![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsChris Wallace on Fox News:
I’m not asking why it was okay to shoot Osama bin Laden…What I am second-guess is, if that’s okay, why can’t you do waterboarding, why can’t you do enhanced interrogation…
So now the argument is that if we’re going to shoot people, we might as well torture them. Apparently Wallace can’t see the difference between shooting someone in a firefight and systematically torturing a naked, bound prisoner. This moral difference is one that has been recognized for decades in the civilized world – people who waterboarded captured combatants in the past have been tried and convicted for it -- but apparently it’s lost on him.
This is why some of us have reservations about targeted assassinations without trials, even targeted assassinations against someone like bin Laden. It’s not because we feel sorry for bin Laden. It’s because of people like Wallace. Give them in inch in that direction, and they'll clamor for a mile the next day. Remove one human rights barrier, and it doesn’t matter how many assurances you get about it only being this once, about it only being done in very specific circumstances, about it never, EVER being abused… A day later the Chris Wallaces of the world will point to where the barrier once stood, assert out there's no barrier anymore, and ask why we all don't go just a little further.
Honest. Just this once! Just a few inches! Cross their hearts and hope to die...
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Picking nits
Date: 8/5/11 21:59 (UTC)bin Laden was executed, he wasn't killed in any firefight (http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/world/story/2011/05/06/osama-bin-laden-raid-firefight.html).
Re: Picking nits
Date: 8/5/11 22:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:13 (UTC)We didn't shoot him in a firefight. We blew his head off as he was standing in his bedroom, in his pajamas, while he was probably shouting the Arabic equivalent of "Don't shoot! I am unarmed!!"
If we can do that, and if we can drop J-DAM's on people driving their SUV's through the Yemeni desert on the off chance they are Al Qaeda sympathizers, if we can expand extra-judicial killing, indefinite detention and keep Guantanamo open for business, then I think flinching at water boarding or other even more anodyne methods of "enhanced interrogation" is pretty silly. Where is the outrage at that? Other than Noam Chomsky no one is willing to say that, when it comes to the GWOT, the Obama Administration might as well be staffed by the Bush Administration, including Lord Darth Cheney himself.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:20 (UTC)You cannot possibly know that and, since you cannot possibly know that, it seems intended to be inflammatory and nothing else. There is no evidence he was planning on surrendering. Quite to the contrary, they're saying he retreated to his bedroom where weapons were located. The laws of war are clear that unless he was actively surrendering, it was not unlawful to shoot him since he is a combatant and an enemy commander.
Bin Laden had made it very clear in his tapes released during the last 10 years that he was not going to go peacefully. He often boasted of being strapped with explosives. This would have made it very difficult even if he had claimed to be surrendering for the SEALs to ascertain whether he was serious or just trying to draw them into a trap.
I, for one, would have no problem with them shooting him if they thought his surrender was designed as a ruse. The last thing we need to do is lose brave American soldiers to protect the life of a slime like bin Laden.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:27 (UTC)It's funny to now see it from the left so soon after seeing it from the right.
Slippery slopes should be de-oiled and have sandpaper put down on them.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 22:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:13 (UTC)You wanna talk about the moral differences between waterboarding and shooting someone in a fire fight? I really don't think you're one to discuss the moral implications of anything when you spew garbage like this:
Honest. Just this once! Just a few inches! Cross their hearts and hope to die...
Enough already! This is the second time you've posted and made thinly veiled threats/implications that those who disagree with your point of view should harm themselves. Frankly, I really think one of the mods needs to step in and say something about that.
Considering that other countries wouldn't think twice before torturing one of our soldiers, I'd say that's a game-changer. Gee, PAFT, at least we're not cutting off people's heads and filming it for their families.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:47 (UTC)mvl: Enough already! This is the second time you've posted and made thinly veiled threats/implications that those who disagree with your point of view should harm themselves.
????
What in the name of the Twelve Apostles are you talking about? Where in this message have I made "thinly veiled threats/implications" that people who disagree with me should harm themselves?
mvl: Considering that other countries wouldn't think twice before torturing one of our soldiers, I'd say that's a game-changer.
It's not, and anyone who understands ethical behavior knows it is not.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:52 (UTC)The confession from the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be completely inadmissible in a court of law anywhere in this country, why is it admissible abroad? We want to bring freedom to these people, then we have to start treating them like human beings.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:57 (UTC)The problem is that the "assassination barrier" is the one well beyond the "torture barrier".
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:59 (UTC)I invite the Obama administration to provide evidence to the contrary.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 23:59 (UTC)I hear tasers are effective.
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:27 (UTC)He's the most notorious terrorist in the world. He's said he would not surrenders and that he is wearing a suicide vest. And you think he's not dangerous?
The confusion seems to stem from the fact that Obama's team couldn't actually see the kill. Also, the media was demanding info even before the President's address to feed the 24 hour news cycle. The White House should have held info til it was clearer but this is not always possible with every news org in the world screaming in your ear. This is the same reason that there was confusion early after 9/11.
It's entirely possible this was primarily a kill mission not because they didn't want him to surrender but because they knew he wouldn't.
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:44 (UTC)</thread>
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 00:55 (UTC)The first part of this sentence is correct. The second part may be true, but I highly doubt it. He was a older guy with no real military training, in dubious health who had spent the last 5 years confined to a house. The idea that, short of holding a gun, he posed any serious physical threat is simply ludicrous. His leadership and inspiration within Al Qaeda was very real and obviously dangerous and deadly, but compared to the several SEALS facing him? He was no more dangerous than you or I and I for one am not very dangerous at all.
The idea the the WH was just overwhelmed by the screaming media and there was no way they could possibly be expected to control a message that was coming out of a single operations room, speaks volumes about this WH, if true. Comparing this carefully planned and masterfully orchestrated military operation to the chaos of 9/11 is at best disingenuous.
I think that last part is true. I doubt anyone seriously thought he would just throw up his hands. But if they had him cornered in his PJ's, unarmed? ... give me a break. They shot him in cold blood. Good for them, I say, but don't pretend that the order would somehow look out of place coming from the Bush/Cheney White House.
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 01:02 (UTC)Honest. Just this once! Just a few inches! Cross their hearts and hope to die...
WTF do you call that?
And then there's this little gem from your Friday LULZ post a couple weeks ago (that wasn't funny at all):
The most this does is give us tree hugging liberals ideas for other holidays, like "Don't Immerse Your Head in a Bucket of Warm Salt Water and Inhale Three Times Deeply Day."
It'll upset us all so horribly if you do that. Honest! Please, please don’t! It will completely ruin the day for us. And hurt Gaia.
THAT is what I'm talking about, so please don't bother preaching to me about what's "ethical".
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 01:15 (UTC)mvl: WTF do you call that?
A playground expression for making a promise. You've never heard it before?
(no subject)
Date: 9/5/11 01:34 (UTC)We've seen how interested US courts are in dealing with the illegalities of their government and they refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of any international courts. The thought that the US government is beholden by the rule of law is pretty laughable.