The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
OK, I'll bite on this because I've thought of it before. I'm just trying to be logical here, but we all have our slants.
First of all, what's worse; torture or death? And yes, I consider waterboarding a form a torture since it feels like you are close to death (and we convicted people for doing it in WWII). Then again, it's not as bad as having limbs cut off. But still, I'd generally perfer torture vs death, especially if we are talking about waterboarding. But I'll agree it gets more murky if we are talking about horrendous torture, but I don't think there is any evidence of that under Bush nor Obama.
Nevertheless, under Bush both waterboarding and killing of enemies were OK (though very few were waterboarded). I'm not sure if the Bush administration killed any American citizens though. But if you use drones against a group of people, that could be a possibility.
Under Obama, no waterboarding. But we still killed groups of people with drones as we did under Bush. And we also intentionally killed an American citizen for sure, but like I said it may of happened with Bush policies as well.
I don't know, but it's seems the Bush policy was at least more consistent. If you are so upset about a very few getting waterboarded, then wouldn't you be even more upset about much more getting killed (including total innocents and an American citizen) with drones?
Individuals in custody of the US who are known to be involved in terrorist acts and those alleged to be associated with them in US custody are going to be questioned. When circumstances merit more aggressive tactics to alleviate immediate threats they will be pressed for information. Not acting on that intelligence is unforgivable, how that information is derived is not a big concern to me. I already know who the enemy is, all that is left is to eliminate them.
What about human rights?! If you aim to kill me and mine expect no quarter from me, be on guard because I'm going to do everything I can to ensure my side has the training, experience, and intelligence to be sure the bad guys loose every time. If that means "torture" of known suspects so be it.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
otisptoadwater wrote: Individuals in custody of the US who are known to be involved in terrorist acts and those alleged to be associated with them in US custody are going to be questioned. When circumstances merit more aggressive tactics to alleviate immediate threats they will be pressed for information. Not acting on that intelligence is unforgivable, how that information is derived is not a big concern to me. I already know who the enemy is, all that is left is to eliminate them.
What about human rights?! If you aim to kill me and mine expect no quarter from me, be on guard because I'm going to do everything I can to ensure my side has the training, experience, and intelligence to be sure the bad guys loose every time. If that means "torture" of known suspects so be it.
Thanks Otis, well said. I would just like to add, "Do unto them before they can do unto us" interrogation helps us do that, how interrogation is done, don't care. We sure as hell don't treat our prisoners like they do