Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Amnesty International is not going after Obama for water boarding torture. Show me the evidence Obama orders that; you can't find it. I didn't praise Obama. Did you read my post about Afghanistan? Edited February 9, 2011 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark45y Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The illegal tortures have stopped under Obama. Obama couldn't simply cut and run from Iraq, that would be like breaking it and not fixing it, which would be immoral. Now the Iraqis are actively kicking the US out of Iraq. Now Iran is much more powerful in the region (thanks to Bush) and has lots of power in Iraq. The whole exercise, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dead, a total mistake. Obama is owning the Afghanistan war now. I also think that is another big mistake, simply look at history. There is a difference between wars and war crimes though. Who knows if the tortures has stopped. I pretty sure neither Bush nor Obama getting personal involved in interrogation that are done in such way. And the 'war crimes' of Bush are wasting trillions of dollars and making the Iran more stronger? How could have the latter been prevent (if true at all)? Giving the Iraq all the money to continue wars with Iran? What kind of power the Iran actually have in Iraq? I still don't get it. What is in your argumentation the the difference between the war in Iraq & Afghanistan under Bush and exactly the same wars under Obama? How comes that one is a war criminal and the other fight just wars? Anyway, many countries in the world bring their former leaders to justice if they did commit crimes. At least in the more advanced democratic states happen something like that, banana republics and dictatorships maybe do not so. If according to you, Bush is a war criminal, why nothing happen in the USA? What kind of country is that? Your logic becomes flawed if you rant about Bush and praise Obama at the same time. Jingthings comments demonstrate that many people in the US don't like Bush. I know that the President of the United States is in the end responsible for all the actions of each and every government employee of the United States but you have to be realistic. It depends on which side you are on. I imagine that the Japanese in 1946 thought that the President of the America was guilty of a war crime because he dropped two atomic bombs on them. You see President Bush thought he was at war the same as President Truman thought he was at war with Japan. Two large armies fighting one another from two different countries with a large loss of life on both sides is usually considered a war. Again war crimes depend on which side you are on. Hitler didn't think the death camps were a war crime. You are apparently not on the American side. OK I can understand that. Being on the other side you would think a war crime was committed. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US cut off critical supplies to them. They thought that was justified. America didn't see it that way. They thought it was a sneak attack and declared war on the Axis powers. Who was right? The winner, of course. There are many people in the US who think Bush is a war criminal. If he had violated any US laws he would be charged with being a war criminal. But he didn't. I think LBJ was a war criminal but did he violate any US laws? The problem is, you thinking Bush is a war criminal or Jingthing thinking Bush is a war criminal is not important. You have to prove in some way that Bush violated American law. Clinton violated US law and he was impeached. It is not like this never happens to a sitting President. Federal employees are arrested and prosecuted and go to prison all the time. Remember if the Brits had won the American Revolutionary war George Washington and Ben Franklin would have been found guilty of treason and hung. Imagine if this was 1775 and we were all commenting on the current news on Thai Visa. You don't really have to imagine. Given the Thai Visa demographic It would be about the same, except the French might be a bit more vocal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerpentSea Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Amnesty International is not going after Obama for water boarding torture. Show me the evidence Obama orders that; you can't find it. I didn't praise Obama. Did you read my post about Afghanistan? If, according to you, Bush commit 'war crimes' then is the lack of prosecution under the Obama administration is all i need to know about the new president who is, according to you, so much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) If you knew anything about realpolitik in America, you would know how silly that comment is. Obama could have gone after prosecutions and it would please the hard core left wing like me, but the majority in the middle would have called him a traitor. He had no choice about that if he wants to keep his job. I don't think that is much different from most countries. In Egypt, Mubarek deserves prison, but I predict that will never happen and the people will accept that. Edited February 9, 2011 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerpentSea Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) If you knew anything about realpolitik in America, you would know how silly that comment is. Obama could have gone after prosecutions and it would please the hard core left wing like me, but the majority in the middle would have called him a traitor. He had no choice about that if he wants to keep his job. I don't think that is much different from most countries. In Egypt, Mubarek deserves prison, but I predict that will never happen and the people will accept that. Maybe the 'realpolitik' and having no choice left not to do so how he did made Bush to that what you call a 'war criminal'? If he is one, there is no excuse for Obama not to prosecute him. Or you shouldn't blame Bush alone but more the whole complex that the administration and the policymakers in the USA are. To single out Bush would be indeed silly, specially if you want argue with realpolitik. Btw. Mubarak is a long time ally of the USA and Israel, what you think about that these two countries support him so long and still do? It was 'realpolitik' wasn't it? The free ticket that doesn't bring you to jail. Edited February 9, 2011 by SerpentSea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. One small difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton actually violated a federal law. I would also bet, if the truth were known, the American people don't actually give a hoot about water boarding three (3) Islamic terrorists either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Finally, the voice of sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I agree, the American people for the most part were whipped into fear enough to accept torture (and degradation of their civil liberties) and they should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerpentSea Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. One small difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton actually violated a federal law. I would also bet, if the truth were known, the American people don't actually give a hoot about water boarding three (3) Islamic terrorists either. In terms of legality or not it matter not much how the American people think about. And are these three tortured people all terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 George Bush: no escaping torture charges Sooner or later, Bush will step into a country where he will be prosecuted for authorising the abuses of the 'war on terror' Katherine Gallagherguardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 03.55 GMT Late last year, former US President George W Bush recounted in his memoir, Decision Points, that when he was asked in 2002 if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee held in secret CIA custody outside the United States, he answered "dam_n right". This "decision point" led to the waterboarding of that person 183 times in one month. Others were waterboarded, as well. Waterboarding is torture. In the past, the US prosecuted and convicted Japanese officials who waterboarded US and allied prisoners. US Attorney General Eric Holder has unequivocally stated that waterboarding is torture. The United States is under an absolute obligation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to investigate, prosecute and punish torturers. And yet, here was the former president of the United States admitting he authorised torture. And nothing. Article continues here: http://www.guardian....ush?INTCMP=SRCH LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Khmer Rouge did water boarding too. Americans like to think they are better than the Khmer Rouge, and under Obama, we can again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Khmer Rouge did water boarding too. Americans like to think they are better than the Khmer Rouge, and under Obama, we can again. I seriously doubt the KR had a physician standing by to help in case something went wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. One small difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton actually violated a federal law. Clinton commited perjury - on video, in front of the entire world. Cue the "Oh, he was just lying about sex" crowd. He commited perjury and most of us would have done jail time if we were in his place. I think he should have been tried for abuse of power. The most powerful man in the world could certainly do better than he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 He's got a Nobel peace prize. For what exactly? For mentioning the word "peace" the most times in a single campaign .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark45y Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 George Bush: no escaping torture charges Sooner or later, Bush will step into a country where he will be prosecuted for authorising the abuses of the 'war on terror' Katherine Gallagherguardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 03.55 GMT Late last year, former US President George W Bush recounted in his memoir, Decision Points, that when he was asked in 2002 if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee held in secret CIA custody outside the United States, he answered "dam_n right". This "decision point" led to the waterboarding of that person 183 times in one month. Others were waterboarded, as well. Waterboarding is torture. In the past, the US prosecuted and convicted Japanese officials who waterboarded US and allied prisoners. US Attorney General Eric Holder has unequivocally stated that waterboarding is torture. The United States is under an absolute obligation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to investigate, prosecute and punish torturers. And yet, here was the former president of the United States admitting he authorised torture. And nothing. Article continues here: http://www.guardian....ush?INTCMP=SRCH LaoPo Call me naive or misinformed but I did not realize Bush in his latest book said he approved water boarding. If that is in fact the case I have to drop out of this discussion. I can't defend torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerpentSea Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. One small difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton actually violated a federal law. Clinton commited perjury - on video, in front of the entire world. Cue the "Oh, he was just lying about sex" crowd. He commited perjury and most of us would have done jail time if we were in his place. I think he should have been tried for abuse of power. The most powerful man in the world could certainly do better than he did. Don't assume that the entire world cares much about what the US president does with cigars. Do also not assume that for the 'rest of the world' would it make much difference if the name of the president is Clinton, Bush or Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerpentSea Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Khmer Rouge did water boarding too. Americans like to think they are better than the Khmer Rouge, and under Obama, we can again. Obama or Bush does not make much difference, specially if you wanna do that silly better than the the Khmer Rouge comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Call me naive or misinformed but I did not realize Bush in his latest book said he approved water boarding. If that is in fact the case I have to drop out of this discussion. I can't defend torture. Well, now you know, and good for you for seeing the light about what kind of president he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 o George Bush: no escaping torture charges Late last year, former US President George W Bush recounted in his memoir, Decision Points, that when he was asked in 2002 if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee held in secret CIA custody outside the United States, he answered "dam_n right". This "decision point" led to the waterboarding of that person 183 times in one month. Others were waterboarded, as well. Article continues here: http://www.guardian....ush?INTCMP=SRCH LaoPo How is it, for heavens' sake, possible for anyone, a group or high ranked military to give permission to torture a human being more than 5 times per day (183 times in one month) with water boarding* ? It's beyond me. * How effective is water boarding...?: http://science.howst...r-boarding1.htm with graphic photo during Vietnam War; but water torture is nothing new; it was widely used during the early (Spanish) Inquisitions as early as the 12th century. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 This "decision point" led to the waterboarding of that person 183 times in one month. I think one instance of water-boarding is counted each time water is poured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 This "decision point" led to the waterboarding of that person 183 times in one month. I think one instance of water-boarding is counted each time water is poured. I don't think so but we weren't there, were we? But even if this was the case...is water torture, approved by a President of the USA, acceptable nowadays? LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manarak Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What is unacceptable is being caught doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 But even if this was the case...is water torture, approved by a President of the USA, acceptable nowadays? What makes it amazing to me is the United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war in World War II Yet now it is acceptable? The *accused* terrorist are not afforded any rights under such things as the Geneva Convention? I have heard many silly excuses for this such as they are not uniformed soldiers I do not know who has given the US presidents & Military the right or the ok to do these things but can only say it was not & is not ok with the Americans I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Clinton was "impeached" because the neocons organized to get him so they eventually found a sex scandal which he did lie about. The trouble was, for that radical right wing conspiracy which sadly eventually took over power under bush, the American people didn't give a hoot about a lie about a BJ. One small difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton actually violated a federal law. Clinton commited perjury - on video, in front of the entire world. Cue the "Oh, he was just lying about sex" crowd. He commited perjury and most of us would have done jail time if we were in his place. I think he should have been tried for abuse of power. The most powerful man in the world could certainly do better than he did. Don't assume that the entire world cares much about what the US president does with cigars. Do also not assume that for the 'rest of the world' would it make much difference if the name of the president is Clinton, Bush or Obama. Uh, er, ummm. Clinton was not impeached for frivolous use of a cigar. Remember, Google is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am curious. Can anybody tell me how many people died or suffered debilitating injuries as a result of the waterboarding done by the Bush administration? Let's not count "fear of drinking water" as a debilitating injury. OK? Anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I am curious. Can anybody tell me how many people died or suffered debilitating injuries as a result of the waterboarding done by the Bush administration? Let's not count "fear of drinking water" as a debilitating injury. OK? Anybody? Beats me chuck but... I wonder what you consider debilitating? Mental, Physical? All of the above? Also would you happen to know if any of the American soldiers who were waterboarded suffered any injuries that caused the US to later hang the Japanese soldiers who performed the waterboarding on the Americans? Lastly would you be opposed to say the Pakistani's waterboarding that guy Raymond Davis who claimed he was a diplomat but was not? Especially if it does not cause injuries.....At least they could find out if he is telling the truth about shooting those two guys & his pals running over a third guy eh? What say ye chuck? Are you a good for the goose good for the gander kinda guy? Is it ok if other governments waterboard Americans held for questioning? Edited February 10, 2011 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am curious. Can anybody tell me how many people died or suffered debilitating injuries as a result of the waterboarding done by the Bush administration? Let's not count "fear of drinking water" as a debilitating injury. OK? Anybody? Beats me chuck but... I wonder what you consider debilitating? Mental, Physical? All of the above? Also would you happen to know if any of the American soldiers who were waterboarded suffered any injuries that caused the US to later hang the Japanese soldiers who performed the waterboarding on the Americans? Lastly would you be opposed to say the Pakistani's waterboarding that guy Raymond Davis who claimed he was a diplomat but was not? Especially if it does not cause injuries.....At least they could find out if he is telling the truth about shooting those two guys & his pals running over a third guy eh? What say ye chuck? Are you a good for the goose good for the gander kinda guy? Is it ok if other governments waterboard Americans held for questioning? 1. If you don't know, let's go with this definition of debilitate. It pretty well fits my description of debilitation. From this site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debilitate de·bil·i·tate [dih-bil-i-teyt] Show IPA –verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing. to make weak or feeble; enfeeble: The siege of pneumonia debilitated her completely. 2. I haven't found any Japanese that were hanged for ONLY waterboarding. The only one I found was given a prison sentence for ONLY waterboarding but was not executed. 3. Nope, I am not opposed to waterboarding Davis...if that is ALL they do. It is likely Davis might be trained in resisting enhanced interrogation anyway. You do know that US Navy Seals, among others, have been routinely waterboarded during their training, don't you? By the way, what proof do you have that he does not have diplomatic immunity? I haven't seen anything in the way of proof on it and am wondering what your source is. Unfortunately waterboarding is only the beginning of what most other governments do, including the Pakistani government. 4. Another poster somewhere in this maze mentioned USAG Eric Holder. Here is an interesting link about his testimony before Congress in 2009 concerning waterboarding. According to him, it is all about "intent". _______________________________________________________ Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is May 15, 2009 4:16 P.M. By Andrew C. McCarthy At Human Events, Connie Hair excerpts some on Eric Holder’s, er, interesting testimony on waterboarding (among other things) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, thanks to some terrific questioning by Committee Republicans: [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured. Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them – Continued here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/181884/holder-waterboarding-proving-its-not-torture-while-insisting-it-andrew-c-mccarthy _______________________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The Japanese technique in WWII was more brutal than what is done today. Of course, flying, you know that but each time choose to ignore it. But as Lao Po says, we weren't there, were we? It's just as likely that no waterboarding ever took place, it's just a story to scare would be terrorists. I had a conversation with a Pakistani colleague about waterboarding and he laughed at it. The spoiled, soft, naive Westerners out there and on Thai Visa have no idea what is considered torture in the Middle East. These softies are the same people who think Gitmo is a horrible place. For many of those sent there, the alternative would have been to be among 100 crammed into a shipping container and left in the heat to be cooked alive - without a single copy of the koran provided! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 At Human Events, Connie Hair excerpts some on Eric Holder's, er, interesting testimony on waterboarding (among other things) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, thanks to some terrific questioning by Committee Republicans:[Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department's definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department's position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured. Holder: No, it's not torture in the legal sense because you're not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we're trying to do is train them – Continued here: http://www.nationalr...drew-c-mccarthy _______________________________________________________ So, needles under fingernails or caning bare feet is OK if the intent is to train them not to cross us again? That light looks green to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now