I really don't put much stock in what a democratic committee member who is against all forms of torture would say. Of course she will say that. It's telling that the head of the CIA who has spoken out against waterboarding would not deny it's value in extracting information. News reports widely state that waterboarding contributed to the success and capture - specifically in yielding the name of the courier. Now, are all these news organizations including CNN and NBA - accusing the head of the intel committee to be a liar??? I think you are putting the bag over your head man. You feel torture is ethically wrong, which I can respect. But to say it doesn't work is highly questionable - especially considering Pinetta's statements.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/03/feinstein-intel-torture-bin-laden/ The thing to remember is, there is no one more partisan than her. And she has a ton invested against these techniques. She is totally biased. .
To say it doesn't work is accurate even if it did lead to the path that caught OBL. The problem with it is that people under it will say anything, and there are numerous cases of detainees who gave tons of false information as well as legit information, but wasted tons of resources, time, and manpower. So even when something useful can be sifted out, it doesn't mean it's effective. Souffan's testimony before congress spoke directly to this, and showed how other forms of interrogation were far more effective.
No. That is a subjective statement. An opinion which you hold. We are talking about facts here. did information leading to the killing of OBL come from it.
The more the facts come out about the actual raid the more uneasy I am with it. While I agree that if any deserved death it was OBL this is starting to look less and less noble and heroic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42906279/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden Bin Laden 'firefight': Only one man was armed He was killed early on at guest house, and four others — including al-Qaida leader — never fired a shot Four of the five people shot to death in the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, including the al-Qaida leader himself, were unarmed and never fired a shot, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday — an account that differs markedly from the Obama administration's original claims that the Navy SEALs came under heavy small-arms fire in a prolonged firefight. According to the officials' account, as the first SEAL team moved into the compound, they took small-arms fire from the guest house in the compound. The SEALs returned fire, killing bin Laden's courier and the courier's wife, who died in the crossfire. The second SEAL team entered the first floor of the main residence and could see a man standing in the dark with one hand behind his back. Fearing he was hiding a weapon, the SEALs shot and killed the lone man, who turned out to be unarmed. As the U.S. commandos moved through the house, they found several stashes of weapons and barricades, as if the residents were prepared for a violent and lengthy standoff — which never materialized. The SEALs then made their way up a staircase, where they ran into one of bin Laden's sons on the way down. The Americans immediately shot and killed the son, who was also unarmed. Once on the third floor, the commandos threw open the door to bin Laden's bedroom. One of bin Laden's wives rushed toward the NAVY SEAL in the door, who shot her in the leg. Then, without hesitation, the same commando turned his gun on bin Laden, standing in what appeared to be pajamas, and fire two quick shots, one to the chest and one to the head. Although there were weapons in that bedroom, Bin Laden was also unarmed at the time he was shot. Instead of a chaotic firefight, US officials says, the American commando assault was a precision operation, with SEALs moving carefully through the compound, room to room, floor to floor. In fact, most of the operation was spent in what the military calls “exploiting the site,” gathering up the computers, hard drives, cellphones and files that could provide valuable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives and potential operations worldwide. The U.S. officials describing the operation said the SEALs carefully gathered up 22 women and children to ensure they were not harmed. Some of the women were put in “flexi-cuffs” the plastic straps used to bind someone’s hands at the wrists, and left them for Pakistani security forces to discover. But despite the fact that only one of those killed was armed, everyone was considered a serious threat, the U.S. officials said. Accounts of the operation had varied widely in the first few days after it was completed. White House officials initially suggested bin Laden had been holding a gun and perhaps firing at U.S. forces. There was a report that he used his wife as a human shield. The Associated Press quoted U.S. officials on Tuesday as saying that the SEALs shot him after they saw him appear to lunge for a weapon. CIA Director Leon Panetta told "PBS NewsHour" that bin Laden "made some threatening moves" that "represented a clear threat to our guys" but was not more specific about what the unarmed terrorist did as the commandos engaged others at the compound and burst into his room.
Why? It was a kill team. There has been a standing order to kill OBL. Did you have a problem with that?
I'm not shocked this is how it went down. If the operation went as well as we had hoped, then the chances of meeting any armed resistance was minimal. Either way, I really don't give a s**t though. You're dealing with someone who murdered 3,000 innocent people, a KOS order for all involved is just peachy with me.
Question the usual government spin cycle about the actual details, not on the team who followed direct orders.
So as long as they aren't noble we don't have to be either? Why then do you argue about waterboarding when Al Qaeda beheads people. I am surprised you would take that attitude.
They were following orders and did their jobs. You don't sign up to be US Navy SEALS so you can be diplomats.
As I said before. OBL deserved to die but rather than the brave battle under withering enemy fire we were initially told we have something that is more like a cold blooded assassination. It doesn't make me feel any more better than shooting a down a rabid dog. You know it has to be done but its not noble or heroic.
The less fire they took means the more awesome they were. They were fast, killing people before they had a chance to pick up guns. that is the idea.
As grownups we should understand why we don't revel in gore or vengeance and would like to believe that we are civilized. We can acknowledge what needs to be done but not take pleasure in the shooting of unarmed people.
I did read that their orders included if the possibility of getting him alive was there, they were to do it. But with how much the story and details have changed over the last couple of days, who knows exactly what they were instructed.
