My biggest problem with the ISI harbouring OBL is that the government and the ISI (who can't be viewed as a single entity ldo) get a lot out of the Pakistan American alliance.

Meanwhile they get nothing out of OBL and the Taliban, quite the opposite given the situation in the north.

I could maybe buy that some small elements were involved, like some regional leader (a general or whatever) and a corrupt police overlooking what happened, but I'd need a lot of evidence to buy what is claimed as it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Holding OBL hostage gives ISI leverage over Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

And whether it passes your smell test or not, source after source is confirming it.

What's the end game here, anyhow?

Obama got OBL, but not the right way, thus 9/11 didn't happen and Bush was a great president?

HO LEE SHEET

Santa Monica city council bans AirBnb, no debate needed: http://www.latimes.com/business/real...512-story.html

We recently got a thing in the mail from our landlord to sign that indicated we would never rent our apartment out via AirBnb or any of those other companies. I laughed.

UK seeking some exciting new government powers, because terrorism

David Cameron:

Wow. Greenwald on this, making the point that the biggest threat to free speech is from Western governments:

On one hand, lol UK, but on the other, we're not so different. Former House intel chairman: NSA ruling emboldens ISIS

So low level walk in now equals an ISI General?

Did they forget to use the leverage? Saving it for a rainy day?

Pakistan has been at war with them in an insurgency in Pakistan for eleven years dude. They may as well have just given him to America for 25 mill, they got no value from this.

The list of British values the PM mentioned protecting by stopping hate speech and closing mosques included freedom of speech and of religion. Seriously.

The end game would be bagging on everyone in the Obama admin for the full court press after the OBL hit about what an epically difficult go/no go decision the POTUS made.

This is some V for Vendetta ****

Also from that speech:

!!!

Thought of this yesterday--why has no one ever assassinated a Supreme Court justice? If someone wanted to change the country for decades (depending on who is prez. and Congress, of course.) wouldn't that be an effective way? Is it that crazies just aren't drawn to judicial power or what? I imagine rational conspirators would fear the backlash, but what if they are desperate?

SCOTUS doesn't have Secret Service protection. That seems like a huge weakness.

Read up on the history of presidential assassinations and attempts in the US. There are damn few rational actors in there.

13,

That NSA thing gets ruled unconstitutional and you immediately think it's safe to post whatever you want?

John Grisham is way ahead of you.

I'm sure the fine ladies and gentlemen of our massive surveillance apparatus will be prudent....okay, you're right. I regret it.

I figured there must be some fiction on the idea, but I never read Grisham. Missed the movie too.

you have to differentiate between the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan is simultaneously at war with one while maintaining a very close relationship with the other.

the bolded is wrong re: the Afghan Taliban (what people mean when they say 'the Taliban'). the ISI ~created the Taliban. the US military captured ISI officers fighting with the Taliban. the Taliban leadership has had a sanctuary in Quetta under the protection of the ISI since 2002.

the Afghan Taliban serves one of Pakistan's core national security strategies, strategic depth, which basically means Pakistan must maintain a client/close ally in Afghanistan to prevent them from being surrounded by India.

if the ISI was protected Bin Laden it doesn't have to be a "bad apple" scenario. Pakistan purposefully cultivated radical Islam within the miltary since the mid-70s, gave the most support to the most radical groups fighting in Afghanistan in the 80s (where and when al Qaeda was formed), then created and supported the Taliban governing Afghanistan in the 90s (with al Qaeda's help). Musharaf announcing on 9/12 "no more radical Islam for us, promise!" didn't wipe away institutional attitudes and relationships developed over 25 years.

As a subscriber I'm glad the new yorker didn't print seymore hearsh's artlcle. He's been pretty clueless and conspiratorial for a while now.

Republican nuttery is providing cover for some mega-idiocy from Democrats, most recently voting down their own President's no-brainer free trade agreement while citing all the usual tired nonsense populist talking points.

It's hard to tell if the treaty is a no brainer when it's contents are classified Riverman.

JFC really?

The measure that failed would allow Obama to submit the agreement to Congress for an up or down vote, which is the only way he could actually negotiate it.

Elizabeth Warren Free Trade Letter Calls For Trans-Pacific Partnership Transparency

TOP DEMOCRATIC SENATOR BLASTS OBAMA’S TPP SECRECY


EXCLUSIVE — SEN. RAND PAUL VISITS SECRET ROOM TO READ OBAMATRADE, CALLS FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF DEAL TEXT

Dude you literally have no idea what you are talking about. The bill that was defeated gives Obama the authority to negotiate unilaterally. Whatever agreement he reaches would still have to be voted on.

And linking Briebart. Wow.