[nige1]

PassedOut, on 2011-May-03, 14:04, said:

Whether torture is effective or not, those who advocate torture are moral cripples. Without exception.

IMO politicians aren't all moral cripples but it's wrong to protect your rights by denying them to others. Arguably, the Patriot act attacks what it seeks to defend. Rightly in my view, future historians will deplore other means that we use to accomplish our ends, such as concentration camps, torture, and rendition.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-03, 03:54, said:

Like most of Jimmy's "contributions" he is mindlessly parroting the Faux New talking point d'jour.

kenberg, on 2011-May-03, 05:38, said:

It may be a little more complicated. The cited article by Ignatius reports that

many different sources (probably even fox news, though i need to check there to uphold the objectivity of my mindless "contributions") have verified that torture was used in obtaining information that led to his death

PassedOut, on 2011-May-03, 07:34, said:

Okay, I'll bite. Why is that a good thing?

well since you said, "From what I read, the operation was very well planned and executed. The US president can't do it by himself, but he can certainly mess it up by himself. I'm pleased that our current president got it done." i simply took you at your word, that you were pleased obama "got it done"... since gitmo was supposedly a part of getting it done, it must have been a good thing

hrothgar, on 2011-May-03, 12:25, said:

And another one...

http://tpmdc.talking...-in-any-way.php

Looks like Jimmy was full of *****, like usual

(Really might want to do a better job vetting your "sources")

"To the best of our knowledge, based on a look, none of it came as a result of harsh interrogation practices," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a wide-ranging press conference.

sounds pretty definitive to me

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld himself has denied that torture played any role in finding bin Laden:

“It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

if rumsfeld said it, that settles it

kenberg, on 2011-May-03, 13:32, said:

For now, it seems that waterboarding played a role in this hunt. Maybe a critical role, maybe not. The end result is something to cheer, some of the methods were not so pleasant. We have to live with the implications of this. Myself, this gives me the shudders.

better check your sources

PassedOut, on 2011-May-03, 14:04, said:

Whether torture is effective or not, those who advocate torture are moral cripples. Without exception.

nige1, on 2011-May-03, 15:22, said:

IMO politicians aren't all moral cripples but it's wrong to defend your rights by denying them to others. Arguably, the Patriot act thwarts what it seeks to defend. Rightly in my view, future historians may deplore other means that we use to accomplish our ends, such as concentration camps, torture, and rendition.

yes, but that's just your opinion... if it were stronger, in an "objective morality" sense for example, it would be more convincing

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2011-May-03, 15:22, said:

IMO politicians aren't all moral cripples...

Agreed. Many politicians join in rejecting torture even though they disagree with each other completely on other issues.

[Winstonm]

Quote

good thing he didn't shut down gitmo, eh?

Is it just me or does this sound precariously close to staking a claim to situational morality? I guess one should expect nothing less from such a known moral relativist.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-May-03, 15:55, said:

yes, but that's just your opinion... if it were stronger, in an "objective morality" sense for example, it would be more convincing

Of course everything I post is my opinion, otherwise I would not post it. Not completely sure what your point is here, but I'll take a stab at answering anyway.

There is no direct connection between religion (or belief in god) and morality. Note that many folks who believe in god and profess Christianity support torture, while many others who believe in god and profess Christianity do not.

If you ever give an opinion, that will be "just your opinion" also -- nothing "objective" about it.

[Cyberyeti]

To Luke Warm and the people he quoted - the BBC has certainly taken as fact that torture was used (I believe "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is the euphemism the politicians over here are using).

I just wonder, given the disgust we had for the celebrations in some parts of the Arab world after 9/11, whether they're equally disgusted by some of the celebrations in the US after this.

[kenberg]

Disgust? I just thought that many people of the Arab world made their feelings known about planes being flown into the Twin Towers. And we made our feelings known about the killing of OBL. It's called a frank exchange of views. Some like to see planes flown into buildings, some like to see the man who planned that event get a bullet. It's all in the way you were brought up.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-03, 16:55, said:

To Luke Warm and the people he quoted - the BBC has certainly taken as fact that torture was used (I believe "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is the euphemism the politicians over here are using).

I just wonder, given the disgust we had for the celebrations in some parts of the Arab world after 9/11, whether they're equally disgusted by some of the celebrations in the US after this.

For my part, I did not feel any urge to celebrate the death of another human being. It is to me simply an end to a long and sorry tragedy. My ire is directed at the delusional belief systems that created the situation in the first place. It is the 21st century, people - isn't about time we demanded at least as much evidence for our mystical beliefs as we do for a lack of contaminents in our food supply?

A worldwide Food and God Administration may have saved us all from this sorry episode.

[kenberg]

As I learn more, I find more to celebrate. It's easy to think that failures are due to bad planning and successes to good planning. It seems clear that there were many choices to be made, and on the basis of good but not certain information. It could have gone wrong, this time they went right. Back on page 1 of this thread I said that my first reaction was hooray. I'll stick with that, and make a note to myself for the future that when things go wrong sometimes the plan is as good as when things go right.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-May-03, 16:30, said:

Agreed. Many politicians join in rejecting torture even though they disagree with each other completely on other issues.

actually i was speaking to nigel... your posts often come across as statements of fact rather than opinion... most everyone else uses 'imo' when they post an opinion... this should put this to rest, leon penatta said 'enhanced yada yada' were used.in this article

Winstonm, on 2011-May-03, 16:38, said:

Is it just me or does this sound precariously close to staking a claim to situational morality? I guess one should expect nothing less from such a known moral relativist.

it's just you, i think... i was asking him a question based on his comment that obama did something right

Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-03, 16:55, said:

To Luke Warm and the people he quoted - the BBC has certainly taken as fact that torture was used (I believe "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is the euphemism the politicians over here are using).

I just wonder, given the disgust we had for the celebrations in some parts of the Arab world after 9/11, whether they're equally disgusted by some of the celebrations in the US after this.

not quite the same level of disgust, no, since a mass murderer was brought to justice... having said that, i didn't join anyone is a show of joy, although (like the majority of americans) i was pleased it was over

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-May-04, 03:58, said:

PassedOut, on 2011-May-03, 16:30, said:

nige1, on 2011-May-03, 15:22, said:

IMO politicians aren't all moral cripples...

Agreed. Many politicians join in rejecting torture even though they disagree with each other completely on other issues.

actually i was speaking to nigel...

Actually, as a careful reader would notice, I was speaking to Nigel...

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-May-04, 03:58, said:

this should put this to rest, leon penatta said 'enhanced yada yada' were used.in this article

The article you reference doesn't say anything at all about Guantanamo (where there was no waterboarding), nor about the impact that moving prisoners from there would have had on the mission to kill bin Laden.

[kenberg]

Some celebration, maybe just internalized pleasure, seems natural and is no doubt widespread. Beyond that, I think we need to be cautious about drawing conclusion.

As far as political impact is concerned, one might recall 1945. Churchill had led England through a horrific war, after which he was replaced by Clement Arlee. In short, as far as the 2012 election is concerned, this is of little consequence. Added: Before someone goes ballistic here, no, I am not trying to compare Obama to Churchill or the killing of OBL with the defeat of Hitler. Not remotely.

Similarly, there is no reason to think that this will significantly strengthen Obama's hand in the upcoming budget battle, and it is totally naive to think there will be a new spirit of cooperation.

Could it help in resolving the conflict in Afghanistan? I sort of doubt it but understanding that business is beyond me so I'll make no prediction.

In our relationship with Pakistan it might lead to clarity. I think we need to go easy on jumping to extreme conclusions about how "they must have known", mostly it may not be so obvious who "they" are, but as the captured papers are examined and as discussions go forth it seems that questions of just who can be trusted and who can't may get some answers.

Mostly it seems likely that this really could help in dealing specifically with Al Queda. I wouldn't expect miracles, but it seems to me it will be a big plus.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-May-04, 08:09, said:

As far as political impact is concerned, one might recall 1945. Churchill had led England through a horrific war, after which he was replaced by Clement Arlee. In short, as far as the 2012 election is concerned, this is of little consequence.

And more recently, George Bush Sr. had a huge approval rating after the Gulf War, but lost to Clinton nevertheless. The killing of bin Laden, though, will make it difficult to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-May-04, 08:16, said:

And more recently, George Bush Sr. had a huge approval rating after the Gulf War, but lost to Clinton nevertheless. The killing of bin Laden, though, will make it difficult to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.

Only if he produces the "long form" death certificate.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-04, 11:13, said:

Only if he produces the "long form" death certificate.

Good point.

[PassedOut]

Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos

Quote

In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's "60 Minutes," President Obama says he won't release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death. Video of the comments will appear on the CBS "Evening News" on Wednesday.

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post-mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo.

Okay. The nut cases won't believe it even with a photo. Maybe not even with a long-form death certificate.

[y66]

Quote of the day:

Quote

I kind of think that if you show conspiracy theorists a photo of the dead Bin Laden they will come up with an explanation for why it’s really a photo-shopped picture of Bin Laden asleep. Or his dead cousin Fred. Donald Trump apparently believes that Bin Laden is dead, so that ought to be enough for the Middle East.

-Gail Collins

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-May-04, 08:05, said:

The article you reference doesn't say anything at all about Guantanamo (where there was no waterboarding), nor about the impact that moving prisoners from there would have had on the mission to kill bin Laden.

i thought we'd moved on to torture for info and obama's seeming embrace of the ends-justifies-the-means philosophy

kenberg, on 2011-May-04, 08:09, said:

In our relationship with Pakistan it might lead to clarity. I think we need to go easy on jumping to extreme conclusions about how "they must have known", mostly it may not be so obvious who "they" are, but as the captured papers are examined and as discussions go forth it seems that questions of just who can be trusted and who can't may get some answers.

yeah, the papers and computers could be a big embarrassment to someone (assuming the content ever sees the light of day, which i doubt)

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-May-04, 15:36, said:

i thought we'd moved on to torture for info and obama's seeming embrace of the ends-justifies-the-means philosophy

No. You offered the opinion that closing Guantanamo would have impeded the effort get bin Laden, and I thought it (barely) possible that you had some factual basis for that opinion. Evidently not.

However, I do agree with your condemnation of the Bush-Cheney torture policy.