Friday, May 6, 2011

The Bin Laden Torture Debate Could be Worse

This development should have been obvious:
 Yoo told CNN on Thursday night that the special forces team sent to kill bin Laden should have instead taken him alive and kept him as a source of future intelligence. Failing to do that, Yoo says, cost the U.S. a valuable asset. That was a mistake, Yoo says.
Not that I saw it coming, but really that the right would go from "surely torture was essential in Osama's demise" to "Obama should have tortured Osama" is a pretty obvious development.

As I said, I would have preferred he be put on trial, and I fear that cowardice over the risks in doing so may have influenced how this went down (which really is looking like an execution or at least that Osama's death was the preferred result, one which SEALs were happy to oblige), I prefer that we're having the "did torture help catch him" stupid debate instead of the "why isn't Obama torturing him?" debate we would be having if he was in custody (or worst of all, if Obama did have Osama tortured, there wouldn't be a debate).

Oh, and good job Berkeley.  Morons.

1 comment:

  1. I saw the 'torture was essential' coming, not the 'should've captured and tortured him' but both shouldn't be any surprise at us

    the right will whine about anything... even if they advocated for it last night...