• 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!

Amnesty International Wants Bush Prosecuted for Admitted Waterboarding

The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

isn't this what we did?

That's sounds pretty much like what we did. However, I don't believe that's the extent of what he did that constitutes torture for which he was convicted. Since I don't know the source of that quote, I'll post this again:
Yokohama Reviews - Asano

It's only a summary and simply includes the term "water torture". Some of the other cases I linked have quite a bit more detail and describe actual torture that goes far beyond the description you linked. Why his particular summary is missing some details, I have no idea...
 
The Geneva Convention protects people in uniform and innocent civilians. It does not protect terrorists. If you believe the people held at Gitmo are innocent, not terrorists, then argue that point.

As to having tortured innocent people, of course, we have. We've killed 'em, too. Women and children and all the rest. Such are the spoils of war. I'll say it again, because one can't say it too much:

There is no country in the history of the world that has done more in wartime to protect the innocents. We're not perfect. But we're as close to that as any nation has ever gotten.

those aren't called "the spoils of war"........they are called collateral damage.
 
Again, all of it si water torture.
Yet this meaning is incorrect: As Wallach has pointed out in an op-ed (Washington Post, 11/4/07), “To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.” He elaborated that the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted.

Malcolm Nance, a former instructor at the U.S. Navy’s Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival program who has taught American service members what to expect under torture, concurred with this assessment of “waterboarding” in an interview with Extra!: “There is nothing simulated about it.”

U.S. Justice Department legal counsel John Yoo’s 2003 memo, which provided a legal justification for the use of “waterboarding,” has deservedly been rebuked by the media for having “redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts,” as one New York Times editorial (4/4/08) put it. Unfortunately, the same can be said of much of the news reporting on “waterboarding.”

From Water Torture to ‘Waterboarding’

A Visual History of Water-Based Tortures | waterboarding.org

PolitiFact | History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding
 
Have you read the Geneva Convention documents? Please read it and then get back to us. What happens when a soldier is caught in a foreign country during war time and is out of uniform? Does the Geneva Convention cover them?

Now for the issue of Waterboarding, as has been pointed out, Generals do not make the laws and everyone is entitled to an opinion. If waterboarding was illegal when Bush authorized it, why did Obama have to issue an Executive Order making Waterboarding illegal?

WTF.. I am asking your to cite your sources. utter BS.

So why can't you cite the Geneva Convention and sending me one a wild goose hunt.. can you not do it?

I am betting you don't know where the f it says it in the Conventions, because it's not in it.

Go ahead and prove me wrong..
 
Again, all of it si water torture.
Yet this meaning is incorrect: As Wallach has pointed out in an op-ed (Washington Post, 11/4/07), “To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.” He elaborated that the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted.

Malcolm Nance, a former instructor at the U.S. Navy’s Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival program who has taught American service members what to expect under torture, concurred with this assessment of “waterboarding” in an interview with Extra!: “There is nothing simulated about it.”

U.S. Justice Department legal counsel John Yoo’s 2003 memo, which provided a legal justification for the use of “waterboarding,” has deservedly been rebuked by the media for having “redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts,” as one New York Times editorial (4/4/08) put it. Unfortunately, the same can be said of much of the news reporting on “waterboarding.”

From Water Torture to ‘Waterboarding’

A Visual History of Water-Based Tortures | waterboarding.org

PolitiFact | History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding

So what is your bottomline, you want President Bush prosecuted for waterboarding three high value al Qaeda operatives one of whom orchestrated 9/11? Liberals like you never take a stand and just argue to argue and want to destroy anyone that disagrees with you. You just cannot admit that you are wrong on any issue.
 
A police officer can let you go and not give a ticket.

you're comparing TORTURE to running a stop sign?

LOL!

i hope doj issued president bush a WARNING before letting him drive home free
 
Why do you continue to buy the rhetoric of leftwingers with an agenda. Amnesia International should have more to deal with than 3 high value al Qaeda animals that were interrogated at GITMO. How about the human shields that al Qaeda uses, how about the cutting off of heads, how about flying planes into buildings killing innocent civilians, how about strapping bombs on their backs and blowing up market places?

There is plenty of evidence on both sides regarding Waterboarding, the question is why do you buy the left's version and not the right? Why is there such passion for this issue if not just pure hatred for President Bush, all based upon ignorance?

You're lecturing somebody on ignorance and you can't even post on source that I asked for for several pages... golden.

How much do you really know about the Geneva Conventions and aren't just spouting off talking points yourself?
 
Paschendale
So would you argue that the solders who fought in our revolution weren't combatants? They wore plain clothes, and didn't identify themselves openly.

It seems they were ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Do you suppose the Revolutionary War should be declared null and void?
I have yet to hear any of these torture proponents stand up and say "I am willing to torture people who MAY be guilty of a crime in order to extract information."

That's probably because, as in the cases under discussion, that you want to be quite certain first that there is knowledge to be extracted. I doubt anyone is prepared to commit torture otherwise.
 
Except for the tiny detail that the guys detained at GITMO, according to the GC's definition, are not POWs and therefore do not fall under the protection of the GC.

Not saying that this makes it OK to "torture" them. You just can't use the GC to argue that such "torture" is illegal. simply that the framers did not have terrorist insurgents in mind when the GC was written.

The supreme court of the US said they are protected under the GC
 
So what is your bottomline, you want President Bush prosecuted for waterboarding three high value al Qaeda operatives one of whom orchestrated 9/11? Liberals like you never take a stand and just argue to argue and want to destroy anyone that disagrees with you. You just cannot admit that you are wrong on any issue.

We should also keep in mind that it was the terrorists choice to be waterboarded. They could have talked first and kept themselves dry.
 
You're lecturing somebody on ignorance and you can't even post on source that I asked for for several pages... golden.

How much do you really know about the Geneva Conventions and aren't just spouting off talking points yourself?

I would have thought that you were reading all the posts on this thread and not just mine. The Geneva Convention articles have been posted here so go back and read all the posts, not just mine
 
This was a civilian. Do you not see the difference?

NO. it was torture, pure and simple. why in the world do you condone torture? why does it matter who it's performed on?
 
Last edited:
Bush was told that Waterboarding wasn't torture and thus he authorized the waterboarding of 3 high valued leaders. Try to stay focused. Obama issued an executive order to make something that was already illegal, illegal? LOL, this really is a joke, right?

Bush was also told that waterboarding was torture. It was never expressively stated as either legal or illegal... although it was always well know that respected torture councils, other countries, and lawyers considered it torture. You are acting like there was no debate about it before, and you are being dishonest. It was always controversial..
 
Show me some explanation where a person who uses weapons in violent efforts conducted against citizens of a different country is not a combatant, and thus fall under prisoners of war. Rhetoric and bull**** employed by the administration drew that difference, in a highly illegal way.

I keep asking for the same evidence.. but none will budge
 
I doubt there is anything Bush could do right in your world but the reality is you listen to your attorneys and that is what Bush did. Now how about answering the question.

If waterboarding was illegal why did Obama have to issue an executive order making it illegal?

Did Bush do anything wrong in your world Conservative? Do you miss him as pres and wish you had him back?

Bush was a neocon... This entire torture/waterboarding debate is evidence of that.

Bush did do good things in my world.. for a short time. He was a strong supporter of the first and second amendments and he wasn't Al Gore.. but all that changed when he showed himself as the neocon that he is.

Stereotyping everybody here for disagreeing with you is really lame and immature. I know that sounds cliche but it's true. You are lame and immature
 
SheWolf

Bush did do good things in my world.. for a short time. He was a strong supporter of the first and second amendments and he wasn't Al Gore.. but all that changed when he showed himself as the neocon that he is.

Stereotyping everybody here for disagreeing with you is really lame and immature.

Would that include the stereotyping of "Neo-cons"?
 
Did Bush do anything wrong in your world Conservative? Do you miss him as pres and wish you had him back?

Bush was a neocon... This entire torture/waterboarding debate is evidence of that.

Bush did do good things in my world.. for a short time. He was a strong supporter of the first and second amendments and he wasn't Al Gore.. but all that changed when he showed himself as the neocon that he is.

Stereotyping everybody here for disagreeing with you is really lame and immature. I know that sounds cliche but it's true. You are lame and immature

Yes, Bush did some things wrong but I would take him back in a heartbeat over what we have now and the disaster that is in the WH. You see, I get actual verifiable data instead of reacting to opinions and hatred of others.

GW Bush will be judged by historians not partisans on either side. They will use actual facts and based upon that he will be judged a lot differently than you.

I really don't think you have a clue what a neocon is but it sounds great because that is what others told you.

Sorry, but if being lame and immature is confusing you with actual facts and data, so be it. I gladly wear that as a badge of honor.
 
Originally Posted by Paschendale
Show me some explanation where a person who uses weapons in violent efforts conducted against citizens of a different country is not a combatant, and thus fall under prisoners of war. Rhetoric and bull**** employed by the administration drew that difference, in a highly illegal way.

I keep asking for the same evidence.. but none will budge

all you have to do is google "geneva convention define POW". combatant =/= POW.

simply taking up arms does not qualify an individual as a POW. there are specific criteria outlined.
 
Bush was a neocon... This entire torture/waterboarding debate is evidence of that.

then I guess John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are neocons as well. they both knew about the waterboarding and did nothing to stop it. :shrug:
 
Paschendale


It seems they were ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Do you suppose the Revolutionary War should be declared null and void?


That's probably because, as in the cases under discussion, that you want to be quite certain first that there is knowledge to be extracted. I doubt anyone is prepared to commit torture otherwise.

Revolutionary isn't null or void.. I have been talking about this for several pages.. Revolution is necessary and justified against an oppressive government. That is the very reason why I find it disturbing that people here think it's ok to torture revolutionaries or anybody fighting an oppressive government, and that it is not in some way a war crime. I am sorry.. but if Great Britian tortured our soldiers in the revolution they would have just appeared as a more oppressive and coercive force than before.

Oppression isn't justifiable.. oppressive governments shouldn't be protected at all, and I highly doubt the GC would protect them.
 
I would have thought that you were reading all the posts on this thread and not just mine. The Geneva Convention articles have been posted here so go back and read all the posts, not just mine

plenty of them have been posted.. this is pathetic

Why can't you do your own homework
 
Back
Top Bottom