• 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

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...


Not at all. I have reconsidered whether or not expanding on this would be a diversion from the topic. However, I would very much like to school you in where your misinterpreted thoughts about the all supreme power of the Federal government is totally wrong. Maybe one of the other forums.

You also make mention that Bush should be prosecuted for waterboarding three individuals. I remember the AG Holder looking into this very thing concerning Bush's legal team, the ones who advised Bush that Waterboarding as we were doing it was in fact legal. He dropped the case, and would not prosecute anyone. Can you give us a reason why if it is so clear cut?


j-mac
 
SheWolf said:
I am still wondering where the Geneva Convention says it is ok to torture people..

I have heard several people make the statement that it is acceptable to torture nonmilitary, stateless people under the Geneva Convention.. but I am not sure where to find the specifics.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Have you read the Geneva Convention documents? Please read it and then get back to us. What happens when a soldier is caught in a foreign country during war time and is out of uniform? Does the Geneva Convention cover them?

Now for the issue of Waterboarding, as has been pointed out, Generals do not make the laws and everyone is entitled to an opinion. If waterboarding was illegal when Bush authorized it, why did Obama have to issue an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal?
 
Conservative said:
If waterboarding was illegal when Bush authorized it, why did Obama have to issue an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal?
Click to expand...

the question that none of the Bush haters can answer.
 
j-mac said:
Not at all. I have reconsidered whether or not expanding on this would be a diversion from the topic. However, I would very much like to school you in where your misinterpreted thoughts about the all supreme power of the Federal government is totally wrong. Maybe one of the other forums.

You also make mention that Bush should be prosecuted for waterboarding three individuals. I remember the AG Holder looking into this very thing concerning Bush's legal team, the ones who advised Bush that Waterboarding as we were doing it was in fact legal. He dropped the case, and would not prosecute anyone. Can you give us a reason why if it is so clear cut?


j-mac
Click to expand...

He doesn't like Bush.
 
j-mac said:
Not at all. I have reconsidered whether or not expanding on this would be a diversion from the topic. However, I would very much like to school you in where your misinterpreted thoughts about the all supreme power of the Federal government is totally wrong. Maybe one of the other forums.

You also make mention that Bush should be prosecuted for waterboarding three individuals. I remember the AG Holder looking into this very thing concerning Bush's legal team, the ones who advised Bush that Waterboarding as we were doing it was in fact legal. He dropped the case, and would not prosecute anyone. Can you give us a reason why if it is so clear cut?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not prosecuting is not evidence of something being legal. There are a lot of reason not to prosecute. Most have to do with cost versus gain. While I personally wish he had, I'm not stupid enough to believe this wouldn't be hard on the country.
 
hazlnut said:
Well... yes it is.

But is/was it justified at the time, under the circumstances?? That's the issue.

Saying simulated drowning is not torture is just retarded.
Click to expand...

Well. No, it's not. Saying that we torture our own soldiers in training is just retarded.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence has been put up. You have to open your eyes to see it though. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Plenty of evidence has been put up. You have to open your eyes to see it though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to buy the rhetoric of leftwingers with an agenda. Amnesia International should have more to deal with than 3 high value al Qaeda animals that were interrogated at GITMO. How about the human shields that al Qaeda uses, how about the cutting off of heads, how about flying planes into buildings killing innocent civilians, how about strapping bombs on their backs and blowing up market places?

There is plenty of evidence on both sides regarding Waterboarding, the question is why do you buy the left's version and not the right? Why is there such passion for this issue if not just pure hatred for President Bush, all based upon ignorance?
 
Conservative said:
Why do you continue to buy the rhetoric of leftwingers with an agenda. Amnesia International should have more to deal with than 3 high value al Qaeda animals that were interrogated at GITMO. How about the human shields that al Qaeda uses, how about the cutting off of heads, how about flying planes into buildings killing innocent civilians, how about strapping bombs on their backs and blowing up market places?

There is plenty of evidence on both sides regarding Waterboarding, the question is why do you buy the left's version and not the right? Why is there such passion for this issue if not just pure hatred for President Bush, all based upon ignorance?
Click to expand...

Not rehtoric, fact. Read the intel. Leave out the doubted intell (which Bush didn't portray as doubted and thus a lie of ommission), and you have nothing to support Bush's claims of growing and gathering and links to al Qaeda. With no evidence to support hsi claim, there cannot be a reasonable argument that he believed what he said.
 
The basis for waterboarding being a crime does not come from any statutes in American law. It comes from the Geneva Conventions' explicit ban on torture, which waterboarding clearly is, and in the Eighth Amendment, which bans the use of "cruel and unusual punishment", which waterboarding clearly is. Being president and violating the constitution is a crime against the country. Bush should be prosecuted for that, too. And for violating the terms of the Geneva Conventions about torture.

I can't imagine how or why anyone would try to argue that waterboarding isn't torture, but I'll go about proving it just to satisfy them.

The relevant portions of the Conventions are in Article 13, in Part 2 of the Third Convention.

"Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Actions explicitly banned:

1. Physical Mutilation
2. Medical experiments
3. Denial of medical treatment
4. Acts of violence, intimidation, or insults
5. Reprisal
6. Disrespect for their persons and honor

There are more in other articles, but 1, 4, and 6 illustrate my points. Waterboarding can easily cause permanent physical damage. Water inhalation can damage the lungs, oxygen deprivation can cause brain damage, and prisoners can DIE from it. Waterboarding is a violent practice, forcibly restraining a person in a painful and frightening position, and then commencing to drown them. The only reason that waterboarding is considered "simulated" drowning, is because they stop before the victim actually dies... and then start it all over. Terror and pain are the results of waterboarding. How the hell is this not torture!?

For the constitutional provisions, an act of torture is a cruel punishment. There is no equivocation on that. It is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and any government official who caused it to happen is guilty, both of breaking their oath of office to uphold the constitution, and of international law that the United States signed. Bush and his ilk are war criminals. And lest you think me biased, which many of you surely will, if we find out that Obama has done this, string him up, too. Same for Clinton. Same for ANYONE.

Edit: To add to this, the opposition is often omitting the largest possible problem with torture. It is a method of interrogation. You use to find out what's going on. If you don't already know that a person has committed a crime, and you torture them in an attempt to find out, YOU MAY BE TORTURING AN INNOCENT PERSON. And that is unacceptable. Ever. Even in an attempt to save my life. Or the lives of my family.

Which brings me to the question brought up in this thread. Would you torture someone who abducted your children. This is a Hollywood scenario, and does not, in any way, resemble real life. Terrorists are not kidnapping children, and domestic kidnappers are protected by the constitution. Also kidnappers are seldom, if ever, found separate from the abducted child, who is also usually long dead by the time anyone finds them or their kidnappers. Also this scenario assumes 100% certainty that you have the right guy.

So yes, under these impossible circumstances, anyone would torture to protect their children. But real life is never like that. It's shades of grey. And erring towards violence and torture in unsure situations makes us monsters.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
The basis for waterboarding being a crime does not come from any statutes in American law. It comes from the Geneva Conventions' explicit ban on torture, which waterboarding clearly is, and in the Eighth Amendment, which bans the use of "cruel and unusual punishment", which waterboarding clearly is. Being president and violating the constitution is a crime against the country. Bush should be prosecuted for that, too. And for violating the terms of the Geneva Conventions about torture.

I can't imagine how or why anyone would try to argue that waterboarding isn't torture, but I'll go about proving it just to satisfy them.

The relevant portions of the Conventions are in Part 2 of the Third Convention.

"Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Art 14. Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men.

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires."

Actions explicitly banned:

1. Physical Mutilation
2. Medical experiments
3. Denial of medical treatment
4. Acts of violence, intimidation, or insults
5. Reprisal
6. Disrespect for their persons and honor

There are more, but 1, 4, and 6 illustrate my points. Waterboarding can easily cause permanent physical damage. Water inhalation can damage the lungs, oxygen deprivation can cause brain damage, and prisoners can DIE from it. Waterboarding is a violent practice, forcibly restraining a person in a painful and frightening position, and then commencing to drown them. The only reason that waterboarding is considered "simulated" drowning, is because they stop before the victim actually dies... and then start it all over. Terror and pain are the results of waterboarding. How the hell is this not torture!?

For the constitutional provisions, an act of torture is a cruel punishment. There is no equivocation on that. It is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and any government official who caused it to happen is guilty, both of breaking their oath of office to uphold the constitution, and of international law that the United States signed. Bush and his ilk are war criminals. And lest you think me biased, which many of you surely will, if we find out that Obama has done this, string him up, too. Same for Clinton. Same for ANYONE.
Click to expand...


Except for the tiny detail that the guys detained at GITMO, according to the GC's definition, are not POWs and therefore do not fall under the protection of the GC.

Not saying that this makes it OK to "torture" them. You just can't use the GC to argue that such "torture" is illegal. simply that the framers did not have terrorist insurgents in mind when the GC was written.
 
OscarB63 said:
Except for the tiny detail that the guys detained at GITMO, according to the GC's definition, are not POWs and therefore do not fall under the protection of the GC.

Not saying that this makes it OK to "torture" them. You just can't use the GC to argue that such "torture" is illegal. simply that the framers did not have terrorist insurgents in mind when the GC was written.
Click to expand...


From Amensty International:

The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in every case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT.
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
 
winston53660 said:
From Amensty International:

The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in every case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT.
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
Click to expand...

LOL, bring it on!
 
winston53660 said:
From Amensty International:

The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in every case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT.
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
Click to expand...

and just what, if anything, does that have to do with my comment?

and even more importantly, why do all of "you people" that have such a hardon for getting Bush, ignore the fact that many of "your guys" are just as guilty/complicit as Bush?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
From Amensty International:

The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in every case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT.
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
Click to expand...

Good find. We shouldn't have signed it without a clearer definition of what constitutes torture. Severe pain and suffering....does waterboarding fall under that category? Subjective definitions always suck. UNCAT's definition is:

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Just letting you know Amnesty Internationals reasoning.
Click to expand...

which had absolutely nothing to do with either the post I replied to or my reply. FWIW, since we are trading irrelevent info, it is now 11:13 a.m. central time. :shrug:
 
MaggieD said:
Good find. We shouldn't have signed it without a clearer definition of what constitutes torture. Severe pain and suffering....does waterboarding fall under that category? Subjective definitions always suck. UNCAT's definition is:
Click to expand...

funny thing. according to UNCAT's definition, you can waterboard someone all day long "just for the hell of it" and it doesn't meet their definition of "torture".

as long as you are not trying to get info or a confession, punish them for an act they commited, or intimidate them based on discrimination you are good to go.

put every detainee's name in a hat, draw one out at random and waterboard away.
 
OscarB63 said:
funny thing. according to UNCAT's definition, you can waterboard someone all day long "just for the hell of it" and it doesn't meet their definition of "torture".

as long as you are not trying to get info or a confession, punish them for an act they commited, or intimidate them based on discrimination you are good to go.

put every detainee's name in a hat, draw one out at random and waterboard away.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should definitely keep looking for every possible loophole in torture bans.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, we should definitely keep looking for every possible loophole in torture bans.
Click to expand...

just saying......

not my fault UNCAT wrote a ****ty definition.
 
SheWolf said:
I got my information for my sources, which I cited. People were punished and discipled by the military for waterboarding during the Vietnam war.. It was made illegal through the military court system. I am sure generals had the power and authority to sway the courts or make recommendations.
Click to expand...

From what I've been able to find thus far, the American soldier in Viet Nam who was investigated for torture for supervising a waterboarding was subsequently cleared. I haven't been able to find out whether he was even charged.

The story of Japanese hanged for waterboarding, as far as I can tell, goes back to a statement made by John McCain. I haven't found actual evidence of it being true. There was a Japanese soldier sentenced to 15 years hard labor, with waterboarding listed as an offense, but he also engaged in the following over an extended period of time: "..beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes..."

I know your source says that generals made the practice illegal, but since they don't have the authority to make law, I think your source is incorrect.
 
FederalRepublic said:
From what I've been able to find thus far, the American soldier in Viet Nam who was investigated for torture for supervising a waterboarding was subsequently cleared. I haven't been able to find out whether he was even charged.

The story of Japanese hanged for waterboarding, as far as I can tell, goes back to a statement made by John McCain. I haven't found actual evidence of it being true. There was a Japanese soldier sentenced to 15 years hard labor, with waterboarding listed as an offense, but he also engaged in the following over an extended period of time: "..beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes..."

I know your source says that generals made the practice illegal, but since they don't have the authority to make law, I think your source is incorrect.
Click to expand...

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.


On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom