You are here

Home

Evidence and proof


Iconic Extrajudicial Execution of Jesus through Osama by US? (Part #7)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Revising the evidence: At the time of writing the US is faced with a media whirlwind regarding the nature of the evidence capable of proving that Osama bin Laden is dead. Some had already declared him to have been long dead (David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: dead or alive? 2009; Paul Craig Roberts, Osama bin Laden"™s Second Death, Global Research, 2 May 2011). Others question the validity of the photos so far made available (Spanish press: bin Laden dead photo a fake, El Publico - 911blogger, 2 May 2011). Others question the DNA evidence (Michael C. Ruppert, Osama and the Ghosts of September 11: 'Proof that Obama is Lying', Global Research, 7 May 2011).

As reported by Mark Mardell, via the BBC, embarrassing corrections have already had to be made to the initial briefing, notably with respect to the role of the woman (The White House backtracks on Bin Laden, 4 May 2011):

The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation. Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot-to-kill operation. Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.

Further clarification on these corrections is offered by Robert Booth (The killing of Osama bin Laden: how the White House changed its story, The Guardian, 4 May 2011 -- also distributed as From a firefight to fog of war: how the US changed its tune over the raid). As noted by Alex Newman (Media Scrambles as Bin Laden Story Crumbles, Global Research, 6 May 2011)

While the establishment media was busy parroting President Obama"™s announcement of Osama bin Laden"™s supposed assassination, reporting the unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, much of the so-called "alternative" press was far more cautious "" and accurate, it turns out. But more importantly, with the new official storyline indicating that bin Laden was in fact unarmed, bigger and much more important questions are beginning to emerge. In terms of coverage, it turns out that the skeptical approach proved far superior in terms of getting it right. Countless mainstream sources were so confident in Obama"™s word that they reported many of the claims as fact without even attributing them to the President. But the official White House narrative has been changed so many times in recent days that now it"™s almost unrecognizable. There wasn"t even a fire fight; yet this was one of the crucial elements of the original story that justified the assassination of a person the government painted as the most valuable source of information on the planet "" the leader of al-Qaeda. And in reporting the statements as fact, the establishment press has officially been left with egg all over its face again.

Unsubstantiated evidence: The problem for the USA is that it is unable to prove to the satisfaction of others that it was in fact Osama bin Laden with any certainty. Indeed John Brennan declared in the White House briefing (2 May 2011) that: Now, we can say with 99.9 percent confidence that this was bin Laden. In a White House briefing on 4 May, it was stated that photos prior to the operation gave a 95 percent certainty. The body of evidence in supporting the conclusion is potentially subject to every kind of tampering, to reinforce the case the USA wants to make. Where is that evidence presented for all to see -- especially in the absence of a body?

The issue became apparent with respect to Saddam Hussein (Politicization of Evidence in the Plastic Turkey Era: al-Qaida, Saddam, Assassination and the Hijab, 2003; Spin and Counter-spin: governance through terrorism, 2002).

The confirmation of a terrorist as essentially "evil" -- justifying completely any "demonisation" in the public eye -- can be usefully contrasted in evidential terms with that of the lengthy multi-stage process undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church in establishing appropriate evidence for the beatification and canonisation of  an individual. This is particularly clear with respect to the casual use of evidence by which "demonisation" is rapidly justified -- in contrast to the careful sifting of evidence in the case of canonisation.  Especially relevant is the role of the Promoter of the Faith, known as the Devil's advocate -- a canon lawyer appointed to argue against the canonisation of the individual. This brought to the evaluation of the evidence a skeptical view, seeking holes in the evidence, to argue that any "miracles" attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc.

Curiously no such role is formally ensured in the case of "demonisation" -- when some form of "Angelic advocate" would usefully ensure appropriate treatment of the evidence, to argue that indications of any "evil" were misrepresented, etc. Some lawyers may endeavour to take on this role, if the person is brought to trial -- a predictably controversial example is Jacques VergÃs (L'Avocat de la terreur, 2007). Strangely forms of this role may emerge subsequently, as with sifting of evidence with respect to any Nobel Peace Prize nominee -- especially one previously demonised as a terrorist.

Misrepresentation of strategy: Official spokespersons for the US naively continue to assume that government assertions are unquestionable as "fact" -- appropriate as evidence before a court of law.  However, as a government, the USA has systematically eroded its credibility as a witness before any court of law. Examples include:

It can only be speculated, as conspiracy theorists are wont to do, on how many other matters governments now consider it appropriate to lie, or on which due diligence has been inadequate (Abuse of Faith in Governance: Mystery of the Unasked Question, 2009). Of particular interest is how the discussion regarding such "lying" is framed so that it can be upheld as "not-lying", perhaps as a necessity to avoid public panic or for reasons of "national security" and "to save American lives" -- all arguments upheld as being beyond any reasonable challenge in a court of law.

More intriguing is the cost/benefit analysis of tampering with the evidence and lying. For any "fact" presented, the key question is the cost of its possible fabrication and whether the cost of faking it (if that were required) might have been considered worthwhile. How much does it cost to elicit any desired "fact" -- suitably authenticated by experts of the highest repute? Video recordings, announcements on jihadist websites, digital media, verbal confirmations by those present, all need to be assessed in this light -- as would be required at any court of law, which would enable the views of independent experts.

Hearsay and factoids: It is in this context that the declaration by Obama that "There is no doubt that bin Laden is dead" (CBS, 4 May 2011) merits the critical examination typical of a court of law -- in the light of previous American claims noted above (US spurs doubts hiding bin Laden data, Press TV, 4 May 2011). As noted in this respect by Zoe Williams (Never forget, they lie: why we love conspiracy theories, The Guardian, 5 May 2011 -- also distributed as Now Princess Di and Osama bin Laden have so much in common):

Nicholas Tomalin's remark to Max Hastings before the latter went to Vietnam is the one that sticks in my mind, but it could have come from any journalist, observing official statements about any conflict: "They lie. Never forget they lie, they lie, they lie". Ask not how plausible their press release is: ask what proportion of press releases from the past has turned out to be true.

Whatever the efforts of propaganda and public relations, failure to supply appropriate evidence allows what is submitted, notably through "authoritative" assertions, to be dismissed as mere hearsay -- effectively an insult to those expected to accept it without question. Much that is presented in the media regarding Osama, whilst indeed possibly factual, is not explicitly related to the kind of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. Rather than "facts", these are an example of "factoids".

There is a huge and appropriate irony to the fact that supposed resolution to the "birther" issue, finally "proving" that Obama was born in the USA (through release of the "long" birth certificate), was made in the very period in which the execution of "Osama" was planned -- now giving rise to burgeoning "deather" issues, despite the assertions of Obama (Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers', Los Angeles Times, 2 May 2011).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here