• 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!

Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

The soldiers at Abu Grieb didn't act solely on their own. While the bottom was rightly punished, it is unjust that those who set this in motion did not get punished.
 
ADK_Forever said:
I thought I looked at your profile awhile ago. I don't recall seeing "comedien" as your occupation. But, my eyes are starting to fail me. :mrgreen:

If you're looking to play ball.... It's been established that torture orders came down from Rummy, maybe even higher, thru Gen Sanchez. CIA spooks were in there directing those National Guardsmen in what to do. Those convicted were scapegoats for the likes of neo-cons Rummy, Cheeney and Bush's warped ideas of American honor.

Guantanamo was a disaster. Perhaps you read about all the admin Republican attorneys and judges resigning over it?

You are truly a funny guy! :2funny:

Please don't tell me you're going to claim otherwise. Your Leaning says "Slightly" Conservative. :roll:
Click to expand...





Did they close it yet? :ssst:
 
jujuman13 said:
Legally it is unacceptable for you.
However given the circumstances that your family is in danger, would you either do it yourself, countenance someone else in your family doing it or countenance someone else doing it, in order to save YOUR Family.
Please try to answer thoughtfully and truthfully.
I know what my answer would be under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't because your best odds are 50/50. They could merely lie to you to get you to stop.

So you've done nothing to protect your family and you've committed a crime to boot.
 
RightinNYC said:
Uh....what? Cheney ordered the people at Abu Ghraib to leash the prisoners, treat them like dogs, take pictures, etc.?

Interesting theory.
Click to expand...

Is that what I said?

I've also read about all the Democrats keeping it open. I've also read about someplace called Bagram AFB, which is "worse" than Gitmo in every way that matters. Somewhat surprisingly, most people who excoriated Bush for Gitmo neither know nor give a **** about Bagram. First among those is President Obama, whose DoJ is fighting as hard as it can to deny those detained in Bagram the ability to challenge their detention in court.

In fact, Obama won a big victory there just two weeks ago. Thanks to that, detainees who have sat there for seven years without access to counsel or a courtroom will continue to be detained indefinitely.

Somewhat surprisingly, I don't see a single mention of that anywhere on the forum, nor do I hear calls from people like you for Obama to be impeached over this. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you avoided arguing any point I actually said. Hmmm... I wonder why that is? :roll:

Bagram AFB. Sounds like a fascinating issue.Why don't you open a thread on it?

This thread is about Bush admitting he ordered illegal treatment of prisoners which I have yet to see you or anyone else provide one point to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
Is that what I said?
Click to expand...

You made two claims that I believe are false:

1) The abuses at Abu Ghraib were part of authorized US policy, as opposed to unauthorized actions, and
2) That that policy was set in place by Bush or Cheney.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to back up either claim.

Note that I'm not referring to things like stress positions, sleep deprivation, etc. I'm referring to the things that made Abu Ghraib notorious - the physical beatings, the rape, etc.

Interesting that you avoided arguing any point I actually said. Hmmm... I wonder why that is? :roll:
Click to expand...

Because you didn't say anything of substance. You argued that Gitmo was bad, and as proof you cited the fact that "republicans" had resigned. That's not really something worth responding to.

Bagram AFB. Sounds like a fascinating issue.Why don't you open a thread on it?
Click to expand...

I have.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-s-may-expand-use-its-prison-afghanistan.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ma-backs-bush-no-rights-bagram-prisoners.html

I don't recall seeing you in either of them. But hey, this is as good a time as any - do you think Obama should be impeached for detaining people indefinitely and refusing to allow them to have access to the courts or counsel? If not, what makes Obama's actions re: Bagram less troubling than Bush's re: Gitmo?

This thread is about Bush admitting he ordered illegal treatment of prisoners which I have yet to see you or anyone else provide one point to the contrary
Click to expand...

Are you referring to waterboarding, or something else that you're claiming was illegal?
 
Tucker Case said:
Bagram is in a war zone, gitmo isn't. That is a clear distinction that cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

In general, refusing to allow detainees access to the courts when they are being held in war zones makes sense. Nobody thinks that people being held on the front lines should be filing briefs in court, as it could create risks for the troops or raise other problems.

In the Gitmo cases, the court noted that this wasn't a very compelling factor, as the government maintained total control over the facility. I have a hard time seeing how Bagram is that different. We have had total control over that facility since December 2001. There are thousands of troops stationed there. In addition, Bagram holds a large number of detainees who were captured hundreds or thousands of miles from any warzone and were later transported to Bagram, precisely because the government (under both Bush and Obama) has been funneling everyone there in order to evade jurisdiction.

It's hard to argue that it's too dangerous to give them access to the courts because its in the middle of a war zone when the military is actively picking up people in peaceful places and bringing them there.
 
Tucker Case said:
Bagram is in a war zone, gitmo isn't. That is a clear distinction that cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

The location of the prison doesn't change the prisoners's status as unlawful combatants.
 
Lerxst said:
The entire hypothetical argument has no merit whatsoever. Appeals to emotion, throwing rationality out the window, "oh my god but what if" scenarios are cheap ways to manufacture justification for unjustifiable acts.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do have merit. They allow one to picture their actions in a situation they would unlikely ever find themselves in. Following behavior based on precedent and beliefs, we are more likely to come to a logical conclusion as what those actions would be. In no way does it throw rationality or logic out the window, unless you allow it to.

So in your opinion, security analysts and Pentagon officals planning their response to what they would do to say Iran detonatiing a bomb in Tel Aviv has no merit and shouldn't be considered? Where does your appeal to emotion end? If the situation is not personal does that make it less emotional?
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
In general, refusing to allow detainees access to the courts when they are being held in war zones makes sense. Nobody thinks that people being held on the front lines should be filing briefs in court, as it could create risks for the troops or raise other problems.

In the Gitmo cases, the court noted that this wasn't a very compelling factor, as the government maintained total control over the facility. I have a hard time seeing how Bagram is that different. We have had total control over that facility since December 2001. There are thousands of troops stationed there. In addition, Bagram holds a large number of detainees who were captured hundreds or thousands of miles from any warzone and were later transported to Bagram, precisely because the government (under both Bush and Obama) has been funneling everyone there in order to evade jurisdiction.

It's hard to argue that it's too dangerous to give them access to the courts because its in the middle of a war zone when the military is actively picking up people in peaceful places and bringing them there.
Click to expand...

The only decision that matters here is the one where Obama won the right to refuse Habaes corpus:

Afghanistan remains a theater of active military combat.
The United States and coalition forces conduct “an ongoing
military campaign against al Qaeda, the Taliban regime, and
their affiliates and supporters in Afghanistan.” These operations
are conducted in part from Bagram Airfield. Bagram has been
subject to repeated attacks from the Taliban and al Qaeda,
including a March 2009 suicide bombing striking the gates of
the facility, and Taliban rocket attacks in June of 2009 resulting
in death and injury to United States service members and other
personnel.
Click to expand...

It's really, really easy to argue that. In fact, they did. And won.
 
Lerxst said:
It is wishful thinking to believe that the Obama administration will do anything to add credibility to and respect to America at this point. I voted for the man, I had certainly hoped for the same, but it's been a down hill slide in my opinion from day one. At least in the "credibility and respect" department. He's a politician, just like W, just like those before him. The system changes for no administration...and no administration can or really wants to change it in the first place.
Click to expand...


SO SORRY, but my opinion to your opinion is that you have made a lame excuse for Bush's Failure to watch and keep a strong hand on what was going on in Washington and the Country, His administration is directly responsible for the
melt-down, AND THE SNOWBALLING OF ALL THE DEBT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW, bail outs of the Banks , Wall Street , and the Car Industry, ect. ect.
His Administration dumped the country in the ditch with high unemployment and a mountain of debt after spending up all the Surplus Money...
When will the sheeples stop shifting the blame for this economic mess on Obama and learn that he is Simply the Clean up Man and not a magican...It took all of 8 years or more to get where we are now and GOD only knows how much time it will take to dig the country out of this mess and troubled times.
But he need some time and the American sheeples should stop acting like spoiled kids and grow up and learn how the Political Machine work... It is a slow machine that moves when Changes are implicated .
 
Lerxst said:
It is wishful thinking to believe that the Obama administration will do anything to add credibility to and respect to America at this point. I voted for the man, I had certainly hoped for the same, but it's been a down hill slide in my opinion from day one. At least in the "credibility and respect" department. He's a politician, just like W, just like those before him. The system changes for no administration...and no administration can or really wants to change it in the first place.
Click to expand...


MY OPINION IS, THIS IS NOT A VERY ACCURATE OPINION...It's been a down hill slide since Obama came to the Oval Office ???????? Now,Now, Brown Cow the Country had already slid into the ditch before Obama EVER put his foot in the Office in DC.... This is no time for the Blame Game.... It is time to Change the Game !!!!
 
Minnie T. Mouse said:
MY OPINION IS, THIS IS NOT A VERY ACCURATE OPINION...It's been a down hill slide since Obama came to the Oval Office ???????? Now,Now, Brown Cow the Country had already slid into the ditch before Obama EVER put his foot in the Office in DC.... This is no time for the Blame Game.... It is time to Change the Game !!!!
Click to expand...


(uhh, what....???)



.
 
digsbe said:
Never, Bush and Cheney never committed war crimes.

Are you being serious? The ones setting bad examples for the world are the UN and the EU. Just look at how they treat Israel and how they treat other conflicts. Look at how they treat Iran and the course of action they are taking with North Korea. Obama is dishonoring this country and acting exceedingly foolish when it comes to foreign policy. The world has become such a weak place where the wicked can rise up and the good only yell for "crippling sanctions" that never get put in place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am being very, very , serious, Bush was an awful, shameful, and a pretty dumb cowboy and he didn't even
Cowboy-Up to his job as President and smoke Osama Bin out of the caves as Promised..
Some people haven''t forgotten his promise and are still shaking their heads in wonder as to why he invaded Iraq and we are still waiting on those weapons of mass destruction.... The Bush years Brought the Good Ole U.S.A. to it's knees in debt,
Anti- American sentiments and wars and more wars in the Middle East..
 
This is another one of those black and white topics people love to have instead of a grey area and one where i always get labeled on my stance like gay rights, abortion, gun laws etc.
Exactly way im a centrist/independent

While i did not like bush "water boarding" war criminals or terrorist never bothered me on bit for so many reasons, some of them already listed
 
Minnie T. Mouse said:
SO SORRY, but my opinion to your opinion is that you have made a lame excuse for Bush's Failure to watch and keep a strong hand on what was going on in Washington and the Country, His administration is directly responsible for the
melt-down,
Click to expand...

No actually that would be Freddie Mac and Fannie May who the Democrats had a love affair with.

AND THE SNOWBALLING OF ALL THE DEBT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW, bail outs of the Banks , Wall Street , and the Car Industry, ect. ect.
Click to expand...

:roll: Democrats supported granting loans to people who couldn't afford them just as much as the Republicans if not more so. The Democrats were the ones who stood in the way of Republicans attempting to tighten regulations against Freddie Mac and Franny Mae.

His Administration dumped the country in the ditch with high unemployment
Click to expand...

lol unemployment didn't start to increase until the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.

and a mountain of debt after spending up all the Surplus Money...
Click to expand...

Holy **** you're misinformed, the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, the Clinton surplus is a god damn myth because democrats try to ignore money borrowed against social security and the interest charged us on our outstanding debt.

When will the sheeples stop shifting the blame for this economic mess on Obama and learn that he is Simply the Clean up Man and not a magican...It took all of 8 years or more to get where we are now and GOD only knows how much time it will take to dig the country out of this mess and troubled times.
But he need some time and the American sheeples should stop acting like spoiled kids and grow up and learn how the Political Machine work... It is a slow machine that moves when Changes are implicated .
Click to expand...

Um the Democrats have controlled Congress for more than 3 and a half years now. The economy was thriving under Bush.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not true. I have a first hand account:

my face was covered by a cloth and a tap feeding a hose-pipe was turned on.

Waterboarding: the most horrific experience of my life
Click to expand...

You are a smart one aren't, why don't you share with us very next ****ing line:

"To encourage me to say something the senior Japanese man beat me from time to time with the branch of a tree."

Thanks for playing.

From that article:

In case anyone is still in doubt whether the water torture is, or is not, torture I shall refer to a Japanese Army document, which is authoritative. I have an extract from the Japanese Secret War Service Guide, headed '”Fundamental Rules for Interrogating War Prisoners”. This was probably issued in the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 1938. In the list of “official” tortures item No 3 reads: “Putting the person interrogated on his back (it is advisable to raise the feet a little) and dripping water into the nose and mouth simultaneously.” A later section draws attention to the importance of minimising the disturbance caused by victims' screams.
Click to expand...

Once again the Japanese went much further than what we do, as per your own article.

This is the type of waterboarding conducted by the Japanese:

(2) ... Water torture. There were 2 forms of water torture. In the first the victim was tied or held down on his back and a cloth placed over his nose and mouth. Water was then poured on the cloth. Interrogation proceeded and the victim was beated if he did not reply. As he opened his mouth to breathe or to answer questions, water went down his throat until he could not hold anymore. Sometimes he was then beaten over his distended stomach , sometimes a Jap. jumped on his stomach or sometimes pressed on it with his foot. In the 2nd, the victim was tied lengthways on a ladder face upwards with a rung of the ladder across his throat and his head below the ladder. In his position he was slid head first into a tub of water and kept there until almost drowned. After being revived interrogation continued and he would be re-immersed.

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1997/yax-057.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Minnie T. Mouse said:
Yeah, I am being very, very , serious, Bush was an awful, shameful, and a pretty dumb cowboy and he didn't even
Cowboy-Up to his job as President and smoke Osama Bin out of the caves as Promised..
Some people haven''t forgotten his promise and are still shaking their heads in wonder as to why he invaded Iraq and we are still waiting on those weapons of mass destruction.... The Bush years Brought the Good Ole U.S.A. to it's knees in debt,
Anti- American sentiments and wars and more wars in the Middle East..
Click to expand...

At least he wasn't sucking off Saddam Hussein for oil contracts like your President Jaque Chiraq was at the time.
 
Agent Ferris said:
You are a smart one aren't, why don't you share with us very next ****ing line:

"To encourage me to say something the senior Japanese man beat me from time to time with the branch of a tree."

Thanks for playing.



Once again the Japanese went much further than what we do, as per your own article.

This is the type of waterboarding conducted by the Japanese:
Click to expand...

I linked it. But whether he beat him or not, the procedure, which is what we're disputing, was the same. They didn't do what you claimed, filling his stomach with water, distending it, and beating the distended stomach. The waterboarding procedure was the same as we use today. They did not go further with the procedure of waterboarding. Both types have the same result, drowning.
 
Minnie T. Mouse said:
No none, and when will BUSH and CHENEY be waterboaded for War Crimes ????
This is what I would like to know, because he only showed his Cowboy swagger and bad examples to the whole World and most Nations have lost respect fand trust for the U.S.A. and what it stand for because of his barbaric actions.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right, he should have followed FDR's tact and instead of waterboarding the accused had them tried by secret military tribunal and executed before the general public even knew they existed. Or maybe they could follow your countries pristine example and have them executed by guillotine without trial for "anti-revolutionary activities," Robespierre style, or maybe put them into concentration camps the way De Gaul did with the Algerians or the various uses of real life torture implemented by the Fascist policies of De Gaul against the Algerians. And FYI France has cracked down on civil liberties in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism far harder than the U.S., perhaps you've heard of the RG?
 
Boo Radley said:
I linked it. But whether he beat him or not, the procedure, which is what we're disputing, was the same.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't the same because our waterboarding was not coupled with physical beating.

They didn't do what you claimed, filling his stomach with water, distending it, and beating the distended stomach. The waterboarding procedure was the same as we use today. They did not go further with the procedure of waterboarding. Both types have the same result, drowning.
Click to expand...

They beat him, and I provided the article describing how they did fill peoples stomachs with water until their stomachs distended and then beat and jumped on the distended stomachs.
 
alms said:
Boo,

Actually, yes...

See how unnecessary that was? Please refrain from making empty assertions, as they add nothing to the discussion.



A spurious analogy that falsely assumes torture can only obtain intelligence by pure chance. You cannot definitively claim this is or would be the case - you can only assume so.



Suppose you're the President and the CIA captures a high level AQ commander. They use all available interrogation methods except "torture" and nothing is working. The chief interrogator comes to you, the President, and says, "Sir, we've tried everything but nothing is working. We know this guy has actionable intelligence that could severely compromise AQ's ability to attack American interests at home and abroad but we've run out of options. Sir, we think we can get him to talk but we need to apply some additional pressure, perhaps waterboarding or prolonged food and sleep deprivation, maybe both. We need your permission to proceed."

What is your response? I'm genuinely curious to know what you would do.
Click to expand...

First, you can't really know. More you think this person has actionable intel, and if you torture, you'll get something, likely wrong, and waste time and probably hurt us more than anything else would. See al Libi as an example. Getting wrong intel is not a viable option, and just becasue we're frustrated is not reason to break the law or do something that is more likely to provide misinformation.

So, I am quite proper to no. A stopped clock is correct twice a day, but no reasonable person would argue it works. The point stands.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No it wasn't the same because our waterboarding was not coupled with physical beating.



They beat him, and I provided the article describing how they did fill peoples stomachs with water until their stomachs distended and then beat and jumped on the distended stomachs.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the exact same water boarding. Beating him is another offense. People are capable of doing more than one offense. But doing so doesn't change the fact that the procedure is the same.

Just so you know, we beat some folks as well. I specifically recall a fellow in Afghanistan who wasn't guilty of anything who died while being beaten. But that's beside the point. The waterboarding technique was the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom