The command operation that ended the life of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan on Monday has been a military success with little cracks and politically has been an unprecedented achievement for the presidency of Barack Obama. But by the hour, we discover more details that highlight serious contradictions between the members of the U.S.
government when recounting what happened in those 40 minutes of operation. The White House itself has sown doubts in the final hours to decorate with new details the story of the events. Furthermore, the alleged use of torture to gather clues about the whereabouts of Bin Laden, a practice recognized last night by the CIA director, Leon Panetta, questions Obama's counterterrorism policy.
The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, later justified this operation as an act of "national self-defense." According to Holder, who appeared before the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Senate, if Bin Laden had surrendered could have been arrested and brought to justice, but nothing to indicate he wanted to do, so kill him "was the right thing." According to the version offered by the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, the former leader of Al Qaeda and was armed or used as human shield to a woman when the special forces command shot in the head and chest in his hideout Abbottabad.
This story contradict the first version offered by the principal security advisor to President John Brennan, who said that Bin Laden was involved in the shooting. " The question many are asking now is why the command decided to kill international terrorist rather than stopping. "He resisted.
The U.S. personnel in the field are handled with the utmost professionalism and [Bin Laden] was killed in the operation by dogged resistance," said Carney, who added that the fact was unarmed not affect the status of resistance because "there are many modes of resistance to wield a weapon." In parallel to these statements, the CIA director last night cleared any doubt about the specific mission of the military.
"We had permission to kill him, that was clear. But, if the confrontation [Bin Laden] suddenly raised his arms and surrendered, to catch fish, if given the opportunity. But that does not happen," Panetta said in statements on NBC television. These latest revelations have put the Obama on the defensive and the public to the tessitura of whether Washington exaggerated at first elements surrounding the hazardous ground operation with mere propaganda purposes, reports The Washington Post.
Without guarantees of the presence of Osama At the same time, additional details reveal that the assault was plagued by uncertainty until the last minute. Panetta, who oversaw the whole operation, acknowledged that U.S. intelligence never took pictures and collected other evidence that ensured that Bin Laden was living in the residential complex attack.
Panetta had assured the magazine Timeque only existed between 60 and 80% chance that bin Laden was in the house. "The truth is we could have gone in there and not finding Bin Laden," Panetta has admitted in another interview on PBS NewsHour. But Panetta's thorniest statements were those relating to torture, to ensure that may now have questions "that should be discussed." Perhaps the way as the information obtained helped capture the leader of jihadist terrorism.
He stated that the information obtained from detainees in secret CIA prisons, including Guantanamo, by the controversial waterboarding technique helped to shape the plan that killed bin Laden. Although in the interview, Panetta recognizes the keys that led the intelligence services to find the hiding place of al Qaeda came from "many sources of information", and not just this.
Asked if these "coercive interrogation techniques" included waterboarding, the CIA director, who will shortly take over from Robert Gates at the head of the Department of Defense, said: "Correct." Despite these risks, President Obama decided to go ahead with the operation, because at least, as explained by the head of the CIA, it would for more information on the whereabouts of most wanted man on the planet.
Obama risked. And this time, after 10 years of thwarted operations, happened. Debate on the use of brutal torture Were determinants detainee interrogations to gather the data that led to the CIA to the refuge of Bin Laden?. The question now makes The New York Timescuando It was two days after the death of most wanted terrorist in history in a lightning operation conducted by special forces command of the U.S.
Navy and full debate on the use of torture in interrogating terror suspects. Several exresponsables the previous government of Republican President George W. Bush has seen the death of Bin Laden the perfect opportunity to vindicate the policy known as "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding or simulated drowning, to obtain information from detainees.
Among them is John Yoo, a Justice Department exresponsable and who once wrote secret memos that justified the use of these brutal interrogations. "President Obama can claim, rightfully, the success today," Yoo wrote Monday in the journal National Review, "but is due to the tough decisions taken at the time by the Bush Administration." But if we analyze in detail the interrogation of prisoners, including The New York Times says it made, it concludes that the aggressive techniques to get inside information played a small role to identify the messenger of confidence Bin Laden, the Kuwaiti Abu Ahmad, a key to the whereabouts of the responsible for the worst attack on U.S.
since World War II. One detainee, who was apparently subjected to some interrogation spot hard, gave an overview crucial Mail Bin Laden, responsible for such interrogations. But two prisoners who suffered in the flesh the more aggressive techniques, one of them is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was subjected to waterboarding up in 183 cases "lied and misled the American intelligence services about the identity of the man of confidence leader of Al Qaeda.
The discussion about the network of intelligence that led to the location of Osama has reopened an old debate in U.S. policy on the use of torture and grabbed all the bulbs during the presidency of George W. Buh following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Both exmandatario like many of his former aides have argued for years that the use of force was necessary to persuade the detainees of Al Qaeda and confess.
One of the pillars of the campaign that Barack Obama clinched the presidency was its frontal opposition to torture, which, in the words of Obama himself contradicted the principles of the U.S. Constitution in exchange for little or nothing. Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA agent who participated in interrogations of detainees in 2002, has said in a telephone conversation with the Times said, that coercive techniques "did not provide information useful, meaningful and reliable." This former official has admitted that some of his colleagues defended the action but that "all were deeply concerned and felt it was most un-American and a technique that did not work." "The bottom line is this: if we have any conclusive evidence obtained through the use of waterboarding in 2003, would have captured Osama Bin Laden in 2003," summed up for his part Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, a consultative body depends directly on the presidency.
"It took years of work collecting and analyzing multiple sources to identify the camp, and concluded that bin Laden was living there," he assured this person. Meanwhile, members of the Executive of Obama, still engaged in the euphoria, trying to overcome a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans on torture that may ultimately undermine the achievement so far up Obama's foreign policy. 
government when recounting what happened in those 40 minutes of operation. The White House itself has sown doubts in the final hours to decorate with new details the story of the events. Furthermore, the alleged use of torture to gather clues about the whereabouts of Bin Laden, a practice recognized last night by the CIA director, Leon Panetta, questions Obama's counterterrorism policy.
The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, later justified this operation as an act of "national self-defense." According to Holder, who appeared before the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Senate, if Bin Laden had surrendered could have been arrested and brought to justice, but nothing to indicate he wanted to do, so kill him "was the right thing." According to the version offered by the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, the former leader of Al Qaeda and was armed or used as human shield to a woman when the special forces command shot in the head and chest in his hideout Abbottabad.
This story contradict the first version offered by the principal security advisor to President John Brennan, who said that Bin Laden was involved in the shooting. " The question many are asking now is why the command decided to kill international terrorist rather than stopping. "He resisted.
The U.S. personnel in the field are handled with the utmost professionalism and [Bin Laden] was killed in the operation by dogged resistance," said Carney, who added that the fact was unarmed not affect the status of resistance because "there are many modes of resistance to wield a weapon." In parallel to these statements, the CIA director last night cleared any doubt about the specific mission of the military.
"We had permission to kill him, that was clear. But, if the confrontation [Bin Laden] suddenly raised his arms and surrendered, to catch fish, if given the opportunity. But that does not happen," Panetta said in statements on NBC television. These latest revelations have put the Obama on the defensive and the public to the tessitura of whether Washington exaggerated at first elements surrounding the hazardous ground operation with mere propaganda purposes, reports The Washington Post.
Without guarantees of the presence of Osama At the same time, additional details reveal that the assault was plagued by uncertainty until the last minute. Panetta, who oversaw the whole operation, acknowledged that U.S. intelligence never took pictures and collected other evidence that ensured that Bin Laden was living in the residential complex attack.
Panetta had assured the magazine Timeque only existed between 60 and 80% chance that bin Laden was in the house. "The truth is we could have gone in there and not finding Bin Laden," Panetta has admitted in another interview on PBS NewsHour. But Panetta's thorniest statements were those relating to torture, to ensure that may now have questions "that should be discussed." Perhaps the way as the information obtained helped capture the leader of jihadist terrorism.
He stated that the information obtained from detainees in secret CIA prisons, including Guantanamo, by the controversial waterboarding technique helped to shape the plan that killed bin Laden. Although in the interview, Panetta recognizes the keys that led the intelligence services to find the hiding place of al Qaeda came from "many sources of information", and not just this.
Asked if these "coercive interrogation techniques" included waterboarding, the CIA director, who will shortly take over from Robert Gates at the head of the Department of Defense, said: "Correct." Despite these risks, President Obama decided to go ahead with the operation, because at least, as explained by the head of the CIA, it would for more information on the whereabouts of most wanted man on the planet.
Obama risked. And this time, after 10 years of thwarted operations, happened. Debate on the use of brutal torture Were determinants detainee interrogations to gather the data that led to the CIA to the refuge of Bin Laden?. The question now makes The New York Timescuando It was two days after the death of most wanted terrorist in history in a lightning operation conducted by special forces command of the U.S.
Navy and full debate on the use of torture in interrogating terror suspects. Several exresponsables the previous government of Republican President George W. Bush has seen the death of Bin Laden the perfect opportunity to vindicate the policy known as "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding or simulated drowning, to obtain information from detainees.
Among them is John Yoo, a Justice Department exresponsable and who once wrote secret memos that justified the use of these brutal interrogations. "President Obama can claim, rightfully, the success today," Yoo wrote Monday in the journal National Review, "but is due to the tough decisions taken at the time by the Bush Administration." But if we analyze in detail the interrogation of prisoners, including The New York Times says it made, it concludes that the aggressive techniques to get inside information played a small role to identify the messenger of confidence Bin Laden, the Kuwaiti Abu Ahmad, a key to the whereabouts of the responsible for the worst attack on U.S.
since World War II. One detainee, who was apparently subjected to some interrogation spot hard, gave an overview crucial Mail Bin Laden, responsible for such interrogations. But two prisoners who suffered in the flesh the more aggressive techniques, one of them is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was subjected to waterboarding up in 183 cases "lied and misled the American intelligence services about the identity of the man of confidence leader of Al Qaeda.
The discussion about the network of intelligence that led to the location of Osama has reopened an old debate in U.S. policy on the use of torture and grabbed all the bulbs during the presidency of George W. Buh following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Both exmandatario like many of his former aides have argued for years that the use of force was necessary to persuade the detainees of Al Qaeda and confess.
One of the pillars of the campaign that Barack Obama clinched the presidency was its frontal opposition to torture, which, in the words of Obama himself contradicted the principles of the U.S. Constitution in exchange for little or nothing. Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA agent who participated in interrogations of detainees in 2002, has said in a telephone conversation with the Times said, that coercive techniques "did not provide information useful, meaningful and reliable." This former official has admitted that some of his colleagues defended the action but that "all were deeply concerned and felt it was most un-American and a technique that did not work." "The bottom line is this: if we have any conclusive evidence obtained through the use of waterboarding in 2003, would have captured Osama Bin Laden in 2003," summed up for his part Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, a consultative body depends directly on the presidency.
"It took years of work collecting and analyzing multiple sources to identify the camp, and concluded that bin Laden was living there," he assured this person. Meanwhile, members of the Executive of Obama, still engaged in the euphoria, trying to overcome a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans on torture that may ultimately undermine the achievement so far up Obama's foreign policy.
- US Says Killing Osama Bin Laden Was Lawful (04/05/2011)
- Gotta Watch: Dissecting bin Laden's effect (via This Just In) (04/05/2011)
- Obama will not release photo of bin Laden (04/05/2011)
- With bin Laden dead, what's next for war in Afghanistan? (via This Just In) (04/05/2011)
- So We're Not Gonna See Pictures of Bin Laden's Body. Um, Ok. (04/05/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment