• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

I know this is going to be a hard concept for you to accept buuuuut, words matter. If you are going to childishly accuse someone of lying, it would be in your best interest to make damn sure you have your facts straight. And here, once again, you don't.


Right, I've caught you in several lies, this just happens to be one of em.


No links, concession noted.


You really do like to hide behind the internet's skirts, don't you? What do you think might happen, in the real world, if you accused another man of lying and were 100% wrong? Hell, the issue here isn't even that you're wrong. You're just a damn liar. [/B]


Go check out the latest picture of me in the tavern and I'll throw the question back at you. What do you think would happen to me if some mouth foamer like you came after me? :lamo


BTW, couple things. I'm very easy to find. :shrug: and why is it, you think physically threatening me makes you look respectable? :2wave:



you lost the argument, got caught in a lie, and now you threaten me? :lamo


TD had nothing on you kid. :thumbs:
 
I know this is going to be a hard concept for you to accept buuuuut, words matter. If you are going to childishly accuse someone of lying, it would be in your best interest to make damn sure you have your facts straight. And here, once again, you don't.

You really do like to hide behind the internet's skirts, don't you? What do you think might happen, in the real world, if you accused another man of lying and were 100% wrong? Hell, the issue here isn't even that you're wrong. You're just a damn liar.

Tell me, what do you think would happen?
 
Right, I've caught you in several lies, this just happens to be one of em.

No links, concession noted.

Go check out the latest picture of me in the tavern and I'll throw the question back at you. What do you think would happen to me if some mouth foamer like you came after me?

This is all the proof anyone needs to see what you're truly made of. Trying to intimidate someone with a picture? Seriously? :roll: I'm not interested in a pic of you. The image of you hiding behind the internet's skirts is funny enough. :lol:

BTW, couple things. I'm very easy to find. and why is it, you think physically threatening me makes you look respectable?
:2rofll:Oh yeah, that's right... in your virtual world? :2funny:

you lost the argument, got caught in a lie, and now you threaten me?
TD had nothing on you kid.


Show me my lie.

Your insecurity screams for attention pal.

Show me my threat.

Your lying about what I posted ("soldiers" vs your lie of "US soldiers") and your lack of honor in admitting it illustrates why you don't deserve anyone's respect here. As is your MO, whenever you're caught lying or not able to produce proof of your lies you revert to name calling. Is that what you learned from your hero Barracuda Barbie? That's her MO too. :roll:

Show me my lies... I dare you!

Carry on Palin lover.
 
[]This is all the proof anyone needs to see what you're truly made of. Trying to intimidate someone with a picture? Seriously? [/B] :roll: I'm not interested in a pic of you. The image of you hiding behind the internet's skirts is funny enough. :lol:

:2rofll:Oh yeah, that's right... in your virtual world? unny:

uhm you made the veiled threat, I simply was showing you I wasn't a wall flower you keep infering I am.. you brought it up hero, not me. :shrug:




Show me my lie.

Your insecurity screams for attention pal.

Show me my threat.

Your lying about what I posted ("soldiers" vs your lie of "US soldiers") and your lack of honor in admitting it illustrates why you don't deserve anyone's respect here. As is your MO, whenever you're caught lying or not able to produce proof of your lies you revert to name calling. Is that what you learned from your hero Barracuda Barbie? That's her MO too. :roll:

Show me my lies... I dare you!




You call me a "palin lover" and state she is my "hero" a "beck lover" even though I have been clear that I am no fan of either.

that's two lies right there.

then you claimed "soldiers" when in context you clearly were claiming US soldiers, only after asking you 4 times to prove this did you change your story to "soldiers"


Thats your third lie.


Now your claiming you didn't make a veiled threat at me.


That's your 4th lie.




Carry on Palin lover.[/B]


5th lie.



As for "respect" and what not. You have 8 friends here, 2 of which were banned. Me, well, I'm well liked, so this nonsense about respect, and you cackling about "we" is a joke.


Now, can you try to be truthful for once, and try to stay on topic without the lies and the attacks?
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
The pissing contest ends now. You all want to just have a go at each other, take it to the basement. Get back on topic and stop focusing on each other. Anyone want to continue to just make posts about other posters without even touching what the thread is about and I'll be happy to break in the new Thread Ban rules.
 
you claimed "soldiers" when in context you clearly were claiming US soldiers, only after asking you 4 times to prove this did you change your story to "soldiers"

Staying on topic here, I said exactly what I meant.

US courts have convicted soldiers and civilians of waterboarding.
It is quite accepted by SCOTUS as torture.

Address "it"... or not.
 

Staying on topic here, I said exactly what I meant.



Address "it"... or not.




If you wish to change your position and now claim you weren't claiming US soldiers. I could care less. Fact is though waterboarding was not considered torture by SCOTUS until recently. AFTER the fact. Therefore the claim that bush violated this, is patently false and dishonest.
 
Last edited:
If you wish to change your position and now claim you weren't claiming US soldiers. I could care less.

I changed nothing.


Fact is though waterboarding was not considered torture by SCOTUS until recently. AFTER the fact. Therefore the claim that bush violated this, is patently false and dishonest.


Really? Well then, allow me to educate you.


The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
clip_image001.gif

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

So, there in one nice article, you have case law establishing waterboarding as illegal torture in American military law, in U.S. criminal law, in international law and even in U.S. civil law. In other words, waterboarding has been illegal for a very long time.

Here’s another excellent article proving that waterboarding is still torture:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

Here’s a nice history for waterboarding since 1926:

http://www.google.com/search?q=waterboarding+conviction+history&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1B3GGIC_en___US356&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1800,tluh:2010,tl_num:100&ei=EFwSTNKDAYSclger5dWaCA&ved=0COMBEMsBKAQ
 

I changed nothing.




Really? Well then, allow me to educate you.


Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

So, there in one nice article, you have case law establishing waterboarding as illegal torture in American military law, in U.S. criminal law, in international law and even in U.S. civil law. In other words, waterboarding has been illegal for a very long time.

Here’s another excellent article proving that waterboarding is still torture:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

Here’s a nice history for waterboarding since 1926:

http://www.google.com/search?q=waterboarding+conviction+history&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1B3GGIC_en___US356&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1800,tluh:2010,tl_num:100&ei=EFwSTNKDAYSclger5dWaCA&ved=0COMBEMsBKAQ

Bush will never be prosecuted, but as long as it causes you to have convulsions, I like keeping the hope alive. :lol:
 
Bush will never be prosecuted,

You may be correct. But, as there are no statute of limitations on treason or war crimes... as long as he breathes there is still time.

In the meantime, knowing what the world thinks of him is comfort enough.
 
You may be correct. But, as there are no statute of limitations on treason or war crimes... as long as he breathes there is still time.

In the meantime, knowing what the world thinks of him is comfort enough.

Hehe, that doesn't mean jack, and apparently Bush doesn't appear rattled over it.
 
Bush will never be prosecuted, but as long as it causes you to have convulsions, I like keeping the hope alive. :lol:

No, he won't, but that doesn't make him less a criminal. Being punished isn't the definition of breaking the law. Breaking the law is.
 
Yeah, that's the standard reply from the uber libs out there, and has been for quite some time now. However, seems you can never quite get around how it is that the waterboarding of today is nothing like that of Pol Pot, or other despots through out history that use it to extremes. All you can do from this point is inflate numbers of times used, and make vague statements that you think everyone is subjected to the practice.

About what one would expect from someone who believes in the Lancet numbers even after they were debunked.


j-mac

J, that's quite false. The waterboarding procedure itself is the same. And if it weren't, it wouldn't be even get them to confess to crimes they didn't do. You are simply misinformed.

And btw, don't read too much OS and think you have something. I challenege to find anywhere where I said the Lancet numbers were exactly right. Being as dishonest as OS doesn't speak well of you.
 
Hehe, that doesn't mean jack, and apparently Bush doesn't appear rattled over it.

Bush is too stupid to know if he should be worried.
He'll simply wait for Cheney to tell him if he should be worried.
:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom