• 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:
There is selective outrage here on the part of those that hate President Bush so the question is quite relevant. Why isn't this an issue with any other President, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Obama? Obama is launching drone attacks on targets in Pakistan that is killing civilians. There is no evidence that Waterboarding was illegal until Obama signed the executive order in 2009. If it was illegal why the executive order?

The hatred for GW Bush by kids who simply buy what they are told is quite telling. Guy doesn't really have a clue what went on but because he was told this was torture he vents his outrage which to me indicates a deeper problem with Guy, one of hatred and the question is why? Three members of al Qaeda were waterboarded on the orders of GW Bush, THREE!! I would have waterboarded everyone captured as these animals aren't guaranteed protection under international law let alone American law.
Click to expand...


goalposts.gif


..........
 
Heavy Duty said:
They were hanged for torture, like bamboo shoots in finger nails, cutting people, beheading not water boarding. If water boarding is torture, then why do we train our troops to endure it?

How about this, why dont we ask McCain if he would have rather been water boarded or beaten like he was. How much you want to bet he would rather water boarded where it all mental instead of physically being beaten next to death.

Wonder why you two are so quick to condemn others for water boarding yet will not answer my question about if you child was being held weather or not if you would torture to save their life or allow them to perish just because you are scared of violating a terrorist rights.
Click to expand...

Why do you train troops to endure torture.. seriously?

We do train troops to endure torture.. there is a specific school it's done in. I know some vets who are very familiar with it and told me about it.

And if my child was being held, I wouldn't torture. That is so stupid. Why antagonize the enemy? We don't torture in hostage situations. OMG! That is a ridiculous.. we negotiate
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
What does that have to with whether or not Bush is responsible for torture?
Click to expand...
Nothing, of course. That was the point of asking the question.
 
Heavy Duty said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you guys admit you support torture. Sounds to me saying "waterboarding isn't torture" is just a red herring then.
 
Heavy Duty said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with torture is that it is a crime.

Do you have a problem with Americans being tortured? Do you think McCain gave up information while being tortured that saved enemy lives...

I bet the enemies thought they were just protecting their country too.

I bet the enemies used all the same arguments for justification too.


If it's OK for us to torture, then you're saying it's ok for them to torture too... It's done for the same reason on both sides, so the next time our soldiers are tortured you can't complain.
 
Coronado said:
I dunno, lawyers of the caliber he was using don't work cheap.
Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:
apparently it cost $850K. if he was innocent, I'm sure his lawyers could've proved it for less than that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not only that, it's not like Slick the Perjurer Clinton had a shortage of political ATM's at his disposal to fight it. Slick the Perjurer Clinton would have been wise to fight it to protect his name, and by settling... he did the best damage control possible.

Had this thing gone to court, he would have looked as an even bigger pervert and liar than he already is... if that's possible. Then again... let's rework that last statement... chances are a huge number of his supporters would have been disgusted by his behavior and he would have lost support... which would have killed any hope for Hillary so long as she was saddled to the creep.

With the best lawyers money could buy at his disposal, and money not being a factor, he caved because he knew he was absolutely, 100% farked... of his own perverted doings.

.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
The problem with torture is that it is a crime.

Do you have a problem with Americans being tortured? Do you think McCain gave up information while being tortured that saved enemy lives...

I bet the enemies thought they were just protecting their country too.

I bet the enemies used all the same arguments for justification too.


If it's OK for us to torture, then you're saying it's ok for them to torture too... It's done for the same reason on both sides, so the next time our soldiers are tortured you can't complain.
Click to expand...
Our troops are tortured and us not torturing doesnt stop them (terrorist) from doing so. So your weak agruement just got blown out of the water. Dont show up to a battle in a Sloop when facing a Man of War.
 
Heavy Duty said:
Our troops are tortured and us not torturing doesnt stop them (terrorist) from doing so. So your weak agruement just got blown out of the water. Dont show up to a battle in a Sloop when facing a Man of War.
Click to expand...

So torture shouldn't be an international crime? They are doing it to us, so it justifies us doing it too... just don't prosecute anybody?

Where does this stop and end?

Should we just let all the Nazis walk free now, because torture is fair game?
 
Guy Incognito said:
The 13 colonies ceded a good bit of their sovereignty to the federal government when this country was founded, and that worked out pretty well.
Click to expand...

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the founding of this nation.


j-mac
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

The terroristas must be pissing themselves laughing at this. Libs and their organs trying to get Bush over non-torture.

Somewhere sitting in their cave:
Ahmed:You hear our friends in America, the Democrats are going after Bush for waterboarding?

Abdul: Yeah... isn't it great to have idiots like that working for us against the vile, infidel, pig eating, evil Americans... Their very own... ?! (Huge laughter in cave)

Ahmed: Yeah... torture, we'lll show these weasels torture, and they'll be the first we use as human pinata's. Like those Americans burned, dragged through the streets and hung from the bridges.

Abdul: What about those Jews... Danny Pearl and that American soldier who's heads we popped off. (Laughing heard in cave)

Abdul & Ahmed and the other cave dwellers (in concert): God is Great, God is Great...

.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf


If it's OK for us to torture, then you're saying it's ok for them to torture too... It's done for the same reason on both sides, so the next time our soldiers are tortured you can't complain.
Click to expand...

We are dealing with terorists here, not ''soldiers' who fall under the terms of the Geneva Agreements. And these terrorists are prepared to murder as many people as possible and to create as much carnage as possible. They must be stopped at all costs.
 
SheWolf said:
And if my child was being held, I wouldn't torture.
Click to expand...
Has Michael Dukakis entered the forum?
Waterboarding isn't torture. Just because Obama signs a bill stating so doesn't mean it is so. As we all know, Obama has been tragically wrong on pretty much everything.
That's why the Dems got their cans kicked.

That is so stupid. Why antagonize the enemy?
Click to expand...
I don't know whether to laugh or scream. Let's see... they've been terrorizing us for decades, and what have we done exactly to antagonize them?
Live lives that disagree with their 7th century way of life?
They fly planes into buildings and we did what to antagonize them?

You know, these cum stains passing for humans deserve to be antagonized. They deserve to feel our wrath. They should live in fear of us. They brought it on... now it's time for us to finish them off, no matter how long it takes.

So, we take an interrogation technique off the table that isn't torture, is effective, has saved scores of lives and could save hundreds of thousand in the future.

Sheer insanity.

And had they not broke Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Cumstain, and attacks had been successful, all the Libs here would be screaming about Bush's inability to do what was necessary to protect the homeland.

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Amnesty International can suck it.

Guy Incognito said:
Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, The Hague has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts
Click to expand...

lolwut

The Hague has about as much jurisdiction over Americans as Judge Judy.
 
RightinNYC said:
The Hague has about as much jurisdiction over Americans as Judge Judy.
Click to expand...

Wrong. War criminals fall under universal jurisdiction no matter what their nationality, and no matter what their home country's status as signatory to the Rome Statute. Look it up.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Wrong. War criminals fall under universal jurisdiction no matter what their nationality, and no matter what their home country's status as signatory to the Rome Statute. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Universal jurisdiction is a highly-disputed concept to which the United States has never acceded. Nonetheless, the jurisdiction of any international body is determined exclusively by the agreements which create it, and the United States is not subject to the ICC. There is no "universal jurisdiction" there.
 
Amnesty International is a hypocritical organization. Bush was not a war criminal, and the whole concept of internationally regulated "war practices" is foolish and should be tossed away as rubbish. The true injustice is treating terrorists like royalty and not getting life saving information by any means necessary.
 
Harshaw said:
Universal jurisdiction is a highly-disputed concept to which the United States has never acceded.
Click to expand...

It's only highly disputed in the United States, and even then the critics are people like Henry Kissinger, who is himself a war criminal. Take that with a grain of salt. Real legal scholars know there is no dispute about universal jurisdiction's applicability to war criminals.

Harshaw said:
Nonetheless, the jurisdiction of any international body is determined exclusively by the agreements which create it, and the United States is not subject to the ICC. There is no "universal jurisdiction" there.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. Universal jurisdiction allows a war criminal to be haled into court in any jurisdiction he can be found. A war crime is a crime against all humanity, hence all courts are appropriate venue, subject to their internally limited jurisdiction. And nothing about the ICC's charter limits the scope of universal jurisdiction. QED
 
Guy Incognito said:
Wrong. War criminals fall under universal jurisdiction no matter what their nationality, and no matter what their home country's status as signatory to the Rome Statute. Look it up.
Click to expand...

I have universal jurisdiction over you. That means that I can prosecute you for disagreeing with me, whether or not you agree with my assertion of jurisdiction.

Amazing how that works, eh?
 
RightinNYC said:
I have universal jurisdiction over you. That means that I can prosecute you for disagreeing with me, whether or not you agree with my assertion of jurisdiction.

Amazing how that works, eh?
Click to expand...

Nonsensical is more like it. Universal jurisdiction only extends to jus cogens crimes, nothing else. So war crimes, genocide, piracy, agression, crimes of that nature. So you're just all kinds of wrong, here.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Nonsensical is more like it. Universal jurisdiction only extends to jus cogens crimes, nothing else. So war crimes, genocide, piracy, agression, crimes of that nature. So you're just all kinds of wrong, here.
Click to expand...

Ah, and who exactly defined universal jurisdiction as such?
 
RightinNYC said:
Ah, and who exactly defined universal jurisdiction as such?
Click to expand...

You really want to know? Grotius, Vattel, Gentili, on down the line to Karl Llewellyn H. L. A. Hart and Richard Posner Ronald Dworkin have defined it as such. In short, everybody but a handful of neocons in the past decade. But perhaps most importantly to our discussion, Henry Billings Brown defined universal jurisdiction as such in the controlling Supreme Court case US v. The Ambrose Light. Look it up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom