the finish warns you not to fucking be somewhere, and helpfully points out that you might want to get your government to stop fighting...well, that's a hell of a lot more consideration than al-Qaeda gave anyone. Does that make al-Qaeda better than SAC? I don't know, because the situations are not easy to compare. I'm not trying to address that, as I said almost immediately.

Really, if you want my advice, you should have brought up the Doolittle raid. I would have a nearly impossible time calling that an act of war instead of an act of terror (for my money it's straddling the line as close as you can get). Moreover, the propaganda impact was much more significant than the physical damage done both as the end result, as well as acknowledged in the planning stage. The only argument in my corner--but it is a not-insignificant one--is that a state of total war already existed between the US and Japan, one that the US did not initiate.

[Broomstick]

See, what they could have done is rammed the plane into a residential area packed with townhouses and started fires.

I eagerly await Broomstick's analysis of how easy/hard that would be to pull off. That also eliminates the symbolism, which I've freely admitted was a goal as well.

Well, of course on 9/11 they could have plonked one of the hijacked airplanes down just about anywhere. Given how such areas are more spread out it might have even been easier - at least one of those airplanes that went into the WTC was making some high-bank turns to hit the target, well in excess of normal operating parameters for those airplanes.

On the down side (from the terrorist viewpoint) such a crash looks much more like a "normal" airplane accident. They wanted people to know this was deliberate, not an accident. The other thing is that such a neighborhood of townhouses, being spread out, is inherently less dense in population than skyscrapers are. Lower height buildings are easier to escape. It's much easier to fight fires in low rise buildings.

If your goal is to kill lots of people then skyscrapers, containing more people are harder to put out once they are thoroughly on fire, make "better" targets. To that end, any modern skyscraper would be preferable. Of course, the bigger the building(s) the bigger the impact in every sense of the word. The WTC towers were the two largest buildings in that city. Hence, they were the targets.

That doesn't eliminate the possibility of symbolism entering into this as a factor. Yet another one is the fact they tried to bring those buildings down in 1993 and failed, so there might also have been some aspect of "finishing the job" or redeeming a failure, too.

I still think that the main focus of the 9/11 attacks in regard to the WTC was "how do we kill the greatest number of people with a hijacked airplane", not "let's strike a blow at an economic symbol!" If the economic symbolism was so important why not crash into the New York Stock Exchange or some other location on Wall Street? It would have been equally feasible, and arguably more disruptive economically as well as symbolically. The biggest difficulty in the whole operation was hijacking the airplane, not pointing it towards a specific target.

I'd argue that the Pentagon was the highly symbolic target, chosen for symbolic value, and not the WTC even if symbolism played some part in target choice. As for where Flight 93 was going - speculate all you want, I've yet to see any definitive proof of its target. Crashing into Congress while in session? That would be both symbolic and actually damaging - but damaging only on a temporary basis, as there are procedures in place for emergency replacement of representatives and senators. Crashing into the White House? The President wasn't at the White House that day, and even if he had been, there is a clear and designated line of succession. The president can run the government from Air Force One if necessary, it's essentially a "flying White House". Again, the disruption is temporary at most. We've had presidents die suddenly before, it doesn't halt the essential functions of government. Those are the symbolic targets.

The WTC as a target, though, is meant to kill lots of people. Above and beyond anything else. Again, we have testimony from actual, convicted terrorists saying that killing lots of people is what made it an attractive target. Want to attack symbols in NYC? Try the Brooklyn Bridge or the the Statue of Liberty. Want to kill people? Knock down skycraper or two. Hell, the WTC was loathed by a lot of people, it was hardly a favorite of anyone while it was still standing, the affection is not for the buildings it is for the people who died there.

[weemadando]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

[Enigma]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

But it was also mentioned in another article that he was still actively resisting capture. We still need more info.

[Enigma]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

But it was also mentioned in another article that he was still actively resisting capture. We still need more info.

Article.

[Flagg]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

But it was also mentioned in another article that he was still actively resisting capture. We still need more info.

Not hard to bash him in the face with the butt of a rifle and drag his limp ass to the helo. That said, I still don't care that we popped him.

[NecronLord]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

I wouldn't imagine so.

He would of course, still be the agreed commander of an armed resistance group and would thus be a legal comabattant (if they are counted as such) and therefore a legitimate target of violence including shooting unless he were attempting to surrender - there have been soldiers without weapons in various armies in history (for instance, military engineers do not carry weapons at all times even when working in the field) or who may be caught without weapons; it is not against the laws of war to shoot them.

[Bakustra]

Anguirus, it seems that we are talking past one another. I don't consider the 9/11 attacks to have been justified, but was rather talking about why people might celebrate them. I think that they were effective in provoking the US into a paroxysm of rage that dismantled our claims of moral superiority and dragged us into two major wars and a number of lesser raids, but I don't think that they managed to help the Middle East any.

That said, first, what I am saying is that you cannot say that because somebody supports al-Qaeda doing something that they do so for the reasons that al-Qaeda did it. For example, let's say the US embarked on a program of economic development in Africa solely to develop new markets for high-tech goods. While I would disagree with the reasons used, I would support such development efforts. Get it?

I think that you're distorting the al-Qaeda plan. The only part of their plan that was beyond their abilities is the formation of a Wahabbist Caliphate, but they nearly succeeded in everything else. Bin Laden was following the strategy that led the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to force a withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, and which put severe economic and social pressure on the Soviet Union with the cost of war. The War on Terror has cost 3 trillion dollars so far, in addition to the TSA and Homeland Security, the expansion of "national security", and enduring suspicion of Muslims. I'd say that so far he's come out ahead, even in death.

Terrorism is not actually supposed to produce infinite or indefinite terror, you dolt. The point is that the terrorists are working towards a goal- a Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka, an independent Ireland, a union of Ulster with Ireland or a continuation of its status as part of the UK, an Israel in Palestine- which if they get, they will be satisfied with. Al-Qaeda was specifically working towards a collapse of the US as a superpower and possibly a Wahabbist Caliphate, but Ezra Klein has an article quoting an expert on al-Qaeda suggesting that that was not a serious goal. If they had what they wanted, then they would have no reason to attack, unless we wish to suggest that bin Laden was a cartoon supervillain. That said, what they wanted was pretty unconscionable, so I'm not suggesting that we go with what al-Qaeda wants necessarily.

We don't disagree on the symbolic nature of the WTC, so no argument there.

The problem with saying that is that al-Qaeda should have tried to argue in favor of their goals beforehand is that their goals involve the US collapsing like the USSR. Good luck getting people to do that! They also almost certainly believe that either the average American is fully in support of the actions of the US government around the world or that they are powerless to effect change in the USA, so appealing to them is unlikely to be effective (and the US goal was not to cause a revolution but sow dissension). I think that the two are not equivalent, yes, because of a variety of factors, but that they are similar enough to be a workable analogy.

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

That depends on the situation, doesn't it? If he was executed while clearly unarmed, then it was pretty bad, but if he was killed accidentally then that doesn't change much. I mean, I'm going from the criminal aspect here, if we treat him as a combatant then it only really matters if he surrendered beforehand, though again an execution when he was plainly unarmed would be pretty shitty.

[erik_t]

Spanner into the "legality" works.

ABC NewsRadio has been reporting that Bin Laden was shot and killed while he was unarmed.

This change up anyone's arguments?

I'd think about it if he were bare-ass naked under bright lights, observed from multiple directions. The guy isn't exactly to be trusted and it would be reasonable for the SEALs to suspect he had weapons close at hand even if he weren't obviously holding one.

So as it stands, no, not in the least.

[Covenant]

From the article it sounds a lot more confused than before. I thought there were just some guards, wives, and Osama. Now it sounds like it was a huge pile of people including children. On such a high value target I still say you put him down before worrying about capturing him, especially since this guy may have had a detonator or he was going for a weapon or what. The goal was for him to end up dead anyway, now or later. This solves a lot of problems--like holding him or reprisal attacks or hostage taking for swaps or stuff. I feel safer with him dead, for sure.

I'm still satisfied that going in deliberately to kill this guy, even in a situation where he had intention to surrender, would have been legitimate. The legality issue seems to hinge on a number of archaic assassination rulings and a confusing status regarding how to classify a massive international terrorist organization. The ethics issue is pretty straightforwards--the guy was going to be executed anyway and anyone who says he wasn't massively involved in this is batshit insane, so you're not going to benefit anyone by bringing this guy in. I'm satisfied that all the 'due process' due in this process has been done before we whacked him.

Now, I'd say that it's entirely possible that this ethical stance is not legal and that the laws in question may not be ethical--but there's a degree of overlap where I think it balances out fine.

Personally it doesn't bother me. It's less heroic this way, especially since it seemed like we were able to zip-tie some of the other guys. But even if it was an assassination attempt, it doesn't bother me. And doesn't the UN statement give a legal basis? Oh well. Even if it wasn't strictly legal, that's okay. I think breaking a law for a good reason can be part of a process to improve the laws anyway.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm still satisfied that going in deliberately to kill this guy, even in a situation where he had intention to surrender, would have been legitimate.

Absolutely not. Going in with the objective of killing a given individual is all well and good when you're dealing with a wartime opponent, but dealing with crooks is an entirely different matter. The objective must always be one of arresting the individual concerned, and using minimum force consistent with self-defence. Minimum force, of course, depends on the individual you're trying to nick.

[NecronLord]

And doesn't the UN statement give a legal basis?

It all depends on if he's a criminal or a soldier. If he's a soldier, then the United States needs no legal grounds to kill an enemy soldier. If he's a criminal, then the objective should be to take him to trial.

Of course, that trial would be a massive cluster fuck.

[DudeGuyMan]

Anyone who at any point imagined that the US discovering Osama's location would result in anything but a summary execution and a "Fuck you!" to any would-be lawyers was smoking dope. I for one am eminently pleased at the notion of him being gunned down unarmed like a dog.

[Captain Seafort]

Anyone who at any point imagined that the US discovering Osama's location would result in anything but a summary execution and a "Fuck you!" to any would-be lawyers was smoking dope.

Why? Even if you ignore the legal arguments, catching him alive would have not only allowed the possibility of visibly bringing him to justice, but would also have been an intelligence goldmine.

[thejester]

Someone in the other thread mentioned the possibility of a suicide vest as well, IIRC. That happened fairly frequently in raids on al-Qaeda compounds in Iraq, so...

[Anguirus]

Anguirus, it seems that we are talking past one another.

Quite possibly, as my point was simply that I found your analogy misleading.

That said, first, what I am saying is that you cannot say that because somebody supports al-Qaeda doing something that they do so for the reasons that al-Qaeda did it. For example, let's say the US embarked on a program of economic development in Africa solely to develop new markets for high-tech goods. While I would disagree with the reasons used, I would support such development efforts. Get it?

Sure I get it, it's just an irrelevant tangent. I remain unsure to what you think you are proving, nor why you brought it up in the first place.

I think that you're distorting the al-Qaeda plan. The only part of their plan that was beyond their abilities is the formation of a Wahabbist Caliphate, but they nearly succeeded in everything else. Bin Laden was following the strategy that led the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to force a withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, and which put severe economic and social pressure on the Soviet Union with the cost of war. The War on Terror has cost 3 trillion dollars so far, in addition to the TSA and Homeland Security, the expansion of "national security", and enduring suspicion of Muslims. I'd say that so far he's come out ahead, even in death.

He got us to make bad strategic decisions and spend money, but did not achieve his objective of causing the US to withdraw its strategic interests from the Middle East, and had no reasonable expectation of doing so. IIRC his stated goal was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. Yeah, that was going to happen. He only increased US presence in that region of the world.

Now, the war of the mujahadeen in Russia had a reasonable objective: screw Russia out of one country. Even that was dead in the water before the US jumped aboard.

Of course he comes out ahead, even in death, because at no point was his objective to minimize death at all, at any point in the present, immediate future, or far future. When his die, they are martyrs. When theirs die, they're dead. There's no "there" there. And then when the US gets out he's going to establish a caliphate? That's just another war of conquest, and one that can't be won.

Terrorism is not actually supposed to produce infinite or indefinite terror, you dolt.

Sure it is, when there is no realistic objective in the short term. Killing civilians and instilling terror in others to protest US foreign policy is pure spite.

We don't disagree on the symbolic nature of the WTC, so no argument there.

Well, I suspect we do disagree on the relative ratio of symbolism to deaths caused in al-Qaeda decision-making, but Broomstick is handling that pretty well.

Frankly, I don't think it would be justified if they'd crashed a plane into the Statue of Liberty and killed one person either. Collateral damage in the name of flipping the bird to someone is hard to justify as a legitimate war-fighting exercise IMO. It would be, perhaps, if you had good reason to believe it would cause an extreme demoralization of the enemy such that a war or other death-causing exercise would pretty much end.

That depends on the situation, doesn't it? If he was executed while clearly unarmed, then it was pretty bad, but if he was killed accidentally then that doesn't change much. I mean, I'm going from the criminal aspect here, if we treat him as a combatant then it only really matters if he surrendered beforehand, though again an execution when he was plainly unarmed would be pretty shitty.

I agree. I'd be a lot more thrilled/impressed if bin Laden had been captured, but I appreciate what an extreme risk it might have posed to the operation. I'm pretty ambivalent on the whole...I'm more wowed by the technical difficulty of the operation and the boldness Obama showed in pulling it off, not in the mere fact that we killed the guy about ten years after he deserved it.

[ArmorPierce]

Bakustra, you're a fucking moron if you think a conventional campaign was justified. As horrible as the nuclear bombs were in Japan, they saved lives. Japan was prepared to go down fighting to the very last man. Civilians were encouraged to die. They gave fucking icepicks to school children to use to stab US soldiers.

Do you even understand how many people would have died in a conventional war with Japan having such a mind set?

Any actual evidence that nuclear bombing them saved lives outside of hearsay? How about surrounding japan, isolating them and destroying any ability of japan to project any power, would have defanged them and make any threat posed by them minimal.

[Alyeska]

Bakustra, you're a fucking moron if you think a conventional campaign was justified. As horrible as the nuclear bombs were in Japan, they saved lives. Japan was prepared to go down fighting to the very last man. Civilians were encouraged to die. They gave fucking icepicks to school children to use to stab US soldiers.

Do you even understand how many people would have died in a conventional war with Japan having such a mind set?

Any actual evidence that nuclear bombing them saved lives outside of hearsay? How about surrounding japan, isolating them and destroying any ability of japan to project any power, would have defanged them and make any threat posed by them minimal.

Further arguments should be made in a new thread. I will consider starting one tonight if someone else hasn't already.

[erik_t]

Blockading a net food importer is a well-known way to make friends and influence people without any human suffering or bloodshed.

[ArmorPierce]

Blockading a net food importer is a well-known way to make friends and influence people without any human suffering or bloodshed.

and dropping nuclear bombs on them isn't? If you really wanted to, you can allow food to enter or drop food for them.

[Dalton]

Anyone who at any point imagined that the US discovering Osama's location would result in anything but a summary execution and a "Fuck you!" to any would-be lawyers was smoking dope.

Why? Even if you ignore the legal arguments, catching him alive would have not only allowed the possibility of visibly bringing him to justice, but would also have been an intelligence goldmine.

The giant trove of hard drives, computers and other devices seems to have mitigated that loss. The CIA is going to be very, very busy for a while.

[Alyeska]

Final reminder to everyone. Leave the Japan nuclear discussion to another thread. If someone can start that thread right now, feel free. I can work on migrating over some discussion later tonight.