67 Replies to ““I’m not asking you why it was OK to shoot Osama bin Laden”.”

  2. Left-tard liberals – “it is okay for me, but not for thee”. As long as there is credit to be taken for Barry Soetoro, then you can be sure as sh*t that he is going to take it, hypocrisy be damned.

  3. Death squad: good; waterboarding: immoral?
    I do love it when liberals carry out the dirty work that Bush would have been excoriatated for.
    They are of course well aware of the selective logic used to justify such a blatantly hypocritical stance. They’re just not used to the inconvenience of dealing with a media outlet that refuses to pander to their version of morality.

  4. I think a lot of folks misunderestimated Obama’s foreign policy!
    But I can’t quite square the circle when this guy says torture -but live – is bad, and assassination – and death – is good?
    They’re both fantastic as far as I’m concerned!

  5. My husband and I were just talking about this phenomenon the other day: lefties have a very high tolerance for holding two altogether contradictory views at the very same time, e.g., feminists, gay activists/Muslims. Then lefties open their mouths and speak out of both sides. (Obama does it all the time.)
    This happens so consistently with those on the left—David Frum has pointed out that the Liberal Party actually has no principles (no wonder we couldn’t discern any!)—that hypocrisy seems like a requirement for entry into the left-wing fold.
    (Chris Wallace is the best! My husband and I are experiencing a small dilemma: we’re spending so much time watching SUN TV—we’re particular fans of Ezra, Brian, and John Robson—we’ve let our Fox News watching slip drastically. I think we’ll have to make some decisions, but, we know we can’t do two things at once!)

  6. Donilon was almost there! But he has to condone past stupidities of the Obama regime, lest he condone the actions of the Big W!

  7. The faux moral outrage exhibited towards Bush, laid bare for all to see.
    Today’s parasitic left – they occupy any host movement, use if for purely partisan gain, then when their done, the movement is left in tatters.
    Environmental movement – taken over by the left with the weath tranferring AGW scam
    Woman’s movement – a nice pet cause thrown to the wolves when Afghan women are subjugated by tacit allies
    Anti-war movement…..

  8. ahh situational ethics . . . so appropriate for leftoids to dance on the head of that pin.
    When the waterboard some wog, they have a doctor present . . . to be safe. That should make them happy.
    Or they could just shoot them outright.

  10. Well, that is what I mean. I have no problem that OBL was taken out in this manner; getting rid of him will ultimately save lives. However, the other methods used (other than assasination) that could get information that would likewise save lives, used under Bush and thus hypocritically decried, were likewise as valuable. The difference being, of course, that which is good for the liberal goose is NEVER good for the conservative gander.

  11. That man was trying to demonstrate that it’s possible to suck and blow at the same time.
    Why you ask?
    Because liberals both suck and blow …. at the same time.
    Never get too near a liberal, it is very mentally and emotionally unhealthy.

  13. You can see why lefties hate Fox News. They ask questions that no one else will ask, because such questions focus on hypocrisy.

  14. Then Liberalism really is a mental disease. I’m now completely convinced of that!

  15. What really makes the “formally outraged left” squirm, is when you mention that while Bush was president, Sadam Hussein was taken live, given a trial(which is very important to the left), and then faced judgement, compared to Obama, ordering the SEALS to shoot Osama dead, even if he was unarmed(and maybe even surrendering).

  16. There is a very simple and clear difference between shooting bin Laden in those circumstances and waterboarding prisoners, Donilon should have been able to state it, Wallace shouldn’t have needed to ask about it.
    Regardless of whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants originally, prisoners in custody are under your care and control and you are responsible for their treatment, and you need to apply your own rules consistently, whatever they are. If your law says no torture, you don’t torture them, even with mild forms with euphemistic names. Osama bin Laden wasn’t a prisoner, and the Seals in that action are the ones who were entitled to make the final decision as to whether capturing him alive was a viable option, and to judge whether he was attempting to or likely to attempt to actually surrender. So they shot him. That’s combat.

  17. Waterboarding is not torture. If you think so, you really have no idea what actual torture is.

  18. TheTooner, You’ve got to be kidding. Please quit torturing us with your moronic bs.
    If you’re not kidding you must exist at a union desk and never made an effort at sports in school.

  19. The difference isn’t combat/care…
    Obama basically broke the law and did whatever it took in order to win…cowboy rock and roll rules using unlawful extreme violence.
    With terrorist prisoners it’s a different story. Suddenly it’s wrong to use cowbody rock and roll rules using unlawful ‘moderate’ violence because it’s inconsistent with ‘our values’.
    Weak.

  20. There is the minor problem of what do you do with the guy after you are done with him? Gitmo is supposed to be closed isn’t it so putting him there would be bad politics. If you give the death penalty it is minimum 12 years of appeals and DOJ is making the drugs hard to get. Where would you hold a trial?
    Two in the head and one in the heart pretty much solves all the problems.
    I don’t think waterboarding is torture compared to having to choose between jumping from the 100th floor or burning to death.

  21. @TheTooner … so eloquently describing the unholy alliance of Situational Ethics and Relativism.
    I remember the left-tards crying that Saddam should not have been handed over to the Iraqi interim government because he might not get a fair trial … a trial … something denied to OBL with a bullet to the head. But when all things are relative and depending on the situation … then a fair trial is not required … nor even any trial at all.

  22. Speaking of trials remember that the leftards were screaming about the military tribunals. Sounds like OBL got a very rapid one at the hands of the SEALS.

  23. It wouldn’t have surprised me if this ego manic Obama had come on TV and said “Bin Laden is dead. I personally beat him to death with my Nobel peace prize.”

  24. Excellent comment, the Tooner.
    You cover all the salient points well.
    Regardless of whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants originally, prisoners in custody are under your care and control and you are responsible for their treatment, and you need to apply your own rules consistently, whatever they are.
    Exactly.
    The debate in the U.S. should be about waterboarding, which I agree with, not comparing what was done in a combat situation with what can be done in a custody situation.
    Does anyone here think that guards or interogators in complete control of a surrendered prisoner that has been given POW status should be allowed to shoot the prisoner in the face or anywhere else?
    That’s what’s being really being compared here.

  26. There is something called The Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda fights dirty, way outside the rules of warfare. That the lefties want Geneva rules to apply to those who have absolutely disqualified themselves, and have even tried to give these terrorists American constitutional rights is, IMO, altogether ludicrous.
    This atrocious coddling of the terrorists might have something to do with why the military took Osama out: why play into the judicial/political circus of dealing with him as a prisoner?
    Consistency? The lefties only require it of others, never themselves. Bloody hypocrites 24/7/365.

  27. Cognitive dissonance has no affect on psychopaths but makes liars squirm, grit their teeth and exhibit stress through unnatural body language.

  28. It should be noted that all of the western nations involved have given POW status to these terrorists in Iraq(2003) and Afghanistan(2001) from the begginning of this war.
    The time to have won the argument about whether they should be protected by the Geneva Convention on POWs was back then.
    Taking Obama’s representatives to task for giving prisoners a status granted by Bush’s regime is too late.
    Obama’s regime can still change it’s stance on waterboarding, though.
    I don’t think it’s torture.
    I think “enhanced interogation” is a proper name for it.
    Trying to conflate the bin Laden kill operation with treatment of prisoners is comparing apples and oranges and doesn’t advance the argument for waterboarding unless it’s been established that waterboarding prisoners revealed bin Laden’s location.

  29. This atrocious coddling of the terrorists might have something to do with why the military took Osama out: why play into the judicial/political circus of dealing with him as a prisoner?
    Posted by: lookout at May 10, 2011 12:20 PM


    A very astute observation, lookout.
    http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

    What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
    …
    In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact.

  30. Cut TheTooner some slack. As a former MP (military police not member of parliament) we had to be familiar with the Geneva conventions and other laws of war. It’s one of the ironies of the law of war that the treatment you can dish out while attacking enemy combatants is wholly different from the treatment you can dish out once they’re captured and confined. For myself, I don’t have a big problem with simply ignoring the niceities and waterboarding the SOBs if there’s a chance for developing some hard int. But, strictly speaking, the situations are dealt with very differently under the laws of war. So TheTooner has a fair point!

  31. So bombing his hideout with a missile from 5 miles away is okay, but killing him at “point blank” range is being questioned. The 9-11 terrorists drove planes into buildings occupied with citizens from many parts of the world. Bush did nothing, and plainly said he didn’t spend much time thinking about him. The man is now dead – they should be happy, and just be prepared for the next move.

  32. Dennis Miller was talking about this yesterday. He pointed out that being a Leftist means being able to accept the enormous internal contradictions and downright hypocrisies and not having that trouble you one little bit.
    You see, in the minds of Leftist devotees, they are always right and everyone who dares disagree with them is always wrong. End of discussion. 🙁

  33. What BS. At least Obama’s guy looked distinctly uncomfortable voicing his duplicitous garbage.

  34. TheTooner “Osama bin Laden wasn’t a prisoner, and the Seals in that action are the ones who were entitled to make the final decision as to whether capturing him alive was a viable option, and to judge whether he was attempting to or likely to attempt to actually surrender. So they shot him. That’s combat.”
    Really? There’s never been a problem when an American soldier has shot an unarmed person when conducting an operation in someone’s house?
    Funny that they sent Cheney’s death squad into battle. The must have been short of regular troops. Oh wait, when Obama uses those same forces we should just shut up and be happy. It’s not the death of Osama that’s the problem, it’s the hypocrisy.

  35. “Remember: Pouring water on a terrorist’s face goes against our core values as Americans. You gotta break into his house and shoot him in the eyes.” Jim Treacher

  36. lookout @9:05 – “I think we’ll have to make some decisions, but, we know we can’t do two things at once!” – I usually try – I’m reading a Philip Roth novel as I type – which is why I tend to do things so poorly. I haven’t gotten Sun TV yet, but everyone seems to think it’s worth it.
    “I’m not second guessing the SEALS.” “The SEALS”, not Barry. Nice.

  38. “History shows that toture is ineffective – and that it is even destructive to national security” wrote “knowledgeable Jess. However,
    consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden. …Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques…Abu Zubaydeh was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of 9/11
    and that is why currently is so much discussion about waterboarding. And that is also why you, Jess, are wrong.

  39. Cause all right wingers are nazis according to jessica.You still bitter about a con majority,buck up little girl,it’s gonna be a long four years for you leftards.

  40. Grok and WalterF, it doesn’t matter what you or I think torture is. What matters to the participants in that interview and their audience in the U.S. is what their law defines as torture, and whether their law allows it.
    My point about the interview is that the SEALs shooting Osama bin Laden doesn’t justify waterboarding prisoners, and any restraints the U.S. chooses to place on itself in the treatment of prisoners, e.g. no waterboarding, doesn’t mean their SEALs shouldn’t should bin Laden or any other terrorist leader or fighter in the midst of a raid.

  41. When in doubt, reduce the argument to its bare essentials. Jess is arguing, as is the squirming, grimacing, tooth gritting Tom Donilon, that it is immoral to make an enemy combatant miserable once you have caught him. But, it is perfectly acceptable to blow his head clean off instead of capturing him.
    I would argue that jess is completely unhinged if he/she/it actually believes that. Donilon clearly does -not- believe a word of it, and is lying like a Persian carpet because that’s what they pay him to do.
    Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. The Geneva convention on prisoners does not apply to them. They are foreign civilian combatants and/or spies. There is no prescribed treatment for them, and the forces of Geneva convention signatory nations are allowed to shoot them on sight, jail them for life, or do whatever the hell they like.
    Ossama Bin Laden particularly was not a foreign head of state, so the business about the legality of shooting him is completely bogus. Bin Laden was no different than a drug cartel leader, the USA kills those guys all the time.
    ALL of this argument about water boarding vs. assassination is utter bollocks. Both are 100% legal by both international law AND American law. Watching the Left gymbol and gyre around this for the 8 years of Bush was irritating as hell. But watching jess, thetooner and this bizzare Donilon wanker try to square that with Barry’s actions, that is sweeeeeeet justice baby.

  42. Within the military and Geneva Conventions, this is an easy one.
    There is a big difference in how you treat a prisoner and someone you are in combat with. In combat, (depending on your rules of engagement) you could still shoot the enemy, even if he did not have a weapon.
    However, treatment of prisoners are different. Once someone becomes a prisoner, they are entitled to a certain treatment. While I might be able to shoot an unarmed enemy, I could not shoot an unarmed prisoner.
    Now, I am not saying I agree with the Obama Administration on waterboarding (In fact, the key to the waterboarding question is whether or not it is torture). However, there can be a reasonable argument on this issue. If you think waterboarding is torture, it would be illegal (and the people you are performing it on are, by definition, prisoners), but a soldier could shoot bin Laden even if unarmed, etc, depending on the circumstances.

  43. jess
    ” History shows that toture is ineffective ”
    please point me to that history book, would ja
    npw jess, torture (interigation) is something like chess, you make a move, and it maybe several move later than “that” perticular move’s value shows it’s self. Thusly, it all depends upon the player, as to how effective torture actually is.
    Oh, and you can use paypal to thank me!!

  44. Imagine this scene: A terrorist has planted a bomb in a building in a major metropolitan area. Wiretap evidence has revealed that it is set to go off within 12 hours. The terrorist is apprehended but refuses to reveal which building it is.
    Jess is in charge and refuses to do anything but talk with the terrorist. The bomb goes off and 1,000 people die.
    Jess sleeps soundly that night, completely at peace with her decision. That is the definition of a callous, arrogant, compassion-less Leftard.

  45. What can you say about somebody who starts an argument accusing others of ‘lacking mental skills.’
    An interrogator would immediately understand that opening statement as taking a superior stance and would understand the argument comes from an insecure position.

  46. Jess, the “question” (sic) that forms the title of the post is a quote from the video immediately following, which you would have realized had you watched the video before posting your comment. It’s rather telling that you immediately proceeded to call the rest of the people here disingenuous partisans. What you’re feeling right now is called cognitive dissonance.

  47. “…that the (American) torture (sic) which is the exact same as the techniques used by the Nazis…” (emphasis mine.)
    jess, I hate you. I hate you so very, very much.

  48. New details of the al-Qaeda leader’s final moments revealed that Navy Seals shot at him while he was in the doorway of his bedroom. He subsequently retreated back inside, a move that was assessed to be an “act of resistance”. He was shot twice in the head and once in the chest.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8499216/Osama-bin-Laden-death-al-Qaeda-leader-killed-after-he-retreated-into-his-room.html
    They were trying to kill an unarmed man even before he “resisted” by trying to flee. If Bush or Cheney had ordered this would the leftists be so happy about it?
    The problem isn’t that Obama killed Osama – it’s the hypocrisy of those on the left.

  49. Jess – “the only thing you guys are really fighting for is your preceived necessity that the US adopt the exact same techniques as used by the Nazis.”
    Ah yes, the Nazis and their infamous waterboarding.
    “Remember: Pouring water on a terrorist’s face goes against our core values as Americans. You gotta break into his house and shoot him in the eyes.” (Pardon me for repeating the obvious.)

  50. MB writes, “However, treatment of prisoners are [sic] different. Once someone becomes a prisoner, they are entitled to a certain treatment. While I might be able to shoot an unarmed enemy, I could not shoot an unarmed prisoner.”
    MB, there are prisoners and there are prisoners. Here are the Geneva Convention rules for “lawful combatants”:
    “The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:
    1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
    2.Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
    o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    o that of carrying arms openly;
    o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
    4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”
    Al Qaeda operatives DO NOT qualify.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation