• 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!

George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Obviously I was wrong in responding to you.
No surprise there.
Did GW Bush break the law by waterboarding 3 high value al Qaeda operatives?
I don't know, as I don't think there is a cut-and-dried answer. The fact that Congress did not impeach him has absolutely no bearing at all in the legality of such an order, however. To think it does requires some amazing partisan mental gymnastics in order to avoid basic logic and common sense. If Congress's unwillingness to impeach Bush proves that waterboarding is legal, it follows that OJ's acquittal proves that he did not kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
 
No surprise there.I don't know, as I don't think there is a cut-and-dried answer. The fact that Congress did not impeach him has absolutely no bearing at all in the legality of such an order, however. To think it does requires some amazing partisan mental gymnastics in order to avoid basic logic and common sense. If Congress's unwillingness to impeach Bush proves that waterboarding is legal, it follows that OJ's acquittal proves that he did not kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

That is the point, it isn't cut and dry, attornies said it was legal, others said it wasn't so here we sit reliving something that happened during the last Administration, a total waste of time.
 
That is the point, it isn't cut and dry, attornies said it was legal, others said it wasn't so here we sit reliving something that happened during the last Administration, a total waste of time.
That is a lot different than what you said earlier:
Lawyer's believed waterboarding was legal and regardless of the argument you or I make lives were saved by President Bush's efforts. That is good enough for me.
So which is it, legal because some lawyer said so, or a gray area because of the split of opinion among lawyers?
 
It doesn't do that. Both it and the Washington post story, if you look it, say this was claimed, not supported. If you look, you will find that we knew aboutt he second wave before KSm, so his telling us was not new intel, not something we didn't get another way. What they are refering to was tharted before KSM was even captured.

. . . In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

The Washington Monthly

You might also read this:

If the detainee doesn't immediately respond by giving information, for example he asks: "what do you want to know?" the interviewer will reply: "you know," and walk out of the interrogation room. Then the next step on the force continuum is introduced, for example sleep deprivation, and the process will continue until the detainee's will is broken and he automatically gives up all information he is presumed to know.
There are many problems with this technique.

A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.
This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. In a democracy there is a glass ceiling of harsh techniques the interrogator cannot breach, and a detainee can eventually call the interrogator's bluff.

In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.

A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD.

Testimony


Washington Post Hires Cheneyite Marc Thiessen

In summary, sleep deprivation is torture and any sort of interrogation yields unreliable information and should not be attempted.
 
In summary, sleep deprivation is torture and any sort of interrogation yields unreliable information and should not be attempted.

No, that's a stupid misinterpretation. The last part actual gives an argument for more effective measures that work better.
 
As I pointed out liberals all over the country demonized Bush for not preventing 9/11 including you and now when there is evidence that shows other 9/11's were prevented you ignore it and continue to demonize Bush for what you believe was torture. Lawyer's believed waterboarding was legal and regardless of the argument you or I make lives were saved by President Bush's efforts. That is good enough for me.

I'm not liberals all over, who ever they are. As for 9/11, there's enough blame to go around, but if we take that example, torture wasn't needed to prevent it (neither was invasion or assination). All that we needed to do was allow the FBI and the CIA to share information, because together they knew and had they shared information could have put it together and prevented it. All without torture, invasion, or assination. Sometimes simple clear actions are better than wild chicken **** overreaction.

:coffeepap
 
No, that's a stupid misinterpretation. The last part actual gives an argument for more effective measures that work better.

It's not a misinterpretation.

"There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. "

Any interrogation technique suffers from these same limitations. Therefore, interrogation is futile. I don't believe that, but that's what you posted.
 
It's not a misinterpretation.

"There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. "

Any interrogation technique suffers from these same limitations. Therefore, interrogation is futile. I don't believe that, but that's what you posted.

Again, that is one problem with torture. Unrealiable. other methods have less problem with that as opposed to no problem with it. With torture, even the innocent, competely unknowleagable will give information. Other methods can sort through that better.

But, if we accpet your misreading, and all suffer from the same problems equally (they don't), why torture?
 
That is a lot different than what you said earlier:So which is it, legal because some lawyer said so, or a gray area because of the split of opinion among lawyers?
Run away! Run away! :lamo
 
Sorry, didn't read your profile but the question remains, how would you feel if your leadership could have prevented the death of one of your loved ones but didn't? Waterboarding wasn't classified as torture by the lawyers regardless of what you claim and that action saved a lot of American lives. I support what Bush did and would take him back in a heartbeat.

Thank you, my brother, thank you!
 
Sorry, didn't read your profile but the question remains, how would you feel if your leadership could have prevented the death of one of your loved ones but didn't? Waterboarding wasn't classified as torture by the lawyers regardless of what you claim and that action saved a lot of American lives. I support what Bush did and would take him back in a heartbeat.

Thank you, my brother, thank you!
 
Bush can claim whatever he wants.

UK says he is lying and denies it. Cameron condemns Bush and call out his bull****. Oh and UK disagrees with US. Water boarding is classified as torture.
Any information received is unreliable. Anyone facing torture will crack and tell the individuals what they wish to hear.

And if individuals in UK did willingly help US torture people. They ought to face a trial and go to jail.

People who say that, don't know how it works. There are concequences for giving bad info. It's not like the subject gets tortured, suck some info out of him, then he's released. The info is confirmed and if it's bull****, you go back and make his ass even more uncomfortable.

This is a perfect time to bring this up. Why do the rules only apply to the US and not to the bad guys? Interesting how that's always the case.
 
NO!!! I don't believe torture works, regardless I don't want our nation to seen as doing the same thing as terrorists do. There are ways to get information in a humane way. At the end of WWII the Germans didn't resist be captured because the knew they would be treated humanely by the Americans. The policy saved the lives of our troops. Torture is bad policy and I am surprised Bush did recognize that.


Youe mean this kind of humane treatment?


Where members of the 157th Infantry Regiment summarily executed gaurds at Dachau; no trial, no miranda rights and if you'll notice, not even a blindfold. Lined'em up and shot'em down like dogs.

735px-Dachau_execution_coalyard_1945-04-29.jpg


How 'bout when Allied units forced German civilians to bury the bodies of the camp victims? International law defines that as slavery and, yes, it's a war crime.

How about the German POW's that starved to death in American POW camps?

And, all that ain't nothin' compared to what the French did to German POW's after the war.
 
Again, that is one problem with torture. Unrealiable. other methods have less problem with that as opposed to no problem with it. With torture, even the innocent, competely unknowleagable will give information. Other methods can sort through that better.

But, if we accpet your misreading, and all suffer from the same problems equally (they don't), why torture?

Why bother asking them any questions at all? If they expect to be asked questions, and giving them what they expect only makes them feel confident and comfortable, why not just give them a box of chocolates and send them on their way?
 
Jews resisted months and months of torture by nazis... especially the communist jews. (Go figure that one)

What makes you think a mujahadeen is going to be broken by enhanced interrogation?
 
Jews resisted months and months of torture by nazis... especially the communist jews. (Go figure that one)

What makes you think a mujahadeen is going to be broken by enhanced interrogation?

You know that makes absolutely no sense. Right? Where are you even coming from with that comment?
 
Youe mean this kind of humane treatment?


Where members of the 157th Infantry Regiment summarily executed gaurds at Dachau; no trial, no miranda rights and if you'll notice, not even a blindfold. Lined'em up and shot'em down like dogs.

[picture]

How 'bout when Allied units forced German civilians to bury the bodies of the camp victims? International law defines that as slavery and, yes, it's a war crime.

How about the German POW's that starved to death in American POW camps?

And, all that ain't nothin' compared to what the French did to German POW's after the war.

How about General George Washington famously ordering his troops to give refuge to hundreds of surrendering Hessian soldiers. "Treat them with humanity?"
 
Perhaps I missed it in all the pages of avoidance and semantic quibbling over the legalities, but Dubya's claim is rejected by British politicians from the conservative PM down, and British security services. It's been pointed out that one of the events he claims we were "warned" about, the Heathrow threat, happened 4 days before the torture, legal or otherwise. (All but Bushlaw supporters suggest "otherwise")
 
You know that makes absolutely no sense. Right? Where are you even coming from with that comment?

It's actually historically accurate and an insight on current torture practice by the US.
Amidoingitright? Ive had a couple.
 
Jews resisted months and months of torture by nazis... especially the communist jews. (Go figure that one)

What makes you think a mujahadeen is going to be broken by enhanced interrogation?

Why were the nazis torturing the Jews? Oh, that's right, they were being tortured for the sake of torture. In that case, what is it that the Jews were resisting?
 
How about General George Washington famously ordering his troops to give refuge to hundreds of surrendering Hessian soldiers. "Treat them with humanity?"

George Washington owned slaves, too.

But, anyway, the Hessians were uniformed soldiers and as uniformed soldiers rated protections under the rules of war, at the time.

Washington also hanged Major John Andre' without a trial for spying.
 
Last edited:
I don't care.
Really? Because for someone who doesn't care, you sure went to a lot of trouble trying to label him a terrorist...

Just a deflection from my point.

If he's "engaging in war," then he's an enemy soldier. Nothing else he could be. Yet you go hysterical over the idea that you're calling him that.

You were defending him against the charge of being a terrorist. The "lunacy" is where you went to claim he's not a terrorist -- that he's an enemy soldier conducting a war.

I'm pretty sure it's you (once again!) who's displaying the "absolutist" thought here.

It wasn't my argument that he was. Wasn't even considering the point. Was referring to your defense of him. But considering there's no one agreed-upon definition of "terrorism," let's look at what the UN convention considers terrorism:

It's fairly clear what he did fits.

Now, let's look at the proposed exceptions:

He doesn't fall under any of those.

Let's look at the further proposed exceptions by the Islamic Conference:

Doesn't fall under any of those, either.

I surely do. And it would include someone who, say, refers to those who ideologically differ from him as "regressives." And one who doesn't see that defending someone against the label of terrorist is indeed defending that person. You can defend someone and be right. You can defend someone who's been unjustly accused. Yet you're still defending him. And here, you defend him, and in so doing, you say he's an enemy soldier in a war rather than a terrorist. THAT characterization is INDEED "lunacy."

Funny, you seem to think his "motivation" is "clear" when you refer to him as attacking "enemy soldiers."

I don't "want to label him" anything. It really doesn't matter to me. But you seem hell-bent on him not being a terrorist, though you're certainly willing to attribute to him other things which require the same kind of mind-reading. Like "treason."

Why does it matter to you so much that he is or isn't a terrorist?

What evidence is there that he was affirmatively waging war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to her enemies? That is the definition of "treason."

I'm not the one insisting -- INSISTING -- he is or isn't something. :shrug:

Weak. He could have, as you point out, just snapped. That wouldn't be treason. Treason requires intent. Yet you have no problem saying it's treason.

I never claimed he was or wasn't anything. It's you who reached affirmative conclusions and even got into a snit over it. It's you who claimed to know his mind, both in saying that he was engaged in combat against "enemy soldiers" and that he committed "treason." I did nothing of the kind.
Actually, as you can see, you were the one "insisting" he is a terrorist and making a big snit of it. You even went to the trouble of looking up the UN convention just so you could label him as as such.

It is important what the Fort Hood shooter is labeled. Because if he were labeled a terrorist then the Fort Hood shooting would officially be known as the second act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11 and Hasan could be charged under US anti-terrorism laws and tried in Federal Court. But the military wants jurisdiction over the trial and so he is just being charged with multiple murders instead of an act of terrorism. But either way, he would still get the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
Why bother asking them any questions at all? If they expect to be asked questions, and giving them what they expect only makes them feel confident and comfortable, why not just give them a box of chocolates and send them on their way?

Because there are techniques that work quite well, much better than torture. I know you're silliness means something to you, but it isn't an arugment. If torture has the exact same results (it doesn't, it fairs worse), why torture?
 
"Might Save Lives"

I'm not naive enough to think that its not possible lives has been saved through torture but...

What about the innocents who get tortured in this manner?

They can recover from this technique, and go on to live their lives. I do believe, however, that there can be psychological damage that might take years to overcome.

I really can't see why this method of torture would need to be used. Maybe it was necessary to rush to thwart future plots that seemed imminent. We probably will never know all the details unless it was all recorded in some way.

I've seen Bush interviewed because of his book, and he doesn't really divulge a lot of info. Maybe it's in the book.

Bush did say that a lot of things don't bother him about how negatively he's been perceived, so in that respect, he's not normal, or he takes a lot of Xanax. I'd say he's on something, or delusional. Maybe Laura keeps him calm.
 
Bush did say that a lot of things don't bother him about how negatively he's been perceived, so in that respect, he's not normal, or he takes a lot of Xanax. I'd say he's on something, or delusional. Maybe Laura keeps him calm.

You have problems with how you are perceived, do you Marilyn?
 
Back
Top Bottom