« The Real Life of Thrones | Main | A Billion Made-Up Conclusions »

April 29, 2011

Comments

dehhh. air is already around 70% nitrogen. and i'd bet my engineering phd that it's not doing jack. but i'm sure the explanation sounded really good.

That's around 78% nitrogen. I'm sure the 21% oxygen makes a difference.

It's not a silver bullet, but the following advantages are supposed to obtain
1) nitrogen atoms are 'fatter' than oxygen, so they are less likely to migrate thru the tire rubber
2)With regular air, water vapor is a small but measurable percentage, and this is more likely to cause pressure fluctuations than a tire filled with only nitrogen as well as causing corrosion (though that isn't really a problem)
3)nitrogen is inert, so it doesn't attack the rubber, and it isn't flammable, which is why passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air

At any rate, it's a free service at Costco and, as I said, not amazing technology, just something that seemed interesting.

passenger jet planes are filled with nitrogen rather than air

The tires, that is.

OK, it's worth it to you to not have to mess with the car, fine. But then you waited 20 minutes to do something that only takes 2 minutes to check, and maybe another 3 or 4 to put air in it, if it needs any.

Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it's the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?
How much did they stiff you for altogether?

3)nitrogen is inert

Relatively inert, I'd amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas; it's just rather firmly wedded to itself.

Here's a cool explanation of why N2 is "smaller" than O2, and permeates through rubber more slowly. It seems to me that it ought to be a tossup, given that oxygen and nitrogen are next-door neighbors on the Periodic Table, but the data says it's not.

If oxygen is such a non-player, I wonder if anyone who thinks so would mind if we filled their tires with pure O2, and then allowed it to heat up during freeway traffic.

That aside, there are other things in life to worry about, and what's in my tires is never near the top of my list.

Just dropped my ride off for its overdue scheduled maintenance. It's going strong with just under 150K miles on board precisely because I pay people who know what they are doing to take care of it.

Do you have an audiophile-quality sound system in your car?

Because if you do, you should really be filling the tires with Argon, not that common Nitrogen stuff. And air is *right* *out*.

You can mix in a bit of Xenon to improve the low-end response, but IMO that's taking things a bit too far.

For the best handling, however, I recommend Krypton. Accept no substitutes!

Krypton makes me feel a tad weaker, so I go with Argon.

I prefer Helium. It's not for everyone but it brings out the high end.

Then, you ask this guy who has a financial interest in selling you stuff to check your air pressure and he recommends buying a new set of tires, and you fell for it!!?! If the valve leaks, why not replace the valve? How did they know it's the valve that leaked, if anything did at all, without taking the wheel off and testing it?

Actually, it was all free. That is what full service stations do in Japan. The pit is actually next to where I get the free coffee and he took me out there and sprayed the valve with a water and liquid detergent mix to show me the slow leak after he had pulled it off of the car. I don't know if the shop sells tires (there were none displayed in the front and he didn't offer to sell me any) but when he said that I might want to think about getting new tires, I said that I was hoping that I could get them at the Costco, it was 100 km away in Fukuoka and would it be ok to drive on those tires that far, and he said it would be.

And as for time, I could, like my dad used to, keep a book in my glove compartment keeping track of mileage and air pressure and such. However, I have a rented parking space and no place to jack the car up to take the tires off if I was inclined to do that, so the whole question of time is kind of moot.

I'm sure he's not doing all this for free, but customer loyalty seems to be worth a lot more here than it is in the US. Or to you, for that matter.

The nitrogen-in-your-tires thing reminds me of when I bought my stereo system.

The guy at the audio shop told me about one of his customers who had a dedicated electric line run to his home, so that the occasional surges and drains on the electric power caused by, frex, his refrigerator motor cycling on would not effect the performance of his stereo amp.

Not that he would hear the refrigerator motor, but that the brief drain on the overall electric power supply might ever-so-temporarily underpower his stereo amp, causing a change in its handling of transients etc.

Which was interesting. And expensive.

But I had to ask, what kind of Superman ears does this guy have to even come close to hearing something like that?

Did he grow up in some remote secluded and unpopulated part of the world, where the loudest sound he ever heard was the whisper of butterfly wings?

I find it hard to believe that anybody living in the modern world, with its constant background (and not always background) buzz and hum has about as much chance of hearing that kind of audible effect as they have of feeling the pea beneath a stack of mattresses.

I can buy the concept of pure nitrogen being somewhat less reactive with the tire rubber in principle, but I wonder if anyone has ever actually been able to detect a measurable difference in a real-world application.

I drive a '99 Honda Civic DX hatch with about 130K on it. I get 35+ mpg, it's a low emissions motor. It has great headroom, which I like because I'm 6'2". It holds a full drum kit even if I bring the 28" bass drum, and it will fit up to four standard size trash barrels in the hatch for dump runs.

Change the oil, swap the tires when the seasons change, replace consumables, change the timing belt every 60K or so.

It's the car that will not die.

It's the second one I've had. My old one was a '93. I dropped a B18b1 non-VTEC motor from a wrecked Integra in that one, and I used to smoke five-liter Mustangs from a dead start at red lights.

Which was a hell of a lot of fun, I can tell you.

But we need to re-do the bathroom, and we need to replace our 50-year-old furnace before it craps out, so my wife has asked that I not invest in a motor swap on the current ride.

Which is cool with me, I had my fun.

The guy at the audio shop told me about one of his customers who had a dedicated electric line run to his home, so that the occasional surges and drains on the electric power caused by, frex, his refrigerator motor cycling on would not effect the performance of his stereo amp.

Real crazed audiophiles will purchase a military-grade power-line conditioner and plug their gear into that. Because the power you get from even a separate line is full of all kinds of noise and harmonic crapola.

And don't even get me started on interconnects. Unless you've spent as much money on your interconnects as you have on your speakers, you're doing it rong.

I dropped a B18b1 non-VTEC motor from a wrecked Integra in that one, and I used to smoke five-liter Mustangs from a dead start at red lights.

I work with a guy who maybe once a week drives a stock-looking, 15-year-old Lexus to work. Under the hood is a turbocharged 3L 6-cylinder engine that puts out something like 900hp on aviation fuel, and a good 750 on street gas. The only giveaway from the outside (or even from the inside of the car, which is the stock leather interior; even the AC works (and works well)) is if you look closely at the front wheels you can see that the discs are a bit oversize, and he's running four-piston calipers.

Open the hood and the large turbo, the large-diameter piping to the intercooler, and the obviously custom-made intercooler and radiator are dead giveaways.

It's like a carnival ride. If you've never ridden in a street machine that can reel off a sub-10-second quarter-mile, you won't know what I'm talking about.

I stand corrected. I had no idea such a place existed.
I'm in the States, driving a '62 ford, and I don't let anybody else touch it.

My gut feeling is that the lower reactivity is the biggest advantage of using nitrogen over oxygen. Loss of gas is probably dominated by leaking through the valve and tire/wheel interface, not by diffusion through the rubber. Problems with water vapor would more easily be dealt with using an air dryer than trying to use pure nitrogen. Even the lower reactivity of the nitrogen is a minor thing, since the biggest reactivity problem the tires face is from ozone attacking the outsides of the tires.

Tick tick tick:

The Government’s in camera submission raises a very disturbing issue. The Government previously provided false and misleading information to the Court. The Government represented to the Court in pleadings, declarations, and briefs that it had searched its databases and found only a limited number of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and that a significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government’s representations were then, and remain today, blatantly false. As the Government’s in camera submission makes clear, the Government located a significant number of documents that were responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Virtually all of the information within those documents is inside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security.

href

ugh, a citation, please. Or maybe a link. Inquiring minds want to know . . .

Thanks

I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?

The opinion Ugh cites.

Volokh discusses.

Here we are: FOIA Decision

via Volokh Conspiracy

Fixed Ugh's link just because I can.

In racing we used nitrogen because it heated up less, therefore increasing tire temperature less, as the tire was used. So the year we used regular air we had to constantly readjust the tire temps after warmup laps, with nitrogen we didn't have to anymore.

Fixed Ugh's link just because I can.

Thanks, and crap, I usually get that right.

Anyway, I'm not sure why the judiciary puts up with this sort of thing and doesn't start holding gov't lawyers in criminal contempt. That's what I would do if the gov't lied to me and then stood there and argued they could.

It was just a typo, Ugh. Unfortunately html is not robust to typos of the "a hred=" variety.

Don't know if anyone here has been following the House of Representatives/Paul Clement/King & Spalding/DOMA kerfuffle, but Politico has obtained the full contract between the House and K&S, including the controversial section 4(g), here.

(if anyone cares)

4(f), that those involved in the case shall not lobby or otherwise oppose the position that the firm is attempting to argue, seems reasonable. Nobody wants their attorney to be undercutting his case outside the courtroom.

But 4(g), extending that to everybody else at the firm? Over-reach seems like the obvious characterization.

wj - I agree, and 4(g) potentially conflicts with 4(e), the latter requiring compliance with employment laws and 4(g) may be illegal where K&S has offices (it has been reported).

I do have to wonder how the government avoids a contempt citation in such a case. Any of the lawyers here shed any light on that?

There is no requirement that the Court issue a contempt citation, here, and I suspect that two issues influenced the Judge: (1) as I (quickly) read the decision, there was not a violation of a Court order, which is usually the basis for a contempt citation and (2) the Government self reported and had a basis (albeit an implausible one) for its prior misrepresentations.

Anyhoo, my two cents.

uzza,
no worries and sorry if I was a bit sharp in my reply. It is really hard to go back to the states after you get used to this kind of treatment here.

My mechanic, who reads a lot and is usually on top of this sort of thing, thinks the nitrogen-in-tires thing is complete b. s., at least for passenger cars.

I'd say that almost all of the advantage of filling your tires with nitrogen comes from the fact that you... filled your tires. Although in theory it could make a significant difference if you happened to fill your tires on a very humid day.

Relatively inert, I'd amend. Nitrogen is not a noble gas;

And dental patients are thankful.

"Nitrogen is not a noble gas; it's just rather firmly wedded to itself."
So, it's just a narcissistic gas?

Speaking of dental patients and gas permitivity, I had a thermodynamics professor in school who told this story:

Some years ago, his grad students decided to prank him by completely filling his office with brightly colored balloons. The prank was that the balloons would contain Nitrous oxide instead of air so that as he started puncturing them, he'd get high and a good time would be had by all. The students got a tank of nitrous, broken into his office on the weekend and diligently started filling balloons. But they forgot that cheap party balloons are much more permeable to Nitrous oxide than to air, so the joke was on them: they started getting the Nitrous high rather than the professor.

My favorite among the cars I've owned is a Saab Sonett (not a misspelling) I had in the mid-70's.

It was a tiny neon-red two-seater with a fibreglass body and a V-4 engine made by Ford and not really intended for autmotive use. It "free-wheeled," which means that you could set it to disengage the clutch when you took your foot off the gas, allowing you to shift gears (maybe only way) without bothering with the pedal. This, plus the small engine, plus the light weight meant it got a gazillion miles a gallon.

It was quite an unusual car, but needed constant repair, and a small fender-bender once literally broke the body, and I had to get a replacement shipped from Sweden. Finally, my bank account couldn't take it.

My favorite was a Geo Storm, the very first car I got to buy new, and probably the closest thing to a sports car I'll ever own. At the time I had a boss, 6'6", close to 400#, (He had scoliosis, we used to joke he'd be 7' tall if you could stretch him out.) and occasionally his car would need work, and he'd rely on me to ferry him to and from the garage.

It was a hilarious sight, him folded up into the front seat, with his knees against his chin. He used to complain about how little acceleration my car had, and I'd tell him, "Only when you're in it..."

Much as I love cars, I hate being forced to own one, which we pretty much are in this country. Workable public transportation systems--that are not taxis, at least at current prices--would be nice, and a good starting point for that would be a change in our philosophy about what cars are really for, which is to get you from Point A to Point B. This is not the same thing as the ego stroking the auto industry uses as its advertizing model.

Bill,

I agree that it would be nice to reduce our dependence on cars.

But I think there would still be lots of room for cars as something more than practical transportation vehicles. I drive about 5000 miles a year, but I just like having a nice car. If I ever win the lottery I'll think about getting a Ferrari, which I would probably drive once a month or so.

Like I said, I love cars. I just don't like the fact that our transportation system is organized so that, unless you live in a big city, you pretty much have to own a car. To me that's an unfunded mandate. This year alone I have to get a new catalytic converter and replace the timing belt/water pump. That's close to a thousand bucks that I don't have. Not that I have much of a choice in the matter, since where I live it's hard to rely on public transportation; you can do it, but it's a hassle. Maybe that's my problem: hassle-avoidance behavior.

Open thread?

Obama killed Osama, leader of the second most murderous organization on the face of the Earth.

From this link

"It is also noteworthy that the property is valued at approximately $1 million but has no telephone or Internet service connected to it," an administration official said

No internet! Man, you wouldn't catch me dead in a place like that...

They killed bin Laden, and then dumped his body in the ocean?

That's weird.

That is bizarre. Up until Obama's speech, we heard the newscasters say that he was killed days ago, and they were doing DNA analysis to establish that it really was bin Laden.

And then Obama stood up and said he was killed "today", yesterday.

Puzzling. I'm wondering what the actual timeline was, and how they cranked out DNA analysis that quickly.

Well that's good. Are we done now?

Cal Thomas told me on the radio this morning that this was vindication of Bush's post-9/11 interrogation policies.

The cool thing about making statements like that is that it's probably treason to authoritatively refute them.

Unless you're the President; then you can pretty much declassify at will.

russell, the reason to dump his body at sea is so that there won't be a grave to become a focus for worshipful jihadists.

I guess I was thinking that if somebody, somewhere wanted to question whether the dead guy was actually OBL, it might be useful if we could produce the body.

Too late for that.

I would assume that, if you brought the equipment along, had a largish sample to begin with, and knew in the first place who you were looking to compare it too, that a DNA analysis could be done in a matter of hours. It's not like you're extracting a few strands of DNA from a hair follicle, and have to spend a long while amplifying it before doing the tests.

I'm cool with burial at sea, just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage. The guy didn't earn any respect, after all.

Taking OBL alive seems superior to killing him for a bunch of reasons:

No dispute about having him
Get intelligence
Have a trial

I can see political downsides, such as the trial being ... unpopular. Also the same kerfuffle as with the KSM trial.

I suspect that the option of taking him alive was discarded early on. If the mission fails or troops die because of the specification that he be taken alive, huge backlash (if anyone finds out). If the public doesn't like the idea of the trial, backlash.

Really doesn't make sense to lose the body so fast though. I read somewhere else that it was buried at sea in accordance with Muslim tradition blah blah blah and I didn't think twice, but that does sound BS-y to me now.

It's okay. We have the long-form death certificate.

I think they'll have plenty of evidence that he was there, certainly enough to convince reasonable people that they killed him. It's not like the body would have been available for viewing by skeptics (or that photos really prove anything these days). No doubt there will be conspiracy theorists claiming that the whole thing was faked, but nothing, not even OBLs head on a stick, would prevent that.

Too bad this won't end all the silly security theater that we waste our time with.

Has anyone seen my apostrophe?

just think they should have displayed the body for a while, and then sewn it into a pig skin before dumping it with the garbage

Which would have accomplished what, precisely?

I always gave you credit for at least being smarter than Bird, but I guess not.

I wonder if this isn't one reason why Gitmo wasn't shut down earlier:

the real breakthrough came when they finally figured out the name and location of Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, whom the Qaeda chief appeared to rely on to maintain contacts with the outside world.

Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated.

Which would have accomplished what, precisely?

My guess is Brett wasn't entirely serious about that, and was just expressing his disgust for Bin Laden.

He made the same comment at The Reality-Based Community, except adding that it should have been televised. I think he is serious. Brett is not known for his sense of humor.

Humor is only a subset of non-seriousness.

it might be useful if we could produce the body.

Obama haters would just demand the long-form corpse.

Good news for Brett (and any others of a skeptical turn of mind). It appears that they did collect a DNA sample. Not sure exactly what they have to compare it against (can't see the family offering up their own for comparison), but the radio reports I'm hearing say that DNA confirms it was the guy.

(can't see the family offering up their own for comparison)

But that's what they did, some time ago, pals of the Bush family that they were.

More seriously, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport.[3]

I wonder if this isn't one reason why Gitmo wasn't shut down earlier:

I believe that's what Cal Thomas was referring to when he said Bush's post-9/11 interrogation (or maybe detention) policies were "vindicated" by Bin Laden's death.

can't see the family offering up their own for comparison

they also arrested four of his children (and killed another) and two of his wives (and killed another). there will be plenty of people alive who can attest, genetically or otherwise, that he was, in fact the one and only OBL.

So, it's hard for me to put a finger on it, but something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.

Glenn Greewald sort of hits on it here, but not entirely (and not that I agree with all of the sentiments in that post).

something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.

I find it reassuring in that it reaffirms our universal humanity. People celebrate the (sometimes symbolic) killing of scary guys who threatened them. That's human nature. When people in foreign countries do that, lots of stupid people in the US point and say "aha! that proves they're bloodthirsty savages!" but I don't think this sort of behavior tells us anything whether it happens in the middle east or outside the Whitehouse.

At the same time, I'm not interested in criticizing it because (1) I don't think it does any harm in any case and (2) I don't like telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death.

"Brett is not known for his sense of humor."

Or maybe you're not known for noticing it.

Serious? Not really, just reacting to the "Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law." line of BS. More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

"Prompt burial at sea dictated by Islamic law." line of BS.

Why exactly is it BS? Are you saying that there is no Islamic requirement for relatively prompt burials? Or is the idea here that it is self-evidently absurd that the US government would ever show any consideration for such rules?

More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

The United States government is enormously skilled when it comes to torturing people in ways that leave no marks.

More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

?!?!?!

Brett, they shot him in the head.

something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.

My own reaction to hearing about his death was weirdly mixed, and very subdued.

It almost seems like an anticlimax at this point. I mean, I'm glad they at least kept looking for him, and I'm not sorry he's dead, but as a practical matter I'm not sure whether it makes a big difference at this point if he's alive or dead.

I also feel, with all of the changes we've put ourselves through post-9/11, and the 1,000 ways in which "OMG terrorists!!!!!!111" has become lodged in our national psyche, that in some significant ways, bin Laden achieved his goals.

Who cares if he's gone? His work here is done. From his point of view, mission accomplished. Something like that.

He was a sick MF, but he played us like a violin. He's dead, but we still have to live with what we've made of ourselves. Or, maybe, just revealed ourselves to be.

It doesn't make me happy.

I don't know about Islam, but Judaism definitely calls for prompt burial. It would hardly surprise me if Islam did also.

how they cranked out DNA analysis that quickly.
How long do you think it takes?

I do DNA genotyping of my favorite invertebrate organism all the time, using technology that's both cheap and at least fifteen years old, and I could do as many markers as you'd like inside four hours. If I were in a hurry and cut a few corners, two hours. If I were using other, more modern techniques, maybe less. If they'd already profiled their reference samples for comparison, that would be all you'd need. Remember, they knw going in some effort of this sort might be needed.

I'm always upset when TV shows show DNA evidence being fast and conclusive - but that's because they're dealing with an eyelash found down a drain, not a whole body, and because they never consider the time and budget considerations. None of those issues are relevant here.

"It doesn't make me happy."

It doesn't make me "happy". It makes me somewhat satisfied. And triumphant. Triumph is, I think, a mixed feeling: it's like victory over regret. Regret that people perpetrated the acts of 9/11. Regret that so much horror resulted from it. I don't think we know yet what good "getting" bin Laden will do. Maybe none; maybe a lot.

I've never been (personally) through a war, but I know people (Bosnians) who went through the Yugoslav wars. They were very, very happy. Very satisfied today. They've suffered people who were murderers of their friends. I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.

I'm grateful. I take it back - I'm happy.

More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

looks like the wingnut conspiracy machine is now at "11". maybe "12".

More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

it's very important for wingnuts to find, or to start rumors of, the turd in the punchbowl. because otherwise, they'd have to admit that a Democrat did something right.

and we all know they can't do that.

"More like, dictated by necessity to conceal evidence of "enhanced interrogation".

I saw this somewhere else today, and found it offensive. I was pleased that it was overwhelmingly treated that way.

I also saw someone start the "Obama got him in two years and Bush couldn't get him in eight" line and it was unanimously belittled as inappropriate.

My point is that it takes a true wingnut from either side not to accept this as good for America, recognize a good job by the people involved at all levels, give thanks to those on the ground that risked their lives and then take a long pause to remember the people that died on 9/11.

It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.

@Marty

I also saw someone start the "Obama got him in two years and Bush couldn't get him in eight" line and it was unanimously belittled as inappropriate.

Well, sure, on a couple of levels.

Firstly, because Bush had closer to 7-and-a-quarter years, not eight, and it took Obama 2-and-a-quarter. But that's mostly a weak attempt at humor: it's not like Obama could have gotten Bin Laden a lot faster by tring harder.

This because, and secondly, all things being equal and despite his later claims, Bush very much wanted to catch Bin Laden, and was presumably driving his people very hard to get him. But then, all things aren't equal. We had a chance to catch Osama at Tora Bora, but that was less important to Bush than was ramping up for a massively pointless invasion of Iraq. We had an opportunity to behave generally in a way that would reduce the number of people wanting to be Bin Laden's friends and to conceal him from us, and we chose the opposite tack (sadly, Obama has maintained all too many of the relevant policies).

And thirdly because if someone like Bush had been in charge we well might have done the raid 6 months ago - so this Bush-like President would have done the job in 20 months, not 26. Almost exactly 6 months ago, in fact: late October 2010. After all, we had the address in August, and since then our forces spent 8 months double-checking, making extra sure of everything, and planning all the details of the raid. Now imagine that a Bush, who never hesitated to gin up a good terrorism scare for political gain, had been saddled with an epically bad economy, two months and change to go before the midterms, and a plausible home address for Osama Bin Laden. A Bush, who so obviously cared not a fig for double-checking of intelligence nor for thorough planning of military operations. Think he would have given those reponsible 8 months to do the job properly, when in two months they might win him seats in Congress?

It was a good day, but not one to celebrate.

IMO this is well said.

I'm glad bin Laden's gone, but the dead aren't coming back.

In ordering the strike on UBL, President Obama demonstrated that there is (was) at least ONE person in the world not worth negotiating with, trying to win over, or offering a compromise to. I consider that a step in the right direction.

Incidentally, the most interesting fact I have learned in the last 24 hours:
"The town of Abbottabad in British India was the headquarters of the then Hazara district, and was named after Major James Abbott who founded the town and district in January 1853 after the annexation of the Punjab."

--TP

negative reactions to the end of the OBL story were sooooo predictable.
Absolutely typical of course the complaints that the president did not gloat enough.
The most insidious I have encountered yet (originating from Tea Party Nation) is that Obama had to strike now because someone was going to leak Osama's whereabouts and the 'fact' that he lived there under Obama's protection. In order to not endanger the plan to force the US into Shariah law, Obama had to sacifice his buddy and can even use the kill as an extra layer of cover for his true intentions.
Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.

Btw, Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama.

not just the D and R. at least for this local affiliate

I believe that's what Cal Thomas was referring to when he said Bush's post-9/11 interrogation (or maybe detention) policies were "vindicated" by Bin Laden's death.

Slightly different points, I think. Thomas is asserting that this is so; I'm just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden's whereabouts wasn't Obama's motivation for keeping Gitmo open.

So, it's hard for me to put a finger on it, but something bothers me about citizens of the most powerful nation on earth literally dancing in the streets over the killing of a single guy half a world a way.

Yes, that bothers me, too. Reminds me of the celebration in the streets of various middle eastern locales following the fall of the WTC. I think, too, that it's just fine to be uncomfortable with the celebration without, as Turbulence puts it, "telling people what emotional forms they may use in response to a death".

If I were in a hurry and cut a few corners, two hours. If I were using other, more modern techniques, maybe less.

Good to know. Thanks!

'm just wondering if perhaps the ongoing investigation into bin Laden's whereabouts wasn't Obama's motivation for keeping Gitmo open.

i thought the motivation was that Congress has denied him the means to close it.

Seriously?

The President of the United States can't move some prisoners from Gitmo to (for instance) Leavenworth? There are any number of military bases in this country that have prisons that could be expanded to accommodate the Gitmo prisoners. So even if Obama doesn't have authority to order transfers to federal prisons, I'd think he could disperse them to any or several military bases. Bases that have been used to house WWII POWs, for instance, include Fort Leavenworth, Fort Bragg, Eglin, Fort Bliss, and a fair number of still-open military bases.

He hasn't exactly bully-pulpited this issue, has he?

I think that some of the 9/11 survivors and families can take a bit of solace in this.

Apparently some, a bit. It seems to be a mix, for most people, including the families of the people killed on 9/11.

There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden's wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.

So, in the end, not a romantic hero at all. Just another cowardly bastard.

It needed to be done and it was done, on balance, just the way it should have been: an actual raid calculated to produce proof positive of who was killed/captured (although I don't think capturing OBL was even on the list of priorities).

A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we're the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released.

Not to mention incensing even more that element in the Islamic community that thinks OBL is a 'holy warrior.'

Obama made the right call.

My disagreement is in not having the body independently identified by third parties as OBL. I anticipate a birther-type movement growing up around the disposition of OBL's body. My disagreement is a minor point and, most likely, the President considered this option and it had it's own set of problems.

FWIW, I watched Hannity last night and even he gave Obama high marks. Tommy Franks, David Beamer and Guiliani all gave Obama high marks and, despite being baited by Hannity, Guiliani would not second guess and, in fact, endorsed everything the administration did.

Cheering in the streets--this put my wife off considerably. My issue with it is that it's premature, not unlike "Mission Accomplished." Parades come at the end of the war, not before. Still, though, cheering the death of the man who authored 9-11 is not comparable to worldwide riots over allegations of defacing a Koran or of a Danish cartoonist's efforts.

Fox at least once got the spelling wrong in the D for R fashion announcing the death of Obama

It's endemic, almost.

There was one woman killed in the raid. Apparently, it was bin Laden's wife, who he used as a human shield to try to evade capture.

This is the kind of detail I view with a bit of skepticism. Not that I doubt it could have happened, it just seems a bit too good, or bad, to be true. If one wanted to add just the right touch "he's the worst kind of bastard there is" as a sort of icing on the cake, this bit of local color surely accomplishes that end. The reverse was that young woman captured in the early days of the Iraqi invasion--people had her fighting off hordes of nasties, even while wounded, and ultimately rendered incapable of further resistance. None of that turned out to be the case, IIRC.

I just found [a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html"]this[/a] and I obviously I did not understand JanieM's instructions which further establishes me as the least competent computer person in the world, or at least in the running for that title. Can someone tell me what I should have done? Thanks. BTW, I did the whole thing in Word and cut/pasted to the comment box. Thanks.

Just drop the all the " and replace [ with < and ] with >

I think, even if a body had been produced there would be claims that it was fake and all 'independent' proof was too. Even a bin Laden captured alive would be doubted by some.

I have joked on some other fora that Osama is destined to become the Hidden Infame of Salafism.

About the woman shot as a human shield, I read and heard that it was not a relative and that his wifes are all alive (and have testified that the body was indeed that of OBL)

I think killing OBL was the expedient thing to do, but I would have preferred live capture because of the potential intelligence benefit and also the opportunity for a trial.

McKT:

"A trial for OBL? A bad idea all the way around. Sure, we're the USA and sure, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so. Worse than reprisals, would be hostage taking and executions when OBL was not released."

You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don't support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on whether we should have tried to take OBL alive, and whether we should have given him a trial.

I am firmly protrial. The protection and enforcement of rights when it is definitely not in the state's immediate interest to do so is, to me, the whole point of our principles. Abandoning our principles when they are inexpedient means they're not principles.

I know this is one guy, and one trial, but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point, and this would've been a good time to start. Not good in the sense that it might benefit Obama politically, or maybe for pleasant television viewing.

Like : this?

Ok, we're getting there. Still, I can't seem to close the link.

Just realized that I worded my post to sound like I only want the views of people who are not McKT, which is of course false; I'd like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!

I fixed it, McKTx. You had a spare left-bracket in there instead of a left pointy-brace, and I always enclose my link in quotation marks.

Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I'm never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use 'em.

You assume that holding Osama would produce more reprisals than killing him, but you don't support that claim. I fail to see how the bad outcomes which you propose would follow a trial will not follow the killing.

Holding OBL alive wouldn't produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected. Can I support this? No more than anyone can support the notion that reprisals are forthcoming. Common sense says that reprisals will occur. Ditto efforts to secure OBL's release if he were taken alive.

Moreover, I would not impose upon our troops the effort to capture OBL. That adds risk factors to the mission. There are reports that a lot of intelligence was picked up at OBL's home. This is likely as much or more than we would have gotten by taking him alive.

but it seems to me that if we want the world to listen to us we have to start walking back our hypocrisy at some point

Julian, "the world" is populated by the PRC, Putin's Russia and a NATO that is bombing the carp out of Libya, among others. Really, "the world" well understands that practicality means something. Sometimes it is useful for elements of the "the world" to see a legitimately aggrieved country act decisively in its own interests.

I'd like to hear more about what you think too, McKT!

I took it that way and you did. No worries.

Slarti, thanks, I appreciate it.

I always enclose my link in quotation marks.

Contra Hartmut, on that last. Really, I'm never sure when quotes are needed and when not, so I always use them. Kind of like parentheses in equations: when in doubt, use 'em.

Slarti, I was told to use quotes when I first came here and tried to make a link. My links never worked. The reason -- discovered just the other day -- seems to be that smart quotes don't work. I usually compose in Word, and I have my Word set to use smart quotes (which is not always the smart thing to do but never mind), so I kept running into situations where I would use the quotes as instructed, and the link wouldn't work, and when I removed the quotes the link worked. Turns out if I replace the smart quotes with the other kind, the link works fine.

JFTR.

Also jftr, I agree with you about parentheses in equations, but I don't think you'd get far trying to follow the same rule in handling quotation marks. ;)

If the death of OBL is likely, per Greenwald et al, to produce reprisals, then holding him alive would be even more so.

Isn't this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn't it, uh, not happened?

Isn't this exactly what everyone said about Khalid Sheik Muhammed? And hasn't it, uh, not happened?

Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming. But, to turn it around: if OBL were taken alive, and if hostage taking followed by executions became an issue, would you accept this as the unfortunate but inevitable part of discharging our higher duties as Americans? Or, would you hope to foreclose that possibility by doing as Obama did and, for all practical purposes, order OBL's death?

Holding OBL alive wouldn't produce just reprisals, IMO, it would produce hostage taking and executions as ultimatums for his freedom and repatriation were rejected.

At least, those things would be more likely if he were alive and in custody, I think. We can't un-kill him, so there's no reason for anyone to demand it.

Correct, nor reprisals as such, yet many think they are coming.

"As such." How lawyerly. Is that a synonym for "at all?"

I think it's, at this point, a lot of academic foofaraw that's allowing a lot of people to get away with playing Internet Hardman, is what I think. Still, as always, it's conservatives who are the first to dispense with principles and defer to pragmatism the minute it becomes inconvenient to hold them. Thus has it always been, thus shall it ever be.

But hey, as long as you can convince yourself that your speculations are in reality inevitable results -- despite the lack of any supporting evidence and a plethora of contradictory evidence -- you can believe whatever you want!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad