• 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!

Amnesty International Wants Bush Prosecuted for Admitted Waterboarding

Grant said:
Terrorists aren't just torturing Americans. They are cutting their heads off.

Terorists will kill anyone - men, women, children, other Muslims. It really doesn't matter to them.

And these are the people you're sympathizing with?
Click to expand...

These people don't care, it is all about "getting" Bush. Notice not a word on the fact that Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Notice that not a word about Obama signing an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal which means it wasn't illegal before. Notice that not a word about the drone strikes by Obama on civilians in Pakistan. The double standard and ignorance of those with BDS is quite telling.
 
Boo Radley said:
Or it was about money and not any actual guilt. You can't make these judgements without a solid case. A settlement alone does not speak to guilt.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Sure. Clinton will give hundreds of thousands to any woman who makes such a charge, no matter how innocent he is!
 
Boo Radley said:
For many reasons, including ending it, not having it drag out and cost in terms of other goals.
Click to expand...



Maybe you dont care if folks think you raped someine. Personally i find that abhorrent and any and all "settlement" i would agree to would include a retraction of said claim.


Did this happen?
 
Conservative said:
These people don't care, it is all about "getting" Bush.
Click to expand...

the most truthful statement in this entire thread. they don't give a rat's ass about anything else. In their minds, Bush is the bastard love child of Satan and Hitler and nothing will get in the way of their campaign to "bring him to justice".
 
Coronado said:
I could see him settling just to get it out of the papers. He could have settled out of pressure from the party because of an election coming up (I don't remember when all this happened relative to elections). He could have settled to keep things out of the public record that, while not illegal, may have made him look bad. He may have settled because even though he was factually innocent, the case against him was compelling enough that he may have risked losing (remember that in a civil case, the bar is "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a resonable doubt" -- that's a much easier standard).

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other good reasons that do not involve guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

The man was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury and he's worried about his reputation? With whom?

The left will always protect their own, no matter what crimes are committed. And of course they'll attack anyone unmercifully if they are perceived as a threat.
 
Grant said:
The man was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury and he's worried about his reputation? With whom?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered downthread.
Grant said:
The left will always protect their own, no matter what crimes are committed. And of course they'll attack anyone unmercifully if they are perceived as a threat.
Click to expand...
I'm not part of the left, if that's what you're implying.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Maybe you dont care if folks think you raped someine. Personally i find that abhorrent and any and all "settlement" i would agree to would include a retraction of said claim.


Did this happen?
Click to expand...

I still think he has bigger issues hidden in the closet and he was afraid that if this went to trial those secrets might get out. In the minds of the average joe, a settlement is an admission of guilt.

settlements in civil cases are like plea bargains in criminal cases.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
These people don't care, it is all about "getting" Bush. Notice not a word on the fact that Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Notice that not a word about Obama signing an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal which means it wasn't illegal before. Notice that not a word about the drone strikes by Obama on civilians in Pakistan. The double standard and ignorance of those with BDS is quite telling.
Click to expand...

It's remarkable! They'll also overlook Clinton's impeachment for perjury while claiming, without evidence, that "Bush lied, People Died".


It's a dreadful what happens when cousins marry.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Maybe you dont care if folks think you raped someine. Personally i find that abhorrent and any and all "settlement" i would agree to would include a retraction of said claim.


Did this happen?
Click to expand...

I don't think "folks" think that. Some who want to believe anything do, and would even if he were aquitted. And remember, both have leaverage here. Just keeping it going is a problem. Again, settlement alone simply isn't proof in and of itself.
 
Grant said:
It's remarkable! They'll also overlook Clinton's impeachment for perjury while claiming, without evidence, that "Bush lied, People Died".


It's a dreadful what happens when cousins marry.
Click to expand...

They? Is that a myical they? Or do you have specific they in mind?

Two points:

1) Clinton did commit prejury. Most wouldf argue it was a question he shouldn't have been asked, and he should have said none of your damn business, but it was perjury.

2) There is plenty of evidence of lying on Bush's part, just no conviction as no has pressed charges. Unwillingness to hear evidence is not equal to there being no evidence.

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think "folks" think that. Some who want to believe anything do, and would even if he were aquitted. And remember, both have leaverage here. Just keeping it going is a problem. Again, settlement alone simply isn't proof in and of itself.
Click to expand...




But it is in policework, a clue, you prolly don't want him around your daughters. :prof
 
Boo Radley
They? Is that a myical they? Or do you have specific they in mind?
Click to expand...

Of course I have a "they". Read the post!

1)Clinton did commit prejury. Most wouldf argue it was a question he shouldn't have been asked, and he should have said none of your damn business, but it was perjury.
Click to expand...

Ok, just to be clear. Clinton did commit perjury. Thus he is a convicted liar and a disgrace to the Presidency, right?
2) There is plenty of evidence of lying on Bush's part, just no conviction as no has pressed charges. Unwillingness to hear evidence is not equal to there being no evidence.
Click to expand...

Well let's hear what those lies are, a rather harsh accusation, and perhaps the Left can send him to Europe to be tried..

In your dreams.
 
Grant said:
Of course I have a "they". Read the post!
Click to expand...

I think it is another overgeneralization. I would like you to be more specific.



Ok, just to be clear. Clinton did commit perjury. Thus he is a convicted liar and a disgrace to the Presidency, right?
Click to expand...

He committed perjury. That's factual and objective. A disgrace is a subjective term.


Well let's hear what those lies are, a rather harsh accusation, and perhaps the Left can send him to Europe to be tried..

In your dreams.
Click to expand...

Facts are sometimes harsh I suppose, but facts all the same.

The intel did not support Saddam was growing or gathering. Or that he had stockpiles of wmds. the intel supported that he likley had some left over wmd. Most of what the president use as support was doubted by the CIA, using coersed testimony by al Libi (linked around here somewhere), Curveball and Chalibi and his heroes in error. Not expressing those doubts is a lie of ommission. Anyway you look at it, the intel did not support what bush was saying. If he states something not supported, that is lying.
 
Conservative said:
These people don't care, it is all about "getting" Bush. Notice not a word on the fact that Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Notice that not a word about Obama signing an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal which means it wasn't illegal before. Notice that not a word about the drone strikes by Obama on civilians in Pakistan. The double standard and ignorance of those with BDS is quite telling.
Click to expand...

Not agreeing with a legal technicality that legalizes torture is the double standard? :lamo

Done to Americans? Crime worthy of death!
Done to suspected terrorists? Oh, no biggy.
 
Boo Radley said:
They? Is that a myical they? Or do you have specific they in mind?

Two points:

1) Clinton did commit prejury. Most wouldf argue it was a question he shouldn't have been asked, and he should have said none of your damn business, but it was perjury.

2) There is plenty of evidence of lying on Bush's part, just no conviction as no has pressed charges. Unwillingness to hear evidence is not equal to there being no evidence.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

How about you put up the evidence with the "Bush lied" mantra that has been the whining of the left for the last 7-8 years. Otherwise, don't tell us "there's plenty of evidence" cause all we hear is the hypocritical whining of the left.

Note in advance that you need to know first what a "lie" is, and second that we can likely quote Bill Clinton and a bunch of Dems saying the same damn thing before GB was President.

So "Put up or shut up" for chrissakes. Otherwise, its just more liberal whine, and that got old a few years back.
 
Deuce said:
Not agreeing with a legal technicality that legalizes torture is the double standard? :lamo

Done to Americans? Crime worthy of death!
Done to suspected terrorists? Oh, no biggy.
Click to expand...

No one has proven that terrorists are covered under the Geneva Convention nor have they proven that GW Bush violated any law. Obama signed an executive order making waterboarding illegal and since Bush was President BEFORE Obama that must mean that Waterboarding wasn't a violation of the law when Bush authorized the three al Qaeda leaders.
 
Deuce said:
Not agreeing with a legal technicality that legalizes torture is the double standard? :lamo

Done to Americans? Crime worthy of death!
Done to suspected terrorists? Oh, no biggy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the words of Benjamin Franklin can help you:

“We must hang together or assuredly we shall hang separately”
Click to expand...

We lose the Revolutionary War, and they are traitors. But we didn't, so they are Founding Fathers. Amazing how that works, eh ;)

Or how about this:

Possession is 9/10ths of the Law
Click to expand...

Or how about just understanding that we do differentiate between "legal" and "illegal" combatants. Our soldiers in WWII were legal combatants. As per treaty.

None of it is cut and dry.
 
Grant said:
LOL!! Sure. Clinton will give hundreds of thousands to any woman who makes such a charge, no matter how innocent he is!
Click to expand...

Hey! Bill Clinton grabbed my boob!!!:eek:
 
Deuce said:
Not agreeing with a legal technicality that legalizes torture is the double standard? :lamo

Done to Americans? Crime worthy of death!
Done to suspected terrorists? Oh, no biggy.
Click to expand...


That's just the way it works out here in the real world.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Rev, let's be honest here. Are you trying to say that the training isn't voluntarily undertaken? That the trainees are forced into it? And I don't mean metaphorically forced, I mean gun-to-the-head kind of forced.
Click to expand...

GI, let's be honest here. There's a debate being had here about whether waterboarding is torture. You say it is torture if consent is not given. The act of waterboarding itself (as you admitted) is clearly NOT torture because we waterboard some of our troops as part of their training. You might be able to build an argument whether RH and Oscar suffered long-term emotional damage:cool:, but talking about their experience does not seem be traumatic for them...

If the act of waterboarding is not torture, consent (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant. Otherwise we'd be trying to bring up a whole bunch of police officers for "torturing" suspects by detaining them without their consent...
 
Boo Radley said:
If it were really bulletproof, and not just something that some want to be true, there would have been a court case and Clinton convicted.
Click to expand...

I have a strange feeling of deja vu, as if I've heard this argument before. Right, if Bush so obviously committed war crimes, he would have been impeached and convicted. That argument didn't seem to hold much water when directed at you...
 
FederalRepublic said:
If the act of waterboarding is not torture, consent (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant. Otherwise we'd be trying to bring up a whole bunch of police officers for "torturing" suspects by detaining them without their consent...
Click to expand...

That is just plain factually wrong. The argument that the fact that we waterboard our troops in training and therefore waterboarding is not ever torture under any circumstances, is one of the most facile, incoherent arguments I've ever heard.

Please, just read the definition of torture. It's been posted several times. Torture only applies in limited instances, such as interrogation. Even assuming that waterboarding for military training isn't consented to (patently untrue, but let's just grant it for the sake of argument), training is not one of the ennumerated circumstances in which the war crime of torture can even occur. Read the definition of torture, please.

You need to recognize that water boarding for interrogation purposes is torture, water boarding for training purposes is not, period. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definition. Since you're deliberately ignoring the actual definition, I'm afraid I can no longer indulge you until you have done so.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Incorrect. Waterboarding has been defined as torture under US law since at least WWII, when the US prosecuted the Japanese soldiers who water boarded American POWs.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for the law you're referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom