• 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

SheWolf said:
The supreme court disagrees with you.

See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

And your argument for torturing and waterboarding people is disgusting, despicable, and problematic.

They aren't in uniforms and don't represent any country. :2sick1::shocked2:

Do you realize all the people who stood up for their rights in the USSR weren't in uniform and didn't represent a country and were run over by Soviet tanks, shot to death, spied on, sent to gulag? Do you realize that that is the case for people standing up to oppressive governments all over the world, being marginalized and tortured, raped, etc? Does Nelson Mandela ring a bell?

Utterly disgusting.
Click to expand...

You seem to have selective research and reading skills, the Military Commission Act of 2006 was passed in October 2006 and signed by the President and was passed after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which was the court case that claimed military commissions weren't legal. Congress changed that. Get the whole story and not just what you want to believe.
 
Conservative said:
Thank you, unfortunately the terrorists don't choose their victims better. If Bush broke the law then why wasn't he prosecuted by the Congress which was under the control of Democrats from 2007-2008? Bush did absolutely nothing wrong and kept Americans safe. You find that disgusting? Says a lot about you. I totally disagree as did the Congress or they would have impeached him for violating the law.
Click to expand...

I find it disgusting that you don't see anything wrong with the abuses of the USSR or the apartheid South Africa. Justification for it is disgusting.

Bush did absolutely nothing wrong... doubt it. I doubt any president does absolutely nothing wrong, but if you think I have said Bush should be impeached or punished then you haven't been listening to me. You can't even impeach Obama without a trial or investigation, and I think that is what some of these people are calling for.

I personally don't expect anything to happen..

Pointing out he wasn't punished doesn't prove ****. Clinton lied under oath, but he wasn't punished.. guess it's legal to lie under oath then, right? I guess that means Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong, right? No, it's not.. The fact is, politicians don't have to play by the rules. If you are a politician with money, you can even kill somebody and get away with it, as Ted Kennedy proved it's possible.

And it also looks like Obama has kept us safe too, even with that ban on waterboarding... We have had a couple of 9/11 anniversaries since he took office, so he has kept us safe longer than Bush did.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to have selective research and reading skills, the Military Commission Act of 2006 was passed in October 2006 and signed by the President and was passed after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which was the court case that claimed military commissions weren't legal. Congress changed that. Get the whole story and not just what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

It didn't reverse Hamdan v Rumsfeld and it doesn't sound like you know what that case was exactly about either..
 
SheWolf said:
I find it disgusting that you don't see anything wrong with the abuses of the USSR or the apartheid South Africa. Justification for it is disgusting.

Bush did absolutely nothing wrong... doubt it. I doubt any president does absolutely nothing wrong, but if you think I have said Bush should be impeached or punished then you haven't been listening to me. You can't even impeach Obama without a trial or investigation, and I think that is what some of these people are calling for.

I personally don't expect anything to happen..

Pointing out he wasn't punished doesn't prove ****. Clinton lied under oath, but he wasn't punished.. guess it's legal to lie under oath then, right? I guess that means Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong, right? No, it's not.. The fact is, politicians don't have to play by the rules. If you are a politician with money, you can even kill somebody and get away with it, as Ted Kennedy proved it's possible.

And it also looks like Obama has kept us safe too, even with that ban on waterboarding... We have had a couple of 9/11 anniversaries since he took office, so he has kept us safe longer than Bush did.
Click to expand...

You are all over the board and anyone that would compare what happened in the USSR, South Africa, or any other sovereign nation with terrorist actions is absolutely nuts. There is no comparison as you and others have no understanding of the enemy we face. Obama signed an executive order banning waterboarding. That is the bottomline. He wouldn't have had to do that if waterboarding was illegal. The case you cited banned Military Commissions which Congress reinstated in the fall of 2006 so you don't even have the case right.

I am done with you and this discussion.
 
Conservative said:
You are all over the board and anyone that would compare what happened in the USSR, South Africa, or any other sovereign nation with terrorist actions is absolutely nuts. There is no comparison as you and others have no understanding of the enemy we face. Obama signed an executive order banning waterboarding. That is the bottomline. He wouldn't have had to do that if waterboarding was illegal. The case you cited banned Military Commissions which Congress reinstated in the fall of 2006 so you don't even have the case right.

I am done with you and this discussion.
Click to expand...

booooohooooooooo

I am not all over the board. I have said the same things over and over again..

I think you are the one not thinking critically here.. You are saying its OK to torture non uniformed, non military enemies, who have no sovereign nation. If you don't understand that the people against the USSR were not identifying with the USSR as a nation, did not wear uniforms, and were not military.. then you don't understand the problem with your argument and why I find it deplorable.

And as far as the history in South Africa.. they were imprisoning people on islands and torturing them. The ANC was called a terrorist org. Nelson Mandela was on the US terrorist list for years.. in fact, he was just taken off it about 5 years ago.. so you're views are very problematic and I have many reasons to say I despise them. If you don't like that, then change your views or reword them. Clarify yourself, but don't call me nuts for debating the issues with your argument.

And furthermore, the HvR case had little to nothing to do with what you think

This is a complex case, with three big questions:

Is the U.S. government bound by the Geneva Conventions when dealing with "enemy combatants"?

Is the executive branch's establishment of new judicial processes, to try the Guantanamo detainees, consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or legislated by 2001's Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF)?

Can conspiracy be punished as a war crime?


The Geneva Conventions and the Binding Authority of International Law:

In 1949, the United States signed the Geneva Conventions regulating treatment of prisoners of war. The Bush administration has charged that terrorists and other paramilitary combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they're not soldiers in the traditional sense, are not covered by the U.S. Bill of Rights because they're not citizens, and are therefore "enemy combatants" who have no clearly outlined rights.

The Plurality Ruling:

The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):

"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.


The AUMF does not grant Bush the authority to create new tribunals without congressional mandate.

Conspiracy is not a war crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Click to expand...
Summary of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) - Supreme Court Geneva Conventions Case

What the USSR did was a war crime.. and what SA did to the ANC were crimes.. Just because somebody doesn't have a sovereign nation behind them and they aren't a national military, doesn't make it ok to torture them according to international law
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
I am shocked that liberals would want to see GB prosecuted ! Shocked I tell you !!! :roll:

Has MENSA called for the prosecution of Obama yet for being the dumbest President ever ? Whassup wit dat !
Click to expand...

No, but they considering nominating this post for the Idiotic Partisan Hackery of the Year.
 
Conservative said:
You are all over the board and anyone that would compare what happened in the USSR, South Africa, or any other sovereign nation with terrorist actions is absolutely nuts. There is no comparison as you and others have no understanding of the enemy we face.
Click to expand...

I wish you and others would stop saying I don't understand the enemy we face... I do. In fact, I love the idea of torturing them until death, but it isn't legal.

I also think you are in fact nuts for your justifications for torture, and saying people aren't protected by international law because they aren't military and have no sovereign nation.. I could go on and on with abuses that took place against such people throughout, but I won't bother. I am afraid you aren't seeing the connection to it and your argument..

And you don't think there is anything common between the events and social responses in SA and here? I don't know how much you know about SA history then..

The African National Congress (ANC) is an influential organization in South Africa. Founded in 1912, it was one of the primary forces that pressed for racial equality in South Africa. After nearly 50 years of nonviolent protest, the ANC adopted terrorist tactics in the early 1960s. ANC terrorism would continue until the group was legalized in 1990. Following the group's legalization, ANC and its famous jailed member Nelson Mandela pushed for the final abolishment of apartheid. Today, ANC is a legal political party and current South African President Thabo Mbeki is an ANC politician.


In 1961, nearly fifty years after its formation, ANC imitated terrorist attacks against government facilities. The ANC formed a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (aka MK or Spear of the Nation), to lead its terrorist attacks. ANC and Umkhonto directed their terrorist attacks against facilities and did not directly target people. Police raids and arrests eradicated Umkhonto by 1964. Resistance to apartheid continued throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. The ANC was implicated in several terrorist incidents in the 1980s that targeted international corporations with facilities in South Africa.
Click to expand...

Terrorist Organization Profile - START - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
 
bush-jail.jpg
 
Guy Incognito said:
This is the talk of fascists. Due process isn't "fiddling."
Click to expand...

When the weaker argument eventually fails, as it has in this case, the more petty of the losers often wind up using terms such as "Racist", "Nazi" or, in this case "Fascist".
 
SheWolf
Then it was OK for Saddam to torture Kurds.. because they weren't soldiers either..
Click to expand...

Actually the Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein and eventually liberated by the American Forces, as authorized by George Bush, and the politicians who voted for the invasion of Iraq.

They are stateless people.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting here? That we create a state for them?
 
SheWolf
I don't think anything is going to happen to Bush.. nothing happened to Clinton for lying under oath and that is a crime.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was impeached, only the second time in US history this has happened. But of course he is still popular in Liberal circles.
Politicians aren't held accountable for anything.. not even by the voters.
Click to expand...

Actually, iif you had followed the recent mid term elections, they were held accountable.
American voters can be horrendously stupid people.
Click to expand...

Anyone voting for Barrack Obama certainly gives this point some credibility.

But I don't see how people who supported the war are an accessory to torture..
Click to expand...

They aren't. The argument makes no sense whatsoever. It's just wishful thinking by the hopeless leftists.

The problem I am seeing with a lot of arguments for torture is they are all attacking the terrorists.. they are scum, they don't deserve rights; think what they want to do to you.. they are evil, they deserve torture.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I don't disagree with that. They deserve torture, but I am also coming from the POV that we are held by our constitutional principles and, as a people, we don't really know the abuses at Gitmo.. There are allegations that people are and were being tortured there and they were denied trials. We don't know who was being tortured. We don't know everything.
Click to expand...

But you will still get those who don't believe anything the American government says. Skepticism, to a certain point, is always healthy but many of those making the outlandish charges about torture, etc. are simply deranged liars.

I remember those disgusting humiliating photos of the prisoner.. in homosexual poses and being attacked by dogs. That is sick and that was unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the people involved were charged and punished. It's unlikely that any other soldiers would do the same thing again, considering the consequences.
We don't even know who was being held there and why.. their names and accusations..
Click to expand...

Why would you want to know that? Is it important? Would it make a difference?
I don't understand why it is controversial for us all to ask wtf is really going on.. I remember that memo that Limbaugh and the right got so upset over, saying conservatives were being labeled terrorists. We have people on the terrorist watch list and they don't even know why or how they are on it. They can't get off it either.
Click to expand...

It's often dirty politics all right. AG Holder chasing after NJ governor Christie is another example of that.
This is all ridiculous considering the conservatives who don't trust government, trust government to play politics with wiretapping us and torturing suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...

I have less confidence in the government if they don't torture known terrorists.

None of it sounds like a good system to keep pursuing IMO. Something needs to change.. there needs to be openness. We can't hold people without trials and be waterboarding them and using other suspected torture techniques on them. We even gave the Nazis trails...
Click to expand...

I think waterboarding these guys is an excellent idea. If you really need to know their names it's probably Mohammed something.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You don't define the parameters of universal jurisdiction, the community of nations does. So if the community of nations defined trolling as a crime ius cogens, then yes, universal jurisdiction would apply.
Click to expand...

With a world full of despots, isn't it amazing how selective their targets are? For example, where were they when Saddam was having his jollies? But Bush is a war criminal for non-torture (3 water boarding events)!?

Resist the gov. said:
... what about all the atrocities that have been commited at Gitmo and the other prison camps ? Im sure water boarding wasnt the only thing going on in those facilities and i would say its safe to assume that the president had knowledge of what was going on.
Click to expand...
1. WB was used three times in the US. It's a selective enhanced interrogation technique reserved for the select few that need be broken and to a point decided by expert interrogators.

2. What atrocities? Did anyone die or was anyone maimed, scarred for life? No. What happened at Gitmo was enhanced hazing... demeaning to the poor terrorista's yes (1, 2, 3... awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww)... atrocities... ROTFLOL... get real.

3. Atrocities were what Saddam committed. Rape rooms, throwing people from buildings, REAL torture.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Guy Incognito

Actually a majority in the government at the time would also have to be charged because if Bush lied, they all lied. That would include former President Clinton also, as well as his VP.
Click to expand...
Clinton then should be charged for his practice of "rendition". A Clinton original; Sending folks to other countries that are known to use real torture.



.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
The problem I am seeing with a lot of arguments for torture is they are all attacking the terrorists.. they are scum, they don't deserve rights; think what they want to do to you.. they are evil, they deserve torture.
Click to expand...
Waterboarding isn't torture, so your whole premise is moot.

If torture is what you're after... then Amnesia International should be on Clinton's doorstep for the practice of rendition. Clinton was responsible for sending people to countries that use torture. Which should lead Amnesia International where... to the doorsteps of these countries as well.

we don't really know the abuses at Gitmo.. There are allegations that people are and were being tortured there and they were denied trials. We don't know who was being tortured. We don't know everything.
Click to expand...
Nobody died, nobody was maimed... they hazed them... aww jeeeez. Not nice, beneath us yes, but torture? No.

I remember those disgusting humiliating photos of the prisoner.. in homosexual poses and being attacked by dogs. That is sick and that was unacceptable.
Click to expand...
They weren't attacked by dogs, they were intimidated by dogs. It's not sick, but it's not our shining moment either.

This is all ridiculous considering the conservatives who don't trust government, trust government to play politics with wiretapping us and torturing suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...
Again, we didn't torture suspected terrorists. Waterboarding isn't torture.

None of it sounds like a good system to keep pursuing IMO. Something needs to change.. there needs to be openness. We can't hold people without trials and be waterboarding them and using other suspected torture techniques on them. We even gave the Nazis trails...
Click to expand...
Yeah we did... AFTER we won the war.

1. They were nation states we were fighting.
2. They wore uniforms.
3. They surrendered.

So, until we have won the war... no trials. They can rot in Gitmo.

SheWolf said:
Do you realize all the people who stood up for their rights in the USSR weren't in uniform and didn't represent a country and were run over by Soviet tanks, shot to death, spied on, sent to gulag? Do you realize that that is the case for people standing up to oppressive governments all over the world, being marginalized and tortured, raped, etc? Does Nelson Mandela ring a bell?

Utterly disgusting.
Click to expand...
Well, if that is the case, where has Amnesia International calling for all the Commi leaders to be put on trial for crimes against humanity? It's not too late y'know. Gorby should be first in line, and then we have the Chinese at Tiananmen Square alone. Where are the calls for L'il Kim in NK?

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
No, you have many facts wrong, not just that one.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Two posts now without an argument. That's enough to consider you forfeiting the debate, but since I'm a nice guy I'll gice you one more crack at it.

Got any way to demostrate that the states didn't cede sovereignty to the federal government? Of course you don't, because you are factually incorrect. The states did cede a portion of their sovereignty to the federal government. That's where the federal government gets its power from in the first place! It's a very bizarre misunderstanding of history you seem to have here, j-mac.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Two posts now without an argument. That's enough to consider you forfeiting the debate, but since I'm a nice guy I'll gice you one more crack at it.

Got any way to demostrate that the states didn't cede sovereignty to the federal government? Of course you don't, because you are factually incorrect. The states did cede a portion of their sovereignty to the federal government. That's where the federal government gets its power from in the first place! It's a very bizarre misunderstanding of history you seem to have here, j-mac.
Click to expand...

If you're still around, I'd be interested in your response to this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...admitted-waterboarding-12.html#post1059099803
 
SheWolf said:
It didn't reverse Hamdan v Rumsfeld and it doesn't sound like you know what that case was exactly about either..
Click to expand...

Hamdan was about the authority of Military Commissions and sought to ban them. The Courts ruled that Congress needed to authorize those commissions which they did in the fall of 2006. It had NOTHING to do with Waterboarding. Strike 2. Waterboarding Hamdan was not an issue because he wasn't Waterboarded.

Military Commissions Authorized
Waterboarding declared illegal in 2009 by an Executive Order
 
Guy Incognito said:
Hey, you're looking it up. I respect that :thumbs: Here's the short cite: 25 F. 408. I'll look around for more.

There's nothing special about ex-presidents. Sitting heads of state get a pass, for diplomatic reasons, and reasons of national security. But ex presidents are just private citizens, and must be treated as such. A private citizen who tortures is subject to universal jurisdiction, just like a private citizen who commits genocide.
Click to expand...

A private citizen would not be acting in an official capacity and, thus, not capable of torture...not that waterboarding is torture in the first place.
 
SheWolf said:
I don't think anything is going to happen to Bush.. nothing happened to Clinton for lying under oath and that is a crime. Politicians aren't held accountable for anything.. not even by the voters. American voters can be horrendously stupid people.

But I don't see how people who supported the war are an accessory to torture..

The problem I am seeing with a lot of arguments for torture is they are all attacking the terrorists.. they are scum, they don't deserve rights; think what they want to do to you.. they are evil, they deserve torture.

I don't disagree with that. They deserve torture, but I am also coming from the POV that we are held by our constitutional principles and, as a people, we don't really know the abuses at Gitmo.. There are allegations that people are and were being tortured there and they were denied trials. We don't know who was being tortured. We don't know everything.

I remember those disgusting humiliating photos of the prisoner.. in homosexual poses and being attacked by dogs. That is sick and that was unacceptable.

We don't even know who was being held there and why.. their names and accusations..

I don't understand why it is controversial for us all to ask wtf is really going on.. I remember that memo that Limbaugh and the right got so upset over, saying conservatives were being labeled terrorists. We have people on the terrorist watch list and they don't even know why or how they are on it. They can't get off it either.

This is all ridiculous considering the conservatives who don't trust government, trust government to play politics with wiretapping us and torturing suspected terrorists.

None of it sounds like a good system to keep pursuing IMO. Something needs to change.. there needs to be openness. We can't hold people without trials and be waterboarding them and using other suspected torture techniques on them. We even gave the Nazis trails...
Click to expand...

Would it be better to try them and execute them, or let them go back home so that they can shoot at us again? Or is it better to simply hold them until this mess simmers down? One of those three options is better for all involved...
 
SheWolf said:
Of course people have discerning opinions and views.. They don't like the laws, so they try to get out of them and weasel around them. However, the facts are pretty cut and dry..


Waterboarding IS*TORTURE - Page 1

I don't expect any president to know everything.. and I don't expect every single person on their legal teams to not be corrupt either. However, I am sure that somebody on Bush's team knew the history and still gave the go head. That is why they tried to argue that it worked, played semantics, and tried to argue the UN should be disbanned.. The smart people on his team knew it wasn't so simple to waterboard.


Waterboarding causes the victim to feel and believe they are in threat of imminent death, and it can cause death.

Bush tried to cover his own ass and did that out of convenience, not political honesty.. Obama played the same game. The difference IMO is Bush thinks he has a moral obligation, and Obama thinks he has obligations through moral and legal principle.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, US generals do not make law. Because some from the Viet Nam war declared it against their rules doesn't mean it's a war crime.
 
FederalRepublic said:
A private citizen would not be acting in an official capacity and, thus, not capable of torture...not that waterboarding is torture in the first place.
Click to expand...

He was acting in an official capacity when he committed the torture, but is now a private citizen and no longer immune as a head of state, thus he can be tried for the torture he had previously committed.
 
Guy Incognito said:
He was acting in an official capacity when he committed the torture, but is now a private citizen and no longer immune as a head of state, thus he can be tried for the torture he had previously committed.
Click to expand...

No cigar here.
 
Guy Incognito said:
He was acting in an official capacity when he committed the torture, but is now a private citizen and no longer immune as a head of state, thus he can be tried for the torture he had previously committed.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you or anyone else to prove that Waterboarding was torture? Also waiting for an explanation as to if waterboarding was illegal why did Obama have to issue an executive order. Strike 3, you are out!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom