Wallace Hammers Obama Official On Assassinations v. Interrogation

[Bloodshot Scott]

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY": 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?

TOM DONILON, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, let me talk first about the first half of the statement you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. And here are the facts: we are at war with Al Qaeda. Usama 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.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Let me just make my point.

DONILON: Yes.

WALLACE: I'm not asking you why it was OK to shoot Usama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I'm not second-guessing the SEALs.

DONILON: Right.

WALLACE: What I am second guessing is, if that's OK, why can't you do waterboarding? What can't you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Usama 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 Usama 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 -- forced it 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.

(CROSSTALK)

DONILON: I think the technique -- there's been a policy debate about and our administration has made our views known on that.

Continued...

Video at link:


http://nation.foxnews.com/usama-bin...al-why-shooting-unarmed-man-face-legal-while-

 

[Danglyparts]

it's like saying are you gonna capture hilter and torture him to make the nazis stop or just shoot him in the face? interrogation is only good to bring about stuff like killing osama bin laden. and couldn't we just inject them with some truth serum or something? seems more sensable than waterboarding. less men required.

besides, you want formidable torture techniques? have you seen the men who stare at goats? there's some for you. tons of lsd, strobe lights, and barney's "i love you" played in a never ending loop. :tongue:

or hell, why can't we at least get some of the interogation machines used on james bond? a laser gonna cut you in half? pool full of parahnas? chained to a belt that has a rock grinder at the end? why can't america have at least that much class? our movies do! :tongue:

 

[Atar554]

"Truth serums" is an idea but the drugs make you think you've already divulged your secrets so you are more likely to spill your guts so to speak. They reduce your inhibitions but doesn't guarantee you either know anything/remember anything/give up anything of value.

Main problem with water-boarding and the like is under those conditions people will say anything to stop the pain or trauma. You want reliable and actionable intel? Get someone to give it to you with a clear head.

You want to hear exactly what you expect someone to say? Put their thumbs to the screws.

Hell even regular people under overly aggressive police interrogations have admitted to doing a crime they never committed. What good is that?

 

[meesterperfect]

Now that I think of it unless Osama was armed at the moment of being shot that could be considered murder.
Like for example if he was hiding in a cabinet under the kitchen sink with the mop n glo and those rusty steel wool pads that should have been thrown away months ago they said" its him , shoot!" , that would be murder.

So one could argue that if you can murder bin laden why can't you waterboard other people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
obviously a bullet to the head is much worse than water to the face.

Then again its moot, 2 completely different things.
shooting a guy during a raid and torturing a prisoner.
the first would be to remove a threat and the second would be to get info........2 very different things.

but know this opens another can of worms, was he a reasonable threat at the moment he was shot?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I have a feeling that Mr. Donilon will be looking for a new job soon.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Then again its moot, 2 completely different things.
shooting a guy during a raid and torturing a prisoner.
the first would be to remove a threat and the second would be to get info........2 very different things.

?

But, no, they are not, since KLM would murder all of us as well and he had as much power as OBL.

I have a feeling that Mr. Donilon will be looking for a new job soon.

The guy is a friggin' bald-headed tool. He needs dental work as well.

 

[D-rock]

But, no, they are not, since KLM would murder all of us as well and he had as much power as OBL.

Are you being facetious or are you serious? If it's the latter I don't understand the logic in your statement.

 

[ragincaucasian]

it illustrates how distorted the logic is, thats all (Nice to see another shill carrying water for Cheney)


They continue to confuse
"torture" as a means of getting information (you'll get 'confessions' of anything - but not intelligence)
"torture" as a means of delivering severe punishment (visceral projection of your frustration onto another person to sadistically satisfy you)


these are two separate issues they repeatedly and purposely mix together

Its like believing if you talk slower or LOUDER (rather than just stating your case more clearly) that you'll be "understood" through inflection.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Are you being facetious or are you serious? If it's the latter I don't understand the logic in your statement.

If you're talking about KLM (khalied whateverthefuck), the mastermind of 9-11, I'm serious as a heart attack.

 

[sleep]

Wallace had better not hammer very hard, last time I saw him he looked just this side of Keith Richards.

:anonymous

 

[Hot Mega]

Simple, because he could have been rigged with explosives or some other booby trap and his slightest move could have triggered it killing those who encountered him. So when he made the slightest move that was his last move. We lost a team of top C.I.A. operatives because they allowed a double to approach them while rigged with explosives. That wasn't going to happen to DEVGRU.

Re detainees and torture: People you have in your charge and custody..you know they are unarmed and at that point they pose no legitimate, personal threat.

Thank you Chris Wallace. Now sit and shut it.:hatsoff:

 

[vodkazvictim]

Yeah, that's right, shout at O-man.
But that doesn't change the fact that O-man got O-man where GWB failed.
Like a bunch of children

 

[CptHa]

Which would you rather, be drowned or capped in the head? I'll take the gun personally.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yeah, that's right, shout at O-man.
But that doesn't change the fact that O-man got O-man where GWB failed.
Like a bunch of children

Oh man:1orglaugh...so let me get this straight. What you're saying is, the "O" man getting elected was just a bad omen for the O-man?