• 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

MaggieD said:
Why did every other President before Obama not issue an executive order to ban waterboarding? Because waterboarding, while now expressly illegal, was not illegal before that executive order.
Click to expand...

Why did Bush have to make a executive order banning torture, if torture was always illegal? Was torture legal before? His executive order cited 18 USC 2340 and the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but didn't list waterboarding. Critics said that waterboarding falls under 18 USC 2340... so he was trying make a loophole around it

America always had a history of condemning waterboarding..

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of an American soldier supervising the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The article described the practice as "fairly common." The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was thrown out of the army. Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum at Ho Chi Minh City.

In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.
Click to expand...
Waterboarding IS TORTURE - Page 1

Bush's legal team was smart and they knew what they were doing.. They're just playing politics with history and trying to say waterboarding is not that cruel or it works, so the ends justify the means. I am sure they knew it was controversial from the beginning.. Lots of people and countries have always considered it torture, so waterboarding being bad wasn't a foreign concept when the Bush Admin engaged in it.

People think they are justified on both sides.. I understand that.. but to act like waterboarding was a non issue before the Bush Admin is not true. It was considered illegal by the military and it was considered torture in previous situations and in many countries.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I am shocked that liberals would want to see GB prosecuted ! Shocked I tell you !!! :roll:

Has MENSA called for the prosecution of Obama yet for being the dumbest President ever ? Whassup wit dat !
Click to expand...

If IQ is your litmus test then your in for some bad news.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Is he trying to win the trophy for the dumbest libtard in Congress ? Ought to be able to shoot some of these complete idiots and put us out of their misery.

Patience. :)
Click to expand...

Does your mommy know that you are texting with grown ups. I mean really, part of debate is having a point.
 
SheWolf said:
Why did Bush have to make a executive order banning torture, if torture was always illegal? Was torture legal before? His executive order cited 18 USC 2340 and the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but didn't list waterboarding. Critics said that waterboarding falls under 18 USC 2340... so he was trying make a loophole around it.
Click to expand...

We are arguing in circles. You ask, "Why did Bush...." I ask, "Why, then, did Obama...."

Waterboarding is controversial. Until President Obama made an Executive Order against it, it was legal. The fact that Generals in Viet Nam chose to make waterboarding outside the Rules of Engagement by specifically addressing it, does not mean that it was, in fact, illegal according to U.S. law. Now it is. Then it wasn't.

I'd also remind you that our own military subjected (and probably still subjects) our SERE training enrollees in a sampling along with other so-called tortures...which are NOT tortures. . . . Unless, of course, you believe our military tortures our own soldiers.
 
RightinNYC said:
What would you say if we captured a half-dozen alleged insurgents accused of spying (including an American citizen), convened a military tribunal that immediately sentenced them to death, and shot them all, just one month after being captured?
Click to expand...

Why are you even asking me this?

I wouldn't have a problem with them being executed for their crimes as long as their rights were not abused during the trial or the interrogation.
 
SheWolf [QUOTE said:
Sorry.. but I don't really see what your responses have to do with my question.. Saddam tortured and killed many Kurds.
Click to expand...

The bigger picture is that he committed genocide against the Kurds. He gassed them from above and they died very shortly thereafter. It was far more than just 'torture'. This is the homicidal tyrant the Coalition forces removed, and with justifiable reason.

I am not suggesting we create a state for them.. I am suggesting that torturing somebody just because they:

1. Don't have a state, and
2. Are not in a military
Click to expand...

I can't see where anyone is torturing people, and especially the Kurds, for these reasons.

Is a bad reason to torture somebody. Saddam did it to the Kurdish people and yet we look at him unfavourably for it.
Click to expand...

Actually we look 'unfavorably' at him for a variety of excellent reasons..

Why should those two rules make it permissible to torture somebody?
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem that you are quite getting the point.
 
Councilman said:
I want Amnesty International and the U.N banned from the U.S. and Obama impeached for violation of his oath of office.

A new LAW demanding all who run for President must prove it and in court if need be, and if found to have run illegally you get a mandatory 10 years in Federal prison no exceptions and Presidents can never declare a Presidential pardon for any crime committed by anyone in the administration of the President charged with any crime, or misdemeanor, including removed Presidents.

But none of that's not going to happen either, because it's too close to justice.
Click to expand...

What violation of the oath of office did President Obama do?

What claim do you have that President Obama ran Illegally?
 
MaggieD said:
We are arguing in circles. You ask, "Why did Bush...." I ask, "Why, then, did Obama...."

Waterboarding is controversial. Until President Obama made an Executive Order against it, it was legal. The fact that Generals in Viet Nam chose to make waterboarding outside the Rules of Engagement by specifically addressing it, does not mean that it was, in fact, illegal according to U.S. law. Now it is. Then it wasn't.

I'd also remind you that our own military subjected (and probably still subjects) our SERE training enrollees in a sampling along with other so-called tortures...which are NOT tortures. . . . Unless, of course, you believe our military tortures our own soldiers.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with SERE school.. I know a few vets who are very familiar with it.. Of course they have admitted that waterboarding wasn't done the same in SERE school as it was done in Gito. They are also not saying whether or not waterboarding is still being used in SERE school at all now.

Was waterboarding really legal under 2340? That is controversial and debatable too if you ask around.. It was always controversial and had bad history attached to it. Go ahead and keep arguing that it was legal. I don't really care. The fact is Bush had to make an executive order that made torture illegal, while it was already illegal and left out waterboarding. Critics jumped on it from the beginning.
 
MaggieD said:
Protocol I has never been ratified by the Congress of the United States.

Reagan Rejected Terrorist Geneva Conventions | Sweetness & Light
Click to expand...

Sorry.. but I don't understand what this has to do with my question. I even read more about this online...

Maybe I confused you with my post, but I see the original link you posted only concerned Al Qaeda... In this case, we aren't just talking about Al Qaeda but anybody being tortured who is not in military and is stateless. I am not talking about genocide. I am just talking about torture like the torture of ANC members like Nelson Mendela in South Africa.

Where in the Geneva Conventions does it say its ok to torture anybody?
 
Grant said:
I can't see where anyone is torturing people, and especially the Kurds, for these reasons.

.
Click to expand...

Nobody is being tortured for those reasons.... Torturing them is being justified as legal and acceptable via those reasons..
 
SheWolf said:
source?

That is not what I am finding in the review.. and I am sure you know congress doesn't have the authority to reverse a Supreme Court Ruling.

If you read what I was not saying they made waterboarding illegal, I wasn't referring to the court saying the prisoners are protected under the Geneva Convention. Obviously, I even highlighted that part
Click to expand...

Read your own link, you posted it but didn;t know what was in it. I am still waiting for you to explain why Obama had to issue an executive order that made Waterboarding illegal if it was alreayd declared illegal by the courts. By the time that the Courts did rule the Waterboarding had already taken place and then you ignore that the Congress made the military commissions legal by law. Courts interpret the law and the Congress makes the laws. An Activist Court seems to be what liberals always want.

The issue here is waterboarding and since it wasn't defined Bush broke no laws.
 
SheWolf said:
I am familiar with SERE school.. I know a few vets who are very familiar with it.. Of course they have admitted that waterboarding wasn't done the same in SERE school as it was done in Gito. They are also not saying whether or not waterboarding is still being used in SERE school at all now.

Was waterboarding really legal under 2340? That is controversial and debatable too if you ask around.. It was always controversial and had bad history attached to it. Go ahead and keep arguing that it was legal. I don't really care. The fact is Bush had to make an executive order that made torture illegal, while it was already illegal and left out waterboarding. Critics jumped on it from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Bolded sentence is the whole point. And the point of this thread was about Bush being guilty of war crimes. It is not a black-and-white issue. My opinion is that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it. He will not be prosecuted for war crimes. Waterboarding is illegal now due to Obama's Executive Order. If you do not believe that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.
 
MaggieD said:
Bolded sentence is the whole point. And the point of this thread was about Bush being guilty of war crimes. It is not a black-and-white issue. My opinion is that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it. He will not be prosecuted for war crimes. Waterboarding is illegal now due to Obama's Executive Order. If you do not believe that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...

I just hate to see al these whimpy people crying about Bush's (according to them) violating the law and looking the other way, that's all... and as you said I am entitled to my opinion.
 
SheWolf said:
It depends on their crimes and what they are guilty of.. but they should get a trial before they are executed. I wouldn't have a problem with executing them either
Click to expand...

Where's the crime scene? How are we supposed to gather evidence if the fighting is still active? If they were shooting at us, who were shooting back at them, what crime did they commit? You really think it's better (and puts us in a better light around the world) to try and execute enemy combatants while the fight is still going on? Better to execute them than to hold them without trial until the fighting is over? Really?
 
SheWolf said:
I am sorry.. I don't buy this argument and you're getting from a website that is biased. Do you have another source?

My problem with this is we have considered it war crimes when other countries have tortured combatants who were not in the military, and did not belong to sovereign countries..

History is full of so many examples.. look at the history of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina.. apartheid South Africa tortured Nelson Mendela and many others under those facts, the USSR also tortured and killed people under those facts, Saddam Hussein and the Kurdish people..

I had this conversation with somebody else, and I think this justification is disgusting.. because it can potentially justify torturing any people in the world fighting an oppressive government.

I also hate the stateless component to this argument.. You know what oppressive governments like USSR, Nazi Germany, and first settlers in America who committed genocide against natives did? They refused to recognize the people they tortured's statehood. The USSR said that the people under them weren't nationals of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. anymore.. those countries were gone. If you wanted your sovereign independence back and you did so much as to protest publicly, you were send off to a gulag or mowed down with bullets and tanks.

The USSR was abusive and did violate human rights.. South Africa, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. We have always felt that way as a nation and as a international community.
Click to expand...

All well and good, but how is this relevant since waterboarding is not torture?
 
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 think he is using amnesty international's interpretation of "illegal" to bash obama and check for consistency...
 
FederalRepublic said:
All well and good, but how is this relevant since waterboarding is not torture?
Click to expand...

Well... yes it is.

But is/was it justified at the time, under the circumstances?? That's the issue.

Saying simulated drowning is not torture is just retarded.
 
MaggieD said:
Bolded sentence is the whole point. And the point of this thread was about Bush being guilty of war crimes. It is not a black-and-white issue. My opinion is that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it. He will not be prosecuted for war crimes. Waterboarding is illegal now due to Obama's Executive Order. If you do not believe that waterboarding was legal at the time Bush authorized it, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...

I know these are the facts.. but I wasn't interested in discussing them from the beginning. I find it more interesting that people on this thread are arguing for torture. Never mind what you think about waterboarding.. they think torture is justifiable

The only thing wrong with saying waterboarding was legal during the Bush Admin is that there was nothing expressively stating it was legal. Nothing expressively said it was illegal either, but there was a history of condemnation and there were always people on torture councils, lawyers, and military generals, who considered it torture. You really can't argue it either way, which is why I think these people want Bush tried... put something in concrete. But as I said before, it won't happen.. politicians can get away with murder
 
FederalRepublic said:
Where's the crime scene? How are we supposed to gather evidence if the fighting is still active? If they were shooting at us, who were shooting back at them, what crime did they commit? You really think it's better (and puts us in a better light around the world) to try and execute enemy combatants while the fight is still going on? Better to execute them than to hold them without trial until the fighting is over? Really?
Click to expand...

LOL@ your question seriously.

I don't know why some of you keep pounding me with questions that have obvious common sense answers. You do realize that everybody has a right to trial, but if they are being a threat and using lethal violence and putting others in danger.. police, other officials, or even civilians are in the right to use lethal force against them. It's pretty cut and dry, simple thing to understand.

Now wtf does this have to do with holding people prisoner in gitmo for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act for years, and not giving them a trial?
 
FederalRepublic said:
They have lots of authority to do lots of things, but making laws isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

I got my information for my sources, which I cited. People were punished and discipled by the military for waterboarding during the Vietnam war.. It was made illegal through the military court system. I am sure generals had the power and authority to sway the courts or make recommendations.
 
Conservative said:
Read your own link, you posted it but didn;t know what was in it. I am still waiting for you to explain why Obama had to issue an executive order that made Waterboarding illegal if it was alreayd declared illegal by the courts. By the time that the Courts did rule the Waterboarding had already taken place and then you ignore that the Congress made the military commissions legal by law. Courts interpret the law and the Congress makes the laws. An Activist Court seems to be what liberals always want.

The issue here is waterboarding and since it wasn't defined Bush broke no laws.
Click to expand...

There was no law expressively stating waterboarding was was legal nor illegal.. the debate hinges on other facts that have pointed out and disgusted. You can sit here and say Bush broke no laws all you want. You can even believe it, if you want.. because there more than likely won't be a trial. But if it did go to trail and this is Bush's only defense, there are just as equally qualifying arguments against his admin. Keep beating this drum all you want, it doesn't prove s**t.
 
I am still wondering where the Geneva Convention says it is ok to torture people..

I have heard several people make the statement that it is acceptable to torture nonmilitary, stateless people under the Geneva Convention.. but I am not sure where to find the specifics.

Thanks
 
A new LAW demanding all who run for President must prove it and in court if need be, and if found to have run illegally you get a mandatory 10 years in Federal prison no exceptions and Presidents can never declare a Presidential pardon for any crime committed by anyone in the administration of the President charged with any crime, or misdemeanor, including removed Presidents.But none of that's not going to happen either, because it's too close to justice......
__________________________________________________
Cheap Hotels Kanyakumari | Kanyakumari Tourist Home | Kanyakumari Sunrise and Sunset
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom