A diary of torture

[Irbis]

In normal democratic country, you'd have parliamentary opposition clamouring for trials and beating the government over the head with it. Alas, thanks to US duopoly the only thing that could be effective opposition to Obama are Republithugs that if anything still have big hard on on being TUFF on EVUL TERRUR, tortures threesomes included. Frankly, if you wanted argument for multiple parties being better, here is pretty strong one.

[Flagg]

In a REAL democratic country, you'd have parliamentary opposition clamouring for trials and beating the government over the head with it. Alas, thanks to US duopoly the only thing that could be effective opposition to Obama are Republithugs that if anything still have big hard on on being TUFF on EVUL TERRUR, tortures threesomes included. Frankly, if you wanted argument for multiple parties being better, here is pretty strong one.

[jwl]

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Eric Holder serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time. If Obama was not an asshole, that would have happened about five seconds after Holder said the CIA's torturers should be actively protected from prosecution.

Why would Obama do that? The entire campaign (and I believe even the official Democratic Party Platform in 2008) he said he would "look to the future, not dwell on the past" every time he was asked about torture prosecutions. Essentially he said "there will be none because it will cause a political shitstorm lasting my entire first term and nothing will get done". Which is no excuse, but that's what happened. And it's not like it's all on Obama, either. the Democrats said in 2006 when they took back both Houses of Congress that they weren't going to seek impeachment over the Iraq war or torture.

Don't politicians normally want political shitstorms? Without them, people would get bored of politics and wouldn't vote. I mean this is the United States of America, not Northern Ireland, I would expect they can still get somewhere in the middle of a controversy.

On the note of him firing the guy, it is possible that any other competent alternative is even worse than he is?

[loomer]

Remember how a few years ago, the idea of a Republican saying 'we should keep torturing' was ludicrous because that'd admit it was torture? It was enhanced interrogation techniques, but now that the language has shifted, the attitudes sadly have not.

[Metahive]

Don't politicians normally want political shitstorms? Without them, people would get bored of politics and wouldn't vote. I mean this is the United States of America, not Northern Ireland, I would expect they can still get somewhere in the middle of a controversy.

How can there be a shitstorm when both parties find muslim terrorists and muslims in general to be very convenient scapegoats for diverting attention from other problems and demonization? Look at that other thread about the Charlie Hebdo attack where people honestly put undue emphasis on the threat of islamic terrorism as some issue that demands radical steps, when the main problems of the West are more likely to be the ever growing wealth gap, the superannuation of the population and the creeping erosion of democracy and citizen's rights.

Yeah, much easier to concentrate on the looneys 6000 miles away.

On the note of him firing the guy, it is possible that any other competent alternative is even worse than he is?

No, that's not it. What's the problem for the political establishment is that any thorough and honest cleaning up of the pigsty that is the CIA would end up covering a great many important people in pigshit.

[Grumman]

Look at that other thread about the Charlie Hebdo attack where people honestly put undue emphasis on the threat of islamic terrorism as some issue that demands radical steps, when the main problems of the West are more likely to be the ever growing wealth gap, the superannuation of the population and the creeping erosion of democracy and citizen's rights.

"Citizen's rights" includes the right to free speech, which is self-evidently injured when a community of nutball iconoclasts keep murdering people for not showing the appropriate deference to their prophet's thousand year old corpse.

[Metahive]

Look at that other thread about the Charlie Hebdo attack where people honestly put undue emphasis on the threat of islamic terrorism as some issue that demands radical steps, when the main problems of the West are more likely to be the ever growing wealth gap, the superannuation of the population and the creeping erosion of democracy and citizen's rights.

"Citizen's rights" includes the right to free speech, which is self-evidently injured when a community of nutball iconoclasts keep murdering people for not showing the appropriate deference to their prophet's thousand year old corpse.

Uh-huh. What's the bigger threat to free speech, a bunch of fanatics who manage to pull shit once every blue moon and who have a snowball's chance in hell of affecting any lasting changes in the West (outside of the government using these as excuse to expand its authority of course) or the government imprisoning and torturing people who uncover its dirty secrets and make them public?

*cue sucking government cock in 3...2...1...*

[Grumman]

*cue sucking government cock in 3...2...1...*

If you can't be bothered to scroll up half a page to see what I think of the government, why don't you just shut the fuck up instead of running your mouth about shit you don't understand?

[Metahive]

*cue sucking government cock in 3...2...1...*

If you can't be bothered to scroll up half a page to see what I think of the government, why don't you just shut the fuck up instead of running your mouth about shit you don't understand?

I understand perfectly, concentrate on the superficial insult to evade having to answer with any sort of substance.

So, why instead of huffing and puffing yourself up you instead try and tell me why islamic terrorism is so much bigger a threat to citizen's rights than an out of control government? How the Charlie Hebdo attacks are somehow the real danger instead of secret services that torture with the government's blessing?

How's the treatment of Chelsea Manning or any other whistleblowers not a real sign of the erosion of Free Speech? Shouldn't the speech that points out the government's abuses of power be the most sacred of them all?

Care to answer these points?

[TheHammer]

I have a feeling that TheHammer is a member of the "America Does No Wrong Because We Are Special (and even if we do do horrible things it's for freedom so who cares?) Brigade"

Who is this worthless fuck coming out of the woodwork with his worthless comments? Read what I actually wrote dipshit and then try to respond to it because clearly you skimmed or outright skipped it.

Nice try. Prove that I skimmed what you wrote or didn't read it.

If you did in fact read it, your reading comprehension is so abysmal that one has to question if you even have the capacity for understanding anything being discussed in this thread.

I point to Exhibit A below:

Also, since just about every worthless post the worthless "human being" TheHammer has posted has tried to excuse or minimize what the US torture industry has done, including willfully ignoring testimony of the VICTIMS because, and I'm just summing up the tone of your posts in this thread, they are just mad at the US and are making stuff up because I don't believe the great red white and blue would do these outrageous sounding things!

First of all, a memoir is not "testimony", at least in any legal sense. It is a personal accounting not given under oath or any sort of obligation for accuracy, and often dramatized for literary effect. Such accounts are always fraught with exaggeration, half truths, and fabrications. That's not to say everything is made up, but someone interested in the truth would take a skeptical approach when reading accounts that have no confirmation other than that of the author. Your failure to grasp that concept shows you are ignorant, whether it be willfully or otherwise.

Second I've condemned the abusive practices of US agents that we know have taken place at numerous times through out this thread. Your statements that I've tried to "excuse or minimize" what they did are outright FALSE .

I mean assuming you're correct (you are not, but playing pretend can be fun. It isn't now because I have to get inside your head with all the creepy crawlies infesting it), don't you think they have a valid reason to be pissed at the US for all the horrible shit it has already admitted to doing?

Of course they do, which is precisely why taking their statements at face value is absurd. That's presuming you're interested in finding out the truth rather than to push an agenda...

Maybe you should try to learn to at least pretend to feel compassion for what are essentially male Jayce Duggards, who were kidnapped and held for eleven years while being subjected to all kinds of torture, including plenty of the sexual kind, only there is no one coming to their rescue because their captors are the the entire US government? So maybe a few embellishments (which I don't believe ARE embellishments) can be excused given the years and years of trauma?

Sure we can excuse some embellishments, but we should be wise enough not to let them stand up next to facts. Again, this concept might be difficult for you to understand but there are those of us who want to see the people who tortured punished for what they did, and at the same time not have them punished for things they did not do.

[Grumman]

So, why instead of huffing and puffing yourself up you instead try and tell me why islamic terrorism is so much bigger a threat to citizen's rights than an out of control government? How the Charlie Hebdo attacks are somehow the real danger instead of secret services that torture with the government's blessing?

How's the treatment of Chelsea Manning or any other whistleblowers not a real sign of the erosion of Free Speech? Shouldn't the speech that points out the government's abuses of power be the most sacred of them all?

Care to answer these points?

Islamic terrorism is a threat to citizen's rights. So is the Obama administration's persecution of whistleblowers. So is allowing the CIA and NSA get away with "But my pocket lawyer said it was legal!" These are not mutually exclusive.

[Channel72]

Whether or not the "tortuous threesome" is probable, in a Bayesian sense, given the previous actions of the CIA, is pretty subjective - but I think most reasonable observers here would probably consider the testimony not particularly extraordinary, given the shit the CIA has done in the past.

We don't know how exaggerated the testimony is, if at all. I personally don't care really, since I'm too busy being stunned by the shit the CIA is pulling in general. But I don't see the problem with people like TheHammer asking questions like this - it doesn't make him a CIA apologist. He'd have to be downplaying the entire body of incriminating evidence surrounding the CIA torture program, not just questioning one individual account, to be properly called out as an apologist. It's not like people don't exploit or exaggerate real evil for a buck. People have written fake Holocaust memoirs for fuck's sake - if TheHammer were to doubt these peoples' story before their fraud was exposed, would he be some kind of Holocaust Denier/Nazi apologist?

Anyway, I doubt this particular story is exaggerated too much (let alone outright fabricated). It sounds like the typical CIA MO of using sex as a psychological weapon to break devout Muslim men. But that doesn't mean we can't question it while still being outraged over the torture program in general.

Islamic terrorism is a threat to citizen's rights. So is the Obama administration's persecution of whistleblowers. So is allowing the CIA and NSA get away with "But my pocket lawyer said it was legal!" These are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, but Islamic terrorism receives disproportionately more media coverage and therefore outrage and discourse (which can affect policy) than is warranted by the frequency with which it actually occurs. Plus, Islamic terrorism is always easier to address, because there is literally ZERO political advantage to being "pro" Islamic terrorism, and every political advantage to being "anti" Islamic terrorism, whereas the same cannot be said for things like the persecution of whistleblowers.

[Simon_Jester]

Whether or not the "tortuous threesome" is probable, in a Bayesian sense, given the previous actions of the CIA, is pretty subjective - but I think most reasonable observers here would probably consider the testimony not particularly extraordinary, given the shit the CIA has done in the past.

We don't know how exaggerated the testimony is, if at all. I personally don't care really, since I'm too busy being stunned by the shit the CIA is pulling in general. But I don't see the problem with people like TheHammer asking questions like this - it doesn't make him a CIA apologist. He'd have to be downplaying the entire body of incriminating evidence surrounding the CIA torture program, not just questioning one individual account, to be properly called out as an apologist.

For one, TheHammer has a fairly consistent track record of doing exactly that across multiple subjects, including domestic police abuses and foreign policy abuses alike. This tends to color how people respond to him now. He has built up a reputation as a mouthpiece for the US government's military-security-statist point of view on matters of human rights and individual liberties.

It's not like people don't exploit or exaggerate real evil for a buck. People have written fake Holocaust memoirs for fuck's sake - if TheHammer were to doubt these peoples' story before their fraud was exposed, would he be some kind of Holocaust Denier/Nazi apologist?

The reason this becomes touchy is that today, no reputable source in the Western world is trying to claim the Holocaust never happened. Or (which would be worse) to claim that the Holocaust did happen but was morally acceptable because EVIL DANGEROUS JEWS.

Whereas there are still ongoing attempts in the US to deny that torture occurs at Guantanamo. Or, even if it is conceded that torture happens, to deny that the torture is actually wrong because EVIL DANGEROUS MUSLIMS.

This creates a different context when people look at reports of abuses at Guantanamo and go "that's not really torture!" or "sign me up for that!" or "he must be lying, no way would the CIA do that!"

Anyway, I doubt this particular story is exaggerated too much (let alone outright fabricated). It sounds like the typical CIA MO of using sex as a psychological weapon to break devout Muslim men. But that doesn't mean we can't question it while still being outraged over the torture program in general.

Let us simply say that TheHammer's "is actually outraged over the torture program" credentials have been worn a bit thin over the years, so he tends to draw more flak than an abstract random person saying the same things would deserve. Even if TheHammer himself theoretically deserves that much benefit of the doubt, he's hard pressed to get it.

Islamic terrorism is a threat to citizen's rights. So is the Obama administration's persecution of whistleblowers. So is allowing the CIA and NSA get away with "But my pocket lawyer said it was legal!" These are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, but Islamic terrorism receives disproportionately more media coverage and therefore outrage and discourse (which can affect policy) than is warranted by the frequency with which it actually occurs. Plus, Islamic terrorism is always easier to address, because there is literally ZERO political advantage to being "pro" Islamic terrorism, and every political advantage to being "anti" Islamic terrorism, whereas the same cannot be said for things like the persecution of whistleblowers.

Agreed. It's a major problem in American society that we've finally found a political 'consensus' where there is almost no way to gain political advantage from attacking the consensus... but where obeying the consensus is slowly choking the values and economic life out of our democracy.

[Flagg]

Eric Holder serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time. If Obama was not an asshole, that would have happened about five seconds after Holder said the CIA's torturers should be actively protected from prosecution.

Why would Obama do that? The entire campaign (and I believe even the official Democratic Party Platform in 2008) he said he would "look to the future, not dwell on the past" every time he was asked about torture prosecutions. Essentially he said "there will be none because it will cause a political shitstorm lasting my entire first term and nothing will get done". Which is no excuse, but that's what happened. And it's not like it's all on Obama, either. the Democrats said in 2006 when they took back both Houses of Congress that they weren't going to seek impeachment over the Iraq war or torture.

Don't politicians normally want political shitstorms? Without them, people would get bored of politics and wouldn't vote. I mean this is the United States of America, not Northern Ireland, I would expect they can still get somewhere in the middle of a controversy.

Well, it's a complicated thing. A new President entering office wants to deal with as little of the previous administrations fuckups. Obama had the financial crisis, the Iraq War, Afghanistan (although he wanted to be more aggressive there so it's his war now as much as it was Bush's) and of course Guantanamo. The last thing Obama wanted to do was add to those issues by making the unprecedented move of prosecuting a former administration when he'd rather spend time on his own agenda. Is this correct politically for Obama? Yes. Is it absolutely morally repugnant? You're goddamned right it is.

[Flagg]

Look at that other thread about the Charlie Hebdo attack where people honestly put undue emphasis on the threat of islamic terrorism as some issue that demands radical steps, when the main problems of the West are more likely to be the ever growing wealth gap, the superannuation of the population and the creeping erosion of democracy and citizen's rights.

"Citizen's rights" includes the right to free speech, which is self-evidently injured when a community of nutball iconoclasts keep murdering people for not showing the appropriate deference to their prophet's thousand year old corpse.

No, it would be injured if the lunatics were allowed to do it with impunity. Or do we not kill and/or imprison terrorists? We do? Then you have no point.

[Flagg]

Who is this worthless fuck coming out of the woodwork with his worthless comments? Read what I actually wrote dipshit and then try to respond to it because clearly you skimmed or outright skipped it.

Nice try. Prove that I skimmed what you wrote or didn't read it.

If you did in fact read it, your reading comprehension is so abysmal that one has to question if you even have the capacity for understanding anything being discussed in this thread.

I point to Exhibit A below:

Also, since just about every worthless post the worthless "human being" TheHammer has posted has tried to excuse or minimize what the US torture industry has done, including willfully ignoring testimony of the VICTIMS because, and I'm just summing up the tone of your posts in this thread, they are just mad at the US and are making stuff up because I don't believe the great red white and blue would do these outrageous sounding things!

First of all, a memoir is not "testimony", at least in any legal sense. It is a personal accounting not given under oath or any sort of obligation for accuracy, and often dramatized for literary effect. Such accounts are always fraught with exaggeration, half truths, and fabrications. That's not to say everything is made up, but someone interested in the truth would take a skeptical approach when reading accounts that have no confirmation other than that of the author. Your failure to grasp that concept shows you are ignorant, whether it be willfully or otherwise.

Second I've condemned the abusive practices of US agents that we know have taken place at numerous times through out this thread. Your statements that I've tried to "excuse or minimize" what they did are outright FALSE .

I mean assuming you're correct (you are not, but playing pretend can be fun. It isn't now because I have to get inside your head with all the creepy crawlies infesting it), don't you think they have a valid reason to be pissed at the US for all the horrible shit it has already admitted to doing?

Of course they do, which is precisely why taking their statements at face value is absurd. That's presuming you're interested in finding out the truth rather than to push an agenda...

Maybe you should try to learn to at least pretend to feel compassion for what are essentially male Jayce Duggards, who were kidnapped and held for eleven years while being subjected to all kinds of torture, including plenty of the sexual kind, only there is no one coming to their rescue because their captors are the the entire US government? So maybe a few embellishments (which I don't believe ARE embellishments) can be excused given the years and years of trauma?

Sure we can excuse some embellishments, but we should be wise enough not to let them stand up next to facts. Again, this concept might be difficult for you to understand but there are those of us who want to see the people who tortured punished for what they did, and at the same time not have them punished for things they did not do.

I'm not going to go point by point with you anymore because it's clear you're a dishonest fuckstick. You are willing to put the testimony
(

noun, plural testimonies.

1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.

3. open declaration or profession, as of faith.

4. Usually, testimonies. the precepts of God.

5. the Decalogue as inscribed on the two tables of the law, or the ark in which the tables were kept. Ex. 16:34; 25:16.

6. Archaic. a declaration of disapproval; protest.

) of a torturer above that of a torture victim. You also keep trying to throw red herrings at me, which I told you doesn't work. So I have an idea I came up with for you to resolve this situation: Shut the fuck up.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is a nice little standard of evidence he has.

1) Oaths mean jack and shit.
2) none of this will EVER see the inside of a courtroom because the torturers will never be put on trial, and if it comes up in another proceeding (like a civil case) the administration (whichever one it is) will State Secrets Privilege it into dismissal.

[TheHammer]

Whether or not the "tortuous threesome" is probable, in a Bayesian sense, given the previous actions of the CIA, is pretty subjective - but I think most reasonable observers here would probably consider the testimony not particularly extraordinary, given the shit the CIA has done in the past.

We don't know how exaggerated the testimony is, if at all. I personally don't care really, since I'm too busy being stunned by the shit the CIA is pulling in general. But I don't see the problem with people like TheHammer asking questions like this - it doesn't make him a CIA apologist. He'd have to be downplaying the entire body of incriminating evidence surrounding the CIA torture program, not just questioning one individual account, to be properly called out as an apologist.

For one, TheHammer has a fairly consistent track record of doing exactly that across multiple subjects, including domestic police abuses and foreign policy abuses alike. This tends to color how people respond to him now. He has built up a reputation as a mouthpiece for the US government's military-security-statist point of view on matters of human rights and individual liberties.

Simon you can't even begin to understand my views on a variety of subjects because you're far too of a "black/white" idealist. I'm simply a realist and someone who wants to see more details on things before passing judgement. A review of my postings would reveal that I've posted things about over-reach and abuse by police, the NSA, and others. And defended them at times when I felt they were doing what they were supposed to be doing and getting a bad rap for it. But I think you only remember the latter because I expect in your echo chamber the times when I've said things you agreed with you merely skimmed past it to find someone else to argue with. Because that's how you roll.

For a long time all we had were rumors an innuendo regarding abuse in the interrogation programs. Sometimes there are reasons or extenuating circumstances for things that appear bad on the surface. And that a rush to judgement without the facts does no one any good. Turns out many of the rumors were true, and there were no good reasons or extenuating circumstances. You don't hear me calling for giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore. But that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to give the benefit of the doubt to detainees. In my view, you don't need to do such things because as I've said before, where you start to see consensus you start to see the truth. You'll see patterns in the stories from detainees, guards, et al. And that's how you'll get a better understanding of what actually went on.

On the other side of that argument you have situations like Anwar Awlaki when many of you thought it was "just terrible" that the US "executed" some guy simply for "exercising his freedom of speech". Oh and now it turns out he was exactly what we he appeared to be, a full on terrorist planning, recruiting, training militants who have taken on a variety of missions such as the Underwear bomber, Ft Hood shooter, and Charlie Hedbo. And someone who would be alive today if you'd had your way.

So, like many of you I've been on the right side of arguments and the wrong side of arguments when it's all said and done. And I've been both "pro" and "against" various things the government has done and responded accordingly. But there seems to be a culture here that attempts to shove everyone into a "box" of some sort, as if we are one dimensional caricatures for your easy categorization. I expect that's why you don't have many willing to "buck the establishment" so to speak. But fortunately for you I won't back down from conflict and will be sticking around keeping you and those like you honest. Otherwise you're left jerking each other off in an endless echo chamber of the same thoughts and ideas.

Let us simply say that TheHammer's "is actually outraged over the torture program" credentials have been worn a bit thin over the years, so he tends to draw more flak than an abstract random person saying the same things would deserve. Even if TheHammer himself theoretically deserves that much benefit of the doubt, he's hard pressed to get it.

Yes because I've been known to say "Them fuckers deserved it!" in response to the torture memo. I'm "pro-torture" even though I've never said anything of the sort. That's the hyperbole I'm talking about that. Anyway, in short

Flagg, you are simply a worthless trolling piece of shit and unworthy of any further response beyond this sentence.

[Frank the Tank]

The quality of argumentation on this board is truly in the toilet.

Hammer's first response was "forced sex sounds unbelievable to me, and Thanas, a board moderator and supposedly a superb debater and one of the "premier" members of the board responds with "If you had read about Guantanamo you would know that charges about this have been levelled by nearly every former detainee, there is no reason not to believe this" in his first response and "How about slashing people's dick with a cutlery knife? Because that happened too. Only apologists like Hammerlein would be surprised" in his second post.

Quite literally, a MODERATOR's first and second responses are ad hominem attacks, not high quality logic and debating.

And then the dogpile begins, and everything degenerates into complete and utter bullshit.

As I said to Thanas a month back in a PM, this board has become an echo chamber where adherence to dogma is more important than proper debating and logic, especially if a MODERATOR's first response is to commit logical fallacies and NOT GET CALLED OUT FOR IT.

I suppose this was expected when Mike departed for other things... but it's still sad to see, and I was hoping for better things when I stopped lurking and joined up. Oh well...

[Thanas]

*snip bullshit*

You were the guy who loudly proclaimed that you wanted to leave in a PM to me. Glad to see you really stand by your words.

EDIT: You know what, you get another board warning for failing to use proper protocol when having a dispute with a mod.

[Frank the Tank]

I don't have a dispute with a moderator... I have an issue with the culture of a board that tolerates the use of the very fallacies that they claim to oppose. The fact that you are a moderator, rather than a regular poster, and that your ad hominem bullshit is not only tolerated, but supported by others, simply demonstrates that the impressive debating standards that Mike Wong established are completely gone.

If that weren't true, then why is your use of logical fallacies tolerated, while you throw around your "authority" and issue "warnings" when I point out your hypocrisy?

Just watch... now that Thanas is all butthurt that I actually called him out on his ad hominems, and other mods for failing to do their jobs, and everyone else for dogpiling I fully expect either be dogpiled myself or (more likely) summarily banned. Gotta protect the herd, after all, even if most of its members are utter shit at proper debating, having to rely on screaming and "board warnings" to make their points effectively, and not really worth protecting. No point in self-evaluating and seeing whether I actually have a point.

You guys are just as bad as the right wing fundy websites anymore... you put higher quality lipstick on, but it's still just a pig wallowing in shit.

[Grumman]

I'm simply a realist and someone who wants to see more details on things before passing judgement.
...
On the other side of that argument you have situations like Anwar Awlaki when many of you thought it was "just terrible" that the US "executed" some guy simply for "exercising his freedom of speech". Oh and now it turns out he was exactly what we he appeared to be, a full on terrorist planning, recruiting, training militants who have taken on a variety of missions such as the Underwear bomber, Ft Hood shooter, and Charlie Hedbo. And someone who would be alive today if you'd had your way.

You realise "passing judgement" is supposed to happen before you kill them, right?

If Anwar al-Awlaki needed to die, the US government should have known the price they would be willing to pay to make that happen. If not disclosing their evidence against him was worth more to them than having al-Awlaki dead, then it clearly isn't that important and his death is also not worth the price of an extrajudicial assassination against an American citizen.

If you are not willing to stand by your own appraisal, to put your money where your mouth is, your appraisal is worth jack shit. And the US government wasn't.

[TheHammer]

I'm simply a realist and someone who wants to see more details on things before passing judgement.
...
On the other side of that argument you have situations like Anwar Awlaki when many of you thought it was "just terrible" that the US "executed" some guy simply for "exercising his freedom of speech". Oh and now it turns out he was exactly what we he appeared to be, a full on terrorist planning, recruiting, training militants who have taken on a variety of missions such as the Underwear bomber, Ft Hood shooter, and Charlie Hedbo. And someone who would be alive today if you'd had your way.

You realise "passing judgement" is supposed to happen before you kill them, right?

If Anwar al-Awlaki needed to die, the US government should have known the price they would be willing to pay to make that happen. If not disclosing their evidence against him was worth more to them than having al-Awlaki dead, then it clearly isn't that important and his death is also not worth the price of an extrajudicial assassination against an American citizen.

I don't want to derail this thread but what you said makes absolutely no sense. First and foremost they did disclose much of their evidence against him, and the connections to the underwear bomber and ft Hood shooter were well known before he was killed. What they released, and indeed what was already publicly known even before that, was more than sufficient to justify the use of force. I've long argued that Awlaki was a legitimate military target: an active member of and indeed a leader in a hostile militant terrorist organization, and operating from foreign soil. But even if you want to view this purely in domestic terms, then Awlaki was for all intents and purposes a fleeing violent felon who certainly posed a threat of serious physical harm to others and as such his death would certainly be legal under existing US law.


If you really wish to debate the matter further, then we can definitely do that in a different thread.

[Flagg]

Flagg, you are simply a worthless trolling piece of shit and unworthy of any further response beyond this sentence.

I believe that constitutes a concession. Accepted.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't want to derail this thread

You brought it up. It is bad form to bring up a red-herring like that and then attempt to get the last word in by default on it.

On the other side of that argument you have situations like Anwar Awlaki when many of you thought it was "just terrible" that the US "executed" some guy simply for "exercising his freedom of speech".

Strawman. The vast majority of us had little problem with him being killed. Rather, we took issue with a Secret List, constructed on the basis of Secret Evidence by Secret Personnel, of people including US citizens who could be straight up murdered without ever having their day in court.

Then there is the issue of Al Awlaki's 16 year old son, who was not engaged in terrorist funny business as far as any evidence has indicated ever, who was on the same list and murdered along with a few other innocent teenagers. Whom you always conveniently ignore whenever he gets brought up.

What I find particularly annoying is your willingness to take government statements at face value--despite the proven tendency of our foreign intelligence service to Make Shit Up including lying to congress--but you are skeptical of the statements of their victims.

The underwear bomber, sure. Ok. I generally trust the FBI more than the CIA to tell the truth on such matters, because they have a much better track record and dont torture the people in their custody into giving false testimony. However, the Ft Hood shooter was asking pretty general questions of a theological nature. There was no planning or incitement of any kind in those exchanges.

Charlie Hedbo

Aaaaah!!!! Awlaki is still a threat from beyond the grave! Who ever are we going to call to help us!?