Even though I watch CNN just about every day, I just learned there is a "deather" movement forming in the US now.

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

I love it when the bleeding heart liberals whine about how Osama didn't get fair treatment. Well i'm sure all of the families of his victims see things a little different.

The thing is, some people just dont deserve fair trial, look at how Milosevic and Saddam turned their trials into farce. Both died in the end anyway, Milosevic by himself while Saddam was left hangin.

Actually, IIRC, there was a news report that he actually did burn a Quran recently and announced it. Just about everyone denounced him for it too, and I know people wanted him arrested for it.

The thing is, we're supposed to show as "fair players" that we're above that sort of thing.

All this "piecemeal" releasing of info is pissing me off. Where the hell is WikiLeaks now?

My original argument that you replied to was about how hard-line Muslims teach the whole 'covert or perish' ideal. These extremists are teaching and training for Jihad. In Jihad there really is no compromise. So, I just defended that.

I have already stated that I think war is irrational and myopic, I am not sure what else I can say about that. In war bad things happen to good people, I am not sure how to solve this without doing away with war entirely. Sadly, I don't think it is human nature (at least not a present) to do away with war entirely.

In this particular conflict, I don't think the U.S. should have gotten involved. Regardless of the objective, whether it be oil, WMDs, or CIA agendas, I don't think the U.S. was ready psychologically or financially. What we ended up with was several fronts in a undefined military offensive (that has never been categorized as a war) that got prolonged so long that it made everyone we were attempting to 'help' end up hating, or at least resenting, us.

Heck, I am pretty much in the "U.S. should pull out of everywhere and let the world just nuke themselves" camp at this point. Pull out of the Middle East. Pull out of Europe. Pull out of Africa. Pull out of South America. Pull out of Asia (and take all our claymore mines out of the Korean DMZ and mine the U.S. Southern Border). Pull out of all of them, militarily and monetarily. Very little good has come of us abroad since WWII; our money seems to end up in the hands of tyrants, and our military efforts only bog-down and create new enemies.

Having said all that, I believe that the death of Osama was a good thing. Regardless of how we got there, the death of an evil man is always something to be celebrated.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, notice I said I am 'pretty much' in the 'pull out of everywhere' camp. I know it is not that easy. However, if I ever found a magic lamp, it might be one of my wishes, all the same.
/edit

TL;DR Version:
War sucks, but having Osama dead is good.

I love it when die hard conservatives are willing to throw each and every human right in the gutter and stomp on it until you can't recognise it anymore, to "do the right thing" and to "bring criminals to justice" (with the real intention to fill their pockets with money - but that's a sidenote).

An innocent taxi driver called Dilawar may be beaten to death by american solders while being held in extrajudicial detention (one of the hallmarks of totalitarian states). The (american) coroner may declare it as homicide in his official papers and state, that his legs looked "like a bus drove over him". But that's not criminal, no. It's just the (regretable) shit that happens in wars.

I also haven't seen one of those conservatives standing in front of the victims of Abu Ghraib, expressing his apologies and stating that "those responsible have been put on trial, sentenced and that justice has been done" - and you DON'T need conspiracy theories to see that otherwise. But hey, cheer up! Those where only a few (regretable) isolated cases.

I wonder how those conservatives will react, once the first american soldier in custody of an enemy state or organization will be treated to waterboarding. You know, the same interogation technique that was considered to be not torture, and absolutely nobody using it under Mr. Bush's reign having to fear consequences for doing so. Let me guess: all of a sudden it would be considered condemnable torture, and those responsible criminals that must be hunted down relentlessly!

Yes, I believe that Osama Bin Laden's death wasn't a "kill in action" but an execution. Yes, it has far more to do with revenge, then with "legal right" - and I have no problem with that at all.

However, you SHOULD apply the same standards on both sides. Care to count up the numbers of mourning families and (innocent) victims of those die hard conservative measures? Put them next to Bin Laden's list to compare? Oh. Wow. Nice world you're living in - let my the fuck out will 'ya?

The trouble is that our soldiers have already been subject to far worse: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

I'll just state that I think water-boarding is not 'torture', not in the strictest sense of the word. However, I also don't believe that people that have not been accused of any wrong-doing formally should be subjected to this treatment. In normal wars, where there are two sovereign countries fighting against each other, the Geneva Conventions condemn this sort of thing.

The trouble is that, technically, the U.S. is not at war with anyone. Sure, there is this enigmatic 'War on Terror' going on, but who is that exactly. Not only that, but the people we are fighting are not part of any country's army, per se, which creates an even darker gray area.

So, our government is holding citizens of other nations, often without any stated reason, for a military offensive that my country's politicians don't have the balls to vote in as a 'war'. Thus, the Geneva Conventions can be sidestepped because these detainees are neither the product of a war, nor are they even soldiers of a sovereign nation. Yeah, I agree with you, there are certainly problems with this scenario.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed's water-boarding possibly led to finding Osama. I think that KSM could have been held legally as a war criminal, and questioned with enhanced interrogation techniques (e.g. water boarding), even under the Geneva Conventions rules. I don't think water-boarding quite qualifies as torture under Geneva Convention rules, but many share a different view. However, as I said before, I think holding people without a stated reasons and subjecting them to any sort of interrogation, torture or not, is not kosher.

Also, would you please stop painting all 'conservatives' with the same brush? I consider myself VERY conservative, however I still agree with most of what you say. For the record, my views are as follows:

Economics: Objectivist Capitalist
Politics: Small-government Libertarian
Religion: Sartrian Existentialist

The real problem here is, that the government in charge at this point seeked that gray area to do what they did - exactly knowing, that they could never pass their measures otherwise in any shape or form legally.

Waterboarding doesn't work within the Geneva Conventions. Never had, never will.
That's WHY the Bush administration needed to deny people like KSM the prisoner of war status. That's WHY (if ever) he will be put in front of a military trial, denying him legal rights anyone otherwise accused would have. The "enhanced interrogation techniques is WHY they can't put him in a legal, civil trial, as any charge would crumble to pieces, as soon as his treatment would be explained.

When the other side uses "whining bleeding heart liberals" as description? Nah. And I clearly stated die hard conservatives - don't put on the shoe if you think it doesn't fit.

Mind showing me where it says this? It is my understanding that The Convetion defines it as something like: anything that causing extreme physical or mental suffering. I honestly don't think water-boarding causes either. Is it fun? Of course not, but I don't think it is 'severe' at all.

Good to know that Barrack Obama is a 'die-hard conservative'.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_guantanamo

Can these things occur? Sure. But I don't think it is likely, especially if proper care is taken. The physical damage probably due to over-zealousness from the interrogator, not from water-boarding itself. When done correctly, water boarding merely simulates drowning, and doesn't cause any last physical harm to the victim. If anything, there just needs to be more oversight during the interrogations.

As for psychological damage, most interrogation techniques, regarded as torture or not, revolve around tearing down the victims psyche in some manner. It is no worse than a soldier might receive on the front lines. I know several people with various degrees of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and it can get very bad. When a soldier goes to war, there is a high probability of psychological scars. I feel enhanced interrogation is just another part of war, in this regard.

This should answer your question about the Japanese in WWII, as well as why water-boarding is not 'torture' if performed correctly.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/24/waterboarding-does-not-fit-torture-criteria/

Heh, 'boy'? I don't think I have been called that in years ;).

I was referring to the fact that Obama DID re-open Gitmo. Politicians will try to spin their actions to most benefit them, regardless, so his rhetoric is less concerning to me in this case.

People do things for many reason, and it is NOT all determined by their political affiliation. When you throw names, labels, and stereotypes around, it can only weaken your case, unless you are able to justify your accusations. In debate, this is called an Ad Hominem fallacy; directing your attacks towards the person, rather toward the issue. Heck, you did as much by calling me 'boy' in your reply to me.

The issue here is that Gitmo is sidestepping agreed just conduct for war-time treatment of prisoners. I totally agree with this, and I have said as much. However, you don't stop there, you start blaming 'conservatives' for the fact that Gitmo exists. Sure, I think the Bush Administration should take most of the blame, however Obama must also bear some of the burden, since Gitmo was closed and he REOPENED it. For me, actions speak louder than words in politics.

I know plenty of conservatives who want Gitmo closed, and who are strenuously against the Patriot Act. I also know plenty of liberals who are for both the Patriot Act and Gitmo because it makes them feel safer. Trying to lump one group or the other into a group merely promotes the 'Us. vs. Them' mentality, and does not foster orderly debate and compromise at all.

EDIT:
Anyway, I think I have said all I can say about this, and I think I understand your position well enough. I don't think this dead horse needs to be mutilated any longer. At least for me, this debate is over. :)

I know you mentioned you were done with this debate and this isn't an attempt to engage in one. My only intent is to clarify the context of the Las Vegas Sun link you provided as an example of how our actions differed from the Japanese during WWII.

The link you posted was a "letter to the editor" opinion piece. From the very same source, here is another "letter to the editor" opinion piece that points out harm from waterboarding is well-documented.

Kuma Games has a game based on the shooting now. :)

I meant I was done debating with Siannah, because it didn't seem to be going anyplace. I pretty much understand by now where she is coming from, and I am sure she understands where I am coming from; further debate wouldn't accomplish much, I felt.

Fair enough. Finding accurate information on this topic is rather difficult since it is so emotionally and politically charged at this moment. Every news story or article I read has a definite agenda or bias one way or the other. If I could find a medical/psychiatric study from a respected source, that would be helpful. However, my Google-fu must be lacking, for I couldn't find one after about 10 minutes of looking.

I'll concede it is a gray area, for sure, and whether or not it qualifies as torture is very much a judgment call. My judgment is that when compared to some of the physical and psychological damage of true torture techniques (e.g. bamboo shoots under finger nails, drawing and quartering, rats in a bag over the victim's head, raping, and etc.), it really pales in comparison. When compared to war in general, and what a soldier can expect on the front lines, water-boarding also seems rather tame to me. Other people may see it differently, and I don't think any worse of them for disagreeing with me; as I said, it is a very gray area.

EDIT:
Keep in mind that I totally disagree with Gitmo's practice of keeping people and subjecting them to ANY interrogation without formally charging them. I am only arguing whether I think water-boarding should be used to interrogate combatants during wartime. Where it involves true POWs, I don't believe water-boarding qualifies as 'torture' under the Geneva Convention.