Well, that was about time!
I think the way this was handled was also the best way to do it.
Quiet, small operation, no prisoners. Having Osama a prisoner would have caused all sorts of problems. The way it is now, he is gone and the matter is resolved. Less noise, less trouble, very clean.
Osoma Bin Laden is dead
I think the issue of where prisoners are kept and who tries them is somewhat different than the issue of whether we should torture. The second point is certainly the one the right is latching on to here.seedload wrote:Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world ... en.html?hp
...for what it is worth.
I've seen nothing that says it was torture produced the courier's name.
Here's a good interview from the interrogator that got the intel that led to the killing of Zarqawi on why you get better results without torture:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/news/ ... tid=119929
Did you read my quoting of a NY Times article as suggesting that torture produced this intel or as saying anything about what the right was latching onto? I suppose you were just extending the conversation.Maui wrote:I think the issue of where prisoners are kept and who tries them is somewhat different than the issue of whether we should torture. The second point is certainly the one the right is latching on to here.seedload wrote:Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world ... en.html?hp
...for what it is worth.
I've seen nothing that says it was torture produced the courier's name.
Not a big supporter of torture personally, but also not a big supporter of closing Guantanamo, extending our bill of rights to cover these guys, and handicapping our ability to get intel like this. If not a result of the former, then potentially a result of the failure of the later - no?
I think that Guatanamo and everything happening there is a slippery slope. We do have a complex law system to make sure that the innocent are protected. Guatanamo is a return to the middle ages and the holy inquisition, IMHO.
Someone could make a false claim about somebody and that person would end up in Guatanamo with no way of defending himself, getting tortured until he makes a false confession, etc.
We all have heard that from the witch hunts in the 16th and 17th century.
Maria Theresia ended that here in the 18th century, I dont see any reason to return to these times.
Someone could make a false claim about somebody and that person would end up in Guatanamo with no way of defending himself, getting tortured until he makes a false confession, etc.
We all have heard that from the witch hunts in the 16th and 17th century.
Maria Theresia ended that here in the 18th century, I dont see any reason to return to these times.
Guatanamo is a stain on our collective honor in the U.S.Skipjack wrote:I think that Guatanamo and everything happening there is a slippery slope. We do have a complex law system to make sure that the innocent are protected. Guatanamo is a return to the middle ages and the holy inquisition, IMHO.
Already documented several times over.Skipjack wrote:Someone could make a false claim about somebody and that person would end up in Guatanamo with no way of defending himself, getting tortured until he makes a false confession, etc.
Detainees who were scooped up by bounty hunters, bought by the U.S., spirited off to Guantanamo, tortured and... surprise!... later determined to be innocent.
Yet the U.S. dares not release them because of what we did to them.
The witch hunts have already returned... wrapped in a flag while carrying a cross in one hand and a quarterly earnings report in the other.Skipjack wrote:We all have heard that from the witch hunts in the 16th and 17th century.
Maria Theresia ended that here in the 18th century, I dont see any reason to return to these times.
I wasn't sure, but I did think maybe that's where you were going with it. FoxNews is running this story as a vindication of torture. With the facts I've seen, that's an unjustified leap.seedload wrote:Did you read my quoting of a NY Times article as suggesting that torture produced this intel or as saying anything about what the right was latching onto? I suppose you were just extending the conversation.
Like I said... I think these are two issues are somewhat different. I'm not sure I'm on board with the second, but I'm certainly not against it they way I'm against torture.Not a big supporter of torture personally, but also not a big supporter of closing Guantanamo, extending our bill of rights to cover these guys, and handicapping our ability to get intel like this. If not a result of the former, then potentially a result of the failure of the later - no?
I agree Gitmo did probably contribute to getting Bin Laden and I don't think we necessarily treat captive's as U.S. citizen's.... but I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that we can go and abduct people based on suspicion alone then hold them indefinitely without giving them any legal options to prove their innocence (let alone cast doubt on guilt). I don't know what the solution is, but just because there's not a clear alternative I refuse to be comfortable/satisfied with Gitmo.
I wasn't sure, but I did think maybe that's where you were going with it. FoxNews is running this story as a vindication of torture. With the facts I've seen, that's an unjustified leap.
Well, the sad fact is that torture does work. Intelligence agencies wouldn't be so keen to use it if it wasn't. Getting one person to say everything and anything you want just stop the torture may not get good intel. Take 2 people however, and you can cross reference to weed out the things they lied about just to make you stop torturing them. The fact it works doesn't make it any less objectionable and horrific.
I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that we can go and abduct people based on suspicion alone then hold them indefinitely without giving them any legal options to prove their innocence (let alone cast doubt on guilt). I don't know what the solution is, but just because there's not a clear alternative I refuse to be comfortable/satisfied with Gitmo.
I think the solution is simpler than many make out.
Anybody captured in combat situations should not be held without charge or trial, they should be very quickly tried and convicted. No more legal limbo for them since there was no need for it. They were clearly enemy combatants and that should be made an offense in and off itself if it is not already. Off to Gitmo for them.
Anybody picked up by intelligence operators under 'suspicion' need to again be presented with charges and given a timely trial. If they are picked up in a war zone, it should be a military trial with reduced burden of proof, otherwise they should be up before a normal civilian court. If normal civilian law is inadequate for people acting in a civilian area then it's the civilian laws that need changing, rather than bypassing the courts when 'needed'.
Well, the sad fact is that torture does work. Intelligence agencies wouldn't be so keen to use it if it wasn't. Getting one person to say everything and anything you want just stop the torture may not get good intel. Take 2 people however, and you can cross reference to weed out the things they lied about just to make you stop torturing them. The fact it works doesn't make it any less objectionable and horrific.
I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that we can go and abduct people based on suspicion alone then hold them indefinitely without giving them any legal options to prove their innocence (let alone cast doubt on guilt). I don't know what the solution is, but just because there's not a clear alternative I refuse to be comfortable/satisfied with Gitmo.
I think the solution is simpler than many make out.
Anybody captured in combat situations should not be held without charge or trial, they should be very quickly tried and convicted. No more legal limbo for them since there was no need for it. They were clearly enemy combatants and that should be made an offense in and off itself if it is not already. Off to Gitmo for them.
Anybody picked up by intelligence operators under 'suspicion' need to again be presented with charges and given a timely trial. If they are picked up in a war zone, it should be a military trial with reduced burden of proof, otherwise they should be up before a normal civilian court. If normal civilian law is inadequate for people acting in a civilian area then it's the civilian laws that need changing, rather than bypassing the courts when 'needed'.
So far there's been no evidence of the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation policy and cross-referencing the take from two suspects works just as well even when you haven't waterboarded them over a hundred and eighty times in one month.
In fact the data that got Bin Laden was not gotten under the torture.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/ ... idnt-work/
This all came up now for one reason: attempting to tie justifications for what the U.S. has become and what the U.S. has done to a successful operation against Bin Laden.
But what's done can't be undone, and Obama carries on many of the worst Bush-era policies not because they "work" but because the policies benefit the oligarchs.
In fact the data that got Bin Laden was not gotten under the torture.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/ ... idnt-work/
This all came up now for one reason: attempting to tie justifications for what the U.S. has become and what the U.S. has done to a successful operation against Bin Laden.
But what's done can't be undone, and Obama carries on many of the worst Bush-era policies not because they "work" but because the policies benefit the oligarchs.
Your analogy sucks! Witches didn't take down the twin towers and kill thousands of my countrymen. Witches were a FICTION. Terrorists are not.Skipjack wrote: We all have heard that from the witch hunts in the 16th and 17th century.
The great irony in hearing your continued comments about our human rights violations in dealing with terrorists is that the whole reason that we are targets of terrorists in the first place is because of fleeing Jews and our support of same.
It is so convenient to declare your neutrality after the fact, to scrub your hands raw of the dirt and blood, hold them up and say, look how sparkling I am, while we continue to work to clean up your mess.
Sorry, I respect your opinion on this matter exactly zero.
We are the targets because of YOU. Our hard choices and bad mistakes are in dealing with the fallout of what YOU did. We continue to at least try to do the right thing, with obvious mistakes, while you may occasionally go so far as to let us fly over your air space in doing so. So bold of you! What a nation. Kill 'em off, make em run, pretend you didn't participate, and then point fingers when a nation with some balls actually tries to do the right thing.
It's not enough to take so many lives yourselves and to take so many of our lives in fighting your war. No, now you have to ridicule how we manage our own affairs in the continued aftermath of your war.
You are not qualified to comment on our imperfections.
regards
This came up in a NY Times article quoted word for word and linked to. Was the NY Times trying to justify torture? Is that your point?zapkitty wrote:So far there's been no evidence of the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation policy and cross-referencing the take from two suspects works just as well even when you haven't waterboarded them over a hundred and eighty times in one month.
In fact the data that got Bin Laden was not gotten under the torture.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/ ... idnt-work/
This all came up now for one reason: attempting to tie justifications for what the U.S. has become and what the U.S. has done to a successful operation against Bin Laden.
But what's done can't be undone, and Obama carries on many of the worst Bush-era policies not because they "work" but because the policies benefit the oligarchs.
We are not water boarding anyone in Guantanamo anymore. Obama is not carrying on this policy. Just as we didn't torture everyone as your earlier post implied.
I'm not going to claim there's never a situation where torture won't produce intel that couldn't be obtained in any other way. But I don't think there's any solid evidence to believe torture will produce better results overall. Pointiong back to the link in my earlier post, it wasn't torture that bagged Zarqawi; it was building a rapport with the prisoners and treating them with dignity.bcglorf wrote:Well, the sad fact is that torture does work. Intelligence agencies wouldn't be so keen to use it if it wasn't. Getting one person to say everything and anything you want just stop the torture may not get good intel. Take 2 people however, and you can cross reference to weed out the things they lied about just to make you stop torturing them. The fact it works doesn't make it any less objectionable and horrific.
I think the reason is torture is used is simply that its quicker, easier and probably in many cases more satisfying (ie, get info and exact retribution at the same time). Seriously, would you feel compelled to treat a terrorist with dignity? I don't think anyone would claim that wouldn't be hard.
The reality is that you can never truly prove that data obtained one tactic was the only way it could have been obtained or that by using another tactic info could have been obtained that wasn't. But in this specific case, I don't think anyone has the right to use the killing of Osama as justification for torture if none of the key facts that led to his killing were obtained from torture.
I'm not going to claim there's never a situation where torture won't produce intel that couldn't be obtained in any other way.
Which is about all I'm meaning when I say that torture works. I mean there are situations where torture will get intel that would otherwise take much longer, or be outright impossible to obtain.
in this specific case, I don't think anyone has the right to use the killing of Osama as justification for torture if none of the key facts that led to his killing were obtained from torture.
I don't think it should be used as justification even if key facts WERE obtained through torture. I think the people arguing in favor or support of torture are taking the lazy approach to a much bigger problem.
The bigger problem being this.
Here's a key quote:
We assure the world that Pakistan is not a killing field for the Muslims. Osama is a hero and we consider such incidents an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan,” Mufti Kifayatullah said
Mufti Kifayatullah is a leader of Pakistan's JUI-F party, with seats on the Provincial council in the province Bin Laden was found, as well as at the National Assembly.
The problem isn't the need to use torture to find our enemies that are hiding. The problem is the need to attack our enemies who are standing out in the open as elected officials of a nuclear armed state. America needs to have the JUI-F on it's list of terrorist organizations and demand that Pakistan have the organization banned and it's leaders arrested under the threat that we'll take care of them ourselves with drone attacks if they won't.
Which is about all I'm meaning when I say that torture works. I mean there are situations where torture will get intel that would otherwise take much longer, or be outright impossible to obtain.
in this specific case, I don't think anyone has the right to use the killing of Osama as justification for torture if none of the key facts that led to his killing were obtained from torture.
I don't think it should be used as justification even if key facts WERE obtained through torture. I think the people arguing in favor or support of torture are taking the lazy approach to a much bigger problem.
The bigger problem being this.
Here's a key quote:
We assure the world that Pakistan is not a killing field for the Muslims. Osama is a hero and we consider such incidents an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan,” Mufti Kifayatullah said
Mufti Kifayatullah is a leader of Pakistan's JUI-F party, with seats on the Provincial council in the province Bin Laden was found, as well as at the National Assembly.
The problem isn't the need to use torture to find our enemies that are hiding. The problem is the need to attack our enemies who are standing out in the open as elected officials of a nuclear armed state. America needs to have the JUI-F on it's list of terrorist organizations and demand that Pakistan have the organization banned and it's leaders arrested under the threat that we'll take care of them ourselves with drone attacks if they won't.
Ah really, what exactly have I done?We are the targets because of YOU.
I was born 30 years after WW2. My father was born right at the end of it. Neither of us had anything to do with what happened in Austria and Germany during WW2.
What YOU are doing is called "kin liability", something the Nazis did as well, only that YOU are actually taking it to extremes that would make the Nazis jealous.
Also, I never claimed to have a morale upper stance. However the US is very keen on educating the rest of the world on human rights and moral standards. If you do that, you have to be extra clean.
I any case, MY country has not seen anything like Guatanamo in 65 years. We kinda managed to evolve our moral understanding. How about YOU?
Besides, your reasoning sucks. The witch hunts were not just against witches, but mostly against so called heretics. These were very real (though they usually never harmed anybody).
Either way, a witch hunt is a witch hunt and torture is torture, no matter how you justify it.