OT With three wives, why was his place so messy?

Page 2 of 3  


That account is according to whom? From the timeline I've seen, he was killed halfway into the total operation time of 40 mins. Meaning he didn't have to see who was coming. He heard automatic weapons fire, explosives taking down his walls, choppers, etc for a good fifteen minutes or more. Had he wanted to arm himself, he had plenty of time to do so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He was probably too busy kissing his ass goodbye.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

To my mind, the big question is why is water-boarding torture while shooting an unarmed man in the eye permitted?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To my mind, the big question is whether or not this guy is actually dead. Let me see the pictures. I'm a big kid. I can handle it. And for anyone who is grossed out by such things, DON'T LOOK!
Dead. No pictures. Quick disposal of the body.
I smell a fish.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're torturing a subject who may not (and in most cases was not) guilty of any crime.
But shooting OBL was offing a subject who WAS responsible for multiple deaths (and judging from the stuff the SEALS hauled out, was planning many more). And whom it would have been impossible to try in any legal tribunal.
UH, and you'll forgive my mentioning it, but torture is FORBIDDEN by multiple international and US laws.
Plus, it is much less effective than the sophisticated "soft" interrogation methods used by certain very smart countries that NEED results for their security.
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

1. NONE of our guests at Guantanamo have ever been charged with a crime. They are not criminals.
2. THREE people were waterboarded and all were unquestionably terrorists.
3. While the Geneva Conventions prohibit torture of soldiers and others, the specifically exempt terrorists.
4. There is, obviously, some dispute as to whether waterboarding IS torture. Some rank it in the same category as sleep-deprivation, rap music, unpalatable food, or smearing menstrual blood on the subject. That is, it is "enhanced," but causes no pain nor lasting effects (except the desire to tell everything you know).

As were the three who were waterboarded.

Yes, but terrorists are expressly exempted ("Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected or or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [IVth Geneva Convention]")
As for U.S. laws, the aforementioned waterboarding took place outside U.S. territory. As such, there was no violation of U.S. law.

You may be correct, but there is no way to know. Waterboarding DID work and we'll never know whether other techniques would have yielded the same or better results.
You just have to go with what "feels" right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The USA waterboarded exactly 3 subjects and there isn't any doubt in any reasonable person's mind that all 3 are not innocent. So, let's stick with the facts.

Just like the 3 that were waterboarded.

Hmmm. Exactly why is that? He could have been tried in a court of law, but the benefits of that outweighed the risks/beneifits. Bin Laden's being subject to any court, military tribunal, was exactly the same as any of the 3 waterboarded terrorists, so the point is bogus.

It was not torture, it was enhanced interrogation. The US routinely puts it's own special forces through waterboarding so they know what it's all about. Regarding the international laws that you libs like to spout about, there are clear conditions for the Geneva Convention laws to apply and be vaild. Among those are that the enemy must be in uniform, fighting under the command of the military of a country, etc. Those conditions are not met by the Al-Qaeda scum you seek to protect.

Only according to the lib loons. Former heads of CIA and Dept of Defense say that it works. Do you really think the CIA decided to go to the CIA chief and president instead of just using normal questions if that worked? Can you possibly be that stupid? The best proof is that we got Bin LAden himself through information obtained via enhanced interrogation. A fact that send you lib loons into a hissy fit, because it's a concrete example of how wrong and dangerous your ideas are.
You may be willing to let Bin Laden go, or refuse to use enhanced interrogation on other terrorists to prevent innocent people around the world from dying. That is your choice. But dont' pretend it's some moral high ground. Most of us are all in favor of doing what has to be done to stop the islamic terrorist scum.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Where do you get these "facts"? The govt under Bush or Obama has consistently LIED

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not prepared to say where you got your "facts"? OK.

A few have done so -- and most got their political heads handed to them.

What are you talking about?
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

Well, yeah, I'll admit both administrations were slippery with all the truths. It may very well be that NOBODY was waterboarded!
That is, if you're skeptical of the numbers, well, then, the number actually waterboarded could be ANY number, including zero.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

er...where do you get these "facts"? The govt under Bush (and probably Clinton) and now Obama, consistently LIES to the public. That's not news.

You've decided the three who you say were waterboarded (again, where do you get your "facts") were "terrorists"? Isn't that up to a court of law?

I HAVE TO DO THIS IN CAPS. THAT STATEMENT IS EXACTLY WHAT STALIN'S THUGS USED TO EXCUSE THE SUMMARY EXECUTIONS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE LUBYANKA IN MOSCOW. EXACTLY. THE SAME LANGUAGE USED IN ORWELL'S '1984". DON'T YOU REALIZE (accelerated heartbeat) WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHEN YOU HAND OVER YOUR "GOD" GIVEN MIND TO THE SPINMASTERS? THEY CAN CALL TORTURE ANYTHING THEY WANT (and Cheney and John Yoo did),

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As soon as you start using language like "lib loons", you lose all credibility. Name-calling is not a substitute for analysis.
Former heads of CIA and Dept of

Not stupid, but much, much better informed than you. You apparently buy into whatever spin the government puts out. The craft of "soft" interrogation, as opposed to brutal torture, is a very well developed technique that yields information that can be legally used because not obtained through torture. Do a little research into the subject before you mouth off about something on which you are completely ignorant.
The best > > proof is that we got Bin LAden himself through information obtained via enhanced interrogation.
Says who?
A fact that send you lib loons
Again, name-calling because you have no information and you are either incapable of analysis or choose not to use it.
into a hissy fit, because it's a concrete example of how wrong and dangerous your ideas are.
Hey! He is capable of a rational statement attacking not people as "lib loons" but their

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

Precisely. We can exchange information without invective. This is, after all, a family newsgroup. Think of the children!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The differences which escape you are:
A - We did not kill the 3 detainees who were waterboarded
B - The detainees were terrorists, not domestic political dissidents that were opponents of Bush
C - We are fighting a worldwide war against terrorists that have shown time and time again that they seek to kill us all through any and all possible means.

I say as soon as you become identified as someone who shows up one fine day in alt.home.repair and starts one off topic thread after another, you;ve lost all credibility. The content of those constant off topic posts you start then qualifies you as an obvious liberal loon.
And also have no interest in even the most basic facts, otherwise you wouldn't be here demanding to know how we know waterboarding was used on just 3 detainees. It does show who is better informed.
From the LA Times, certainly no conservative think tank or appologist for Bush:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6
CIA chief confirms use of waterboarding THE NATION He cites the three past cases in arguing for coercion as an option. February 06, 2008|Greg Miller | Times Staff WriterCIA Director Michael V. Hayden said publicly for the first time Tuesday that his agency had used the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding on three Al Qaeda suspects, and he testified that depriving the agency of coercive methods would "increase the danger to America."
In the most detailed public comments on a CIA program that had been shrouded in secrecy for years, Hayden said the agency had used simulated drowning to extract crucial information from terrorism suspects in 2002 and 2003.
I've also seen Rumsfeld state the exact same thing in an interview.

So, now being caught ignorant of the facts, you're off to "everyone is a liar." Then like Heybub said, the number of detainees waterboarded could just as well be zero, so let's use that.
>The craft of "soft"

We were not after information for legal use. We were after information to save lives in the war against terror, another basic fact you can't grasp. An example of how that works is Bin Laden is gone, without the need of a trial.

Again, you need to spend more time watching and reading the news instead of just floundering around. It's been widely reported by almost every major news organization that the key tip to unraveling where Bin Laden's location was provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 911, after enhanced interrogation was used on him. Sources told reporters that only after use of those techniques did he start giving forth info and by the end, he was essentially running graduate level classes in Al-Qaea operations. One of the things he gave up was the name of one of Bin Laden't couriers. That courier was then identified, located and tracked back to Bin LAden's compound.
The unfortunate thing is that while Obama had the benefit of the intelligence gained through enhanced interrogation, he has chosen to stop it. That mean the next president, arriving in 19 months, won't have that to help keep us safe. Of course, there is the possibility that Obama will reverse himself on enhanced interrogation too, just like he did on closing Gitmo, civilian trial in NYC for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, quickly ending the wars, not starting new ones, etc.

No, just annoyed at lib loons like you who don't have the most basic info and go around acting like you're so smart and superior to the rest of us. You remind me of Whoopi Goldberg, constantly making a total ass of herself on national TV while ignorant of the most basic information.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sigh. There is so much wrong with that outburst that it would takes pages to deal with it.
1. Enhanced interrogation IS torture. The Orwellian phrase was created by John Yoo in the Bush Administration and used by Cheney and others. Calling a spade a manure fork doesn't change the nature of the spade.
2. Torturing SUSPECTED terrorists (a) doesn't elicit legally usable information and (b) only creates legions more Islamists eager to become "martyrs".
3. Using well-developed "soft" interrogation techniques, in which the suspect is brought to VOLUNTARILY cooperate with his captors, is a much more practical way of getting good results without creating ancillary bad results. Maybe our govt. should be more sophisticated and less afraid to learn from others.
4. Who are you to invoke "most of us"? How did you obtain those stats? People who use "we" instead of "I" are hiding behind their lack of real knowledge.
5. The ISLAMIST (NOT "Islamic" -- big, big, big difference -- do you understand the difference?) "terrorist scum" are going to proliferate anywhere the young men have no work and no hope and are indoctrinated from childhood by the ISLAMIST mullahs. It is going to take generations to bring about change in these totalitarian theocracies. Too bad we didn't realize earlier that not everybody is like us, and not everybody wants us invading their countries.
6. So what we need to do is get our *** out of no-win situations where we are pissing away trillions of dollars and creating new "martyrs" by the gross, while starving our own people of human services like health, nutrition, child care, school sports, teachers, national parks, senior protection, etc.etc. New horrors revealed daily. The only ones who want to keep these Grand Guinol shows going are the generals who don't know any better, and the contractors who are making $ like bandits.
7. Last, we need to do away with the umpty "intelligence" agencies (I bet you don't know how many there are in our govt) and merge them into a few well-staffed by non-***kissing professionals who care about doing their jobs, rather than undercutting each other. THEN we might get some good intelligence. Like what would have prevented 9/11 for just one.
You're not going to understand any of this, but maybe some other AHR's will.
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

So, what IS torture. The classic definition is the infliction of severe pain. Many definitions now include infliction of severe mental distress. Some would consider all of the following to be "torture:" * Waterboarding - there is no pain, but there is exceptional panic. * Sleep deprivation * Continuous playing of Lawrence Welk music * Smearing of menstrual blood on the subject * Exposing the subject to pictures of nude women * Abusing the subject's family in his presence * Mock execution of the subject's co-terrorists * Food provided smells funny
None of these fit the classic definition of "severe pain." All probably fit the expanded definition of mental anguish.
In my view, the "mental distress" button is a slippery-slope. Once acknowledged, there is no limit to what COULD be so described (i.e., incarceration, deprivation of mail privileges, etc.).

Of course interrogation, enhanced or otherwise, elicits usable information. There wouldn't be any point to the process otherwise. We're not talking about confessions, we're talking about actionable intelligence:
* What is the password to this encrypted file? * Where is the bomb? * Where can we find Achmed al-BoomBoom? * How did you get on the base?
As to your point about enhanced interrogation acting as an incentive for others to join the queue, if that is true, then the terrorists are dumber than even I think they are.

Sometimes a bargain can be struck. Tell me what I want to know and I'll give you a cookie. Regrettably, as someone who has interrogated hundreds (as a police officer), I can tell you that it is rare to depend on catharsis to get the facts. Quite often, you have to beat the shit out of the suspect to even get his name!
(Just kidding on that last.)

Yep. Totally true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not a question of "dumb" or "smart". You need to understand that these people think differently from us. We -- esp. the Jews -- celebrate LIFE. The Islamists celebrate DEATH. [Note my careful usage of ISLAMISTS, not Islamics].
Yes, this is very hard to understand, bu do try. Look at their writings, their culture, the preaching of their mullahs. They are indoctrinated from very young -- as well as with actual sections of the Koran -- to believe that this life is only a preparation for the next (which I guess they have in common with SOME Christians). Many of them actually believe that if they blow themselves and 'n' "infidels", they will go straight to their version of heaven and enjoy, etc,etc.etc.
A culture that can do what some Palestinians did a few years ago does think differently from us. You may remember seeing the picture all over the Web of a tiny child, maybe 10+ months old? dressed in a tiny suicide bomber outfit.
You may also have seen the video of 3-year-old girls (in head scarfs!!!) repeating what they had been taught: That it is Good to be a Shahid "martyr".
Conditioning is a powerful, and a scary thing.
So these folks are not "dumb". They know exactly what they are doing. Some out of hopelessness about jobs, marriage, future. Some out of indoctrination.
We in the U.S. have terrible people who are also in despair about life and turn on others -- rape, murder, arson, torture, etc. And they supposedly had the advantage of growing up in a (sort of) free society.
What can you expect from young men who grew up in a theocratic dictatorship where free speech doesn't exist, and the mullahs' version of morality is the rule? (While the top dogs drink, f**k, violate every canon of Islam...)
HB
It does seem counter-intuitive, since we think that most humans hang on to life as long as possible. It's very hard to put one's head in a place that believes "martyrdom" is a Good Thing.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, we should help them celebrate.

...and you think this is a good thing?

...and you think this is acceptable?

I have no problems helping them get their 72 virgins, as long as they do it alone. You?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

No, it's not.
"Terrorists" ("Unlawful Enemy Combatants" - UEC) are not criminals and do not fall under the jurisdiction of ANY criminal proceeding. According the the traditional rules of war (and all the conventions and protocols on the subject), they are outside ALL legal proceedings and can be dealt with summarily by the military commanders in the field.
Our first UCE was Major John Andre. Andre was captured September 23, 1780 and hanged by George Washington ten days later.
The decision as to whether someone is an UCE is solely up to the President, under his Article II powers, or his designee, and cannot be gainsaid by the courts or the congress.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/13/2011 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Of course, when those powers are applied OUTSIDE US TERRITORY, one should not be surprised if the government or local population take exception to such a determination. And not being subject to US law, if they choose to to take forceful exception to one of their residents being snatched or killed, well, under their laws of their country, US is in the wrong.
Trying to cloth the exercise of raw naked power under a veneer of law and civilization is pointless. About the only category of scum that the international community has agreed is fair game is pirates on the open sea. They can pretty much be killed with impunity, since they are a PITA to all seafaring nations.
Standard disclaimer- not advocating that any country should roll over and allow anyone to mount attacks on their population. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. But the rule of law has nothing to do with it- it is the rule of the jungle, and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.