I am trying to square the rationale

[byu71]

here. We will not waterboard Bin Laden or anyone, but if we get them in our sights we will kill them. Is waterboarding really that bad that it is worse than being killed.

[myboynoah]

here. We will not waterboard Bin Laden or anyone, but if we get them in our sights we will kill them. Is waterboarding really that bad that it is worse than being killed.

You ask too many questions. I'd be careful if I were you.

Yeah, kill them with nary a trial or due process.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I don't know why the democrats are bothering with this issue. I just don't see this being a political winner for them. So far, they haven't ruled out possible criminal prosecutions against Bush officials.

In a recent Gallup poll, 38% of respondants were in favor of a criminal investigation. 58% either wanted no investigation or a noncriminal investigation.

Pay lip service to the lefties and do some kind of noncriminal inquiry into the matter. But it seems like a politically bad idea to go after a pound of flesh when it's been revealed that the waterboarding of the three high level Al-Qaeda operatives yielded valuable information.

[myboynoah]

I don't know why the democrats are bothering with this issue. I just don't see this being a political winner for them. So far, they haven't ruled out possible criminal prosecutions against Bush officials.

In a recent Gallup poll, 38% of respondants were in favor of a criminal investigation. 58% either wanted no investigation or a noncriminal investigation.

Pay lip service to the lefties and do some kind of noncriminal inquiry into the matter. But it seems like a politically bad idea to go after a pound of flesh when it's been revealed that the waterboarding of the three high level Al-Qaeda operatives yielded valuable information.

This is an interesting news analysis of the situation within which Obama finds himself:

Washington Post: Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations - White House Tries to Quell Controversy

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the last two paragraphs. It seems that Obama and his team have been more than happy to blame Bush for most everything and to engage Cheney. They themselves have kept the past administration front and center.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is an interesting news analysis of the situation within which Obama finds himself:

Washington Post: Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations - White House Tries to Quell Controversy

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the last two paragraphs. It seems that Obama and his team have been more than happy to blame Bush for most everything and to engage Cheney. They themselves have kept the past administration front and center.

What's the Democrat's greatest political weakness? They're weak on national security and defense. This handwringing over whether waterboarding mass-murders seems tedious and would seem to exploit, on behalf of the GOP, the Democrats' greatest weakness. Despite Abu Graib, which was worse than the waterboarding though it wasn't done at the request of the White House, Bush still won reelection in 2004.

The GOP's greatest weakness right now is a reputation for incompetance, thanks to the Bush administration. It's now coming out that the techniques worked and provided valuable intelligence. Why bring to light an issue that makes the GOP seem competant? Dick Cheney is not a guy to tangle with on this issue. He's a heavyweight who comes across as extremely competant and forceful in interviews and debates. He utterly destroyed John Edwards to a point where he never recovered from the lightweight label (yeah, I know his sexual escapades have now totally destroyed his political career).

Apparently Obama was smart enough to try to move past the issue, though his method has turned out to open up a pandora's box. If they end up holding hearings on this issue, then the democrats will quite possibly march a former vice-president into questioning.

How's that dialog going to go? You're going to have weenies like Leahy asking things like "did you sanction the use of waterboarding?" Dick Cheney then says "hell yeah, and you know who we waterboarded Pat? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- the mastermind of September 11. And we received information from the waterboarding that drastically reduced the operational abilities of al Qaeda so another September 11 didn't happen during our administration." Hell, people were sympathetic to Oliver North and his "neat idea." Oliver North almost beat an incumbent Senator from Virginia, he lost by 3 points and that was after John Warner endorsed a conservative 3rd party candidate who got 11% of the vote. How would Cheney's testimony play to the public?

[cowboy]

here. We will not waterboard Bin Laden or anyone, but if we get them in our sights we will kill them. Is waterboarding really that bad that it is worse than being killed.

Waterboarding is not torture! The GITMO detainees haven't seen torture till they have to sit through PS I Love You on a date night.

[wuapinmon]

here. We will not waterboard Bin Laden or anyone, but if we get them in our sights we will kill them. Is waterboarding really that bad that it is worse than being killed.

This is a good and fair question.

I would say that torture is designed to inflict gruesome pain (physical or psychological) on the victim. The goal is to extract information, not kill them (though that could be a result, a dead 'witness' is useless if no information has been received).

We can divide killing by intent, but we're talking about 'killing' bin Laden. Since the Constitution forbids cruel punishment, whatever method of execution we select should be as quick as possible. That execution could take two forms. Situational: We find him with a predator drone and take him out with a hellfire, or purposeful: we capture him and execute him. I would view cruel punishment as being anything which is designed to prolong the agony of dying, therefore, I see killing him as being decidedly different from torturing him.

I think bin Laden deserves to die, but he should not be tortured before doing so. Whether we take him out by assassin, situationally, or by execution, it should not violate the prohibition against cruelty.

I do not think these forms of execution are 'cruel':

1. Electrocution
2. Lethal Injection
3. Firing Squad
4. Gas Chamber
5. Hanging
6. Guillotine

I do think that:

1. Garroting
2. Drawing and Quartering
3. Beheading by any other means
4. Stoning
5. Drowning
6. Burning Alive

are cruel.

[tooblue]

You ask too many questions. I'd be careful if I were you.

Yeah, kill them with nary a trial or due process.

It's war ... or, wait, maybe it's not war? BYU71 are you sure your first two years of college was a waste of time. You're pretty darn smart sometimes.

[byu71]

It's war ... or, wait, maybe it's not war? BYU71 are you sure your first two years of college was a waste of time. You're pretty darn smart sometimes.

I was convinced yesterday if I had paid attention those first two years, I would be smart all the time not just sometimes.

[KillerDog]

I think there are some differences in the "why" behind each act. We are willing to kill Osama as an alternative to letting him roam free and possibly, after a trial, as punishment for his crimes. If we have control of Osama such that he can be tortured, then he can't roam free. I don't believe that we support torture of prisoners as a criminal punishment...something to do with the Constitution or its Amendments or something.

I think a capture of Osama combined with intelligence of a pending attack on the US by his organization would result in torture.

[tooblue]

I was convinced yesterday if I had paid attention those first two years, I would be smart all the time not just sometimes.

zing. lol

[BlueHair]

I don't know why the democrats are bothering with this issue. I just don't see this being a political winner for them. So far, they haven't ruled out possible criminal prosecutions against Bush officials.

In a recent Gallup poll, 38% of respondants were in favor of a criminal investigation. 58% either wanted no investigation or a noncriminal investigation.

Pay lip service to the lefties and do some kind of noncriminal inquiry into the matter. But it seems like a politically bad idea to go after a pound of flesh when it's been revealed that the waterboarding of the three high level Al-Qaeda operatives yielded valuable information.

I wish more politicians would do the right thing and not worry about it being a political winner. If Bush administration people broke the law, they need to be prosecuted. They shouldn't get a free pass. Hell, they wanted to impeach Clinton because he lied about banging a chick with a cigar.

[il Padrino Ute]

I wish more politicians would do the right thing and not worry about it being a political winner. If Bush administration people broke the law, they need to be prosecuted. They shouldn't get a free pass. Hell, they wanted to impeach Clinton because he lied about banging a chick with a cigar.

I just wish politicians would remember that they were sent there to represent their constituents, not themselves.

[byu71]

I wish more politicians would do the right thing and not worry about it being a political winner. If Bush administration people broke the law, they need to be prosecuted. They shouldn't get a free pass. Hell, they wanted to impeach Clinton because he lied about banging a chick with a cigar.

What law? It will come down to a political law, not a real law.

It is odd to me that liberals, ultra liberals that is, want this thing pursued and strictly interpreted. However, when it comes to laws concerning undocumenteds, they would turn a blind eye.

I guess we could all be accused of this. Laws that are important depend on our political point of view. That is why I firmly believe if this thing is pursued it is about politics and has nothing to do with the law.

[BlueHair]

I just wish politicians would remember that they were sent there to represent their constituents, not themselves.

Amen.