Obama says bin Laden must not be a martyr

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice in a way that wouldn't allow the terrorist mastermind to become a martyr, but he may be killed if the U.S. government finds him.

"First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden's head," the Illinois senator said at a news conference. "And if I'm president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive."

Obama's campaign said he was referring to a classified Memorandum of Notification that President Clinton approved in 1998 _ revealed in the 9/11 Commission report _ that would allow the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture weren't feasible.

Obama said he wouldn't discuss what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended. But he said the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders are an inspiration because the victors acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order.

"What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism," Obama said.

Obama was questioned about bin Laden after he met with a new team of national security advisers. The meeting came after rival John McCain's campaign said Obama had a pre-9/11 mind-set for promoting criminal trials for terrorists.

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States," Obama said in opening remarks that in part referred to the Iraq war.

He stood in front of 17 American flags and a sign that said "Judgment to Lead." He was surrounded by national security experts who had formerly served in Congress and the Clinton administration and will be advising his campaign _ an effort to bring foreign policy experience to a candidate who has served just three years in Congress.

Story continues below

advertisement

"Osama bin Laden and his top leadership _ the people who murdered 3,000 Americans _ have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world," Obama said. "That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

McCain told reporters in Missouri that under a recent Supreme Court ruling that Obama supports, bin Laden would be awarded new legal rights if he were captured and brought to the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where military detainees are being held.

"It's very clear to me that it was a wrong decision," McCain said. The Republican presidential contender also approvingly cited former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's recent comment that Obama "doesn't have an understanding of the nature of that threat" from terrorists.

How to handle bin Laden has been a tricky question for presidents and those who would like to be in the White House. In the 2004 campaign, Democratic candidate Howard Dean was criticized for refusing to prejudge bin Laden's guilt before a trial. President Bush has said his statement that he wanted to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency because it was misinterpreted around the world.

Obama's 13-member foreign policy advisory group includes three who advised Hillary Rodham Clinton and served in her husband's Cabinet _ former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher and former Defense Secretary William Perry. Albright was asked if she brought any advice from Clinton, who had questioned whether Obama had the experience to be commander in chief.

"Their positions are so similar on restoring America's leadership," she said as she walked out the door without stopping to say anything more.

Other working group members include Sam Nunn of Georgia, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, David Boren of Oklahoma and Tim Roemer of Indiana _ all former Democratic lawmakers known for their foreign policy expertise. It also includes several Clinton administration officials _ Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, Richard Danzig and Jim Steinberg. Holder, a former deputy attorney general, is helping lead Obama's search for a running mate.

Obama later met in the same hotel ballroom with 41 retired admirals and generals to discuss the state of the military and the challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

___

On the Net:

Obama campaign: http://www.barackobama.com

Comments

[rollingdivision]

"The United States should bring him to justice but in a way that avoids turning the al Qaeda leader into a martyr." Okay, How? "I can't speculate" Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer and an expert on constitutional law and he can't tell the voters how he proposes to legally handle Osama Bin Laden? Everyone wants to deal with Bin Laden in a way that limits his martyrdom, so what. I want everyone to have medical care, education, good jobs and to be happy, so what. HOW?

[Actionmac]

It's called CAPTURE dumbazz... just like that guy named saddam hussein, remember him hiding down in a hole. Captured tried and executed.

[brizzle]

It's refreshing to hear a candidate speak about this subject in a measured and open way. What a change we could spread across the world with this man as our leader.

[blueshield]

Hopefully this signals a new US approach to terrorism. Terrorists are criminals, period. Building them up as feared enemies of the most powerful nation on the planet hands them prestige and credibility they would never have on their own. Every international success against terrorism in the past has been built on this fundamental understanding. Whether or not we employ our military, this is a police action, to bring criminals to justice.

Our government turned bin Laden and a few thousand extremists into an international power. The "war on terror" is just what bin Laden hoped for, and we gave it to him. We should have immediately and repeatedly labeled them as thugs, murderers, criminals, and nothing more.

[cynicism101]

Correct, our government did turn Bin Laden into an international power - in the mid and late 1990s.

This does not signal a new approach, but rather a potential return to a previously failed approach. It would be good of you to remember that OBL was indited by the US a decade ago. For those who are math challenged, that means several years before 2001.

We treated Bin Laden as a criminal when the Khobar Towers were attacked. We responded by doing little more than denying the offer from the Sudanese who were asking to extradite him to the US. That allowed Bin Laden to build bigger in Afghanistan, eventually destroying two of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The brilliant response of Clinton/Al­bright/Coh­en/Reno ... well, little more than crickets chirping ...though, they did intervene and abort a couple CIA 'extermination' missions.

Still building - growing stronger and emboldening, the plans were started for the eventual attack in New York in 2001. And not to sit back, those extremists nearly destroyed the USS Cole.

So, it seems that the facts work very effectively against your arguments. I think it's naive for you to think simply calling them names will change their behavior. You need only to look at the events of the last 15 years to see how astonishingly wrong you are.

[bigbingtheory]

Actually the facts refute your argument. Read Richard Clarke's book or the 9/11 commission report. There is no credible evidence the Sudanese gov't offered OBL to us. The Taliban did before we invaded in Afghanistan however. Tell me, were you among the people who claimed Clinton was wagging the dog when he went after OBL? Also the FBI did not confirm the OBL was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole until after Clinton left office. Yes he could have done more, but he was doing something. Bush on the other hand flatly refused to do anything, despite countless warnings from former Clitnon officials, Clinton and Sandy Berger and the CIA handed him a memo titled OBL determined to strike in US. So spare us all the re-hash of "it was Clinton's fault." He actually caught the guys who tried to blow up the WTC the first time and he didn't even blame the previous president for it.

[HowietheScreamer]

Yes, but the Repubics find them extremely useful for hearding sheeple. Fear, 9/11, Fear, FEAR. Are you afraid yet? That's their whole campaign line. As Democrats we need to remind people that "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself".

Our message of hope is STRONGER than their message of Fear. People are TIRED of being afraid. Time for Change.

[lornejl]

What ? Not use Bin for political purposes , oh the humanity !

[realtalk]

What was recently established last weeks Supreme Court ruling - and would be binding on the next president NO MATTER WHO WINS in November - DOES NOT mean that Bin Laden, the man who claims credit for the 9/11 terrorist attacks would be released.

The Fact is: if Bin Laden were granted a Habeas hearing before a federal court "the judge WOULD RULE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS AMPLE GROUNDS TO HOLD HIM."

As an Barack Obama foreign policy adviser Greg Craig said in an interview yesterday, "I have NO doubt that there would be NO problem establishing a basis, an evidentiary basis, to hold Bin Laden, and try him," "And HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE for murdering 3,000 people."

If Bin Laden happens to be killed, so be it! But if he is captured, he will BE CONVICTED BY OUR LAWS, EXECUTED, OR PUT IN A MILITARY PRISON WHERE HE WILL ROT THERE UNTIL HE DIES!! That is the bottom line!

[thepoliticalcat]

That's what I want: a President who thinks ahead and obeys the rule of law. The past eight years seem like a nightmare.

[Raymondf]

Sorry Sir, thats al he can be, because you won't take him alive.

[mikestg]

I think it would be far better if bin Laden were given a trial in American courts and sentenced to multiple life sentences in Colorado's ADX

[Raymondf]

Your right that way he won't be considered a Martyr. That way he want have the favor of his followers.

[Raymondf]

There's only one problem, he's so well hidden, and protected by his followers that you would have to kill him and his followers to get him, then he would be considered a Martyr.

[Caolas]

The problem is that Bin Laden's bodyguards are ordered to kill him if US, NATO, or other forces out to capture him get close enough to take him alive.

[WorkingClass]

bin Laden was a bit player at best in the events of 9/11. He is probably dead. Forget about him. Bush and Cheney are still at large and they are armed and extremely dangerous.

[ChiGuy]

Thank you Senator for not resorting to the blood-n-guts machismo of the other party.

If bin Laden is caught, the exact thing he would want is martyrdom through death by his enemies.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want him to die with a huge smile on his face.

I say catch him and imprison him for life with very little other than a Koran to keep him company.
Then, once every two or three years, parade him in public for all the world to see.

[AMERIKA]

Why give him a Koran? Lock him in a box and feed him very little.

[HowietheScreamer]

because it's not about HIM. How we treat him is about who WE are. We are better than them.

[Gumby123]

Of course Obama must give Osama the constitutional rights afforded to the the Gitmo detainees, I'm sure Osama will be proven innocent since it really was the Mossad and Bush Administration that orchestrated 9/11.

/sarcasm off

[beboy]

Careful. That's a pretty popular view here on HuffPo.

[Gumby123]

I know, I'm walking on egg shells with the Huff censors.

[realtalk]

You two guys above are idiots!!! No one here believes that the US government was involved in 9/11, And everyone here including Barack Obama who wants that murderer Bin laden killed or captured, and brought to justice for the 3000 people Bin Laden killed here on American soil

[thinklib]

It IS a popular view. And it doesn't help deter people from thinking liberals are wacky and/or extremely naive.

[bigbingtheory]

I blog here all the time and the people who actually beieve that are few and far between. It certainly isn't a "mainstream" liberal opinion.

[dukeman]

No matter what the U.S. does OBL will be a martyr to some people and a demon to others.

[politricking]

True, but clearly dragging him out in chains vs killing him in a gunfight will have different effects. The former diminishes him immensely, it shows the US can be just and believes in the rule of law after Guantanamo. The latter might further make him into a martyr for lunatics and his notoriety would grow with tall tales. The ripple effects would be quite different. Of course, if there's no possibility for capture or surrender, then you have to kill him.

[HowietheScreamer]

Yup, it's all about how many terrorists do you want to create? How many would be radicalized by a Martyr Osama? How many by just throwing him in jail and holding him until his flesh falls off? Do the math.

[rollingdivision]

Obama again spells out in platitudinous terms what he won't do and not what he will do. He even seems to be implying there might be something secret about his plans, there isn't. The argument is with people who are not proposing throwing away "deeply held values" for national security. He is defining and balancing these things differently. He must precisely spell out his plan rather than simply asserting that he will be able to harmonize competing interests so that everything works out just fine.

How would you find Osama bin Laden? What, specifically, would you do differently?

What would be the rules for capturing or killing Osama?

What privileges does he favor for Bin Laden? And why did he say "privileges" and not "rights"?

Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?

Specifically what are your proposed procedures for ajudicating these cases?

Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?

[BEHM777]

"What privileges does he favor for Bin Laden? And why did he say "privileges" and not "rights"?"

Privileges are OPTIONAL; rights on the other hand, are not.

[floydknight]

What are you talking about? Have you been following this campaign for one day? I know it might require some work but due to the lack of Obama's time on the campaign trail, you are going to have to pull his quotes to date and answer your contrived questions yourself.

[rollingdivision]

Please if these have all been answered by Obama would you provide Obama's answer to one of my questions? I would truly like to become informed if Obama has provided specifics on these issues.

[KSFARMBOY]

TO Rollingdivision,

Floydknight is right, how dare you ask a question of Sen. Obama, he is the Dem. party nom. for Pres. He is above your's (or anybody's) questions. You should "Hope for Change" or "Change your Hopes" instead of using freedom of speech to ask your "contrived questions".

[blueshield]

"He must precisely spell out his plan rather than simply asserting that he will be able to harmonize competing interests so that everything works out just fine."

rollingdivision, I agree these two objectives are essential, but politically, no one ever gets the first without having the second. I've been asking BO for details, too, but he just won't return my calls. As frustrating as it is, this is a campaign, not a policy briefing.

[rollingdivision]

If a politician wins without having addressed the specifics of his future policies what mandate will he have to governor. If we elect a politician who does not advocate his specific beliefs and policies we are accepting ad hoc governance. Regardless of whether or not your candidate wins, can this be good for the country?

[OriginalScreenName]

Well I was going to answer all your questions because the answers are litterally right there in front of your nose, but Huffingtonpost's word limitation won't let me.

Here's a couple though;
Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?
You seriously need to defend the argument that the judicial procedures have failed to protect us. Gitmo has FAILED to protect us. More Americans are dying and being injured now in terrorist attacks then in 9/11. Remember when the Bush administration still referred to all the attacks in Iraq as terrorist attacks?

Specifically what are your proposed procedures for ajudicating these cases?
Nuremberg - look it up.

Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?
All the founding fathers did. Last time I checked the Declaration of Independence did not say "All US Citizens are created equal." Legal privileges of US citizens also include going to prison or getting the death penalty for murder. Care to explain the ultimate unpatriotic and cowardly position that they do not and why it appears you feel that it's ok to throw out the causes that so many before you have fought and died to maintain?

[rollingdivision]

Nuremberg, just to pick one topic. The procedures of Nuremberg do not meet the requirements of the recent or the last few years Supreme Court requirements. The most important deficits include the Nuremberg defendants had NO right to habeas and NO right to have any sort of hearing or appeal to the US Courts. So no, the statements about Nuremberg do not and can not apply. Under the SCOTUS ruling the Nuremberg procedures are unconstitutional! And that's the problem no applicable specifics. Obama is a Harvard lawyer surely he can spell out his plans.

[ignrnthllblly]

Why, in your last question, did you say "privileges" and not "rights"?

To answer, however: Whether I (or you) believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the [rights] of U.S. citizens, is irrelevant. The principle does not turn on individual belief. However, I do not in fact believe that they do. Again, however, the principle does not turn on what they deserve as individuals, let alone what I (or you) may presuppose that they deserve. It is your focus on them that leads you to attempt to justify your own emotional reaction as a qualification for awarding or denying constituti­onally-emb­odied principles.

American principles of justice would hardly be strained. Osama's guilt is self-confessed. He effectively martyred himself on 9-11. How long he continues to breathe is really irrelevant to that fact.

[thinklib]

Remember, Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty.

That's what our Supreme Court just ruled.

[BEHM777]

No, that isn't what the SCOTUS did. Besides, Osama bin Laden probably won't be captured. If he is ever found he most likely will be killed.

[mannemalon]

and?

[floydknight]

Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not okay to indefinitely imprison an individual who you have yet to prove is a terrorist. One day you might appreciate the emphasis our constitution places on innocence.

[theMightyT]

No it didn't. It guarantees the right to challenge your detention.

Holy CR** you people are intellectually LAZY!! RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST! or you come off like the uneducated idjits on the right who just argue for the sake of argument.

[seatea1967]

It's telling that you somehow think that's a bad thing.

[thinklib]

Why are we trying to kill someone who, if captured, we have to presume innocent?

[RTIII]

"McCain told reporters in Missouri that under a recent Supreme Court ruling that Obama supports, bin Laden would be awarded new legal rights if he were captured and brought to the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where military detainees are being held."

My first reaction was, "What idiot wrote this article?" On reflection, this statement is attributed to McSame, but it wasn't contested.

Just For The Record; Habeas Corpus goes back to the Magna Carta, 1215... That's some "new legal right!" 793 years old... AND the concept is much older, going back to at least Roman times. Our own Constitution carries mention of it and explicitly grants it as a right to all. So, it's "ours" right from the very founding acts of the nation.

Just so you get that, McSame is trying to claim that a right that has stood in the Western World for nearly 800 years is NEW. That a feature of our legal lives since our Constitution was first penned is somehow NEW!

BOY is this guy out of touch.

Either that, or he's cynically lying. Certainly this is about fear in either case.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF.

[HowietheScreamer]

Sad isn't it that someone with so little knowledge of the founding principles of this country is trying to run to lead it?

[sociocanuck]

Unless one accounts for the distinct possibility that McCain predates the Magna Carta.

This isn't a pot-shot at his age, or rather the one we've been led to believe. It's meant to expose the truth: McCain is clearly a centuries-old vampire in the disguise of a modern Republican.