• 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!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

Grateful Heart said:
What would be the point?
Click to expand...
Because this is a debate website, it's a thread on torture, and you are participating in it. I don't know, maybe you would be interested in actually debating. Or you could just keep repeating it's not an issue because Bush will never be charged.

On the other hand, we could debate whether Bill Clinton perjured himself. But what would be the point? The history is written.

Bush and Cheney will not be prosecuted for torture or any other imagined crimes. It's not going to happen. The history is already written.

I understand that you're disappointed.

If Bush had a law license, perhaps it could be suspended and he could be disbarred. Would that make you happy?

:2wave:
Click to expand...
:stop:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Whoooo thar sonny. The ink ain't even on the paper yet. And the more ink that does hit the paper, the worse your boys will look. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Actually, the more the issue is discussed at length by those who were there, the better 'my boys' look...

CNN.com said:
CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise

The poll suggests that 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the former president, with 57 percent viewing him unfavorably.
Click to expand...
political tracker blog

The more Obama backtracks on his unreasonable and ill-thought out campaign promises... the better Bush and Cheney and their decision making look.

Lets keep watching. Bush's numbers will continue to rise. I'll put a twenty on it. Care to take me up on that?

:2wave:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Whoooo thar sonny. The ink ain't even on the paper yet. And the more ink that does hit the paper, the worse your boys will look. :2wave:
Click to expand...
For your sainted Dear Leader, you'd better hope not. After all, Dear Leader is keeping much of the things for which you excoriate Bush (indefinite detentions, no civilian courts, enhanced interrogation--just at Bagram Air Base, not Gitmo--and sundry other points of lunatic liberal irritation with Bush).

So when do you plan on impeaching Dear Leader for daring to imitate (albeit very badly) President Bush?
 
Lerxst said:
Because this is a debate website, it's a thread on torture, and you are participating in it. I don't know, maybe you would be interested in actually debating. Or you could just keep repeating it's not an issue because Bush will never be charged.


:stop:
Click to expand...

I did not say it's not an issue 'because' they'll never be charged. In fact I'm suggesting it's just the opposite. The fact that no one is scrambling to press charges is a very strong indication that those in a position to go after them understand they have no case.

:2wave:
 
Arab Opinion: Bush Bad, Obama Good


"Nearly half of Arabs polled in the last two months in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said they had a “very positive” (11%) or “somewhat positive” (34%) view of Obama. Contrast that with George Bush, who Arabs regularly cited as the world leader they disliked the most. In the current 2009 poll, Obama does not register among disliked leaders, but Bush even out of office remains the No. 1 most disliked at 61%.

"The Saudis tend to view things more through a Muslim prism and may be drawn to Obama's Muslim background, his middle name of Hussein, etc.—indeed, many in the Middle East believe that Obama is a Muslim. "

In my experience, that's a sea-change in Arab attitudes. It's even more interesting if you look at Obama's ratings in individual countries. In Saudi Arabia, native land of Osama bin Laden, Obama is viewed very positively by 10% and somewhat positively by another 69% for a remarkable approval rating of 79%. If you throw in those who call themselves neutral, the figure goes up to 86%."

Interesting.
 
akyron said:
Arab Opinion: Bush Bad, Obama Good


"Nearly half of Arabs polled in the last two months in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said they had a “very positive” (11%) or “somewhat positive” (34%) view of Obama. Contrast that with George Bush, who Arabs regularly cited as the world leader they disliked the most. In the current 2009 poll, Obama does not register among disliked leaders, but Bush even out of office remains the No. 1 most disliked at 61%.

"The Saudis tend to view things more through a Muslim prism and may be drawn to Obama's Muslim background, his middle name of Hussein, etc.—indeed, many in the Middle East believe that Obama is a Muslim. "

In my experience, that's a sea-change in Arab attitudes. It's even more interesting if you look at Obama's ratings in individual countries. In Saudi Arabia, native land of Osama bin Laden, Obama is viewed very positively by 10% and somewhat positively by another 69% for a remarkable approval rating of 79%. If you throw in those who call themselves neutral, the figure goes up to 86%."

Interesting.
Click to expand...

I think it's fantastic.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I did not say it's not an issue 'because' they'll never be charged. In fact I'm suggesting it's just the opposite. The fact that no one is scrambling to press charges is a very strong indication that those in a position to go after them understand they have no case.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

That is not indicative of that at all. It's indicative of political factors, not of evidence or elements of a crime.
 
Lerxst said:
That is not indicative of that at all. It's indicative of political factors, not of evidence or elements of a crime.
Click to expand...

Just curious... are you happy we hanged Saddam for his crimes?

:cool:
 
Grateful Heart said:
Just curious... are you happy we hanged Saddam for his crimes?

:cool:
Click to expand...

I'm not, I think he should have rotted in prison for life. He got the good end of the stick there getting hanged IMO.
 
Lerxst said:
We didn't hang him. The Iraqi's did. I don't support the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Lerxst said:
That is not indicative of that at all. It's indicative of political factors, not of evidence or elements of a crime.
Click to expand...

Interesting juxtaposition.

You couldn't have been more dead on in your statement that political factors are the basis for the decision to prosecute (or in our case not prosecute) Bush and Cheney for torture or other war crimes. Since the only reason to prosecute them would be for political reasons, it follows that the only reason not to prosecute them would be for political reasons.

All of which stands in stark contrast to the very obvious, heinous, and real crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, for which he was hanged, as you correctly point out, by the Iraqis. But I can't help but think George Bush's actions didn't play just a small role in the lead up to Saddam's hanging... what do you think?

:rofl
 
Grateful Heart said:
Interesting juxtaposition.

You couldn't have been more dead on in your statement that political factors are the basis for the decision to prosecute (or in our case not prosecute) Bush and Cheney for torture or other war crimes. Since the only reason to prosecute them would be for political reasons, it follows that the only reason not to prosecute them would be for political reasons.

All of which stands in stark contrast to the very obvious, heinous, and real crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, for which he was hanged, as you correctly point out, by the Iraqis. But I can't help but think George Bush's actions didn't play just a small role in the lead up to Saddam's hanging... what do you think?

:rofl
Click to expand...
I think you been looking for any reason to use the word 'juxtaposition', and found it.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Interesting juxtaposition.
Click to expand...
Not at all. In fact your quite wrong.

You couldn't have been more dead on in your statement that political factors are the basis for the decision to prosecute (or in our case not prosecute) Bush and Cheney for torture or other war crimes. Since the only reason to prosecute them would be for political reasons,
Click to expand...
No, the only reason to prosecute them would be because they committed a crime. They are simply choosing not to do that right now for political reasons.

it follows that the only reason not to prosecute them would be for political reasons.
Click to expand...
The only reason they don't prosecute them is political.
All of which stands in stark contrast to the very obvious, heinous, and real crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, for which he was hanged, as you correctly point out, by the Iraqis.
Click to expand...
It doesn't stand in stark contrast at all. Two different governments, two different sets of elements for why prosecution was/is warranted.
But I can't help but think George Bush's actions didn't play just a small role in the lead up to Saddam's hanging... what do you think?
Click to expand...
Really? Oh yeah, the unnecessary invasion. I'd forgotten about that.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I can think of several ways to determine that a person knows something. Torture doesn't rank very high on the list.
Click to expand...
No one is proposing using EIT to determine whether a person has information to extract using EIT. That doesn't make sense and that is exactly how you responded to my post.

Apparently you are lost. No one is arguing that EIT be used on someone who doesn't know anything. That is, there should be something akin to a warrant that allows EIT to be used.
Please see #1 from this post. #1 is assumed to be true in order to allow EIT. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...sts-six-seconds-before-43.html#post1058049506
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
No one is proposing using EIT to determine whether a person has information to extract using EIT. That doesn't make sense and that is exactly how you responded to my post.

Apparently you are lost. No one is arguing that EIT be used on someone who doesn't know anything. That is, there should be something akin to a warrant that allows EIT to be used.
Click to expand...

And if "someone" were, or did, proposing and arguing that EITs "be used on someone who doesn't know anything" and if those actions were carried out without a warrant would you say that was a crime?

And if that is the case should those people be prosecuted?

And then, if that is the case would you then admit that it was you who were lost?
 
Grateful Heart said:
Just curious... are you happy we hanged Saddam for his crimes?

:cool:
Click to expand...

Here is the problem I have with the execution of Saddam. This is a man who did a lot of horrible crimes, but what he was convicted of was of using Iraq's legal process and the courts to execute some people who had attempted to assassinate him. Some of the accused had actually been released and declared innocent, while those found guilty were executed. That sounds almost like a real legal process.

This left open the ability of Sunnis to claim that he was wrongly prosecuted, even though he wasn't. Saddam should have been tried instead for gassing the Kurds, murdering thousands of Shiites after the Gulf War, or any number of monstrous things that he did. That way, the outcome would have left his supporters holding their dicks in their hands, and little else. Perhaps (and I admit that I am not sure, and is speculation on my part) this would have defanged his supporters a bit and resulted in fewer deaths among our troops as well.
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
And if "someone" were, or did, proposing and arguing that EITs "be used on someone who doesn't know anything" and if those actions were carried out without a warrant would you say that was a crime?
Click to expand...
In the future if due process is established for the use of EIT then yes. Its would be no different than a police officer holding someone without reason or using force without just cause.

As for grandfathering in such punishment, I don't know. That will probably be on a case by case basis as the legality of EIT is still in question.

ADK_Forever said:
And if that is the case should those people be prosecuted?
Click to expand...
I'm advocating the establishment of principles, regulations, and accountability for the use of EIT such that such prosecutions can occur for violations.
 
danarhea said:
Most "combatants and terrorists" taken to places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib turned out to be innocent, and not the "combatants and terrorists" they were accused of being, and have been released without charges. Does it sit well with you that you don't want innocent people to be alive?
Click to expand...

How many of them were waterboarded? That being the context of this thread and Jerry's statements, it's a relevant question.
 
Lone Ranger said:
I can't believe this discredited story is still being debated. The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: Chicago Radio Host's Waterboarding Stunt Backfires
Click to expand...
:rofl I mean you REALLY have to enjoy the way the riech-wing will drive the bus over ANYONE who doesn't march in lock step with their fearless leaders. OF course it was all a hoax, of course he's a closet liberal, of course he's nothing but a greedy-do-anything-for-a-buck media whore... :lol: Of course the torture wasn't done right, Christopher Hitchens waterboarding adventure was nightmarish but Mancow, his was childs play... and it STILL scared the **** out of him.

The article also erroneously claims he was paid (via 10k donation to charitry) by Keith Olberman to do the stunt and then appear on his show to talk about it. The truth is that Olberman decided to give the money to charity because he promised to donate if Hannity would grow a pair and do it. To try and claim that it was a publicity stunt organized by Olberman is just too funny.
 
slippery slope said:
:rofl i mean you really have to enjoy the way the riech-wing will drive the bus over anyone who doesn't march in lock step with their fearless leaders. Of course it was all a hoax, of course he's a closet liberal, of course he's nothing but a greedy-do-anything-for-a-buck media whore... :lol: Of course the torture wasn't done right, christopher hitchens waterboarding adventure was nightmarish but mancow, his was childs play... And it still scared the **** out of him.

The article also erroneously claims he was paid (via 10k donation to charitry) by keith olberman to do the stunt and then appear on his show to talk about it. The truth is that olberman decided to give the money to charity because he promised to donate if hannity would grow a pair and do it. To try and claim that it was a publicity stunt organized by olberman is just too funny.
Click to expand...





godwin fail
 
Slippery Slope said:
:rofl I mean you REALLY have to enjoy the way the riech-wing will drive the bus over ANYONE who doesn't march in lock step with their fearless leaders. OF course it was all a hoax, of course he's a closet liberal, of course he's nothing but a greedy-do-anything-for-a-buck media whore... :lol: Of course the torture wasn't done right, Christopher Hitchens waterboarding adventure was nightmarish but Mancow, his was childs play... and it STILL scared the **** out of him.

The article also erroneously claims he was paid (via 10k donation to charitry) by Keith Olberman to do the stunt and then appear on his show to talk about it. The truth is that Olberman decided to give the money to charity because he promised to donate if Hannity would grow a pair and do it. To try and claim that it was a publicity stunt organized by Olberman is just too funny.
Click to expand...

emot-godwin.gif


:stop:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom