An ethical question for DU posters...

[Gunny1]

Actually two questions. First did you approve of the US govt's assassination of Osama Bin Laden? And second, if rather than killing they had captured OBL, would you have approved of using the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract intelligence on other Al Qaeda operatives? I know the easy answer for most of us is that we wouldn't approve because enhanced interrogations don't work but that's the pragmatic approach to the question and I'm wanting a debate on the moral/ethical implications. My personal stance is that I approved of killing OBL but wouldn't approve of water boarding him. However, I have to admit that I'm hard pressed to justify that position from a moral standpoint, it just how I feel. I've already been sort of challenged on this question by one conservative and I don't think I came across as very convincing. Thoughts?

[blm]

1. Let's see, what WORKS? "Torture" has already PROVEN to be stupid, as it extracts FALSE leads

especially from committed ideologues. Of course, if some of you insist that torture is helpful, I'd be willing to test that theory out with RW terrorists in our country...just to make SURE that torture sympathizers are wrong. Right?

[Gunny1]

6. I appreaciate the point of view but...

if you read the OP you'll see that that's the pragmatic answer and I'm asking about the ethical answer. The reason being that the right will always challenge us with the advise of the intelligence community themselves and our authority on the matter carries less rhetorical weight than the CIA operatives who think it's necessary. We need to answer the question from a MORAL standpoint.

[CJCRANE]

16. Who are the operatives

that think waterboarding is necessary?

I've never seen an interview with any current or former government official with solid facts to back up that claim.

Most of the interviews I've seen say the opposite - that it isn't effective.

[Gunny1]

19. I really don't know who they are.

But isn't it axiomatic that if they're actually doing it, then certainly someone in the intelligentsia believes that it's effective?

[CJCRANE]

24. That's the problem - they *believe* it's effective

with little proof and in fact more proof to the contrary.

[Gunny1]

27. Ok, that would help the argument I was having was over the practicality of torture.

However, this argument is over the MORALITY of torture within the context of the OBL killing.

[blm]

50. baloney....NO EXPERT claims torture works...only RULING ELITE LIARS claimed it worked.

.

[Avant Guardian]

52. They have to keep claiming that, even though all evidence says otherwise

...because they would swing in the gallows at the Hague for crimes against humanity if they admit it is torture.

[Avant Guardian]

51. True morality does not work with the GOP

They are ideological Kooks. Ideological kooks are not swayed by facts, logic or rationality.

[blm]

59. and they are not swayed by morality, either...the Bush family is as immoral and corrupt as possible,

and pretty much everyone surrounding them is, too, yet people who claim to be religious and 'moral' voted for those evil thugs time and time again.

[damntexdem]

2. I approve of the killing in the course of the assault on his compound.

Had he been captured alive, I would not have approved of the use of torture. I have no problem with this position. The use of deadly force in the course of apprehension is an unfortunate necessity. Torture is not.

[Drale]

3. First Yes I approve of the mission against OBL

Your trying to use a loaded word like assassinate to make people vote differently, second if he had been captured, he would have had a quicky military trial and a even quicker execution so it would have end up with the same outcome. There would have been no time for "enhanced interrogation methods".

[BobbyBoring]

43. I think assinatiion is the correct word, not a loaded one

and I think he got a quick military trial and execution.

[CJCRANE]

4. Try to watch John McCain's speech against the use of torture...

it's in the Political Videos forum.

He answers these questions pretty thoroughly.

[Gunny1]

7. Thanks, I'll check that out

A bit worried about what he'll say but I suppose there is no better current authority in govt on the use of torture than McCain.

[TwilightGardener]

5. With the understanding that we were and are at war with AQ, I have no problem

with the fact that OBL was killed on the battlefield (and make no mistake, if civilian trains, offices, and airplanes were AQ's chosen battlefields, then his hideout is as well). That isn't inconsistent with Geneva conventions, as far as I'm concerned. Torture of captives is against the Geneva conventions.

[Gunny1]

9. This may be a good point.

I'm not an authority on the Geneva convention and this sounds like it may be getting to the heart of the matter. One question, there have been several reports to suggest that OBL was unarmed and "in his underwear" when the seals found him. I think most people are gleaning that there was no intent to capture OBL, that they entered the compound with the intent to kill him - I used the term assassination which is fairly loaded but essentially accurate at least in the minds of most people. Is that type of operation be approved by the convention?

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Just a fun story from my life....

When I was 8, my Mom and I looked up the meaning of the word 'assassination' and it was the first word I learned to recognize as intentionally misused in political areas as a way of attempting to define a person or a thing as either good or bad. As I learned, right there during the whole 60's run of killings, is that words have exact meanings. Loaded words are used in politics with intent. In language, accurate is accurate, there is no such thing as 'fairy accurate' and the definitions do not exist in the minds of people, but are agreed upon in advance.
So that was a long time ago. Anyone with a dictionary knows this was not an assassination, no matter what you think about the ethics of the raid. By using that word, you telegraph everything you think.

[Gunny1]

26. I like your point on use of language and wish we were able to agree on the meanings of words

However, my work in marketing informs me that that is definitely NOT the case. I know exactly how to write a press release to spin any bit of bad news into something that sounds positive. Not by lying, mind you, but by manipulating subtle vagueness in the meaning of words. I used the term "assassination" not because it's how I view the killing but because we are likely to be challenged with that term when confronted with this particular argument. And for your reference I did look up the dictionary definition of the word;

as·sas·si·nate
1. to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

By that definition any of us will be be hard pressed to refute the first clause, thus the argument. And I also know the Persian origins of the word BTW. It's interesting reading for anyone who's concerned but frankly doesn't help with this convo.

[yellerpup]

8. Osama bin Laden was the criminal mastermind of a

world wide terrorist organization. I'm sure your conservative friend didn't mind when GWB put out a 'wanted dead or alive' order on him. bin Laden was not a leader or head of state; he was a self-confessed mass murderer. A trial, given this confession, was not necessary to find the truth. He should not have been tortured because the hard disks and other materials gathered from his hiding place is more reliable than anything they could have extracted from him. If he had been tortured, any conviction against him could have been overturned. Killing him denied him a platform and a rallying point for those misguided enough to agree with his view. Torture is wrong in all circumstances and is also a criminal offense when performed by anyone for any reason. Ask your conservative friends how not prosecuting Bush-era officials for torture squares with their moral compass.

[Gunny1]

11. I think you're starting to get at something.

You say basically torture is always wrong but killing can sometimes be warranted (we hold that same moral standard as it pertains to the operation of slaughterhouses, for instance.) I suppose the rebuttal from the right would be that the steer/hog/chicken hadn't done wrong to us and in fact are being killed to nourish us and therefore deserve better. So what's the response to that?

[yellerpup]

12. We kill animals that we may live.

Farm animals did not attack the US and kill innocent people in NY and DC. Farm animals have not been planning to assassinate our President or kill as many of us as possible. Sorry, you present a false analogy.

[Gunny1]

14. If my analogy is false then I lose it as a rhetorical point.

I know it's rough I'd rather make the analogy whole by cleaning up the rough edges. I'm only suggesting it as a case where most people (even conservatives) find premeditated killing ok but torture not ok. I get that the animals are innocent of a crime which is why I posited it as the likely conservative rebuttal. I'm asking for help with the next step.

[yellerpup]

17. We are in a war against Al-Qaida whose head was

OBL. He was a warrior who, when faced with capture, did not surrender. He was a criminal hiding from the law while continuing to cause murder and destruction (just because he couldn't kill more in this country isn't because he didn't try). He was actively pursuing plans to kill as many Americans as he could when and where he or any of his minions found us. He made his battlefield everywhere. If he had surrendered, he wouldn't have been killed. His had sworn not to be taken alive, and so he made his own choice.

[Enrique]

10. yes, the morality is messy

i can totally relate to your dilemma and I haven't resolved it.

More useful, however, is to think about the legality of the action, instead of the morality. Still very complicated I think, but at least there are things written down and procedures and precedents and all that.

[Gunny1]

13. Thank you for at least recognizing the nature of my dilemma.

Personally I feel comfortable with the virtue of my position although I can't explain it. And there is certainly the legal side of the argument to fall back on but this one guy came right at my with my own moral standards which I've so far been unable to convincingly articulate.

And I really can't use a lot of things that people have said in this thread. Honestly, it sometimes seems like a lot of DU posters have never actually met and interacted with a conservative as they suggest things that would likely cost you your job, friends, etc. (one guy here actually said that we should torture right wingers to test whether torture itself is a valid means of extracting intell. I get the frustration but, come on!)

[MH1]

62. I disagree, as I just posted downthread, but will repeat here.

It is a matter of control and risk. OBL was killed when he was an imminent threat to others. If he had been subdued and controlled and was thus no longer a threat to others, then the responsibility for humane treatment becomes relevant.


(Addendum not in my other post: )
However, for those who support torture in certain cases, the responsibility for humane treatment MIGHT be outweighed by the value of other life that could be protected, if it is genuinely believed that torture will result in information that saves lives.

Those are two separate questions. The second is irrelevant in this case because OBL did not surrender, and was killed.

[jenmito]

15. There's no dilemma for me. Bin Laden was killed because we're at war with him and he did not

surrender. He never put his hands up and/or said he surrendered, so they killed him. Afterall, he said he'd never be taken alive. He was not "assassinated," armed at the moment or not. And if he DID surrender, we should NOT have waterboarded/tortured him. First of all, it's not consistent with our values, and secondly, torture doesn't work. Killing someone who declared war on us and got thousands of us killed IS consistent with our values/the Geneva Conventions.

[Gunny1]

18. That's an interesting point...

So you're making a distinction between not surrendering and putting up no effective resistance. Maybe my dilemma is the assumption that if they COULD apprehend him, it necessarily follows that they SHOULD apprehend him. I like it. You're saying it was his job to surrender in that situation and failing to do so he forfeits his life. It answers my current dilemma although I'm likely to get counter challenged on that logic as applied to police arrests. Ultimately what I'm afraid of is that I'll just have to say "hey, this is my position, it's how I feel and there's no logical defense for it." That's not such a bad thing except for I just can't stand letting this smug conservative feel like he's won the point. ;)

[jenmito]

23. Not surrendering is the same as putting up resistance. He reportedly was going for one of his guns

when he was killed. Why should he NOT have been killed? He didn't surrender, he had declared war on us (unlike other criminals who may have shot someone, for example, and were taken in by the police), and the SEALs had to act quickly. That's the logical defense. Now you have an answer for your conservative friend. ;)

[Gunny1]

29. Did he go for a gun?

I remember that was an early account but I thought the narrative had changed. I remember Carney saying even he couldn't figure out what happened. Latest story was that we caught him in his underwear. Honestly I wish they'd release the helmet cam video so we can all know what we're talking about.

[jenmito]

30. He didn't surrender and he has said he'd never be taken alive. He was going for a gun

according to the account I heard, but even if he wasn't going for his gun, he could've had a suicide vest on for all the SEALs knew. He got thousands of us killed, he was trying to do it again. I saw that you wrote that you felt "sad for the man in a way" in another, earlier post/thread. So maybe YOU have a problem with him being killed, but the vast majority of us DON'T.

p.s. There is no hypocrisy in killing a sworn enemy of the U.S. (who declared war on us, got thousands of us killed, and wanted to kill more), while being against torture. The rightful killing of the enemy during a time of war is OK morally and legally. Torturing is not.

[Gunny1]

33. No you misunderstand my point.

I also feel sad for Charles Mansion because I think his mind is inside out and that his existence must be tortured and miserable. I was articulating an exercise in simple human empathy, a value we presumably all share here. That said I have no problem with him or Bin Laden receiving the punishment that they deserve.

And you make a good point about the suicide vest. I now remember hearing that the Seals orders were to kill in any occasion UNLESS they found him bare ass naked because of the possibility of a suicide vest.

So while you were kind of being a jerk I want to thank you because you may have solved my dilemma :)

[jenmito]

34. Thank you...

I have no problem "kind of being a jerk" as long as I'm able to help in the end. ;)

And I added this to my post after you responded to it:
p.s. There is no hypocrisy in killing a sworn enemy of the U.S. (who declared war on us, got thousands of us killed, and wanted to kill more), while being against torture. The rightful killing of the enemy during a time of war is OK morally and legally. Torturing is not.

[Wait Wut]

20. Two answers.

First...It wasn't an assassination and I approve of the SEALs blowing a hole in his head.

Second...No, I don't approve of torture because it doesn't work. From a moral standpoint? Sorry. Can't help you there. From a moral standpoint I would've locked him in a room with the screams of his victims playing full volume for the rest of his life along with photos of their faces...before and after. That's just a silly dream of mine when I imagine that there is a hell.

[Gunny1]

22. I appreciate the honesty of this answer.

It's liberating to feel like one doesn't need a air tight moral justification (although as I said in another post, I'd rather not lose the point to my smug co-worker)

[Wait Wut]

41. I'm no saint

...and I lost (most of) my self-righteousness in my mid-30s.

Try the honesty thing with your coworker. It'll deflate that smug attitude of his/hers when they can't pick a fight.

[Gunny1]

42. Being in my mid-30s now I'm begining to lose it myself.

I coming to see it as an inevitable stage in human development. Damn, now I suppose I have to apologize to my father for being such a know-it-all jackass.

[bluevoter4life]

25. I'll throw my hat into the ring here

The first part of the question: Personally, yes I did approve the "assassination" of OBL (quotes added because of the ambiguity of the word alone). As for the second part, No, I would not have approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques". The simple answer is because it is illegal. The more complex answer is this. If the United States engaged in this type of information extraction, that makes us no better than the causes we are fighting against. The United States is supposed to be a symbol of tolerance and compassion. Not only are we inciting the rage of our enemies by taking part in torture (there I said it), it also destroys any sort of credibility we have to negotiate an end to a situation peacefully.

Back in WW II, a group of Italian POW's was captured and held at a military installation in the Seattle area. The rules were that these POW's were to be able to walk around public areas, held in the same sleeping conditions as American troops stationed there, and generally, treated the same way that American soldiers were treated on base. Though they were POW's, with a few exceptions, these foreigners felt safe.

I use that example to illustrate a point that if we treat our enemies as our friends in the most desperate of circumstances, it sends a clear message to the powers that be that America, while we have the capability to makes your guys lives hell, out of respect for them and for us, we will not do that. This can create a much more level-headed approach to things.

[Gunny1]

31. Great second answer but I like to hear more about how you reconcile it with the first.

...if only because the opposition loves to challenge us on this perceived "hypocrisy" as they will put it. I'm almost to the point where I just want to throw up my hands and say "to hell with it, I admit I'm a hypocrite, what of it?" Only I just can't stand the idea of conceding ground to this conservative twit.

[CJCRANE]

35. Let's flip it round and look at it from another angle:

What is the goal of "the war on terror"?

The main goal is to kill and capture terrorists and reduce terrorism.

Torture is ineffective because it produces garbled information that gives the advantage to the terrorists. It also acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

So flip it round and ask your conservative co-worker if he wants to help the terrorists. That should shut him up.

on edit: added "co-worker"

[bluevoter4life]

36. How's this :-)

To say say that I agree with the assassination (as I will call it from here on out for the sake of simplicity), would be a bit of a misnomer. I don't think any sane, rational human being can ever agree with the killing of another. However, I will qualify that by saying, as has been mentioned by those before me, that this is a time of war and OBL is responsible for the callous murder of 3000+ of our fellow Americans. I fully believe that the SEAL's were prepared to take him alive; however, their training tells them to shoot first, ask later, as it should be, since they are very likely to find themselves in a bad situation if they thought about their actions. This decision was not made overnight, but rather with a very well thought out, reasoned plan, with several contingency plans, which ended up having to be used in the operation. In a time of war, when you're looking the enemy in the eye, it's either him or you. The exact situation can be compared to an LEO firing his weapon at an unarmed man. OBL MAY have been unarmed for the initial raid, but as soon as one saw him reaching for something,which may or may not be a weapon, there wasn't any second guessing, much like an LEO would fire in a similar set of circumstances. I believe the decision to kill him was the right one given the information that we have on it.

[Gunny1]

37. I like how you've put this but what's an LEO?

[thelordofhell]

38. Law Enforcement Official

It's short for Cop

:shrug:

[bluevoter4life]

39. Law Enforcement Officer n/t

[stevenleser]

28. Two answers

Re: Bin Laden - > http://journals.democraticunderground.com/stevenleser/71

Re: enhanced interrogation, AKA torture, I do not approve.

[Diamonique]

45. Agree wholeheartedly! nt

[ljm2002]

32. Not sure if I approved of the assassination...

...but then again I don't strongly disapprove either. So I will admit to not being a moral purist on the question of killing bin Laden.

On the other hand, had he been captured, I would strongly disapprove of torturing him. Which is what so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are, namely, torture. We didn't torture Nazi war criminals, because we were better than that. Yet now we have the Bush/Cheney cabal out there trying once again to convince us that torture is A-Okay, as long as we, the "good guys", are doing it.

Of course, torture is not effective either, since people under torture tend to say whatever they have to say to make the torment stop. So I am against it as a pragmatic matter. But that is not my main reason for opposing it, my main reason is moral. (Yes, I recognize this is ironic, given that I do not seem to have the same moral qualms about killing the bastid. So sue me :-) )

Another thing, if we torture, then we open the door for others to do so, therefore putting our own soldiers and citizens more at risk wherever there are conflicts. Of course you can say that about assassinations, too.

It is worth noting that, by killing bin Laden, we made sure that he cannot reveal inconvenient facts about our long term relationship with him, particularly during the time when the USSR was in Afghanistan and we built up his forces and his sphere of influence. Also during the War on Terror, who knows what underhanded deals went down between him and Bush/Cheney et al? Well we common people will never know the whole truth of these matters, that's for sure.

Lots of questions, not so many answers.

[thelordofhell]

40. First=Yes Second=No

[Honeycombe8]

44. This is easy for me.

1. Yes.
2. No (because, as you say, torture doesn't work. But also because I think it affects the hearts, souls, and minds of the people and the country who perform it.)

Executing for justice, which is what we did to OBL, is very different from torture. Torture is not justice. It is either trying to get info., or getting revenge.

That's why we don't use torture chambers to the point of death, when convicts are executed. It's considered inhumane.

Justice is required in a civilized society, IMO. But torture is not. Very different things to me.

[Mz Pip]

46. I have no problem with how it went down.

Bin Laden died in a war that he started. He had years to turn himself over for trial but didn't. He was not your common criminal; this was a battlefield of his own making.

I don't approve of torture. We got his computers and diaries and probable far more intelligence than if we had tortured him.

[LatteLibertine]

47. If torture

is "enhanced interrogation" then kicking someone's ass is "enhanced argumentation."

We've been sending folks to other countries to be tortured for years. Doesn't fit too well with the democracy, liberty and human rights stance we often take. What's the polite term for that? Rendition?

[Ramulux]

48. I dont support illegal assasinations or torture

We have no right to be conducting covert military operations in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan do not want our military in their country. I dont give a shit how bad a person Bin Ladin is, America does not have the right to be dispatching elite forces all over the world to take down terrorists we dont like. Especially in countries that do not want us there.

[Avant Guardian]

53. I don't think we went after him because we 'don't like' him

We went after him because he destroyed part of a major American city and murdered thousands of US citizens in the process.

[Ramulux]

54. What I said still stands

Obviously Bin Ladin is a criminal terrorist I didn't say he wasn't. I was simply making the point that the people of Pakistan dont want our military in their country and we have no right to be conducting covert operations in their country regardless of what Bin Ladin did to us or any other country.

[stevenleser]

68. The government that represents Pakistan signed an agreement with us that allowed us to do this

pontificating about "what the people don't want" in the face of that is meaningless posturing.

[Bonobo]

49. You should ask next time we have a Republican president.

Ethics seem to rebound when that happens for some reason.

[MacNfries]

55. Regarding OBL ...

#1- I don't think there was really any option to bring OBL back alive for trial. Imagine the money that would have been spent and the American lives threatened by knowing OBL was alive. So, I am glad they took that option off the table ... smart move.

#2- No, I would not want enhanced interrogation techniques used ... again, with the info collected at his hideout, and his verbal video admitting to the World Trade Center disaster, there would be no need. Besides, again, this would have endangered every American life in Europe as possibly hostage trades etc.

Having a LIVE OBL would have been disasterous situation to be in ... Obama hit a home run on this one ... no doubt about it.

[saras]

56. Same thing, no, and no

Question one - no, I didn't approve of the assassination. I thought a capture and legal trial under international law would set a profoundly important example of the USA moving towards a more lawful foreign policy, whereas an assassination sets an equally powerful example of the US setting itself above the law. I saw no reason to believe it wasn't either possible or practical.

Now, in, say, November 2001, I thought assassination to be a reasonable approach, but the situation was different at the time, as well as us having less information about the behind-the-scenes history.

Regarding torture, since we know it doesn't work, and we've known it doesn't work for at least five hundred years, someone who claims to be using it to extract information, as opposed to terrorize civilians, is known to not be speaking in good faith. So no, I don't think using torture can be excused morally under any conditions whatsoever.

Thirdly, there's no reason that someone's 'ethical' reasons and their 'pragmatic' ones to be different, or for that matter for them to even HAVE ethics other than pragmatism.

So, in sum
Assassination is always wrong, and although there may be things that are more wrong, they are rare
Torture is always so wrong that there is pretty much NEVER any situation where it's the most appropriate response.
War is war, and one side doesn't get to label their opponents 'terrorists' just because they want to keep their own territory out of the war.

[Fire1]

57. First answer, yes. Second answer, No. Why?

Because for all practical purposes, interrogation and capture would've been a waste of time, money and energy. Elimination was expeditious, warranted and easiest option.

[SkyDaddy7]

58. It was not an ASSASSINATION & HELL NO!

Osama Bin Laden said he was at war with America & no place or person is off limits & he was exactly CORRECT! Osama Bin Laden was killed on the exact battlefield he himself described! He was not a the leader of a state so he was not ASSASSINATED. And HELL NO to TORTURE it does not work, PERIOD!

[Raine]

60. YES approve of killing him ... NO to torture. nt

[MH1]

61. The moral question is VERY easy.

He was killed in a situation where he was not under control and might have killed others. Once he is under control and there is no chance he can hurt others, THEN the responsibility for humane treatment is relevant.

[TheKentuckian]

65. Where do you stand on a theoretical capture then kill?

Many DU'ers indicated that such a thing was if it happened and I think it is tell tale if you have any scruples at all.

If such a thing happened I would hold both the folks giving the orders and the executioners responsible for war crimes on par with torture or worse. A complete abdication of our values and hundreds of years in the advancement of civil liberties.

I'm almost equally disgusted by the "a trial would be too messy" folks. I don't think that can EVER be an acceptable thought and have any hope of maintaining a system built on the rule of law. You can't say we are a just people save when it is too much of a pain in the ass or may embarrass our government or lead to some form of blow back. We have no such exceptions in our Constitution.

We have become almost fully a nation that only wants principles, standards, and morals when they are either easy or to use as political attacks to beat the opposition.

"Pragmatic" continues to be code for amoral. There is nothing like being in power to make some folks reevaluate the worth of rights and legal protections and the validity of the US Constitution.

[Mr. Jefferson]

63. Assassination...?

[Sky Masterson]

64. Yes I support inserting lead slugs at a great velocity in to Bin Laden

And on the capture alive thingie..I'm glad they didn't. Just think of how hard it would be to put him on trial.If we learned anything from the whole Guantanamo bay terrorist trial is that the right bitched relentlessly about putting these guys on trial in the states,Bin Laden would be that 1000X over. And forget about turning him over to the Hague..That would never ever happen

[DCBob]

66. I think your conservative "friend" is baiting you into a debate to try to distract..

from the significance, politically and practically, of taking out bin Laden. I would ignore him/her.

[mkultra]

67. your use of the word "assasination" is questionable.