Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[knapplc]

Yes, I've heard all that derp from Fox before. The Fox Plan:

1) Minimize the importance of the death of Osama bin Laden as it pertains to Barack Obama making the call to take him down. It wasn't strategically important, he was no longer the head of al Qaeda, etc.

2) Maximize the importance of the role the Bush Administration played in finding Osama bin Laden. It couldn't have been done without Bush's efforts, more credit should go to Bush, etc.

It's quite comical, actually.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Yes, I've heard all that derp from Fox before. The Fox Plan:

1) Minimize the importance of the death of Osama bin Laden as it pertains to Barack Obama making the call to take him down. It wasn't strategically important, he was no longer the head of al Qaeda, etc.

2) Maximize the importance of the role the Bush Administration played in finding Osama bin Laden. It couldn't have been done without Bush's efforts, more credit should go to Bush, etc.

It's quite comical, actually.

Wow, where did you get that from? ONe, who is minimizing UBL's death? Two, Who is maximizing the role bush played? and three, just for the record where is the information wrong? You just smooth everything over with derp, pretty easy.

One, if you even look through this thread I have said it is a feather in BO's cap. it was a very good,probably his only good deed in his adm.

Two, I am not maximizing anyhting for Bush but showing that his adm. interrogated enemy combatants and got valuable information BO used to decide to go after UBL.

Now where did I go wrong, if it is comical explain please? :confucius

 

[knapplc]

Not you, johnny. Fox News.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Not you, johnny. Fox News.

I looked at most of the articles cited and I didn't see any fox news in that article. So it was not fox news with the information, I did see some NYT, CNN, ABC News and Forbes.

 

[JJ Husker]

On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info d!(k but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

A few things:

Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture?

Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about d!(k Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man.

Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man.

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info d!(k but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

A few things:

Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture?

Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about d!(k Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man.

Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man.

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

+1 :thumbs

 

[knapplc]

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

Please cite one source with accurate information that can support the allegation that the information which led directly to the raid on bin Laden's compound was acquired under torture.

I'm certain if you asked carlfense about al Qaeda and their actions, he would decry them. But that's not the subject of this thread, is it? That's like being upset we're not decrying the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition in all the myriad religious threads we have. If we had a thread about the Inquisition, I'm certain it would be roundly criticized. Surely you're not implying that lack of denunciation of the Inquisition by our Christian friends in every thread is tacit approval of the Inquisition, are you?

 

[carlfense]

Actually, Leon Panetta and the CIA disagree.

. . . top officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, have dismissed the notion that torture produced the intelligence that led to bin Laden's lair.

http://www.sacbee.co...-bin-laden.html

 

[carlfense]

On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo?

Leon Panetta . . . who admittedly probably knows less about those sources than you do . . . disagrees.

 

[carlfense]

I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

Please find one post from me defending the war crimes of Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. One post.

The day we sacrifice our morals just because our enemies have done so is the day that America loses any possible claim at exceptionalism. Whether you realize it or not you've just made a wonderful argument for us being no better than our enemies.

I, on the other hand, expect MY country to abide by a higher moral standard than Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. Your words indicate that you do not share those expectations.

 

[knapplc]

Mitt Romney breaks ranks with the GOP and supports president Obama's decision to take out bin Laden:

 

[JJ Husker]

Carl- I did not state that you defended the war crimes of others? Where did that come from?

I too would like the luxury of being able to take the high road and not have to flirt on the edge of things such as enhanced interrogation/torture. I just feel given the way our enemies operate that sometimes and in some cases we would be foolish to do so. It seems nobody around the globe feels we are exceptional in our actions so maybe it is time we shed that double standard that handicaps us. I'm not so proud that I won't stoop to the enemies level when US lives hang in the balance. Why do we need to be better than them? When we are, it seems it is only one more thing they hate about us.

 

[carlfense]

Carl- I did not state that you defended the war crimes of others? Where did that come from?

I too would like the luxury of being able to take the high road and not have to flirt on the edge of things such as enhanced interrogation/torture. I just feel given the way our enemies operate that sometimes and in some cases we would be foolish to do so. It seems nobody around the globe feels we are exceptional in our actions so maybe it is time we shed that double standard that handicaps us. I'm not so proud that I won't stoop to the enemies level when US lives hang in the balance. Why do we need to be better than them? When we are, it seems it is only one more thing they hate about us.

I guess I didn't realize that our morality was conditional on recognition of that morality by others.

"Why do we need to be better than them?" That is and should be a pretty un-American statement.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

Please find one post from me defending the war crimes of Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. One post.

The day we sacrifice our morals just because our enemies have done so is the day that America loses any possible claim at exceptionalism. Whether you realize it or not you've just made a wonderful argument for us being no better than our enemies.

I, on the other hand, expect MY country to abide by a higher moral standard than Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. Your words indicate that you do not share those expectations.

I think we are better than them their idea of interrogation is a beheading, that is torture. We did not committ torture and still have the high morals you speak of. if you believed we tortured I am sure there is nothing we cna say to change your mind the only thing we can say no is you are wrong. :bad

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

Please cite one source with accurate information that can support the allegation that the information which led directly to the raid on bin Laden's compound was acquired under torture.

I'm certain if you asked carlfense about al Qaeda and their actions, he would decry them. But that's not the subject of this thread, is it? That's like being upset we're not decrying the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition in all the myriad religious threads we have. If we had a thread about the Inquisition, I'm certain it would be roundly criticized. Surely you're not implying that lack of denunciation of the Inquisition by our Christian friends in every thread is tacit approval of the Inquisition, are you?

You won't find that because we didn't torture anyone it was enhanced interrogations. :thumbs