Libs Claim Pres Bush Confessed To War Crimes

[red states rule]

I am watching CSPAN this morning and the topic is Pres Bush's new book "Decision Points"

The usual liberal wackos are calling in and the hate for Pres Bush is as strong as ever.

But the new talking point is Bush's "confession" to war crimes and this was picked up over at DNCTV

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUkUnzuz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUkUnzuz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[red states rule]

After more then 2 years, the libs hate for Bush remains strong

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUSUnzvk" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUSUnzvk" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[revelarts]

The liberals have there irrational issues about Bush, However in this case.


( realize some here don't think waterboarding is torture, but you brought it up red)
I remember Clearly BUSH saying "we don't torture" now he's saying when they asked if AlShikMuhamend should be water boarded he said. "Damn right.". If that's a true representation of what he said then He's Admitting to Authorizing it. Now the question is if Waterboarding can be defined as torture, (as it's been since the 1500' when it was done in the Spanish Inquisition, And people went to jail for in Texas while Bush was Gov,) Is the Lawyers sleazy work around. great for the client horrible for the country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Former Navy SERE's Trainer and counter-terrorism adviser to the US government talks to Amnesty International.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

the question of whether Bush or Clinton should be based on the evidence not on whether or not a certain party likes them or not.
Either the "rule of law" is for everyone or it's not. And frankly it's not. Politicians and people with money and position literally get away with murder and torture.
God Bless America

[red states rule]

The liberals have there irrational issues about Bush, However in this case.


( realize some here don't think waterboarding is torture, but you brought it up red)
I remember Clearly BUSH saying "we don't torture" now he's saying when they asked if AlShikMuhamend should be water boarded he said. "Damn right.". If that's a true representation of what he said then He's Admitting to Authorizing it. Now the question is if Waterboarding can be defined as torture, (as it's been since the 1500' when it was done in the Spanish Inquisition, And people went to jail for in Texas while Bush was Gov,) Is the Lawyers sleazy work around. great for the client horrible for the country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Former Navy SERE's Trainer and counter-terrorism adviser to the US government talks to Amnesty International.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

the question of whether Bush or Clinton should be based on the evidence not on whether or not a certain party likes them or not.
Either the "rule of law" is for everyone or it's not. And frankly it's not. Politicians and people with money and position literally get away with murder and torture.
God Bless America

Waterboarding is not torture. The liberal do gooders and mushy moderates cling to the garbage that the terrorists righte were violated

The facts are THREE terrorists were waterboarded and the information obtained saved LIVES

Pres Bush kept America safe from further attacks and saved lives

Case closed

[SpidermanTUba]

Waterboarding is not torture.

It was torture when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for it after WW II.

It remained torture when a U.S. soldier was court martialed for it in Vietnam.

When did it stop being torture?

[SassyLady]

Perhaps it's torture when used on soldiers and not on terrorists?

[SpidermanTUba]

Perhaps it's torture when used on soldiers and not on terrorists?

Perhaps you're a moron. Or maybe you just like tyrants.

[Pagan]

TORTURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW


Article 1
1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.


Article 2
1 For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the
performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

[red states rule]

TORTURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW


Article 1
1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.


Article 2
1 For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the
performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

Again, waterboarding is ot torture. Libs are having a cow that THREE TERRORISTS were waterboarded and LIVES SAVED from the information obtained from the terrorist bastards

Sorry to bust your bubble - terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are rarely interpreted strictly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

[red states rule]

Perhaps you're a moron. Or maybe you just like tyrants.

Perhaps you are already beaten in the debate and you have nothing else to offer but the insults?

[Pagan]

Again, waterboarding is ot torture. Libs are having a cow that THREE TERRORISTS were waterboarded and LIVES SAVED from the information obtained from the terrorist bastards

Really?

You ever been Waterboarded?

Also read the Geneva Convention definition

Sorry to bust your bubble - terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention

Sorry to piss on your Wheaties, but WE ARE numbnutts.

[namvet]

well after getting they're ass cleaning in the mid term they are required to complain. it is they're job.

but i dare say at night they go home any cry in they're pillows yelling its not fair. stomping they're lil feet and hold they're breath.

a far bigger disaster is i forgot to make my NFL picks for today !!!!

[revelarts]

Everyone thought it was torture until we started doing it.

The Fact is Waterboading has been considered torture for the past few 1000 years or so.

And it doesn't matter if the accuser is liberal moderate or conservative.
the Laws says Waterboarding is Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.
Despite sincerely held and contrary opinions. It is the Law.

the fact the the people it's was used on were terrorist, soldiers, civilians, old or young green or blue makes no difference.

the Laws says it's Waterboarding Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.

Everyone here agrees that it was done.
the Law says it is torture.
It seems Bush now admits he ordered it.
According to the law, protecting the people is No defense

Other Americans have gone to jail for it.
Seems the only question is why shouldn't he?

[DragonStryk72]

Everyone thought it was torture until we started doing it.

The Fact is Waterboading has been considered torture for the past few 1000 years or so.

And it doesn't matter if the accuser is liberal moderate or conservative.
the Laws says Waterboarding is Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.
Despite sincerely held and contrary opinions. It is the Law.

the fact the the people it's was used on were terrorist, soldiers, civilians, old or young green or blue makes no difference.

the Laws says it's Waterboarding Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.

Everyone here agrees that it was done.
the Law says it is torture.
It seems Bush now admits he ordered it.
According to the law, protecting the people is No defense

Other Americans have gone to jail for it.
Seems the only question is why shouldn't he?

you're right, and if we seriously want to say that conservatism is the party of principle, then we need to be the ones to launch that invesitgation.

[red states rule]

Looks as if some here would rather have had terrorist attacks happen rather then doing everything possible to stop them

Some here would rather have US citizens murdered rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists

The liberal media did there part to ignore the fact lives were saved by the waterboarding of THREE terrorists

Say you're the editor of a major U.S. city's newspaper and that sources in the national security community have informed your reporters that waterboarding was a crucial tactic in making a terrorist detainee spill his guts with information that, when followed up by authorities, thwarted a planned terrorist attack on same major U.S. city.

You would probably run the story on the front page with a banner headline to that effect, but at the very least you'd make sure that fact was reported in your paper's coverage.

That is, of course, unless you're the ideologically leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog:

The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to closely evaluate harsh interrogations:

The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles.

You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about.

You’d be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech,

Bush said that “alternative” interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk.

Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to “talk”? It means that we got him to “disclose details of massive plots against the United States.” According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives.

How do you make it though an entire article on the effectiveness of harsh interrogation and not even mention that little tidbit?

Ask the geniuses at the Los Angeles Times.

And they wonder why the print newspaper industry is dying.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz15LEBbjaB

I wonder these same posters would react if an attack did happen and the liberal media was on its high horse asking why the government did not stop the attack when he had a high ranking terrorist in custody?