“That’s a hypothetical. I’m not sure it’s particularly relevant,” Holder said in response to a question from Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)....The failure to answer speaks for itself. To me, it says that he considers it wrong/illegal but wants it done anyway. Wants it done, but doesn't want to be the one to say "do it."
“I think it’s fair to ask, since you opposed a military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whether you would have opposed a military trial for Osama bin Laden,” Lungren said.
Again declining to answer, Holder said that his position on military tribunals has often been mischaracterized. He noted that, on the same day in November 2009 that he announced a civilian trial for Mohammed, he announced that five other detainees would get military trials.
“I think our military commissions, especially since they’ve been modified, are constitutional and can give fair trials,” he said.
Holder also pushed back against another line of questioning from Lungren, about whether information provided by detainees who underwent “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding contributed to finding bin Laden. Holder said there was “a mosaic of sources” of intelligence, and he did not go into details.
ADDED: Let's remember that last month, after Obama announced that KSM would be tried before a military commission in Guantanamo, that Eric Holder was adamant about the correctness of his original decision to try him in federal court in Manhattan. He blamed Congress for making it impossible to do that, and he basically stomped out of the room when asked about it.
And in March, 2010, Holder avoided the question of how he'd deal with a captured bin Laden: "The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden - he will never appear in an American courtroom." Pushed, he got angry:
When Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.) said that if Bin Laden himself were arrested, it would be absurd to give him the same due process afforded Manson, Holder erupted.So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?
Charges he coddles terrorists get his "blood boiling," the attorney general conceded....
Holder repeated - slowly - to the Texas congressman that "the possibility simply does not exist" that Bin Laden will ever be arraigned in any court....
"The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal - he will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people," Holder said.
Posts
143 comments:
But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top.
“In your day jobs, do not let Republicans turn this into continuing the Bush legacy. This has to be about Obama’s decisive leadership,” the guidance said. “He is the one who oversaw bringing bin Laden to justice, much like how Bush failed to do so at Tora Bora and then claimed Osama wasn’t a priority.”
For Democrats, the argument is critical because they don’t want to let credibility on national security issues slip back into their post-Vietnam home in the Republican Party. And they need to fight the insinuation, fed by recent NATO action in Libya that one official characterized as “leading from behind,” that Obama is a weak leader.
Business as usual for the Dems? Oh yeah.
Wants it done, but doesn't want to be the one to say 'do it.'
Pontius Pilate syndrome
"A mosaic of sources" says the superior shit
Who ain't worth a pitcher of lukewarm spit.
Well, not quite sure what you would expect from the most corrupt attorney general of our life times.
By killing Bin Laden, Obama and Holder can shield themselves under the umbrella that its irrelevant.. How we would have question Bin Laden or how to try him is now irrelevant.
Quite convenient, given their previous anti Bush policies pronouncements.
Reading on how long it took Obama to decide a course of action, I have no doubt that the post capture scenario played a mayor role in his decision to kill him rather than capture him.
"Wants it done, but doesn't want to be the one to say "do it.""
Being an adult baby, Eric Holder has had a couple reactions, some good, some not so good.
A reluctant American president who was ultimately overridden by senior military and intelligence officials to finally take out terrorist Osama Bin Laden… Ulstermann (hat tip CO)
Note: This communication came from our long time D.C. Insider and details previous and ongoing conflicts surrounding the decision to assassinate terrorist Osama Bin Laden. This has been reproduced here as originally communicated to us.
__________
Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.
Now Intel already leaking to media facts surrounding how info obtained. Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners. Obama administration placed in corner on this. Some media aware of danger to president RE this and attempting protection. Others looking for further investigation. We are pushing for them to follow through and already meeting with some access.
Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.
IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.
Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.
Speaking with additional contacts RE info
So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?
Early on, candidate Obama put himself in a box by criticizing Gitmo, the enhanced interrogations, the military tribunals.. and on and on and on.
Criticisms, that now as president he has had to eat like waffles.
Fred4Pres...here's a counter meme:
A reluctant American president who was ultimately overridden by senior military and intelligence officials to finally take out terrorist Osama Bin Laden… Ulstermann (hat tip CO)
Note: This communication came from our long time D.C. Insider and details previous and ongoing conflicts surrounding the decision to assassinate terrorist Osama Bin Laden. This has been reproduced here as originally communicated to us.
__________
Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.
Now Intel already leaking to media facts surrounding how info obtained. Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners. Obama administration placed in corner on this. Some media aware of danger to president RE this and attempting protection. Others looking for further investigation. We are pushing for them to follow through and already meeting with some access.
Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.
IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.
Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.
Speaking with additional contacts RE info.
There's not a doubt in my mind that this was intentionally an assissination rather than a "dead or alive" scenario. They simply couldn't handle a captive OBL -- so they made sure there wasn't one. Now, I'm not particularly upset that he's dead, but I'm not especially happy about the implicit assassination policy.
... or because a live, captured bin Laden might tell embarrassing stories?
... or because a live, captured bin Laden might tell embarrassing stories?
A captured Bin Laden would have been taken to Guantanamo.. too rich a political target against Obama..
Wait.. is it ok now that we have killed Bin Laden for real to return to post "new civility" ante ;)
I think it really is an irrelevant question. What's the point of a what-if here? The man is dead, a tribunal is not an option.
If no one asked Holder about this previously, then they missed their chance.
The "too late, so sorry" goes for Foxlets as well. Seriously, WTF? There is no downside for the administration "getting" Bin Laden, and nothing negative in wanting a "sure thing" instead of a "miss and lose him again". That it all worked so well is the ultimate vindication on waiting. That is why there is NO upside to trying to spin negative for the lead up.
They DID ask; he really didn't like the question.
Hmmm, this is a side of "Shoot him" I hadn't considered: "Shoot him, because if he's taken alive Holder and I will have to make this decision."
Synova is important in the sense that as both administrations have been saying, the fight is not over.
What is the policy against his replacement?
Is it capture or kill?
I think its crucial that we speak with one voice from administration to administration.. lives hang in the balance.
What are the chances that there wouldn't be resistance? And what are the chances that if Obama gave the order to subdue him and take him alive that his order would have been obeyed?
Oh, and I've got no problem with anyone who wants to annoy Holder. Certainly there are plenty of concrete questions to ask him in place of the hypotheticals.
Also, as assassinations go, this one was a bit different than the sort of classic notion of "assassination", not in the "he deserved it" area, but in the complete lack of secrecy, mystery, and official denial. We might need a different word. It was a military action, not a "spy" type action. I think that it's wrong to call the SEALs "assassins". I think it is insulting to them to do so.
Obama called in to question many of the Bush policies.. I think he owes us an explanation of his.. I'm just saying.
Of course I'm also happy Osama is dead, goes w/o saying. We do need to know going forward what the rules of engagement are.
From my vantage point, the policies look a lot like the ones he critised.
Get rid of Holder by firing his boss.
I guess I would like to know how much of a priority did the political implications of killing Bin Laden figure in the decision?
We are probably never going to know for certain.. But that's what the blogs and later historians are for.
So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?
Makes you wonder why Obama chose the harder path of dealing with bin Laden up close, risking American lives, instead of just letting a drone wipe out that compound from afar. They did manage to find a treasure trove of intelligence left behind that more thanb likely would have been destroyed by missiles. I;m sure that is one reason.
Holder was supposedly just hours away from having to decide what to do with a live OBL. The fact that he can't answer what he would have done pretty much is all we need to know, isn't it? A live OBL was never coming Holder's way.
We haven't been capturing alQaeda operatives lately to get more information. We've been killing them with drones.
Even the people who were living at the compound and harboring Obama were left behind for someone else to deal with.
The decision to try KSM was both unpopular and unwise. Because Holder held it, he became unpopular and we judge him unwise. But we knew that already.
The bin Laden doffing does make this all the more interesting.
I think for a while it is clear that the Administration has a kill don't capture preference. Dead terrorists tell no tales, but also file no habeas petitions.
AG is a difficult position particularly as it pertains to the Global War on Terror (can we still use that phrase).
But boy, Holder sure doesn't make it any easier on himself
(PS Hopefully nobody takes offense at the "boy".)
Killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do. And the SEALS did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?
Makes you wonder why Obama chose the harder path of dealing with bin Laden up close, risking American lives, instead of just letting a drone wipe out that compound from afar.
Confirmation. Shooting a guy directly in the head and swiping his body is a better way of being sure he wasn't out for felafel when the bomb hit.
In a case like this, where you are likely to have his followers claim he isn't dead, being totally sure is important.
So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?
I find it very hard to believe that a Navy SEAL in a position to headshot Bin Laden gives a crap about its effect on the Obama administration.
Still, Holder is really a weasel for ducking the question about what they would have done with Bin Laden had they captured him.
The box Obama is in on this is one of his own making. I can't blame him for busting out of it to do the right thing (which, in this case, it seems he did), since the box he's created is ridiculous. On the other hand, it's pretty clear he didn't want to do what he did, that Holder was in the same position, and that the action they took was forced on them by politics and against their principles.
When you oppose military tribunals, Gitmo, etc., you're left with a bullet to the brain. That's the ridiculous result of his position. I can like the result (I don't think there are many who don't), but I can certainly laugh at the knots Obama et al., twist themselves into over what is, essentially, the easiest political calculation he's ever been faced with. It was a no brainer, and he still had to sit on it for 18 hours before he could make up his mind.
Dead terrorists tell no tales, but also file no habeas petitions.
Yes, as my friend Elliott said, " They didn't want to capture him because then they'd have had to negotiate the minefield of rules they foisted on Bush."
You can swim through the schuadenfreude on this one.
The Lefties are tying themselves in knots explaining how everything they denounced for 8 years is now OK and how all that "torture" really didn't work when it obviously did.
And Ann nails it to the wall with this one, "So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?".
As I said earlier, all the backtracking will muddy this for them.
Killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do. And the SEALS did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?
Because they hate Obama more than hate bin Laden.
Holder could not give a straight answer to what time it is if he had a watch on.
What difference does it make?
None.
garage mahal - "Because they hate Obama more than hate bin Laden."
You got that right.
And it includes The Queen and her little suck-up sidekick, Needy.
That's what this site is ALL about.
Denigrating Obama.
The killing of UBL is just another kinetic military action which, if undertaken by the POTUS, is by definition legal. Of course, I'd have been happier if UBL had been dispatched by means of the same Muslim tradition as Danny Pearl, but you can't get everything you want all the time.
edutcher "The Lefties are tying themselves in knots explaining how everything they denounced for 8 years is now OK and how all that "torture" really didn't work when it obviously did."
First of all, I have no idea what the lefties were "denouncing," unless you're referring to killing Osama Bin Laden??
And as for the torure, you have no proof that it played any part in any of this.
That's just teabagger bullshit.
Even Rummy thinks you're full of shit:
“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.” (Donald Rumsfeld - Monday, 02 May 2011 01:02 PM)
Jeremy- Rumsfeld said the DoD didn't waterboard. That's true. It was the CIA.
Garage and TeacupJeremy: Everyone applauding Obama for ordering the killing of OBL you just are too dumb to note that they are calling you both hypocrites in the bargain. No one hates Obama more than OBL and you know that, you are just projecting your memory of your hatred of GWB which knew no bounds at all. So, we are happy that our president has become more bellicose and hopeful he keeps it up. You will come around to liking the idea of torture before this is over.
The latter.
Many people have hypothesized that the ridiculous idea of trying these terrorists in the US courts would lead to high value targets being killed instead. Panetta's ordering Osama killed supports this.
Also, I have read the Wikileaks revealed the courier and this is what caused Obama to finally make the call, after much dithering.
"BRIAN WILLIAMS: Can you confirm that it was as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?
LEON PANETTA: Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here… It's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got… I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques -- which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years -- that includes water boarding?
LEON PANETTA: That's correct."
- see http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/03/panetta-public-likely-to-see-obl-picture/
So - when do we think the World Court will indite Obama for war crimes?
Garage Mahal and especially Jeremy contrive to rive.
They consider it their duty.
Why would OBL not be caught alive, yet KSM would be caught alive?
. You will come around to liking the idea of torture before this is over.
Never. By the way, Bush/Cheney STOPPED ordering torture after 2004. Why, do you suppose? They thought it didn't work, or thought it was a wrong thing to do maybe?
Let's all praise the military who carried out this operation, or as some on the left called them, Cheney's assassination squad.
Yet another talking point slipping down the memory hole.
So - when do we think the World Court will indite Obama for war crimes?
Shortly after he recieves his next Nobel Peace Prize. They might even be able to combine it into one ceremony.
It really isn't a hypothetical because there are other high value AQ targets, notably the "brains of AQ" Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Frankly, no matter what Holder says, Obama telegraphed what was up when he made a 100% military mission up with no "civilian law enforcement heroes and "noted" human rights lawyers of the ACLU on board the helos to ensure "chain of evidence", proper arrest procedures followed and counsel ready from the start to protect Binnie's precious rights as a civilian criminal suspect.
It was military. The ROE likely took into account Binnies threat to always wear an explosive vest and "never be taken alive".
As was, the decision to cap his ass because you didn't know if he had a C-4 belt under his Mufti saved us 10 years of ACLU aggravation and 100s of millions in taxpayer costs for lawyers, security for Holder's "Dream Trial".
If Ayman is found, I suspect Holder will not be invited into the War Room again, no Hero Law Enforcement agents will be on the mission, and the ACLU will still ranting to "Journolist" relatives in NYC about how Europe needs to grab Cheney and John Yoo and have war crimes trials at the Hague.
Garage: You will like torture the way you like this "event" that none dare call murder. You will like it because you are unclear as to your real beliefs and when you see that you can stay on your high horse you will like torture of the water boarding kind. Certainly I would choose that against a bullet to the brain but you might not.
Matt wrote:
Killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do. And the SEALS did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?
Are you suggesting that the left didn't speculate about Bush and Cheney's actions during their tenure in the White house? Seems to me, that it was the LEFT who were suggesting that Bush in fact was the biggest terrorist and that there was no real terrorist threat (other than the one Bush conjured to strike fear in the populace that is).
C'mon you can't be serious.
Jeremy--
"Denigrating Obama."
Really?
You racist!
wv: outrat
They done shot him outrat.
garage mahal said...
. You will come around to liking the idea of torture before this is over.
Never. By the way, Bush/Cheney STOPPED ordering torture after 2004. Why, do you suppose? They thought it didn't work, or thought it was a wrong thing to do maybe?
==================
They really didn't. Military SERE trainees are still waterboarded until they break and have some other nasty enhanced interrogation things done to them. Same with CIA trainees on the Farm. Bush continued that, so did Obama.
The reason that continued and the interrogation of enemy Islamoids stopped is the liberal Dems, progressive Jewish media, and EuroLeft had a cow about it - and Bush/Cheney just said it was no longer worth the aggravation.
By the way, Bush/Cheney STOPPED ordering torture after 2004. Why, do you suppose? They thought it didn't work, or thought it was a wrong thing to do maybe?
You're suggesting that waterboarding a terrorist is the wrong thing to do, but kicking a terrorist's door down and shooting him in the head is the right thing to do.
Notice any inconsistency there?
He was shot because they thought he was reaching for a gun.
An old Chicago trick, to be sure.
There is no way they wanted to capture him. It was a completely political decision.
garage mahal wrote:
Never. By the way, Bush/Cheney STOPPED ordering torture after 2004. Why, do you suppose? They thought it didn't work, or thought it was a wrong thing to do maybe?
Hey let's play a game. Bush authorized TORTURE!!! But do you know what Obama authorized? ASSASSINATION!
So, you Garage Mahal, are a supporter of assassinating people correct? Is that against international law? Didn't the nazis also assassinate people? What's ultimately worse, torture or assassination? I'll note that KSM is sitting in a jail cell, while OBL has a bullet in his eye. And I'd argue that you and those on the left also support torture. When Osama continued his renditions to countries that didn't have our moral inhibitions they most likely did far worse than we ever could possibly dream of to prisoners in their care.
So you support an assasinating illegal renditioning outsourcer of torture, who is big on drone attacks that kill innocent civilians and who wages war against countries that never attacked us.
And you were against Bush why again?
Jeremy said...
edutcher "The Lefties are tying themselves in knots explaining how everything they denounced for 8 years is now OK and how all that "torture" really didn't work when it obviously did."
First of all, I have no idea what the lefties were "denouncing," unless you're referring to killing Osama Bin Laden??
The Bush policies, including waterboarding, Gitmo, enemy combatants, military tribunals, rendition. The campaign in Iraq.
Any of this ring a bell?
Duh, as he likes to say.
And as for the torure, you have no proof that it played any part in any of this.
Of course, we do. And it was done by The Company, so quoting Rummy means nothing because it wasn't done by the DoD.
But he knew that already.
He just can't bear to admit it.
Eric Holder knows how to look the other way when it suits him, think of the Black Panthers in Philly.
From Seymour Hersh back in the bad old Bush days:
"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."
"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
He of course is reffering to the squad that killed OBL. Sounds an awful lot like Obama's policies in Pakistan - we've beein going into countries, not talking to the ambassadors, finding people on the lists and taking them out. And back then in the bad old Bush days this CRIME was an abomination that was going on in the name of all of us. Remember the cry, NOT IN OUR NAME?
Now lefties want to call those same rogue assassins commiting war crimes in our name, pals and good guys for doing the exact thing they denounced them for only a few years ago?
I think this assassination policy being supported by liberals is a good thing. I should think that the duly elected leaders of Libya and Syria might be considering its implications. Not to mention conservative governors of our own fair country. But at least there will be no water boarding.
As the poet said, there are only two things to fear: blood. blood and time.
Jeremy....I think Ann has been quite niggardly in her denigration of the Resident. I seem to recall that she DID vote for him.
I think most people approve of indefinite detention, military tribunals (or no trial at all), and even "enhanced interrogation"... all for those who are actually involved in terrorism.
The controversial aspects arise when innocents get caught up in the net.
The Conservative position seem to be that innocents don't exist. If someone is accused by our regime of being a terrorist, then-- by the majesty of the Evangelical God and his son-on-earth William Kristol-- they are guilty, end of story. To even offer them a trial-- any trial!-- insults the Conservative notion of an always-correct authoritarian government. The idea that mistakes might be made by our Holy Army is outside consideration.
And Conservatives seem to have no problem torturing innocents. In fact, in their mind-set, there are no innocents, so there is never a problem torturing anyone that our Regime thinks might be connected to terrorism. Calling it "enhanced interrogation" allows the Conservative mind to further distance itself from the vile distastefulness of torture; so even if they are wrong, and there are innocents caught up in Gitmo and our black site torture facilities... well, they were just "interrogated", not "tortured". Conservatives can use that air-quote rationalization to hold their head high and present themselves at Sunday mass as moral men.
When you talk about hypothetical trials of KSM or Osama bin Laden, you are talking about guys who everyone knows are the opposite of potential innocents. So you really can't speak to whether the larger trial+torture policy of our Regime is sensible or not in their case.
Michael wrote:
I think this assassination policy being supported by liberals is a good thing. I should think that the duly elected leaders of Libya and Syria might be considering its implications. Not to mention conservative governors of our own fair country. But at least there will be no water boarding.
Why is water boarding worse than assassinating?
And why was the left against assassnations when they were supposedly being carried out by Cheney's death squads?
jr565: You will have to ask one of the lefties around here why water boarding is worse than assassination. They have a theory on this and I think can give a lengthy and laughable explanation. Try Garage or Teacupper Jeremy.
I think you're wrong, Julius.
If someone, anyone at all, was advocating waterboarding suspected terrorists just because... well, then you'd have a point. But I don't think anyone has or does, so the idea that "innocents don't exist" or that it's okay to go ahead and "torture" them is pretty much projected hyperbole.
The "hypothetical" of KSM or Bin Laden *is* the "torture" policy. There is no *broader* policy that anyone at all advocates.
"...you are talking about guys who everyone knows are the opposite of potential innocents."
Exactly.
So... was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?
I like to think he was shot because he needed killin'.
Julius: I am certainly not in favor of torturing innocents though I will aver that the Navy trainees who undergo that torture are probably blameless. I will leave that conundrum to you.
As to the innocence of OBL? He was certainly convicted in what liberals used to find repulsive, the court of public opinion.
I would love to hear from you what wormhole we must crawl through to find moral comfort in an order to kill a man in a foreign country without the benefit of trial etc. I am sure it is a straight if narrow path.
Julius wrote:
I think most people approve of indefinite detention, military tribunals (or no trial at all), and even "enhanced interrogation"... all for those who are actually involved in terrorism.
The controversial aspects arise when innocents get caught up in the net.
Blah blah blah. What a crock of shit.
First off, those supporting waterboarding and those who carried out waterboarding did not carry it out on innocent people, to the best of their knowledge. It wasn't the default interrogation method to be used on everyone held at Gitmo. No, it was an enhanced method only to be used in rare cases on people we knew had info, like KSM. I've had countless discussions on these boards where I made the same point to you lefties OVER AND OVER. You're arguing a strong man argument that proponents of waterboarding never even advocated. How about if we caught OBL, are you telling me you wouildn't resort to enhanced interrogations if you thought you might get info that would potentially stop attacks, allow us to kill other high level Al Qaeda targets or save lives. That's wrong, but us assassinating him is ok in your eyes. Huh?
As for your other points, if you are for drone attacks and holding people indefinitely are you not aware that that also may involve innocent people getting caught in our web? We'd have to hold people for at least as long as it took to determine their innocence, Which might in fact take a long time. Are you ok with that, if they in fact are innocent? and how about drone attacks? Are you aware of any mechanism that we could use that would distinguish terrorists from cinvilians when we drop bombs on suspected terrorists? If not, then you too are as bad as the conservatives you say don't care about innocent lives.
edutcher
I don't think there is sufficient evidence at this point to conclude that waterboarding led to finding Bin Laden.
It is also worth noting that - according to ABC news in 2007 - the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of enhanced interrogation techniques in 2006. And the last time is was used was in 2003.
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. Don't speculate for the sake of some political points.
What we do know is Bin Laden is dead. How exactly we found him remains top secret.
And as for the torure, you have no proof that it played any part in any of this.
I just want to be sure I understand where you're coming from, here. You believe that bin Laden is dead, even though at this point the only evidence of that is that Obama said it was true. But you *won't* believe that information gathered via "torture" was involved until you see absolute proof of it. On that subject, statements by government officials don't cut it.
Is that about right?
Matt wrote:
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. Don't speculate for the sake of some political points.
What we do know is Bin Laden is dead. How exactly we found him remains top secret.
And what if it turns out that info we got from an enhanced interrogation did in fact lead to us being able to locate Osama? What would that mean to you? It sounds like when Bush was in power you wanted to be in the kitchen watching us make the sausage and criticizing us all along the way, yet now that Obama is making the sausage you don't want to go into the kitchen and see how the sausage is being made anymore.
Your curious mind seems to shut down depending on who's in charge, no? Now, so long as you get sausage, you don't really care what goes in it, right?
international law, shminternational law.
We probably also won't get too many leakings of top secret programs that are used to combat terrorism now that Obama is in charge, correct? And I bet you would not want the times to in fact leak said programs. Were you or those on the left so protective of Top Secret programs when Bush was in charge?
Julius writes: The Conservative position seem to be that innocents don't exist.
On the off chance that you're not just writing that to insult a lot of people, I am one conservative who doesn't want any innocents tortured.
I also don't want terrorists tortured -- no cigarette burns, no fingernails pulled, no electrical shocks.
If they have to listen to Muskrat Love 24/7 until they break, however, that's okay with me.
Now then: I can usually manage not to tar an entire class of people in my political discussions. Why can't you?
It's my understanding that the SEALS were wearing helmet cameras, and the video was being sent to Langley. I think to clear all this up we need to see the footage of the raid.
For the supporters of President Obama and his approach to the handling of terrorism, a hypothetical that I wish both you and Eric Holder would address:
Let's say information on the hard drives collected in Abbottabad leads to an opportunity to capture Ayman al-Zawahiri, the new #1 of al-Qaeda.
Capture. The team of people who are going to grab him are pretty sure they can take him alive.
You're Eric Holder. Do you advocate to the President, your boss, capturing Zawahiri or killing him? If the latter, why? If the former, under what circumstances would you hold, try and punish him?
Revenant
It is a lot more naive to believe the death of Bin Laden was faked than it is to be skeptical that 'waterboarding' led to finding him. Admit that much.
I hope you are not a right wing conspiracy nut. If you are then there probably is an island for you to be shared with flat earthers and fake moon landing nuts.
jr565
If we don't get leaks of top secret info then why would you assume that we must certainly have done waterboarding? The bottom line is we don't know if torture was used. If it was then it was. I don't represent the left's take on torture - although no doubt it is a rather controversial way to get info.
But I'm not naive enough to think they would not still be using such techniques. I don't believe things have changed much just because Obama is president. And, hey, we got results that Bush could not.
It is good to know that now that the left and dems have ceded all the war on terror arguments to Bush's, that the next time a republican is in office and has to carry out some foreign policy matter that may be akin to the war, that the libs will not raise the usual arguments any more. They can't. They are ok with assassinating leaders, drone attacks that kill innocents, going into countries that don't attack us and assassinating people, holding people indefinitely without trials and using miltiary comissions instead of civilian trials to deal with terrorists. If any lib brings up international law, we can view it as an ironic punchline to a joke they are telling, but certainly not an argument to be taken seriously.
When Israel assassinates a Hamas leader, I better not hear any caterwauling about international law either. Obama is ok with assassinations, and he won a Noble Peace prize.
Matt wrote:
But I'm not naive enough to think they would not still be using such techniques. I don't believe things have changed much just because Obama is president. And, hey, we got results that Bush could not.
And Bush got results, (taking out Sadaam, removing the Taliban as leaders in Afghanistan and drving OBL into a cave for 5 year, capturing KSM and others) that Clinton didn't get.
So what's your point?
Matt"
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/al-qaeda-couriers-provided-the-trail-that-led-to-bin-laden/2011/05/02/AFNSH5ZF_story.html
A lot of the info seems to come from 2005 when we captured and interrogated al Libbi. He revealed info about a courier close to OBL who we tracked and which ultmately led us to OBL's whereabouts. But as discussed in the article, Al Libi was held at a CIA black site or secret prison. Do you think that he may have had some enhanced interrogations done on him. The mere fact that he was held at a black site, would be an example of how Bush and CHeney were evil.If that story is true though and he was held at a black site, what does that mean to you? What if he was tortured to get that info? If it was post our abolishment of waterboarding, he may in fact have been held by Egyptians and been REALLY tortured. Now we don't necessarily know that he (al libbi) was or wasn't tortured, and if that in fact was what ultimately led us to OBL, but what if the story is true?
jr565
Yes, both got results. I meant with regards to capturing Bin Laden, which to me was the character we should have focused on more than Saddam. But, look, water under the bridge.
My larger point is you hate Obama more than I hated Bush.
Killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do. And the SEALS did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?
Waterboarding terrorist was the right thing to do. And the CIA did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?
Sorry if already posted...explains the whole thing and why obama looks like a bystander in THE photo...cuz he was!
http://bit.ly/khDkx7
And Bush got results, (taking out Sadaam, removing the Taliban as leaders in Afghanistan and drving OBL into a cave for 5 year, capturing KSM and others) that Clinton didn't get.
So what's your point?
Agree. The results across administrations were cumulative, including the latest actions. This operation was enabled by the previous.
People speculated that leaders like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and then Sen. Obama were anti-war during the Bush administration for political reasons only: the Dems then ran on an anti-war platform for cynical, money-attracting reasons. Now they are faced with ownership of military events (and let's not forget about Libya et al). The "ownership" struggle going forward should be very interesting indeed and I predict a Republican distancing from the events. The Democrats want this because with a faltering economy, they think it's their best hope in 2012.
The theory that Obama was pushed into it does explain the long delay.
This is silly. Much as I think that Eric Holder is the worst AG since Nixon's John Mitchell (and quite possibly the worst in the history of the Republic), the issue of what would he have done if bin Laden had been taken alive really is a moot point.
My larger point is you hate Obama more than I hated Bush.
What pathetic, unproductive speculation.
Matt said...
edutcher
I don't think there is sufficient evidence at this point to conclude that waterboarding led to finding Bin Laden.
It is also worth noting that - according to ABC news in 2007 - the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of enhanced interrogation techniques in 2006. And the last time is was used was in 2003.
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. Don't speculate for the sake of some political points.
In that case, you have an issue with Leon Panetta.
Matt wrote:
My larger point is you hate Obama more than I hated Bush.
I don't hate Obama. I hate the lefties that hated Bush far more than any tea partier ever dreamed of hating Obama.
And while there are many tea partiers that can't stand Bush, you can't seriously be suggesting that such vitriol is at all comparable to the lefts hatred of Bush/Cheney. You can't be serious. Actually, I think you are serious, which just goes to show that you should never argue with irrational people.
Seriously, can we stand by our President a few days after taking out the Mastermind of 911?
Imams are threatening him. Obama belongs to us.
My larger point is you hate Obama more than I hated Bush.
That's your larger point? It's hard to imagine anything smaller or more trivial than which anonymous blog commenter hates which politician more.
The real point is that this operation broke every international law/human rights "principle" that the left has been bleating about for years. A presidentially directed assassination, or extra-judicial killing, that violated
Pakistan's sovriegnity and was likely accomplished using intel from Gitmo detainees.
And you're good with it.
Why?
Because the Prez has a D after his name.
So enjoy Obama's triumph, but remember this the next time an R is in office and you're tempted to have an internationl law/human rights hissy fit over something he did.
Remember that you don't really care about any of it and you're just a political opportunist. I certainly won't forget.
War and assassination lead to some harsh actions and judgments. For example:
1. Bush made the decision to "torture" some AQ captives because their information was so important.
2. Bush and Obama have dropped high explosives on targets knowing that nearby innocents would be killed.
3. Obama decided to kill Bin Laden rather than capture him because capturing him would cause a huge passel of international problems for the nation, and domestic problems for himself politically.
4. Obama decided to risk American troops by killing Bin Laden up close and personal with troops instead of at a distance with explosives. He seems to have done this to assure that we knew it was Bin Laden who was killed. This benefits Obama politically and the nation geopolitically.
5. The very personal killing of Bin Laden at close range in front of his wife and apparently his grandchildren emphasizes the blood feud nature of the conflict. This action probably further endangers Obama's life, and (to be brutal) the lives of his children. AQ is revenge oriented, and revenge on Obama's family is probably already on their minds.
6. The stories behind the intelligence gathering could have large elements of truth, or could be filled with misdirection and untruth, for reasons weighty or trivial.
7. We may well know already whether Pakistan knew where Bin Laden was. Much will remain untold. You play very carefully with a child who has nuclear toys.
8. This wasn't justice. It was revenge. Revenge is a game of leapfrog.
I was pleased to see that Obama has some balls. He played this right. Truth be told, there was more upside than downside for him. He will have tougher decisions than this, especially concerning Iran, but everyone is going to view him a little differently.
jr565
The link you provided is not the definitive link on the subject. It is one link among a whole bunch of them. At this point the evidence that led to finding bin Laden seems to have been a mixture of gathered information some of which may have been found under enhanced interrogation techniques [EIT].
Lem
Well, the CIA did EIT for a while but 'officially' they say they stopped after 2003. So who knows? The CIA has been torturing prisoners for years and years. That is not something I would say is any big shock.
If it is hypocritical that the left says no to torture and then celebrates when evidence is gotten via torture then so be it. Who really cares? It's an academic exercise for the blogs.
I would say using EIT is not something any country would advertise or be proud of. Which is why the Bush Admin said they stopped it and why Obama says he opposes it. But I am sure it still goes on.
Under Bush the squad that carried the killing out was "Cheney's personal assassination squad" or some such term.
Under Obama the same group is now the "best of the best".
Under Bush CIA interrogators were violators of civil and human rights to be threatened with prosecution.
Under Obama they are just one of "many sources of information".
You hypocrites.
And while I'm at it, the more I've learned about the raid, the more I'm inclined to think that Obama has the ability to learn from others' mistakes (if not necessarily learn from his own mistakes).
Certainly he learned from Carter's mistakes in Operation Eagle Claw to get the heck out of the way of the military professionals. He learned from Clinton's failed effort to kill bin Laden via cruise missile that the Pakistanis should be kept in the dark about the mission.
No, I'm still not going to vote for him. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if inflation was calculated today the way it was during Carter's term, we'd be looking at a "misery index" as bad or worse than what Carter produced. But credit where it is due -- this one Obama got right.
It is a lot more naive to believe the death of Bin Laden was faked than it is to be skeptical that 'waterboarding' led to finding him. Admit that much.
"Faked" implies that Obama deliberately lied. I didn't suggest that.
I'll just remind you of Bush's speeches announcing we had absolute proof that Iraq possessed WMDs. It turned out that we didn't have proof; we had circumstantial evidence backed by wishful thinking. Sure, the loony Left convinced itself that Bush had deliberately lied to us to trick us into war, but smarter people like myself recognized that the administration wasn't malevolent -- just incompetent.
So the question is: is it more naive to be skeptical that terrorists gave up information under torture than it is to believe that the Obama administration and the intelligence community, both of which had countless screw-ups to their name, may have egregiously screwed up yet again?
Answer: no.
I hope you are not a right wing conspiracy nut.
I think bin Laden is dead and that the intelligence tactics the Left has been wetting its pants about for the last 9 years are largely responsible. I have no proof for either of those beliefs -- just common sense and statements from government officials.
Maguro
Yeah, and so now you are opposed to all of this because a [D] is next to the President's name?
Your point is just as trivial and petty. In fact, more petty because I never got on a soapbox about Bush killing terrorists. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But a full scale war is a whole hell of a lot different than one Navy SEAL operation that takes out a terrorist. I have no problem with Bin Laden being taken out in such a manner. If Bush had done it I would have been fine with it because Bin Laden was one of the main terrorists behind 9/11
Even Obama said in a 2008 debate that he would defy Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. I agreed with him. But if he said he would go in and kill an elected leader who may or may not have ties to terrorism then that would give me pause.
Holder is a big baby ;)
The story keeps changing doesn't it. And it is only what two days.
What will the story be three weeks from now?
It seems fishy to me that they dumped his body so fast.
I'm not a conspiracy monger, and I've been in the war long enough in Iraq and now in Afghanistan to know that we do really strange things to placate the Islamists.
And it's not really new. I was in Japan with the Marines when Hirohito died and our dictated behavior was far in excess of how the Japanese mourned.
But . . .
It does seem awfully hasty to bury him at sea so fast without even giving a third party a chance to confirm his death. When it comes to giving Americans and allies a chance to witness and confirm the death, or to not anger our enemies, why did they side with the enemy?
Like I said, it's not new or unique to this administration, but I still find it odd.
And if they had combat cameramen present, why aren't we being shown some sort of the footage that was recorded? The picture of them in the situation room makes it appear that they were watching a live feed, which is hard to believe and apparently not true. So why do they promote that image? More grist for the conspiracy mill?
If we abided by our own laws and mores (most importantly the Bill of Rights when putting governments in place) and paid less attention to theirs, this war would be a lot simpler.
What will the story be three weeks from now?
At this rate, by that time it might resemble an Abner Louima type deal ;)
I'm just kidding.. our troops would never do something like that.
Revenant
I don't think Bush 'lied' about the WMD. His administration just sure seemed like they wanted a war and they thought it would be a whole hell of a lot easier than it was.
Calling them incompetent is close to correct.
But, yes, I see your point. The left opposed all this war stuff until Obama took office. But as I mentioned to Maguro I do think most of the left would have been completely fine with Bin Laden being taken out by Bush in just about any manner necessary. And it was never a secret that Obama wanted to do this.
In a case like this, where you are likely to have his followers claim he isn't dead, being totally sure is important.
Having a live one is the best possible proof.
I think for once, just once maybe, officials should be held accountable for what they said...for the sake of honor, a soon-becoming lost value in our culture.
If Holder said what he did in 2010, stand by it or resign. For all Nixon did, he was honorable. Clinton denigrated that virtue as never before.
Holders pronouncements visa vi Bin Laden, never getting captured but killed instead, may have put his boss in a box.
I think that's a Fair question to ask.
Skyler
You are turning speculation into your own facts. It's sort of odd.
Burying the body within 24 hours has already been explained. It was the absolute best thing to do under the circumstances.
Also the picture of them in the situation room has been explained as well. Do you really think that just because the photo makes it appear that they were watching a live feed on a 56 inch HD TV that they most certainly must be lying if they say they weren’t?
I mean, some people fill in the narrative to fit their own worldview [which is usually based on ignorance] but why feed the conspiracy nuts?
the left would have been completely fine with Bin Laden being taken out by Bush in just about any manner necessary.
I think the left would have gone bonkers if Bush announced he'd overseen a raid on Bin Laden, shot him dead, and dumped him off a boat within 13 hours even before the DNA results came back. And then refused to release pictures or video.
Please keep in mind there were smart people on the left who thought Bush had Osama in a box somewhere, to release just before the 2004 elections.
The issue is not Conservatives hating Obama. The issue is the Left did so much damage to the war effort and put so much energy into obstructing it until they came into power, almost to a point where it can be said this worked not because of Obama but in spite of him, that the sight of them twisting themselves in knots to sound gung ho now is ironic, to say the least.
That Obama made the decision, or was pressured to make the decision (we're starting to hear rumblings on that score similar to Libya), was a good thing.
The idea he is going to take a Victory lap and is getting into his "I, me, my" act, or that he and/or the Democrats refuse to credit the previous Administration while all the former Administration officials have gone out of their way to give him credit speaks to a lot of people about where the real class in this act resides.
Maybee - TOTALLY agree
Matt objected, "Burying the body within 24 hours has already been explained. It was the absolute best thing to do under the circumstances."
Says who? By what standard? To placate the enemy? Who cares about them? You know who the muslims are that over react to something like that? They're self-identifying as the enemy. We should make muslims wish to be more careful to distance themselves from the enemy rather than identify with him.
So, the people who already hate us will still hate us. Now the people we want on our side against those haters will be more inclined to doubt us. It was absolutely not the best thing to do if you want to win allies and defeat the enemy.
But, like I said, Bush would probably have done the same thing. And the army probably is still coddling muslims in uniform that want to kill fellow soldiers in Fort Hood. It's a sick mind set, not limited to political ideology, and I don't respect that mind set.
edutcher - I agree.
I think the left would have gone bonkers if Bush announced he'd overseen a raid on Bin Laden, shot him dead, and dumped him off a boat within 13 hours even before the DNA results came back.
But that's a hypothetical and hypotheticals are pretty much useless, much like this thread.
And please continue to whine 24/7 about Obama and his administration as that's what AA and her flock does best! Plus it's somewhat entertaining. :-P
So many irrelevant hypotheticals, so little time.
take care, blessings
But that's a hypothetical and hypotheticals are pretty much useless, much like this thread.
Ok, but I was answering a hypothetical.
Considering the fact that the left couldn't even give Bush a break for the way the Iraqis handled their execution of Saddam, I don't think my hypothetical takes much imagination.
Matt wrote:
xBut as I mentioned to Maguro I do think most of the left would have been completely fine with Bin Laden being taken out by Bush in just about any manner necessary. And it was never a secret that Obama wanted to do this.
And yet the left had problems with us waterboarding high level terrorists directly involved in the planning of 9/11, on the grounds that it was against international law. And yet they'd be ok with us assassinatng terrorists? Funny, then why did they call this very same squad Cheney's personal assassination squad?
Why did they cheer the Times leaking not one but two secret programs designed to track these self same terrorists, on the most dubious of grounds? Why did many say that Bush was the biggest terrorist threat, that if we attacked terrorists we'd only increase terrorism (won't us killing Osama only make them hate us more). EVERY fricking word from the left for nearly 8 years actively undermined our efforst in both Iraq and Afhanistan and poo pooed the idea that there was any threat. The only threat was that which Bush used to try to scare the populace. You lefties are simply dishonest to your core.
And you'll note, none of us have problems with Obama taking out OBL. What we are pointing out is the unrivaled hypocricy of your side. NOW suddenly you are on board and treating wars and terrorism as serious business. Congratulations to getting your head out of your ass. Yet,considering the number of times you lefties shanked the previous administration in the back for doing things you now say are perfectly acceptable, it;s kind of hard to treat you guys as allies.
Let's have a republican take the WHite houes and merely continue Obama's policies, and you will hear the same caterwauling we heard for the past 8 years. Because you lefties have never argued the war on terror with any degree of principle
"Well, not quite sure what you would expect from the most corrupt attorney general of our life times."
sarge here apparently yar wuz not not alive durin the john mitchell daze?
..and another thing.
Doesn't the long period of time Bin Laden hid in plain sight represent a major intelligence failure on the part of this so called 'ally' Pakistan?
"reluctant American president who was ultimately overridden by senior military and intelligence officials to finally take out terrorist Osama Bin Laden… "
Right...
"IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.
Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH."
sarge here...hahahahahahahahaha no boyo yer batshit crazy but no doubt holdin down a productive job managin a slew o mini warehouses somewjhere in the DC suburbs
Matt wrote:
But a full scale war is a whole hell of a lot different than one Navy SEAL operation that takes out a terrorist. I have no problem with Bin Laden being taken out in such a manner. If Bush had done it I would have been fine with it because Bin Laden was one of the main terrorists behind 9/11
Even Obama said in a 2008 debate that he would defy Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. I agreed with him. But if he said he would go in and kill an elected leader who may or may not have ties to terrorism then that would give me pause.
So you're distinguishing terrorists from non terrorists, much the way the Bush administration said that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to them
since they weren't signatories to the Geneva Convention, and fell outside the bounds of Geneva Convention protections when being imprisoned.
So yet again, Bush was right and the left was talking out of it's ass, correct?
Because, you are basically arguing that it's ok to assassinate certain people,despite the fact that under normal circumstances such things would be against international law. Why then would you have a problem if we needed to hold people in Guantanamo and suggested that Geneva didn't apply to them because of who they are?
As per usual, the libs eventually come around to the Bush position when it suits them and reveals them to be complete hypocrites.
"sarge" writes and spells like he's from the same special ed ops team as "J" a few day/weeks ago.
Coinkydink?
Special ops team, or special ed team?
chickelit said...
"sarge" writes and spells like he's from the same special ed ops team as "J" a few day/weeks ago.
Coinkydink?
They are one, after all.
I meant with regards to capturing Bin Laden, which to me was the character we should have focused on more than Saddam
You seem to be most interested in retribution for 9/11. Bush was focused on preventing another big attack by eliminating or intimidating the tyrants who sponsor terror--that ol' Axis of Evil.
"Considering the fact that the left couldn't even give Bush a break for the way the Iraqis handled their execution of Saddam, I don't think my hypothetical takes much imagination"
sarge here now that hangin of sadam went poorly by anyones standard thar hussien the butcher somehow come out looking gooder than thar operators of thar three ring circus that was run during the execution - lets face it boys the plan since thar days of clinton has been kill bin laden - the cole the embassy bombin alone reason enough obami done it thar right way an the way that gives them jihadi thar least to work with propaganda wize and yar might notice them pakistanis aint denyin it was osama just denyin they knew that old boy was hidin out thar-damn sure the ISI knows old osama sleeps with the fish an no ones gotta see his smashed up noggin more then 24 houras after death like thar poorly done uday/qusay hussien takriti frankenstien mess sarge sees it as revenge done right an classy too
stand by yer country an a job well done boys or leave it for another
It's never the crime it is always the cover up.
Just sayn'
Holder is hoist by his on petard. OBL will never see trial because we will kill him; ergo KSM should be tried by a civil court because we have fixed the unconstitutional military tribunals which are now just spiffy.
I do think most of the left would have been completely fine with Bin Laden being taken out by Bush in just about any manner necessary.
Hm. Summer of '04, Bush's approval rating is hovering around 50 and heading south.
Then he announces that he just killed bin Laden, but can't show anyone the body because we already got rid of it out of "respect for Islam" or something. But he totally killed him, just like he said he would. Pinky swear!
Would the Left have been "completely fine" with that? I think they would have been completely fine with calling him a liar out to boost his approval rating for re-election, is what I think.
"And you're good with it.
Why?
Because the Prez has a D after his name."
For cultural Marxists, it is all about what Lenin said was the central question of history, "Who? Whom?"
Who is doing the torturing? Who is doing the assassinating?
With leftists, you may know what the rules are today, but there's no telling what the rules will be next week. Who? Whom?
"OBL will never see trial because we will kill him; ergo KSM should be tried by a civil court because we have fixed the unconstitutional military tribunals which are now just spiffy."
sadly ol Kalid SM got hisself arrested instead of goin out in a blaze o glory or jest gettin his head shot off by SEAL team 6 wiv no pakistani involvement nor need to do things in any way them thar pakistanis wud approve of to git thar cooperation-apples an oranges boys-ya get stuck with thar dude alive ya gotta try im too bad tat kalid SM went an admitted to all them things old kalid SM didnt actually do along wiv them he probably did do-makes a civil difficult. fuckerd a been aquitted-reason numero uno professionals dont hold with the water boardin-drown a man 300 times an hell say anything
sarge loves that qote from ex SEAL jessie ventura:"let me waterboard dick cheney and i'll have him confessing to 9/11 in 10 about 10
minutes"
Revenant said....
Then he announces that he just killed bin Laden, but can't show anyone the body because we already got rid of it out of "respect for Islam" or something. But he totally killed him, just like he said he would. Pinky swear!
Would the Left have been "completely fine" with that? I think they would have been completely fine with calling him a liar out to boost his approval rating for re-election, is what I think"
Which is exactly what I think. A compliant lap dog media will cover it up now but the story is changing over and over again and it is only two days in. What this will look like in two months is anybodies guess.
It was a big mistake to get rid of the evidence so fast. That is just a fact. And facts will be in short supply when the evidence was deliberately destroyed in haste and error. They will come to regret it.
"progressive Jewish media"
Does that include the NYT which is run by an Episcopalian who loudly rejects his Jewish heritage and hates Israel as much as C-fudd the flophouse masturbator does?
Leave it to these retards to fuck something up that went so well. Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory. Idiots.
considering the number of times you lefties shanked the previous administration in the back for doing things you now say are perfectly acceptable
Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in what they lecture the rest of us about"
"I would say using EIT is not something any country would advertise or be proud of. Which is why the Bush Admin said they stopped it and why Obama says he opposes it. But I am sure it still goes on."
Just wanted to point out that this is very similar to people (like Matt Damon, bless his heart) who also wanted it both ways. He wanted us to torture people, but he wanted us to lie about it.
The appearance being more than the substance, I suppose.
I don't get this. I really don't. On the one hand I think we should respect the need for secrets in government, at least immediate ones, meant to protect the identities of our people, ongoing operations, and so the bad guys don't see us coming. On the other hand, I would prefer that we be honest about the general scope of what we do and if people are ashamed then we shouldn't do it at all and we should take the consequences.
Integrity, you know.
@Matt
"Also the picture of them in the situation room has been explained as well. Do you really think that just because the photo makes it appear that they were watching a live feed on a 56 inch HD TV that they most certainly must be lying if they say they weren’t?
I mean, some people fill in the narrative to fit their own worldview [which is usually based on ignorance] but why feed the conspiracy nuts?"
Ah, yes, the mooners (crowd that maintains that we never went to the moon), the truthers, etc etc, they too 'fill in the narrative to fit their own worldview'.
Proof that they weren't lying?
A distinction without a difference Matt.
jessie ventura: "let me waterboard dick cheney and i'll have him confessing to 9/11 in 10 about 10
minutes"
Thats cute, but not the way it works.
Matt: Burying the body within 24 hours has already been explained. It was the absolute best thing to do under the circumstances.
That remains to be seen. Check back in a few months to see how it plays out.
Even you agree, else you wouldn't load up your assertion with adjectives like "absolute" best.
The only way the story makes sense to me is as a cover - OBL is alive in some secret CIA compound being mentally dissected.
Dead men have no Miranda rights.
Terrorists shouldn't have them anyway, dead or alive, but I'm glad it's not something we need to worry about.
Song for the day: "I'll be glad when you're dead, you rascal, you."
Jesse Ventura wrote:
jessie ventura:
"let me waterboard dick cheney and i'll have him confessing to 9/11 in 10 about 10
Minutes"
so he's suggesting that waterboarding is pretty effective, no? Now him being the conspiracy theorist I wouldn't be surprised if in fact he was being literal and was actually suggesting that he would get Cheney to admit he was in ilved (which is what he believes anyway) in 9/11.
If though he was suggesting that waterboarding could get an innocent man to admit anything, then isnt it good to know that it was only used on select targets who we knew had info we needed and who were part of Al Qaeda's inner circle. And of course those suggesting we waterboard only suggested we do so in rare circumstances and not in any jihadi caught at Gitmo.so of course Ventura is full of crap.
You can get anyone to confess to murder, but no amount of harsh interrogation will induce an innocent person to tell you where to find the body.
"But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top."
No wonder Jeremy's back. He was ordered to return.
"Matt said...
Killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do. And the SEALS did it. Why speculate anything beyond that?"
Someone once wrote a book outlining how to win politically. One of his "rules" was to make your opponents live up to their own rules. Leftists pretend these actions are wrong. So force them to explain why they are either liars or prefer living in a world where we cannot kill Bin Laden and other terrorists.
Osama bin Laden was shot so Barack Obama could appear to be macho. It's also why he went to war in Libya. It's all about his ego.
The intelligence we could have gleaned from bin Laden would have been priceless. The price we would have had to pay for that intelligence would have been high. Obama didn't have the courage to pay that price. He is a coward.
Post a Comment