Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plenty of Dem's knew about water boarding. If Obama's kids were going to get their heads cut off he would order it in a second...Who's kidding who here.
Carrie
You are kidding yourself. Whose head was not cut off because we waterboarded someone?
Who told you that waterboarding is NOT torture, Bush and Cheney?
There also is a history of putting solders on trial for waterboarding in China, however that was in relating to a violation of the code of war. The terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention, or the Code of War for numerous reasons, one such reason for example is they fight out of uniform. (not the sole reason, just one of the reasons)
Never Bush, or I have ever claimed that there was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
You are arguing in circles. Following is a paste from a previous post of mine with your reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Why didn't Bush deal with those who caused 9/11 rather than direct our resources elsewhere?
Because SOME of them were IN Iraq..
I'm sure the administration was thinking,
Hey, we can take care of the terrorist camps, the WMD's and Saddam who was terrorising his own people, all in one fast sweep.. No one thought it would drag on..
Having terrorists camps in Iraq do not necessarily mean that the terrorists in Iraq took part in 9/11, there were numerous other attacks in the past that have taken place during the Clinton administration along with future planned attacks. Thats what camps were, training facilities for FUTURE attacks.
A president has an obligation to protect us from enemies, and attacks which have not yet taken place..
There also is a history of putting solders on trial for waterboarding in China, however that was in relating to a violation of the code of war. The terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention, or the Code of War for numerous reasons, one such reason for example is they fight out of uniform. (not the sole reason, just one of the reasons)
They were out of uniform???? Show me that one in the law about torture.
Having terrorists camps in Iraq do not necessarily mean that the terrorists in Iraq took part in 9/11, there were numerous other attacks in the past that have taken place during the Clinton administration along with future planned attacks. Thats what camps were, training facilities for FUTURE attacks.
A president has an obligation to protect us from enemies, and attacks which have not yet taken place..
Protect us from attacks which have not yet taken place? Where was Bush when we needed him to protect us from the 9/11 attack?
You will support Bush and his use of torture regardless.
Let me ask you a question.
Should anyone suspected of breaking a law be investigated? and if the investigation proves that the law was broken, should that person be punished?
Wasn't that actually lying under oath? You know, I swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth excepting for what the definition of is is.
Wasn't that actually lying under oath? You know, I swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth excepting for what the definition of is is.
Yes, you are right; it was for lying under oath.
I don't know why Clinton didn't refuse to testify by claiming "Executive Privilege"!
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages
No uniform, no protection LEGALLY. In fact, no uniform means they can be tried as a spy and LEGALLY shot by firing squad. (possible outcome now that the detainees have to be put on trial or released)
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) Article 46.-Spies 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy. 2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces. 3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage. 4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that fighters out of uniform can be tried as spies, Ex Parte Quirin and thereby shot by firing squad (per the previously linked laws of war)
In order to be covered legally from waterboarding, the "terrorists" would need to follow the Rules of War, which they have not, and because they have not, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thereby no war crimes actually took place.
Protect us from attacks which have not yet taken place?
That is the presidents job..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Where was Bush when we needed him to protect us from the 9/11 attack?
Bush had been in office for 9 months before the attack, but none of that answers your question. No one can protect us from every wacko that exists, and ultimately with enough planning, some attacks will succeed while others fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Should anyone suspected of breaking a law be investigated? and if the investigation proves that the law was broken, should that person be punished?
I obviously would support someone breaking the law being investigated. I have looked at all of the arguments and the laws were not broken. Granted, there was a fine line walked in order to not break that law, but in the end, we are a world based upon laws and we must follow those laws even when the outcome result is that the opponent broke the line allowing it to be crossed.
With all of the grandstanding by Obama, there is an increasing legal response that acknowledges these facts and there most likely will not even be a trial. While there are opinion pieces all over the web saying laws were broken, anyone who gives a LEGAL analysis, not based upon feelings or emotions come to the same conclusion.
There was six members of Congress aware that waterboarding was taking place, four of them Democrats, and I for one dont think for a minute that they wouldnt have protested if they also were not convinced of the legality of the procedures.
Remember, Democrats ran Congress, they would have loved to make a grandstand to impeach Bush and thereby use that as reason to leave Iraq. But just like the war, none of them wanted to be responsible to raise a big red warning flag only to be proven wrong, after all, we were attacked and who wants to hold blame for us being attacked again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
