• 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

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?

I am confused as to why this is an issue 8 years after the Democrat Controlled Senate gave 22 reasons for removing Saddam Hussein and how Bush was demonized for not preventing 9/11 but now is demonized for preventing another. You call waterboarding illegal yet Obama obviously didn't believe it was illegal as he issued an executive order making it illegal. You people relly need to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I keep wondering why the double standards on the part of you and others like you.
 
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.

That's not true. Geneva Convention identiies combatants very specifically:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Suicide bombers don't qualify. People masquerading as civilians don't qualify. People in uniform qualify.
 
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:

Using the sacrifices of my kin make me more credible on the issue than apparently you are when the reality is you don't really care about anything other than destroying President Bush. You don't care about our military, you don't care about anything other than your own personal agenda. GW Bush did nothing wrong and as a conservative I find it interesting that I seem to care more about keeping you alive than you do.
 
Using the sacrifices of my kin make me more credible on the issue than apparently you are when the reality is you don't really care about anything other than destroying President Bush. You don't care about our military, you don't care about anything other than your own personal agenda. GW Bush did nothing wrong and as a conservative I find it interesting that I seem to care more about keeping you alive than you do.
Do you have any more nonsensical, unfounded assumptions to make about me today? I'm starting to lose count, and it's only 1 PM.
 
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.

the sickness here is that you believe your family members serving in iraq gives you some sort of magical power to proclaim what is and what is not torture. many of us had family members or friends in iraq or afghanistan, for that matter, vietnam, or ww2. so what?
 
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

Yukio Asano was not charged with war crimes for "waterboarding". Here is the actual charge:
beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Yokohama Reviews - Asano

On the solider in Viet Nam, I've found sites that said he was investigated and cleared, others say he was court martialed and discharged from the army. I haven't found any real info on that case, so it does not lend any credence to either side in my opinion.

On the Japanese war crimes, this guy says 7 were convicted and executed for rape, murder, massacre, and starving POW's to death.
Sorry, Paul Begala — You’re Still Wrong - By Mark Hemingway - The Corner - National Review Online

These 4 guys were also convicted of crimes including "water torture":

Yokohama Reviews - Sawamura

Yokohama Reviews - Minemo

Yokohama Reviews - Kita

Yokohama Reviews - Hata

It is also noteworthy that Japanese "water torture" appears to be materially different than waterboarding as used by the US recently:

...forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using among others a hose, tubes...

Another description of Japanese "water torture":
A type of funnel, usually formed from a towel, was placed over the victim's mouth and nose. At the same time, a 5-gallon can was filled with water and usually urine and kerosine. The concoction was poured into the funnel, and the victim had to either swallow all 5 gallons of this mixture or drown.

Having swallowed 5 gallons of this liquid, the victim's stomach would stretch and swell. The victim would then be bound, often with barbed wire, and the stomach would be struck, either with a rod of some sort or soldiers would even jump on it, depending on how the prisoner was bound. This pressure could easily cause the bloated stomach to burst. If not, the victim was then hanged by his ankles and the liquid would drain out through his mouth, risking drowning once again. The process could then be repeated.
 
MaggieD, do you actually believe what he said? Do you actually believe that I don't care about the military and that I am bent on "destroying President Bush"?

:lamo
 
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.

Non-uniformed enemy combatants have been treated differently for a long, long time. They guys hide among the general population, often using them as human shields. The point of treating them differently is an attempt to reduce collateral damage in war.
 
Yukio Asano was not charged with war crimes for "waterboarding". Here is the actual charge:


Yokohama Reviews - Asano

Read what you quoted. Water torture is waterboarding. Just because there were other charges as well doesn't make the waterboarding charge disappear.

On the solider in Viet Nam, I've found sites that said he was investigated and cleared, others say he was court martialed and discharged from the army. I haven't found any real info on that case, so it does not lend any credence to either side in my opinion.

Clear would actually mean he didn't do it, not that that doing it was acceptable. Being investigated itself means he was investigated for doing something wrong, so I disagree with your conclusion. However, i've read or found nothing saying he was accquitted. Perhaps you could link that.

On the Japanese war crimes, this guy says 7 were convicted and executed for rape, murder, massacre, and starving POW's to death.
Sorry, Paul Begala — You’re Still Wrong - By Mark Hemingway - The Corner - National Review Online

These 4 guys were also convicted of crimes including "water torture":

Yokohama Reviews - Sawamura

Yokohama Reviews - Minemo

Yokohama Reviews - Kita

Yokohama Reviews - Hata

It is also noteworthy that Japanese "water torture" appears to be materially different than waterboarding as used by the US recently:

No, it is not materially different. All forms of the water torture do exactly the same thing. I've seen this type of rationalizing before, but it is factually incorrect.

Techniques using forcible drowning to extract information had hitherto been referred to as "water torture," "water treatment," "water cure" or simply "torture."[6][31] A UPI article in 1976 used the term 'water board' torture: "[U.S. Navy trainees] were strapped down and water poured into their mouths and noses until they lost consciousness... A Navy spokesman admitted use of the 'water board' torture... to 'convince each trainee that he won't be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.'"[6]

Professor Darius Rejali of Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy (2007), speculates that the term waterboarding probably has its origin in the need for a euphemism. "There is a special vocabulary for torture. When people use tortures that are old, they rename them and alter them a wee bit. They invent slightly new words to mask the similarities. This creates an inside club, especially important in work where secrecy matters. Waterboarding is clearly a jailhouse joke. It refers to surfboarding"– a word found as early as 1929– "they are attaching somebody to a board and helping them surf. Torturers create names that are funny to them".[6]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Another description of Japanese "water torture":

Same torture under a different name. See the link above.
 
MaggieD, do you actually believe what he said? Do you actually believe that I don't care about the military and that I am bent on "destroying President Bush"?

:lamo

I re-read the post and, well, check again. Sometimes one considers "part" and not the total.
 
I re-read the post and, well, check again. Sometimes one considers "part" and not the total.
So which "part" are you agreeing with, exactly?
 
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?

And you buy that? History is quite clear. Sure, you can have lawyers give you cover, but that doesn't equal them being correct. And yes, it was already illegal. As noted in previous cases.
 
the sickness here is that you believe your family members serving in iraq gives you some sort of magical power to proclaim what is and what is not torture. many of us had family members or friends in iraq or afghanistan, for that matter, vietnam, or ww2. so what?

There is no magical power but there is actual caring for the military and those that served, not some trumped up claim that you care about our troops. All you and your ilk care about is destroying someone that you disagree with, someone that did absolutely nothing to you but keep you safe. I don't know why I bother but conservatives do actually care about your safety and conservatives don't really care how much you make or pay in taxes. You, on the other hand, make up issues and buy what you are told by people who really don't care about you at all.

This entire thread is a waste of time and nothing is going to change my mind or yours apparently. I don't believe that waterboarding was torture thus illegal but even if it was I don't believe animals that cut off heads, blow up people, fly planes into buildings, and use civilians as human shields deserve protection under laws they don't even accept.
 
And you buy that? History is quite clear. Sure, you can have lawyers give you cover, but that doesn't equal them being correct. And yes, it was already illegal. As noted in previous cases.

Yes, history is indeed clear, Barack Obama signed an executive order making waterboarding illegal. Why did he have to make something illegal that was already illegal? Hmmm, interesting.
 
Yes, history is indeed clear, Barack Obama signed an executive order making waterboarding illegal. Why did he have to make something illegal that was already illegal? Hmmm, interesting.

Bush allowed it. it was illegal. Obama made a clear statement.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by former President George W. Bush was torture . . . .

Obama says waterboarding was torture

he did not say, is now. He said was. When Bush did it, it was torture.
 
Read what you quoted. Water torture is waterboarding. Just because there were other charges as well doesn't make the waterboarding charge disappear.



Clear would actually mean he didn't do it, not that that doing it was acceptable. Being investigated itself means he was investigated for doing something wrong, so I disagree with your conclusion. However, i've read or found nothing saying he was accquitted. Perhaps you could link that.



No, it is not materially different. All forms of the water torture do exactly the same thing. I've seen this type of rationalizing before, but it is factually incorrect.

Techniques using forcible drowning to extract information had hitherto been referred to as "water torture," "water treatment," "water cure" or simply "torture."[6][31] A UPI article in 1976 used the term 'water board' torture: "[U.S. Navy trainees] were strapped down and water poured into their mouths and noses until they lost consciousness... A Navy spokesman admitted use of the 'water board' torture... to 'convince each trainee that he won't be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.'"[6]

Professor Darius Rejali of Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy (2007), speculates that the term waterboarding probably has its origin in the need for a euphemism. "There is a special vocabulary for torture. When people use tortures that are old, they rename them and alter them a wee bit. They invent slightly new words to mask the similarities. This creates an inside club, especially important in work where secrecy matters. Waterboarding is clearly a jailhouse joke. It refers to surfboarding"– a word found as early as 1929– "they are attaching somebody to a board and helping them surf. Torturers create names that are funny to them".[6]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Same torture under a different name. See the link above.

I'm convinced you didn't read my post, or conveniently skipped over the clear differences between Japanese "water torture" and "waterboarding" as we are debating. Last time I read anything about it, we were not shoving tubes into terrorists mouths and forcing them to consume large amounts of water. That has actually been used as an execution technique in the past, so to say there is no difference is intellectually dishonest.
 
There is no magical power but there is actual caring for the military and those that served, not some trumped up claim that you care about our troops. All you and your ilk care about is destroying someone that you disagree with, someone that did absolutely nothing to you but keep you safe. I don't know why I bother but conservatives do actually care about your safety and conservatives don't really care how much you make or pay in taxes. You, on the other hand, make up issues and buy what you are told by people who really don't care about you at all.
Wait a second, I thought it was those mean ol' libruls who got caught up in all that touchy-feely, limp-wristed "caring," not the brawny, manly, rational conservatives.
 
So which "part" are you agreeing with, exactly?

GW Bush did nothing wrong and as a conservative I find it interesting that I seem to care more about keeping you alive than you do.

It is very frustrating to read this thread. I feel strongly that Bush did nothing wrong. I also feel strongly that waterboarding is not torture. The word torture should be reserved for things like this:

Another description of Japanese "water torture":A type of funnel, usually formed from a towel, was placed over the victim's mouth and nose. At the same time, a 5-gallon can was filled with water and usually urine and kerosine. The concoction was poured into the funnel, and the victim had to either swallow all 5 gallons of this mixture or drown.

Having swallowed 5 gallons of this liquid, the victim's stomach would stretch and swell. The victim would then be bound, often with barbed wire, and the stomach would be struck, either with a rod of some sort or soldiers would even jump on it, depending on how the prisoner was bound. This pressure could easily cause the bloated stomach to burst. If not, the victim was then hanged by his ankles and the liquid would drain out through his mouth, risking drowning once again. The process could then be repeated.
 
I'm convinced you didn't read my post, or conveniently skipped over the clear differences between Japanese "water torture" and "waterboarding" as we are debating. Last time I read anything about it, we were not shoving tubes into terrorists mouths and forcing them to consume large amounts of water. That has actually been used as an execution technique in the past, so to say there is no difference is intellectually dishonest.

No, you're skipping that there are many different ways to do the same thing. Waterboarding is just a euphemism for what has always been called the watert torture. No credible person is making the distinction you're trying to make.
 
Bush allowed it. it was illegal. Obama made a clear statement.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by former President George W. Bush was torture . . . .

Obama says waterboarding was torture

he did not say, is now. He said was. When Bush did it, it was torture.

If President Bush did something illegal he had an obligation as a Senator to call for Impeachment charges and didn't. There was no need to issue an executive order for something that WAS torture, his executive order made waterboarding illegal.
 
Bush allowed it. it was illegal. Obama made a clear statement.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by former President George W. Bush was torture . . . .

Obama says waterboarding was torture

he did not say, is now. He said was. When Bush did it, it was torture.

Obama does not have the authority to make retroactive law...
 
It is very frustrating to read this thread. I feel strongly that Bush did nothing wrong. I also feel strongly that waterboarding is not torture. The word torture should be reserved for things like this:
It is even more frustrating when the same people keep making the same false assumptions about my position on the matter, despite being corrected on it previously.
 
If President Bush did something illegal he had an obligation as a Senator to call for Impeachment charges and didn't. There was no need to issue an executive order for something that WAS torture, his executive order made waterboarding illegal.

Wish he would have, but no. You do not have to presecute anyone who breaks a law. We should, but it is not required. A police officer can let you go and not give a ticket. you would not like governmebnt if we constantly prosecuted everyone who committed a crime. I might, but you wouldn't. ;)
 
I'm convinced you didn't read my post, or conveniently skipped over the clear differences between Japanese "water torture" and "waterboarding" as we are debating. Last time I read anything about it, we were not shoving tubes into terrorists mouths and forcing them to consume large amounts of water. That has actually been used as an execution technique in the past, so to say there is no difference is intellectually dishonest.

what is the difference in the below and what bush authorized?

In the aftermath of World War II, Japanese officer Yukio Asano is charged by a US war crimes tribunal for torturing a US civilian. Asano had used the technique of “waterboarding” on the prisoner (see 1800 and After). The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Other Japanese officers and soldiers are also tried and convicted of war crimes that include waterboarding US prisoners. “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” reporter Evan Wallach will later write. In 2006, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), discussing allegations of US waterboarding of terror suspects, will say in regards to the Asano case, “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II.” [Washington Post, 10/5/2006; National Public Radio, 11/3/2007]
Entity Tags: Yukio Asano, Evan Wallach, Edward Kennedy
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives

Context of '1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime'
 
Back
Top Bottom