Now liberals are up against facts that say Water boarding worked in some instances. And that water boarding led to information that ultimately led to finding Bin Laden in Pakistan. A land where Obama has been attacking with Military Drones. He then used the Bush Doctrine that stated we would take action against any country who harbored Terrorists. He sent in a Seal Team that Killed several men, including Usama Bin Laden who was unarmed.
Bottom line, its O.K. to kill terrorists, just don’t Water-board them!
Wallace To Donilon: If Shooting Bin Laden Is OK, ‘Why Can’t You Do Waterboarding?’
Wallace: We’ll stipulate — I think we’ll all stipulate — that bin Laden was a monster, but why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits — why is that over the line?
Donilon: Well, let me talk first about the first half of the statement that you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and here are the facts. We are at war with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is the emir or commander, indeed the only leader of al-Qaeda in its 22 year history. This was his residence and operational compound. Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon in the pitch black. It’s an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and booby traps and all manner of other kinds of destructive capabilities.
Wallace: Mr. Donilon, let me just make my point. I’m not asking you why it was OK to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I’m not second-guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do waterboarding? Why can’t you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?
Donilon: Because, well, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.
Wallace: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?
Donilon: We are at war with Osama bin Laden.
Wallace: We’re at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Donilon: It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action — for the forces to take the action that they took in this military operation against a military target.
Wallace: But why is it inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Donilon: I didn’t say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Wallace: You said it was against our values.
Donilon: I think that the techniques are something that there’s been a policy debate about, and our administration has made our views known on that.
Read more at RealClearPolitics
Many of you know Alan Colmes, for all of his polar opposition to conservative, he often times remain consistent, even when he is wrong. He is one on the left that is at least intellectually honest in his view on the issue. Interesting enough, some constitutionalists on the Right and the Left agree that OBL should have been taken alive since he was unarmed. This writer is interested in what you have to say on the issue.
Judge Andrew Napolitano will make the case on radio tonight that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was an illegal act. And he’s not alone. Yet some usually outspoken groups are remaining quiet.
Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said his group wasn’t prepared to express an opinion “until we know more solid details about the facts of the operation.”
“There are certainly circumstances under which lethal force is justified even in a law enforcement situation far from the battlefield,” Malinowski said in an email. “But we’ll have to know more about what actually happened before making a judgment.
Obama Values: Kill But Don’t Waterboard
The longer he serves in office, the more Obama sounds like George W. Bush.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd also has started to sound like Bush. In her Sunday column, “Killing Evil Doesn’t Make Us Evil,” Dowd writes that when Navy SEALs shot and killed bin Laden, it seemed like “the only civilized and morally sound response.”
To review: Obama and Dowd long have claimed that it was morally reprehensible for U.S. intelligence operatives to waterboard 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Candidate Obama said that waterboarding was “never acceptable” because it contradicts our values. Obama even dished his now-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for having said in 2006 that she would authorize brutal interrogation measures to prevent a terrorist attack.
Apparently, it is consistent with Obama’s and Dowd’s values to shoot and kill an unarmed bin Laden — as long as you don’t waterboard him to learn possible intelligence that might prevent a terrorist attack first.
It’s amazing how partisan politics can make the medicine go down.