Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed DID NOT LEAD TO THE CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!!

Discussion in 'United States' started by toddwv, May 3, 2011.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,371
    Likes Received:
    40,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You prefer "unlawful" OK.............if all you have are silly semantics you have nothing.
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Symantics isn't MY argument mate!

    OTHER people were claiming that treatment of their detainees was okay and compliant with international law on account of LABELS they claim they have. So I want to see where this is permissable persuant to these alleged definitions.

    "unlawful combatant" will do just fine. So show me THAT definition, how these detainees fit it and show how it authorizes precluding basic human rights.
     
  3. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Without reading this pointless thread, I can say that you are absolutely right. Waterboarding KSM did not lead to the capture of Bin Laden. It did, however, lead to the killing of Bin Laden. You can thank George W. Bush for making it all possible for Obama. :mrgreen:
     
  4. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    as much as I hate to admit it....you are right. Anything that lead to OBL's slaughter or KSM's eventual assumption of room temperature is okay in my book. You've really Got to start to question the motivations of people who side with terrorists' rights...they cannot possibly be that blind to the histories of these pigs or what they would do if they got the chance once more.
     
  5. markrc99

    markrc99 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The premise of this entire thread is what moral standard and legal obligation does or should the U.S. deploy with respect to time sensitive intelligence or potential to attain it. It's nothing more than hokey dog$h!+! The evidence is no less than staggering, that from the late '80s to Abbottabad, the CIA knew exactly where bin Laden was. For the most part this account spans a timeframe from 1995 to 2004. That said, we know that bin Laden's heavily guarded compound in Sudan (where he frequented from '91 to 96) was also in plain sight.

    We know that in July of '01 bin Laden checked into a U.S. hospital in Dubai and was visited by a regional, senior member of the CIA. We know U.S. Special Forces PERMITED his departure from Tora Bora. A week or so after bin Laden's purported death, Afghanistan's former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh was interviewed, stating that beginning in 2007 he repeatedly told Pentagon officials of bin Laden's proximity in Abbottabad. It's interesting that bin Laden's complex in Kandahar was similar to the compound he was found at 14 years later. Which itself was a known al Qaeda safe house and had been raided in '03. Too many make the great assumption, that bin Laden was ever in hiding.
     
  6. John1735

    John1735 Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,521
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed DID NOT LEAD TO THE CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!!"

    Thats a true statement folks.

    Because it did not lead to the capture of Bin Laden.

    What it did lead to however, was bin ladens death, it led to his being shot in the head by a U.S. Navy Seal and being made into fish food.

    Since some want to quibble over semantics.
     
    mikezila and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Never Left

    Never Left Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30,220
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah. a little politcal cover for El Presidente` Soetoro from his personal embedded press organization that has surrendered their constitutional right to be a propaganda arm of the white house agenda, Its all BS, but, what do you expect from MSNBC?
     
  8. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you typing about?

    Your own post proves waterboarding worked on KSM.

    Didnt get his name, but they were following the guy, until they got his name.

    They had the right guy, and they started following him in 2003.


    Oh and I saw an article yesterday that says, Obama knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in 2010, but waited a year.

    Obama Knew Bin Laden's Location Since Summer Of 2010
     
  9. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,371
    Likes Received:
    40,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The FBI agent admitted last night of OReilly he wasn't there when the waterboarding occurred so he doesn't really know what they did or did not get from it.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,371
    Likes Received:
    40,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only legal combatants get the protection from interrogation, any interrogation. Spys and saboteurs and those who do not engage in lawful combat do not.

    An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]
    The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."[3]

    While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document.[1] Article 4 of Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]

    The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free—and should be encouraged—to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

    Next time look it up yourself.
     
  12. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Leon Panetta says it did.

    Of course Obama has since had Panetta waterboarded so I don't think he would dare repeat that confirmation today.
     
  13. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    47,270
    Likes Received:
    26,910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the former head of Amnesty International USA, William Schulz, and he stated that the only international human rights instrument that covers illegal/unlawful combatants is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, the ICCPR permits signatory states to derogate their obligations in times of public emergency.

    In the final analysis, terrorists and illegal combatants exist within a legal black hole, and one of the main reasons for this is the international community's failure to reach a consensus on their status, leaving them without any legal protections beyond the ICCPR (which, as I pointed out, can be suspended under certain conditions).
     
  14. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you actually care about KSM's rights as a human being, of which he most certainly is NOT. Then you are a seditious traitor to America and deserve to have your phone and internet connections tapped and monitored by the FBI as a traitor terrorist sympathizer.

    It's time the Government stood up and crushed enemy sympathy in America.
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,371
    Likes Received:
    40,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They should have no legal protections, that is why we have rules of war that nations operate under, they way to get them to comply is to NOT give protections to them if they don't.
     
  16. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You should go make a citizen's arrest! LMAO
     
  17. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    39,419
    Likes Received:
    15,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yawn. Yawn again.
     
  18. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama and torture

    As the Obama administration prepares to begin its second term, with its liberal and “left” apologists speculating on prospects for progressive action, events have once again made clear that the Democratic president is continuing and deepening the crimes of his predecessor.

    In his first four years in office, Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, worked aggressively to shut down all investigations into CIA torture and other crimes committed in the name of the “war on terrorism.” It intervened in case after case to quash lawsuits seeking to hold accountable those who had illegally abducted and tortured thousands of individuals. It sought dismissal of legal actions seeking to uncover information about these crimes by invoking state secrecy.

    The result of this sordid policy is that the torturers and those who gave them orders, from the CIA interrogators all the way to the White House, have enjoyed complete immunity. This is the foul political climate in which a fascistic film like Zero Dark Thirty, implicitly justifying torture and implicating the entire American people in this crime, can receive multiple awards and critical acclaim.

    But, as a report this week in the Washington Post makes clear, the actions of the Obama White House have not been directed merely at covering up and exonerating the crimes of the past, but of making it possible to continue them on a qualitatively new level.

    The Post recounts the fate of three men—two of them Swedish citizens and the third a longtime British resident, all of Somali origin—who were detained as they traveled through the African country of Djibouti and thrown into prison cells, where they were subjected to repeated interrogations by US intelligence operatives over the course of several months.

    The supposed crime of these secret detainees was supporting al-Shabab, an Islamist militia that has controlled large swathes of southern Somalia. While the organization has been implicated in no attacks against the US, it has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by Washington, which has placed bounties on the heads of al-Shabab leaders.

    Underlying this designation is the US government’s bid to exploit the “war on terrorism” pretext to tighten American control over Somalia, a strategic territory whose coastline abuts the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean through which much of the world’s oil is shipped.

    Entitled, “Renditions Continue Under Obama, Despite Due-Process Concerns,” the Post article states: “The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition—the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process—despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

    Arrested last August, the three men were produced in a New York federal court only on December 21. What had happened to them over the course of the intervening four months was not disclosed by federal prosecutors.

    The report cites a 2011 case against another alleged al-Shabab supporter, an Eritrean, who was rendered to a Nigerian jail for US interrogation. Testimony of an American interrogator in his case described how the individual was first subjected to illegal methods of interrogation by a “dirty team” of US agents before being turned over to a “clean team” that read him his Miranda rights against self-incrimination and then sought to obtain a confession that could hold up in a US court of law.

    Depicted here is what former Vice President Dick Cheney once described as going over to the “dark side,” a euphemism that encompassed rendition, torture and extra-judicial killings.

    The report on the three men charged as al-Shabab supporters comes just weeks after the European Court of Human Rights issued a stinging decision ruling that the abduction, rendition and protracted “forced disappearance” of Khaled El-Masri, who was grabbed by the CIA in Macedonia nearly nine years ago, in and of themselves “amounted to torture.”
     
  19. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why are you quoting me and then posting this. I wasn't talking about Obama and I posted this months ago.
     
  20. 110db

    110db New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, I feel really bad that the POS was waterboarded.
     
  21. KSigMason

    KSigMason Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, technically we didn't capture OBL since capturing requires to have been brought in alive. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here.
     
  22. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go see "Zero Dark Thirty." It explains the whole thing......

    The one CIA woman who worked on it the longest and put it altogether....based on ALL the information given up, which included that given up during Waterboarding, was pretty much the one person responsible for analyzing the different pieces of intelligence that led to finding the courier, which led them to Obama. She was on it for 10 years; starting early during the Bush administration.
     

Share This Page