Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,962 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:45 PM Mar 2013

Seal Team 6 member disputes Esquire magazine article about killing of bin Laden

As Peter Bergen reports for CNN:

In February, Esquire magazine published a lengthy profile of "The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden." The story did not identify the killer by his real name, referring to him only as "the Shooter."

The Shooter told Esquire that the night bin Laden was killed he had encountered al Qaeda's leader face-to-face in the top-floor bedroom of the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden had been hiding for more than five years.

The Shooter explained that when he found bin Laden in his bedroom the al Qaeda leader was standing up and had a gun "within reach" and it was only then that the Shooter fired the two shots into bin Laden's forehead that killed him. That account was in conflict with the account from another raid participant in a wildly successful book "No Easy Day."

Now, another member of the secretive SEAL Team 6, which executed the bin Laden raid, tells CNN the story of the Shooter as presented in Esquire is false. According to this serving SEAL Team 6 operator, the story is "complete B-S."

SEAL Team 6 operators are now in "serious lockdown" when it comes to "talking to anybody" about the bin Laden raid and say they have been frustrated to see what they consider to be the inaccurate story in Esquire receive considerable play without a response. Phil Bronstein, who wrote the 15,000-word piece about the Shooter for Esquire, was booked on CNN, Fox and many other TV networks after his story came out.


What actually happened the night of the raid, according to the SEAL Team 6 operator who I interviewed, is that the "point man" ran up the stairs to the top floor and shot bin Laden in the head when he saw what looked like bin Laden poking his head out his bedroom door. The shot gravely wounded al Qaeda's leader.

Having taken down bin Laden, the point man proceeded to rush two women he found in bin Laden's bedroom, gathering them in his arms to absorb the explosion in case they were wearing suicide vests, something that was a real concern of those who planned the raid.

Two more SEALs then entered bin Laden's bedroom and, seeing that al Qaeda's leader was lying mortally wounded on the floor, finished him off with shots to the chest.


Do you buy that? Or is the anonymous ST6 member just out there for attention? I don't know when we'll ever know what really went down on April 30-May 1, 2011. That Esquire article also gained buzz for The Shooter's claims that the military "abandoned him."
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Seal Team 6 member disputes Esquire magazine article about killing of bin Laden (Original Post) alp227 Mar 2013 OP
personally, i no longer care. obama himself dropped the "bring him to justice" pretense long ago unblock Mar 2013 #1
He WAS brought to justice. He had years to turn himself in... Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #13
there is no justice without a proper trial. period. unblock Mar 2013 #15
To me and many others, it's justice. As long as our guys didn't get killed, Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #16
i'm not saying he should have been captured. i'm just saying the term "justice" doesn't apply. unblock Mar 2013 #17
Read up on the life and character of bin Laden. Then you'll know. nt Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #31
the applicability of the term "justice" has NOTHING to do with the accused. unblock Mar 2013 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author cliffordu Mar 2013 #22
The only thing that seems clear is that it was an execution with no effort to capture. leveymg Mar 2013 #2
it's reasonable considering the person and situation that the goal is to kill, look at that guy in JI7 Mar 2013 #5
There is no requirement to capture, there is one to not shoot someone trying to surrender ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #8
You totally ignored the good reason to not shoot him: information. leveymg Mar 2013 #20
No, I pointed out the rules ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #21
All they had to do was take 2 steps, reach out and grab UBL rather than double tap him in the face. leveymg Mar 2013 #27
... he said from the safety of his keyboard. JoePhilly Mar 2013 #33
He had years to turn himself in. Too risky, once located, to try to capture him. Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #14
You've gotta be kidding. Like it was read from a script. leveymg Mar 2013 #19
Boo hoo. I'm cryin' for bin Laden. Poor wittle thing. Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #30
You can wet yourself however you want. I said we blew off an opportunity to obtain information, not leveymg Mar 2013 #36
You're right Politicalboi Mar 2013 #28
i'm not reading this carefully but how do the stories differ ? JI7 Mar 2013 #3
considering he is anonymous GreenRanger Mar 2013 #4
yeah, the attention seemed to be more about benefits/pay/treatment of veterans JI7 Mar 2013 #6
These guys just need to shut up about it. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #7
I get so sick of all the whiny little fucks crying tears over Bin Laden... Generation_Why Mar 2013 #9
Which whiny fucks are you addressing? DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2013 #10
The Shooter sounds like a prima donna. baldguy Mar 2013 #11
I don't care. Bin Laden is dead. nt bluestate10 Mar 2013 #12
I have a family member who was a SEAL erinlough Mar 2013 #18
That's true GiveMeFreedom Mar 2013 #23
Which is why I don't trust the Seal that came out and wrote a book. LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #24
I would think not. That's why Cha Mar 2013 #25
Really at this point it really doesn't matter. He is dead. Even if they brought him back for southernyankeebelle Mar 2013 #26
Since we are at war, killing an enemy commander is an act of war... Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #29
You are saying Obama is a legitimate target? Coyotl Mar 2013 #34
President Obama would not be shooting at himself. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #35
"I don't care what the truth is!" whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #37

unblock

(51,974 posts)
1. personally, i no longer care. obama himself dropped the "bring him to justice" pretense long ago
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:52 PM
Mar 2013

even before the raid, he was talking about "killing" bin laden. not capturing him, not trying him, not bringing him to justice.

killing him.

so they had a raid and they killed him.

given that as background, it matters little if bin laden was sleeping or firing a missile or anything in between.

they went in to kill him, and kill him they did.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
13. He WAS brought to justice. He had years to turn himself in...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:57 PM
Mar 2013

and be judged. He was a wanted man, wanted for the murder of thousands. Add to that, it was guerilla warfare.

Justice was done.

He was a terrorist who freely admitted to murder. He knew he was being hunted and the only way to live ws to turn himself in. He had more opportunity to live than the innocent people he killed.

He went the same way as ordinary criminals like Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie & Clyde. Pretty good ending for a mass murderer, when you think of it. It's not like he was captured, tortured, and then beheaded.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
15. there is no justice without a proper trial. period.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:37 PM
Mar 2013

you can call it an end to his injustice, or a fitting conclusion, or better than he deserved, or whatever.

the world's a better place with him gone.

but no, it's not justice.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
16. To me and many others, it's justice. As long as our guys didn't get killed,
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:56 PM
Mar 2013

which was the paramount concern. Not sure you understand how risky the operation was. There was no option really to capture someone like him in such a location.

Just like the mobsters, they won't turn themselves in, and they have to be stopped and brought to justice.

He wasn't an ordinary criminal. He was a terrorist who had declared war on the U.S. and killed thousands of innocent civilians. I'm sure the country would've loved to have him in prison somewhere, but that wasn't going to happen. It was totally within bin Laden's control.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
17. i'm not saying he should have been captured. i'm just saying the term "justice" doesn't apply.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:37 AM
Mar 2013

whether or not he could have been captured alive is a question to which we'll likely never know the real answer.

maybe it was reasonably considered and rejected as too likely to give him an opportunity to blow up the building or otherwise harm the our troops. or maybe it was decided that instant death is politically much easier than a drawn out circus of a trial. i'm not in a position to know.

but i do know that without a proper trial and presentation of objective facts, the word "justice" doesn't apply. justice includes a deliberative process to establish guilt, and in this case we skipped right by that and went straight to execution.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
32. the applicability of the term "justice" has NOTHING to do with the accused.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 07:44 AM
Mar 2013

it has EVERYTHING to do with the process through which guilt or innocence is publicly demonstrated and then an appropriate sentence carried out.

if you want to say he was an active enemy general in an ongoing war, and they were taking out an important military asset, fine. i wouldn't disagree with that characterization, nor would i object to it.

if you want to say he was scum and deserved to die, i wouldn't object to that either. sure, he deserved it.

but "justice" doesn't exist without a trial. there was no trial, ergo there was no justice.

Response to unblock (Reply #1)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
2. The only thing that seems clear is that it was an execution with no effort to capture.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:54 PM
Mar 2013

That is without regard to whether UBL deserved it, but it raises questions about why nobody seemed interested in hearing what the titular head of al-Qaeda had to say about others in his organization and its sponsors and protectors.

JI7

(89,180 posts)
5. it's reasonable considering the person and situation that the goal is to kill, look at that guy in
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:59 PM
Mar 2013

the bunker who had kidnapped the kid. after a certain point the goal was to get the kid out and kill the guy before he might have a chance to cause any more harm.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
8. There is no requirement to capture, there is one to not shoot someone trying to surrender
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:52 PM
Mar 2013

If he had surrendered, presumptively they would not have shot him.

That he would resist in some manner was a very good bet.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
20. You totally ignored the good reason to not shoot him: information.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:40 AM
Mar 2013

They just didn't want to open that can of worms.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
21. No, I pointed out the rules
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:35 AM
Mar 2013

That someone woken in the middle of the night by gunfire would not be rational enough to surrender was quite foreseeable.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
27. All they had to do was take 2 steps, reach out and grab UBL rather than double tap him in the face.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:40 PM
Mar 2013

It was, in fact, entirely feasible and safe to arrest him that night and take him away. Nay, easier and probably quicker to handcuff him and lead him to the waiting chopper than carrying the dead body down two flights of stairs.

Just be honest and admit it. The rules of engagement were to execute him. I understand the argument that can be made that taking him into custody might have led to additional attacks. But, nobody can deny that we passed up a rich source of information about al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. The richest.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
33. ... he said from the safety of his keyboard.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:06 AM
Mar 2013

And if you can read, the account says that OBL was shot when he peeked his head out of the bedroom door. If OBL had been able to get back into that room, he could have obtained a weapon (there were weapons in the room).

The only easy thing, is to talk about how EASY this was, from the safety of one's keyboard.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
14. He had years to turn himself in. Too risky, once located, to try to capture him.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:58 PM
Mar 2013

It was more important than none of our guys or the dog got injured or killed. Very risky operation.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
30. Boo hoo. I'm cryin' for bin Laden. Poor wittle thing.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:30 AM
Mar 2013

He murders thousands of people. He's put on a most wanted list and given the opportunity to turn himself in. He goes into hiding, and continues to murder and behead innocent people. So he's finally tracked down and stopped, so that thousands of innocent people's lives are saved.

Boo hoo. Life was so unfair to bin Laden. Those people were so unfair to shoot him. They should've asked him politely to come along, like a good boy. I'm sure he would have complied.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
36. You can wet yourself however you want. I said we blew off an opportunity to obtain information, not
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 03:42 AM
Mar 2013

that I have any sympathy for UBL. He can sleep and rot with the fishes.

Your response is like it's from a script - an irrelevant personal attack instead of addressing the issue I did ask about why, when we had the opportunity to capture and interrogate bin Laden, we capped him, instead.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
28. You're right
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:42 PM
Mar 2013

We can't have him talk. He may just tell us why the FBI doesn't hold him responsible for 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

I guess 9/11 is just an "other" LOL! I would have loved to hear what he had to say. Although, would it be translated correctly to us minions. It says, poster revised November 2001. I think September is before November last time I checked. I guess it was too late like school pictures to fix the mistake. LOL!

JI7

(89,180 posts)
3. i'm not reading this carefully but how do the stories differ ?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:56 PM
Mar 2013

it's one of those things which happened quickly and people view things ,especially later in a different way. there might be some exaggerations made.

 

Generation_Why

(97 posts)
9. I get so sick of all the whiny little fucks crying tears over Bin Laden...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:55 PM
Mar 2013

They shot him dead like he deserved.

And it was 10 years overdue.

Stop making the left look like fools with your bleeding hearts for mass murderers.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
10. Which whiny fucks are you addressing?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:04 PM
Mar 2013

Haven't seen any whiny fucks in these parts lately except for...well, I don't really know you. Now, who were those whiny fucks again?

GiveMeFreedom

(976 posts)
23. That's true
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:15 PM
Mar 2013

for the ones that don't wander into Hollywood. Spent 4 years in the Navy, I met one Seal that whole time.

 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
26. Really at this point it really doesn't matter. He is dead. Even if they brought him back for
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:35 PM
Mar 2013

trial he would have been tried and killed.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
29. Since we are at war, killing an enemy commander is an act of war...
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:04 PM
Mar 2013

and there is no necessity to bring enemy commanders in to stand trail. They can be shot on the battlefield.

The main policy under Bill Clinton was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, as he did with the Blind Sheik and the World Trade Center bombing. (The one in the 90's.)

Since 9/11 terrorism has been treated as a military issue, this is especially true under the Authorization to use force that allows the President to hunt and kill anyone linked to Al Qaeda, or any terrorists really, outside U.S. Boarders. When at war there is simply no necessity to capture and try enemy commanders. In fact, unless an enemy commander committed a war crime, it isn't legal to try him for anything. That is why they were careful to create a system where captured Al Qaeda fighters could be tried for war crimes.

Justice has no part in propagating a war. Soldiers, whether cannon fodder on the field or Commanders hiding out in fancy houses can be shot.

Personally, I prefer t treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, but I understand why Bin Laden could be shout in that house.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
34. You are saying Obama is a legitimate target?
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:23 AM
Mar 2013

You might want to look into the so-called "rules of warfare" a bit.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
35. President Obama would not be shooting at himself.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 07:49 PM
Mar 2013

So I am not sure what you are getting at.
"You are saying Obama is a legitimate target?"

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
37. "I don't care what the truth is!"
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:51 AM
Mar 2013
This is why we're fucked. Expect more mysterious boogymen, more war, and less liberty.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Seal Team 6 member disput...