• 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

Conservative said:
As I understand it from you, Torture is illegal, you call waterboarding torture thus illegal and a violation of international law. If that is the case the Congress had an obligation to act instead of waiting for Amnesia International to act and they didn't. Why? It may be proper to wait but it is never proper to let violations of international law skate. Bush didn't have to confess, Congress knew what Bush did and Congress was under the control of the Democrats from 2007-2008 and did nothing. Get over your BDS as it makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

The failure of the Democrats to impeach Bush isn't in dispute. But the fact remains that Bush should be made to answer for his crimes. The incompetence of the Democrats doesn't absolve him. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a US court that tries Bush for his crimes, it could just as easily be the ICC.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, Democrats wanted the issue, not the trial. Too many Democrats on record supporting what Bush did.
Click to expand...

That's standard issue there. The Republocrats don't want to solve any problems because solving problems removes the talking point. They're rather bitch endlessly and not do a damned thing. But the whole lot are criminals, thugs, and goons. Make no mistake. Neither side will ever try to actually employ accountability because neither side wants to be accountable.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do they force a trainee to be water-boarded if he refuses?
Click to expand...

I depends on how one defines "force". unless you have ever been in the military and had the success or failure of your career held in someone else's hands you just wouldn't understand.

do they put a gun to his head and say "do the training or we blow your freakin head off"? no

do they say "If you don't do the training you wash out and go home in disgrace with a black mark on your record"? yes

and that threat of the black mark on your record is more coercive than any physical force could ever be. It will follow you and hinder your career for the rest of your time in service.

so...in context, yes the trainee is basically forced to be water-boarded whether he wants to be or not.
 
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...




Of course there is a difference. However that difference to me is irrelevant as I don't view waterboarding as torture. I've been through it. It is horrible quick and to the point. But torture? I don't think so. From experience.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Hell, it doesn't even have to be a US court that tries Bush for his crimes, it could just as easily be the ICC.
Click to expand...

then, perhaps you should forward this thread to them

because, once again, eric holder's position is...

how disappointing
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
That's standard issue there. The Republocrats don't want to solve any problems because solving problems removes the talking point. They're rather bitch endlessly and not do a damned thing. But the whole lot are criminals, thugs, and goons. Make no mistake. Neither side will ever try to actually employ accountability because neither side wants to be accountable.
Click to expand...

Why would you buy anything Amnesia International claims? Can you show me where al Qaeda signed onto the Geneva Convention? Wonder if any trial of Bush will include having the heads of those beheaded by al Qaeda on display?
 
Guy Incognito said:
The failure of the Democrats to impeach Bush isn't in dispute. But the fact remains that Bush should be made to answer for his crimes. The incompetence of the Democrats doesn't absolve him. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a US court that tries Bush for his crimes, it could just as easily be the ICC.
Click to expand...

every member of congress that knew and did nothing is equally as culpable as Bush. I would agree to having Bush tried for his "crimes" as long as every member of congress that went along with him is tried as a coconspirator
 
Oh ad to add GI,


Give me 5 mins with KSM or any of the 911 terrorists and i'd be happy to show them some "torture".
 
Guy Incognito
Actually, it's proper to wait until Bush is out of office to prosecute him for war crimes. Prosecutions of sitting heads of state for war crimes are generally discouraged under international law.
Click to expand...

It's "proper" to wait? So enforcing which laws are "generally discouraged"?

Maybe Congress should have impeached Bush, maybe they shouldn't have. But new evidence has come to light in the form of a confession from Bush himself. That's more than enough to move on a war crimes prosecution.
Click to expand...

And which new "confession" is this?
 
The Prof said:
then, perhaps you should forward this thread to them

because, once again, eric holder...

how disappointing
Click to expand...

I agree, the attorney general is failing in his duty. Like Ikari observe, it is for political reasons. It's a shame. But there's still hope an international tribunal will have the courage to prosecute Bush. But I won't hold my breath.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The failure of the Democrats to impeach Bush isn't in dispute. But the fact remains that Bush should be made to answer for his crimes. The incompetence of the Democrats doesn't absolve him. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a US court that tries Bush for his crimes, it could just as easily be the ICC.
Click to expand...

The ICC now calls the shots for what goes on in the United States?

When the America discard its sovereignty?

I'll be looking forward to them making an arrest!
 
Grant said:
Guy Incognito


It's "proper" to wait? So enforcing which laws are "generally discouraged"?



And which new "confession" is this?
Click to expand...

amazing, isn't it how we have a new group of liberals who didn't know that waterboarding occurred during the Bush Administration?
 
OscarB63 said:
every member of congress that knew and did nothing is equally as culpable as Bush. I would agree to having Bush tried for his "crimes" as long as every member of congress that went along with him is tried as a coconspirator
Click to expand...

And we can add to that the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, the PLO, and so on down the line.

Unless they're only interested in persecuting Americans, there'll be no one left to complete a jury.
 
Conservative said:
If what Bush did was illegal he should have been prosecuted but wasn't. the rest of your argument is moot
Click to expand...
How many times does it needed to be pointed out to you how ridiculously illogical this is before you finally get it?
 
Grant said:
And we can add to that the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, the PLO, and so on down the line.

Unless they're only interested in persecuting Americans, there'll be no one left to complete a jury.
Click to expand...

partisan hackery at its finest...they only want Bush. who gives a rat's ass about the truth or any real justice? as long as we get that devil Bush all will be right with the world. retarded.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Guy Incognito


It's "proper" to wait? So enforcing which laws are "generally discouraged"?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a well understood principle of international law. Sitting heads of state and other government officials are granted "immunity from criminal jurisdiction and [...] inviolability" under this principle. Kinda weird, I know, but I think it has something to do with preserving stability. I'm guessing it doesn't apply to a failed state or an illegitimate government official.


Grant said:
And which new "confession" is this?
Click to expand...

You know, the book he wrote where he vigorously defended his choice to waterboard, or his interview where he admits his rationale for committing torture was that his "lawyer said it was legal."
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
How many times does it needed to be pointed out to you how ridiculously illogical this is before you finally get it?
Click to expand...

Keep giving us your one line responses over and over again that say nothing. Get over your BDS, it is embarrassing.
 
Conservative said:
Keep giving us your one line responses over and over again that say nothing. Get over your BDS, it is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Run away! Run away! :lamo

I wonder what you would do without talk radio.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I agree, the attorney general is failing in his duty. Like Ikari observe, it is for political reasons. It's a shame. But there's still hope an international tribunal will have the courage to prosecute Bush. But I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

How about an international tribunal made up of the member states on the UNHRC? Perhaps with AI overseeing the show.

We can certainly trust them, right?.
 
OscarB63 said:
partisan hackery at its finest...they only want Bush who gives a rat's ass about the truth or any real justice as long as we get that devil Bush all will be right with the world. retarded.
Click to expand...

It is sad the hatred these people have for the former President of the United States and it is all based upon ignorance
 
Conservative said:
It is sad the hatred these people have for the former President of the United States and it is all based upon ignorance
Click to expand...

what is sad is that these people seem to care more about protecting terrorists from "torture" than they do about preventing the terrorists from killing innocents
 
Grant said:
How about an international tribunal made up of the member states on the UNHRC? Perhaps with AI overseeing the show.

We can certainly trust them, right?.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're coming up with this stuff. The ICC is the organ for international prosecution of war crimes. It doesn't matter whether the US has signed on or not, the ICC has jurisdiction over Bush if they choose to assert it. That's just the way it is.
 
Conservative said:
Boo, you post articles supporting your point of view and I post articles just like others that refute it. Where do we go from here? Doesn't make a lot of sense to continue to beat this to death since you aren't going to change my mind or others nor am I going to change yours.

If what Bush did was illegal he should have been prosecuted but wasn't. the rest of your argument is moot
Click to expand...

Actually, nothing posted I've seen refuted anything. And yes, Bush should have been prosecuted. He wasn't not because he was innocent, but because too many would have to go down with him, and it woudl be brutal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom