Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm going on the record as being opposed to Torture, period. If we start doing bad, wrong or evil things, then how are we any better than the "Bad guys"?

i was watching the rerun of Fox new sunday(i know, i know, it's my own damn fault!), and Chris Wallace asked the damnedest thing i think i've ever heard.
He asked National security adviser Tom Donilon why it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, but Enhanced torture is a no-no? how does one equate the 2?
that's not what his exact words were. Donilon said torture doesn't represent who we are, and Wallace said" shooting someone in the head does?". Yes! the
Ahole with the bullet in his brain pan was shot in a war action!

Then later Darth Cheney was on and they started talking about how torture was good. and Cheney said they spent alot of time figuring out what they could
and couldn't do and was upset over The President not using them. Glad the President is disappointing them.

alarmingrick wrote:Yes! the Ahole with the bullet in his brain pan was shot in a war action!

This is not a defense that you want to use. It never works.

Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield. people that are being
waterboarded are being picked up on a battlefield....and on tips from others for money,
to save their own skin, or whatever reason they might be picked up. because they're
in a situation to be waterboarded doesn't mean they are a terrorist. Bin laden being killed
was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.

Funnily enough Paddy Ashdown was on a program called Question Time last week, which I miissed, but was told by my boss it was very lively Obviously one of the discussions at the time was about Bin Laden. Apparently a number of points were raised about what happened and also torture was mentioned. Some ultra con was banging on about that it was right to use it, when Paddy Ashdown proceeded to cut him down and point out torture was a generally a waste of time. Having been through all that type of stuff during his time in the SBS he explained that you just ended up telling them what they wanted to here.

I gather that there was also a feeling that the US shouldn't of slotted him, that we are supposed to above that, which I think is an interesting point. I'll try and grab a copy of it from iPlayer later and watch it myself.

alarmingrick wrote:Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield.

I don't think many people would call the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death tacit to a battlefield.

Well, that's not true, there a lot of people that would do exactly that, but they are wrong. Unless of course we're also now calling the use of SWAT tacit to the creation of a battlefield, which leads to a whole list of other issues.

alarmingrick wrote:
Bin laden being killed was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.

The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.

dogma wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield.

I don't think many people would call the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death tacit to a battlefield.

Well, that's not true, there a lot of people that would do exactly that, but they are wrong. Unless of course we're also now calling the use of SWAT tacit to the creation of a battlefield, which leads to a whole list of other issues.

I'll agree with you. my point is how can Wallace, or the conservatives, say if it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, then why isn't torture okay? i don't see how they're equating the two. imho, they're apples and oranges.

dogma wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Bin laden being killed was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.

The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.

It was Wallace making the point. Donilon was disagreeing with that position.

alarmingrick wrote:
I'll agree with you. my point is how can Wallace, or the conservatives, say if it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, then why isn't torture okay? i don't see how they're equating the two. imho, they're apples and oranges.

They're appealing to emotion, which is a sound, though obnoxious, political strategy.

Just read some of what Frazzled posts and you'll understand why they do it.

Wolfstan wrote:Having been through all that type of stuff during his time in the SBS he explained that you just ended up telling them what they wanted to here.

This, in short, is why torture is pointless, except to dictators who want a foregone conclusion rather than truth. People will say or do almost anything to avoid severe pain, or to make it stop; hence why so many torture victims end up simply saying what the torturer wants to hear.

So it's not ok to shoot people now? What were we supposed to do with Bin Laden? Give him his own TV show?

Noisy_Marine wrote:So it's not ok to shoot people now? What were we supposed to do with Bin Laden? Give him his own TV show?

No one said that, afaik. Chris Wallace of FNS said if it was okay to do that, then why isn't waterboarding okay.

dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.

I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.

I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.

It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."

sebster wrote:It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."

Exactly! that's what's making me scatch my head and go 'Huh?'! and careful about throwing respectable around so freely.

Well, torture only doesn't work if you have no ability to cross check or follow up on the info you gain. It is pretty morally reprehensible, but it can work.

There have been some accounts that have indicated that some of the information used to find Bin Laden came from waterboarding. Does that mean waterboarding is an appropriate tool for getting information now? After all, if you're using the "ends justify the means" logic (bin Laden is dead = good thing, regardless of how we got there), then waterboarding should be allowed.

The death of bin Laden also represents a major breach with a lot of international law subjects:
- military operations in a foreign country
- without that country's knowledge or consent
- without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home
- in the presence of unarmed civilians
- the victim wasn't armed

So yes, there are a lot of similarities between "torture" (waterboarding) and targetted killing of an unarmed combatant in his home, at least from an international law perspective.

biccat wrote:
-without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home

- the victim wasn't armed

.

We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary. Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?

I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.

Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.

I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either. Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.

We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary. Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?

I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.

Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.

I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either. Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.

I can fully understand why the US would of wanted to of done this, but as a number of us Brits have pointed out before, there is no way in hell the US would of allowed us to do something like this in Ireland.

Could you imagine the uproar if we'd had publically crossed the border into Eire and slotted a member of the IRA? What about if we'd sent a hit team to the US and did it to a known IRA member? For crying out loud, look at the hoops we had to go through when the SAS took out that IRA team in Gibralter. SAS soldiers went on trial because of that.

What about Timothy McVeigh, why did you bother arresting him? I would say that as a home grown terrorist he should be classed as a traitor and killed on the spot.

As I said, I can understand your anger over Bin Laden, but it's very arrogant to think that your suffering is above the suffering of any other nation that has experienced terrorist attacks.

Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

EDIT: Why do Brits think Americans care about Ireland again? (unless you're talking about Guinness of course). We would just be confused. "Er ... wait they're attacking themselves? I don't get it Buella, do you?"

Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.

The troubles? Thats not the tribbles is it? Do you and the Klingons share a common enemy?

You'll have to refresh my recollection. What was the US involvement there? I'm more focused on righteous US interventions in Latin American in pursuit of truth, justice, and queso. I've been informed there was some private clamor from Boston way, but this literally is the case of Texas is further from there than there from the UK. Edumakashion me if you would. But throw in some leprachauns and Lucky Charms (silly rabbit) or I'll lose interest...

Nicorex wrote:We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary.

Engaging in a military action within the boundaries of a sovereign state sure looks like war to me. Then again, the AUMF probably gives the President authority to engage in this sort of behavior. However, how this would fly wrt international law is different. The AUMF certainly shouldn't be read to give the president the authority to enter any country.

Nicorex wrote:Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?

You're generally correct, but there's ground between "don't tell anyone anything" and "post your plans on a billboard." Because of our actions, Pakistan has outed a local CIA official, which will mean he will be either withdrawn or probably murdered. Either one will severely crimp (at least temporarily) our ability to gather intelligence in Pakistan.

Nicorex wrote:I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.

The reports I have read were that we wanted to avoid drones or snipers so he could be identified. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a kill order, but the administration has been pretty dodgy about answering that question.

Nicorex wrote:Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.

Nope, but again, there's a difference between "wait[ing] until he went back to some cave in the hills" and acting within the bounds of the law. For one thing, Osama had reportedly never left the complex for five years.

Nicorex wrote:I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either.

Originally the story was that there was a firefight and Osama was killed. Then, there was no firefight. Who knows what the truth is, but one way or the other, the administration has lied about the story.

Nicorex wrote:Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over his death. But the manner in which this has been handled is amaturish at best. The administration has tried so hard to make this a political gem that they're pushing information out and making themselves look foolish when elements of the story further develop or change.

There's nothing wrong with Obama trying to use this as to get a political boost (he certainly needs it), but the way he has handled it (including addressing any international law issues) has been very poor.

You want to see how a good politician handles a major capture? See here.

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.

The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.

Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.

Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.

Kanluwen wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.

The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.

Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.

Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.

I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p

Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )

... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.

Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Well like I said, I think Alby jumped me on this before so I am not falling into that again, but I'm not seeing why thats not a British affair. If some dude from Boston has an issue he can freaking move. Its not America %&*^$ Yea! so its not our issue.

Wolfstan wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.

Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.

That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.

The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.

Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.

Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.

I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p

Well that and Irish didn't really want the English there. We, as Americans, can relate pretty easily to that.
Then you have instances like the "Bloody Sunday Massacre" and things like the "Birmingham Six" also did a far better job of turning the American populace off to the way the English behaved in regards to Ireland than the IRA ever could have done.

Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )

... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.

Yeah. The problem is that Fraz isn't exactly alone in thinking like that.

But in either case, America is kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't intervene in these conflicts--we get decried as being heartless and uncaring.

So even if we had waited and gotten Pakistan involved, hoped they don't blow things getting into position, et al--there'd still be public outcry about it.

Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Having him in prison or on trial would have given him a fantastic media opportunity.

Having two in the face makes him a martyr forever to those who would have made him a martyr even if the penguins in Antarctica had managed the trial and convicted him of being the world's biggest terrorist.

1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"

2. Its not the US. Unless it impacts the US thats their problem, let them deal with it. I can use my First A rights if I have an issue, but other than that, push off. This is the USoffreaking A not bumf&6whereverhellhole our ancestors came from. Leave that drama there. We don't have the time, after all those reality shows are not going to watch themselves!

Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"

Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"

Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.

In that, take from Mr. Rah Rah America! We don't care. Sure some nattering nabobs may care, but then again they're nattering nabobs now aren't they?

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.

I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.

I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.

It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."

This. It's really moronic. But that's why I only watch Fox News if I'm prepared to or looking to see something moronic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.

I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p

Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )

... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.

In more detail, please bear in mind that America received huge amounts of Irish immigration, and that in some parts of the country enormous percentages of us are of Irish descent. It's something we have an ancestral connection to. Also, the vast majority of those Irish immigrants tended to hate Britain (some with very good reason, as the history of the nations makes clear), which means many of us had being-on-Ireland's-side fed to us with our milk as children. Or our parents did. Or our grandparents. Or great-grandparents. Etc.

I completely agree that Americans were wrong to support the IRA, and people who gave them money were supporting terrorism. That was definitely wrong. Bear in mind, though, that it was a small number of private citizens doing that. Not our government, nor even a large percentage of our citizens.

I will also note that I find your comments about "slotting dirty foreigners", and your generalizations about us thinking it was okay for Irish to blow you up, and your idea that Fraz or people like him are representative of most of us, to be rather offensive. I'm not going to insult you in return. I'd appreciate if you'd try to keep your discourse a little more polite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Having him in prison or on trial would have given him a fantastic media opportunity.

Having two in the face makes him a martyr forever to those who would have made him a martyr even if the penguins in Antarctica had managed the trial and convicted him of being the world's biggest terrorist.

I'm a bit confused by this. You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but maybe I'm misreading or you just explained your thinking badly. Would a trial give him a media opportunity, or did killing him make him just as much a martyr? You seem to be saying both.

I think there's room for legimate disagreement on this, although it's all speculation, of course. Personally, I think the more powerful message would have been sent by hauling him back alive and trying him as a mass murderer. We tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. We could give this scumbag the same kind of due process. I think there would be an extremely strong moral message sent about the strength of our convictions and the virtues of the Western concept of the Rule of Law if we had managed this.

I don't condemn the killing. I would definitely disagree if it was purely a kill order, not a "grab him if you can, kill him if it's too dangerous to grab him or he might get away" order. I think the lives of the Spec. Forc. guys do have value too, and their judgment on the ground in that situation has to be respected.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"

Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.

In that, take from Mr. Rah Rah America! We don't care. Sure some nattering nabobs may care, but then again they're nattering nabobs now aren't they?

Nattering Nabob is a new one. I think I'll note it down for future reference.

Nattering nabob is a great old person or period Victorian expression. Goes great alongside cad and bounder.