• 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

SheWolf said:
Why can't you do your own homework
Click to expand...

this coming from the person who a few posts back was whining about people not providing evidence. take your own advice and do your own homework. :lamo
 
SheWolf said:
plenty of them have been posted.. this is pathetic

Why can't you do your own homework
Click to expand...

I have done my homework, you seem to have a problem with it. When were the 3 terrorists waterboarded? Where in the Geneva convention does it grant non uniformed terrorists that represent no country Geneva Convention protection? What do you want to happen to President Bush. I think your entire argument is pathetic but this is a free forum that allows people regardless of position to post.
 
SheWolf

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.
Click to expand...

So these three people who were waterboarded were revolutionaries fighting an oppressive government?

Perhaps this conversation has gone off-track somewhat.
 
Grant said:
SheWolf



Would that include the stereotyping of "Neo-cons"?
Click to expand...

You need to look up the definition of stereotyping.. I only pointed out Bush was a neocon. I didn't go off into a rant about neocons being ignorant, hating this country, blindly hating the good man President Obama and wanting to destroy him and his creditability. and OMG I have family in the wars. STFU. I know more than you about this, and I know who the true enemies are.. you are just blinded by the left wing talking points. I love America, you don't. Our President is protecting the country.
 
OscarB63 said:
this coming from the person who a few posts back was whining about people not providing evidence. take your own advice and do your own homework. :lamo
Click to expand...

BS. I shouldn't have to hunt down OTHER PEOPLE'S SOURCES

STAY OUT OF THIS.
 
Grant said:
SheWolf



So these three people who were waterboarded were revolutionaries fighting an oppressive government?

Perhaps this conversation has gone off-track somewhat.
Click to expand...

The conversation hasn't gone off track.. I have debating about this as a side point for a few pages now because of the arguments for torture. Namely saying it is ok to torture nonuniformed, stateless people.. People like the kurds and the US revolutionaries for example. Torturing such people has always been considered a war crime such as the abuses in the USSR.

I am bringing this up as a point against those arguments. I just want proof or something... I am of course not comparing Al Qaeda to any of those people. This is about the principle of the issue and that is it.
 
SheWolf said:
You need to look up the definition of stereotyping.. I only pointed out Bush was a neocon. I didn't go off into a rant about neocons being ignorant, hating this country, blindly hating the good man President Obama and wanting to destroy him and his creditability. and OMG I have family in the wars. STFU. I know more than you about this, and I know who the true enemies are.. you are just blinded by the left wing talking points. I love America, you don't. Our President is protecting the country.
Click to expand...

The Obama results paint a different picture than the one you want it to paint. Obama is destroying this country economically and the facts are there for all to see.
 
SheWolf

You need to look up the definition of stereotyping.
Click to expand...

Good idea. And while I'm doing that perhaps you can learn the meaning of Neo-Conservative.
 
Conservative said:
The Obama results paint a different picture than the one you want it to paint. Obama is destroying this country economically and the facts are there for all to see.
Click to expand...

So you only see the world in extremes of black and white.. Libs and everybody on this thread arguing with you hate Bush because they think he was destroying the country, but alas, Obama REALLY is destroying the country.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not just for waterboarding, though that would be enough. He also set the tone for led to innocent people being tortured, causing the death of at least one.
 
I still am hung up on this whole.. it's ok torture stateless, nonuniformed people thing.

It's like a distraction going on in the middle of the debate, because

1. People who are saying this are also saying waterboarding is not torture, and
2. most of them don't seem to be arguing for torture (at least haven't said so in this thread)
3. some have argued that it is a worse offense to torture a civilian than to torture a uniformed person

So I am perplexed why they introduced this fact in the thread. It seems out of place. I mean, we really know (or at least, I think we all know) it is an intentional crime to torture stateless, nonuniformed people and has been throughout history.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
I still am hung up on this whole.. it's ok torture stateless, nonuniformed people thing.

It's like a distraction going on in the middle of the debate, because

1. People who are saying this are also saying waterboarding is not torture, and
2. most of them don't seem to be arguing for torture (at least haven't said so in this thread)

So I am perplexed why they introduced this fact in the thread. It seems out of place. I mean, we really know (or at least, I think we all know) it is an intentional crime to torture stateless, nonuniformed people and has been throughout history.
Click to expand...

Thoughout this people have tried to have it all ways. Not a solider, so not subject the the GC. Not civilians, so not treated like a civilian. Meaning we can do whatever we want with no rule of law. Some even try to make them akin to a spy, or a soldier out of uniform, making them subject to being shot.

All of this is to avoid rule of law IMHO.
 
SheWolf said:
So you only see the world in extremes of black and white.. Libs and everybody on this thread arguing with you hate Bush because they think he was destroying the country, but alas, Obama REALLY is destroying the country.
Click to expand...

The difference is I provide verifiable sites to get the facts. Job creation under Bush, bls.gov, economic growth under Bush, BEA.gov, debt under Bush, U.S. Treasury. Facts have a way of destroying rhetoric.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not just for waterboarding, though that would be enough. He also set the tone for led to innocent people being tortured, causing the death of at least one.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you want as punishment for Bush? I don't agree with you by the way
 
Conservative said:
The difference is I provide verifiable sites to get the facts. Job creation under Bush, bls.gov, economic growth under Bush, BEA.gov, debt under Bush, U.S. Treasury. Facts have a way of destroying rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Facts have to speak to the issue at hand, and not random, irrelevant facts that don't mean anything to the issue at hand. :coffeepap
 
Conservative said:
The difference is I provide verifiable sites to get the facts. Job creation under Bush, bls.gov, economic growth under Bush, BEA.gov, debt under Bush, U.S. Treasury. Facts have a way of destroying rhetoric.
Click to expand...


And any of this has to do with water boarding how?
 
SheWolf said:
I think everything is about him vs liberals.. It doesn't matter if you aren't a liberal, if you disagree with him, you suddenly are a liberal
Click to expand...

winner winner chicken dinner.
 
SheWolf said:
I think everything is about him vs liberals.. It doesn't matter if you aren't a liberal, if you disagree with him, you suddenly are a liberal
Click to expand...


I guess bls.gov proves that especially in a thread about water boarding:beam:
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure you don't. But whatever the alw requires. Nothing more; nothing less.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the law didn't outlaw waterboarding until the Supreme Court ruledin 2006. The three al Qaeda operatvies were waterboarded well before that when the President got the advice that it was legal. The law says move on and Bush cannot be retroactivly prosecuted, keep foaming at the mouth.
 
MaggieD said:
The Geneva Convention expressly addresses that all bets are off if the enemy is shielding, as an example, it's munitions storage facility in the midst of a civilian population. Or its troops in close proximity to a hospital. We do a better job that any nation on earth in our attempts to protect civilian populations. All the while, our enemies are killing civilians like freakin' flies.
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue of the legality of targeting killings (assassinations) using drones is that cut and dry, beginning with the fact that we're not at war with Yemen and killing significant numbers of non-combatants involves issues of International Humanitarian Law:

The United Nations Basic Principles for the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (UN Basic Principles) set out the international legal standard for the use of force by police:

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in
self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or
serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime
involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger
and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when
less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any
event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly
unavoidable in order to protect life.4

The United States has failed to follow these rules by using combat drones in places where no actual armed conflict was occurring or where the U.S. was not involved in the armed conflict.

Lawful Use of Combat Drones, Mary Ellen O’Connell
Click to expand...

And:

The Legal Adviser to the Department of State recently outlined the Government’s legal justifications for targeted killings. They were said to be based on its asserted right to self-defence, as well as on IHL, on the basis that the US is “in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces.”41 While this statement is an important starting point, it does not address some of the most central legal issues including: the scope of the armed conflict in which the US asserts it is engaged, the criteria for individuals who may be targeted and killed, the existence of any substantive or procedural safeguards to ensure the legality and accuracy of killings, and the existence of accountability mechanisms.

United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston
Click to expand...

We see indignation to the point of wanting Bush tried as a war criminal for waterboarding three terrorists (or "suspected" terrorists), but Obama purportedly kills dozens of women and children in a single drone strike in a country we're not at war with and we hear nary a peep. Why is that? :confused: About all we get from non-academics is a word from someone like this member of Obama's Gitmo fan club:

“We say that Bush was the president of torture, but Obama is the president of extra-judicial killing. The difference between the two is that while one used to extra-judicially detain people, the other has gone a step further and extra-judicially kills them.”

Obama is president of extra-judicial killing, says ex-Guantanamo inmate - The Irish Times - Sat, Nov 13, 2010
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but the law didn't outlaw waterboarding until the Supreme Court ruledin 2006. The three al Qaeda operatvies were waterboarded well before that when the President got the advice that it was legal. The law says move on and Bush cannot be retroactivly prosecuted, keep foaming at the mouth.
Click to expand...

The spurpreme court didn't make law. They ruled on law, meaning it was illegal before they ruled.
 
Boo Radley said:
The spurpreme court didn't make law. They ruled on law, meaning it was illegal before they ruled.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter remains, Bush was told by attorneys that Waterboarding wasn't illegal and Bush acted on that advice. He will not be prosecuted by anyone for his actions regardless of the vitriol from the left and Amnesia International. Bush briefed Congress on what he was doing and there was no outrage there either. I am still waiting for you to tell us all what you would like to see happen to Bush for Waterboarding 3 al Qaeda leaders? You keep running as usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom