Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[SirVLCIV]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...901491,00.html

The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I am opposed to executing prisoners, as well as to torturing them.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by The Left

If Bin Laden said, "Please take me prisoner, just don't kill me!" Would you be ok with killing him?

Nope.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Harry

Nope.

Good thing we will never have to worry about that since the video of the operation won't be seen by anyone. I bet he cried and begged like a little bitch before they killed him.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by The Left

Good thing we will never have to worry about that since the video of the operation won't be seen by anyone. I bet he cried and begged like a little bitch before they killed him.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

So, we have one action that is used in relatively rare circumstances with people who we are pretty convinced have high-level information about people who have caused us harm and will continue to cause us harm.

Hundreds of detainees were put through waterboarding or other tortures such as extreme sleep deprivation. It wasn't some rare thing done to a few individuals with high-level information.

My main problem with waterboarding and other torture is that insufficient care is taken to restrict it to the worst of the guilty, and the innocent pay a much higher price than the guilty because they genuinely don't have the information so the torture just goes on and on and on. If McVeigh's or Saddam's sentence after conviction included 100 waterboardings, I probably wouldn't oppose that. But many of those detainees just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have no connection to Al-Qaeda or other terrorism, or they were too low-level to know anything. In addition, it goes against the Geneva Convention, and I don't buy the right wing bullshit that the Gitmo detainees aren't covered by the Geneva Convention.

That summarizes my objection on principle. In addition there are practical problems including but not limited to making our future wartime enemies more likely to ignore the Geneva Convention with our captured soldiers, the ineffectiveness of it for gaining useful information, and how its usage creates recruiting tools for terrorist groups.

[Loner]

Originally Posted by The Left

If Bin Laden said, "Please take me prisoner, just don't kill me!" Would you be ok with killing him?

I would. He's the known head of a force at war with us, and capable of doing further damage as long as he lives. It's not something I'm particularly HAPPY with, but I'm okay with it. It's not a crime requiring a jury trial, it's an act of war he committed.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

(honestly, you're telling me the guy that you're ****ing torturing is more likely to tell you the truth, because he's stupid enough to believe you'll know the difference between truth and lie and will stop torturing him if he tells the truth but won't stop if he lies? Are you stupid)

You seem really jaded and angry lately. Did your dog die or something? Someone steal your lunch money?

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...901491,00.html

a) I think you mistake my post for someone who thinks our first line of thinking is "waterboard the guy." If so, I'm not the stupid one. Of course I'd favor any and all less extreme methods of trying to extract information, and I favor trying it over an extended period of time. Last resort and all that. In other words, if we've started with the cookies and that didn't work, went to idle threats and that didn't work, went to rock music and that didn't work, went to sleep deprivation and that didn't work, ..., well, all I'm saying is if we're at least as confident that a guy has critical information as we were that OBL did bad things, then waterboarding shouldn't be off the table for the same reasons that outright assassination isn't off the table.

b) Your post is a non-response anyway. All it is is the case for why waterboarding isn't always necessary. Has zero to do with the argument for those few tiems where it may be.

[gomer_tree]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

Hundreds of detainees were put through waterboarding or other tortures such as extreme sleep deprivation. It wasn't some rare thing done to a few individuals with high-level information.

I can get behind limiting its use, just like I can get behind saying we should almost never issue a "shoot to kill" order.

I thought the "hundreds" claim was shown to be quite exaggerated, but in any case that isn't my point. Some here have basically said, "We should never waterboard. But it was OK to shoot OBL in the head." I see that as inconsistent.