• 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!

UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers

Given that some of you may not have seen any “credible” evidence supporting Bush authorizing torture, the fact that we “do” torture and its affects on innocent people… here is some of that credible information for you. God knows you wouldn’t go looking for it yourselves.

These are the real people who have been illegally imprisoned, tortured and held for years by our government in the name of “The War On Terror”. There are many more video interviews with ex-prisoners, pdf documents of court documents and other facts, as well as photos of many of these so-called “terrorists.

Watch the video and read the articles. Then ask yourself:
*Did Bush have a right to imprison these people in the first place?
*Was Bush’s interrogation techniques legal?
*Did Bush imprison real terrorists?
*Did Bush’s actions help or damage our efforts against terrorism?
*Did Bush’s actions help or damage our reputation in the world?
*Did Bush’s actions help or damage our relationship with Muslims in the world?
*Are you glad Bush did what he did, and the way he did it, or do you think he could have done things … more intelligently?

If you don’t, you really have no right to comment on them. And from here on you’ll know that you intentionally ignored “credible” information on this issue.

The McClatchy Project:
A video about this project: Beyond the Law
Early in 2007, as the Bush administration indicated that it intended to release most of the detainees at the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, McClatchy set out to track down as many of the freed prisoners as possible to help determine who they were, what had happened to them in the prisons the Bush administration set up in Afghanistan and Cuba and what had become of them.
For eight months, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield traveled to 11 countries — from England to Pakistan — and interviewed 66 former detainees. They also interviewed political and military officials in those countries to try to establish the detainees' backgrounds and check their stories.
Lasseter and Schofield also combed through unclassified transcripts of the men's tribunal hearings at Guantanamo, when available, and Lasseter interviewed former White House and Department of Defense officials, former guards and lawyers for prisoners who had them.
• Day One: We got the wrong guys
• Day Two: 'I guess you can call it torture'
• Day Three: A school for Jihad
• Day Four: 'Due process is legal mumbo-jumbo'
• Day Five: 'You are the king of this prison'

Enjoy,

ADK
 
the fact that we “do” torture and its affects on innocent people…

You really do have a problem distinguishing between "allegation" and "fact," don't you?

:doh
 
I don't. But, I can see you do. :mrgreen:

Ah, the time-honored "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit. You have the admiration of playground disputants the world over.

Next: you'll triple-dog dare me. :roll:
 
Ah, the time-honored "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit. You have the admiration of playground disputants the world over.

Next: you'll triple-dog dare me. :roll:

I call it the "Pee Wee Herman Tactic".
 
Ah, the time-honored "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit. You have the admiration of playground disputants the world over.

Next: you'll triple-dog dare me.

Boy, bringing facts to this issue really annoys you, doesn't it? In fact, it annoys all you right wingers who seem to be too weak to blast Bush and his goons for abusing your trust in them and sucking the air out of the Republican party. Sad. Why do you feel the need to defend him so much in the face of overwheling evidence? It's mind boggling.
 
Boy, bringing facts to this issue really annoys you, doesn't it? In fact, it annoys all you right wingers who seem to be too weak to blast Bush and his goons for abusing your trust in them and sucking the air out of the Republican party. Sad. Why do you feel the need to defend him so much in the face of overwheling evidence? It's mind boggling.
I'm not annoyed yet, so I guess we're still waiting on those facts, eh?
 
Boy, bringing facts to this issue really annoys you, doesn't it? In fact, it annoys all you right wingers who seem to be too weak to blast Bush and his goons for abusing your trust in them and sucking the air out of the Republican party. Sad. Why do you feel the need to defend him so much in the face of overwheling evidence? It's mind boggling.

"Mind-boggling" describes your failure to understand that someone claiming something happened is an allegation, not a "fact." I mean, really -- any 4th-grader would know that.
 
Re: UN torture envoy: "I'm a partisan hack and I hate America"

I answered your question. What's the matter, can't read? :roll:

Your only response was, "You wouldn't recognize a 'credible' link if it bit you in the butt." That only answered my request for a credible link. And your answer was, in effect, "No. I don't have a credible link. All I have is this piece of sh*t from the McClatchy News Service, which is a propaganda bureau for Team Obama. If I had something from a credible source like the Associated Press, I'd post it. But I don't."

Here's the question that you've been dodging. Please stop bobbing, weaving, shucking and jiving, and give me a straight answer for the first time in your life:

"By the way: in your opinion, what is the harshest interrogation method that should be legal for CIA interrogators to use on a known terrorist mastermind, who is responsible for the murders of thousands of American civilians?"
 
Do you have access to intelligence the rest of don't? How do you know mostly (which by it definition means a majority) innocent ones were tortured? You use the world probably and mostly quite often. How about sticking to what can be proven and isn‘t skeptical nonsense..

If there was a Debate Politics tribunal, you would be found guilty of the following:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

Plurium interrogationum

This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question

Tu quoque

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

I also draw from your quote that you assume that the administration and military intelligence was so incompetent that if they weren't in fact getting any good intelligence they would've kept torturing just in case, and not stopped and thought "Hey, this isn't working, we have to try something else."

I like the link to the logic and fallacies. It's something I try to bring up in many of my posts. However, it's also how most people on both sides argue. Things get heated, and things turn into name calling with talking points attached and nothing gets accomplished. NOW, for my feelings on the issue. I DO believe that the lawyers did go outside the bounds of the law, and I DO believe that what the Bush admin did was against US and international law. I, however, do not believe it would be in our countries best interest to go after prior administrations. I think it would set a very bad precedent that would cause problems for years to come. With a two party system, people are going to get pissed at the other side, and regardless of "facts" or "allegations", the main things that will get dragged to trial are "emotion" and ""partisanship"...Not good for the judicial process. It's fairly unfortunate that it has to be this way, because I do feel that many involved (including Pelosi et al) need to pay some sort of retribution, but it would just be a slippery slope that we don't want to head down. Also, being as I can admit guilt on the left, it would be nice to see something equal on the otherside. Democrats are not the only ones to go after an opposing administration. I mean, Clinton did get impeached for lying about his infidelity. I don't mean to open a can of worms or even debate about that rights and wrongs of that, but just to prove that the right, as much as the left has a tendency to go after the opposing team.
 
The UN can go **** themselves.
 
The UN can go **** themselves.

Now THAT I can agree with. No balance of power whatsoever. This current UN is completely useless and needs to be trashed or completely overhauled.
 
The UN can go **** themselves.

Agreed, but wait until the transnationalist really pick up steam and the adoption of international law becomes the norm in the United States. It is not too far down the slope then to draw the logical conclusion that if the U.S signs into an agreement to abide by international law on U.S soil the resulting police force will be some variation of U.N 'police'

The U.S is slowly handing over its sovereignty to the international community, much like what has happened in western Europe.
 
Now THAT I can agree with. No balance of power whatsoever. This current UN is completely useless and needs to be trashed or completely overhauled.

The US not only conceived of the UN, but finances it and hosts it. Regardless of the current leadership or disorganization, we are committed to our obligation as a UN member, and cannot choose when to ignore it.
It is an obvious truth that not only the Bush lawyers, but the Bush administration must be held to account for their actions in a court of law. History demands it.
 
The US not only conceived of the UN, but finances it and hosts it. Regardless of the current leadership or disorganization, we are committed to our obligation as a UN member, and cannot choose when to ignore it.

America is beholden to the Constitution and nothing else. Acquiescing to the demands of a foreign body is an usurpation of American sovereignty.
 
The US not only conceived of the UN, but finances it and hosts it. Regardless of the current leadership or disorganization, we are committed to our obligation as a UN member, and cannot choose when to ignore it.
Hogwash.

Nations gleefully disregard the UN all the time. It is at best an impolitic irrelevancy serving as a platform for anti-American spew (which probably explains the liberal love affair with the organization), and at worst a vehicle for perverting normal diplomatic relations among sovereign nations. As architected, it is as ineffective and impotent as Wilson's ill-fated League of Nations.

It is an obvious truth that not only the Bush lawyers, but the Bush administration must be held to account for their actions in a court of law. History demands it.

It is not obvious. It is not truth.

Moreover, history is a passive record of events. It demands nothing from any man.
 
Re: UN torture envoy: "I'm a partisan hack and I hate America"

Your only response was, "You wouldn't recognize a 'credible' link if it bit you in the butt." That only answered my request for a credible link. And your answer was, in effect, "No. I don't have a credible link. All I have is this piece of sh*t from the McClatchy News Service, which is a propaganda bureau for Team Obama. If I had something from a credible source like the Associated Press, I'd post it. But I don't."

Here's the question that you've been dodging. Please stop bobbing, weaving, shucking and jiving, and give me a straight answer for the first time in your life:

"By the way: in your opinion, what is the harshest interrogation method that should be legal for CIA interrogators to use on a known terrorist mastermind, who is responsible for the murders of thousands of American civilians?"

How long are you going to keep up this act? I answered your question. I won't play this game with you. Either find it yourself (you can read, can't you?) or shut up. Your childishness is ridiculous. :mrgreen:
 
America is beholden to the Constitution and nothing else. Acquiescing to the demands of a foreign body is an usurpation of American sovereignty.

Compliance with UN resolutions is not "acquiescing to the demands of a foreign body".
 
So, even if we assume laws were broken here . . .

A lawyer who advises a criminal may be prosecuted for it?

Do you people have any idea what kind of backwards, slack-jawed, anti-intellectual, illiberal idiocy you're spewing? Seriously?

I guess that means the right to counsel is out the window. And you people love to jabber about "shredding the Constitution."
As long as those Bush bastards pay, who cares?
 
Compliance with UN resolutions is not "acquiescing to the demands of a foreign body".


Ethereal never said anything about U.N resolutions, which are different than acquiescing to laws implemented by a foreign body and expected to be adhered to in the United States. Two completely different things. More along the lines of what Ethereal and myself are talking about is the U.N attempting to put laws into place that effect everyday American life. Not ones that outline the previous No-Fly Zones in Iraq, or North Korea's nuclear program like the 'resolutions' you speak of.

For example, the U.N passes a law stating due to increased concerns about global warming, it is now illegal to pass gas. This law is put into place by the United Nations but all nations must adhere to it. That is the sovereignty transition that we speak of. That is of great concern given the current administrations focus on achieving a greater degree of transnationalism.
 
Last edited:
Given that some of you may not have seen any “credible” evidence supporting Bush authorizing torture, the fact that we “do” torture and its affects on innocent people… here is some of that credible information for you. God knows you wouldn’t go looking for it yourselves.

This is not "fact"; it is rabid hyper partisan hyperbole, conjecture and speculation. Fascinating how you continue to show a propensity for not seeing the difference between this and a fact.

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom