'Damn right' I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush

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.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Originally posted by Myendica
1st!


Isnt that sort of a war crime? glad he owned up to it.. but great, America even bigger a**.

I'm disgusted that he feels his most disgusting moment was Kanye, and not 9/11. Really? grotesque.

Well, I volunteer @a youth club &, if someone came & whispered to me that my house had been blown up (assuming that I didn't already know it was going to happen), then I imagine I'd be pretty surprised. If I was assured none of my loved ones were hurt, I might well finish what I was doing with the kids whilst I thought about the implications of what I'd been told.
Now, I know many Americans feel that the wars Bush Jnr. started were/are justified, so lets leave that alone for now. If I were an American, I'd want his hide for his response to Hurricane Katrina.

I meant, the event has to be more disgusting that someone insulting him/.. nothing sinister involved with my comment.. not even saying he knew it or didnt respond the correct way.. i just meant the event. If i were president, or better yet, Bush, I'd say that that event was the most disgusting moment in my presidency.. because it was..

If you did something that wasn't illegal at the time and it later became illegal you cannot be charged.

It would be like you doing 70 on the highway when that was the speed limit and the next day it gets changed to 65 and you recieve a speeding ticket.

When he gave the go ahead it wasn't illegal. Now that it is illegal we cannot go back and charge him for doing it. Sorry folks, got to get him on some other imagined crime.

Originally posted by Becoming


When he gave the go ahead it wasn't illegal. Now that it is illegal we cannot go back and charge him for doing it. Sorry folks, got to get him on some other imagined crime.

Sorry, you need to read the whole thread. It was illegal! We signed the Geneva Conventions. Do you even know what they are?

www.icrc.org...

www1.umn.edu...

www.redcross.lv...

We executed Japanese after WWII for waterboarding

www.worldwar2database.com...

Try and keep up!

Originally posted by Becoming
When he gave the go ahead it wasn't illegal. Now that it is illegal we cannot go back and charge him for doing it. Sorry folks, got to get him on some other imagined crime.

This thread is not about prosecuting him, he will never be prosecuted even though he is responsible for 1million plus death.

His thread is about him boosting he ordered torture, and that is against the law and international law.

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

If I ever get captured, and the worse thing I had to worry about was waterboarding, I'd sleep soundly ever night I was in the POW camp.

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 !

Originally posted by mrsdudara

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Thing is, would you & could you do it yourself?

This was against the mastermind of 9/11. Not only could I have done it, I would have had a difficult time just waterboarding.

I watched on live tv the horror as people took nose dives out of the tower so they wouldnt burn. I watched the firemen rush to in to save those people and never come back out. So many lives were destroyed because of that man. There was a chance he knew info about another attack. I would have done MUCH worse than waterboard.

I applaud Bush for having the balls to do it.

Wow, most hilarious..

Nobody has been found guilty of masterminding jack squat, the govt has offered their side of the story, yet doesn't have any charges to levy in court... sometimes the govt is wrong, its this new crazy thing called a "not guilty" verdict.

So in reality "that man" is innocent and the "American thing" to do is defend his rights to challenge the govts story... we wouldn't want to go back to the days where people were "guilty" because the king said so, eh?..

..oh wait, replace "King" with US govt" and what's the difference these days?.. party leaders decide to kill people summarily by remote, declare people guilty of "terrorism" then punishes them without trial.. the founding fathers found that behavior offensive enough to fight about.. or are they pre-911 thinkers?

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 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...

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
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.

If you (and others) are going to quote the GC, LOAC, etc, you can't cherry pick. You have to take into consideration the entire document and both sides that are fighting.

Which means, we all should be seeing more threads here about insurgents using mosques, churches and hospitals as strong points to fight from. The torture, mutilation and execution of US Troops that have been captured.

And that's just scratching the surface of some of the GC violations that they have committed.

Originally posted by mrsdudara

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Thing is, would you & could you do it yourself?

This was against the mastermind of 9/11. Not only could I have done it, I would have had a difficult time just waterboarding.

I watched on live tv the horror as people took nose dives out of the tower so they wouldnt burn. I watched the firemen rush to in to save those people and never come back out. So many lives were destroyed because of that man. There was a chance he knew info about another attack. I would have done MUCH worse than waterboard.

I applaud Bush for having the balls to do it.

Wow, most hilarious of GOP talking points..

Nobody has been found guilty of masterminding jack squat, the govt has offered their side of the story, yet doesn't have any charges to levy in court... sometimes the govt is wrong, its this new crazy thing called a "not guilty" verdict.

So in reality "that man" is innocent and the "American thing" to do is defend his rights to challenge the govts story... we wouldn't want to go back to the days where people were "guilty" because the king said so, eh?..

..oh wait, replace "King" with US govt" and what's the difference these days?.. party leaders decide to kill people summarily by remote, declare people guilty of "terrorism" then punishes them without trial.. the founding fathers found that behavior offensive enough to fight about.. or are they pre-911 thinkers?

Junior's memoirs are interesting because:
These are the things he wants us to know because:
These are the things he feels a need to explain because:
These are the things he can't reconcile within himself because:
of the real reason they were done.

"As good as you are and as bad as I am; I'm still as good as you are as bad as I am." Stoney 1977

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.

Waterboarding don't seem all that bad, well when you compare it to when the people they are waterboarding will CUT YOUR GENITALS OFF and stick them in your MOUTH... Then BEHEAD YOU!!! Waterboarding seems pretty civil....

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.

Does anyone remember that BHO didn't ban water-boarding - that he still holds the 'right' to use it if he deems it necessary? Gee let's hope he doesn't need it to pull information out of some mad-bomber - it's much better that innocent people get killed than to water-board a terrorist.

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!

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.