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

  1. The bigger Question is why it took Obama nine months to go after a guy who declared war many times for ten years?
    As for waterboarding, boot camp is worse.
    As is sleep deprevation which is legal to a certain point.
    The whole argument is trash talk for lefties who love suicide.
    JMO

  2. This from Terry, Eilat, Israel, a commenter at Pajamas Media:
    “It’s not just torture, what about ‘civilian’ casualties in asymmetric warfare? You have terrorist organizations using human shields, setting up missiles next to schools, hospitals, in civilian neighborhoods (often with the approval of the residents). What do you do? All of the BS rhetoric & ‘lofty’ principles mean nothing if you lose.
    “By being kind to the wicked, you are doing evil to the good. That’s not justice. I would add that it is a moral imperative to save innocent lives, at any cost. Are the lives of an enemy worth more than our lives?
    “Specifically, I am referring to Gaza & S. Lebanon, possibly Syria, Iran, & who knows, maybe Egypt.
    “Survival makes its own morality – there is no morality in letting your enemies kill you.”

  3. I too agree with the fairness of TheTooner’s point. Frankly, I found Chris Wallace’s “so it’s OK to shoot OBL in the eye but not OK to waterboard detainees” to be severely logic-challenged. Apples and oranges. A war raid vs. treatment of prisoners in custody.
    But waterboarding, while extremely unpleasant, is not torture. Being forced to listen to heavy metal 24 hours a day with the lights on would be extremely unpleasant too — but not torture, in my view.
    Is there a more ridiculous argument than: yes, enhanced interrogation got us the critical info, but we might have garnered it in other ways. Sorry, but you didn’t. End of debate.
    Always ask your morally-preening liberal interlocutors if the safety of their loved ones depended on waterboarding, would they approve? And call them pathological, delusional liars if they say NO.

  4. “A war raid vs. treatment of prisoners in custody.”
    a war raid…now that is one hill of a stretch
    of prisoners in custody.”…….a combatant(war person)
    MND…both these items are esentially the same, so U would appear logically challenged in your assertion

  5. “I too agree with the fairness of TheTooner’s point. Frankly, I found Chris Wallace’s “so it’s OK to shoot OBL in the eye but not OK to waterboard detainees” to be severely logic-challenged. Apples and oranges. A war raid vs. treatment of prisoners in custody.”
    There’s nothing wrong with Wallace’s logic. Both events are the legitimate actions of a government in a war against unlawful combatants from a terrorist organization; whether dealing with an unlawful combatant in custody who is being interrogated by waterboarding (not tortured), or dealing with an unlawful combatant who is shot in the head, even though he is unarmed, during a raid on his house.
    It’s hypocrisy to condemn the one and applaud the other.

  6. “jess, I hate you. I hate you so very, very much.”
    Ahh, c’mon, Mamba. Jess isn’t bright enough to inspire hatred; loathing, perhaps. There’s a difference.
    Waterboarding, although not torture, most certainly works. It worked on khaled sheikh mohammed, and – per CIA director panetta, it also played a part in getting bin laden. Whatever nonsense spouted by jess and the left is just that: nonsense.
    But that’s the left, isn’t it? They undermine the bush admin’s work in dealing with terrorists, they broadcast the enhanced interrogation techniques to give the terrorists time to prepare and adjust, fight gitmo, FISA, rendition… the lot. Then, when all of that leads to the ultimate exeunt by OBL, why… we’re all supposed to cheer maobama, who – according to himself – basically conceived and planned the mission, handpicked the assault team, and in general did everything ’cause he’s such a Super Duper Bright Smart Leader Guy.
    I reckon he MUST be smart, as he probably dreamed the whole thing up before playing the back 9 in some swanky country club.
    mhb23re

  7. 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.
    ——-
    Good point and I would agree that AQ does not qualify under a strict interpretation of the conventions.
    However, are you suggesting that our soldiers in Afstan can justifibly kill any AQ prisoner they have because they do not qualify under the Geneva Convention?
    While perhaps not a prisoner of war, anyone captured by our military is usually called a detainee and treated in a manner as a prisoner of war until their status can be determined. When our forces surround a village, they go in, detain everyone and sort out the terrorists from the regular people.
    Right or wrong, we have been treating AQ as prisoneers of war. A bit hard to take that back now.
    My original point still stands. I think the Obama Admin can make the argument that shooting Osama in his house, unarmed, is lawful but waterboarding is not (if you think waterboarding is torture). Not saying I agree, but the argument can be made.
    This WH guy seems to try to make that argument, but he could be a little clearer.
    His argument: Shooting the enemy in a combat situation – legal ( I agree) Torturing a prisoner – not legal (also I agree)
    The key question is whether or not waterboarding is torture.

  8. “I too agree with the fairness of TheTooner’s point. Frankly, I found Chris Wallace’s “so it’s OK to shoot OBL in the eye but not OK to waterboard detainees” to be severely logic-challenged. Apples and oranges. A war raid vs. treatment of prisoners in custody.”
    There’s nothing wrong with Wallace’s logic. Both events are the legitimate actions of a government in a war against unlawful combatants from a terrorist organization; whether dealing with an unlawful combatant in custody who is being interrogated by waterboarding (not tortured), or dealing with an unlawful combatant who is shot in the head, even though he is unarmed, during a raid on his house.
    It’s hypocrisy to condemn the one and applaud the other.
    —
    A war raid vs. treatment of prisoners in custody.”
    This is the key point. The two things are different. Wallace is flawed in his logic.
    However, as GregW states, if waterboarding is not torture, then it would be then it is strange that Obama would do one and not the other.
    I would submit, that it is all about politics. The Obama Admin knows waterboarding is legal, and they are more than happy to profit from intel gained from it (as long as their hands are clean), but, since they have already pissed off their base enough on GWOT issues (not closing Gitmo, drone attacks, rendition, etc) they have to maintain the fiction that waterboarding is torture. If they really believed it, they would have a moral obligation to charge those of the Bush Admin that ordered it and those that carried it out.

  9. In Obama’s world it makes more sense to shoot now than to ask questions later.
    Does he blame Bush for not shooting Khadr?

  11. MB, you ask, “However, are you suggesting that our soldiers in Afstan can justifibly kill any AQ prisoner they have because they do not qualify under the Geneva Convention?”
    By Convention rules, I’d say our soldiers can: these terrorists wear no uniforms and are not fighting for any government. They don’t play by the rules, by choice. We hand them a huge advantage when we follow the rules of a game that they refuse to play. I think we’re idiots to let them get away with this. If we keep this up, they’ll win and civility and freedom will lose.
    You add, “While perhaps not a prisoner of war, anyone captured by our military is usually called a detainee and treated in a manner as a prisoner of war until their status can be determined. When our forces surround a village, they go in, detain everyone and sort out the terrorists from the regular people.”
    Part of the problem we have is that these terrorists hide among the population, putting them severely at risk. The terrorists are wily and ruthless: they don’t care about their own people, and we pussy foot around treating these brutal thugs with every courtesy. Are we nuts?
    MB, I appreciate your points and this issue is certainly worth talking about. I hate violence, but this is WAR. Giving the advantage to a ruthless enemy, that follows none of the rules, is, IMO, crazy.

  12. Nazi water torture – The House of Terror in Budapest, Hungary, shows examples of water torture used by the Nazi and Arrow Cross Parties against the Jews. One involves a sunken cell filled with ice cold water; the prisoner must stand on a tiny metal plinth in the centre of the room. When the prisoner becomes tired or falls asleep, they will fall from the plinth into the ice water. (Wikipedia)
    Japanese water torture – In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans and Chinese during World War II by the Japanese… (Wikipedia)
    waterboarding – Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject, in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning. Often a wet cloth is placed in the subject’s mouth, giving them the impression that they are drowning. (Wikipedia)
    In the case of waterboarding, the intent is not to drown or nearly to drown (a torture method) but to invoke the fear of drowning.
    The Nazis were not so humane as to interrogate their prisoners in that way. However the media has decided it’s torture as practiced by the Nazis so who am I to argue.

  13. Posted by: jess at May 10, 2011 10:09 PM
    Beautiful. Einstein uses HuffPo as a resource. Not just that, but an “anonymous interrogator” giving an interview to HuffPo”. Wow, I bet THAT’s beyond reproach, eh jess? Do you still wait up at night for Santa to come down the chimney, too?
    In other news at HuffPo, the intriguing debate over whether or not fire melts steel.
    This link might be interesting to you, jess, where ABC news chief brian ross discusses the success of enhanced interrogation techniques. That is, if your brain isn’t completely scrambled from your HuffPo surfing. We hold no optimism, however.
    Notwithstanding jess’ snotty and feeble attempt at insult, it’s interesting that his/her/its hero, BHO, has actually continued the military programs initiated by Bush: afghanistan, gitmo. What happened to gitmo, jess? Gee, I thought barry was going to close it within a year of his inauguration. It’s been a long year, eh?
    Of course, one can’t blame you for hating the military in general, much less their involvement in fighting terror abroad. Military expenditures DO take time and money away from rampant social spending and wealth redistribution, and the hussein administration is 100% behind that offensive, right jess?
    I’ll say this about torture, jess, from personal experience: it works. I’d admit any secret or confess any personal wrongdoings to my interrogators if it meant they’d not force me to read any more of your self-righteous, moronic posts.
    mhb

  14. MB, you ask, “However, are you suggesting that our soldiers in Afstan can justifibly kill any AQ prisoner they have because they do not qualify under the Geneva Convention?”
    By Convention rules, I’d say our soldiers can: these terrorists wear no uniforms and are not fighting for any government. They don’t play by the rules, by choice. We hand them a huge advantage when we follow the rules of a game that they refuse to play. I think we’re idiots to let them get away with this. If we keep this up, they’ll win and civility and freedom will lose.
    You add, “While perhaps not a prisoner of war, anyone captured by our military is usually called a detainee and treated in a manner as a prisoner of war until their status can be determined. When our forces surround a village, they go in, detain everyone and sort out the terrorists from the regular people.”
    Part of the problem we have is that these terrorists hide among the population, putting them severely at risk. The terrorists are wily and ruthless: they don’t care about their own people, and we pussy foot around treating these brutal thugs with every courtesy. Are we nuts?
    MB, I appreciate your points and this issue is certainly worth talking about. I hate violence, but this is WAR. Giving the advantage to a ruthless enemy, that follows none of the rules, is, IMO, crazy.
    —
    While I would agree that a strict reading of the rules would allow us to kill AQ fighters outright, as they do not follow the Convensions, this is NOT what we are doing. We fight by our rules, not theirs, as it is ourselves that we answer to. We consider ourselves better, more civilized than them, so we do not use suicide bombs, etc. If we win by becoming savages like them, who really wins? And it is possible for us to win without acting as they act. In fact, I would suggest that a war like Afstan, a hearts and minds war, it is an advantage to fight in a civilized manner.
    The military is a reflection of our society, and I would submit that it would be impossible for our military to act in the way you suggest, as the military would quickly lose the support of the population and politicians, forcing it to change so that it reflects our society.

  15. MB, I respect your point of view: you may be right. However, I have reservations.
    I tend more to what Terry of Israel says about this:
    “By being kind to the wicked, you are doing evil to the good. That’s not justice. I would add that it is a moral imperative to save innocent lives, at any cost. Are the lives of an enemy worth more than our lives? . . .
    “Survival makes its own morality – there is no morality in letting your enemies kill you.”
    If our houses should be invaded and our loved ones in mortal danger—e.g., the multitude of vicious, invasive attacks by Muslim extremists around the world: that is WAR—I don’t believe we become the brutes our enemy is by hitting back hard, USING OUR RULES, e.g., the Geneva Convention.
    Political correctness and the usual brain-dead lefty thinking tossed aside OUR RULES for war in order to be “nice to the enemy”, which, as usual, the leftards see as victims of the West’s hegemony. There’s a contradiction in your logic, when you suggest that we abandon the Geneva Convention—OUR RULES—in order to give into the left’s “hug a thug” philosophy, because then we most definitely aren’t, as you suggest, “fight[ing] by our rules, not theirs”.
    At the end of WW II, the bombs dropped on Japan, another uncivilized enemy (which changed after being defeated), saved a multitude of lives and greater destruction. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” We have a vicious enemy, that treats human beings with no respect at all. (If one of us gets captured, they’ll use a dull weapon to hack our head off on video.) Pussy footing around with these evil people, whose nefarious plans for us are well known, will lead to greater slaughter and destruction.
    You say, “The military is a reflection of our society, and I would submit that it would be impossible for our military to act in the way you suggest, as the military would quickly lose the support of the population and politicians, forcing it to change so that it reflects our society.” You may be right, but I’m not sure.
    It’s the military’s and our politicians’ first duty to protect the civilian population. In a time of war, giving succour and strength to the enemy, by treating their brutal combatants with kid gloves, hardly qualifies as responsible behaviour. Note that Americans seem pretty happy about the take out of Osama. (He was dealt with swiftly, not held and brutally and inhumanly tortured: there’s a big difference.) Seeing our military act decisively, using our superior strength and intelligence, which we pay for, in order to keep us safe(r) from a deadly enemy, would, I think, get a lot of support from citizens and politicians. Let’s not expect our forces to do their dangerous job with their hands tied behind their backs.
    With respect, MB, the protocols of the Geneva Convention are still the rules of war for the civilized world. (No parliament or world body has formally changed that.) Those are OUR RULES. I believe we should use them.

  16. lookout >
    I’m with you on this. There’s no reason to torture and lower ourselves to the barbarity of other cultures.
    What we can do is close our borders to them!
    They don’t function very well without us. Especially the non-resource countries (including oil producing). We don’t need to trade, we don’t need to supply. If they cross our fence or interfere with our sovereignty we kill them outright, like a sledgehammer to a pigs skull.
    It’s our wishy-washy politics and multicultural harmonizing that has gotten the west into this mess. You can’t invade foreign countries after allowing millions of those countries citizens to reside in your own, and then expect to accomplish anything. Certainly not without domestic fallout.
    We need to reverse course.

  17. “Awfully decent with you to refute my point citing an article posted on Huffpost with a video featuring Bill O’Liar, the sexual harrasser who serves his country by screaming at those who lost family members in 9/11”
    How odd. I didn’t realize O’Reilly lost the harassment case; here I thought it was settled out of court, along with his charges of extortion by the woman who claimed harassment. On planet earth, that means he really… shouldn’t be characterized as a “sexual harasser”. Ah, well. Different rules for the left, after all, and why waste a good ad hominem when you’re on shaky ground?
    Anyway, Genius, if you watched the video more than ten seconds it would be obvious to even you that O’Reilly only asked questions of the guest, Brian Ross, Chief News Correspondent of ABC. It was Ross who made the video’s points, not O’Reilly. One understands the visceral leftard hatred of Fox News, as its news program is far more objective than either of the 3 main alphabet soup newsies, and your falling in line with this isn’t surprising. Or are you implying that ABC is now backing the conservative right? Thought not. Back to your colouring books, jess. Leave the political commentary and review to the big people in the room.
    Actually MHB, the ‘hussein administration’ just took out the biggest mass murderer ever known to the US.
    Yes, all staged and provided by the legwork done by the Bush Administration, dimwit, which is what the unwatched clip noted above would have indicated, had you viewed it for more than 10 seconds: gitmo, enhanced interrogation, rendition, the works. You know: the things Maobama vowed to dismantle immediately upon taking charge at the Whitehouse. Had bush not had the courage to maintain these programs, it’s likely osama would still be playing solitaire on his pc in the Pakistani compound, instead of feeding the fish.
    As for obama and his “support” for the military, his was the administration that put two SEALS into court martial proceedings for having fattened the lip of a saddamite when the US Navy spec ops finally found that monster in his hidey-hole. Obumble also ensured any photos that could be found were published from abu ghraib to besmirch the entire US military and government, and now seems reluctant to issue a pic or two of the lamented and deceased OBL when it might work against his administration. His idiot AG is still investigating CIA staff who interrogated terrorists, and perhaps even provided intel on the OBL mission – nice touch, that. Worst yet, obama KNEW of the upcoming op against OBL, and yet he still played chicken with congress with the possible end game of denying pay to the SEALS/others who actually brought the monster to justice. How’s that for callous, jess? And everyone is supposed to rally ‘round obozo with his “I I I, me me me” take on the events, none of which would have happened had Bush not had the courage to maintain his programs against the terrorists in the face of nigh-treasonous obstruction from the left. Disgusting, the left: their hypocrisy knows no end. If any of them had an ounce of integrity, they’d be not a little ashamed. But most are of the jess ilk, and so self-introspection is supplanted by self-interest and we are left with obama speeches and jess troll-posts on blogs. Such a waste.
    “… couldn’t take out in the seven years he was in office – even with all his Nazi-approved torture techniques.”
    Ahh, yes. How surprising: the inevitable Godwin’s law reference. Always a useful blog technique-du-jour for the intellectual left. Predictable, and boring.
    ”You remember: the guy who the FBI told Drunken Bush was ‘determined to strike in America’ a month before 9/11 happened, and DrunkBush disregarded the memo…”
    Ha ha, yeah. The old leftrash canard, “we told bush EVERYTHING and he didn’t listen!”. Let’s examine that. The Clinton administration was possibly the most incompetent one ever in addressing terror concerns:
    – prosecuting the 1st WTC bombing as a crime and not an act of terror/war
    – no response to the Cole bombing
    – no response to the numerous mideast US embassy bombings. Oh wait: Bill flattened a Sudanese aspirin factory to take the focus off his cigar-sharing partner. I forgot that one.
    – two opportunities refused/squandered to secure the transfer of bin laden yet refused
    THESE paragons of defensive wisdom and ability who sat on their hands in the anti-terrorism front for seven years mention to the incoming administration mention, en passant, that there might be some half-@ssed intel regarding Islamic terrorism and expect the incoming administration to snap-to and take them seriously? Even the intel was compartmentalized and almost useless thanks to the intelligence wall erected by jame gorelick (if you figure out how to use google, you can check that out, jess).
    Get real.
    Your posts become more inane as time progresses, jess. Can you possibly write anything less coherent? Please don’t feel obligated to demonstrate.
    mhb

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation