This is one of the most reprehensible and shameful things I think I have ever seen AmeriKa's news media do -- and that is saying a lot considering all the lies.
And IF TORTURE WORKS why didn't they TAKE HIM ALIVE?
"Harsh tactics may have aided US raid" by Farah Stockman, Globe Staff / May 4, 2011
US officials have acknowledged that clues gleaned from the Bush administration’s controversial network of detention centers, coupled with years of patient intelligence work, netted the terrorist mastermind on Sunday....
Former Bush administration officials say the successful raid on bin Laden’s compound provides some vindication for detention and interrogation policies that have been widely criticized by the legal community, human rights advocates, and Obama himself.
Excuse me, I have to go throw up.
“This would not have been possible if we were releasing terrorists willy-nilly and not interrogating them,’’ Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary under Bush told reporters Monday.
I love the war-criminal sources the war-criminal media turns to for expert analysis.
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution who has authored books about the legal challenges of detaining terrorists, said it is too early tell what role, if any, coercive tactics played. But he said it is clear that interrogating hundreds of detainees over a period of years “developed a mosaic that led to bin Laden.’’
“There were many people who were far too quick to insist that no good could ever come from coercive interrogation,’’ Wittes said. “Those of us who resisted that proposition were always derided as apologists for torture. But the premise of that conventional wisdom was wrong. Actually important information does emerge from that sort of a program, and maybe even from the portions of that program that we call morally distasteful.’’
Well, when the OFFICIAL, CONTROLLED-OPPOSITION LIBERALS start saying TORTURE WORKS it's time to start goosestepping.
But others say the Bush administration’s techniques created more enemies than they neutralized, and that the debate over those tactics should not be revived.
“I think people have to be very, very careful about using this operation to justify the plainly illegal conduct that occurred under the Bush administration,’’ said Eugene Fidell, a specialist on military law at Yale Law School. “It is not clear to me that the seminal clue was obtained by means of torture,’’ he said. Even if it was, he added, it would not justify such tactics.
How come we never had any war crimes charges brought?
The Obama administration yesterday sought to downplay the importance of any single interrogation in the hunt for bin Laden....
Yes, they do not want TOO MUCH ATTENTION being brought to TORTURE!
The debate over how suspects in the war on terror should be treated has raged for nearly a decade. This latest round highlights questions about Obama’s own approach.
Obama has eschewed the use of secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques, some of which his administration has described as torture. Obama has also avoided sending more detainees to Guantanamo Bay, which he tried in vain to close....
So we are told.
But, at the same time, Obama has expanded the use of targeted killings.
Related: Obama's Airstrike Scalpel
Then what is with all the dead civilians?
During his 2 1/2 years in office, US drone strikes have killed nearly 1,000 militants, compared with fewer than 300 during Bush’s eight years, according to an analysis by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank.
How sad. He's a bigger mass-murder than Bush in this regard.
Kenneth Anderson, a law professor at American University, said that public outrage over the treatment of detainees and legal headaches surrounding their cases creates an incentive for US forces to kill militants rather than undertake dangerous operations to capture and detain them.
Yeah, it is OUR FAULT THIS GOVERNMENT has to rain missiles down on people over a LIE!
So it's KILL 'EM or TORTURE 'EM, 'eh?
Just wondering when the TRUTH starts coming out!
“Nobody actually sits down and says to themselves, ‘We don’t actually have a place to hold this person so let’s blow them up instead,’ ’’ said Anderson. “It’s rather that they say, for all sorts of reasons, ‘It’s risky to grab this person, and we can’t interrogate him anyway. We don’t have any obligations to take any risks, so why should we?’ ’’
The administration has defended the stepped-up drone strikes as a crucial means to assist its troop surge in Afghanistan. State Department legal adviser Harold Koh told the American Society of International Law last year that the United States has a duty to protect its citizens....
It is this kind of thing that fills me with disappointment.
I expected better from this administration after the last one.
The drone strikes have elicited few protests from American human rights groups. Neither did the killing of bin Laden....
That's when you realize AmeriKan human rights groups are part of the agenda-pushing plot.
--more--"
Related: Ex-CIA officer accused of prisoner abuse rehired as a trainer
