Amnesty Internationa asks Canada for G.W.Bush arrest+prosecution. (389)
jac379: Isn't there a slight issue of civilian targets here?
How guilty were the children and unborn who were killed, maimed and suffered the consequences for life from the "bombing" of Japan?
Why were two bombs dropped when one would have been more than sufficient, other than to experiment regarding the impact of each design?
Do two wrongs make a right?
Personally, I think everyone guilty of any atrocity should be apologising like there's no tomorrow, regardless of which "side" they were on.
How guilty were the children and unborn who were killed, maimed and suffered the consequences for life from the "bombing" of Japan?
Why were two bombs dropped when one would have been more than sufficient, other than to experiment regarding the impact of each design?
Do two wrongs make a right?
Personally, I think everyone guilty of any atrocity should be apologising like there's no tomorrow, regardless of which "side" they were on.
That could be applicable to more recent world events too, Jac. From a lot of different people/countries.
I've heard that more lives would had been lost had the war continued.
Of course that's impossible to know with certainty.
The people involved may feel the need to apologize, but personally, I feel no guilt on what someone did before I was born. That would make no sense.
To my knowledge, the US and Japan have become good friends and continue to have a strong relationship. Hope that continues.
Don't think I answered your question.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jac379: Isn't there a slight issue of civilian targets here?
How guilty were the children and unborn who were killed, maimed and suffered the consequences for life from the "bombing" of Japan?
Why were two bombs dropped when one would have been more than sufficient, other than to experiment regarding the impact of each design?
Do two wrongs make a right?
Personally, I think everyone guilty of any atrocity should be apologising like there's no tomorrow, regardless of which "side" they were on.
How guilty were the children and unborn who were killed, maimed and suffered the consequences for life from the "bombing" of Japan?
Why were two bombs dropped when one would have been more than sufficient, other than to experiment regarding the impact of each design?
Do two wrongs make a right?
Personally, I think everyone guilty of any atrocity should be apologising like there's no tomorrow, regardless of which "side" they were on.
Two bombs were dropped because (A.) one nuclear bomb wasn't enough to get Japan to say, "uncle" and (B.) we only had enough nuclear material to make two bombs.
Conventional fire-bombings of Japan killed more Japanese than the nuclear bombs killed.
It is widely thought what actually brought Japan to say uncle to the USA was Japan's realization that millions of Russians, freed from duty in the West, were lining up to kill Japanese instead of germans (as they rampaged through mongolia, china and other places first.)
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: I hope so too. What Canada needs a brave judge/public prosecutor to issue a warrant for GWB arrest,as the Spanish judge,Baltasar Garson did,for the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
I'd love to see G.W. Bush run for president again. He'd win with a land slide against Woebama. .... and while thinking about Canada, do you know under who's mayoral administration, did detroit start on the slippery slope to ruin?
It happened when sitting detroit mayor coleman young publicly made fun of president Reagans "Turkey" throat. Yep, that stopped most federal funds from reaching detroit and detroit is now in worse condition than stuebenville, ohio.... sadly, both are armpits of the world.
G. W. Bush forever!
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: This was taken from Wiki
Vietnam War: Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. On 21 January 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The article described the practice as "fairly common". The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army. Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City
I guess some people don't need the UN to see what is obvious.
Vietnam War: Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. On 21 January 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The article described the practice as "fairly common". The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army. Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City
I guess some people don't need the UN to see what is obvious.
Also from same article;
""In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, even though the United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II. The CIA confirms using waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, in 2002 and 2003""
It refers to the Bybee Memos on the same site which state;
""The Torture Memos, sometimes called the Bybee Memo or 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion, were a set of legal memoranda drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the President on the use of mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding, and stated that acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of Presidential authority during the "War on Terror."""
So, according to WIki, the President asked his legal counsel for advice and was told that it was alright.
More;
""Aug. 1, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (864KB; from FindLaw)
A memo to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales from Jay S. Bybee of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that techniques used to interrogate al Qaeda operatives would not violate a 1984 international treaty prohibiting torture. ""
There is more however, this gives the gist of it. Bush is told it is legal and carries it out.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: Two bombs were dropped because (A.) one nuclear bomb wasn't enough to get Japan to say, "uncle" and (B.) we only had enough nuclear material to make two bombs.
Conventional fire-bombings of Japan killed more Japanese than the nuclear bombs killed.
It is widely thought what actually brought Japan to say uncle to the USA was Japan's realization that millions of Russians, freed from duty in the West, were lining up to kill Japanese instead of germans (as they rampaged through mongolia, china and other places first.)
Conventional fire-bombings of Japan killed more Japanese than the nuclear bombs killed.
It is widely thought what actually brought Japan to say uncle to the USA was Japan's realization that millions of Russians, freed from duty in the West, were lining up to kill Japanese instead of germans (as they rampaged through mongolia, china and other places first.)
My understanding was that the Japanese Emperor was on the verge of saying uncle when the go ahead was given to drop the second bomb. It was this timing of events that lead to the concept that the second was merely a continuation of the experiment.
I can't reference that. I read it in a book.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: Given his responsibilities for crimes under International Law,including torture,Amnesty International asked Canada to arrest and prosecute G.W.Bush.
He was intending to do so however, there were parties within the leadership who were intent on continuing it. In fact, martial law was imposed in some areas to stop people from surrendering or taking about it. That said, the US could not know this however, the whole ting boiled down to the conditions of the surrender which, had to be according to the Potsdam Agreement. As well, the US wanted the surrender to occur prior to the Soviet Union gaining ground and as there was still no word from the Japanese, they had no way of knowing what was going on.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ooops. Hit the wrong reply button.
He was intending to do so however, there were parties within the leadership who were intent on continuing it. In fact, martial law was imposed in some areas to stop people from surrendering or taking about it. That said, the US could not know this however, the whole ting boiled down to the conditions of the surrender which, had to be according to the Potsdam Agreement. As well, the US wanted the surrender to occur prior to the Soviet Union gaining ground and as there was still no word from the Japanese, they had no way of knowing what was going on.
jac379: My understanding was that the Japanese Emperor was on the verge of saying uncle when the go ahead was given to drop the second bomb. It was this timing of events that lead to the concept that the second was merely a continuation of the experiment.
I can't reference that. I read it in a book.
I can't reference that. I read it in a book.
He was intending to do so however, there were parties within the leadership who were intent on continuing it. In fact, martial law was imposed in some areas to stop people from surrendering or taking about it. That said, the US could not know this however, the whole ting boiled down to the conditions of the surrender which, had to be according to the Potsdam Agreement. As well, the US wanted the surrender to occur prior to the Soviet Union gaining ground and as there was still no word from the Japanese, they had no way of knowing what was going on.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Yes we are,off to Canada and hug our "waterboarding" specialist.-
------ This thread is Archived ------
A very good post
jac379: My perception is (and I'm not claiming its an accurate perception) America gets the blame because its a big powerful country, unlike the UK which appears to be not much more more than America's snivelling house elf.
It seems we still kinda owe you one for all the arms during WWII and we're too small and limp to have any ecomomic, or status chance without you.
Its like high school, but with more dead people and ruined lives.
Britain is as guilty of poor behaviour in this matter, simply by being one of your henchmen.
I doubt any of us have a clean slate enough to be proudly waving patriotic flags under each other's noses and as such, our (former) leaders should just as much be subject to humanitarian law as anywhere else.
At the very least, I hope Amnesty can stop the likes of Bush and Blair wallowing in their successful careers, assuming they're both guilty enough to want to avoid arrest.
I was born in England, I'm grateful to have had the good fortune to live in this green and pleasant land of Wales, but it does not mean I support the inhumane and deceitful actions of an elected government.
It seems we still kinda owe you one for all the arms during WWII and we're too small and limp to have any ecomomic, or status chance without you.
Its like high school, but with more dead people and ruined lives.
Britain is as guilty of poor behaviour in this matter, simply by being one of your henchmen.
I doubt any of us have a clean slate enough to be proudly waving patriotic flags under each other's noses and as such, our (former) leaders should just as much be subject to humanitarian law as anywhere else.
At the very least, I hope Amnesty can stop the likes of Bush and Blair wallowing in their successful careers, assuming they're both guilty enough to want to avoid arrest.
I was born in England, I'm grateful to have had the good fortune to live in this green and pleasant land of Wales, but it does not mean I support the inhumane and deceitful actions of an elected government.
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: Yes we are,off to Canada and hug our "waterboarding" specialist.-
Don't be silly Chris. I'm certainly no expert at water boarding but do know what the US Attorney General said at the time and, he told the President it was legal and as such, Bush did no wrong. If you cannot take the legal advice of your Attorney General (as you have touted yourself more than a couple of times on this thread) then who else is the expert?
Oh, while I have your attention perhaps you can explain under what authority Amnesty International can call for Bush's arrest. Possibly you can explain the makeup of their court system and how their judges are appointed or elected.
And under what mandate their courts operate under.
Is that too much to ask Chris?
------ This thread is Archived ------
So is very simple, Has ever GWB produce any order of his to stop "waterboarding" after November 2006 ????? If not Amnesty doing the right thing,going after him.-
vinny1967: Ok so you dont think its torture. I hope it never happens anyone in our faimilies thats for sure.
And I wonder what the US Government were complaining about when they questioned the Japanese for doing it and called on them to stop. They even hung Japanese soldiers for waterboarding.
I suppose your own authorities dont count either. The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
They knew what they were doing and they thought they would get away with it. And you know what.............they just might and I think thats sad.
And I wonder what the US Government were complaining about when they questioned the Japanese for doing it and called on them to stop. They even hung Japanese soldiers for waterboarding.
I suppose your own authorities dont count either. The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
They knew what they were doing and they thought they would get away with it. And you know what.............they just might and I think thats sad.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The end,does not justify the means
montecito: It is torture. I watch National Geographic, Discovery and History channels all the time. Not too long ago I watched a program where former CIA operatives admitted that they did water boarding. But they also said that water boarding doesn't get the truth out of a person, that they will say anything just to make it stop. But I will say that those who were water boarded at Guantanamo Bay gave up information that stopped a major terrorist attack. Who knows if they would have gotten the information without water boarding.
------ This thread is Archived ------
According to VINNY'S post,on Nov. 2006 the UN found the practice of "waterboarding" as torture.- Did GWB ordered to be stopped???
Albertaghost: Also from same article;
""In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, even though the United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II. The CIA confirms using waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, in 2002 and 2003""
It refers to the Bybee Memos on the same site which state;
""The Torture Memos, sometimes called the Bybee Memo or 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion, were a set of legal memoranda drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the President on the use of mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding, and stated that acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of Presidential authority during the "War on Terror."""
So, according to WIki, the President asked his legal counsel for advice and was told that it was alright.
More;
""Aug. 1, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (864KB; from FindLaw)
A memo to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales from Jay S. Bybee of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that techniques used to interrogate al Qaeda operatives would not violate a 1984 international treaty prohibiting torture. ""
There is more however, this gives the gist of it. Bush is told it is legal and carries it out.
""In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, even though the United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II. The CIA confirms using waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, in 2002 and 2003""
It refers to the Bybee Memos on the same site which state;
""The Torture Memos, sometimes called the Bybee Memo or 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion, were a set of legal memoranda drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the President on the use of mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding, and stated that acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of Presidential authority during the "War on Terror."""
So, according to WIki, the President asked his legal counsel for advice and was told that it was alright.
More;
""Aug. 1, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (864KB; from FindLaw)
A memo to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales from Jay S. Bybee of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that techniques used to interrogate al Qaeda operatives would not violate a 1984 international treaty prohibiting torture. ""
There is more however, this gives the gist of it. Bush is told it is legal and carries it out.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I think he will duck,and not go to Brit. Columbia,as he did in Switzerland.-
Albertaghost: Don't be silly Chris. I'm certainly no expert at water boarding but do know what the US Attorney General said at the time and, he told the President it was legal and as such, Bush did no wrong. If you cannot take the legal advice of your Attorney General (as you have touted yourself more than a couple of times on this thread) then who else is the expert?
Oh, while I have your attention perhaps you can explain under what authority Amnesty International can call for Bush's arrest. Possibly you can explain the makeup of their court system and how their judges are appointed or elected.
And under what mandate their courts operate under.
Is that too much to ask Chris?
Oh, while I have your attention perhaps you can explain under what authority Amnesty International can call for Bush's arrest. Possibly you can explain the makeup of their court system and how their judges are appointed or elected.
And under what mandate their courts operate under.
Is that too much to ask Chris?
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: So is very simple, Has ever GWB produce any order of his to stop "waterboarding" after November 2006 ????? If not Amnesty doing the right thing,going after him.-
Did better. Didn't do it anymore. So, why on earth would AI go after him when he was innocent?
And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
------ This thread is Archived ------
AI is a human rights organizations,only report Human Right abuses,and urges government to take action against Human Right abusers,they did it in Switzerland and they doing it now, in Canada.- There is no proof that GWB ordered the stopping of "waterboarding" after November 2006,while in this month and year the UN had accepted "waterboarding" as "torture".
Albertaghost: Did better. Didn't do it anymore. So, why on earth would AI go after him when he was innocent?
And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: AI is a human rights organizations,only report Human Right abuses,and urges government to take action against Human Right abusers,they did it in Switzerland and they doing it now, in Canada.- There is no proof that GWB ordered the stopping of "waterboarding" after November 2006,while in this month and year the UN had accepted "waterboarding" as "torture".
Did better. Didn't do it anymore. So, why on earth would AI go after him when he was innocent?
And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
------ This thread is Archived ------
My previous post to you gives you an answer.-
Albertaghost: Did better. Didn't do it anymore. So, why on earth would AI go after him when he was innocent?
And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
Is any proof he didn't do it anymore,after Nov. 2006.????And Chris, you still have not answered me, what authority does AI have considering they have no judges, courts or legal ground to stand on? Are they a police force of some kind? If so, who gave them that authority?
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: My previous post to you gives you an answer.- Is any proof he didn't do it anymore,after Nov. 2006.????
Your answer only says they urge others to do things but you omit the fact that they have no legal basis on which to enforce anything hence, it is akin to you or I calling for his arrest.
As for proof, yes I do. As he had nothing to hide and, all the information ha come forward we know that only the three Al Qaeda leaders were the recipients of waterboarding.
I also find it no surprise that you feel that these vile scumbags who are responsible for murdering thousands of people being given legal enhanced interrogations is something to protest.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
wanting beyond need
men's perspective towards women
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Common Issues with the BMW X1
The Best of the GOP
your personality
the way you look
other can see but not you
Feel Good Music
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
700,000 4,200,000
JAPAN 2,000,000 350,000 2,350,000
ROMANIA 300,000 160,000 460,000
HUNGARY 140,000 290,000 430,000
ITALY 330,000 80,000 410,000
AUSTRIA 230,000 104,000 334,000
FINLAND 82,000 2,000 84,000
AXIS TOTAL 6,582,000 1,686,000 8,268,000
ALLIED MILITARY CIVILIAN TOTAL
SOVIET UNION 10,000,000 10,000,000 * 20,000,000
CHINA 2,500,000 7,500,00 10,000,000
POLAND 100,00 5,700,000 5,800,000
YUGOSLAVIA 300,000 1,400,000 1,700,000
FRANCE 250,000 350,000 600,000
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 200,000 215,000 415,000
UNITED STATES 400,000 — 400,000
UNITED KINGDOM (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, AND NORTHERN IRELAND) 326,000 62,000 388,000
NETHERLANDS 12,000 198,000 210,000
GREECE 20,000 140,000 160,000
BELGIUM 12,000 76,000 88,000
CANADA 37,000 — 37,000
INDIA 24,000 13,000 37,000
AUSTRALIA 23,000 12,000 35,000
ALBANIA 28,000 2,000 30,000
BULGARIA 10,000 10,000 20,000
NEW ZEALAND 10,000 2,000 12,000
NORWAY 6,400 3,900 10,300
SOUTH AFRICA 7,000 —
ETHIOPIA 5,000 — 5,000
LUXEMBOURG 5,000 — 5,000
MALTA — 2,000 2,000
DENMARK 400 1,000 1,400
BRAZIL 1,000 — 1,000
ALLIED TOTAL 14,276,800 25,686,900 39,963,700
EST. TOTAL 20,858,800 27,372,900 48,231,700
* The majority of Soviet Union civilian casualties were Ukrainian.
Sources
Gregory Frumkin, Population Changes in Europe Since 1939 (European estimates)
B. Urlanis, Wars and Population (Soviet Union and the Far East)
Singer and Small, Wages of War (the Americas and Ethiopia)
I.C.B. Dear, editor, The Oxford Companion to World War II (British Commonwealth)
Just thought you might like to see just exactly how many people did die in this war.
Your country was fortunate enough not to have to withstand constant bombing raids.We lost 62,000 civilians. Considering the size of our country in comparison to the USA our death toll was pretty horrendous.
I lived through the war as a child so I do remember I'm sorry to say.
Just like Dimmark. Bringing up the rear