UBL, Part II

Has anyone of you guys seen the movie "MUNICH". Originally Posted by ninasastri

Yes. It is a decent movie.

I'm sorry Mazo....I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying, you and everyone else in the military have my utmost respect for what you guys do & risk for civilians... Originally Posted by Valerie

Sorry love, but Mazo has previously stated that he is not now and never has been in the military. On more than one occasion he has stated he detests most who have made a career of the military. I’m surprised he posted that he spent a mere “couple of weeks” in hell knowing full well others have been there for years.

I'm not sure I even understand the question. What are you asking. Whether the killing was lawful under U.S. or international law? Clearly it was. Whether there are some liberals that opposed it for policy reasons? I know of none, nor could I imagine on what grounds they would oppose it.

Perhaps your confusing this situation with the debate on whether the President can order the extra-judicial killing of a U.S. citizen, which is a good bit more complex issue.

But I think that the views of my many liberal friends is that this is a vindication of what we have argued all along. That torture is not necessary as all the evidence shows that it was simple good detective work that led to the identification of bin Laden's hiding place, not torture. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us...04torture.html) That the real target of our efforts should have been al Quaida, and not Iraq. And that the war in Iraq distracted from the battle against Al Quaida and caused far more problems than it solved. We don't need to be tough, we need to be smart. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Note TTH, I am not arguing with you about the legitimacy of waterboarding. I too think it is against the provisions of the Geneva Convention. That said, CIA Chief Leon Panetta, in an interview, did tell NBC News anchor Brian Williams that intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him.

This rag offers a slightly different POV than the NYT:

Did Waterboarding Lead to bin Laden's Death?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-death/238306/

Where did i get riled over your attempt to compliment him? I got riled because you lied about him.
Oh, ok. Say no more. Originally Posted by Doove

Is anyone else annoyed by the shrill, cacophonous, ‘twerp’-ing of the Doove?

LOL, just quit making stuff up. We've all seen by now the clip of the President during one of the latter campaign debates talking about what he would do if Pakistan was either unable or unwilling to take UBL out. What was only shown on the hated "liburrel" media was McCain's response. McCain's response was, basically, to call Obama unskilled and unsophisticated in the ways of the world to even propose such a thing. Hmmmm, who was serving the tea and crumpets? Ya see, IP Freely, (Please, this is like me suggesting you picked your handle because you can lick you own genitals like a dog; that’s just droll.)things here in "Candyland" (My suspicions have been confirmed)are good since no time is spent contorting things to fit an outlook. (That’s always been obvious. You never think for yourselves. You just catch what the likes of Retching Maddow vomits and then regurgitate the spew. See @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdDjOHYyCSg) The refreshing thing about just looking at what happens and listening to what is said is that we here in the Land of the Candy don't fall victim to actually believing the lies and misrepresentations we might tell if we followed the Foxed-Up Nooze model. Please have enough behind the berries to take it as it comes, good or bad, if you are going to bother with staking out a position. (My position is posted above. That’s why you’re bitching – or have you already forgotten why you started typing? Tsk, tsk! To think, Altzheimer’s at your age?) You are exactly on the mark, however, with your remark about UBL having been a thorn in a festering sore. That sore would never heal until the thorn was removed. So, I guess it's a "feel good" moment if one wants to trivialize the removal of a root cause behind some serious suffering. What I feel the best about is that even though it took almost 10 years (14 years when you include Clinton’s failed attempts to find him – it’s so unfortunate that Free Willie chose to stick it to Monica and not to Bin Laden: there would have been no 9/11), he was eventually dealt with. THAT, sport, is the real lesson in all of this, both to the impatient among us and to those aspiring to take UBL's place. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

However, all is not lost! It’s on the Internet that Elton John is marking the sudden passing of Bin Laden with a commemorative song. It’s called “Sandals in the Wind."

That said, CIA Chief Leon Panetta, in an interview, did tell NBC News anchor Brian Williams that intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Waterboarded. But he said nothing about it being during the waterboarding. People who don't want to see the difference, won't see the difference. So trust me when i say this; there is a difference.

Is anyone else annoyed by the shrill, cacophonous, ‘twerp’-ing of the Doove?

Is it more shrill to make shit up? Or to point out that someone, that being you, made shit up? You just lied. Period.

Shrill, indeed!

Waterboarded. But he said nothing about it being during the waterboarding. People who don't want to see the difference, won't see the difference. So trust me when i say this; there is a difference.

Is it more shrill to make shit up? Or to point out that someone, that being you, made shit up? You just lied. Period.

Shrill, indeed! Originally Posted by Doove

"Twerp . . . twerp, twerp . . . twerp, twerp" etc., etc.

"Twerp . . . twerp, twerp . . . twerp, twerp" etc., etc. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'll take this as your request that i stop pointing out when you make shit up.

I'll take this as your request that i stop pointing out when you make shit up. Originally Posted by Doove

"Twerp . . . twerp, twerp."

Damn!! And I was so counting on an insightful vision into the master of "putting themself in another's shoes". Originally Posted by Rudyard K

...only if those shoes are Moe Howard's.

I'm sorry Mazo....I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying, you and everyone else in the military have my utmost respect for what you guys do & risk for civilians... Originally Posted by Valerie

Mazo wasn't mad, that was his application to "the Island."

As far as the situation with Bin Laden was carried out, I could care less if it was "politically correct". I'm glad they shot him, armed or unarmed, in a way, I think he got off too easy, shot to the head, dies instantly, no pain...And when it comes to monsters like him, I wish they would have secretly captured and tortured his ass for a while,and then killed him...Obviously I know that's not realistic, but if I had my way he would suffer for ages... Originally Posted by Valerie

Valerie, I'm addressing this to you because you are a reasonable person and see you may be the victim of Democratic hand-wringing.

No matter what you've been told, the USA does not "torture." Don't believe what the liberal media is telling you. Waterboarding is not torture. Even President Obama stopped referring to waterboarding as "torture." It is an "enhanced interrogation technique."

Also, President Obama and his Democratic co-horts would like you to believe that they have "stopped" waterboarding. This is just not true. In fact, President Obama RESERVES the right to waterboard in his Presidential Order (see reference). He didn't outlaw it but only the President can authorize it.

Guess what Obama also "outlawed" via presidential order? Closing Gitmo and imprisoning enemy combatants without charges. He has basically rescinded that order. He will either rescind the waterboarding order or clandestinely authorize the waterboarding.

The WBing done during the Bush administration for the most part was clandestinely done. Even Nancy Pelosi who was briefed that it was done doesn't remember it. Given the current administrations definition of "transparency" it will never be reported. Please keep in mind that only 3 people were WB'ed. You would think that everyone got a free sponge to the face.

Reference: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/0...-%28UPDATED%29

(Charles, please vet)

Finally, I'm also glad OBL got a bullet in the head. My guess is that wound above the left eye is an "exit" wound based on the description.

I'm sure Obama will have the pic "leaked" around Oct 30 of 2012.

Don't believe what the liberal media is telling you. Waterboarding is not torture. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yeah, because you're far more credible.

Yeah, because you're far more credible. Originally Posted by Doove

Thanks! A moment of lucidity from you.

In an effort not to hijack the other thread…but because I just like to rile things up…

What is the take (from the kinder and gentler crowd here) on this action? As I understand it, our Prez ordered the execution of a foreign citizen, on foreign lands. Don’t get me wrong. I am and was all for it. It was a no-brainer to me. But I’m just a simple Texan who doesn’t have the sensibilities of some of the more erudite members of our little board here.

Does the Jack Sparrow-like moral compass swing in the direction where this was “Right”? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Well, I like most Americans believe in our form of Government. We all have enjoyed the freedom this country so proudly defends. Our President nor our Military and I'll further add nor the Navy Seal Team that killed Osama Bin Laden took part in this because we wanted the rest of the world to take note, no. Osama Bin Laden's life was compromised by our Military because of his threat that he posed not only to his own country and not to just America, but to the World as a whole. Osama was not a statesmen or a world leader, he was an international criminal. Like any criminal he commited criminal acts against civilized people in his own country as well as ours, and he had many followers who are still at large and are just as powerful. Who will continue in his footsteps. I know there is much speculation on the decision to seek out Bin Laden and to take his life. Unfortunately there is going to be highly classified information to this incident that the average American will never know. To help you i'll, suggest. Understand what terrorism is, how it affects lives in a global sense. Our efforts in the Middle East is not centered on any country or particular government but on a radical group of people who have developed great influences and have over thrown their Government by committing despicable acts. Learn about the motives of Terrorist, what their beliefs are and how our way of life can be greatly affected. The Al Quida regime is a huge group of individuals centered all over the world including the United States. These individual groups spaced through out the Globe are called Sects. They are highly motivated, they follow orders and they are hard to identify and they are dangerous. So we pursue one of their most high and kill him. Well Osama will not be the last. We will fight terrorism for the rest of our lives for the sole purpose of preserving our freedom and way of life. That should mean something to you. Osama Bin Laden was a leader, A leader of men with bad intentions. As Americans we cannot and will not tolerate any one with bad intentions toward our way of life if we intend to keep it. Now we can stay here and get the shit kicked out of us by passively allowing our lives to be controlled by terrorists or we can fight and defend what we know is right and just.

No, I was not "confusing" anything. If we have the right to go execute a foreign citizen on foreign lands, because we think he has done us wrong...then so be it. Frankly, I'm pretty much all for that. I was just unaware of that "right"...at least from a legal sense. That's why I asked the question. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I never took International Law because it never much interested me. But if I'm not mistaken, the right to defend the State is one of the primary rights that has been recognized by international law for literally centuries. I know from undergrad philosophy it goes back a least to Grotius' De Jure Belli et Pacis and would not be surprised to learn that it was not original to him. If you're really interested, I'm sure that thirty minutes spent on Google would find you some stuff.

Finally, as for your remarks disparaging the NYT, even that idiot Rumsfeld admitted that torture had nothing to do with bin Laden's capture. I never argued that a single methodology led to his capture. There was Signals Intelligence, Human Intelligence, basic gumshoe work, Satellite Intelligence, etc. What there was none of is the ridiculous and illegal torture that was promoted by the Bush administration (and insufficiently condemned and prosecuted by the Obama administration).

And IB Hankering, your Atlantic post doesn't say that intelligence gained through torture led to bin Laden's capture. It essentially says that so far, all we have to go on is the word of various individuals that this is true, and points out the obvious fact that some of intelligence came from those who were, at some point, tortured. It doesn't make the critical connection that the intelligence that came from those who were tortured came when or because they were tortured.

But even if it did, that should be beside the point. No one argues that at some point, torture might not work. The ban on torture is based on moral principles, not on issues of it's efficacy or lack thereof. We don't torture because it is morally wrong. Even if we knew to a moral certainty that torture would lead to the capture of ten Osama bin Laden's, it is still illegal and it is still morally wrong. And we have made a policy decision not to engage in those actions. It is only illegal because it is tempting to engage in. Were it not tempting, there would be no need to make it illegal.

One may agree or disagree with the U.S.'s laws against torture. But if one does, the solution is to repeal them, not for a President to declare himself above the law and simply violate the law at will. That is why we are said to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

Valerie, I'm addressing this to you because you are a reasonable person and see you may be the victim of Democratic hand-wringing.

No matter what you've been told, the USA does not "torture." Don't believe what the liberal media is telling you. Waterboarding is not torture. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Bullshit.

Decide for yourself:

18 U.S.C. § 2340 Definitions


As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

No matter what you've been told, the USA does not "torture." Don't believe what the liberal media is telling you. Waterboarding is not torture. . Originally Posted by gnadfly

Did somebody waterboard you for you to say that?

If not, they should just for shits and grins.

Mazo wasn't mad, that was his application to "the Island."



Valerie, I'm addressing this to you because you are a reasonable person and see you may be the victim of Democratic hand-wringing.

No matter what you've been told, the USA does not "torture." Don't believe what the liberal media is telling you. Waterboarding is not torture. Even President Obama stopped referring to waterboarding as "torture." It is an "enhanced interrogation technique."

Also, President Obama and his Democratic co-horts would like you to believe that they have "stopped" waterboarding. This is just not true. In fact, President Obama RESERVES the right to waterboard in his Presidential Order (see reference). He didn't outlaw it but only the President can authorize it.

Guess what Obama also "outlawed" via presidential order? Closing Gitmo and imprisoning enemy combatants without charges. He has basically rescinded that order. He will either rescind the waterboarding order or clandestinely authorize the waterboarding.

The WBing done during the Bush administration for the most part was clandestinely done. Even Nancy Pelosi who was briefed that it was done doesn't remember it. Given the current administrations definition of "transparency" it will never be reported. Please keep in mind that only 3 people were WB'ed. You would think that everyone got a free sponge to the face.

Reference: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/0...-%28UPDATED%29

(Charles, please vet)

Finally, I'm also glad OBL got a bullet in the head. My guess is that wound above the left eye is an "exit" wound based on the description.

I'm sure Obama will have the pic "leaked" around Oct 30 of 2012. Originally Posted by gnadfly

brilliant!

Finally, as for your remarks disparaging the NYT, even that idiot Rumsfeld admitted that torture had nothing to do with bin Laden's capture. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Waterboarding is not torture.....reading your factually incorrect posts is torture........

If by "idiot" you mean brilliant, then Rumsfeld is......Did you not see Rumsfeld on O'Reilly last night? He corrected the record distorted by the lying libs and said waterboarding led to Obama bin Laden.........you liberals lie all the time. Liberals aren't interested in being correct with the facts, they have an agenda to work........CIA, FBI and military all agree with Rumsfeld.....