• 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

Gardener said:
I don't feel that Coronado feels that Deuce is speaking for the entire left so much as I feel that Coronodo feels that Deuce feels he is doing so.

At least that's what I feel.
Click to expand...


I feel dizzy now:stars:
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You're right, an action either meets the definition of torture or it doesn't. But when you say "it is either torture or it isn't," if by "it" you mean "water-boarding" you are fantastically incorrect. An action must meet the definition of torture to be considered the war crime of torture.

An act being severely painful isn't enough to make it torture. Is a dentist appointment torture? Of course not, because you go to the dentist and give your consent, and moreover it isn't for interrogation purposes.

An act has to occur under certain circumstances, such as with lack of consent and for interrogation purposes. Water-boarding performed on detainees for interrogation purposes without consent is torture, and water-boarding performed on consenting trainees for training purposes is not torture.


I don't really see what's so hard about this to understand. We've been over this same point many, many times already.
Click to expand...

Sure we've been over this several times, and you continue to be wrong.
 
Coronado said:
Easy there, not without taking me to dinner. I'm not that kind of girl! :3oops:
Click to expand...

But who has time to eat when I have such etchings to show you?
 
If we've reached a point where the leader of the free world can be put on trial for "war crimes" because three guys got water poured on their faces, then we are a very, very unserious people who have no concept of what it takes to win an existential war. If we're ever again pressed for our survival, I can't help but doubt our chances.
 
Goshin said:
We should never let Amnesty International or any other international "authority" try any American President for anything, nor even any American soldier. To do so is a surrender of our sovereignty. (That's what happens to you when you LOSE the war, btw.)
Click to expand...

I disagree. There are plenty of occasions where it is correct and even desirable for a state to cede sovereignty, or at least a portion of sovereignty, to another entity. It is not only after losing a war, nor does it happen after all wars are lost. The 13 colonies ceded a good bit of their sovereignty to the federal government when this country was founded, and that worked out pretty well.

And more to the point, willingly trying American war criminals in America would be preferable, I agree. But the appropriate venue really is the Hague, so why not?
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
I don't "feel" anything. I'm just responding to your implication that he is. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm quite a straightforward person, Coronado, and don't tend to 'imply' anything. If i felt he was speaking for the entire left I would have said so.

But the implication, if you want one, was towards those of the left who "hate" George Bush. That should have been clear.
 
Grant said:
I'm quite a straightforward person, Coronado, and don't tend to 'imply' anything. If i felt he was speaking for the entire left I would have said so.

But the implication, if you want one, was towards those of the left who "hate" George Bush. That should have been clear.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say, champ. :roll:
 
Guy Incognito said:
I disagree. There are plenty of occasions where it is correct and even desirable for a state to cede sovereignty, or at least a portion of sovereignty, to another entity. It is not only after losing a war, nor does it happen after all wars are lost. The 13 colonies ceded a good bit of their sovereignty to the federal government when this country was founded, and that worked out pretty well.

And more to the point, willingly trying American war criminals in America would be preferable, I agree. But the appropriate venue really is the Hague, so why not?
Click to expand...

Why is The Hague more appropriate to try Americans than American courts?

Not that this isn't laugh-out-loud stupid anyway. The colonies ceded authority to the central government because it was their wish to form a single nation. We do not wish to form a worldwide government.
 
So why not?
Click to expand...

This is what the the democracies are facing, folks, and the terrorists know it.

When Osama bin Laden made his famous remark about people following the strong horse rather than the weak horse he clearly had people like this in mind.
 
Grant said:
Sure we've been over this several times, and you continue to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an argument?

You betray the weakness of your position by not addressing my points on their merits. Good day.
 
Harshaw said:
Why is The Hague more appropriate to try Americans than American courts?
Click to expand...

Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, The Hague has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts. But there are two reasons that the Hague is preferable. First, the Hague specializes in war crimes, and second, the American justice system has shown no interest in prosecuting Bush, and as Ikari observed earlier, there is a rigged game preventing it from happening.

Harshaw said:
Not that this isn't laugh-out-loud stupid anyway. The colonies ceded authority to the central government because it was their wish to form a single nation. We do not wish to form a worldwide government.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to stoop to ad hominem attacks like you did, Harshaw, but you might want to reread the above sentences and see who it makes look stupid.

We're already there, globalization is happening all around you. The question is not whether globalization will happen, but how we shape it, and whether the USA is a moral leader in it. Get with it, get out of the way, or get left behind.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Exactly. Not what I didn't say.
Click to expand...
I responded to what you said, but you tried to push the clear implication of what you said off on me.

If you don't want to own up to your own statements and their meanings, don't be too surprised when people stop responding to you in a serious manner.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, it has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts. But there are two reasons that the Hague is preferable. First, the Hague specializes in war crimes, and second, the American justice system has shown no interest in prosecuting Bush, and as Ikari observed earlier, there is a rigged game preventing it from happening.



I'm not going to delve into ad hominems, Harshaw, but you might want to reread the above sentences and see who it makes look stupid. Hint: it's not me.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree,
see who it makes look stupid. Hint: it's not me
Click to expand...

The entire debate whether or not to prosecutre GW Bush is a waste of time and just typical of the leftwing hatred for this man.

Guy, did you ever serve in the Military? do you even understand the difference between a sovereign nation and terrorist organization? Do you understand who the Geneva Convention protects? Seems to me you want selective enforcement of international law because of your hatred of GW Bush and the question is why? What did GW Bush do to you or anyone in your family that warrants this vitriol on your part?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, it has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts.
Click to expand...

Over Americans? By what authority? Show it.


But there are two reasons that the Hague is preferable. First, the Hague specializes in war crimes, and second, the American justice system has shown no interest in prosecuting Bush, and as Ikari observed earlier, there is a rigged game preventing it from happening.
Click to expand...

That "rigged game" is called "constitutional protections" and "absence of a crime." :roll:



I'm not going to delve into ad hominems, Harshaw, but you might want to reread the above sentences and see who it makes look stupid.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few people here who have great difficulty understanding that criticizing what someone says is not an "ad hominem." And what you said was stupid. That doesn't mean that you yourself are stupid.

And looking at those sentences again, that's only more clear.



We're already there, globalization is happening all around you. Get with it, get out of the way, or get left behind.
Click to expand...

And another stupid statement. You think a global economy equates to having a worldwide government? :lamo
 
Guy Incognito said:
Is that supposed to be an argument?

You betray the weakness of your position by not addressing my points on their merits. Good day.
Click to expand...

They have no merits, Guy Incognito, otherwise I'd be pleased to discuss them. When you advocate ceding national sovereignty to a foreign power any rational argument you might have just naturally runs out of steam.
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but doesn't answer the question, what did GW Bush do to hurt you or your family?
Click to expand...


What does that have to with whether or not Bush is responsible for torture?
 
megaprogman said:
Amnesty International Calls to Prosecute Bush for Admitted Waterboarding



I support this and basically feel that these activities constitute a war crime.
Click to expand...

A war crime??? The prisoner only "Gets the feeling of being drowned" and a physician standing by just in case he needs medical attention.
Give me a freagging break. What do you want them to do???... take the prisoner out to the most exclusive restaurant and serve him some steak and lobster and champagne to drink and interrogate him this way???
 
winston53660 said:
What does that have to with whether or not Bush is responsible for torture?
Click to expand...

There is selective outrage here on the part of those that hate President Bush so the question is quite relevant. Why isn't this an issue with any other President, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Obama? Obama is launching drone attacks on targets in Pakistan that is killing civilians. There is no evidence that Waterboarding was illegal until Obama signed the executive order in 2009. If it was illegal why the executive order?

The hatred for GW Bush by kids who simply buy what they are told is quite telling. Guy doesn't really have a clue what went on but because he was told this was torture he vents his outrage which to me indicates a deeper problem with Guy, one of hatred and the question is why? Three members of al Qaeda were waterboarded on the orders of GW Bush, THREE!! I would have waterboarded everyone captured as these animals aren't guaranteed protection under international law let alone American law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom