Osama Bin Laden DEAD!

bravo said:
That interesting Onecell....as an exercise in logic, critical thinking, and morality.......suppose

One man holds the lives of 100 or 1000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 people in his hands....does our moral code prevent us from doing EVERYTHING possible to save them....???
Is there really a line we must not cross at all costs...????
We all know, as a general rule, "The end does not justify the means" or is should the rule be , "The end SOMETIMES justifies the means".....????

Your thoughts.....
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's not a bad question, and it's one I've grappled with. But in the end, it's a no brainer for me. America does stand for something in the world, and has for a long, long time. We do have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the bad guys, and be consistent with that. America doesn't torture, period. If you start to make exceptions on that here or there, it hurts us in ways that go far beyond whatever benefits we'd get from the intel provided. The rule of law is the rule of law; we can't modify it on the run, just to suit the situation, without seriously undermining the rule of law in general.

It's the same thing as negotiating with terrorists. Do we make an exception on that, if we know it will save lives in that one instance? It's a tough question, but ultimately, if we do make that exception, it sets a precedent, and opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities beyond that one action....
 
Damocles said:
It's not really equivalency. Would you rather be waterboarded or shot in the face? It's kind of like the question, "Would you rather be in the coffin, or giving the eulogy?" It might be a "Sophie's Choice" moment and realistically kind of foolish, but supporting shooting them all in the face over waterboarding seems a bit crazy. I'd rather be alive, even if I had been waterboarded.

Does this mean waterboarding is morally correct? Not really, but neither is shooting people in the face without an attempt to capture... at least not usually.

I don't think the discussion progresses the question that Leon Panetta talked about when he said that he thinks there will always be discussion about where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of would I rather be waterboarded or shot in the face. With one, we're talking about setting interrogation standards for our country. In the other, we're talking about combat operations & protocol for hunting down a known outlaw & mass murderer.

People kill people in combat, but we understand that's the nature of combat; to me, it's not a moral question on that level. You can say "should war exist" might be the moral question, but it does, so it's basically a moot point. We don't equate killing in combat as "murder," and have standards for unlawful killings during combat operations.

Interrogation methods are quite a different question. I think virtually everyone agrees that we draw the line somewhere, and need to; no one supports the rack, or hot irons. So the question becomes, where do we as a country draw that line, to be consistent with the morality we profess as a nation with our laws & conduct?
 
Onceler said:
It's not a matter of would I rather be waterboarded or shot in the face. With one, we're talking about setting interrogation standards for our country. In the other, we're talking about combat operations & protocol for hunting down a known outlaw & mass murderer.

People kill people in combat, but we understand that's the nature of combat; to me, it's not a moral question on that level. You can say "should war exist" might be the moral question, but it does, so it's basically a moot point. We don't equate killing in combat as "murder," and have standards for unlawful killings during combat operations.

Interrogation methods are quite a different question. I think virtually everyone agrees that we draw the line somewhere, and need to; no one supports the rack, or hot irons. So the question becomes, where do we as a country draw that line, to be consistent with the morality we profess as a nation with our laws & conduct?
Click to expand...

Right, that was one of my points in my response. Just saying, "We shouldn't talk about that because it isn't equivalent" is a bit dismissive without reason. They don't have to be equivalent.

In a world where what we do gets out immediately, and where we have always stood on the moral high ground, we should be careful not to cross lines. I agree. Is this non-lethal method of coercion where we should draw the line?

This is what we should be discussing.

Another question we should be asking is should we give orders to kill regardless of surrender?

In a case such as this, I don't think there was an alternative. You have to assume that they had a doomsday scenario, one button to push that would have changed the mission outcome entirely. You shoot them in the head to immediately take away all movement, then double-tap to ensure death so that nobody you thought you had taken out can reach that button and take out the mission team.
 
Damocles said:
It's not really equivalency. Would you rather be waterboarded or shot in the face? It's kind of like the question, "Would you rather be in the coffin, or giving the eulogy?" It might be a "Sophie's Choice" moment and realistically kind of foolish, but supporting shooting them all in the face over waterboarding seems a bit crazy. I'd rather be alive, even if I had been waterboarded.

Does this mean waterboarding is morally correct? Not really, but neither is shooting people in the face without an attempt to capture... at least not usually.

I don't think the discussion progresses the question that Leon Panetta talked about when he said that he thinks there will always be discussion about where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is NOT moral equivalency, but two sides of the same black ops coin. To claim one is OK, but the other is not-especially since the one that is OK is the bullets in the face and the one that is supposedly morally wrong is pouring water in the face. The fact of the matter is that 3 terrorist's, 1 the master mind of 9/11, were subjected to water boarding-not all terrorist's. We have a CIA tasked with getting information. In these 3 instances they were permitted to use an enhanced technique in order to protect American lives...they performed this technique under the safest most controlled environment possible-the men are still breathing-bin Laden is dead.
 
Damocles said:
Right, that was one of my points in my response. Just saying, "We shouldn't talk about that because it isn't equivalent" is a bit dismissive without reason. They don't have to be equivalent.

In a world where what we do gets out immediately, and where we have always stood on the moral high ground, we should be careful not to cross lines. I agree. Is this non-lethal method of coercion where we should draw the line?

This is what we should be discussing.
Click to expand...

Okay, I get where you're coming from. I was dismissive of it because both Dixie & ID did present them as equivalents, or at least that's the way it seemed to me. But in the context of the broader discussion, I understand what you're saying.

As for killing OBL, I have to take their word that he was reaching for something, and that they felt enough of a threat to shoot. I haven't seen a great deal of outcry around the world, but I know there has been some questioning of that, and of the legality of the killing. Without further evidence, I have to believe that the solidiers did what they felt they needed to do, in tough circumstances where they had to make a split-second decision.
 
Onceler said:
Okay, I get where you're coming from. I was dismissive of it because both Dixie & ID did present them as equivalents, or at least that's the way it seemed to me. But in the context of the broader discussion, I understand what you're saying.

As for killing OBL, I have to take their word that he was reaching for something, and that they felt enough of a threat to shoot. I haven't seen a great deal of outcry around the world, but I know there has been some questioning of that, and of the legality of the killing. Without further evidence, I have to believe that the solidiers did what they felt they needed to do, in tough circumstances where they had to make a split-second decision.
Click to expand...

I never stated it was moral equivalency-I was pointing out your cognizant dissonance on the matter. The mission was a "kill" mission. They were never after him to surrender.
 
Onceler said:
Honestly, it's not a bad question, and it's one I've grappled with. But in the end, it's a no brainer for me. America does stand for something in the world, and has for a long, long time. We do have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the bad guys, and be consistent with that. America doesn't torture, period. If you start to make exceptions on that here or there, it hurts us in ways that go far beyond whatever benefits we'd get from the intel provided. The rule of law is the rule of law; we can't modify it on the run, just to suit the situation, without seriously undermining the rule of law in general.

It's the same thing as negotiating with terrorists. Do we make an exception on that, if we know it will save lives in that one instance? It's a tough question, but ultimately, if we do make that exception, it sets a precedent, and opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities beyond that one action....
Click to expand...
The rule of law is the rule of law; we can't modify it on the run, just to suit the situation, without seriously undermining the rule of law in general.

But don't we do exactly that in a lot of situations.....every time a cop fires his gun, an investigation ensues to determine if it was a righteous act...the same thing when anyone harms another and claims self defense....the term self defense itself is open to interpretation....
Seems to me, most laws are administered in varying ways....the degree of murder, the degree of robbery, the degree of fault, etc, etc....
So "the law is the law" isn't exactly engraved in stone is it.....

So to you I would assume, "The end NEVER justifies the means"......"the means" is engraved in stone, no matter what....
No problem with that, its a personal call.....but that was going to be my point..."its a personal call"....not to be forced on everyone, including the government.....personally, I value the lives of the innocent far, far, above the life and rights of the criminal.....its no contest if its my call, and I'd give the government that same leeway in dealing with the animals we find ourselves sharing the world with....
thanks for an honest and civil answer....thats the kind of give and take I enjoy....
 
Yurt said:
third time

i never said what you claimed i said....if i did...you would be copying it and pasting it over and over....you lied and now the massive spin will begin. all you have to do is show my words. you won't, because you can't. per your usual.

:fu:
Click to expand...

and no surprise onceler doesn't back up yet another false claim :rolleyes:
 
Onzies said:
Quite simply, no, there isn't.

I'm actually a little embarassed for you. I thought you & ID were kind of being intentionally hyperbolic by trying to create some kind of equivalency initially, but now that I see you're really serious, it's actually hard to comprehend.

There is no equivalency whatsoever. Are you really suggesting that the way we took out OBL was an immoral act? Are you also suggesting that America should be a country that tortures, because what the hell, we already kill people during combat operations, so we can't go any lower morally anyway?
Click to expand...

No, I am suggesting, from YOUR moral standpoint... if pouring water in the face is "torture" ...blowing someone's face off has got to be worse! You seem to be upset that we poured water in the face of a terrorist to get the information which allowed us to find another terrorist, but it's perfectly alright that we blew his brains out when we found him! It's just an odd 'morality' you seem to have. Why was OBL not deserving of a trial by a jury of his peirs... habeas corpus, jurisprudence, and all that? Why was it not okay to waterboard the mastermind of 9/11, but okay to assissinate the man who gave the orders? I am just trying to reconclie your moral viewpoints here, and you keep running away from it. How about stopping to answer my questions, please?
 
Yurt said:
3rd time posted and 2nd time deleted

LOL

nobody pays attention to me mommy!!!!
Click to expand...

LOL, Ms. Damn Stankee (AKA Ice Dancer is Dumb Yankee's web-wife, I guess you're telling everybody she's your cyber-mommy.

Your cyber-mommy said this:

Ice Dancer said:
I never stated it was moral equivalency-I was pointing out your cognizant dissonance on the matter. The mission was a "kill" mission. They were never after him to surrender.
Click to expand...

Should I say it's no surprise your cyber-mommy doesn't back up yet another false claim? :rolleyes:

P.S. I'll ask your cyber-mommy to pay some attention to you.
 
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;810959 said:
LOL, Ms. Damn Stankee (AKA Ice Dancer is Dumb Yankee's web-wife, I guess you're telling everybody she's your cyber-mommy.

Your cyber-mommy said this:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Ice Dancer
I never stated it was moral equivalency-I was pointing out your cognizant dissonance on the matter. The mission was a "kill" mission. They were never after him to surrender.
Click to expand...

Should I say it's no surprise your cyber-mommy doesn't back up yet another false claim? :rolleyes:

P.S. I'll ask your cyber-mommy to pay some attention to you.
Click to expand...
More details to come later, but here’s what Chambliss said:
”I hope they went in with the idea of killing him, not capturing him. We needed to take this guy out. And I know that’s what the executive order said.
“The other thing you have to remember is that this was pitch dark. When they got into the room with bin Laden, they already had to go through some other folks downstairs, two of which they killed. And they were having to use explosives to blow doors open. By the time they got to him, they didn’t know what they would find.”


http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...iss-first-shot-at-osama-bin-laden-was-a-miss/

So she obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do......
​
 
bravo said:
So she obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do....
Click to expand...


Like how to get Bravo-birther to post an unconfirmed report from Saxby Chambliss?

Or are you saying Ms Damn Stankee is privy to secret information that she shares with you?


Did you know you're echoing Michael Moore?


I can't wait for "more details to come"

LOL!
 
bravo said:
More details to come later, but here’s what Chambliss said:
”I hope they went in with the idea of killing him, not capturing him. We needed to take this guy out. And I know that’s what the executive order said.
“The other thing you have to remember is that this was pitch dark. When they got into the room with bin Laden, they already had to go through some other folks downstairs, two of which they killed. And they were having to use explosives to blow doors open. By the time they got to him, they didn’t know what they would find.”




http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...iss-first-shot-at-osama-bin-laden-was-a-miss/

So she obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do......
​
Click to expand...

I have not read the stupid trolls demands and I don't run and fetch for trolls. It's an easy enough google for the troll if he truly was interested in sourcing it-but I assume correctly he's just being trollish.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I have not read the stupid trolls demands and I don't run and fetch for trolls. It's an easy enough google for the troll if he truly was interested in sourcing it-but I assume correctly he's just being trollish.
Click to expand...

Translation: I have no proof.
 
So waterboarding torture was the key?




“….One of Bin Laden's wives, Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah, has told Pakistani security officials that he may have lived in the country for more than seven years before his discovery.



She told investigators that Bin Laden had stayed in a nearby village before moving to the garrison town of Abbottabad.



"Amal told investigators that they lived in a village in Haripur district for nearly two and a half years before moving to Abbottabad at the end of 2005...”





http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/07/osama-bin-laden-compound-videos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top