SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

tater · 05-07-11, 08:28 AM

You don't think in an "intelligence war" we should take prisoners, or do you just not like that it's called, "gitmo?"

Not sure what the total cost of the GWOT has been, but at least we got something for the money. We've spent as much in the red in the last 2 years on nothing worthwhile at all, just pork, and political payback. You can be against the human cost, but since the Obama admin, no one on the left can complain about cost anymore, sorry. The left is unwilling to consider any realistic cuts to get us balanced at this point. A trillion in cuts over 10 years (Obama) when we're spending maybe 1.5 trillion in the red per year?

Obama deserves credit where it is due for ordering Osama's execution, but the entire infrastructure the raid was based on was built by his predecessor in the name of "war," where many of his opponents were calling for dealing with it as a law enforcement issue---notably Senator Kerry. Being upset with gitmo seems to fit that mold---they want civilian trials for people who should not ever have a trial until the war is over. If it's a war, you hold them til it's over, then try them. If you think it's a criminal justice issue, then you try them now.

Note that summary execution is not really compatible with the notion of trials. Bin Laden was killed with no due process (among MANY others ordered by the President, most of whom are "presumed" bad guys), yet some still imagine that gitmo is somehow worse? That boggles my mind. If gitmo is bad, then extra-judicial killing MUST be worse to anyone even a little rational. Make no mistake in talking about gitmo and waterboarding, to be consistent you need to say that Osama should have been captured (which he would easily have been had that been the orders, I have no doubt in the Seals abilities along those lines).

Again, for clarity, Obama will get the lion's share of OBL killin' credit, and deserves it by virtue of being the boss when it happened, period. Still, he stands on other shoulders. Personally, I think that had he explicitly given credit to Bush he'd have bounced higher. Americans like that sort of bipartisanship, and it would not only have been the right thing to do, but also the politically expedient thing to do (a remarkable confluence).

05-07-11, 08:28 AM	#528
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	You don't think in an "intelligence war" we should take prisoners, or do you just not like that it's called, "gitmo?" Not sure what the total cost of the GWOT has been, but at least we got something for the money. We've spent as much in the red in the last 2 years on nothing worthwhile at all, just pork, and political payback. You can be against the human cost, but since the Obama admin, no one on the left can complain about cost anymore, sorry. The left is unwilling to consider any realistic cuts to get us balanced at this point. A trillion in cuts over 10 years (Obama) when we're spending maybe 1.5 trillion in the red per year? Obama deserves credit where it is due for ordering Osama's execution, but the entire infrastructure the raid was based on was built by his predecessor in the name of "war," where many of his opponents were calling for dealing with it as a law enforcement issue---notably Senator Kerry. Being upset with gitmo seems to fit that mold---they want civilian trials for people who should not ever have a trial until the war is over. If it's a war, you hold them til it's over, then try them. If you think it's a criminal justice issue, then you try them now. Note that summary execution is not really compatible with the notion of trials. Bin Laden was killed with no due process (among MANY others ordered by the President, most of whom are "presumed" bad guys), yet some still imagine that gitmo is somehow worse? That boggles my mind. If gitmo is bad, then extra-judicial killing MUST be worse to anyone even a little rational. Make no mistake in talking about gitmo and waterboarding, to be consistent you need to say that Osama should have been captured (which he would easily have been had that been the orders, I have no doubt in the Seals abilities along those lines). Again, for clarity, Obama will get the lion's share of OBL killin' credit, and deserves it by virtue of being the boss when it happened, period. Still, he stands on other shoulders. Personally, I think that had he explicitly given credit to Bush he'd have bounced higher. Americans like that sort of bipartisanship, and it would not only have been the right thing to do, but also the politically expedient thing to do (a remarkable confluence). __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine Last edited by tater; 05-07-11 at 09:07 AM.