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

[Country]

He was probably too busy kissing his ass goodbye.

[krw]

You would go for waterboarding him?

[bob haller]

CIA types admit there are other ways besides torture to extract information

and he should of been locked up for LIFE in supermax, a windowless soundproof box confined with no one to talk to even guards are trained to avoid idle chit chat with inmates, for life.

killing someone may make you feel better but ultimately the one you killed feels nothing, in bin ladens case he probably felt happy to be going to the virgins........

[ktos]

mm wrote in news: [e-mail]:

She was busy putting dark color in his beard.

[krw]

Oh, please! They didn't seem to have an alternative the *three* times it was used.

Good god, you're clueless. You don't think his living wouldn't have put others at risk?

Some give up their right to live. It really is that simple.

[HeyBub]

To my mind, the big question is why is water-boarding torture while shooting an unarmed man in the eye permitted?

[trader4]

ote:

+1. They only used it on 3 high level detainees and there is nothing to suggest that there was an alternative that would have worked. Let's see, we can get the info by alternative means, or we have to go get approval from the Director of CIA and the president to do something that is going to raise a lot of questions and open us all up to endless bitching from critics. Which would you choose?

+1

According to the reports, Bin Laden was scared and confused when they apprehended him, so I doubt he was happy to be shot. Quite the contrary, I came up with the only plausible scenario for his behavior that night. He could have picked up the nearby AK47 and gone down in a blaze of glory if he were the warrior bent on meeting Allah that he has his followers believing.

I think he didn't because he was probably unsure exactly who was raiding his compound and what would come next. He may have thought it was likely Pakistani forces that were there and that they would capture him. It's been suspected all along that he had friends in high places either in Pakistani intelligence or govt, or both. So, he could have thought he'd be taken into custody and then could use his friends to either effect his release, escape, or at least provide a comfortable living in some jail or under house arrest, not much different from the way he was already living. That's what they did with Khan the Pakistani who sold the state nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran.

[Steve B]

"HeyBub" wrote

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

[HeyBub]

Excellent point. Too, he could have been under the influence of hashish. Without questioning or an autopsy, we'll never know.

Wait! There may be a way! Is Howard Hughes still alive?

[Higgs Boson]

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

[HeyBub]

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.

[trader4]

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.

[Higgs Boson]

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

[Higgs Boson]

(Oops - hit wrong key...continuing reply)

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),

[Higgs Boson]

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

=A0Former 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.

=A0The best > > proof is that we got Bin LAden himself through information obtained via enhanced interrogation.

Says who?

=A0A 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

[Higgs Boson]

rrogation on other terrorists to prevent innocent people around the world f= rom dying. =A0That is your choice. =A0But dont' pretend it's some moral hig= h ground. =A0Most of us are all in favor of doing what has to be done to st= op the islamic terrorist scum.

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

[Higgs Boson]

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

[HeyBub]

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.

[HeyBub]

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.

[HeyBub]

Precisely. We can exchange information without invective. This is, after all, a family newsgroup. Think of the children!