Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderThey had a body. They buried it at sea. If the DNA sample was taken from your dead body by CSIs who have done this sort of thing before, I'd say it's pretty much proof you're dead, unless it's provable you are not. The CSIs might be corrupt, but evidence is needed for that.
Originally posted by 000063
Wanting more than DNA tests is an usual level of proof, one which calls into question every other DNA test the US military has ever conducted.
Not true. I cannot send a sample of my DNA to my insurance company and have them match it against my relatives and use that as proof I am dead. Can I? You also need a dead body. Or fragments of a body in sufficient quantity to prove the person who lost those fragments could not have survived their loss
Speaking of which, if they wanted to fake it, why not just bomb the compound, and test the DNA publicly in the US later? There would be no way to determine whether it was from the bombing or from the corpse they had on ice and quietly disposed of.
Is that all we had? Because I remember video of him coming out of his hidey hole, and video of him being examined and having his cheek swabbed, and ................video of his trial and execution. Maybe you missed all that.Without the DNA ID, that could easily have been one of his doubles.
I have legitimate questions about the extraordinary lack of proof and destruction of proof.This isn't extraordinary. DNA has been used to ID dead foes before. Once that's been done, there's no need to keep the body.
There is also the risk your President may ask you to dig the body up, or some international court may call for exhumation. Quickly dumping it at sea precludes that, doesnt it?Speculation. They could've dumped it at sea to prevent people digging it up, or they could've done it as a cover up. Hanlon's Razor indicates the former.
Even if he did, the people feeding him information have precluded his ever having access to more than hearsay.So you can't prove he didn't ask questions. Got it.
And you are wrong. Your trust is unreasonable.I'd like to point out my definition of "unreasonable" is entirely subjective, as is yours.edit on 4-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)