Slashdot Mirror
Porn Reportedly Found At Bin Laden Compound
Hugh Pickens writes "Reuters reports that a stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the US commandos who killed him. The pornography consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity. Officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials and it is unclear how compound residents would have acquired the pornography but a video released by the Obama administration confiscated from the compound showed bin Laden watching pictures of himself on a TV screen, indicating that the compound was equipped with video playback equipment. Officials familiar with evidence gathered during investigations of other Islamic militants said the discovery of pornography is not uncommon in such cases." Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
No, probably not. I'm not sure why they would release this detail if it's true. It's not like people's opinion is going to change. "Well, I sort of liked bin Laden until I found out there was PORNOGRAPHY in his compound." Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Guy walks into a bar and orders a "bin laden"
What's that? replies the bar tender
"Two shots in the head and a splash"
No, it's not too cynical to mention that. It's also not too cynical to mention that such behavior is also fairly predictable among religious extremists of any stripe.
The things they want to deprive others of on religious reasons are usually the things they are most guilty of.
...since it took this long for the commandos to report it.
If I wanted to distribute hidden terrorist messages broadly around the world, leveraging willing dupes who would use their PC's to host the filesharing/torrents, for sure I would embed it in porn using steganography. It's really the obvious choice.
Doe anyone really find this strange, since my own personal made-up statistics show that most men have some porn stashed somewhere....?
It would be more discomforting if they couldn't find his porn....
cheers,
You must not be married if you think having a wife around means someone will usually fulfill your desires :)
He hadn't bin laden how long? Time for some porn and a little alone time!
I heard one of the DVD's was "Monica does Bill".
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
Only if you mention that even if he were around, he'd probably deny it regardless of whether or not it is true.
Then again, the story isn't unbelievable. Just take a look at some interesting Google Trends results:
I suppose, either way, we're going to have to judge for ourselves whether or not we believe the story, and to what extent. I, personally, feel that it's not unlikely or surprising, but also that I don't really case. Who'd have thought someone able to morally justify slaughtering thousands wouldn't also find a way around whatever porn-related barriers they face?
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
Is it too hard to believe that people at the top of fanatical religious organizations like Al-Qaeda might consider themselves above the rules they preach to the desperate men that give their lives for him/their cause blindly?
Seems like a dozen people lived in the compound, and porn was found on one of the PCs there. People are hoping it's Bin Laden's, since it fits with the idea he's a bad person, and a perv on top of it. Maybe it was his son's.
I'm skeptical it's Bin Laden's. I can't find the story now, but there were recordings of Al Qaeda leaders watching Al Jazeera, and then covering over the screen whenever an "immodestly-dressed" woman anchor came on.
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
That level of "cynicism" does pass over any rational line, sounding more like Les Nesman finding a conspiracy under every rock. Who else don't you trust? Just a general paranoia or specific techie-anarchist? The submission would have been better without cheapening yourself that way.
I don't know why they even bother mentioning this... it's not like the whole world was on the fence about the guy and looking for some reason to love him or hate him. The only people who this would possible impact are those who do think he's a hero. And guess what, they're not going to believe a word of it.
I have worked in a variety of military operations centres.
What you are seeing is likely not willful deception, but rather a common phenomenon that "The first report is never right".
When people are under stress, they report the details wrong, or they mis-hear, or they make assumptions to fill in gaps in knowledge, or there or misunderstandings, etc etc.
So the details in an initial report are almost always wrong. You learn to not leap into action based on an initial report, but to be patient and wait for follow-up reports, because they tend to be more accurate. As time goes by and people calm down, the true details start to resolve.
So for example, if the operative on the ground reported that Osama was "resisting" (by which, he meant that he did not immediately surrender) the next guy up the chain may have interpreted "resisting" to mean "armed and shooting" - and that's what he reported. Later debriefs would reveal what actually happened, and the story would change.
That's nothing nefarious; that's just the nature of crisis reporting.
If you are old enough to remember 9/11, for the first few hours of the attacks, all kinds of crazy crap was being reported. It wasn't until later in the day the the actual nature of what had happened had resolved itself.
By the way, Bin Laden's standing amongst the world's Muslims is not very high, and never was. His standing amongst the worlds Jihadist Terrorists was much higher. Please don't confuse the two.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Obviously nobody actually read the article. It was stuff that is offensive to muslim beliefs. Here's the top 12 videos:
1. "Miss Piggy does Dallas"
2. "Makin' Bacon"
3. "2 Pigs in a Blanket"
4. "Porky Pig Got Fingered"
5. "Ham and Cheezy"
6. "Doing the 'Flying Pig'"
7. "3 Little Pigs, One Cup"
8. "Hogzilla Attacks"
9. "Pearls Before Swine"
10. "Squeal Like a Pig!"
11. "The Adventures of Peter Porker, Spider-Ham"
12. "Swine Flew Epidemic - Attack of the Killer Hogs"
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Yeah, but very strict religiously Islamic or Christians shouldn't have porn according to their respective teachings. Especially if they're in a position of leadership and example.
Saying that, I consider myself pretty devout Christian, and I watch porn even though I feel I really shouldn't.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
or was it "Rear Cave Entrance Sluts 9"?
Is anyone shocked when one of those "family values" politicians, preaching about the sanctity of marriage and the evilness of a culture that glamorizes homosexuality comes out of the closet? Or in the case of Larry Craig, gets busted trying to have sex in a men's room? It doesn't shock me anymore, since it seems the most passionate moral crusaders are really crusading against their own personal desires.
Hell, look at "culture warrior" Bill O'Reilly. Remember the Andrea Mackris thing? She had transcripts of alleged phone conversations that are clear examples of sexual harassment (and the detailed nature of the transcripts lead people to believe she had recordings). Bill O paid her a bunch of money to shut up and never spoke of it again. Sexual harassment is wrong when anyone does it, but it seems doubly wrong when you preach day in and out about morals and the "dangers" of things like rap music.
I guess, essentially, the gist of my post here is that people are often hypocrites, so hypocritical behavior does not shock me at all. So a group of extremist Muslims who feel strongly enough about their religion to blow up thousands of innocent (including Muslim) Americans happen to enjoy porn when nobody is looking. Not surprised. In fact, it makes me wonder aloud here if the religion is just an excuse for the killings, and if what people like bin Laden were really upset about was Israel and our support of it, that it's more of a territorial dispute than a religious one, but it's just a lot easier to get people to fly planes into buildings if you tell them 72 virgins will greet them afterward. I mean, I tend to notice the folks at the top of these terrorist organizations aren't the ones blowing themselves up. Think maybe they have some doubts about whether or not they end up anywhere afterward?
But then again I shouldn't read too much into this one incident, it is after all just some porn. Just a thought though - maybe if bin Laden's wives didn't have to be covered head to toe, he wouldn't need a stash to get off.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
I think this will backfire against the US... it will actually make him appear super-human. He had porn _without_ internet access... I mean how does that happen???
One of the things that made Osama so dangerous was that he had set himself up as a kind of religious aesthete who, to his followers, had claimed the moral high ground and was thus an example to be emulated.
He was claiming to be more pious than Islamic religious leaders who were preaching a more moderate course of action.
If his claims of piety can be shown to be demonstrably false; if he can be shown to be as flawed and "sinful" as every other man, much of the righteous indignation that mobilizes his followers can be neutralized.
Having disillusioned former terrorists and jihadists renounce their former ways and return to the Muslim mainstream is a win for everybody - it's a win for Islam, a win for the West - and a win for the former jihadists, who will get to live more normal lives that won't have to end violently.
Killing one's enemy is never the ideal course of action. Sometimes it is necessary. But far better for everyone if they become your friends - or at the very least, renounce being your sworn enemy.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
When I was in Iraq, we found porn in a few houses on raids. Videos (arab and French), Playboy, and a few other things.
Which is incredibly stupid. Sex is a natural and good act. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it, watching it or just rubbing one out when you feel tense.
Now those groups that want to censor everything adults consume can assert that not only does pornography lead to rape, but terrorism!
Now you know why all the convenience stores are owned my muslims.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Haggard's Law: "The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality." Basically, it is often the case that the more religious people rant about a vice, the more likely it is that they are really harbouring a strong desire for it, and probably hate themselves for doing so. That is not to say that everybody fighting for a cause or against something fall into this category.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Invasion of a country is an act of war, often an unjustified one, but no act of terrorism.
Lies are not an act of terrorism (otherwise we would have to arrest all politicians as terrorists ;-))
The number of deaths also does not define terrorism.
Now if Bush had given the explicit command to intentionally kill random civilians in Iraq (as opposed to "just" accepting their death as collateral damage), then the term "terrorist" would be justified. But I don't think he did.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I'm a little surprised that (a) this surprises _anybody_, and (b) that there are plenty of Slashdotters who are convinced it's lies and propaganda. You're making the mistake that because Bin Laden subscribed to an ideology that was sexually repressive, he must also have been sexually repressed. This isn't the case. The sexual mores of the conservative (read: fundamentalist) Islamic world are pretty twisted; the reason burqas are mandated for women is because the men supposedly can't help themselves if shown a bit of ladyflesh, even a bare ankle. The onus for sexual purity is placed almost _entirely_ on women (which sounds a little like the US, come to think of it); it's no surprise, then, if Bin Laden is a total pervert. Honestly, I'd be surprised if there _wasn't_ porn in the compound.
You are thinking like an occidentalist, don't forget about the rights of spouses and women in general in the Taliban's culture.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Mean? Really? This isn't kindergarden. The man help plan and fund a way for other terrorists to fly planes full of people into buildings. You make it sound like he might have some redeeming qualities. Far worse things have been said about far nicer people. Whether it Is a deliberate smear or not, I'd say it's well deserved. Whether it will work or is a good idea strategically is another matter.
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim? No, it is not too cynical at all. I believe that there is a nugget of truth to OBL having pornography because we have seen religious zealots and conservative politicians here in the US having closet sexual perversions. However, the Obama Administration wants to parade OBL's faults and make his hypocrisy well-known thereby lessening his martyrdom. By denigrating him, Obama et al hope to further weaken the resolve to potentially avenge Bin Laden's death.
nope.. just several well used copies of Weapons of Ass Destruction
most men have some porn stashed somewhere
... like under their wife's clothes?
Very clever! She would never think to look for it hidden in her own dresser drawer.
Sex is natural and quite some great thing, and I don't think, biblical views saw it ever different (just think about it, what did adam and eve do? they had a lot of children according to the story). In fact, the bible does address pervertion, it never adresses sex.
However, you will notice, porn is not about real sex. It is about sex, no doubt, it shows people enjoying an almost ritualic show, accessing the viewers lust for sex simply by depicting it, and we males are dominantly visually adressable, so it works. Real sex however includes intimacy, relationship, trust.
Condemning sex is actually based on the personal shame of Augustin, who himself quite a ladiesman, later felt bad about his past life. Augustin, like many great christian teachers, did have a lot to say, most of which is considerable good - but to accept his whole teachings, some people felt the need to accept every aspect of it.
You see a lot of religious teachers suffer from personal affairs in their life, including those personal pains in their teachings. I take them as a warning, as for being addicted to porn, or losing touch with sexuality in terms of relationship can damage people in great effect.
But to go so far as saying: its not bad at all to be sexually centered and have no self control - thats just ridiculous.
I would not feel worse after a cigarette, than after watching porn, but I dont have to accept addictive behaviour as something benevolent towards my life.
Modern christianity is often considered antisexual.
At the same time, non-christian westernism is very much concentrated on this topic, maybe fighting for a freedom, which was never really taken away.
Not by having faith at least.
Just because boundaries make you suffer, breaking them does not make you heal nor free. Christianity is more about peaceful stopping at boundaries, because they were taken away, or stop feeling ashamed if you can't otherwise than cross them.
The antisexual tendism of some christian lines just damages our respect of people who really suffer from addictions, like porn, lies, drugs, anger, fear, and so on. But they are not strict about sex, because they don't like sex.
Everybody likes sex. It's weird if you don't. But is it so important, that it dictates your daily actions?
One can admit guilt in a venue other than court, say a video recording. He did some admitting there, for instance.
Nobody cares what you do with your own life. Except the religious, who decide something, then decide it's God's will, and soon are either burning people at stake or posting Youtube videos, depending on the era. And, of course, are utterly convinced that causing completely unnecessary grief makes them extra holy.
Or flying airplanes into buildings, to get back on topic.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Admitting guilt doesn't necessarily make you guilty. There are plenty of examples of false confessions being given, and it's not uncommon for terrorist groups to try to take credit for activities that they didn't actually do, to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are. Terror is about branding, after all.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Maybe it was videos of Iranian women taking off their headwear and shaking their hair?
1. You may be a terrorist if... You wear a Casio watch
2. You may be a terrorist if... You use large amounts of shampoo and like to travel
3. You may be a terrorist if... You dislike low-tech fondling by strangers
4. You may be a terrorist if... You refuse maid service
5. You may be a terrorist if... You pay for a hotel in cash
6. You may be a terrorist if... You use a video camera in a non-designated video recording area
7. You may be a terrorist if... Your car has boxes or bags in it
8. You may be a terrorist if... You own a GPS unit
9. You may be a terrorist if... You take pictures of buildings and landmarks
10. You may be a terrorist if... You are unemployed and in possession of cash
11 You may be a terrorist if... You are a pregnant women and carry around bulky diaper bags
12. You may be a terrorist if... You or somebody you live with is in possession of pornography
Well, in this case, there is probably really no room for doubt. Still should have kept up the procedure. That's what *should* distinguish us from random barbarians.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
No, killing civilians makes you a war criminal, not a terrorist.
No, intentionally killing unarmed, noncombatant civilians makes you a war criminal. If I shell a building just to kill the civilian occupants, I'm a war criminal. If I have to shell the same building, killing all the occupants because I'm taking sniper fire from there... well, sucks to live in that building, but I gotta do what I gotta do to protect my troops. Collateral damage and civilian deaths during war are a fact of life. A sad and tragic fact of life, but a fact of life nonetheless.
Exactly. Some of Freud's ideas haven't aged well, but when it comes to vices, he really nailed one aspect of human nature with what he called Reaction Formation.
Ask me about my sig!
You're right that some will assume it was planted, some will assume that it wasn't his, some will rationalize it away, and so on.
But some won't. Some will realize that Osama wasn't the saint he made himself out to be, and will leave the network because of it.
And every one of those is a fighter lost who didn't have to be killed - a win for everyone.
A course of action need not have a 100% success rate to make it worth following.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Seems to me that government officials and religious officials have one major thing in common.
They are more than willing to demand that you live your life a certain way but tend to shy away from doing so themselves.
Both will have ardent followers who will defend their leaders infractions. Royalty simply assumed a new title.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's not really the point or what he's arguing. The presumption of innocence is something we give to our worst, our very, very, very worst, most obviously guilty criminals. It was also something tribunals gave to the Nazis, some of the very worst criminals in all of world history. It is a bedrock prinicple of Western society. But we didn't give it here.
The tribunals only gave that to the Nazi's the Allies didn't kill during the war. If you forget, America is still at war (with Terror, not sure how we can battle and abstract concept, but hey). Therefore, Bin Laden was a war combatant, and assuming he didn't surrender (do you think he would have?), the American soldiers who shot him were under no obligation to read him his rights and take him, unharmed, into custody.
Why? Well, we still don't know all the details. But if he resisted in a way where he couldn't be subdued, they sure haven't told us. It looks, from the information we do have, that he was simply assassinated, without due process of any kind.
Wait a minute, so you're saying it was wrong to shoot Bin Laden because he didn't get his day in court, but you're only saying this because you assume that Seal Team 6 went into that compound guns-a-blazing shooting everything in sight without cause? What about their day in court, what about assuming they are innocent until proven guilty? Sure, I bet Osama was just sitting at a desk, dutifully reciting the Quran from memory, probably knitting his mother a sweater when some mean ole American came in and double-tapped him in the forehead, just like all us gun-owning American's would do to anyone given the opportunity.
I know American's do a lot of shit to earn a bad reputation, but for your anti-American sentiment to be so strong that you would actually support Bin Laden rather than admit that America might have done the right thing in this instance is disgusting. And if you're an American, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Eggs
Milk
Bread
Cat Litter
Soda
Read a book called Orientalism by Edward Said. Your perceptions of Islamic views on sex are greatly influenced by the desire for your (and to some degree my) own culture to create the other, something, through opposition, by which it can define itself.
The most striking thing is how different this other was one hundred to two hundred years ago - Western culture was prudish, while Asians (including Arabs) were the ones of wild sexuality (think about our misconceptions of the haram, geishas, etc.).
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
While I love it when a believer is able to rise above what's in their holy books, and I really hesitate to make an issue out of it -- it's not like I want you to be more puritanical, let alone start stoning your children -- I'm not sure you can really say this honestly:
I don't think, biblical views saw it ever different (just think about it, what did adam and eve do?
It's not clear what they did before knowledge of good and evil, but once they ate the fruit and gained such knowledge, they immediately covered their nakedness out of shame. If sex is natural and a great thing, why would they cover their nakedness?
I'm not suggesting that nudism makes sense now (or that it doesn't), but who, exactly, were they trying to cover themselves from? Each other? God? I wonder which is more absurd -- trying to hide from an all-knowing being, or trying to hide from someone you've been perfectly comfortable with naked (and perhaps more) for as long as the two of you have existed.
The subtext is pretty clear, however: Your bodies are inherently shameful. The only reason you would think otherwise is if you were naive enough not to know any better.
In fact, the bible does address pervertion,
According to the Bible, homosexuality is perversion, on par with bestiality, and quite a bit worse than rape.
it never adresses sex.
Of course it does. Aside from the above, we see all sorts of fuss made about virgins (keep only the virgin girls of the Midianites, kill those who've lain with a man), we also have the Story of Onan -- when God tells you to get someone pregnant, you do not pull out, and this is where the Catholics get their ideas about birth control, though they are, of course, missing the point. There are also pages and pages of laws about how a wet dream will make certain things unclean, and you can't enter the sanctuary if your junk is damaged, and oh, the foreskins...
Reading the Bible, it almost seems like God is obsessed with sex.
However, you will notice, porn is not about real sex... Real sex however includes intimacy, relationship, trust.
These aren't mutually exclusive, though they are fantastically rare. And I'm not sure I agree with you about "real sex" -- that sounds almost exactly like a No True Scotsman -- but that's really just bickering about your terms, and you can have the terms if you like.
You see a lot of religious teachers suffer from personal affairs in their life, including those personal pains in their teachings. I take them as a warning, as for being addicted to porn, or losing touch with sexuality in terms of relationship can damage people in great effect.
I'm not sure being "addicted to porn" or "losing touch with sexuality" is what was happening with, say, Ted Haggard. I think what was happening is his religion had taught him to be ashamed of his sexual identity.
But to go so far as saying: its not bad at all to be sexually centered and have no self control - thats just ridiculous.
That's the problem -- lack of self-control. I see no problem at all with being "sexually centered" -- as Wash says, "Some people juggle geese!" There are all kinds of things you could live for.
I would not feel worse after a cigarette, than after watching porn,
I would. The cigarette is actually unhealthy, physically -- I would actually be damaging my body, even if it wasn't physically addictive. There's nothing about porn itself which could be physically addictive, certainly nothing that you wouldn't find in actual intercourse -- do you feel similarly bad after sex?
I don't know if you get this idea from religion, but it doesn't seem far off from the kind of pattern that we see with, say, Ted Haggard -- ashamed of his homosexuality, vocally and publicly working against gay rights in between se
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It upsets me that yesterday I had mod points, and today I have none. You both have made very good points.
I suspect you intended to contradict g4b's statement, but I believe that what you say and what he says are complimentary to eachother. G4b points out that otherwise good teachers often speak out against their own vices, and that their irrationality on that subject tends to be the result of a disastrous addiction. You remind us that those irrational preachings tend to be swallowed whole by their followers, who then use that information for their own gratification-- a vice in and of itself, which is seldom called out for being just that.
What g4b speaks of, leads directly to what you speak of. These things go hand in hand. Religion speaks to man's sense of superstition, and some men would use that to control others; sometimes knowingly, other times, obliviously.
This is not a reason to throw out religion, though. Scriptures tend to be remarkably pure in this regard, not having the rabid mark of the zealots who would wield them as weapons. Regardless of how you view the origins of religion, the writers of the scriptures usually had a pretty good idea in mind. I can't really speak for the scriptures of Islam or Buddhism, but the Christian scriptures in particular express that peace and personal satisfaction are best achieved by benevolence and self-control, rather than violence and the control of others. We see how quickly that's corrupted, though-- it is as you both say.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Some of the movie titles were:
Deep Goat
Hairy Popper and the Prisoner of Guantanamo
Roadside Bombshells
Debbie Does Darfur
Behind the Green Tent Flap
Her Mouth is Like a IED and She Will Blow You Away
So bluntly, contrary to the massive stupidity run amok here, the killing was entirely lawful, even under US law. Period. End of discussion.
What about, umm, under Pakistani law? If a bunch of Pakistanis shot someone dead in the US it'd be quite legitimate for them to be tried in the US for murder, after extradition if necessary. Would this not apply to SEALs breaking Pakistani law? Would it not be just as big a breach of Pakistani sovereignty as if those hypothetical Pakistanis in the US were officially sanctioned and extradition was refused? Pakistani public opinion seems to think so and there's going to be a price to pay for the US.
Might I also suggest that this will be remember the next time some Polonium 210 turns up in some sushi, too? Not everyone in the world agrees on what 'terrorist' means.
Proper procedures were followed.
Bin Laden, as leader of the international terrorist and insurgent group Al Qaeda, declared war on the United States in 1996. After the many attacks that killed thousands of people and treating it as a police problem, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force (equivalent to a declaration of war) following the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans. Intelligence located Bin Laden, military leader of Al Qaeda, and he was killed by a commando raid. A similar fate occurred to Admiral Yamamoto in World War 2. All perfectly legitimate, and legal under the Law of War.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Reading the Bible, it almost seems like God is obsessed with sex.
God made man in his own image?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Ugh! More stupidity. He mean, "illegal combatant." Illegal combatants are specifically excluded from the protections provided by Geneva Convention. Period. Furthermore, these people can be summarily executed on the spot by order of the officer in charge. The simple fact is, Bin Laden's death is 100% legal around the world.
That's interesting. According to your logic, that would mean the murder of any active duty CIA personnel (remember, not part of the military) by foreign military personal, if he were to be declared a terrorist/enemy of a foreign state, would be 100% legal around the world.
Accordingly, he receives zero legal protection under US law unless he is captured and taken into US custody.
Then it seems that anytime you want to kill an individual, declare him a terrorist and kill him on non-US soil; then you'll have a lawful killing. Okay, got it. The $64,000 question is whether or not he could have been easily captured. The video would show - or at least suggest - if that was or wasn't the case.