• 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

I arguing (sic) that once we excuse behavior for the sake of safety, we can excuse any action.

not very well

comparing eit's applied to ksm to the rape of a child is as mindless as...

as, well, comparing torture to running stop signs

LOL!
 
not very well

comparing eit's applied to ksm to the rape of a child is as mindless as...

as, well, comparing torture to running stop signs

LOL!

Or, you're missing the point, and battling a strawman of your choosing. it's easier that way for you. :coffeepap
 
There was no emergency.

Because YOU SAY there wasn't?

:rofl

Remember, we're talking about justification outside of any need for them.

No, that's what YOU'RE talking about.

Once you start doing that, you can literally use anything. The slope really is slippery.

And who's talking about implementing anything in non-emergency situations? No one I've seen.

As I continually have to ask you, if you're right, why do you have to make things up?
 
because once we allow the enhanced interrogation of assassins and hitmen, why, next thing you know dick cheney will be RAPING CHILDREN!

because it's such a SLIPPERY SLOPE!

LOL!

good point, plato
 
Because YOU SAY there wasn't?

No, because factually there wasn't. I challenege you to show any evidence of one.


No, that's what YOU'RE talking about.

No, that's what was, factually.



And who's talking about implementing anything in non-emergency situations? No one I've seen.

As I continually have to ask you, if you're right, why do you have to make things up?

As we've had no emergency, you are. No one is making anything up here other than you if you're saying there was some emergency.
 
No, because factually there wasn't. I challenege you to show any evidence of one.




No, that's what was, factually.





As we've had no emergency, you are. No one is making anything up here other than you if you're saying there was some emergency.

Being that you are the one who's asserting what's "factual" here, as in, you are declaring affirmatively that there was no emergency, I'd say it's you who needs to show that those who are in a position to know are incorrect in saying that imminent plots were disrupted.
 
Don't know her well enough to know. But good people, no matter what party they belong to, don't excuse torture.

Presumably, you don't know George Bush well enough to know, either, and yet I get the feeling you don't think he is a good person. Regardless, if Pelosi did know about the waterboarding and even pressed the CIA to do more to extract intelligence from detainees, would that make her a bad person (or, at least, not a good person) who should be tried as a war criminal? :confused:

Let me ask you about the goodness of Obama. Forget about raping a child to save lives. Let's go one step further. Do good people excuse extrajudicial executions with missiles containing cluster bomblets and dismiss the anticipated killings of women and children who happen to be in the vicinity at the time a High Value Target is sighted? Can a good person justify the killing of women and children if he thinks it will save American lives? If it can be shown that Obama ordered the firing of at least one BGM-109D Tomahawk cruise missile into the Yemeni village of al-Ma'jalah on December 17, 2009, resulting in the deaths of fifty-five people, including 14 women and 21 children, is he still a good person? Amnesty International questioned the legality of the attack. If it was, in fact , illegal, would Obama then also be bad person who should be tried as a war criminal? :confused:

Images of missile and cluster munitions point to US role in fatal attack in Yemen | Amnesty International
 
Last edited:
Presumably, you don't know George Bush well enough to know, either, and yet I get the feeling you don't think he is a good person. Regardless, if Pelosi did know about the waterboarding and even pressed the CIA to do more to extract intelligence from detainees, would that make her a bad person (or, at least, not a good person) who should be tried as a war criminal? :confused:

Let me ask you about the goodness of Obama. Forget about raping a child to save lives. Let's go one step further. Do good people excuse extrajudicial executions with missiles containing cluster bomblets and dismiss the anticipated killings of women and children who happen to be in the vicinity at the time a High Value Target is sighted? Can a good person justify the killing of women and children if he thinks it will save American lives? If it can be shown that Obama ordered the firing of at least one BGM-109D Tomahawk cruise missile into the Yemeni village of al-Ma'jalah on December 17, 2009, resulting in the deaths of fifty-five people, including 14 women and 21 children, is he still a good person? Amnesty International questioned the legality of the attack. If it was, in fact , illegal, would Obama then also be bad person who should be tried as a war criminal? :confused:

Images of missile and cluster munitions point to US role in fatal attack in Yemen | Amnesty International

I know his actions, and he publically excused torture. A good person doesn't make excuses for torture.

While I would certainly criticize Obama for recklessly taking innocent human lives, that is not equal to excusing torture. He would have to stand before us and say that we took those innocent human lives to keep the country safe, and that doing so wasn't wrong. That would be equal to what Bush did.
 
Being that you are the one who's asserting what's "factual" here, as in, you are declaring affirmatively that there was no emergency, I'd say it's you who needs to show that those who are in a position to know are incorrect in saying that imminent plots were disrupted.

Interesting interpretation. But, you suggest there is something, an emergency. The burden is for you to show an emergency. I see none. A negative btw. You assert the positive, that there is one. Please feel free to present evidence of an emergency.
 
I know his actions, and he publically excused torture. A good person doesn't make excuses for torture.

While I would certainly criticize Obama for recklessly taking innocent human lives, that is not equal to excusing torture. He would have to stand before us and say that we took those innocent human lives to keep the country safe, and that doing so wasn't wrong. That would be equal to what Bush did.

Why don't you run for elected office so you can be one of those that believes you can negotiate with radical terrorists that want you dead? Those innocent human lives? Are you really this naive?
 
Why don't you run for elected office so you can be one of those that believes you can negotiate with radical terrorists that want you dead? Those innocent human lives? Are you really this naive?

Another wild leap I see. Try address a claim I actually make. :coffeepap
 
Why, you never address any issue raised on this or any other issue. You just divert and distort.

Not true. You ignoring the rebuttal is not same as one not being offered. :coffepap
 
I know his actions, and he publically excused torture. A good person doesn't make excuses for torture.

While I would certainly criticize Obama for recklessly taking innocent human lives, that is not equal to excusing torture. He would have to stand before us and say that we took those innocent human lives to keep the country safe, and that doing so wasn't wrong. That would be equal to what Bush did.

So extrajudicial executions--no tribunals, no SCOTUS, no gaggle of ACLU lawyers filing motions and briefs, just the mangled bodies of victims, including women and children--is "not equal to torture" as long as Obama keeps his mouth shut and covers it up? :confused: All I can say to this is "Wow." No offense, but you really are a hypocrite.
 
So extrajudicial executions--no tribunals, no SCOTUS, no gaggle of ACLU lawyers filing motions and briefs, just the mangled bodies of victims, including women and children--is "not equal to torture" as long as Obama keeps his mouth shut and covers it up? :confused: All I can say to this is "Wow." No offense, but you really are a hypocrite.

Again, not what I said. Read what I said.
 
He would have to stand before us and say that we took those innocent human lives to keep the country safe, and that doing so wasn't wrong. That would be equal to what Bush did.

so as long as obama doesn't SAY the reason he's wasting women and children in pakistan and yemen is to keep america safe he's a good person?

LOL!

why else would he be murdering by drone?

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
My bad. "Not equal to excusing torture." Big improvement.

More accurate. I can't say Obama is a good person. I certainly fault much of our goovernment for torturing, for killing innocnet people, for wasting the lives of our sons and daughters with good or just cause. But the claim we were discussing was excusing torture. And it wasn't limited to Bush. Poor reading skills have kept too many from actually addressing what has been said. Whether it is Bush or someone on a political discussion form, making excuses for torture or any evil puts real doubt on whether that person is "good" or not.
 
poor reading skills...

that's why there're so many QUOTE BOXES

LOL!
 
Ahlevah, not your bad. You were right the first time.

No, he actually wasn't. Ingoring what's actually said, and making leaps are not good for civil discourse. Just saying . . . :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom