'Damn right' I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 71 times


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 05:33 PM by andy1033
reply to post by mrsdudara


George bush ordered govs all over the world too torture people of there choosing.

This book is trying to sell.


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 06:02 PM by airspoon
reply to post by Becoming


When both the Nazis and Japanese acted in a similar fasion, it wasn't illegal in their respective countries either. A lot of good that notion did them, huh? As another posted stated, we are a signator to several treaties, to include the Geneva Conventions, which makes it illegal to torture our prisoners, both of the criminal and war types. These treaties were ratified by Congress, thus illegal to torture prisoners.

I spent almost my entire military career being drilled on just how important the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions actually are. These treaties would literally dictate strategy and tactics and for good reason too. We basically promise to treat POWS a certain way with the understanding and expectations that our own soldiers and countrymen will be afforded the same processes. When you break these treaties, you are basically giving the green light to do the same to our own boys and this is only the four treaties of the GC.


--airspoon


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 06:20 PM by jfj123
Originally posted by airspoon

'Damn right' I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush


www.rawstory.com
President George W. Bush admits for the first time in his new memoir that he personally approved the use of waterboarding, a technique in which an interrogator simulates drowning on a suspect. The method, which most describe as torture, has since been banned by the Justice Department.

In his book, "Decision Points," Bush asserts that he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency whether he would support the agency's waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind.


(visit the link for the full news article)


A voluntary confession is admissable in court. Time to lock him up !
We prosecuted the japanese during ww2 for doing the same thing so according to the US, it's a crime !


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 06:24 PM by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Clisen33


There have always been humans with reptilian hearts...........back during the inquisition they called torture "the question".

In Russian they had and still operate the Gulags,

America had her Guantanamo Bay.

Millions of dark secret places all over the planet where tyranical small minded bullies can act out their fantasies of domination all in the many names of "god" or "national security".

Often times the ininquisitors are worse than the victims whose bones they break and whose flesh they stip, burn and electrocute.

Torture is torture.

Wrong is wrong.

And karma will catch up with them for that you can be sure.

What goes around comes around.

When people stand around and look the other way and ignore what is happening, all the while pretending they know nothing, then they condon the act and thus become an accomplice of sorts.

If you allow your tax money to go towards this type of behaviour without speaking out, demanding accountablity, than you too become a part of it.

Silence in the face of evil is just as evil as the act itself.

Torture is wrong - it is in every violation of a human's right.


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 06:30 PM by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Becoming


I beg your pardon, what planet have you been living on? How about the Geneva Convention?

At the time these atrocities were committed it was clearly illegal.

But the Bushes always have been above the law, they are part of the ruling elite.

Laws do not pertain to them or their cohearts.



Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. ”
—- Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention Signed August 12, 1949 (By America)

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 07:42 PM by Logarock
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by airspoon


"The method, which most describe as torture, has since been banned by the Justice Department."


"Since been" implies to me that at the time he approved it there was no Justice Department stance against the practice. hindsight is always 20/20, but I cannot affirm here that if faced with the same proposition from the CIA I wouldn't have agreed to it also.

If I were told lives could be saved by torturing a criminal, for the sake of the lives that could be saved I'd be inclined to do the same. But I admit that's conjecture at this point. I dunno, hard decision to make.




Well be sure that air...whatever....cares little about justice and the like. I have read to many of his posts to believe he is not anything but a liberal hack anyway. He may thinks he is a guy along the watchtower but...well on second thought he knows hes not.

But yea with lives on the line...who knows maybe a busload of school children somewhere...I would have made sure baby boy did some talking. Bush did the right thing and waterboarding is such a lame way to get results anyway.

This whole thing goes back to 911 was what we had comming anyway and somehow we waterbaorded brave noble warriors. In truth they were murdering scumbags.


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 07:59 PM by pscysm
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by NOTurTypical




It's not really. You do what is right, otherwise you are no better than those you are fighting against. What would then give us the right to fight or argue against their cause or moral principals if our own are no better?

Sometimes you have to do what you abhore to do the right thing. That's why it takes strength to stay the course and not be swayed by public opinion.


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 08:26 PM by etshrtslr
Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by airspoon


Amazing how everyone gets worked up over a little water being splashed in a terrorist face as being cruel but its perfectly all right for the US President to order the assassination of United States citizen's without a trial or due process.

Why no outrage over this?



Are you trying to avoid the hypocrisy of your OP?

Please let me know why its a crime against humanity according to you in your OP to splash a little water in the face of suspected terrorist but some how its ok to assassinate American citizens by the authority of the President of the United Stated without the benefit of a trial or due process?

I sincerely want to know!


reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 08:27 PM by aptness
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I am not familiar with the legalities involved but on the surface this seems like a sound strategic move to relieve his buddies bellow of any responsibility.

Bush acknowledging he ordered it doesn’t mitigate the liability of other senior political and military leaders. You mentioned Rumsfeld — I would bet money that if someone tried to prosecute the Bush administration for violations of the Geneva Conventions and human rights, Rumsfeld’s name would be way up on the list of defendants. I would risk to say at #2 or 3.

As others have mentioned, the chances Bush and others in his administration to get prosecuted are very low, not because they haven’t done anything wrong, but because the next Presidents — including Pres. Obama — and Attorney Generals are cowards that aren’t willing to jeopardize their domestic political image and standing by going after a former President.

This, however, doesn’t mean Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company are scot-free. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction every country that has signed the relevant Geneva Conventions and other international treaties that ban torture and define it as criminal offenses can prosecute people for those violations regardless of their nationalities or where the offenses occurred.

What will happen in essence is that Bush & Co. won’t be traveling out of the country anytime soon. Perhaps with a few exceptions of countries where there’s absolutely zero chance of the political leadership there going after Bush and others, like the UK and Israel.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^