Did Bin Laden Win?

[mimartin]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/04/bin-laden-has-won-atheist-richard-dawkins-voices-anger-after-airport-security-confiscates-his-little-jar-of-honey/

 

Forget for a moment who publically stated this. Forget that he is an Atheist, forget his political orientation. Forget that this was started by a small jar of honey. The question itself stands, did the Terrorist win? Did we change what this country stands for after 9/11? Did we violate our own moral core for a perceived sense of security?

 

Personally I whole wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Dawkins in this matter. Things like the Patriot Act, preemptive war, Guantanamo Bay, Watchlist, No Fly List, Abu Ghraib, Torture...Make me really question my country and the direction we are headed. The moment we decided guilty until proven innocent, torture was fair game and we willingly gave up our freedoms for security, bin Laden won...Even if he is now dead.

[Sith Sizzle]

The reason we interrogate terrorists with certain methods in other countries and at sea is so that we don't have to give them rights and follow The Constitution. We barely get enough info from terrorists as is with different methods of torture. Who knows where we would be if we just asked them nicely to answer questions that could save lives. We have done this for years and the only reason people think we started after 9/11 is because that's when the information was leaked and it was more of a big news story since the terrorists we had in custody at the time were high value targets. We do what we have to do to protect the country as a whole. Petty crimes and even serious ones such as murder are nothing compared to terrorists that could bring an entire country to their knees if we let our guard down. So no Bin Laden didn't win.

[Totenkopf]

The Blaze, mim? Isn't that a step just above/below "faux news"?

 

In all seriousness, while I think he's a twit for ranting about the honey (we've lived with the TSA bs long enough to know this prob already), he's somewhat right about how assinine it's become. We've violated that code in the past (Civil War, WW1 WW2), but it was fortunately shortlived for duration of conflict. Now w/"brilliant" new bureaucracies like Homeland Security and TSA, it seems that the "war" will be unending and we can look fwd to more years of this "dundridge zeal". Frankly, though, we've been gradually losing our rights to an ever self-imposing federal govt and the whole terrorist thing is icing on the cake for those who wish to control us, regardless of their party affiliation. Is terrorism real....yeah. Are there better ways to fight it than our current strategies.....I don't doubt it.

[mimartin]

The Blaze, mim? Isn't that a step just above/below "faux news"?

It was the first thing that had the source tweet actually shown in it. Beyond that the site is irrelevant.

 

As to torture, certain elements within the county may have done it, but up until 9/11 it was not condone by the government. You know the US government which is "We the People"

 

The information extracted from torture is suspect at best. You water board me, I will tell you anything to make it stop and that is the point, I will tell you what you want to know be it the truth or not. Quit watching reruns of 24 hours and look at the science.

 

As to Tot, no this isn't a political thread. As far as I am concern Obama is Bush light when it comes to this.

[Isaac Clarke]

All he wanted was his honey back

[jonathan7]

The reason we interrogate terrorists with certain methods in other countries and at sea is so that we don't have to give them rights and follow The Constitution. We barely get enough info from terrorists as is with different methods of torture. Who knows where we would be if we just asked them nicely to answer questions that could save lives. We have done this for years and the only reason people think we started after 9/11 is because that's when the information was leaked and it was more of a big news story since the terrorists we had in custody at the time were high value targets. We do what we have to do to protect the country as a whole. Petty crimes and even serious ones such as murder are nothing compared to terrorists that could bring an entire country to their knees if we let our guard down. So no Bin Laden didn't win.

 

You NEVER get reliable intelligence from Torture, if people don't break before Torture, when they finally break they will say whatever they think you want to hear. Psychological studies and evidence show that evidence gained from torture is unreliable, as people just become desperate to end the pain so will do whatever they think will end it.

 

Example, after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan, they tortured a captured American pilot for information, he knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and said he knew nothing about the bombs. However having been tortured he confessed that the US had 100 Nuclear Bombs, and then told the Japanese where the next target was (Tokyo).

 

Some of your arguments are total logic fails, just because something has gone on for years does not make it right. Was Slavery right? Was the oppression of Blacks right? Was Apartheid right? Was the Holocaust right? On the grounds they went on for years...

 

That's aside from the moral obligations, and I'm pretty sure given the "Declaration of Independence" against tyranny and the fact the Constitution itself states unfair, unusual and un-judged imprisonment is not to be allowed in US territory - which I think means that say Guantanamo Bay, does in-fact come under the Constitution. Not that I really see any point in having the Constitution if you just ignore it or use technicalities to get out of it when it prooves inconvenient.

[Totenkopf]

It was the first thing that had the source tweet actually shown in it. Beyond that the site is irrelevant.

 

As to torture, certain elements within the county may have done it, but up until 9/11 it was not condone by the government. You know the US government which is "We the People"

 

The information extracted from torture is suspect at best. You water board me, I will tell you anything to make it stop and that is the point, I will tell you what you want to know be it the truth or not. Quit watching reruns of 24 hours and look at the science.

 

As to Tot, no this isn't a political thread. As far as I am concern Obama is Bush light when it comes to this.

 

No offense, but you're addressing the aftermath of govt policies put into place as result of 9-11, which makes it a political thread, as well as a philosophical, etc... one. Main difference between Obama and Bush in this case is that Obama kills more potential info sources w/drones. Last I checked killing was more brutal than waterboarding. But I didn't make a direct comp between them either anyway, they both have contributed to an ever growing federal govt. Innocent till proven guilty isn't exactly the MO of IRS courts btw. As to the the opening, it was a throwaway, hence the smiley.

 

 

As regards totrure, it has rarely been done and openly condoned by the govt, more likely quietly condoned or swept under rug by the government. Of course torture is a loaded term for many people. Most people tend to think of permanent physical damage (say like w/Hanoi Hilton, Nazi victims, denizens of various soviet gulags or those unlucky enough to be caught by the Japanese in ww2). I'm guessing there are more subtle or controlled versions as well....no field manuals at my disposal to check that. While waterboarding is certainly controversial, even where it's success was touted, it was one of several techniques employed w/re to the perp in question. Could they have gotten the info they did w/o it.....we'll never know for certain.

 

As to the honey, Isaac, even he claimed he didn't care about it. Was he lying?

[mimartin]

Well if you want to make it political, fighting a preemptive war against a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks took more lives than any drone attacks. Bush wins

[Totenkopf]

Not sure what your bone here is. I wasn't talking about partisan political (ie dem vs rep, Obama vs Bush), just stating that the nature of your post was ultimately both political and philosophical in nature (ie. did the war on terror fundamentally change us for the worse?).. As to the drones.....regardless of whose strategy it is.....killing is arguably less humane than "torture" that leaves someone alive and mostly still in good health. That said, remember that Bush used the drones first and Obama merely kept that program and stepped it up. So both are "guilty" on that score.

[Sith Sizzle]

You NEVER get reliable intelligence from Torture, if people don't break before Torture, when they finally break they will say whatever they think you want to hear. Psychological studies and evidence show that evidence gained from torture is unreliable, as people just become desperate to end the pain so will do whatever they think will end it.

 

Example, after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan, they tortured a captured American pilot for information, he knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and said he knew nothing about the bombs. However having been tortured he confessed that the US had 100 Nuclear Bombs, and then told the Japanese where the next target was (Tokyo).

 

Some of your arguments are total logic fails, just because something has gone on for years does not make it right. Was Slavery right? Was the oppression of Blacks right? Was Apartheid right? Was the Holocaust right? On the grounds they went on for years...

 

That's aside from the moral obligations, and I'm pretty sure given the "Declaration of Independence" against tyranny and the fact the Constitution itself states unfair, unusual and un-judged imprisonment is not to be allowed in US territory - which I think means that say Guantanamo Bay, does in-fact come under the Constitution. Not that I really see any point in having the Constitution if you just ignore it or use technicalities to get out of it when it prooves inconvenient.

While I agree that people will say whatever you want to hear while being tortured, when that intel turns up to be false, there will be further aggressive interrogations, so that person is more likely to break and tell the truth to end it. The government denies any form of torture that led to the finding of Bin Laden, but the movie Zero Dark Thirty says otherwise. Yes I know even movies based off of true stories spice things up, but I don't think it's ignorant to say that some intel that aided in the death of Bin Laden was possibly "forced out".

 

I never once in my post said that it's good because it's been going on for years, I just wanted to end the misconception that the U.S. using torture methods is a new thing that started after 9/11. It may not have been done nearly as much before, but it has been done.

 

So you may be right about Guantanamo Bay technically being U.S. territory similar to embassies, but I'm not sure. I don't know how it works exactly with ships at sea, but on the news the last few months we were informed that the government was holding a terrorist on a ship indefinitely, meaning they don't have to release him or give him a trial until they feel they are completely done interrogating him. Of course there is no proof that there is or isn't torture involved, but if there is it doesn't necessarily mean what people think as Totenkopf has stated. Torture can include physical abuse of course, but also psychological abuse. They might lie about what they are going to do in the future to him, or that they have his family. These things aren't good, but they are not the truth and I think most people would agree that this type of torture is not nearly as bad as something like waterboarding. Regardless of what we do to terrorists, the U.S. has laws in place to protect them somewhat. They have to get at least 4 hours of sleep every 24 hours and some meals.

 

If the government interrogates a terrorists that may have knowledge that could save plenty of lives and the terrorist is staying quiet, I'm all for using aggressive methods. Even though under intense pressure what someone says might not be creditable, but when all else fails I say go for it. You aren't going to get intel out of someone any other way, so if there's even a 1% chance you'll get someone with knowledge of things that could effect national security to speak, then do what you must.

[supreme kotor]

I'm going to go off the interigation topic for a minute, and try to keep this short.

 

He struck fear into everyone to some degree. That's a victory. Striking hope into a slave and striking fear into a free man are the only two true types of victory in this world. Look around at everything, everysingle thing revolves around hope and fear.

[Sith Sizzle]

I'm going to go off the interigation topic for a minute, and try to keep this short.

 

He struck fear into everyone to some degree. That's a victory. Striking hope into a slave and striking fear into a free man are the only two true types of victory in this world. Look around at everything, everysingle thing revolves around hope and fear.

Well if fear is the only victory, then terrorists are currently controlling the entire world. If after 9/11 happened the entire government shut down for good and there was mass chaos all over the country, that would have been a real victory. Their ultimate goal is something you would see in a Call of Duty campaign.

[supreme kotor]

Well if fear is the only victory, then terrorists are currently controlling the entire world. If after 9/11 happened the entire government shut down for good and there was mass chaos all over the country, that would have been a real victory. Their ultimate goal is something you would see in a Call of Duty campaign.

 

Keep in mind one victory dosent win a war. They got a victory even if its not enought to rule the world it's still one victory. As much as most people hate to admit it, these people knew they wouldent destroy America terrorists still know they can't, completly destroying us may be thier end goal but it's like no racism it can never truly 100% happen.

[mimartin]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see there where it says only Americans or only on American soil. What I see is it includes everyone, everywhere. So getting around our core beliefs on technicalities seems like proving their point that we are the great Satan.

[urluckyday]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see there where it says only Americans or only on American soil. What I see is it includes everyone, everywhere. So getting around our core beliefs on technicalities seems like proving their point that we are the great Satan.

 

Yes, but you also must keep in mind the context of those words. They are the very foundation of our great country, yes, but they were also written directed towards a country that felt that it could impose on the most basic rights of the people from thousands of miles away.

 

Don't look to the Declaration of Independence so much as you should look towards the Constitution; however, the terrorists haven't beaten down the relevancy of our Constitution so much as the lack of interest by people to truly sit down and read it. I don't know why it's not a requirement to have a lesson about it in school every single year.

 

The terrorists didn't "win" anything; rather, the people of the United States "lost" something - they forgot what a shining light in the world this place used to be.

 

Also keep in mind that the same people that wrote and supported the Declaration of Independence would hang spies, tar and feather loyalists, commit acts of terrorism themselves, etc.

[jonathan7]

Yes, but you also must keep in mind the context of those words. They are the very foundation of our great country, yes, but they were also written directed towards a country that felt that it could impose on the most basic rights of the people from thousands of miles away.

 

Err, and that's different to America these days how? Honestly the founding fathers would turn in their Graves seeing American foreign policy over the last 60 years. Not that I think British foreign policy is any better, but I'm not the one in self denial of this fact.

 

[The Doctor]

Has the American government and/or military participated in or permitted the use of torture to achieve its desired ends? It would seem so - as do many other governments and military bodies. Does this fact pre-date the 9/11 attacks in New York and the ensuing "War on Terror"? It would probably be ignorant to believe otherwise.

 

This does nothing, however, to change the fact that since these events occurred, these ideas and practices are now more than ever a part of the public consciousness. In part due to the ease of dissemination of information via the internet, knowledge of - and therefore outrage towards - the practice of torture by (in this case) American powers is greater than ever. The so-called War on Terror has not only raised awareness of but almost legitimised the use of practices that at one time believed to be - correctly or otherwise - something that the United States and their allies were above resorting to. Basically, what used to be a vague concern that nobody liked to talk about is now an integral part, maybe even near the very heart, of discussions about national security.

 

Does this mean that Bin Laden, as the mastermind and personification of the Enemy, "won"? It certainly isn't a loss, that's for sure. The primary goal of men and groups like these is to incite retaliation for the sake of justification - "SEE LOOKIT, WE'RE RIGHT, 'MERICA SUCKS!!". But I think whether or not it's actually a win per se depends not on the actions of the government, but on the actions of the people themselves. So long as our society continues to recognise the repugnance of such actions and keeps the issue in the public mind as one that's in dire need of being resolved, any victory claimed or granted to Al Qaeda is wholly incomplete.

[urluckyday]

Err, and that's different to America these days how? Honestly the founding fathers would turn in their Graves seeing American foreign policy over the last 60 years. Not that I think British foreign policy is any better, but I'm not the one in self denial of this fact.

 

 

Isolationist ideals died in the 1930's, my friend. The terrorists didn't create a country that was involved with anyone else's affairs - America has long been involved globally (most notably after WWII).

 

Also, keep in mind that the anger over British rule was due to multiple reasons (some military-related, most not) - taxation to make-up for the broke British army, lack of representation in Parliament, etc.

 

Sure, it may look backwards to you these days, but America is a superpower - like it or not. Usually, the first country people turn to in a time of peril is America; yet, whenever America finally gets involved, people bitch and moan about it. Just look at the Syria situation. Cries for help on both sides of the mess.

 

Don't take that as most Americans want to be in that position. In fact, I'd say it's quite the opposite - most Americans wish that their country was less involved with global problems. It's like Gary said in Team America: World Police after being told he has the power to stop the terrorists:

 

Well, I don't want the power!

I don't want the guilt,

I don't want the shame.

[Tommycat]

Did he win? Yes, and No. To a degree he fundamentally changed America. But if his intention was to make America less warlike, then he failed miserably. If his intention was to get America out of the middle east, he failed miserably. he pushed America to the point of "Fight or Flight" and the part he wanted to run, fought, but the rest of America cowered in fear and soiled themselves.

 

To an extent his movement is winning though. In much the same way as America defeated the Russians by making them overspend and drive themselves to bankruptcy, so too is the modern America overspending and driving itself to bankruptcy to defend against a threat that in the grand scheme of things is a piddly blip. The Global War On Terrorism™ has essentially caused us to become the great Satan they called us before. We're not better than before 9/11. If anything we're more divided than ever. And a LOT of that has to do with differing opinions on how best to prosecute the GWOT.

[CommanderQ]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/04/bin-laden-has-won-atheist-richard-dawkins-voices-anger-after-airport-security-confiscates-his-little-jar-of-honey/

 

I actually know a guy who used to write for The Blaze.

 

The Blaze, mim? Isn't that a step just above/below "faux news"?

 

Yeah, that's why this particular guy left. Libertarians don't always get along with that site.

 

If the government interrogates a terrorists that may have knowledge that could save plenty of lives and the terrorist is staying quiet, I'm all for using aggressive methods. Even though under intense pressure what someone says might not be creditable, but when all else fails I say go for it. You aren't going to get intel out of someone any other way, so if there's even a 1% chance you'll get someone with knowledge of things that could effect national security to speak, then do what you must.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

As with this example, definitions can always be shifted to fit the situation at hand. When Cheney granted permissions for 'advanced interrogation' techniques, the definition of torture was shifted in order to justify what was being done to prisoners who may or may not have been involved with a terrorist organization (first rule of thumb when regarding intelligence in a combat situation is to not take someone who 'may or may not' be involved, every decision must be completed with at least 100% assurance that they will have the right individual, and that's often collected from first-hand intelligence which often isn't forcibly extracted from someone(or at least shouldn't be)).

 

Now, I'm going to take the doom and gloom approach and say, "What if those definitions needed to be shifted again? What if the term terrorist could be applied to domestic dissenters, despite rulings like Debs V. United States?"

 

Executive power that changes such definitions must be checked and checked again in order to avoid further abuse of both rights of the US citizen as well as the global citizen.

 

It just isn't worth crossing the line like this publicly. There's just no guarantee we can cross back again.

 

 

 

So, back to the main question, did Bin Laden win?

 

No, at least not yet. Bin Laden is dead and Al-Qaeda is giving way to Al-jabaab, the short-term goals of the organization he symbolically led are in shambles.

 

But neither did we win. That much is clear. As Tommycat alluded to the Russian defeat in Afghanistan and the eventual collapse of the USSR due to economic failure, we're headed down a familiar path. We are very much our own worst enemy, tearing at our own Constitutional truths in order to meet our agenda's goals. We're not the same nation that oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union, we're not even the same nation that involved itself in Somalia in the mid-90s. Bin laden's attacks have given way to a renewal of the military industrial complex, as we ourselves attack our own rights and pledge ourselves to new levels of extreme political thought. We're probably more divided now than we have been in a century. The cultural atmosphere has changed indelibly.

 

If we are to reclaim our status as the leading superpower, that culture must change once again. Might as well begin with our foreign involvement and military actions. We cannot continue with our current policies.