November 18, 2001

10:39 PM

A story that seems to be good newsno matter what side of the 'war' you're on. The dragnet around Bin Laden is reported to be closing quickly, and currently stands, says the Sunday Times, at about 30 squares mile. So, what happens next? (via Plastic.com)
posted by Hildago (13 comments total)

So what happens next? Well, either he gets killed, or he's captured and tried. By a military tribunal, if it's overseas. Been there, done that.
posted by Rastafari at 10:54 PM on November 18, 2001

So what happens next? Well, I predict that a factory just outside of Scranton will begin shipping easy-install plastic lawn ornaments consisting of OBL's caricatured head impaled on a stick. (Buy two, get a plastic manger free.) The company is also researching the possibility that a more robust version might find a market as a patriotic suburban maypole.
posted by Opus Dark at 12:27 AM on November 19, 2001

So, what happens next?

All thse new police powers and a broader definition of terrorism will do wonders for the other war, you know the one fought domesticaly against munchie-crunching stoners.
posted by skallas at 12:54 AM on November 19, 2001

It puts the military tribunal order into greater context. If he’s caught, the Alliance never has to release evidence of his complicity, if there is any. Detractors might label it a kangroo kourt, but we know what to think of that.
posted by raaka at 12:59 AM on November 19, 2001

There HAS to be a body or bin-bin becomes the new Freddy Kruger, everyones nightmare and the pointman for more international spankings...after all nations have been cleansed, we will have to move to Northern Idaho, Balkanized and not subject to the Talibanistic DOJ Mind Police.....
posted by Mack Twain at 1:15 AM on November 19, 2001

What happens next is either that the net closes and bin Laden's not there after all, or that somehow the Coalition attempts to make us forget that we wanted to capture him and bring him to justice at all. Yeah, I'm ultra-cynical, but I remember all that talk about Saddam Hussein being assassinated for his atrocities, but he's still there with the tacit agreement of the US and UK.
posted by skylar at 2:10 AM on November 19, 2001

What happens next? Well for these fellas I expect a move to LA, an agent, and a recurring gig on the Tonight Show.
posted by crumbly at 2:41 AM on November 19, 2001

That is assuming that they all had something else going on when Osama called with a job the other day.

beeeep

"Hey, this is Osama... Um, yeah -- well I've got a small cave sitting job for one of you guys, and if you could help me out with this, I'd really appreciate it. It'll just be a couple of days hanging out in one of my country places. Shouldn't be a problem. The fridge is stocked and -- I've got an Atari down there."
posted by crumbly at 3:05 AM on November 19, 2001

A British defence intelligence source said he was believed to be "static" somewhere to the southeast of Kandahar. "For a variety of reasons we can be confident that he has not been able to move far."

He's not dead, is he?
posted by dlewis at 4:05 AM on November 19, 2001

Afghanistan: Have no fear, Geraldo's here! If anyone can find OBL, it's GR.
posted by Carol Anne at 5:15 AM on November 19, 2001

Yeah, I'm ultra-cynical, but I remember all that talk about Saddam Hussein being assassinated for his atrocities, but he's still there with the tacit agreement of the US and UK.

we never publicly said we were trying to assassinate Saddam, although there's plenty of evidence that some attempts were made behind the scenes. there is an international prohibition on assassination of state leaders. no such prohibition exists for non-heads-of-state. Saddam was technically off limits (although the international prohibition is being seriously reconsidered). Bin Laden is not off limits.
posted by lizs at 7:45 AM on November 19, 2001

No law prevents "taking out" bin Laden, according to John Dean. He discusses the domestic law picture as well as international law; both are a little murky, especially given that bin Laden isn't a head of state. But Dean believes that the "anticipatory self defense" provisions are sufficient justification.

More to the point, bin Laden is a man without a state, having been expelled from Saudi Arabia and now persona non grata under the de facto rule of Afghanistan; if you consider the UN in charge at all, they've already issued a resolution through the security council that bin Laden be turned over to a tribunal.

skylar: while bringing bin Laden to some sort of justice -- one way or another -- would be particularly sweet, the military justification for the actions we've taken is to eliminate the operational capability of al-Qaeda, and we've done that to a tremendous degree. Capturing bin Laden can thereafter be the object of police work in suspect countries.

As for Hussein, it's always important to remember that we were ourselves reluctant to occupy Baghdad, but it was our coalition partners who were even more reluctant, and in particular, Saudi Arabia decided they didn't want to incur the wrath of other Arab leaders or create a precedent, and that in some ways having him as a buffer between them and the (then still pretty heady) Shi'ite revolutionaries in Iran was a viable political move. Without the support of our Arab partners we were kinda screwed.
posted by dhartung at 8:06 AM on November 19, 2001

Yeah, I'm ultra-cynical, but I remember all that talk about Saddam Hussein being assassinated for his atrocities, but he's still there with the tacit agreement of the US and UK.

Not ultra-cynical so much as indiscriminately cynical. Which amounts to naivete.
posted by argybarg at 10:35 AM on November 19, 2001