• 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

If this gets legs, then we'll have an opportunity to more closely define torture in light of the treaties and laws that exist on the subject. Is waterboarding torture? There's sure to be a debate.


well, we certainly USED to think so, when we prosecuted the japanese for the same thing.
 
well, we certainly USED to think so, when we prosecuted the japanese for the same thing.

And it wasn't debated. It shouldn't be debatable now.
 
And it wasn't debated. It shouldn't be debatable now.

Should shooting soldiers out of uniform caught in foreign countries be debated as well? How about Islamic fundamentalists that use civilians as human shields? How about anyone that would strap a bomb on their back and blow up civilians in a market place? Your outrage over waterboarding of 3 al Qaeda members, out of uniform, part of no sovereign nation, and believing that they were doing nothing illegal shows exactly where your priorities are and is nothing more than a naive approach to fighting a war.
 
Should shooting soldiers out of uniform caught in foreign countries be debated as well? How about Islamic fundamentalists that use civilians as human shields? How about anyone that would strap a bomb on their back and blow up civilians in a market place? Your outrage over waterboarding of 3 al Qaeda members, out of uniform, part of no sovereign nation, and believing that they were doing nothing illegal shows exactly where your priorities are and is nothing more than a naive approach to fighting a war.

i'm sorry, but who mentioned those other issues?
 
Should shooting soldiers out of uniform caught in foreign countries be debated as well? How about Islamic fundamentalists that use civilians as human shields? How about anyone that would strap a bomb on their back and blow up civilians in a market place? Your outrage over waterboarding of 3 al Qaeda members, out of uniform, part of no sovereign nation, and believing that they were doing nothing illegal shows exactly where your priorities are and is nothing more than a naive approach to fighting a war.

Well, that rant was on the silly side to say the least. Let's focus. Waterboarding has always been torture. No matter what you think of who is being torutred, like that fellow from Canada who had the msifortune to have the wrong name, innocent and tortured, or that fellow in Afghanistan who was just a simple cab driver, tortured, and killed, innocent. Those people are of no concern, as long as you can find someone you hate.

again, the fact is it has always been torture, and still is. There should nt be any debate on that. and I don't think there is honest debate.
 
eric holder agrees

LOL!

good thinking

I'll give you a link so you can understand:

Addressing the subject of torture at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Mr. Holder told Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee chairman, “Waterboarding is torture.” It was so defined under the Spanish Inquisition and when used by the Japanese in World War II, he said, and it remains so today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16holdercnd.html
 
don't give it to me, silly

send it to the ag

maybe then he'll ACT

after all, talk is very, very cheap

LOL!
 
don't send it to me, silly

send it to the ag

maybe then he'll ACT

after all, talk is very, very cheap

LOL!

Other than not allowing it anymore, or pretending there is a debate, no one is going to act. But that has nothing to do with what's being argued.
 
Well, that rant was on the silly side to say the least. Let's focus. Waterboarding has always been torture. No matter what you think of who is being torutred, like that fellow from Canada who had the msifortune to have the wrong name, innocent and tortured, or that fellow in Afghanistan who was just a simple cab driver, tortured, and killed, innocent. Those people are of no concern, as long as you can find someone you hate.

again, the fact is it has always been torture, and still is. There should nt be any debate on that. and I don't think there is honest debate.

If Waterboarding has always been torture why did Obama have to issue an executive order making it illegal?
 
If Waterboarding has always been torture why did Obama have to issue an executive order making it illegal?

Because Bush pretended there was a deabte. he led the mindless into excuse what was never excused before. Ever read history? :coffeepap
 
Because Bush pretended there was a deabte. he led the mindless into excuse what was never excused before. Ever read history? :coffeepap

Again, no answer to the question just more diversion. I know you don't like Bush but try to stay focused. If waterboarding was illegal then Obama wouldn't have had to define it and make it illegal. That is logic 101.
 
Again, no answer to the question just more diversion. I know you don't like Bush but try to stay focused. If waterboarding was illegal then Obama wouldn't have had to define it and make it illegal. That is logic 101.

The question was answered. Obama took over after Bush pretended that torture had never been defined as torture. Anyone looking at history knows better. In this thread I've linked a little history.
 
The question was answered. Obama took over after Bush pretended that torture had never been defined as torture. Anyone looking at history knows better. In this thread I've linked a little history.

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 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?

speaks very poorly of bush, now doesn't it?
 
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.

Either they're enemy combatants and are thus prisoners of war, or the war is an which they're being taken prisoner in is an illegal war. Bush is a war criminal either way. 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.
 
speaks very poorly of bush, now doesn't it?

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?
 
In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.


On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR

Damn 25-minute time limit. I just spent 30 minutes editing that post with added information...
 
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?

Yes, sometimes officials of the government make rules that are actually illegal. Consider every time a law has been overturned by the court as being unconstitutional. There are plenty of things that are made legal that violate existing laws. Making waterboarding legal violates existing laws against torture. And yes, it takes an official act to clear that up. Do you understand that, or are you still confused?
 
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?

I don't know why you keep trying to pretend this can be handled as a law enforcement action.
 
Either they're enemy combatants and are thus prisoners of war, or the war is an which they're being taken prisoner in is an illegal war. Bush is a war criminal either way. 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.

Absolutely amazing, we are 9 years after the attack of 9/11 and 8 years after the authorization for the war in Iraq and you and others still cannot get over it. I had three family members serve in Iraq, what is your experience? Do you even know what the authorization that passed a Demcrat controlled Senate even said? With all the problems facing this country today with this empty suit in the WH this is all liberals and Amnesia International are worried about. This is a sickness, seek some help.
 
I had three family members serve in Iraq, what is your experience?
I bet they're giddy with delight that you are using their service to attempt to score meaningless points on a message board. Nothing like using the sacrifice of kin as a political football. :roll:
 
Absolutely amazing, we are 9 years after the attack of 9/11 and 8 years after the authorization for the war in Iraq and you and others still cannot get over it. I had three family members serve in Iraq, what is your experience? Do you even know what the authorization that passed a Demcrat controlled Senate even said? With all the problems facing this country today with this empty suit in the WH this is all liberals and Amnesia International are worried about. This is a sickness, seek some help.


Uhmm no it is not all people are worried nor Amensty International. However it is what thread is about. If you have other concerns such as economics healthcare or what ever there are plenty of other threads to post in as you well know.
 
Back
Top Bottom