Did it work or didn't it?

I don't believe I've argued that waterboarding is illegal. I have said it's torture; I fall into the camp that doesn't think it yields great intelligence and compromises our international position too much.

However, what you call assassination, most other people call the disposal of the highest military target in an ongoing war. So to compare the two is a false equivalency, and it will always be a false equivalency no matter how many times it's repeated.

 

But "torture" is illegal.

 

You were asking me about my arguments, not the existing laws. Briefly, because I know you've been trying to sell this version for a month now: I believe killing Bin Laden was the prudent military course of action, and he was a military target and not a criminal or political one. So I do not call it an assassination.

 

So do you consider Abbottabad an active battlefield?

 

I consider Bin Laden's house to have been an active battlefield. As he is no longer there, I do not consider it active; however, if we get irrefutable information that his successor has set up shop there, I expect us to treat that person the same way. At this point Anwar al-Awlaki's and Ayman al-Zawahiri's houses are active battlefields.

 

Boom, no matter how much it has been tap-danced around you have made your point. At this juncture it is an exercise in futility to try to get them to admit what we know they realize...but would never say even if they were being waterboarded.

 

If you accept that Bin Laden is a soldier, what do you consider the prisoners at GITMO?

If you consider them soldiers, then that would be in conflict with the liberal narrative over the past 8 years that claimed they were terrorists and should be afforded due process.

 

I laughed when I read that, but it's so obviously true that those who can't accept it just don't get it on any level.

Are you glad Bin Laden is dead? If you are, you should be glad the US did what it had to to get the information it needed to assassinate him.

It's common sense.

 

But that's not a fait accompli, but a meme

 

Bin Laden was plotting an attack on Los Angeles.

I don't care what we had to do to get him. I'm just glad we got him.

If that sounds simplistic, so be it. I certainly would not want to be the one who tells our military what lines they should and should not cross when we're at war with terrorists who would gladly kill all of us given the chance.

 

No. It's insane.

 

But what if - hypothetically - we could have gotten him five years earlier by not torturing? By putting our resources into other interrogation/information-gathering techniques?

The ends don't always justify the means. For the last time, you have to evaluate the situation not by itself, but against other reasonable alternatives.

That's more than just "common sense." It's science.