49

This is making the rounds on social networks:

enter image description here

DID YOU KNOW

Over 20 Navy SEALs who (allegedly) "killed" Osama Bin Laden are now dead.

Is there any truth to this (today as in 8 May 2015)

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 350
  • 3
  • 16
Jan Vladimir Mostert
  • 2,087
  • 4
  • 20
  • 29
  • 14
    I can see an ambiguity in the claim. Do they mean (1) "Of the [one Navy SEAL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O%27Neill_(Navy_SEAL)) who actually killed Bin Laden, 20 are dead?" Clearly not. (2) "Of the [79 JSOC and CIA operatives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear) involved in the operation, 20 are dead." But not all were SEALs. (3) "Of the hundreds(?) of people who were alive and working as Navy SEALS (or perhaps SEAL Team 6?) in 2011, 20 are now dead." Plausible, but misleading. – Oddthinking May 08 '15 at 10:25
  • 1
    It seems the image is referring to 20+ members of Team6. – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 10:42
  • 50
    Given that the exact identities of the people involved in the actual op are classified, this claim is pretty much unfalsifiable -- we don't *know* the identities of those involved, so we can't confidently state whether any of them are alive or dead right now. On the other hand, unless the person who's making the claim has access to classified information, *neither can they* - and if they do have said access, they've just committed a pretty serious crime... – Shadur May 08 '15 at 11:22
  • 6
    @JanVladimirMostert There is only Team 6. Seal Teams 1-5 do not exist. Naming the special forces unit of the navy "Team 6" was done solely to confuse the Soviet secret service. When the cold war was over, the unit was renamed to NSWDG (Naval Special Warfare Development Group), but the name "Seal Team Six" stuck. – Philipp May 08 '15 at 12:30
  • 4
    @Shadur: I would argue that the claim _is_ falsifiable because the image is part of the claim. Once could say that the claim states both that "20 Navy Seals who killed Osama are now dead" and (implied) "the image shown represents those Navy Seals who were involved in the mission (and are now dead)". Without the image however I agree that the claim becomes a [cosmic teapot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) – we don't know who was involved in the mission and therefore we cannot say whether they are dead or alive. – MMM May 08 '15 at 12:52
  • 1
    @MMM Right. Hmm, what *is* skeptics.se policy regarding Cosmic Teapot claims? – Shadur May 08 '15 at 12:54
  • [Found it](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2198/how-should-unfalsifiable-claims-be-handled). – Shadur May 08 '15 at 12:57
  • @Shadur, both answers so far are acceptable answers, "we don't know based on the info we have". Should I keep it open in case more evidence comes to light, eg wikileaks data, declassified FBI data, etc? – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:08
  • @Phillip: Pedantic point: [Wikipedia claims](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six) there were originally *two* SEAL teams. – Oddthinking May 08 '15 at 13:17
  • Updated the question with two relevant links, one says none of the members of Team6 died in the crash and the other article says 25 members of Team6 diead. – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:26
  • 12
    Interestingly enough, at some point in the future this claim *will* be true. Maybe the originator of this claim is prophet ;) – Wayne Werner May 08 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    @WayneWerner, hahaha, let me update the claim to include the year 2015. – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:52
  • Removed them, they were meant to give context to the image, but I see that they can cause confusion as to what it is that's being investigated. – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:58
  • 2
    @Philipp Not true. SEALs existed before Team 6 was created; while the number was chosen to make it seem like there were more teams than there were, there were already two teams at the time. Now, there are teams 1-5, 7, 8, and 10 in addition to DEVGRU (the official name of team 6). – cpast May 08 '15 at 15:49
  • @oddthinking As you say, presumably only one person was directly responsible for firing the shots that killed bin Laden -- maybe arguably two or three "contributed" -- so for this statement to make sense they must mean "members of the group involved in the hunt". If the group they have in mind is larger enough -- like all the members of the military, CIA, and other government agencies involved in searching -- than the statement might well be true, but uninteresting. To say that out of a group of hundreds or thousands of people, 5 years later 20 are dead, is not particularly remarkable. – Mark Daniel Johansen May 08 '15 at 17:39
  • They likely meant to state that out of the navy seals individuals who killed OBL, 20 are now dead. However, you can also read the "who allegedly killed OBL" to reflect over the navy seals in general. As in: Over 20 Microsoft employees (a group that usually gets along) are now in a fight. Over 20 Navy Seals (an organization that allegedly killed OBL), are now dead. In which case, it'd be true. –  May 09 '15 at 05:20
  • 5
    The "allegedly" and the scare quotes looks like the image is trying hard to imply something like: "The US Government never really found OBL, and now they're covering that up by killing the soldiers who can reveal they were not on the mission the government says they were on." No matter who is or isn't dead, that conspiracy theory dies immediately when it turns out the government never did claim that any named person was on the mission. Even if it _was_ all faked, no soldiers would need silencing: just let them all keep thinking some _other_ SEALs were on the mission. – hmakholm left over Monica May 10 '15 at 02:02
  • @HenningMakholm, that's a brilliant strategy, wow! – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 12 '15 at 19:38
  • Can I ask what implication is being put forward by those making this claim? That Bin Laden isn't dead, or that the story of his death is otherwise untrue? – AmbroseChapel Sep 14 '15 at 04:44
  • Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and claims to have been part of the gaggle in the situation room. Does that mean we can add those 20 to the Clinton Death List? Should I post this as a separate question? :D – PoloHoleSet Jan 04 '17 at 21:23

2 Answers2

83

This is not true.

In August 2011, 38 people died in a single helicopter crash, including 15 members of NAVY SEALs' Team 6. The accident has been described as "the worst battlefield calamity in [the team's] history". A U.S. Boeing CH-47 Chinook military helicopter was shot down while transporting a quick reaction force attempting to reinforce an engaged unit of Army Rangers in Wardak province, west of Kabul, Afghanistan. This is what the above image and caption is referring to.

We do not know the exact makeup of the team that killed Osama, however according to official sources:

All but two of the SEALs [killed in the crash] were from SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden, although military officials said none of the crash victims was on that mission in Pakistan against the al-Qaida leader.

The image above has used a photo collage from this article, which also contains the above quote. Confirmation of this can also be found in a report by CNN, BBC, NBC and in other sources. Specifically, an article in USA Today explains that the men killed belonged to the Gold Squadron, while the soldiers involved in the assassination belonged to the Red Squadron. Team 6 has four line squadrons: Blue, Gold, Red and Silver, plus a reconnaissance unit known as Black Squadron. Furthermore each squadron is divided into three troops. The crash wiped out an entire troop in Gold Squadron.

TL;DR The image above represents people who have died in a helicopter crash, a lot of them were members of SEAL Team 6 but none of them was involved in the assassination of Osama.

Moreover as Philipp pointed out in the comments, SEAL Team Six (United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group) isn't a small group and has roughly around 200 people amongst its ranks.

MMM
  • 1,888
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 2
    Have I understood correctly? Your argument is "the photo used to illustrate the claim does not correspond with people who were, according to the military, on the Pakistan mission, so therefore the claim is false." – Oddthinking May 08 '15 at 10:15
  • 10
    @Oddthinking I think the argument is that the photo is from a news article which describes a crash in Afghanistan and which says (as quoted in the answer) that "none of the crash victims was on that mission in Pakistan against the al-Qaida leader": i.e. that (some, other) US Navy Seals were killed, but not those who killed Osama Bin Laden. – ChrisW May 08 '15 at 10:21
  • @ChrisW: I wonder if we can make that argument clearer, because this took several reads to get that meaning. It also leaves a cop-out clause: maybe the photo was poorly chosen to make it a memeable graphic, but the textual claim correct. – Oddthinking May 08 '15 at 10:28
  • The argument is that the image itself is referring to the crash, the people represented on the images are US Navy Seals, however none of them were involved in the raid that killed Osama. – MMM May 08 '15 at 10:32
  • 27
    It should also be mentioned that the name seal *team* six implies that the unit is much smaller than it actually is. The exact number of soldiers is of course classified, but the so-called seal team six consists of 7 independent squadrons which consist of three groups which consist of several teams, so one can assume that the number of seal team six operators in service at any given time is about three-digit. – Philipp May 08 '15 at 12:24
  • Is timesfreepress a reputable source to be linking to? If not, they could be linking to a random image of soldiers, it could even be a stock image. – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:14
  • @JanVladimirMostert The photo is AP. There is a caption that says it's the actual soldiers. So not stock. (According to the article.) – Radiodef May 08 '15 at 13:19
  • Size of DEVGRU (aka Team 6) is classified, but most [other SEALs teams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs#SEAL_Teams) have size of 6 platoons, which would mean about 100-200 people. – vartec May 08 '15 at 17:01
  • This needs a reference for the "official sources" – Dave May 08 '15 at 18:34
42

Like most conspiracy theories, this claim is unfalsifiable.

The identities of the SEALs involved in the assault on Bin Laden's compound were not released to the press or the public -- in fact, the one time FOX News attempted to out one of them they caught a great deal of flak over it.

Those identities are classified information, and without knowing who they are it's pretty much impossible to conclusively state whether any of them are alive or dead.

Of course, conversely, the person who made this claim is working from the same lack of information - if he or she is capable of conclusively stating that 20 of them are dead, he or she would have to know their identities first... In which case they have access to highly classified information and probably shouldn't be spouting it on the internet as a meme.

So in conclusion, either the originator of the claim is ignorant and made it up out of whole cloth, or they're not and at an absolute minimum violating multiple laws dealing with classified information.

The fact that (as MMM points out) they're using an image that pertains to an unrelated incident certainly indicates the former, but either way this isn't answerable without more information than the people on this site are likely to have access to -- and even if any of us did, we'd be legally bound to deny having it.

Shadur
  • 3,355
  • 2
  • 26
  • 23
  • 1
    if wikileaks realeased this kind of information, would it be considered in the public domain and usable information? – Jan Vladimir Mostert May 08 '15 at 13:16
  • 4
    @JanVladimirMostert IANAL, but I personally wouldn't like to use "someone else committed treason and published that data, but I'm not to be blamed for reproducing it" as a defense. – Shadur May 08 '15 at 13:28
  • 3
    One possible route to falsification without requiring identity information would be if a showing could be made that fewer than 21 SEALs were involved in the assault. I have no idea if this is the case or if there is any publicly available information about it. – Doug McClean May 08 '15 at 13:45
  • 1
    @DougMcClean The Fox story quoted in this answer says, “Rather than keeping the details secret, intelligence officials and senior administration officials briefed members of the press. It quickly leaked out that the mission was performed by **24 members** of the elite and classified counterterrorism SEAL squadron, known as SEAL team 6.” – ChrisW May 08 '15 at 13:51
  • 1
    @ChrisW of course even knowing that 24 members of ST6 were in the assault force doesn't bring you much as A) ST6 may be larger than that and B) the actual identities of the members of ST6 are classified top secret and were not divulged even if the fact that ST6 was involved was. – jwenting May 08 '15 at 14:17
  • 1
    @jwenting According to a comment on the other answer, SEAL "Team" Six numbers in the triple digits, easy... – Shadur May 08 '15 at 14:47
  • @JanVladimirMostert, IANAL, it wouldn't technically be public domain, but unless you've sworn to protect classified information, you're probably "safe" to repeat it. However, you can still be held responsible if your repeating it becomes a problem, even if it is already on Wikileaks. If you think information might put people at risk, don't share it. Information about the identities of those involved in Operation Neptune Spear WILL put those people in potential mortal danger. TS and above classifications are supposed to only be used to save lives (in the US), sometimes they do just that. – Poik May 08 '15 at 14:57
  • @Poik All classification levels in the U.S. are only supposed to be used in the event that the information being public would damage national security. The specific definition of TS is that its release would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security. Of course, we all know that those rules aren't followed nearly as closely as they should be and stuff gets classified that shouldn't be and/or classified to higher levels than it should be frequently. For example, the illegal domestic spying operations was classified TS//SCI, IIRC, despite no real national security threat. – reirab May 08 '15 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Poik You're right, though, that it's not technically public domain, but you can only be prosecuted for sharing it if you've taken an oath to protect classified information. However, that still applies if you have, say, a Secret clearance, but you just heard something on the news. You're still supposed to treat it as you would any other classified information. – reirab May 08 '15 at 16:04
  • Technically, I suppose the claim actually is falsifiable since, as the other answer pointed out, the military has stated that none of the pictured people involved in the crash were involved in the operation to kill bin Laden. – reirab May 08 '15 at 16:06
  • 5
    @reirab, and to anyone who has once held a clearance, losing your clearance or letting it become outdated doesn't absolve that oath. And saying something that gets someone killed is saying something that gets someone killed. It may not be treason or premeditated murder, but it is something. – Poik May 08 '15 at 16:54
  • @Poik Of course, in the case of NSA, the only thing that died was their last shred of credibility. You're right, though, regarding lost/expired clearances not absolving you of the oath. – reirab May 08 '15 at 18:12
  • @Shadur I know. Point is, just from the news story as published it's impossible to know how many people there are, just that there are at least 24 :) – jwenting May 08 '15 at 18:22
  • 1
    I fail to see where the conspiracy theory is in the claim, can you elaborate what you mean in the opening sentence? – James May 10 '15 at 11:31
  • 1
    @James ... Seriously? Did you miss the quote marks around "allegedly", or the obvious intended implication that the death of those 20 SEALS was intentional murder in order to cover up "THE TRUTH", or both? – Shadur May 10 '15 at 11:35
  • @Shadur Allegedly is often used to avoid legal recourse to a comment, but I agree the "killed" is very suggestive, though I thought is was related to the legality of the killing. I suppose I didn't see it was because I don't find the claim to be at all outlandish. They have a very dangerous job, and it has been several years since the operation. – James May 10 '15 at 13:22
  • I have no idea why this old question/answer swept up in my timeline now, 7 years later. But your first line is nonsense: one of the key characteristics of conspiracy theories is that they *are* falsifiable but still believed contrary to a huge body of facts or are at least implausible to an extent that gets close to facts (e.g. the number of people require cover up government conspiracies). I’m quite astonished that this one statement of yours as been left unscathed here on sceptics. Btw the other answer shows that the question *is* falsifiable. – Hartmut Braun Mar 11 '22 at 09:24
  • @HartmutBraun The other question demonstrates that the photo used in the claim is of unrelated SEALs, but doesn't falsify the claim directly, because it doesn't demonstrate the status of the _correct_ SEALs - and this answer points out that it cannot do so, because we don't know who they are. You *might* be able to falsify the claim *if* you could get a list of all members of SEAL Team 6 Red Squadron in May 2011, finding out which were still alive in 2015, and thus proving that 20 involved SEALs could not have died. I suspect that includes several pieces of classified info, though. – IMSoP Mar 11 '22 at 12:59
  • @IMSoP yes, under the circumstances you describe, the claim maybe it is not falsifiable. But then, under the very same circumstances, it is useless to make the claim in the first place (unless you accept that the source has access to classified information which is a claim that cannot be falsified in exactly the same line of thought). In that sense the original claim is not even worth (in lack of a better word) being falsified because otherwise I can claim *anything*, which seems to me as a typical trait of conspiracy theories. – Hartmut Braun Mar 11 '22 at 13:58
  • @HartmutBraun That was my basic point, yes. – Shadur Mar 11 '22 at 14:02
  • @Shadur so we don’t disagree except for the fact that I wouldn’t give the claim the credit of being falsifiable. – Hartmut Braun Mar 11 '22 at 14:06
  • 1
    "... essentially committing treason." "... someone else committed treason and published that data" **I am not a lawyer either.** But my best understanding what you're describing is almost certainly **NOT** prosecutable as treason under United States law. Treason is defined very narrowly in the US Code & required to be defined narrowly under Art III sect. 3 of the US Constitution. It requires actually **levying war against the United States** or **adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,** not just doing bad things that might harm US people, agents, security interests, whatever. – AlabamaScholiast Mar 11 '22 at 17:56
  • 1
    What you're describing (private actors publishing secrets to the world at large, for reasons of their own & not as agents of an enemy of the United States) *might* violate Espionage laws depending on the breaks. If the publisher themselves swore to protect classified information then they certainly would've violated a bunch of other laws too. But all that's a different kettle of fish from anything prosecutable as treason. (Accused spies are hardly ever charged w treason except during declared wars against a foreign state, which hasn't happened since World War II.) – AlabamaScholiast Mar 11 '22 at 18:18
  • 1
    @AlabamaScholiast Fair point. Amended. – Shadur Mar 12 '22 at 09:55
  • @HartmutBraun Maybe, but describing the claim as "hot garbage" as it probably deserves will get me lectured at by the mods. – Shadur Mar 12 '22 at 09:56