And has been dead for a week.
From FOX News:
Sources said bin Laden was killed by a U.S. bomb a week ago. The U.S. had been waiting for the results of a DNA test to confirm his identity.
The news is still breaking. Rumors say US Military Bases have gone to Condition Bravo as a result; however, I have no idea what that really means, other than they’re on higher alert than they were.
UPDATE: From Daily Caller:
Sources indicate that Osama bin Laden was killed in a mansion, outside of Islamabad, Pakistan. It seems that Pakistan has some explaining to do….
UPDATE: Allahpundit is all over this.
Reuters says US Special Forces killed him.
The report is bin Laden was killed in a firefight deep inside Pakistan today, and not by a bomb last week. There are reports that members of bin Laden’s family were killed with him. If this is true, Pakistani officials have a lot of explaining to do in regards to how bin Laden could be in a city deep inside Pakistan without getting caught until now.
UPDATE: He was killed in Abbottabad, 75 miles northeast of the Capital City of Islamabad, and outside the “tribal areas” — where the Pakistani government has little sway — and in an area where the Pakistani government does have control. This little bit from Allahpundit is rather striking:
A telling aside from O’s speech: He said that he called Pakistan’s president after the incident to let him know — which, presumably, means there wasn’t Pakistani cooperation after all. As I said earlier, relations between us will never be the same.
UPDATE: George W Bush congratulates Obama and our troops.
May 1, 2011
Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
UPDATE: Jim Hoft reports Abbottabad, where bin Laden was killed, is the home of the Pakistani Military Academy. More questions the Pakistani government needs to answer.
UPDATE: ABC News reports bin Laden was in a million-dollar mansion many times larger than the surrounding residences, that the mansion was built like a fortress to hide someone, that women and children were present inside the mansion and that among those killed was a woman who had been used as a human shield.
According to U.S. officials, two U.S. helicopters swept into the compound at 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. Sunday morning. Twenty to 25 U.S. Navy Seals under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command in cooperation with the CIA stormed the compound and engaged Bin Laden and his men in a firefight, killed Bin Laden and all those with him.
Two Bin Laden couriers were killed, as was one of Osama Bin Laden’s son, as was a woman reportedly used as a shield by one of the men. Other women and children were present in the compound, according to Pakistani officials, but were not harmed. U.S. officials said that Bin Laden himself did fire his weapon during the fight.
…
According to Pakistani officials, the operation was a joint U.S.-Pakistani operation, but U.S. officials said only U.S. personnel were involved in the raid.
UPDATE: Sarah Palin speaks out.
Americans tonight are united in celebration and gratitude. God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who contributed to carrying out the successful mission to bring bin Laden to justice and who laid the groundwork over the years to make this victory possible. It’s a testament to the hard work and dedication of these brave Americans who relentlessly hunted down our enemy.
This is a victory for the American people, for the victims who were heartlessly murdered on September 11 and in Al Qaeda’s other numerous attacks, and for all the peace-loving people of the world.
May God bless our troops and our intelligence services, and God bless America!
- Sarah Palin
UPDATE: Osama bin Laden dies on Holocaust Memorial Day. Now, that’s poetic justice.
UPDATE: Key information was obtained from GITMO detainees four years ago. From Allahpundit’s updates:
Update: An Al-Arabiya correspondent claims that two of Bin Laden’s wives and four of his sons were captured during the raid. Apparently, the key to the whole operation was finding and tracking Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, a process that took years — and involved info given by Guantanamo detainees:
Some time after Sept. 11, detainees held by the U.S. told interrogators about a man believed to work as a courier for bin Laden, senior administration officials said. The man was described by detainees as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and “one of the few Al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin laden.”
Initially, intelligence officials only had the man’s nickname, but they discovered his real name four years ago.
Two years ago, intelligence officials began to identify areas of Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated, and the great security precautions the two men took aroused U.S. suspicions.
Last August, intelligence officials tracked the men to their residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a relatively wealthy town 35 miles north of Islamabad where many retired military officers live.
So, while we’re busy thanking Obama, the troops, the Intelligence community, don’t forget to thank Bush and the GITMO policy for getting Osama.
___________
Cross-Post
[...] The news is still breaking. Rumors say US Military Bases have gone to Condition Bravo as a result; however, I have no idea what that really means, other than they’re on higher alert than they were. ___________ Cross-Post [...]
Woot! Obama said he’d get bin Laden, and he did. Credit goes to him and the troops. Now let’s get out!
Woot! Obama said he’d get bin Laden, and he did.
Bush said he’d get Osama too – but he got sidetracked into the place with all the oil in it.
Number of Americans killed because ObL ordered the Sept. 11th attacks – 2977.
Number of Americans killed because GWB ordered the invasion of Iraq – 4404 as of May 28 2010.
George W Bush is still alive, and has yet to be charged with any war crimes.
Pho there’s a right way and a wrong way to celebrate when American forces get the bad guy – guess who’s doing it the wrong way – I’ll give you a hint, his handle rhymes with “Propecian in a lime of doughmans”
“Celebrating because you got the bad guy” has a bitter ring to it given the number of perfectly innocent people slaughtered in the process. You may have also noted your country going mad, torturing prisoners, ratcheting up the security state at home, and sending its global image directly into the toilet.
Anyway, somebody else noted that this is also the anniversary of Bush announcing “Mission Accomplished” – the majority of military and civilian casualties have, of course, died since then.
The Republican President put on a jumpsuit and postured for teh camera. The Democrat President appears to have delivered.
I agree with cbmc, which under normal circumstances would be a surprise. What isn’t a surprise is Pho is in the wrong.
Bush built much of the apparatus Obama used for the military and intelligence agencies to finally get Osama. Bush gets the credit he deserves, Obama gets the credit he deserves, the Intelligence community get the credit they deserve, the military gets the credit it deserves, Osama gets the Hell he deserves.
Obama gets Osama! Way to go, my fine brother.
Anybody still worried that he wouldn’t pull the trigger when he had the guy in the sights? Or worried that he would defer to Pakistan, or that he would not send troops to wherever Osama might be found? All questions answered.
And they’ve apparently been working on this for 6 weeks without a single leak. That says something, too.
I absolutely agree with those posters up the thread that Pakistan is going to have to answer some hard questions; our worst enemy living in luxury 60 miles from Islamabad — looks bad.
I’m looking forward to watching Obama’s SOTU speech in 2013.
Dana’s article discussing international law might fit in here.
So, Osama bin Laden is finally getting his 72 white grapes.
I didn’t get much time to look at the news stories; supposedly the US waited until DNA testing confirmed that it was Mr bin Laden who was killed, and his body was
dumpedgiven a proper Islamic “burial” at sea. I hope that they kept enough of the DNA sample, because disposing of the unlovely corpse where it can’t be found again gives us the possibility that there will be bin Laden impersonators, or claims that he isn’t dead. But burial at sea also means there won’t be some martyr’s gravesite the Islamists can use for their own purposes.So, Osama bin Laden is finally getting his 72 white grapes.
Back in Roman times, Christians were regarded with disgust because they ate human flesh and drunk human blood as part of their religious rituals.
Of course, nowadays this is seen as the Romans acting on a spiteful distortion of the Christian religion. The Romans were engaging in deliberately ignorant bigotry in order to justify their hatred of and persecution of Christians.
People said the same thing in 1991 after the first Gulf War about George HW Bush when his approval #s were approaching 90%. We know how election 1992 turned out.
He said he’d do a lot of things, like close Gitmo within one year. Many of these proclamations helped get him elected. Ironically, Obama chose to maintain many of the exact same policies as his predecessor.
The news is still breaking. Rumors say US Military Bases have gone to Condition Bravo as a result; however, I have no idea what that really means, other than they’re on higher alert than they were.
It means all gates on all posts with well armed guards. Full ID check, and car inspection.
Yorkshire: “It means all gates on all posts with well armed guards. Full ID check, and car inspection.”
It’s not like that all the time? Dang.
As for Pakistan, the U.S. government should have officially warned them that they were approaching a suspected bin Laden hiding place… once we had the house surrounded and the phone lines tapped. The incoming calls would surely have been quite interesting.
“…don’t forget to thank Bush and the GITMO policy for getting Osama.”
This is disappointing to me. It’s finding out we won by cheating. Some of the people that would gloat over this would also gloat over a 50% discount at a shop, won by torturing the owner until he relented.
America shouldn’t win by being more evil than the enemy. Or as evil.
Fair and balanced: http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/05/01/photoh-fox-obama-bin-laden-dead/
Nangleator says:
2 May 2011 at 09:30 (Edit)
Yorkshire: “It means all gates on all posts with well armed guards. Full ID check, and car inspection.”
It’s not like that all the time? Dang.
At ALPHA, it’s armed guards and ID check. The more sensetive the post, the more scrutiny. There are places that are BRAVO when the rest are at Alpha. CHARLIE is practically a strip search.
My congratulations and heartfelt appreciation to all of those who risked their lives to bring justice to Osama Bin Laden. I am appreciative of the work of the CIA and the Navy Seals, and not only the selfless contributions of the US military, but also of the military men and women from the other nations who have joined in the coalition to fight the War on Terror and, of course, to both Presidents Bush and Obama for remaining steadfast in the quest to remove Bid Laden from power–by whatever means.
I also believe those who gleaned the information from Gitmo detainees that identified Bin Laden’s trusted courier deserve the highest praise. It is their work that opened the door to the events of the past few days.
For those who feel compelled to sound off your sanctimonious concerns about the methods that accomplished the praiseworthy end, feel free to wring your hands in mock dismay. You sound foolish and petty and woefully ignorant–but it is your First Amendment Right to display your boorishness for all to read.
For all you liberals that think this action (accomplished by our military’s finest, and the intell community), will propel Obama to another term, remember this:
It’s being reported also that one of the main couriers was tracked straight out of Gitmo, (the detention facility Obama has promised to close since 2007), Detainess gave us the information on these curriers. How this info was kept from the New York Times is a miracle.
Help Wanted: Islamist Curriers—Applications will be forwarded to new undisclosed location, via the New York Times.
Why would “Islamists” need people to process leather as part of their terror operations, Rove?
Christianists say the darndest things!
Now I lay me down to sleep…one less terrorist this world does keep…with all my heart I give my thanks…to those in uniform regardless of ranks…you serve our country and serve it well…with humble hearts your stories tell…so as I rest my weary eyes…while freedom rings our flag still flies…you give your all, do what you must…with God we live and God we trust….Amen
(borrowed from Facebook)
It’s quite a contrast: Little Boots strutting out onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, cod-piece bursting, to declare Mission Accomplished compared to Obama, eight years later, standing alone at a podium soberly stating that bin Laden had been brought to justice. And while Donald Trump was deciding whether or not to fire Lil Jon, our Kenyan, Marxist, Jimmy Carter Part Deux president was signing the executive order to put a bullet in Osama’s brain and feed him to the sharks. It puts what he said about not having time for “silliness” into perspective.
On a lighter note…who knew that Donald Trump was such a fat-ass? I saw him marching up to the podium in New Hampshire (after getting out of his rented helicopter) and thought he looked like a Howard Taft in training. I guess it’s because you only see him behind a desk.
Thanks for the concern trolling, Rovin.
While it’s not guaranteed to deliver a 2012 victory it will certainly take the wind out of Ann Coulter’s sails as she pens yet another rewrite of her favorite libs-r-girly-boys-Republicans-r-uber-mensch theme and that’s enough for me.
I know it’s a crappy week for Republicans, guys, but it’ll be over soon. Weepy John Boehner is back in the Hiz-zouse.
Naggy, apparently you missed the AP link.
mike g, it’s a great day for all patriotic Americans regardless of political affiliation. There’ll be time enough in the coming days and weeks for your smarmy adolescent comments. Today, they’re not only out of place, but they also reveal the sub-standard nature of your character.
Ten years of patience and diligence have paid off for us.
This is the way to fight these terrorists. We have the expertise and technology to do this, in contrast to invading nations and causing widespread collateral loss of life and property.
We can expect retaliation from the terrorists, however, I think our record proves that we are much better prepared now to defend ourselves than we were ten years ago.
Now is the perfect time to rethink our Afghanistan strategy. It’s time for the Afghans to run their own country, while we continue our internal focus to keep Americans safe.
We also need to focus on our own drug addictions, since our demand for drugs like heroin and cocaine drive the production and sales carried out by organized criminal operations. Job creation should help too.
Finally, we must nurture and support the historic revolutions occurring in the Middle East, the latest being the consolidation of the Palestinian factions in a move for peace with Israel and a Palestinian state. These are amazing times with so much opportunity to make things better.
Perry mentioned drugs. It’s important to understand the central role of the drug trade to understand events in Afghanistan. Drugs represent an enormous threat to governments, the US included, because control of the trade means vast wealth that can be spent on enough men and weapons to challenge the sovereignty of nations.
Control of the drug trade is essential for peace and stability. When governments are to weak or divided to effectively exercise control over drugs, mutinies, revolutions, and mayhem result. Examples abound. As ugly a truth as exists is that governments must control the drug trade or it will control them.
Amen and amen, Perry.
Unfortunately, based on who’s behind some of these “revolutions,” that’s largely a pipe dream.
Nangleator wrote:
So, would you have preferred that no information had been thus obtained, and Mr bin Laden was still alive and free?
Perry says: Ten years of patience and diligence have paid off for us.
Kudos to you, Perry, for those words and for the rest of that very fine post. Your thoughts are excellent and very well expressed.
We don’t agree on many things, politically, so it’s especially nice to find a meeting of the minds on this momentous occasion.
Dana: “So, would you have preferred that no information had been thus obtained, and Mr bin Laden was still alive and free?”
Actually, yes. It’s nice that he’s dead, but it’s not important. He was de-fanged long ago. If I could trade this result for my country not torturing, not abridging freedoms in the name of security, and not betraying its own ideals, I’d do it in a second.
Mike G wrote:
No, it’s because your eyes are normally looking at his hair.
Something is unclear to me on this: did President Obama have to personally authorize this mission? If the rules of engagement are such that a plan to take out Osama bin Laden, dependent upon real-time intelligence, still required the explicit authorization of the President, then the rules of engagement need to be changed.
I’m guessing that we don’t know the whole story yet.
Of course, I know nothing about the RoE on this or any other mission, but Jake Tapper of ABC has reported that the president weighed several methods of taking Obama out and, IMO, deserves much credit for choosing the option that he did.
I am among those who believed that bin Laden had been blown to smithereens long ago. I didn’t really buy into the assurances that the recorded voice we heard over the years was really his. I believed that he had been killed during one of the bombings of various cave dwellings, but that there wasn’t enough left of him to prove, definitely, that he had crossed into whatever hell awaited him.
I, therefore, credit BO with holding out for a means to take BO out that preserved enough of his remains to conduct a DNA match. The risk to the heroes who carried out the mission was great–they are truly heroes–but their successful mission plan ensured that it was Osama bin Laden…no doubt about it…whose life was ended.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/president-obama-had-authorized-bombing-of-compound-in-march-but-wanting-evidence-of-obls-death-cance.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
UBL Theme song on YOUTUBE – Another One Bites The Dust
[Video added by DRP]
And we lived happily ever after.
Now you should get yourself some more details…
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=11776#comment-617510
Yeah, OK Mrs. Trump …
Pretty sure Jack Bauer killed Osama. That operation was 24-riffic!
And Gretchen, thanks, and right, your link gives us more details into the actual decision making leading to the execution.
It is remarkable to me that our Special Forces and other military support were able to pull this off. This is a great day!
Certainly the Pakistanis must be the most surprised of all, to have this happen right under their noses, undetected.
I believe it will turn out that the Pakistanis have known for years exactly where ObL was hiding. They are now in a most embarrassing position — Good!
And Dana, I think Gretchen’s ABC link answers your question. Also you would have to consider how sensitive it was to carry this out in the territory of an ally. If the President were not the final word, he should have been. So far it looks as though his was the final word, but again, the exercise of this mission by those who carried it out is just too, too remarkable. And you know what, we will probably not know for years exactly who these heroes are. Cheers to them!!!
I, therefore, credit BO with holding out for a means to take BO out that preserved enough of his remains to conduct a DNA match
Would this be before or after he faked his long-form birth certificate to hide the fact that he’s a MarxistIslamist born in Kenya?
You have a “belief”, with no underlying proof save vague wishing, which you are holding to in the face of all the actual evidence presented.
Henry Whistler says:
2 May 2011 at 14:49
Pretty sure Jack Bauer killed Osama. That operation was 24-riffic!
No, it was Chuck Norris.
Phoenician in a time of Romans says: Would this be before or after he faked his long-form birth certificate to hide the fact that he’s a MarxistIslamist born in Kenya?
You have a “belief”, with no underlying proof save vague wishing, which you are holding to in the face of all the actual evidence presented.
Are you so desperate to see your screen name on a blog that you would go to such an extreme to fabricate completely an attribution you give to me?
For the sake of blog harmony, let’s see the evidence of the accusation you have tossed my way. I challenge you to find a single post of mine in which I even suggested that Obama is a “MarxistIslamist born in Kenya.” Sans that evidence (which I’ll save you time by telling you it does not exist) I will expect an apology.
For the sake of blog harmony, let’s see the evidence of the accusation you have tossed my way. I challenge you to find a single post of mine in which I even suggested that Obama is a “MarxistIslamist born in Kenya.” Sans that evidence (which I’ll save you time by telling you it does not exist) I will expect an apology.
We all won’t live long enough to see that,
Nope, Cartman.
Are you so desperate to see your screen name on a blog that you would go to such an extreme to fabricate completely an attribution you give to me?
Are you really so dense that you fail to see an allusion to a comparably foolish piece of conspiracy stupidity?
[retrieved from moderation - pH]
Comment in moderation.
For the sake of blog harmony, let’s see the evidence of the accusation you have tossed my way.
For the sake of reading comprehension, please show where I accused you of holding that equally silly conspiracy.
Dana Pico says:
2 May 2011 at 13:50
Something is unclear to me on this: did President Obama have to personally authorize this mission? If the rules of engagement are such that a plan to take out Osama bin Laden, dependent upon real-time intelligence, still required the explicit authorization of the President, then the rules of engagement need to be changed.
+++++++++++++++++++
My instant guess, required because of sending American military boots way into Pakistan, i.e., not CIA but regular military enlisted. He said he would do that if necessary, long ago. I doubt the military could have authorized a mission like that on their own. If it goes wrong, that authorization makes it Obama’s responsibility.
Gretchen wrote:
To which the Phoenician responded:
What Gretchen said that she believed — past tense — was that Osama bin Laden had probably been killed early on, but we didn’t have the evidence for it. Then she congratulated President Obama for having ordered the termination mission in such a way to provide final evidence that he was killed in the raid. That doesn’t speak to her holding “a ‘belief’, with no underlying proof save vague wishing, which you are holding to in the face of all the actual evidence presented,” but one in which she stated that her previous belief was in error.
Or, perhaps you were raising an issue, a belief which you have attributed to her, seemingly without evidence, on a subject completely unrelated to this matter.
Either way, it seems as though you are the one who is mistaken.
What Gretchen said that she believed — past tense — was that Osama bin Laden had probably been killed early on, but we didn’t have the evidence for it
Whoops, my apologies – I read Gretchen as saying that she thought Obama had preserved obL’s remains from a previous execution. This was the stupid conspiracy theory to which I referred.
I withdraw my comment, Gretchen.
Dana wrote: What Gretchen said that she believed — past tense — was that Osama bin Laden had probably been killed early on, but we didn’t have the evidence for it.
Phoenician wrote: Whoops, my apologies – I read Gretchen as saying that she thought Obama had preserved obL’s remains from a previous execution. This was the stupid conspiracy theory to which I referred.
I withdraw my comment, Gretchen.
Thanks to Dana and thanks to Phoenician.
In honor of our kumbaya moment, I’m celebrating this rare spiritual coming together by liberally painting my fingernails and my toenails with a very unconservative shade of nail polish. http://www.nailpolishdiva.com/NLH08_opi_nail_polish.htm
I, for one, won’t be joining your celebration.
There really are people (even right this minute, even) who do believe that ObL was killed years ago. (And I’m not talking “thought he might’ve been, but had no evidence either way” like Gretchen, which seems to be to’ve been a perfectly reasonable theory, even though it turns out not to’ve been the case… at least, so they’re telling us 8>), but folks who are all but certain he’s been dead since at least 2005, and that it was pretty common knowledge in the Middle East, but blacked out of American media. I ran into three or four of ‘em via comment sections, whilst perusing news stories and blogs today…
I mean, I know it takes all kinds… …but it can be kinda surprising to see that axiom, in action.
Nangleator says:
2 May 2011 at 15:23
Capt. America
via my kid
The Phoenician wrote:
Gretchen wrote:
Considering your neighbor, won’t this offend him as well? But we will need pics!
Unsurprising.
Hey, we didn’t run it through a wood chipper and shoot the remains into a septic tank, so I’d say we did pretty good.
Let’s face facts: there was nothing we could have done with Mr bin Laden, short of appointing him the Grand Ayatollah of the United States, that would have pleased these guys, and there’s no way that a lot of the Islamists won’t be urinated off about this killing.
You can’t worry about people you can’t please being displeased.
Ladies gentlemen, let’s just remember that knowing the info came from Guantanamo does not necessarily mean it was produced by torture. Scoops are generated by intelligent interrogation, and in fact do so more effectively.
I am officially stunned!
When are you going to live up to your word and start cracking down on right-wing commentators who continue to insult?
More like – You can’t worry about pleasing people who are certifiably insane.
And how many people did Lincoln kill? Meaning: Your point is … ??
Pho, give it a rest. Your vile hate-filled attacks are still here in this thread. If you had any self-awareness, you’d consider yourself lucky.
And for the record, I too was stunned. That was what? Your first mea culpa on this site?
Isn’t it time to ban Pho?
Henry: “Ladies gentlemen, let’s just remember that knowing the info came from Guantanamo does not necessarily mean it was produced by torture.”
Oh, good point. I hadn’t thought of that. I guess GITMO is a hot button of mine.
Yeah, the instinctive urge to use this to cover for torture is pretty sad. One would think nobody had ever gotten information through humane interrogation, when most master interrogators will tell you torture produces unreliable info. Yeah, you might eventually get something real out of them, but it’s mixed in with whatever the prisoner thinks will make the torturer stop, which tends to be what the torturer already wants to hear. So there’s no proof yet that the torture produced the name of the courier, and there’s certainly no proof that the name of the courier couldn’t have been ascertained without torture.
No, torture is always about torture, not effectiveness. We wanted to torture Muslims out of revenge, and we did it to dozens, perhaps hundreds of innocents. That will always be wrong. Torture-advocates will present a false choice, an either/or rooted in what they want to hear: Either torture/bin Laden dead or no torture/bin Laden alive. That’s not reality.
Lookit Leftist folks, Conservatives do not advocate torture. And there are methods which many of us do not consider torture that you claim to be torture in order for you to claim we advocate torture. It is not the case. SERE training is not torture.
And “we” did not want “to torture” Mohammedans “out of revenge.” We used enhanced interrogation to glean information out of torturous terrorists. There is a difference that you Leftist folks (at least here) are adamantly refusing to acknowledge could be the case. It is not our faults you refuse to even consider our position as a valid position. You could consider it a valid position and still disagree with the position, but you’re more interested in calling it evil, revenge, hate, whatever else instead of even respecting a difference of opinion on what is and what isn’t.
And face it, Bush had as much to do with finally getting Osama as did Obama. How is it we on the right can credit Obama for his role while you on the left are incapable of crediting Bush for his role? Is it pure hatred and partisanship on your part? Because I can’t figure out what else it could possibly be.
Google Maps has the Bin Laden homestead listed if you do a search.
I would have guessed that a million dollars would get you more in suburban Islamabad. Maybe stretcher concrete blocks are really expensive there in Pakistan and a symbol of opulence but the property certainly doesn’t strike me as mansion-esque. It looks more like a car impound lot outside of Indio, California.
A trusted source tells me the walls are a bit higher than normal, but walls are normal; the barbed wire is normal for those who can afford it while broken glass is normal for those who can’t. Much like privacy fences in the US. And the way the structure was built, other than it being eight times larger than those in the area, was not out of the normal, either.
Oh, you mean this guy?
Calling torture enhanced interrogation doesn’t make it not torture.
Yes, Bush is apparently responsible for operations that yielded some intelligence. Yet he found most of his energies expended in Iraq, and confessed to not really caring about bin Laden that much. So yeah, it’s a little hard to pat him on the back for not capturing bin Laden given seven years.
And it’s also known that Obama ran on making bin Laden a priority, and said he’d kill him. He dialed down Iraq, went full steam on al Queda (and, honestly, killing way too many civilians with his drones), and spent the last eight months narrowing in on bin Laden.
So that’s “what else it could possibly be.” Not hatred of Bush, but Bush failure. Maybe if the coin had flipped his way a few more times he’d have gotten lucky, but history is set. Before and after 9/11, Iraq was Bush’s main priority. He can get credit for trying, starting the basic process of getting special ops guys out there looking and all, but Obama brought back the urgency that was missing.
That’s what paid off.
Likewise, calling enhanced interrogation torture doesn’t make it torture. And you projected all sorts of intention as well; intention that wasn’t involved in the decision-making. And if you call negotiating with terrorist organizations that protect al Qaida and arming al Qaida “going full steam on al Qaida,” then you’ve got problems.
SERE training is voluntary (in the sense that you signed up for it, anyway), and takes place at the hands of fellow Americans who aren’t asking you questions you may or may not have truthful answers to, and that you trust will not kill you (except perhaps by accident.) Also keep in mind what one of the purposes of SERE training is; surviving torture situations… The techniques borrowed from the SERE manual by the Bush folks were methods of torture used by other countries that we wanted our soldiers to be aware of and to survive, should they be captured.
It’s a very different experience for detainees.
Additionally, the very same practice was called torture by the US when it was being done to our soldiers by the Japanese.
Thirdly, it’s intentional drowning, for every second it’s happening. The fact that it isn’t a drowning that comes to fruition and actually kills the person is really not all that significant, from a “effect it has on the mind and body” point of view. The water going into your lungs, the air that isn’t, and the panic that ensues is all very real the whole time it’s happening, whether it actually kills you or not. That anyone can argue that depriving an unwilling person of oxygen and filling their lungs with water isn’t torture because it doesn’t make anyone bleed or leave any marks, or because there are fellow Americans who volunteer to have it done to them under very different conditions, just doesn’t pass the smell test.
It’s my understanding that interrogation. Experts say the info we derive from these enhanced interrogations isn’t reliable. I think that’s important, but I also think it’s beside the point. I don’t care whether or not causing people physical or psychological pain or stress produces actionable intelligence. We don’t torture folks because it’s morally wrong, not because it’s ineffective. We are Americans, and our values are such that we treat people humanely, even if they wouldn’t treat us humanely if the shoe was on the other foot. To do less is to turn our backs on what it is that makes us exceptional.
I’ve seen no evidence thus far that enhanced interrogation (or for that matter, Gitmo, post-2004 or so) played any part in bringing about the killing of bin Laden. But even if it (or either of ‘em) did, that doesn’t justify them, to my way of thinking. It doesn’t prove that there wasn’t another (and I’d argue, better) way to gather the intelligence, that did’t require us to lower our standards and give short shrift to our values.
Daan, please delete the post timestamped 2 May 2011 at 23:13. Or do you have no intention of keeping your promise?
Likewise, calling enhanced interrogation torture doesn’t make it torture.
You need to apologise to some Japanese officers then, because America executed them for teh same acts you are apologising for here. It is primarily because, JH, of statements like this that people regard you as dishonest.
Nice revisionist history there, bub. It was not “the very same practice” at all. But nice try anyway.
See above. Furthermore, point to the apology which you are accusing me of making. Or admit you made that up, like usual.
*yawn*
The Phoenician wrote:
I’ve told you before: war crimes and international law are simply the excuses used by the winners to hang the losers.
Very well stated, Repsac3, part of an overall excellent post.
I, like you, believe that these are American values, and wish that they were embraced by all Americans. Unfortunately, in recent years, there is an element in our country who have lost sight of these values, thus persist in their downgrade, as evidenced right here on this blog in this thread.
Is that a fact? If so, please explain the differences between our waterboarding and that done by the Japanese on us during WWII, John H.
Whatever, it is obvious to me that our waterboarding is indeed torture, as just discussed up thread by Repsac3 and PiaToR. There was no excuse for us to use it, not even that we ever got actionable intelligence from its use, which has never been demonstrated to my knowledge.
In light of the effort to clean up this blog, how do we characterize this statement?
Is there a text reference made to the so-called attack? No!
Thus, this is an attack on the individual, PiaToR, and therefore out of place here.
Furthermore, I note that PiaToR has made every effort to modify his behavior in line with Dana’s wishes, with no credit or even acknowledgment from his critics and antagonists.
Why is it so difficult for certain Righties on this blog to comply? Are nastiness and personal insults in their genes, requiring more time to circumvent the inherent nerve pathways of the brain? That must be the answer
Ah, how times change:
Hersh, Olbermann Called Bin Laden SEAL Team “Assassination Ring” In 2009
Dana, please edit Perry’s post timestamped 8:08.
Hube, you are too funny, and predictable! But please note: mine is not a statement, but a question; and moreover, not aimed at any particular person on this blog, thus not a personal insult, except perhaps in the mind(s) of those who prefer to be personally insulted, you know, those having inferiority complexes. Do we have any Righties on this blog who have inferiority complexes?
Hube, you know as well as I do that context matters. This is another way of saying that there are no absolutes. Has Obama been doing this?
As far as we know, Obama has not done this.
In fact, to minimize collateral damage and a massive political problem, Obama chose to take a risk and go with the Navy SEALs under the direction of CIA Director Panetta. Can you imagine the political ramifications which would have resulted had this mission failed? Think Jimmy Carter.
My sense is that the overwhelming majority of the American people are pleased with the operation and the outcome thereof.
Here’s what Bush is responsible for: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_05/029221.php
On my iPhone, but this is from a HuffPo article:
Now naturally I said HuffPo so I can hear the war cries, but let’s assume more verification will be needed, but I’m doubting we’ll hear differently.
Then again, John Hitchcock can call escalating Afghanistan and drone strikes in Pakistan “negotiating,” so there may be limits to what facts will be allowed to enter the debate.
And at least Dana owns the double standard. If it was called torture when our enemies did it, then we do it and it’s suddenly “enhanced interrogation,” I don’t need explaining about which came first. Especially when it was illegal to torture by our own laws, and a point of pride since our inception that we didnt torture like our enemies.
I hope that report bears out, although like I said knowing torture produced the info does not mean standard interrogation wouldn’t have produced it. Indeed, we may learn for certain that the best info was produced by standard interrogation, which actually would prove the unnecessary nature of torture.
Torture is for revenge, not for info. Makes good tv and movies, though. Go Jack Bauer! I’m actually nuts about 24, one of the best shows of all time, easy.
Oh, good, it was actually an AP story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_hunt_for_bin_laden
Hopefully we can move the dialogue forward from here instead of entertaining any more illusions that torture or its various euphemisms produced the info.
No, Henry Whistler, it is not a euphemism for torture since it is not torture. But nice try to weasel that in.
And no, Henry Whistler, it is not an illusion that enhanced interrogation played a major role in turning Osama into fish food.
So, we can go ahead and assume that John H. and Dana have no problem with al Qaeda treating captured American soldiers the same way we treat the prisoners in Gitmo? Or Libya, if you insist on the capturers belonging to a sovereign nation? That treatment is kosher from now on, in every country?
Perry, you can perform pretzel logic all you want and you can put question-marks at the ends of your hate-filled personal attacks all you want. It won’t change the fact you spew hate-filled personal attacks. It also won’t change the fact you have never learned what an ad hominem is despite your extremely liberal usage of them. Should you ever gain the ability to learn something, you’ll be shocked, embarrassed, and ashamed at what you have thrown forth on these pages.
Let’s see now, decapitation or a tall glass of water? That’s a difficult choice indeed.
LOL, you’re acting as silly as Phoe is with his demands of edits. And you really believe it is OK to insult people as a group, but not individually? You really think that was Dana’s intent when he brought up the question?
Indeed. And as far as we know, Bush hadn’t done it either. The point is that this is the exact same team that Hersh and Olbermann complained about as being an “executive assassination ring.” Even if Bush had utilized it — using it to off al Qaeda and Taliban operatives wherever they may be — so what? It has the same benefit as Obama’s decision not to use B-2′s to carpet bomb the place, a decision I hailed, BTW.
Of course. And I said so at Colossus yesterday. But a very legitimate issue is Obama not only making use of a “hit squad” that was chided by “progressives” as seen above, but the use of intel that was gathered by interrogation methods also chided by “progressives.”
Obviously, you did not read the entire article.
Ah, right. They “closed it down;” however, Seymour Hersh and Keith Olbermann were complaining about Bush/Cheney’s “executive assassination squad” roaming around seemingly at will offing al Qaeda and whoever else they wished. See above. So which is it? Most likely in context, Hersh was correct — he (and Olbermann) didn’t like it because they thought (think) Bush and Cheney are inherently “evil,” but now that Obama is president it warrants a “job well done” by Olbie. (Again, see above.) Hey, remember — Nancy Pelosi claimed that the CIA “lies all the time.” Of course, it’s somehow inconceivable that them “shutting down the bin Laden unit” was “misinformation,” eh Nang?
I’m sorry, are you trying to repeat a mantra to yourself to will away reality?
I’ve provided the news report, Hitchcock. Your raw assertion doesn’t carry weight by itself.
Except, as I noted, you missed the instances in the article referencing the benefit of CIA secret prisons. Are you seriously claiming that we found bin Laden after a decade based on one single phone call?
Hube: “Obviously, you did not read the entire article.”
Right after there is the part where you’re supposed to tell me what I missed.
First of all, Hube, I did not even insult a group, let alone a person. I asked a question! Please pay attention, Hube! Secondly, I believe Dana was addressing personal insults primarily, but it won’t hurt any of us to be more mindful of civility, yours truly included.
That’s probably true, but with a different CoC, which could make a big difference. Therefore, using your usual equivalency argument is invalid.
Re “chided”, see response above. Re the “use of intel”, it is not clear yet to me what intel was used. Wasn’t bin Laden’s courier a major source of the intel? I don’t believe he was tortured. We need more information on any tie-ins where torture was employed.
No problem:
Why’d you leave off that last part of the quote, Whistler? Do you really think KSM divulged info in vacuum?
Perry, were you radical Leftists born that intellectually vacuous or did you have to work hard at it? Note that isn’t an insult, personal or otherwise, because it is a question I asked and not a statement. So, please don’t let your “inferiority complex” issues get in the way of your answering my question, which isn’t an insult, personal or otherwise, by your own definition.
Or, perhaps, you could actually try learning something for a change.
You’re shifting the goal posts, Hube. Having black sites is not the same as producing intel via torture.
Look, I’ve said it already, Bush started a hunt for bin Laden, got some intel that later proved useful. But his clear shift in energy from bin Laden to Iraq and lack of results for the trillions he obligated us to (still not paid for) makes his record mostly one of failure. He gets a little credit, Obama, his admin, and the special forces get most.
“Why’d you leave off that last part of the quote, Whistler? Do you really think KSM divulged info in vacuum?”
Excuse me? The article plainly states that the info was divulged via standard interrogation, not torture. Nothing I left out says anything differently.
“Perry, were you radical Leftists born that intellectually vacuous…”
Intellectually vacuous, like asserting that torture isn’t torture because it isn’t torture, or that torture produced the intel that reports say was not produced by torture? Asserting these things as if your own ability to say something counts as proof?
Hardly. But really — why do we maintain black sites if “ordinary” methods work just fine?
Try this:
Because even whoever wrote the article plainly recognizes (y’know, ‘cuz it’s sort of inherent with the maintaining of black sites) that harsh methods played a role in gathering some intel. It’s why he writes “leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool …”
Believing that there was NO benefit from using harsh interrogation methods is as silly as believing Obama closed Guantánamo prison.
I believe it is going to take years before the utility of the use or non-use of waterboarding in this quest for ObL is known, therefore, having currently only a paucity of information, I suspect we are spinning our wheels right now on this topic.
However, significant information is beginning to emerge on the details of the hunt, described in some detail by AP’s Goldman and Apuzzo in their very well researched and written piece of reporting.
Here is a summary , and here is the original AP report:
Before extensive speculation and political spinning, I suggest a careful read of the AP report is in order.
So, if Bush lured OBL into a false sense of security by ignoring him… and the whole war that was started to find him…
Then we can also credit Clinton for killing OBL, too, right? Or do we skip him and apply credit to Bush 1 and Reagan, instead?
Too bad Obama spent us into oblivion from 1980 to 2008. Except for Clinton’s term. Which Ayn Rand can take credit for, right?
Hey! It’s fun being a conservative! I think I’ll go punch a kitten!
The answer to your question, of course, is that there are individuals who believe as you do, that torture works, or perhaps that, whether it works or not, it’s use creates fear in the minds of our enemies and makes us appear more resolute in their eyes… …and perhaps in the eyes of some of our own citizens, as well. We maintain (or maintained, I hope) black sites because the people in charge believe(d) that harsh interrogation methods that would not withstand the scrutiny of the US citizenry had some actual or propaganda value, and they also had power to put their theory into practice.
Of course, Hube, there is a correlation to the argument you’re offering. If enhanced interrogation was significantly more effective than non-coercive means, it’s use would be far more widespread and accepted here in America and throughout the world. However we choose to classify the “water cure,” and other such methods, they’ve been around for a very long time, and countless military and law enforcement theoretical experts and in-the-field practitioners have had plenty of time to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatment on a detainee’s willingness to provide truthful, reliable, actionable intelligence. So the question is, if the interrogation methods used at black sites are so effective, why are they not more prevalent in military/law enforcement interrogation rooms throughout the world?
Ah, so you go to a different article, one using hearsay from official torture apologist Marc Thiessen. So I didn’t leave anything out, I just forgot to read my rightwing propaganda.
And now we’re down to torture not producing the info, but doing so indirectly, with hearsay speculation that it was necessary and standard interrogation practices would never have worked.
Keep those goalposts shifting, Hube.
Naggy, you should know Hube showed genuine respect for your actual position, while you’re over here busily torching clown-like straw-men.
Beside, Hube, while the theory that “if it exists, there must be a need for it” may be persuasive to some, one only has to consider the pet rock, or the KFC Double Down sandwich to realize the folly of the idea as a useful or accurate meme.
I’m just sayin’…
Repsac3 readies his trusty WWII-era flamethrower… He aims in… He squeezes the trigger… Scratch one straw man!
I was unaware of that. I don’t visit that many blogs. Nice to see my dissenting opinion aired with respect, though.
I get silly with my comments sometimes. The kitten thing was out of line. I was trying to underscore the contrast between Bush’s involvement two years into the next administration, while he’s absolved of efforts that bore bitter fruit before he even left office.
John, your responses are hardly… …well… responses.
Granted I’m new here, but most of what I’ve seen thus far is flat out denials of what others post, with nothing but your own voice to back them. So I respond to your latest offering in kind:
No I don’t.
Consider your comment rebutted.
repsac3> Let me go through it for you slowly so your hippie brain can digest it more easily: The US doesn’t torture. Waterboarding isn’t torture. So Bush didn’t torture anybody. But we caught OBL because of Bush’s torture so torturing prisoners is great and Gitmo, which doesn’t practice torture, should remain open in perpetuity because torture/not torture works. Also, Flight Suit Boy, who said that he wanted OBL dead or alive later declared that he didn’t care about Osama bin Laden whereabouts so he deserves some if not all of the credit catching/not catching OBL.
Got it?
Also, straw man.
Is enhanced testicle-crushing torture? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
No it isn’t but that isn’t to say that it is not indeed torture and does not work because torture does work even when it is isn’t. Torture works but we don’t torture so therefore torture has been proven to work because George W. Bush killed Obama bin Osama using information that he gathered using not torture. I mean Osama bin Obama. Whatever.
Also, Jimmy Carter, Cloward/Piven and John Galt.
Seriously, you silly liberals have no idea how the world outside of your little ivory towers works.
Links have already been given showing a number of deaths considered “homicide” by the coroner due to this “enhanced interrogation”. I wonder if the torture apologists would mind explaining how people can be dying from mere “interrogation”?
Because even whoever wrote the article plainly recognizes (y’know, ‘cuz it’s sort of inherent with the maintaining of black sites) that harsh methods played a role in gathering some intel. It’s why he writes “leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool …”
Well done on spinning non-data into a positive assertion. How positively brilliant, PB.
Of course, this disagrees with what professional interrogators say about torture, and it ignores the idea that if the US had engaged in interrogation instead of torture, they would have got this information faster.
Furthermore, I note that PiaToR has made every effort to modify his behavior in line with Dana’s wishes, with no credit or even acknowledgment from his critics and antagonists.
Why is it so difficult for certain Righties on this blog to comply?
Dana, do you ever intend to keep your word and demonstrate some personal integrity?
I think this exercise demonstrates two things:
- the problem with insults on the blog lies with the right-wing rather than the liberals.
- Dana’s claim to objectivity is contradicted by his actions.
Obama’s poll numbers rise slightly. Also, Bush gets spectrum-wide credit for his role in getting Osama.
Of course, this disagrees with what professional interrogators say about torture, and it ignores the idea that if the US had engaged in interrogation instead of torture, they would have got this information faster.
Here we go:
And:
So, let’s see what we have:
- Under torture, KSM lied to his torturers.
- Later, under interrogation, he gave a piece of information
- With careful police work, said information was turned into real intelligence.
- That intelligence was used with a precision strike. Pakistan was not invaded, and the town was not shelled in order to “liberate” it.
Looks like the liberals were right.
BO finally is showing what he can do with his Nobel Piece Prize. They gathered all the pieces of UBL and made him Fish Food.
Yes, Pho, because prisoners in a US-run prison in northern Iraq were told if they didn’t settle down and behave appropriately, they would be sent back to the Iraqi Police. And the prisoners immediately straightened up their act so they wouldn’t be sent back to the IP. (And I got that information from a first-hand account.) Interesting how that works. Threaten someone with something they’ve experienced to gain their cooperation.
Oops:
And do note how the “civil” (what a laugh) Pho uses those two special initials in his hate-filled attack on Hube.
Yeah — linking to an article that supports my rebuttal is somehow “goalpost shifting.” Check.
At any rate, catch up on current events, Mr. Obama-Is-The-Greatest-President-In-My-Lifetime.
Pho:
Dana, do you ever intend to keep your word and demonstrate some personal integrity?
From someone who couldn’t go two posting without insulting someone and everyone.
1. Islamic Terrorists have a goal: Eliminate all Jews and Christians and set up a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.
2. Islamic Terrorists’ Holy Book, the Koran, states explicitly that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to all who are not Mohammedan.
3. Islamic Terrorists spread lies about what was or wasn’t done by those who are fighting terrorism.
4. Liberals believe the lies of Islamic Terrorists over the words of those who are trying to put an end to Islamic Terrorism.
Par for the course, actually, since Liberal members of JournoList:
A) declared it is perfectly acceptable to lie to advance the Liberal agenda;
B) suggested different lies to spread in the advancement of their Liberal agenda.
And yes, the JournoListers were already documented on this blogsite, multiple times, so it’s common knowledge.
“I’ve flatly denied this torture thing enough… Let’s change the subject.” – JH
Ah, one of the PiaTor critics/antagonists has self-identified, and his name is Yorkshire. For shame!
1. Islamic Terrorists have a goal: Eliminate all Jews and Christians and set up a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.
It would be nice if you would provide basic, JH, citations.
ObL has never stated eliminating all Jews and Christians as a goal, nor has Al Qaeda stated this, nor would it be acceptable under Islamic doctrine. His concern has been for the purity of the Muslim world, and hence control over it; “taking over the world” is not really on Al Qaeda’s radar.
You are engaging in demonization based on your own fantasies, rather than any understanding of who your enemies really are and for what they fight. Which is great as a shibboleth to equally ignorant members of the Right, but less than useful for actually dealing with the world.
To quote Wikipedia
Yeah, Perry, about that…
Pho, I don’t think what you quoted means what you think it means. In other words, it contradicts what you are pushing. But nice try with your untrustworthy wiki quoting, though.
Here’s the story link aside from the previous Twitter link:
Panetta’s right — the debate will continue (as it does here). But in this case, it sure appears “enhanced interrogation” played a role in the ultimate outcome of bin Laden.
Would Jesus use enhanced interrogation?
Pho, I don’t think what you quoted means what you think it means.
To be perfectly blunt, JH, your opinion matters little to me, as you are usually uninformed about whatever you’re making wild assertions on.
You stated “Islamic Terrorists have a goal: Eliminate all Jews and Christians”.
Where’s your proof?
I’m reading Destiny Disrupted at present. It provides a context which makes it clear just how Al Qaeda fits into Muslim history and an Islamic view of the world, and reinforces ObL’s own comments on the goals of Al Qaeda – it wants to establish a pan-Islamist caliphate – establising the rule of God on Earth and purifying corrupt Muslim regimes. Or, in their eyes, re-establishing it. “Taking over the world” would naturally occur after a purified Islamic community is formed.
The US, not understanding this, continues to make mistakes that help lead to Al Qaeda’s objectives. The primary focus is revolution and control over Saudi Arabia.
See here:
Mr Whistler wrote:
Through many comments, that’s the liberal meme being given. For the record, Mr Whistler also posted, on his fine site:
.
I’d suggest this article by Heather Horn in The Atlantic, which notes that the information we’re getting is inconsistent, depending upon the source:
It seems to me that one important point has been omitted: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had been broken by waterboarding and whatever other “harsh interrogation” techniques he faced. If the information which he, and others, provided came only due to standard questioning, but it came after he was broken, it is impossible to say that the standard interrogation techniques which produced the information would have been effective if he was not already a broken man.
Mr Muhammad was a very proud man, who wouldn’t tell interrogators squat before he was waterboarded, and he supposedly resisted being broken by waterboarding for quite some time. But, in the end, he sang like a canary.
The argument is being made that harsh interrogation does not produce reliable information, because the questioned man will say anything to make it stop. But if someone like KSM has not been broken yet, there’s no particular reason to believe that he would provide anything truthful; either silence or outright lies would serve the unbroken subject just as well as the truth, and allow him to maintain his pride that he was still resisting his enemies. Yet, now broken, we seem to be getting useful information from Mr Muhammad without having to resort to the techniques which broke him in the first place.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr Muhammad had been treated the way some of our friends on the left think he should have been treated: arrested, charged with federal crimes, and kept in conditions consistent with pre-trial incarceration for criminal defendants. The very first right that Mr Muhammad would have had would be to refuse to be interrogated without his attorney present. Well, that would have been it: no confessions, no useful information, nothing, because any attorney with any sense would have told his client under such conditions not to say a single word.
The Atlantic article concludes:
By the way, we’re starting to get a bit harsher with the personal stuff here; please, knock it off.
It seems to me that one important point has been omitted: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had been broken by waterboarding and whatever other “harsh interrogation” techniques he faced. If the information which he, and others, provided came only due to standard questioning, but it came after he was broken, it is impossible to say that the standard interrogation techniques which produced the information would have been effective if he was not already a broken man.
Save, of course, that professional interrogators say that torture is counter-productive, and that your entire comment proceeds from no information and pure speculation based on wanting to justify the torture of prisoners.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr Muhammad had been treated the way some of our friends on the left think he should have been treated: arrested, charged with federal crimes, and kept in conditions consistent with pre-trial incarceration for criminal defendants.
Then “it seems to me” you would have the same information you got from standard interrogation, just earlier – without the torture.
By the way, we’re starting to get a bit harsher with the personal stuff here; please, knock it off.
This might have something to do with your unwillingness to enforce your new rules consistently, giving the right-wing commentators a free pass to continue insulting. This speaks volumes about who the real culprits are, and your priorities.
I stand by what I’ve said. I do question the effectiveness of “enhanced” interrogation techniques, on the grounds that many interrogators have said that they elicit too much false information, and because the world wouldn’t willingly choose not to engage in such methods if they really did lead to more reliable information, and/or do so more quickly. Obviously, others, both “expert” and ordinary citizen, believe otherwise. Whether such methods work, either as tools to get reliable information themselves, or to “break” a prisoner’s spirit and thus get reliable information later–and the attendant questions of whether either/both outcome(s) are possible via more traditional and widely accepted means–will of course continue.
But to me, the effectiveness of “harsh” “coercive” “enhanced” interrogation techniques is a secondary issue, even if they did provide the key info that lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Premature postage… (still getting used to the iPad on-screen keyboard) The rest to come (once I tap it out)
Phoe, even the White House doesn’t agree with you:
Did you catch that part? Even the Obama Administration is saying that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” might have played a role in the information which was obtained, and that it’s “impossible” to know whether the information could have been obtained absent it, which pretty much matches exactly what I said, “it is impossible to say that the standard interrogation techniques which produced the information would have been effective if he was not already a broken man.”
(continued)
From all I’ve read, and from what my own common sense and experiences tell me, water boarding — the intentional drowning and simulated death of an unwilling participant, is a form of torture. We here in the US have successfully prosecuted both our own citizens and military men in other countries for committing the same/very similar acts on US citizens and servicemen. And while redefining the word torture and the act of water boarding can make once illegal acts legal, it cannot change the morality of committing them. (Whatever one’s stand on abortion or homosexuality, the same rule applies; legality ( or illegality) doesn’t affect morality.) For me, it’s that simple. While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture, my position would be the same even if it could be conclusively proven that torture produces the most reliable intelligence, and do so in half the time. Like the man said, “…sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’ll never know because I won’t eat the filthy [thing].” We’re Americans, and we live by a set of ideals. Whether or not torture works, it’s still a filthy thing, and I’m going to continue to speak out against anyone willing to lower our American standards and values enough to metephorically swallow it.
Did you catch that part?
Yes – I caught the bits where they said they didn’t know, Dana. I’ve also been catching the bits where you’re trying to spin lack of knowledge into “torture did the trick”.
“It is impossible to know” because it is a counter-factual. However the people saying torture is not necessary are the professional interrogators, and the people saying torture is necessary are authoritarian followers who are merely kibitzing – torture apologists.
Torture is illegal under both US and international law. Unless you can provide solid proof that it is absolutely necessary, you should not do it. And any government official who authorises it should be charged with crimes against humanity, and anyone attempting apologetics for it rightfully regarded with disgust.
We’re Americans, and we live by a set of ideals.
No, you don’t. America now stands squarely for torturing prisoners and invading other countries.
Is this contagious? And perhaps more importantly, is there a cure?
Is this contagious? And perhaps more importantly, is there a cure?
Yes, and yes. The answer to your latter is both honesty at the national level and the rule of law.
As has been described elsewhere, the US runs on bullshit these days, and the rule of law crumbles with plutocracy. I think you’re screwed.
[retrieved from moderation - pH]
What Repsac3 said. It’s unfortunate to see that there are conflicting reports about this one piece of info that say it came from torture/didn’t come from torture, but I said from the beginning it wasn’t impossible for torture to produce some info. If we owe that initial piece of information to torture, this will undoubtedly verify things in the minds of the right, who are objectively pro-torture.
Yet we know that standard interrogation does produce results, so we’re left with the problem that history can’t be repeated to run tests. Dana would like to assert that we couldn’t have gotten the information without torture, yet he can’t know that either. Whether one pays the toll or smashes through the gates, one still gets to the other side of the bridge. It’s just that smashing through the gates has a price.
More importantly, we are told KSM was “superhuman” in his ability to resist either method of interrogation, and he was reportedly waterboarded (tortured) 183 times, and that’s just the one method of torture that was used. Torture was used almost exclusively, with no evidence of it working, over and over and over again. Was such determination implemented to test standard interrogation? Obviously not. Consider the hundredth time he was waterboarded, to no avail, was it reasonable to keep doing it because it was a matter of fact that KSM would resist standard interrogation indefinitely? No, it was a belief.
It’s worth pointing out that Bush did figure out where bin Laden was hiding once, in Tora Bora, and had him surrounded. He lost him, relying on Afghans instead of US troops to do the job. He never found bin Laden again. So it’s all nice and good that Bush managed to get another lead sometime in the seven years he was president after 9/11, but the bulk of the credit goes towards how that lead was gestated into actionable intelligence and the plan that was implemented under President Obama. Given Bush’s general level of incompetence, fixation on Iraq, and dismissal of the importance of bin Laden, I’m certainly glad Obama was in the Oval Office this past year. He ran a tight, steady yet determined operation with no leaks and no casualties.
Bush may claim a fraction of the credit, but we’re quite lucky he didn’t get a chance to bungle the operation.
Senate Intel Chair: Torture Did Not Lead To Bin Laden In Any Way
Not that the actual truth is going to stop the same discredited lie being trotted out time after time after time – witness the reappearance of the “waterboarding isn’t torture” lie.
Right on Henry, repsac3, and PiaToR ==> excellent statements!
It is a mad scientist who would run the same experiment 183 times in order to prove a demonstrably failed hypothesis. Those who did so were mad, translated: insane.
Note also that both the FBI and the Military Code define waterboarding as torture. Isn’t that enough?
Our use of torture is not only obviously inhumane, but also a diminution of our core values.
Finally, why give license to our enemies to impose the same treatment on our own when captured and incarcerated? Are those making decisions on the use of torture the least likely to ever become a POW?
Why is it that the Liberals on here are so troubled by our use of torture, whether it be a Repub or Dem regime doing it, whereas the Conservatives spin and twist in every way possible to justify its use? It boils down to a question of character and core values, in my view.
“it is impossible to say that the standard interrogation techniques which produced the information would have been effective if he was not already a broken man.”
Teeny tiny minor problem –
Let’s stress that again – he gave up the information many months after being tortured. So if it was necessary to break him – why the wait, Dana?
[...] will recall, I hope, that I had said previously that we didn’t know everything about what happened, and that the information would keep [...]
The Phoenician wrote:
You have misunderstood. The point is that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was already a broken man, and that anything he gives us subsequent to being broken cannot be regarded as wholly free of him having been broken.
And, of course, what you have written above is contrary to what you have written before, on a different subject:
When the subject was Bradley Manning, you had total sympathy, because his mind is being/has been broken, not by waterboarding or physical torment, but by solitary confinement, which you also labelled torture. Yet, when it comes to KSM, why, the waterboarding was well over, so it couldn’t have any effects on him now, or whether or not he would have disclosed the information he did had he never been “harshly interrogated.”
It seems odd to me that your conclusions about the effects of poor treatment on the mental status of the prisoner differ based upon what point you wish to make.
I dunno, everything I’ve read so far says it was KSM’s complete denial of the courier that tipped off investigators. So he was still lying, he just lied too emphatically.
Stories are still coming in, but the torture doesn’t seem to have had much direct effect. If it was so effective, we could have caught bin Laden in 2004.
Henry: “If it was so effective, we could have caught bin Laden in 2004.”
Heh. There goes the ticking bomb justification. You can use torture if there’s an atomic bomb with a 7-year timer counting down…
Yeah right, John:
GIVING CREDIT