• 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

So now you are saying you would torture for your family but not for your country.

Say there was a terrorist with a nuke inside Australia and it was going to kill 5 million women and children and by the means of torture you can stop it from being detonated? You claiming you wouldnt torture then?

Funny how when its YOUR family you would but believe anyone else family isn't worth it. How typically liberal of you.
 
Last edited:
Yes I do. I would torture anyone if it could save a innocent life they were responsible of putting in jeopardy.
 
So now you are saying you would torture for your family but not for your country.

Say there was a terrorist with a nuke inside Australia and it was going to kill 5 million women and children and by the means of torture you can stop it from being detonated? You claiming you wouldnt torture then?

That's not relevant, we're not talking about anything of that magnitude.

Yes I do. I would torture anyone if it could save a innocent life they were responsible of putting in jeopardy.

Are you really saying the aggressors in an invasion are innocent people? And that you would have no qualms if a Taliban fighter tortured info out of a US soldier to save his family from a drone strike?
 
That's not relevant, we're not talking about anything of that magnitude.



Are you really saying the aggressors in an invasion are innocent people? And that you would have no qualms if a Taliban fighter tortured info out of a US soldier to save his family from a drone strike?

The Taliban would torture a US soldier.
 
That's not relevant, we're not talking about anything of that magnitude.



Are you really saying the aggressors in an invasion are innocent people? And that you would have no qualms if a Taliban fighter tortured info out of a US soldier to save his family from a drone strike?

Oh yes it is relevant. The title is about Bush admitting he water boarded to save England from a terrorist attacks.

BTW, the Taliban helped train the 19 terrorists whom killed over 3000 Americans. So whom is the aggressors? Funny how the truth is lost in all the lies that come from the left.
 
The Taliban would torture a US soldier.
Funny how the left has no problem with Americans being tortured but are up in arms when it comes to torturing a terrorist or anyone in league with them.
 
Funny how the left has no problem with Americans being tortured but are up in arms when it comes to torturing a terrorist or anyone in league with them.

'cause I'm clearly saying that torture is OK. :roll:
 
'cause I'm clearly saying that torture is OK. :roll:
So its only OK when its YOUR family and screw everyone else. Like I said, how liberal of you. Its funny how liberals lose all sense of self righteousness when it involves them directly but everyone else can suffer.
 
Oh yes it is relevant. The title is about Bush admitting he water boarded to save England from a terrorist attacks.

And the former head of the House of Commons' intelligence and security committee, says it didn't save lives.
BTW, the Taliban helped train the 19 terrorists whom killed over 3000 Americans. So whom is the aggressors? Funny how the truth is lost in all the lies that come from the left.

When I said agressors I was referencing Iraq, not Afghanistan, I should have been more clear.
 
So its only OK when its YOUR family and screw everyone else. Like I said, how liberal of you. Its funny how liberals lose all sense of self righteousness when it involves them directly but everyone else can suffer.

I'd support anyone else torturing to save their family too, it's nothing to do with me being liberal, I don't support torturing people on the off chance they may be able to save a stranger.
 
So your fellow countrymen are strangers to you? I hope they remember that the next time you are in need and they just cannot find the time or money to help you out in your time of need just because you are a stranger.

This is why every time a report on who gives and who doesnt to charity we always see the left at the bottom. They expect everyone else to help them but when the shoe is on the other foot, they cannot be counted on to back up what they preach.
 
And the former head of the House of Commons' intelligence and security committee, says it didn't save lives.


When I said agressors I was referencing Iraq, not Afghanistan, I should have been more clear.
If it stopped an attack it sure in the hell did save lifes. And how much you want to bet the head of the House is an liberal that like you would torture to save his family but everyone else can go pound dirt.
 
So now you are saying you would torture for your family but not for your country.

Say there was a terrorist with a nuke inside Australia and it was going to kill 5 million women and children and by the means of torture you can stop it from being detonated? You claiming you wouldnt torture then?

Funny how when its YOUR family you would but believe anyone else family isn't worth it. How typically liberal of you.

I would do it and happily accept punishment as I would have deserved, knowing that I did the right thing. Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
I would do it and happily accept punishment as I would have deserved, knowing that I did the right thing. Two wrongs do not make a right.


Hmmm.....Do you also think that sending captured prisoner AQ, or Taliban to other countries to be questioned under these extra interrogation techniques is also punishable as a war crime?

WASHINGTON — The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

I guess its all good if you farm it out.


j-mac
 
Hmmm.....Do you also think that sending captured prisoner AQ, or Taliban to other countries to be questioned under these extra interrogation techniques is also punishable as a war crime?



I guess its all good if you farm it out.


j-mac

Yeah, but that was Obama. (he won the Nobel Peace Prize you know)

Now stop with the crazy talk....



.
 
Yeah, but that was Obama. (he won the Nobel Peace Prize you know)

Now stop with the crazy talk....






.


:lol: the nature of the crime is only defined by those opposed to its supposed criminal as defined by that persons enemies.


j-mac
 
Hmmm.....Do you also think that sending captured prisoner AQ, or Taliban to other countries to be questioned under these extra interrogation techniques is also punishable as a war crime?

I guess its all good if you farm it out.

j-mac

I don't know the legalities, but I think it should be considered one. Its the torture thats important, not who does it.

Personally, if Obama is involved, I think he should be prosecuted as well. A crime is a crime (assuming the law is how I prefer it to be)
 
Last edited:
I don't know the legalities, but I think it should be considered one. Its the torture thats important, not who does it.

Personally, if Obama is involved, I think he should be prosecuted as well. A crime is a crime (assuming the law is how I prefer it to be)

Well, good for you. I did notice however you left yourself an out. Ah well, I guess that is to be expected when confronted with the reality that even ones own hero does it too.


j-mac
 
Well, good for you. I did notice however you left yourself an out. Ah well, I guess that is to be expected when confronted with the reality that even ones own hero does it too.


j-mac

1. Why do you assume he is my hero, simply because I am a liberal? There is plenty that Obama does that I disagree with. This is the kind of hackish lazy thinking that is very annoying and corrosive to a real discussion.
2. What out?

Also, I need to amend my previous post. I said "who does it" and I mean't "what country/agency/institution does it". Lazy language on my part and easily misinterpreted since I used a collective who (who is in what group of people) and it can be construed as a singular who (as in what person). Is this part of my out? If so, my fault. Ultimately I meant to say its wrong no matter in what location it is done.
 
Last edited:
Commander Frank Wead, United States Navy:

This time we went right to the water hose in the face, and a wet towel held tightly on my forehead so that I could not move my head. I had embarrassed my captors and they would now show me that they had total control. The most agonizing and frightful moments are when the wet towel is placed over your nose and mouth and the water hose is placed directly over your mouth. Holding your breath, bucking at the straps, straining to remain conscious, you believe with all your heart that, that, you are going to die.

SERE Training of our own military includes (included?) waterboarding. (The D.O.D. will not comment on whether or not it is still using waterboarding in SERE training.)

I see a few problems with indicting George Bush:

#1 -- Is waterboarding torture? Congress was asked to legislate that it indeed was and declined to do so. Our own military uses waterboarding as a training technique.
#2 -- Are terrorists protected by any treaties signed by the US outlawing torture? Or are they excluded?
#3 -- If waterboarding of terrorist suspects was indeed illegal, why did President Obama issue an Executive Order banning its use?
 
No one's going to touch this. Obama's not going to let his DOJ get anywhere near it. He's got enough problems, as it is, without prosecuting a former president for protecting the country.

I agree with you that it won't happen. But let's not be dishonest. Torturing was not protecting this country. We have more evidence that what we got from torture hurt this country than we do that it helped. Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how misguided ones beliefs are.
 
I agree with you that it won't happen. But let's not be dishonest. Torturing was not protecting this country. We have more evidence that what we got from torture hurt this country than we do that it helped. Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how misguided ones beliefs are.

So would you hold that standard to Obama on any number of given issues? You can say yes right now, but only time would tell how that too would shift with the sands in debate as is the norm.

j-mac
 
So would you hold that standard to Obama on any number of given issues? You can say yes right now, but only time would tell how that too would shift with the sands in debate as is the norm.

j-mac

Absolutely. Torture is wrong and illegal. And it is morally reprehensible to try and excuse it.
 
Back
Top Bottom