So who here would be against the waterboarding of OBL?
Knowing people who have survived it, I am against torture period.
The idea is to be better than those we abhor, not become them.
And do me a small favour and not call me mambypamby, immature, deluded...whathaveyou.
I can easily return the favour with a few choice judgemental words, but what would that achieve?
We can live in the same world and see things differently.
Those we abhor in this case execute prisoners by chopping off their heads...if dunking their heads underwater is somehow equal to that we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think you would agree that waterboarding OBL is "better" than putting a bullet in his head.
for all the hand wringing over a piece of shits death, some of you must really spend hours a day crying over the innocent people killed on this earth every second.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
And he would have just given it up, no problemo. Come on.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
And he would have just given it up, no problemo. Come on.
Yeah, if anything I'd think the recent US torture "mistake" makes the admin's story, or some version of it, more credible: you take dude alive and people will want to know, very understandably, where he is, what he's saying, and what's being done to him. If there's one thing Obama cannot afford, it's to look like Bush-on-torture out in the open (rather than just, say, in buried newspaper columns).
By the way, Bon Vivant = most decent disagreement I've seen in a few years on the Strut. Internet Image Award??? in the mail.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
And he would have just given it up, no problemo. Come on.
Yeah, if anything I'd think the recent US torture "mistake" makes the admin's story, or some version of it, more credible: you take dude alive and people will want to know, very understandably, where he is, what he's saying, and what's being done to him. If there's one thing Obama cannot afford, it's to look like Bush-on-torture out in the open (rather than just, say, in buried newspaper columns).
By the way, Bon Vivant = most decent disagreement I've seen in a few years on the Strut. Internet Image Award??? in the mail.
Thanks! I once heard someone say that just because we disagree, that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.
As to OBL, you're right. So many variables come into existence if OBL was caught alive. I'm sure that if it was really feasible to get him alive, that would have happened. We (the public) just don't know enough about what went down in Abbotabad to make a real determination on that. Probably never will. I'm fine with deferring to the Navy SEALS on this one.
for all the hand wringing over a piece of shits death, some of you must really spend hours a day crying over the innocent people killed on this earth every second.
His logic is completely flawed. He tries to draw analogies between Saddam and Milosevic which is absurd, IMO. OBL was not the former head of any government or nation. He was a fugitive terrorist that, apparently, was still actively involved in planning terror attacks. This was a military strike against a non-civilian, enemy combatant , not a police action.
Further, Omar has the benefit of hindsight when he says that OBL was "unarmed'. The SEALS didn't have that luxury.
His son is trying to portray his father as a criminal and saying therefore he's entitled to a trial.
My point is that he is not a criminal. He started a war and is only entitled to the rights that an enemy combatant would have, which is to surrender or be killed.
Maybe he tried to surrender, but I doubt it, and until proven differently I don't see any problem, legal or otherwise, with the way things went down.
Saddam's trial (and execution) was a farce. I'm certain that the U.S. wants to avoid that ever happening again. They probably should've just killed him in the
if he was comparing OBL to Saddam or Milo, then I agree that's off. Im not sure he was, though.
there's a difference between "OBL's crimes were equal to X's" and "we could have tried OBL just as we did X."
and with all due respect to the strong emotions OBL evokes, "he got what he deserved" is just not a legit response to "he should have had a trial."
plenty of rapists and murderers get what they deserve every day in this country....after they're convicted at trial.
Fair enough on the emotional response.
OBL was not a run of the mill murderer, however. He was activley engaged in the planning of terror attacks against Americans. And had already commited many, many terrorist acts that killed thousands. So, invoking other rapists and murderers means little, IMO. OBL was also not a mere criminal.
Also, Omar seems to be hanging his hat on the fact OBL, admittedly, was unarmed. We only know that after the fact. Everything we know about OBL would indicate that he would NOT be unarmed if encountered, nor would he be without armed security. I have full confidence that if the SEALS could have taken OBL alive, they would have. I'd rather have a dead OBL than a dead SEAL.
Omar is doing some fine monday morning quarterbacking. He may see a bump in his book sales. If he really thinks international law was violated, he should have standing to bring a claim as the son of the deceased. I won't hold my breath.
His father started a war - does every soldier killed in a war get a trial first?
this part of your argument I'm fine with. assuming this was all a "war" and he was a combatant killed in action fine. lots of assumptions in there, but I'll roll with that for the sake of argument.
Did the thousands of civilians his father killed get trials?
this part doesn't cut it.
of course murder victims don't get a trial. the murderer does.
to be clear: i was in favor of our taking him alive for OUR sake, not his. the intel value was potentially huge, we avoid the grey legalities of killing an unarmed dude, etc.
His father started a war - does every soldier killed in a war get a trial first?
this part of your argument I'm fine with. assuming this was all a "war" and he was a combatant killed in action fine. lots of assumptions in there, but I'll roll with that for the sake of argument.
Did the thousands of civilians his father killed get trials?
this part doesn't cut it.
This pertains to the Geneva Convention.
As I said in a different post, If he does not abide by it, he is not entitled to it's protections.
He met an ugly and dismal end, but it was all he was entitled to by virtue of his actions.
Comments
He would crack. No ignore button related.
Those we abhor in this case execute prisoners by chopping off their heads...if dunking their heads underwater is somehow equal to that we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think you would agree that waterboarding OBL is "better" than putting a bullet in his head.
"Where did you get those sandals, they're really stylish?"
"How do you keep your beard so soft and clean?"
"When and where will Al Qaeda strike next?"
"Would you like some Lemonade?"
"Can you share your falafel recipe with us?"
"How does it feel to be sitting here with the Great Satan?"
"Have you heard that new Justin Bieber joint?"
"Pretty please with ice cream on top can you tell us when and where will Al Qaeda strike next?"
OBL has spent the last 8 years getting accustomed to all aspects of waterboarding.
And he would have just given it up, no problemo. Come on.
Thanks for watching folks. Be sure to tip your bartenders!
Yeah, if anything I'd think the recent US torture "mistake" makes the admin's story, or some version of it, more credible: you take dude alive and people will want to know, very understandably, where he is, what he's saying, and what's being done to him. If there's one thing Obama cannot afford, it's to look like Bush-on-torture out in the open (rather than just, say, in buried newspaper columns).
By the way, Bon Vivant = most decent disagreement I've seen in a few years on the Strut. Internet Image Award??? in the mail.
Thanks! I once heard someone say that just because we disagree, that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.
As to OBL, you're right. So many variables come into existence if OBL was caught alive. I'm sure that if it was really feasible to get him alive, that would have happened. We (the public) just don't know enough about what went down in Abbotabad to make a real determination on that. Probably never will. I'm fine with deferring to the Navy SEALS on this one.
b/w
:game_over:
who read this whole thing? be honest.
Hard to argue with his logic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11binladen.html?_r=1&hp;
I can argue with it.
His father started a war - does every soldier killed in a war get a trial first?
b/w
Did the thousands of civilians his father killed get trials?
His logic sucks, imo.
and all he's saying here is that his dad shoulda been tried instead of killed unarmed.
is there no "logic" to trying a murderer?
srs question; I don't understand your issue with dude's argument.
His logic is completely flawed. He tries to draw analogies between Saddam and Milosevic which is absurd, IMO. OBL was not the former head of any government or nation. He was a fugitive terrorist that, apparently, was still actively involved in planning terror attacks. This was a military strike against a non-civilian, enemy combatant , not a police action.
Further, Omar has the benefit of hindsight when he says that OBL was "unarmed'. The SEALS didn't have that luxury.
OBL: got what he deserved.
there's a difference between "OBL's crimes were equal to X's" and "we could have tried OBL just as we did X."
and with all due respect to the strong emotions OBL evokes, "he got what he deserved" is just not a legit response to "he should have had a trial."
plenty of rapists and murderers get what they deserve every day in this country....after they're convicted at trial.
His son is trying to portray his father as a criminal and saying therefore he's entitled to a trial.
My point is that he is not a criminal. He started a war and is only entitled to the rights that an enemy combatant would have, which is to surrender or be killed.
Maybe he tried to surrender, but I doubt it, and until proven differently I don't see any problem, legal or otherwise, with the way things went down.
But his dad never won the father of the year award!
(I find it significant how much I agree with rootless in this thread)
Saddam's trial (and execution) was a farce. I'm certain that the U.S. wants to avoid that ever happening again. They probably should've just killed him in the
Fair enough on the emotional response.
OBL was not a run of the mill murderer, however. He was activley engaged in the planning of terror attacks against Americans. And had already commited many, many terrorist acts that killed thousands. So, invoking other rapists and murderers means little, IMO. OBL was also not a mere criminal.
Also, Omar seems to be hanging his hat on the fact OBL, admittedly, was unarmed. We only know that after the fact. Everything we know about OBL would indicate that he would NOT be unarmed if encountered, nor would he be without armed security. I have full confidence that if the SEALS could have taken OBL alive, they would have. I'd rather have a dead OBL than a dead SEAL.
Omar is doing some fine monday morning quarterbacking. He may see a bump in his book sales. If he really thinks international law was violated, he should have standing to bring a claim as the son of the deceased. I won't hold my breath.
this part of your argument I'm fine with. assuming this was all a "war" and he was a combatant killed in action fine. lots of assumptions in there, but I'll roll with that for the sake of argument.
this part doesn't cut it.
of course murder victims don't get a trial. the murderer does.
to be clear: i was in favor of our taking him alive for OUR sake, not his. the intel value was potentially huge, we avoid the grey legalities of killing an unarmed dude, etc.
This pertains to the Geneva Convention.
As I said in a different post, If he does not abide by it, he is not entitled to it's protections.
He met an ugly and dismal end, but it was all he was entitled to by virtue of his actions.
^^^This^^^
"Those SEALS didn't even give poor OBL a chance to contact his lawyer via cell phone"
I never said anything about justice.