• 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

obama is a GOOD PERSON because he never SAID the reason he slaughters innocent pakistanis is...

LOL!

tell us more, margaret

See what I mean about reading. Show me where I said Obama was a good person. I'll wait.
 
he's NOT

because he never SAID the reason he was killing INNOCENTS was to protect america

LOL!
 
he's NOT

because he never SAID the reason he was killing INNOCENTS was to protect america

LOL!

He's not what? Again, show me where I said Obama was a good person. I'm still waiting.
 
what we've learned:

1. not prosecuting govt officials for TORTURE is akin to letting a speeder off with a warning

2. if you allow cia agents to use eit's against known assassins, the next thing you know they'll be raping children

3. a person can be a GOOD PERSON so long as he or she doesn't SAY he's killing innocents to protect american lives

LOL!
 
what we've learned:

1. not prosecuting govt officials for TORTURE is akin to letting a speeder off with a warning

2. if you allow cia agents to use eit's against known assassins, the next thing you know they'll be raping children

3. a person can be a GOOD PERSON so long as he or she doesn't SAY he's killing innocents to protect american lives

LOL!

As I have said, reading skills would be helpful. I could recommend a good program if you like. :coffeepap


* Also noted you haven't answered my question. I guess I can assume you concede I never said Obama was a good person.
 
I never said Obama was a good person.

no one cares what you clicked and submitted in your 60 second intervals of deep thought and debate

we're too concerned with slippery slopes leading from the enhanced interrogation of ksm to the RAPE OF LITTLE GIRLS

LOL!
 
no one cares what you clicked and submitted in your 60 second intervals of deep thought and debate

we're too concerned with slippery slopes leading from the enhanced interrogation of ksm to the RAPE OF LITTLE GIRLS

LOL!

You're also not interested in honest discourse, but that's to obvious for comment. :shrug:
 
You're also not interested in honest discourse

what self respecter will engage in any kind of discourse with a 60 second clicker who kneejerks so many ridiculous comebacks

it's more productive to point out the absurdities and LOL!

please continue
 
what self respecter will engage in any kind of discourse with a 60 second clicker who kneejerks so many ridiculous comebacks

it's more productive to point out the absurdities and LOL!

please continue

So, you're upset because I think faster than you do? :lamo
 
(T)he claim we were discussing was excusing torture.... Poor reading skills have kept too many from actually addressing what has been said. Whether it is Bush or someone on a political discussion form, making excuses for torture or any evil puts real doubt on whether that person is "good" or not.

In my view, very few things are absolute. You call Bush's justification for the waterboarding an "excuse," I call it a Hobson's choice. If I were faced with "Waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri or risk another 9/11 and the lives of thousands of Americans," then guess what? I'm going to waterboard the three terrorists. That's not evil. Evil is bargaining away the lives of the citizens I've sworn an oath to protect. For me to characterize Bush's decision as "evil," I'd have to make some assumptions that I as an average citizen am simply not in a position to make, because I'm not privy to the deeper recesses of the American intelligence community. But I'm not going to second guess Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, when he said the agency was forthcoming in giving key members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, infomation on exactly what was done and why it was done. I just found her excuses and pubic grandstanding, especially after she apparently pressed the CIA to do more to extract information from terrorists, to be pathetic. Thanks, Leon, for giving her a smackdown.
 
Prosecuting Bush would set a useful precedent for the prosecution of Obama for war crimes based on his unauthorized Droid War against Pakistani civilians. There is plenty of international law that could be used against Obama.

Bush was very careful to limit the Droid War in Pakistan because he didn't have explicit congressional approval for it. Neither does O, but Obama has tossed off the restraints and is using pattern analysis to determine who to kill. At least Bush didn't use Droids to kill unidentified people. Obama is killing people with Droids without identifying them beforehand.
 
In my view, very few things are absolute. You call Bush's justification for the waterboarding an "excuse," I call it a Hobson's choice. If I were faced with "Waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri or risk another 9/11 and the lives of thousands of Americans," then guess what? I'm going to waterboard the three terrorists. That's not evil. Evil is bargaining away the lives of the citizens I've sworn an oath to protect. For me to characterize Bush's decision as "evil," I'd have to make some assumptions that I as an average citizen am simply not in a position to make, because I'm not privy to the deeper recesses of the American intelligence community. But I'm not going to second guess Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, when he said the agency was forthcoming in giving key members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, infomation on exactly what was done and why it was done. I just found her excuses and pubic grandstanding, especially after she apparently pressed the CIA to do more to extract information from terrorists, to be pathetic. Thanks, Leon, for giving her a smackdown.

I agree there are few absolutes, but that isn't really what we're talking about. We have rule of law for a reason. It shouldn't be something that any unliklihood means you break it. We measure things, and make judgements. We don't have to and shouldn't say any excuse someone gives is good enough.

All that was needed, according to 9/11 report and stated by all concerned, to prevent 9/11 was that the CIA and the FBI communicate with each other. A simple and small stroke. No one of siginificance argued that invading anyone would have stopped 9/11 or that torturing someone would have, so it's a huge leap to suggest that was all of the sudden neccessary.

Also there is little to no evidence anything really valuable was gained from torture. What was put forth, the second 9/11 for example, was possible as that threat was discovered and stopped before KSm was even catpured (link earlier in thread), and without torture. Nor was the fellow who planned to cut down the brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch really something that justified torture ans the threat wasn't really credibile.

And while I would neither take Pelosi's or Panetta's word on was or wasn't given, the fact is that doesn't really matter. It is wrong even if all of congress and 100% of the American people knew and agreed. And they would not be good people if they did. Evil is not evil just because it has no support. It is evil because it harms and hurts all of us in one way or another. Those who torure are harmed as well.
 
Last edited:
So, you're upset because I think faster than you do?

how out of touch is someone who perceives LOL's as sign of upset?

LOL!

clicking and submitting is no substitute for thinking

ask someone intelligent
 
After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials." In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture. Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques. "KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate. Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again. "What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure. "Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad. "Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary. Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com
 
how out of touch is someone who perceives LOL's as sign of upset?

LOL!

clicking and submitting is no substitute for thinking

ask someone intelligent

No, lol's can be a meaningless thing when compared to the comments that accompany them. You're complaint seems to be that I'm faster than you. I find that kind of funny. ;)
 
So in order to be convincing, you would have to present something new in either your argument or in the actual facts.

So this is not new to you? You just wrote it off as "little to no evidence anything really valuable was gained from torture"? :confused:
 
So this is not new to you? You just wrote it off as "little to no evidence anything really valuable was gained from torture"? :confused:

No, it's not new. It was published in 2009. It is those saying they got things, but very little specifics. Cheny then pointed to the second wave, only to have that prove impossibale as it was thwarted before KSM was even captured. And let's not forget, you also have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.

I realize that for some, just having them say it was good is enough. But I do believe the standard should be higher. Many claims have been made that proved false, like the KSM second claim. So, yes, I need more.
 
(Y)ou... have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.

Well, we'll never know, will we:

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result.

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com

You're being disingenuous when you set up an impossible condition and expect me to satisfy it. Even the guy from Amnesty International said, "This is a fool's argument in any event. There is no way to prove or disprove the counterfactual." Really, I could be just as disingenuous and say that if you maintain that other methods would have worked then the burden is on you to prove it. Good luck.
 
No, it's not new. It was published in 2009.

Way to alter the intent of my question. Why don't you try answering the question based upon what I wrote? (Or are your reading skills in need of a boost? ;)) I asked if it was new to you.
 
Way to alter the intent of my question. Why don't you try answering the question based upon what I wrote? (Or are your reading skills in need of a boost? ;)) I asked if it was new to you.

Perhaps you could read the rest of what I wrote:

It is those saying they got things, but very little specifics. Cheny then pointed to the second wave, only to have that prove impossibale as it was thwarted before KSM was even captured. And let's not forget, you also have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.

I realize that for some, just having them say it was good is enough. But I do believe the standard should be higher. Many claims have been made that proved false, like the KSM second claim. So, yes, I need more.

It answers your question.
 
Perhaps you could read the rest of what I wrote... It answers your question.

I did, and, well, no, it doesn't. Nothing you wrote indicates whether liberaldom in general or just you needed convincing that useful information was obtained or if less coercive methods of interrogation would have been just as successful in obtaining information. In any case, as I already indicated, either instance would be engaging in a "fool's argument" because there is no way to prove the information could or could not have been obtained using other methods of interrogation. If you still want to go ahead and try to prove it could have, go ahead and knock yourself out. For my part, I'm prepared to move on and discuss other things, like my general impression the Obama Administration felt it had no overarching duty to convince anyone of anything:

ht_top_secret_090825_mn.jpg
 
It is those saying they got things, but very little specifics. Cheny then pointed to the second wave, only to have that prove impossibale as it was thwarted before KSM was even captured. And let's not forget, you also have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.

I realize that for some, just having them say it was good is enough. But I do believe the standard should be higher. Many claims have been made that proved false, like the KSM second claim. So, yes, I need more.


You need more? How much more? What do you need to see? Because when it comes to taking the word of the nations leaders you seem to be just fine with it now that your ideological outlook is embodied in the WH?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom