Political & Elections

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

RE: Osama dead!

Woodwork · Senior Member

Nbachris,

In your normal life, that is the one where you have to actually confront people in person --often face to face, do you commonly use phrases like "stupid" to describe their ideas? Because I would hate to think that the anonymity of typing words on a computer inclines you to act more confrontational, aggressive or courageous than you would 'person to person' where there are, as a rule, real and obvious consequences for using offensive and confrontational language where it is neither required nor appropriate.

Still, as to your point, Louis XIX did not run the economy of France and there is no real analogy between Hitler, Stalin or Mao running their respective economies and Louis the XIV running the economy of France. In fact, you may be the only person I have ever come across to draw such an extraordinary analogy between the two, and even at that to no pragmatic purpose; it does not advance the discussion but rather needlessly confuses it.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:
The National Socialists were very much in favor of "world government". See WW II
The ultimate socialist concept is that "government knows best". The extent to which this is implemented really determines how "socialist" a society has become.
Virtually all modern societies have some socialist elements.

You're seriously going to make the argument that the mantra "government knows best" is what defines a socialist government?

So if you run a country as an absolute monarch, or some kind of despot, where only your government has power and nobody has any rights, that's socialism to you?

I'd say the more accurate dumbed-down description of socialism is that "government knows best how to allocate resources most fairly".

BigG · Guru

The National Socialists were very much in favor of "world government". See WW II

The ultimate socialist concept is that "government knows best". The extent to which this is implemented really determines how "socialist" a society has become.

Virtually all modern societies have some socialist elements.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Woodwork wrote:
Nbchris, if what you mean to say is that the National socialist were "nationalist" which is generally thought to be a right-wing tick, and world goverment a left-wing tock, well, the National socialist were certainly politically nationalist and economically socialist. The Nazis ran and dictated the direction of the economy as politicians. The socialist left and right wings politics may be different, but the economics are socialist: the government knows best.

The government running the economy doesn't not make a country socialist. Using this stupid standard, all the mercantilist economies of early modern Europe would also have to be considered socialist.

Louis XIV: The world's most powerful socialist!

Woodwork · Senior Member

Nbchris, if what you mean to say is that the National socialist were "nationalist" which is generally thought to be a right-wing tick, and world goverment a left-wing tock, well, the National socialist were certainly politically nationalist and economically socialist. The Nazis ran and dictated the direction of the economy as politicians. The socialist left and right wings politics may be different, but the economics are socialist: the government knows best.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:
Uh...The National Socialists(NAZIs) were fascists.
Government direction of business is a feature of socialism.
Government ownership of business is communism.
President O. could be a fascist socialist. But that is actually a redundancy.
I don't think he is any such thing. I am just playing with words.

Fascism and socialism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. It'd be like comparing religious fundamentalism with atheism.

Look, a political entities can call themselves whatever they want. Actions speak louder than words, however. At least for anyone with half a brain. If you're going to the call the Nazis socialists because of what they called themselves, we'd also have to classify the North Korean regime as being pro-republic and pro-democracy because they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Hey, whaddya know? The North Korea problem is solved! Turns out they're a democratic republic! For the people!

Government direction is a facet of socialism, but corporatism practiced by fascist countries also involves heavy governmental involvement yet has many anti-socialist features such as anti-labor practices.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Wednesday 11th of May 2011 06:48:28 AM

catahoula · Guru

That's what I meant about "rationalizing Gitmo still being open", hayden - Republicans couldn't stop Obamacare, couldn't stop the spending of .... hmm, let's just call it a staggering amount of money on shovel ready bs, clunkers, washing machines, solar panels, etc.....

but they laid theirselves down on the tracks to stop him from indulging what used to be a pretty darn vocal wing of his base.

Thanks for the laugh and the story... stories, I mean.

hayden · Senior Member

oh, my, cat, you're killing me. That's really funny. So Obama is to blame for Republicans' refusal to fund the closure of Gitmo? It's all his fault that Boehner et. al. opposed it? That's just classic. I remember a wonderful conversation around our Thanksgiving Day dinner table once. A nephew told his mother she should have made sure he learned how to play a musical instrument. She said, but I bought you a guitar. I gave you lessons. I reminded you to practice every day! And he replied, yeah but you should have MADE me. I thought that was pretty funny too, as did all the adults around the table.

catahoula · Guru

And that's a perfectly politically sound reason, hayden. The best kind, since it absolves the candidate of the party, the one that is perfectly happy to let an old campaign issue die for lack of interest, of responsibility.

Probably the reason why it's no longer an issue because, other than to the minority that ever cared about it, it never was anything other than a campaign issue, and that same minority will vote their chief interests regardless of how deeply their noses are shoved in the dirt.

catahoula · Guru

Priceless:

In Washington, Vice President Biden, coming off another round of deficit talks, was asked by reporters whether Bin Laden's killing at the hands of the U.S. military was illegal.

"Are you kidding?" Biden replied.

Gotta love Joe, mostly because he belongs to somebody else.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bin-laden-obama-reelect--20110510,0,52902.story

hayden · Senior Member

cat, not sure what you mean by "rationalize Gitmo still being open". There's nothing to rationalize, it's just a question of agreeing with the House or disagreeing with them. On Jan 22, 2009 Obama signed an order to close it. The Republicans in the House, along with many conservative Democrats, refused to go along with that, and withheld funding that would have been necessary to move everyone. That was the end of that. Since Republicans led the charge on keeping Gitmo open, you might be in a better position to explain why it's still open than a mere Democrat.

catahoula · Guru

If you're referring to Obama committing U.S. military support to a coalition effort to aid anti-Ghadafi forces in Libya...

No, just the killing of Bin Laden rather than bringing him home to face the justice system that, as I recall, was considered more than adequate to deal with any manner of non-uniformed terrorist only a few years back. It seems a deliberate step away from the idea that was popular a couple of years ago, the one that we should and could treat all this mess as a criminal matter.

Most of this is a done deal, politics-wise - anyone who voted for Obama the first time and is able to rationalize Gitmo still being open isn't going to even hiccup over the skipping of all the judicial procedures that were previously argued necessary to resolve national security problems.

Simply put, "cutting to the chase" can be a pretty good thing if it's your guy doing it.

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 10th of May 2011 07:05:17 PM

BigG · Guru

Uh...The National Socialists(NAZIs) were fascists.

Government direction of business is a feature of socialism.

Government ownership of business is communism.

President O. could be a fascist socialist. But that is actually a redundancy.

I don't think he is any such thing. I am just playing with words.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Razorsharp wrote:

I agree that the difference between bush and Obama is huge, but Obama is only good when he acts like Bush.

So Obama's invaded the wrong country, failed to capture America's #1 enemy, and driven the economy to the ground? Because that's what history will define as Bush-like.

And hey, conservatives, either Obama's a dictatorial tyrant who's single-handedly driving the greatness out of America, or he's a powerless figurehead who simply rubber stamps ideas and orders (like bitter RWers accuse him of doing in the Osama killing). He can't be both! Just like how he can't both be a radical Black Christian in the church of Rev. Wright AND a radical Muslim. And just like how he can't both be a fascist and a socialist.

Words have meanings, you know?

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Monday 9th of May 2011 08:22:03 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

Also, Pakistan got one of the Bali bombers thanks to information they got in the raid. Lived right down the street from Osama

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8495932/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Bali-bomber-captured-down-the-road-of-compound.html

soccerguy315 · Guru

there's an interesting article in the Guardian that says the US and Pakistan made an agreement in 2001 that the US could go into Pakistan to kill/capture any of the top 3 ranking members of Al Qaeda, and in response Pakistan would issue strong protests in the political arena

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal

Poetsheart · Senior Member

The paragraph about re-election was mostly about the angst the left was no doubt feeling about being saddled with a cowboy of their own, so I feel misunderstood, poet.

If you're referring to Obama committing U.S. military support to a coalition effort to aid anti-Ghadafi forces in Libya, you may be right, Cat. A lot of people didn't see that one coming, and it may well bite Obama in the ass come election time. Of course, the fact that there were a number of conservatives in Congress who endorsed that idea as well, won't matter in the least. The worst thing Obama could do at this point would be to send actual troops into Libya if it seemed that Ghadafi would prevail despite current coalition efforts. The last thing we need is to become bogged down in another Middle Eastern conflict, especially since the brutal suppression of pro-democracy protesters is a practice other countries in the region seem just as willing to do as Ghadafi (Syria, for instance).

But concerning Bin Ladin, I think most Liberals are comfortable with the President's actions. Liberals experienced the same anguish and rage over 9/11 as conservatives, and became just as fearful of Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. He'll not be losing liberal votes over that operation. And I guarantee you, few of them will consider Obama a "cowboy" on the order of George Bush because of the way things shook out in the Bin Ladin raid.

I both understand and applaud the "cut to the chase" option he green-lighted.

What does that mean---"cut and paste operation?"

hayden · Senior Member

"One former Navy SEAL said tracking down Bin Laden for nearly 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks showed the teams perseverance."

razorsharp, I think the author of that news article misunderstood the SEAL he was interviewing. The SEALs did not track Bin Laden. Data analysis is not their job - implementing is. While other people were evaluating intelligence, team 6 was out stopping the Somalian pirates' kidnapping of our ship, and other amazing things we'll never hear about. The SEALs are sea, air and land, not desk.

The CIA did not abandon the search for Bin Laden, but the focus and resources lessened after 2003 when the administration's interest switched to Iraq.

catahoula · Guru

The paragraph about re-election was mostly about the angst the left was no doubt feeling about being saddled with a cowboy of their own, but I'd guess that the politics of killing vs. capturing Osama were considered, poet.

Sihce it would have been much more troublesome - problematic is probably a better word - to have walked the moveon.org walk he talked during his campaign, I both understand yet still applaud the "cut to the chase" option he green-lighted.

When it comes to getting re-elected, I think he did make the wise choice - most of the sensitive ones won't desert him, even if they do feel betrayed, and he'll pick up some that, while they may be economic idiots, prefer their enemies to be treated like... well, enemies, and couldn't give a rat's ass about whether some loony fundamentalist barbarian that hates their guts suffered moments when he felt like he was drowning.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 9th of May 2011 05:43:20 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 9th of May 2011 06:42:50 PM

Razorsharp · Guru

hayden wrote:
That's not even close to correct. Bush turned away from Afghanistan, took resources from there to devote them to Iraq, said he wasn't really concerned about Bin Laden and didn't really think about him.
***
The delta between Bush and Obama is huge.

I do not believe Bush abandoned the search for bin laden. The seal team 6 had been tracking bin laden for ten years. It started under Bush and Bush did not abandon that search.

I agree that the difference between bush and Obama is huge, but Obama is only good when he acts like Bush.

One former Navy SEAL said tracking down Bin Laden for nearly 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks showed the teams perseverance.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8108555"> http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8108555

Poetsheart · Senior Member

So, you think Obama only went after Bin Ladin in order to better his chances for re-election, Cat? I don't think so. He's been pretty consistent in his vow to track down Bin Ladin and defeat the Taliban since before the '08 election. He's also very consistently stated that much of our Al Qaeda treat resides in the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, within the tribal regions of Pakistan, and with the assistence he believes Al Qaeda has received from elements within Pakistan. Since well before being elected President, he's been very vocal in stating his priorty is to rout out the Taliban, cripple Al Qaeda, and uncover the role Pakistan has played in supporting these elements. If he was timing this raid to maximize his prospects for re-election, he would have waited until much closer to Nov. 2012. With more than a year left before then, this raid will be old news, all but forgotten, and he knows it. In Presidential politics, it's always a matter of "What have you done for me lately?" He knows the American public has a very short memory and an even more abreviated attention span. Even if you haven't seen his transcripts, it would be foolish to assume Obama is a stupid man.

hayden · Senior Member

razorsharp, you said "Obama acted more like Bush than candidate Obama".

That's not even close to correct. Bush turned away from Afghanistan, took resources from there to devote them to Iraq, said he wasn't really concerned about Bin Laden and didn't really think about him.

On the other hand, Obama made bin Laden a real priority. And if you think we would have gotten more out of Bin Laden by torturing him than by accessing his data, then you must think he has memorized all his bank accounts, telephone numbers, names and addresses. Not likely.

The delta between Bush and Obama is huge.

catahoula · Guru

Where did you get the hall pass to point that out, SLS? The similiarity?

You do have to give democrats some credit on that one, running a guy for president, at that moment in time, with that name. Takes cojones.

Or, maybe they just expect to always be able to pulll of the offended. guilt-trippy thing better than republicans can.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 9th of May 2011 03:23:32 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Hayden,

I am quite certain that you meant to write Osama, instead of Obama in your last post.

Dang those names that sound similar. ;)

catahoula · Guru

Hayden:

A fingernailectomy seems pretty debilitating to me too, but is the argument that several bullets to the head isn't? I mean, it could be maintained that they haven't impaired Osama's ability to lead a normal life - not so he notices, anway biggrin - but that seems an indigestible bit of sophistry.

High-speed lead without a trial = flat-out cowboy, which, while I'm certainly good with it, makes me feel a little sympathy for the really tortured of today: those trying to reconcile candidate Obama's rhetoric on just practices in the war - the left's, chapter and verse - and the actions of a man concentrated on making another term.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 9th of May 2011 02:47:27 PM

Razorsharp · Guru

Poetsheart wrote:
I wasn't able to find an Obama quote wherein he called Bush a cowboy, but if he did, I'm sure it was when he was "candidate Obama" and it was in the context of The Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq dispite the fact that there was no evidence that it had any connection to the terrorists who carried out 9/11, nor any ambitions to foment terror against the United States at the time of its invasion.
***
Come on razor. You and I both know that, if the President were a Republican, you'd not be critcal of the outcome of this operation. You'd be crowing with pride and delight.

When Hillary Cliniton said she might obliterate Iran, Obama said:

Obama, addressing Clinton's statement about Iran, said, "We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."

Israel is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond "forcefully and appropriately" to any attack, Obama said Sunday.

"But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush," he said. "And this kind of language is not helpful."

What bothers me about how Obama handled the situation is not necessarily what he did but rather the unknown. If Bush had been President and we captured bin laden and waterboarded him, we likely would have gotten far more intelligence than the documents we got in his compound. Could we have finally wiped out bin laden's terrorist movement if we had found out every rotten thought in bin laden's pathetic mind?

On the other hand, I really like the fact that bin laden is dead and died at the hands of one of our heros. I really like Obama's decision to throw bin laden's carcus into the sea. I just hope someone shoved a cross and a star of david up his ass before dumping him into the sea.

In other words, Obama acted more like Bush than candidate Obama.

john doe · Guru

It is important that we follow the Geneva Convention on torture as on killing. We should always kill in a moral way.

hayden · Senior Member

Razorsharp wrote:
hayden wrote:
Let me edit this to say that virtually no one is a disinterested party, on either side. But Yoo is still fighting to defend his torture memos. I can't take seriously any opinion from a man who believes that pulling out fingernails and waterboarding don't constitute torture.

-- Edited by hayden on Saturday 7th of May 2011 05:31:56 AM
Hayden, it seems to me that you are saying you oppose waterboarding and fingernail pulling because you believe it is torture and we are a better people than those people who engage in torture. Is that right? If so, it would seem that because we are better people we would have tried to capture an unarmed old man rather than executing him. By executing bin laden, the President engaged in the equivalent or worse behavior than the behavior of torture. Right?

razorsharp, sorry for the delay. I oppose torture for two reasons. The first is that I believe it is morally wrong. The second is that from the point of view of common sense and from the testimony of a significant number of professional interrogators, torture doesn't work.

I don't know what the order was from Obama, and only a few people truly do. So I can't assume one way or the other. If Obama had surrendered, but we killed him anyway, then yes, I agree with you and woodwork that we should have captured him. But the story we're hearing is that the SEAL was coming up the stairs to the 3rd floor, and Obama leaned over the rail, saw the SEAL, then ran back into the room where there were weapons. As I have said before, if the SEAL shot him at that point, that's the same as shooting a murderer in the street who is reaching for a weapon. I don't have any evidence to refute the SEALs, do you?

As for whether Yoo is right that Bin Laden would have been a greater asset alive, I think that's just nonsense. It appears the only info we got from the people we waterboarded was a denial of the courier's importance. That was worth selling our soul for? Can you imagine the radical Muslim world's threat to our citizens, if they thought (thanks to people like Yoo) that Obama were being tortured in US jails? Besides which, it seems to me that true believers less likely to give in under torture than mere criminals are. If torture worked so well, Christianity would have died out in the year 34 A.D.

hayden · Senior Member

FFF wrote:
hayden wrote:
and we all know Yoo is a disinterested party.

Let me edit this to say that virtually no one is a disinterested party, on either side. But Yoo is still fighting to defend his torture memos. I can't take seriously any opinion from a man who believes that pulling out fingernails and waterboarding don't constitute torture.

-- Edited by hayden on Saturday 7th of May 2011 05:31:56 AM
Perhaps I missed it, but in which document or speech did Yoo say that fingernail pulling was not torture? Or, was this just a hyperbolic connection of the two in your mind?

I'm falling behind in reading posts on this thread, but since you directed a question I thought I should respond.

Yoo's memo offered a somewhat novel definition of torture. He said that true pain could only result from true damage. Therefore, he explained, the definition of torture was limited to actions which resulted in death, injury which severely limited major bodily functions, or injury which resulted in failure of major organs. This is a definition of torture which many people - certainly including me - believe went beyond the realm of common sense. Since pulling out fingernails is not fatal, does not restrict the future use of hands, and is not the failure of a major organ, it is not, in Yoo's definition, torture. His restrictive definition is also how he classed water boarding as not being torture.

Fingernail pulling is not in his memo, but the general conversation is on record when he testified before congress. You may also have heard people throw around the idea that Yoo's memo would have permitted crushing the testicles of a son in front of his father. That is also from Yoo's direct testimony in Congress. When asked if it would be acceptable, Yoo testified it would be legal. I believe his legal reasoning was that the law prohibited crushing the suspect's testicles to get him to talk, since that would result in major organ failure. But the law didn't say anything about not being allowed to crush someone else's testicles to get the suspect to talk. (I say "I believe" that was his legal reasoning, because I've never been able to continue reading the testimoney beyond that point.)

This kind of thinking and focus on absurd legal technicalities is why people like me despise the views of John Yoo.

Woodwork · Senior Member

At least they're good at... uh... mysticism and tribalism? And making some old white people with embarrassingly backwards views feel that the past will rise again?

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Monday 9th of May 2011 08:46:46 AM

You mean people old enough to vote for FDR are still alive? Run of the mill New Dealers or straight-up socialists with a grudge and a placard? The more the merrier!

I believe there was a big to-do about these folks up in Wisconsin a week or so back. They do seem animated though I would not bet on the unions rising again. Take the short odds and bet the economic future of labor. Of course, the unions are, as you say, a bit backward looking, but scruffy and often cute in an antiquated and retro way. All that rah, rah - hey hey stuff. They love a good rhyme, for sure. As do I.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

FFF wrote:
nbachris2788 wrote:
zoosermom wrote:
Obama deserves credit as Commander in Chief for this action. Period.

Bush deserves credit for laying the national security groundwork and creating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility at which the intelligence was gathered.
That's why we have a peaceful transfer of power and it's a beautiful thing.

Just plain wrong.
Bush dismantled the specific groundwork for finding Bin Laden (as laid out by Hayden in previous posts), and Guantanamo Bay wasn't that helpful in catching Bin Laden.
Whenever conservatives want to take 50/50 credit on an accomplishment, you know that even they realize they're grasping at straws. If Bush actually had grounds to say that he had a significant hand in catching Bin Laden, conservatives wouldn't be so "magnanimous" in giving Obama half the pie; they'd take ALL of it.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Sunday 8th of May 2011 02:30:58 AM
Finally a difinitive view from the inside of the CIA!! NBAChris has cleared up the entire controversy over to what extent the CIA has been tracking OBL and the value of intelligence gained by means of extraordinary measures. Yet, consistent with his oath of secrecy, he was able to do this without disclosing any facts. Great job, Chris!!

Here's what the Republicans have done:

- Claiming that finding Osama wasn't a priority anymore not even a year after 9/11 (2002)

- Starting a whole new unnecessary war in another theatre (Iraq) that completely shifted resources and attention away from the areas of the world where al-Qaeda and Osama were most likely hiding (2002)

- Shutting down the main CIA task force that was dedicated to finding and arresting/killing Osama (2005)

- Claiming that if targets were found in Pakistan, they wouldn't move without Pakistan's approval (2008)

So there's the proud Republican CV of trying (and failing) to get Osama. And now they want to roughly take 50/50 credit? Oh please.

The American right-wing: not fiscally conservative, not strong on defense. At least they're good at... uh... mysticism and tribalism? And making some old white people with embarrassingly backwards views feel that the past will rise again?

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Monday 9th of May 2011 08:46:46 AM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

The GOP is not upset that bin laden wasn't captured. It is upset that Obama claimed Bush was a cowboy who just wanted to kill people, but Obama is the biggest cowboy of all.

Oh, really? That's the newest meme, I suppose---or one you've just made up. yawn I wasn't able to find an Obama quote wherein he called Bush a cowboy, but if he did, I'm sure it was when he was "candidate Obama" and it was in the context of The Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq dispite the fact that there was no evidence that it had any connection to the terrorists who carried out 9/11, nor any ambitions to foment terror against the United States at the time of its invasion. This resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis, and seriously wounded, or cost the lives of thousands of our fighting men and women.

So you're trying to equate the number of people Bush killed as a result of invading Iraq to Obama's assassination of the single biggest idividual threat to US life and economic security in recent history? That makes Obama the "biggest cowboy of them all?" Really? confuse ...Okay, if you say so....

No one got upset with wanted dead or alive because "alive" means captured.

Dead or Alive means either outcome is considered just fine, as either outcome serves the carrying out of justice. But really, we all know that "dead" in the case of Bin Ladin was considered the more psychologically satisfying and just outcome. There's no controversy as to the guilt of this man, a known terrorist who boasted of his role in the deaths of three thousand innocent Americans, who bragged in the face of our deepest national despair. It is evil of this type for which we still reserve the death penalty in this country. It's considered the ultimate meeting out of justice. And few Americans care that Osama Bin Ladin wasn't brought to trial. His guilt was a foregone conclusion that precluded the need for the legal ritual of a trial, especially since he isn't an American citizen to whom we owed the right to a formal indictment and trial. He was an "enemy combatant" in The War on Terror. In war, the primary aim is to kill our enemies, not bring them up on charges.

Come on razor. You and I both know that, if the President were a Republican, you'd not be critcal of the outcome of this operation. You'd be crowing with pride and delight.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 8th of May 2011 08:24:40 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 8th of May 2011 08:39:18 PM

Woodwork · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:
When George W. said, "wanted, dead or alive", I don't remember any conservatives expressing any problems with that. We've got tons of evidence from the files and hard drives of Bin Ladin himself, some of it written in his own hand.

I wanted him dead or alive as well. But that does not mean that if you can take him alive you should just kill him because you can.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:
It would be liberals who would be complaining we didn't take Bin Ladin alive---and indeed, there are liberals who are doing just that.

...and they are right in complaining.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:
And if John McCain, war hero, had been President when this raid went down, and things had turned out exactly the way they did, not a one conservatives, either here, over the blogosphere, Fox News, or Capital Hill, would have parted their lips and complained that we didn't take him alive.

Well, I am not "conservatives" "Republicans" or Fox News, but I would have complained. As I did about the Iraq war...even on CC, if you recall.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Bin Laden was in his house, unarmed when shot. The seals followed orders by all accounts. They were spectacular. Did their job. It is their orders that I question. To me they were reckless and probably political.

I do think if we are going to waste money on a trial, we should just kill him. If we are going to keep him alive for intelligence purposes, than he doesn't need a trial.

On this our differences are irreconcilable. I completely disagree with your point to such a degree that I will not argue it...although the Obama administration seems to have leaned in your direction with the killing of Bin Laden when they had him. Killing him would have been fine if necessary. But it wasn't, according to the Obama Administration itself. And I agree with John Yoo's point, that BL was a more valuable assett as a prisoner than dead.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Woodwork wrote:
soccerguy315 wrote:
Woodwork - I think history will judge the mission as brave men killing one of the biggest bad guys of their time.

You don't think the KSM trial is a charade? Really? It's a political football that gets punted back and forth, with nothing to do with justice.

Saddam only had a trial because we knew the Iraqis would execute him. Charade.

I don't know how you can say that war crimes trials are American tradition, when we do everything possible to keep our citizens out of the hands of international courts.

also, how do you feel that Obama has given the order to execute an American citizen on foreign soil? This has been a standing order for awhile now, and we just took a shot at the guy in Yemen, though we didn't get him. Personally, I fully support this decision.

We are fighting a war, and all of the sudden you don't want to kill the guys on the other side? You want to arrest them instead? Can you imagine if allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy and tried to arrest the Germans instead of killing them?
That's a bit of a mash-up, but I'll try to clarify. First, it seems to me that you think that any time we are sure someone is guilty of a crime and still try him for the crime, the trial is a charade, as with KSM. So, should the US, as an act of justice, just shoot KSM now seeing as his guilt is certain, without wasting time on a trial?. Certainly you do not mean that. Who else should we shoot/hang etc if we are apodictically certain they are guilty? There would be hundreds, even thousands. Who cares what it means to political metaphors...football or otherwise.

Saddam's trial was not a charade, it was important as an act of justice which helped to reconstitute civil government in Iraq.
What do "war crimes trials" as you say have to do with international courts. The US has its own system of justice that has been used, is being used and will be used.

In a war we can and should kill all combatants. I've been pretty clear about this.

and there is not possibly anyway to describe Osama except combatant, is there? So, he should be killed. We agree.

KSM should not be killed now, because he is no longer a combatant. He is in US custody. I do think if we are going to waste money on a trial, we should just kill him. If we are going to keep him alive for intelligence purposes, than he doesn't need a trial.

People picked up on the battlefield don't get trials. They get killed or held until the end of the conflict (which in this case, is forever).

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:
zoosermom wrote:
Obama deserves credit as Commander in Chief for this action. Period.

Bush deserves credit for laying the national security groundwork and creating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility at which the intelligence was gathered.
That's why we have a peaceful transfer of power and it's a beautiful thing.

Just plain wrong.
Bush dismantled the specific groundwork for finding Bin Laden (as laid out by Hayden in previous posts), and Guantanamo Bay wasn't that helpful in catching Bin Laden.
Whenever conservatives want to take 50/50 credit on an accomplishment, you know that even they realize they're grasping at straws. If Bush actually had grounds to say that he had a significant hand in catching Bin Laden, conservatives wouldn't be so "magnanimous" in giving Obama half the pie; they'd take ALL of it.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Sunday 8th of May 2011 02:30:58 AM

do you really think that no one in the intelligence community was looking for Osama between 2006 and when Obama took office?

Woodwork · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:
Woodwork - I think history will judge the mission as brave men killing one of the biggest bad guys of their time.

You don't think the KSM trial is a charade? Really? It's a political football that gets punted back and forth, with nothing to do with justice.

Saddam only had a trial because we knew the Iraqis would execute him. Charade.

I don't know how you can say that war crimes trials are American tradition, when we do everything possible to keep our citizens out of the hands of international courts.

also, how do you feel that Obama has given the order to execute an American citizen on foreign soil? This has been a standing order for awhile now, and we just took a shot at the guy in Yemen, though we didn't get him. Personally, I fully support this decision.

We are fighting a war, and all of the sudden you don't want to kill the guys on the other side? You want to arrest them instead? Can you imagine if allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy and tried to arrest the Germans instead of killing them?

That's a bit of a mash-up, but I'll try to clarify. First, it seems to me that you think that any time we are sure someone is guilty of a crime and still try him for the crime, the trial is a charade, as with KSM. So, should the US, as an act of justice, just shoot KSM now seeing as his guilt is certain, without wasting time on a trial?. Certainly you do not mean that. Who else should we shoot/hang etc if we are apodictically certain they are guilty? There would be hundreds, even thousands. Who cares what it means to political metaphors...football or otherwise.

Saddam's trial was not a charade, it was important as an act of justice which helped to reconstitute civil government in Iraq.

What do "war crimes trials" as you say have to do with international courts. The US has its own system of justice that has been used, is being used and will be used.

In a war we can and should kill all combatants. I've been pretty clear about this.

Razorsharp · Guru

Poetsheart wrote:
Well, it took a few days, but it seems the GOP is starting to codify a stance of outrage over the fact that Bin Ladin was killed instead of taken into custody.
***
So we didn't take him alive. So what? When George W. said, "wanted, dead or alive", I don't remember any conservatives expressing any problems with that.

The GOP is not upset that bin laden wasn't captured. It is upset that Obama claimed Bush was a cowboy who just wanted to kill people, but Obama is the biggest cowboy of all.

No one got upset with wanted dead or alive because "alive" means captured.

FFF · Veteran Member

nbachris2788 wrote:
zoosermom wrote:
Obama deserves credit as Commander in Chief for this action. Period.

Bush deserves credit for laying the national security groundwork and creating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility at which the intelligence was gathered.
That's why we have a peaceful transfer of power and it's a beautiful thing.

Just plain wrong.
Bush dismantled the specific groundwork for finding Bin Laden (as laid out by Hayden in previous posts), and Guantanamo Bay wasn't that helpful in catching Bin Laden.
Whenever conservatives want to take 50/50 credit on an accomplishment, you know that even they realize they're grasping at straws. If Bush actually had grounds to say that he had a significant hand in catching Bin Laden, conservatives wouldn't be so "magnanimous" in giving Obama half the pie; they'd take ALL of it.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Sunday 8th of May 2011 02:30:58 AM

Finally a difinitive view from the inside of the CIA!! NBAChris has cleared up the entire controversy over to what extent the CIA has been tracking OBL and the value of intelligence gained by means of extraordinary measures. Yet, consistent with his oath of secrecy, he was able to do this without disclosing any facts. Great job, Chris!!

FFF · Veteran Member

hayden wrote:
and we all know Yoo is a disinterested party.

Let me edit this to say that virtually no one is a disinterested party, on either side. But Yoo is still fighting to defend his torture memos. I can't take seriously any opinion from a man who believes that pulling out fingernails and waterboarding don't constitute torture.

-- Edited by hayden on Saturday 7th of May 2011 05:31:56 AM

Perhaps I missed it, but in which document or speech did Yoo say that fingernail pulling was not torture? Or, was this just a hyperbolic connection of the two in your mind?

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

zoosermom wrote:
Obama deserves credit as Commander in Chief for this action. Period.

Bush deserves credit for laying the national security groundwork and creating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility at which the intelligence was gathered.
That's why we have a peaceful transfer of power and it's a beautiful thing.

Just plain wrong.

Bush dismantled the specific groundwork for finding Bin Laden (as laid out by Hayden in previous posts), and Guantanamo Bay wasn't that helpful in catching Bin Laden.

Whenever conservatives want to take 50/50 credit on an accomplishment, you know that even they realize they're grasping at straws. If Bush actually had grounds to say that he had a significant hand in catching Bin Laden, conservatives wouldn't be so "magnanimous" in giving Obama half the pie; they'd take ALL of it.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Sunday 8th of May 2011 02:30:58 AM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Well, it took a few days, but it seems the GOP is starting to codify a stance of outrage over the fact that Bin Ladin was killed instead of taken into custody. After all, it's normally conservatives who are aggressively pro death penalty, shoot first and ask questions later, "Wanted Dead or Alive", preferably dead. Come on, admit it. It's true. That's why the tac they're taking is so transparently politically motived. Country First my ass.

And if John McCain, war hero, had been President when this raid went down, and things had turned out exactly the way they did, not a one conservatives, either here, over the blogosphere, Fox News, or Capital Hill, would have parted their lips and complained that we didn't take him alive. Not one would be complaining that we squandered an opportunity to get vital intelligence out of a live Bin Ladin. They would have immediately pointed out that the raid has yeilded an unprecidented treasure trove of intelligence in the form of documents, computer hard drives, and videos, names, possible targets, and locations, etc.---intelligence which will not reqire months of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to unearth. They would have pointed out that the symbol and spiritual leader of twisted jihad, is no longer able to encourage the ambitions of his followers, nor direct them in their actions; that they haven't a prayer of ever busting him out of US custody, or threatening to use innocents as barganing chips for his release. They would have said that a quick and painless execution (one which saved tax payers untold millions) was more merciful than than the fate suffered by the 9/11 hostages. And they would have been right.

It would be liberals who would be complaining we didn't take Bin Ladin alive---and indeed, there are liberals who are doing just that. They are mouthing the same rhetoric that many conservative are now disingenuously using in an effort to take Obama down a peg and render as temporary as possible, the political advantage the success of this mission has had on his image: Now it's, "we're better than this", and "that's not how we dispense justice in America"....Uh huh.....

As someone who voted for George W. Bush twice and wholeheartedly supported his anti-terrorist efforts for years, I would support any administration, Democratic or Republican who sent that team in and realized the outcome we achieved. The President did what was neccessary to protect this country from the trash that stole the lives of over 3 thousand of our citizens, and countless other innocents world-wide. So we didn't take him alive. So what? When George W. said, "wanted, dead or alive", I don't remember any conservatives expressing any problems with that. We've got tons of evidence from the files and hard drives of Bin Ladin himself, some of it written in his own hand. I don't need the son of a bitch alive. I don't need to see us trying him in a court of law to feel "good about us as a country." I'm so relieved he's dead I don't think I can even put it in words.

soccerguy315 · Guru

also, for the record: U.S. black sites still exist around the world, where suspects are taken and interrogated.

soccerguy315 · Guru

pretty sure US special forces do not use "non lethal" weapons... (to Mr. Yoo)

Woodwork - I think history will judge the mission as brave men killing one of the biggest bad guys of their time.

You don't think the KSM trial is a charade? Really? It's a political football that gets punted back and forth, with nothing to do with justice.

Saddam only had a trial because we knew the Iraqis would execute him. Charade.

I don't know how you can say that war crimes trials are American tradition, when we do everything possible to keep our citizens out of the hands of international courts.

also, how do you feel that Obama has given the order to execute an American citizen on foreign soil? This has been a standing order for awhile now, and we just took a shot at the guy in Yemen, though we didn't get him. Personally, I fully support this decision.

We are fighting a war, and all of the sudden you don't want to kill the guys on the other side? You want to arrest them instead? Can you imagine if allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy and tried to arrest the Germans instead of killing them?

catahoula · Guru

What would be interesting to me would be the opportunity to ask the gentleman of previous days, those good sports who fought and directed previous wars, whether or not they, as a whole, felt that waterboarding was torture.

And, whether or not they believed that with an essentially unlimited ability to correlate data and run out false trails, every single bit of information that was obtained by the technique was worthless.

BigG · Guru

IMO torture in the controlled environment of a prison is MUCH worse than killing in the heat of a battle or during a raid deep in unfriendly territory.

Once prisoners are in the complete control of a societal authority, that authority must act in accordance with the moral principals of its empowering society.

Those who want to change our culture to allow torture betray the moral principals of our culture. They should be opposed in any way possible.

Evil is evil and must be opposed.

The terrorists have pushed us a giant step closer to being what they said we were.

That is their most significant victory.

Razorsharp · Guru

hayden wrote:
Let me edit this to say that virtually no one is a disinterested party, on either side. But Yoo is still fighting to defend his torture memos. I can't take seriously any opinion from a man who believes that pulling out fingernails and waterboarding don't constitute torture.

-- Edited by hayden on Saturday 7th of May 2011 05:31:56 AM

Hayden, it seems to me that you are saying you oppose waterboarding and fingernail pulling because you believe it is torture and we are a better people than those people who engage in torture. Is that right? If so, it would seem that because we are better people we would have tried to capture an unarmed old man rather than executing him. By executing bin laden, the President engaged in the equivalent or worse behavior than the behavior of torture. Right?