# Capture of UbL: The USG's Denying It- Might Make it True- What If? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628 "2004-02-28T15:43:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Asteroide](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@Asteroide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asteroide)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/41 "2004-02-29T11:33:39Z")
> [@Pervert](#): > > Can I turn this around on you guys for a second? If there were some nutjob in that valley lobbing nukes at you, would you still be relluctant to nuke it? Would you require that each and every single individual be proved beyond a reasonable doubt culpable in the attack before you would approve of a counter attack? I believe you’re conflating self-defense/retaliation/revenge. I would expect the standard of proof to be different for each of these. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/42 "2004-02-29T12:00:21Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > It’s a good question – one to which I don’t have a good answer. I will tell you that it is higher than “if some other country chooses to have a civil war over it” and it is much, much, **much** higher than “if every single person in Pakistan who opposes us finding bin Laden is killed.” Stop right there. Someone else’s country, their rules, you follow them. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/43 "2004-02-29T15:27:44Z")
There’s not a chance that any withholding of information of his capture is politically motivated. It would make perfect sense not to give away their hand to the remaining Al-Queda who would assume that all kinds of information had been compromised. They probably learned from the Saddam capture that they should have withheld the info until some preliminary interrogations were conducted. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/44 "2004-02-29T16:06:06Z")
I posited this conspiracy theory in the thread that I started on this subject, but this is a better forum for it, because you GD people are so much cleverer than that shower over at MPSIMS. 😉 Is there a possibility that, in the event that he is in custody already, the Pentagon reckons the negative effect of him being publically captured (revenge terror acts, hostage situations calling for his release, etc.) might be greater than of not ever revealing that they have him. In other words, is there a chance that they may never reveal he’s been captured? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/45 "2004-02-29T17:36:41Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > I posited this conspiracy theory in the thread that I started on this subject, but this is a better forum for it, because you GD people are so much cleverer than that shower over at MPSIMS. 😉 > > Is there a possibility that, in the event that he is in custody already, the Pentagon reckons the negative effect of him being publically captured (revenge terror acts, hostage situations calling for his release, etc.) might be greater than of not ever revealing that they have him. In other words, is there a chance that they may never reveal he’s been captured? Nope. There’s too much to be gained from revealing that they’ve nabbed him. First of all, Bush benefits politically from the capture. Secondly, the announcement will help despirit many of the low-level thugs in the network. Third, if the announcement comes at a time when the military has had a scandal, it’ll help push that off the front page. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/46 "2004-02-29T17:57:10Z")
> [@Michael Ellis](#): > > October surprise, eh? My search turned up some sites of dubious objectivity, articles about an independent film, conspiracy nuts defending their theories, and [this Congressional Report.](http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/920701-233658.htm) Hey, I didn’t say I necessarily believe the “October Surprise” theory (or disbelieve it), I just said I was reminded of it. Of course, it’s even possible that the October Surprise theory is 100 percent false, but W Bush is still hiding ObL until the elections are closer. I personally find the “hiding ObL” scenario unlikely, FWIW. I think the risk is far greater than the reward. And the reward is simply the difference between the political advantage now, vs political advantage later, which I’m not convinced is all that much greater. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/47 "2004-02-29T18:03:59Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Nope. There’s too much to be gained from revealing that they’ve nabbed him. First of all, Bush benefits politically from the capture. Secondly, the announcement will help despirit many of the low-level thugs in the network. Third, if the announcement comes at a time when the military has had a scandal, it’ll help push that off the front page. Yeah, you’re right, aren’t you. I’m returning my foil hat to the store. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/48 "2004-02-29T18:20:20Z")
In looking at all the possibilities here, by FAR the most likely is that Iranian media is simply in error. Shoddy reporting. The second most likely is that Iran is intentionally floating this as ssome form of disinformation. If you want a conspiracy theory, try this: There have been a lot of rumblings lately that the U.S. is closing in on Osama. So the Iranians throw a small wrench in the works by announcing they already have him. This complicates U.S. efforts to manoever in the area (“why do you need to move your troops through my region, when you already have him?”). It also will aid in setting up all sort of conspiracy theories if Osama’s capture is announced at any time between now and the election. The third most likely (a distant third), is that the U.S. does have Osama, but they aren’t making the capture public because they have an intelligence op going - perhaps they are using Osama’s communications channel to issue bogus orders in order to roll up the terrorist network or something. Or perhaps they can’t announce it right away because the money trail will dry up. Or they are waiting for Osama’s couriers to arrive to they can capture them and find out who they are carrying information back to. Whatever. The last possibility is that they have captured him and are holding him for political reasons. This is by far the most unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, if knowledge of such a political conspiracy were to get out, it would be the end of Bush. And second, because it’s not clear how much political advantage Bush gets out of this. I can easily see an analysis that would say that the capture of Osama is BAD for Bush, because it will make people worry even less about terrorism, and the war on terror is a Bush advantage over Kerry. So why would an administration take a huge risk for a benefit that is, at best, speculative? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/49 "2004-02-29T18:39:48Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The third most likely (a distant third), is that the U.S. does have Osama, but they aren’t making the capture public because they have an intelligence op going - perhaps they are using Osama’s communications channel to issue bogus orders in order to roll up the terrorist network or something. Or perhaps they can’t announce it right away because the money trail will dry up. Or they are waiting for Osama’s couriers to arrive to they can capture them and find out who they are carrying information back to. Whatever. > > The last possibility is that they have captured him and are holding him for political reasons. This is by far the most unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, if knowledge of such a political conspiracy were to get out, it would be the end of Bush. And second, because it’s not clear how much political advantage Bush gets out of this. I can easily see an analysis that would say that the capture of Osama is BAD for Bush, because it will make people worry even less about terrorism, and the war on terror is a Bush advantage over Kerry. So why would an administration take a huge risk for a benefit that is, at best, speculative? Actually your 3rd possibility gives the administration plausible deniability in the case the your last possibility is in play. I’m not saying I believe it, but I think the risk of revealing a political motive is extremely small since there are any number of reasons for the US to keep the capture of ObL secret, at least for a short period of time. Now, if it turns out that ObL was captured in Feb, and it is made public in Oct, then there’d be a lot of skepticism. If he’s held for a few months secretly, I think it’s no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/50 "2004-02-29T19:15:17Z")
Except that if the reason for keeping him was for intel purposes, there would be a lot of people working on that. Special forces, CIA, NSA, you name it. There would be a big paper trail after the fact showing exactly what the intelligence community was up to. If, on the other hand, OBL was simply on ice waiting to be rolled out for political gain, it would be hard to claim that it was for intel purposes after the fact, unless you’re willing to suggest they would set up all these programs as misdirection, and manage to fool all the intel experts who were being asked to set up phony surveillance or something. I suppose you could do both - try to hold him silently as long as you could keep coming up with feasible intelligence schemes to justify it. If he were being held for political purposes, this is probably how it would be done. But in the end, I don’t think this would happen for a simple reason - I don’t think it’s in Bush’s interests to do it. I could more easily buy into a conspiracy that says they don’t WANT to catch OBL, because he’s the bogeyman - the scary, shadowy guy out somewhere in the world that justifies all the intel spending, that gives Bush a security issue to campaign on, etc. I don’t believe that either, but it would be a lot more plausible than having him captured and held so they can roll him out before the election. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/51 "2004-03-01T17:38:12Z")
Quote "The Iranian correspondent responsible for the report told Reuters that the radio had also reported Osama’s capture a year ago. But said a new source had told him on Friday the Al Qaeda leader had been seized “a long time ago” [http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en55761&F\_catID=&f\_type=source](http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en55761&F_catID=&f_type=source) 2 things: **Iranian News Media** is an oxymoron because it is controlled by the state and the state is controlled by a religion. OBL has been making regular tapes for broadcast so it would be impossible for him to have been seized “a long time ago”. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/52 "2004-03-01T21:49:14Z")
}k} outlets are reporting developments in the hunt for Osama today. A new Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker claims that the U.S. has made a deal with Pakistan: You let our troops operate in your country to look for OBL and we don’t make a big deal out of your pardoning of A. Q. Kahn, the man who it looks like was responsible for selling bomb designs to Iran, Lybia, North Korea, etc. etc. The article is a must read: [http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040308fa\_fact](http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040308fa_fact) This blog, the Argus, covers southern Asian geopolitics. It reports big time troop movements on the Pak-Afghan border, as well as a denial by Pakistan of the New Yorker story: [http://www.registan.net/the\_argus/2004/03/weekly\_news\_rou.html](http://www.registan.net/the_argus/2004/03/weekly_news_rou.html) [The Agonist](http://www.agonist.org/) quotes [Strategic Forcasting](http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo) as claiming that the deal is even bigger than that–Musharraf is going to take on the Islamic militant wing of his intellegence service, the ISI, and his chances for survival aren’t good: > [@](#): > > "Either Musharraf has the power to force the ISI to do his bidding or he doesn’t. If he does, bin Laden will soon be in U.S. hands, the Pakistani Islamist machine will be in a state of collapse, and – coupled with results in Iran and Saudi Arabia of the Iraq war, the war with al Qaeda can be wrapped up. > > "Alternatively, Musharraf cannot deliver what he promised. In this case he throws the Americans out; sides with the Islamists, leading to a U.S. war in Pakistan; is overthrown by an Islamist government with the same result; or Pakistan collapses into chaos, and the United States spends a couple of years sorting through the wreckage. > > “It is very hard to imagine the ISI going quietly into that good night. It is also difficult to imagine Musharraf being able to control Pakistan, given the package of promises he has delivered. It seems to us that chaos is the most likely outcome. However, that is not certain. Musharraf does not have a great deal of room for maneuver, but he is a master of using what little room he has. We are entering the key period of the war.” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628/53 "2004-03-02T07:47:29Z")
A law student with an interest in politics mentioned today that one of her friends had told her several months ago that the scuttlebutt out of Afghanistan was that OBL had been captured. The friend’s ties were with the military there. If the rumor has been circulating that long, I’m surprised that we are just now hearing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/capture-of-ubl-the-usgs-denying-it-might-make-it-true-what-if/231628.md?page=2)