Thank you, Mr. President

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
The unease among the libs here is palpable. They don't know what to say. After years of preaching following the law to show we are better than them, they get this. Everything you have spoken against has come to pass, with great results i might add.

I probably qualify as a liberal, Dakota, and i think that for those of us who endorse the rule of international law and decry the use of torture, the assassination of Osama bin Laden does raise important and difficult questions.

I've read a fair amount about the intelligence operations that led up to OBL's killing, and i haven't yet seen anything that attributes intelligence gained in the effort to waterboarding or other torture/enhanced interrogation techniques. For me, this is a relief, because i oppose torture under all circumstances, including the oft-mentioned 'ticking bomb' scenario. I just believe that it's wrong for one person to torture another person, no matter what the justification. That's a moral judgment, and not one that i think i can impose on anyone else.

To me, it is troubling that we entered Pakistan without authorization and conducted a secret mission that was ostensibly against international law. This isn't because i dislike the outcome - i've shed no tears for Osama bin Laden or his associates. However, i think that international law can be useful for maintaining international stability, and whenever a nation flouts the rules it weakens the entire system. The alternative to an effective international system is a system of competing empires, and i don't relish that notion at all.

I think President Obama was probably troubled by some of these questions, too, but he has shown himself over time to be a pragmatist. He recognized the value of eliminating OBL, and made the decision to send in the SEALS. It was a risk, and the operation carried real costs - financial, diplomatic, and geopolitical. In a real way, acts like this weaken the system of international law, and as a supporter of the U.N. i suspect this bothers him. His address to the nation was somber and serious, as it should have been, and it's clear that the administration is treading very carefully around the issue of releasing photos, how the burial was conducted, etc. It's a delicate balancing act, and i don't envy him - he's put himself in a tough spot. But, that's what pragmatists do: they take actions that work politically but are difficult ideologically. Personally, i'd rather have a pragmatist than an ideologue in the White House, but this is a personal preference.

There's a lot of mishmash in this thread, but i hope that something useful comes out of the exchange.