• 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!

Nonpartisan review concludes Bush knowingly ordered torture

Threads like this crack me up.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" review board. The closest thing we have is the SCOTUS and "non-partisan" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind when you see the words "United States Supreme Court".

A nonpartisan group led by a former top Bush administration official concluded a two-year review on Tuesday that finds the former president and his top advisers knowingly ordered interrogation techniques that U.S. officials have previously referred to as torture.
Second of all, there is absolutely nothing new or groundbreaking here AT ALL. The quoted text is about the most "No ****, Sherlock" statement that I have read in quite awhile. It's the exact same debate that was going on 10 years ago. Is it torture or is it enhanced interrogation? The liberals are still shouting torture and the conservatives are still shouting enhanced interrogation. So what has changed besides the argument being repackaged under the auspices of some shiny new "non-partisan" commission? Nothing, that's what.
 
Maybe he should be, and this is a racial thought, prosecuted for this. People talk about wanting to impeach Obama for attempting to support legislation that they feel conflicts with the second amendment. How about punishing a president for directly giving the order to violate the eighth amendment?

How hillarious is it to hear Libbos cry about the Constitution being violated? I'll tell you: it's as hillarious as Libbos wanting to strip American citizens of their civil rights and uphold the civil rights of terrorists, who aren't American citizens.
 
Threads like this crack me up.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" review board. The closest thing we have is the SCOTUS and "non-partisan" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind when you see the words "United States Supreme Court".


Second of all, there is absolutely nothing new or groundbreaking here AT ALL. The quoted text is about the most "No ****, Sherlock" statement that I have read in quite awhile. It's the exact same debate that was going on 10 years ago. Is it torture or is it enhanced interrogation? The liberals are still shouting torture and the conservatives are still shouting enhanced interrogation. So what has changed besides the argument being repackaged under the auspices of some shiny new "non-partisan" commission? Nothing, that's what.

"Non-partisan", is Libbo code for, "they said exactly what we wanted to hear".

Ever notice how Libbos call everyone that disagrees with them a partisan hack?...among other things, of course.
 
You're trying to be clever but only proving my point for me

Fail

Why would I be happy about Limbaugh not being tortured? Isn't that just about everyday?

If it's not torture, then why not?
 
How hillarious is it to hear Libbos cry about the Constitution being violated? I'll tell you: it's as hillarious as Libbos wanting to strip American citizens of their civil rights and uphold the civil rights of terrorists, who aren't American citizens.

It's almost as hilarious as hearing Cons, who talk about "God given rights" say the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens. I guess there's a different God for them.
 
" Osama's dead, GM lives "

One of those was accomplished with "waterboarding " and the other was accomplished with borrowed tax payers monies.

That's not what the thread's about, but nice try.
 
Now seeing as we just had a bombing in Boston, killing some and maiming many, many more, my question is this -- Is it not the duty of the US government to protect the citizens of these United States from aggression?
Yes.


That being asked, is it not justifiable to torture a few miscreants who were unfortunate enough to get caught being involved in this dirty business?
No.

1) It violates the Constitution.
2) If you're talking about prisoners of war, it violates the Geneva Conventions.
3) On a side note, torture doesn't work. The victim will only say whatever they think you want to hear. Relationship building, contrary to popular belief, is far more effective.


Would not a few fingernails being yanked not be worth the price of saving a few dozen people from losing their legs?
This is a false choice.

You're not going to stop people from hating America by torturing people, and it's not going to provide any useful information anyway.


Bush commited unpardonable sins during his administration but "knowingly ordered tortured" isn't one of them.
He had an obligation to realize that his actions and orders would violate both US and international law, and he failed in that obligation. He also unilaterally declared that he could, with a word, imprison someone for life on the basis of a mere accusation.

So yeah. I'd say he's culpable for those actions.
 
Ummm, sorry, but the "torture" which is included in the link doesn't exactly meet the same level as pulling out fingernails, high-voltage electric shocks, and other methods of interrogation typically considered torture. From the link:

You are citing what Bush officials said at the time. That is not evidence. What the USA did violates international law.
 
Are you insinuating we currently torture members of our military?
There's a specific program in the military called SERE which trains special ops soldiers in how to resist torture tactics.

So... the answer is "yes."
 
It's almost as hilarious as hearing Cons, who talk about "God given rights" say the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens. I guess there's a different God for them.

It doesn't apply to the enemy. The Supreme Court already said that. How do you like the law of the land now?
 
It doesn't apply to the enemy. The Supreme Court already said that. How do you like the law of the land now?

And the Supreme Court has held that some gun restrictions are Constitutional also. Doesn't keep you from screaming about it.
 
Waterboarding is not torture

The NYT is a radical left wing fishwrap

Nothing to see here move along

Chinese water torture is torture, so why is waterboarding not considered torture.

How is being subjected to expeirance of drowning not considered torture.
 
And the Supreme Court has held that some gun restrictions are Constitutional also. Doesn't keep you from screaming about it.

The Supreme Court ruled that gun bans are un-Constitutional.
 
Making assault weapons bans, illegal. Thank you for playing!

Focus, focus. It's telling that the same people who defend Bush's barbarism also are fixated on boomsticks.
 
Nonpartisan.... lol :lamo


Funny joke. Sorta like virgins on Hollywood Boulevard, unicorns, and "unbiased reporting".

What do you expect from a Socialist? Honesty? ROTFLOL...
 
Making assault weapons bans, illegal. Thank you for playing!

Which might be relevant if I said I was in favor of that. Maybe asking you to focus on what was said is too big of a request.

Permits and background checks are not infringments.
 
Which might be relevant if I said I was in favor of that. Maybe asking you to focus on what was said is too big of a request.

Permits and background checks are not infringments.

Actually, they ARE infringements.

Which is neither here, nor there, since foreign fighters aren't protected under The Constitution. It's the law...live with it.
 
How do people simultaneously hold the belief that the entire Obama administration is horribly corrupt and incompetent and believe that it's totally ok for them to torture people.

P.S. Waterboarding is torture. People have been executed as war criminals for doing it.
 
Actually, they ARE infringements.

Which is neither here, nor there, since foreign fighters aren't protected under The Constitution. It's the law...live with it.

How very strict constitutionalist of you!
 
Actually, they ARE infringements.

Which is neither here, nor there, since foreign fighters aren't protected under The Constitution. It's the law...live with it.


Actually they are as there is that whole bit about international treaties signed by the President and approved by Congress are of equal value to the Constitution

Treaties as Law of the Land - United States Constitution

Chief Justice Marshall in 1829: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.”

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
 
Actually they are as there is that whole bit about international treaties signed by the President and approved by Congress are of equal value to the Constitution

Which treaty are you talking about?
 
There's a specific program in the military called SERE which trains special ops soldiers in how to resist torture tactics.

So... the answer is "yes."
There are diferent levels of that school and all deploied soldiers take at least the 9hr online version or more deppending on their capture risk.
 
Back
Top Bottom