The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

George W. Bush violated Human rights, and claimed it stopped Foreign Terror attacks, which it didn't

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,823 times Debate No: 7686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (12)

 

abard124

Pro

**Disclaimer: although I do believe that Co-President Cheney had some knowledge of 9/11 beforehand and did not tell Co-President Bush, this debate will follow the assumption that it was not known about beforehand and was not an inside job, should that come up.**
**Disclaimer part 2: When I say President Bush, I usually mean both Bush and Cheney, or simply Cheney's ventriloquism.**
On September 11, 2001, four planes were hijacked. Two crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City (although I do believe that the buildings were really ugly, that is not how they should have gone). One crashed into the hub of national security, the Pentagon in Washington D.C. One was believed to have been aimed towards the White House, but it was diverted to a field in Pennsylvania. September 11, 2001 will live in way more infamy than December 7th, 1941. Why is that? 9/11 was a foreign terrorist attack. Pearl Harbor was an act of war. So, America had a perfect record. 225 years, and we had never been subject to a foreign terrorist attack. There have been some domestic terrorists, but no foreign terrorists. Until then. Now, everyone is thrilled that we've gone 8 years without another one. Well, 217 more years until we're due for another one. And George W. Bush was not president for 225 years (that would be an absolute calamity, but I digress), so there is no evidence that he prevented any foreign terrorists, and in fact may have provoked some that never materialized.
But he did attempt an ethnic cleansing (pardon, he incarcerated any and all suspected terrorists). And I'm sure you've noticed how many Aryans (pardon, non-Arabs) you see in his concentration camps (pardon, "Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp"). Notice, they don't tell us what's going on there. Notice, they took special note to put it on disputedly Cuban soil. And notice the aversion of the citizens from seeing the truth ("Hey look! They're violating human rights in Cuba!").
In Nazi Germany, most people did not know what was going on behind the gates of their versions of Gitmo, their concentration camps.
So, perhaps, at Gitmo, there should be 3 inscriptions: El trabajo le pone en libertad (if my online translator was working), Work sets you free, and the ever-infamous, Arbeit Macht Frei. That's what Gitmo is to the core.
So, logically, since all the "terrorists" are locked up at Auschwantanamo, we can be safe for even more than 217 years. Then, now that we are actually going to follow our constitution, we will actually try the non-Aryans and find that most of them are innocent. Then all of the crooks from the last eight years get angry because "we're releasing the terrorists!"
I could go into the Iraq war, the Oil conflicts, and other stuff which really did not help, but I must admit that there has been one thing he has done to protect us from another: His close personal ties with Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Bandar Bush, as you might know him; cousin of Osama bin Laden, and funding of terrorist group, Fatah al-Islam, so we won't have problems with them.

Okay, if you accept this debate, I promise that this will be the last major rant on my part, and I'll start being sensible.
Have fun!
RoyLatham

Con

Pro has made an extraordinary claim and must therefore present extraordinary evidence. So far Pro has presented no evidence whatsoever.

Evidence is confirmed testimony of credible of witnesses who observed events, authenticated documents, or other forensic evidence. Opinions of bloggers and screaming moonbats, anonymous accusations, and unsupported theories are not evidence. Many theories fit limited facts. Theories involving undiscovered space aliens and wrathful deities will fit any observation of events perfectly. Therefore, any conspiracy theory must be supported by evidence of the specific conspiracy, such as confirmed testimony of those privy to the conspiracy or authenticated documents showing its existence.

Pro must prove both of his two contentions. He must prove that Bush violated human rights. Do do that, he must establish a causal connection between a Bush order and an identified human rights violation.

Pro has not defined human rights and does get to define it arbitrarily. Doing so would allow Pro to define a human rights violation as "deprivation of milk and/or cookies before bedtime." Moreover, human rights are frequently in conflict. There is, for example, a human right not to be killed by terrorists that must be weighed reasonably against any rights claimed for terrorists. So the sense of the resolution demands that whatever human rights violations are alleged, they must represent an unreasonable weighing of human rights by Bush reflected in an order by him.

Foreign opinion of what constitutes "human rights" is not relevant, because the President swears to protect and defend the United States, not to submit to foreign opinion polls.

Secondly, Pro must prove that Bush claimed that "it", i.e. human rights violations, stopped foreign terror attacks. A verified quotation from Bush stating "My violation of human rights stopped foreign terror attacks." would establish the point. A lesser starting point would be for Pro to establish that Bush claimed, for any reason, to have stopped foreign terror attacks. Bush acknowledged regularly that foreign terrorist attacks were occurring in Iraq. That was central to his premise that Iraq was part of a war against terrorism. If foreign terror attacks ceased, he would have eagerly claimed victory in the war against terrorism. That did not happen. Bush never claimed that foreign terror attacks had been stopped.

What was stopped, of course, was foreign terror attacks on the scale of 9/11, or anything close to the scale of 9/11, within the United States. That is an important claim by Bush, and an accurate one.

Whether or not the terrorist attacks actually stopped does not bear upon whether Bush claimed they had stopped. The resolution states that he claimed that they stopped, which is what Pro must prove.

So far, Pro has presented no evidence. He bears the burden of proof and has done nothing.
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate, despite my absolutely Mike Moore-esque claim. I will be rational from here on out.

Now, by Human rights, I mean natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and the bill of rights (more specifically, the first, fifth, sixth, and eighth). Granted, some rights are fairly suspended whilst in prison, but some are unalienable.

Natural rights: people's ability to have all three (or at least the latter two) have been stripped without the fair process of trial.

First amendment: If it doesn't make you suspicious that every one of the detainees at Gitmo are Muslim (1), it should. That is disgustingly close to infringing upon the freedom of religion. Although it is technically for prisoners of war, not all of the detainees had ties to the war, or even lived in the countries of choice (2).

Fifth amendment: While not actually violated, it has been stretched to the limit based on the clause about war. However, the Bush administration has found a way to be able to link almost anyone to the war. Also, it's hard to plead the fifth whilst being water boarded.

Eighth amendment: Bush vetoed a Waterboarding ban (3). Waterboarding is torture. It does not simulate the feeling of drowning. It is basically controlled drowning. Call it what you want, but if waterbording isn't torture, what is? And, I do believe that torture is illegal, because of the freedom from cruel or unusual punishment.

"Secondly, Pro must prove that Bush claimed that "it", i.e. human rights violations, stopped foreign terror attacks. A verified quotation from Bush stating "My violation of human rights stopped foreign terror attacks." would establish the point."

Very well. I hope you trust the British.

About Gitmo, "And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardise the safety of the American people" (4). that is a fancy way of saying, "If we let these guys go, America is in danger of being attacked again."

"What was stopped, of course, was foreign terror attacks on the scale of 9/11, or anything close to the scale of 9/11, within the United States. That is an important claim by Bush, and an accurate one."
I can't deny that. However, as I said, in 225 years, we never had one. Why is it so amazing that he prevented them for eight, when really, in his term, there have been more foreign terrorist attacks than any other president.

Although I could not find a direct Bush quote, although I'm sure there is one, here is former press secretary Ari Fleischer's take on it, "He has kept us safe. We have not been hit since 2001. That's a monumental accomplishment" (5). He, if anyone knows the president well, and unlike the heroic press secretary, "Scotty" McClellan, he has kept his views and allegiances in the same place, and although he was not press secretary at the time, he still very much represented the president's views. I would still take any of his press secretaries (except Scotty and obviously Tony Snow) as the word of the former president.

I look forward to rounds 2 and 3, and now that we have evidence, we can now move on to the resolution.

(1) http://www.globalsecurity.org...
(2) http://www.time.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(5) http://www.usnews.com...
RoyLatham

Con

Pro argues that because all the detainees at GITMO are Muslim, that is proof of discrimination on grounds of religion. Since Islamic terrorists are bound by a religious concept of jihad, it's clear that it was religion that distinguished them as terrorists, not selection by Bush. I would be equally errant to claim that because Nazi war criminals were German it proved they were being discriminated against on grounds of national origin.

Throughout, it is difficult to find what it is in Pro's references that he is citing in claimed support of his arguments. His ref (1) says that detainees are accommodated in their religious practices, in contradiction of his contention that they are discriminated against. I find no reference that all are Muslim, although I don't doubt they are, since that's what it takes to be a jihadist.

Ref (2) doesn't establish that there are detainees not tied to the war. Their country of origin is irrelevant. In WWII, the Supreme court held that overseas training as an enemy combatant constituted de facto renunciation of U.S. citizenship. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro concedes that Fifth amendment rights were not violated.

Waterboarding is harsh interrogation. It is not torture because, if performed properly by trained personnel it causes no permanent mental or physical harm. Journalists volunteer to try it (Christopher Hitches account at http://www.vanityfair.com...). The CIA and the special ops subjects their own operatives to waterboarding for training. One of the U.S. generals in Iraq was subjected to water boarding as a fraternity initiation "prank" at Virginia Military Institute. In none of these occasions is waterboarding claimed to be torture, nor is the Eighth Amendment invoked. It is only claimed to be torture when American lives are saved due to the CIA using it to extract information from terrorists.

Water boarding is only authorized for use by CIA, who used it only three times. http://blogs.abcnews.com... It is and always has been illegal for use by the military, including special ops. When properly used by CIA agents trained for its use, it is a simulation of drowning. The face is covered by plastic or cloth so no water is ingested, the person is tilted backwards, and water is poured over the persons face.

However, I grant that many people think waterboarding is torture. If it is deemed torture, it is nonetheless not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual *punishment.* The three times it was used, it was not used as punishment. It was used to extract information. As such, it is a reasonable tradeoff of whatever rights the detainees have to saving the lives of dozens or hundreds of civilians. One of the plots uncovered was that of blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, which experts judged had a good chance of working had it not been foiled. If Pro believes there is an absolute right to prisoner comfort that is always superior to the rights of any number civilian lives, then a challenge Pro to assert that.

Famed liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz has made the case for torture as a reasonable tradeoff in in "ticking time bomb" cases. http://edition.cnn.com... How would Pro resolve ticking time bomb cases?

Pro asserts that the statement by the Administration (in his ref 4) that "I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court." amounts to claiming that human rights will be violated. Is Pro arguing that the Supreme Court allows violation of human rights? That makes no sense. Pro's reference goes on to make clear that the Administration intended to work with Congress to devise a military tribunal process that conformed to the Court's dictates. Congress voted such a process, which the President signed. This cannot be interpreted as a pledge to violate human rights.

Pro concedes that foreign terror attacks on the US on the scale of 9/11 were stopped. He goes on to say "in 225 years, we never had one. Why is it so amazing that he prevented them for eight, ..." Similarly, there had been no attacks by dive bombers on a Navy base in the US for the 200 years prior to Pearl Harbor, so by Pro's logic it should be considered unremarkable that FDR prevented further such attacks, especially considering that during the FDR administration there were an unprecedented number of attacks by foreign aircraft worldwide. By Pro's argument, FDR did no more in WWII than Bush did in the war against terrorism. Pro's argument is nonsensical. The pattern of war is that there is an attack followed by hostilities and a defense of the homeland.

Summary

The resolution claims that Bush (1) violated human rights and (2) claimed that it [e.g. violation of human rights] stopped foreign terror attacks.

In support of (1) Pro claimed a first amendment violation on the grounds that imprisoned Islamic terrorists were all Muslim, and therefore victims of religious discrimination. Clearly, it's not Bush's fault that jihadists are Muslim. He concedes there was no Fifth Amendment violation. He claims that waterboarding violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against "cruel or unusual punishment," but waterboarding was never used as punishment. Waterboarding, causing temporary stress of the terrorist, is a reasonable tradeoff of the rights of terrorist versus the lives of hundreds of civilians. Pro's definition of human rights did not equate Constitutional rights with human rights. In the case of the Eighth Amendment, what is "cruel or unusual" by US standards does not equate to human rights. Jihadists, for example, believe there is no violation of human rights in cutting off the heads of civilians on television. Why shouldn't Jihadist standards of human rights be applied to jihadists?

Pro has presented no evidence in support of (2). Bush claimed he would both obey the Supreme court and keep Americans safe. That is not a claim that a violation of human rights would prevent terrorist attacks. Pro has provided no evidence that Bush thought he was violating human rights, so it follows that Bush would not claim to be violating them.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Since Islamic terrorists are bound by a religious concept of jihad, it's clear that it was religion that distinguished them as terrorists, not selection by Bush. I would be equally errant to claim that because Nazi war criminals were German it proved they were being discriminated against on grounds of national origin."
You are technically correct, but it must be noted that there are "Jihadist" practiced in other religions as well. The Christians had nine huge ones (the crusades), Nazis (as you noted) and neonazis were Jihadists. The KKK? Jihadists. Skinheads? Yup. And how about the Jews? Hanukkah? The celebration of the MaccaJihad. My point is, we can lock up Jihadists, but we have to be equal opportunity about it.

"His ref (1) says that detainees are accommodated in their religious practices, in contradiction of his contention that they are discriminated against. "
They are discriminated in the fact that it is a concentration camp, not that they weren't allowed to practice their religion.

"I find no reference that all are Muslim, although I don't doubt they are, since that's what it takes to be a jihadist."
It says something about how every new prisoner is issued a Qu'ran.

"Ref (2) doesn't establish that there are detainees not tied to the war."
The issue, though is that they don't know, because they never had a fair trial.

"Pro concedes that Fifth amendment rights were not violated."
In the most literal of terms, that is correct. However, it really is open to interpretation as to whether it violates (or skims on) the fifth amendment.

"It is not torture because, if performed properly by trained personnel it causes no permanent mental or physical harm."
I'm sorry? Where did you get your definition? Let's ask our old friend, Mr. Webster.
Torture (1); n
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date:
1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Torture (2); transitive verb
1 : to cause intense suffering to : torment
2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : distort , warp

Where do you see anything about lasting damage?

Also, thank you for that link. I found it very interesting. Especially because it proves my point about waterboarding. Almost down to the letter. Here is the quote from the passage, "Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture." Here is my quote, "Call it what you want, but if waterboarding isn't torture, what is?" So, you seem to have inadvertently proven my point. Thank you for that.

And, speaking of that definition of torture that we were disputing, it doesn't even really matter. Here's what you said, " It is not torture because, if performed properly by trained personnel it causes no permanent mental or physical harm." This is in the article you referenced, "'Water boarding' is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body."

But what blew my mind was the title of the article that you referenced in order to persuade me that waterboarding was torture. The title of the article was, "Believe Me, It's Torture."

Bet you didn't think your own reference would backfire so much, huh...

"If it is deemed torture, it is nonetheless not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual *punishment.* The three times it was used, it was not used as punishment. It was used to extract information."
That makes perfect sense. I'll concede that torture might not violate the 8th amendment. Doesn't make it any less illegal, though. How about the U.N. "Universal declaration of Human Rights?" Try article 5 of that. And while you're at it, try articles 9, 10, and 11.1.
If you don't like that, it's also illegal under the Geneva convention.
So, even if the 8th amendment doesn't specifically prohibit torture in that sense, torture is illegal, and WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE.

"It was used to extract information. As such, it is a reasonable tradeoff of whatever rights the detainees have to saving the lives of dozens or hundreds of civilians."
Polygraphs are just as effective as torture, if not more. Although terrorists are said to train to beat the polygraph, they are also trained to lie under torture.

Although the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act of 2001 does violate the 4th amendment, and it should be repealed, they could get a warrant to tap the phone calls of suspected terrorists, and then bring them in for further polygraph tests if they seem suspicious. But torture is primitive, inhumane, and illegal.

And as Mr. Dershowitz didn't seem to understand, the fact that torture happens doesn't make it any less illegal.

"Pro asserts that the statement by the Administration (in his ref 4) that 'I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.' amounts to claiming that human rights will be violated."
Reread what I said.

"Similarly, there had been no attacks by dive bombers on a Navy base in the US for the 200 years prior to Pearl Harbor, so by Pro's logic it should be considered unremarkable that FDR prevented further such attacks, especially considering that during the FDR administration there were an unprecedented number of attacks by foreign aircraft worldwide."
You are correct. There is no evidence that FDR prevented anything. The reason that he was such a great president was that he fixed the economy and he LED us very strongly through WWII. The fact that we only got attacked once is irrelevant.

"By Pro's argument, FDR did no more in WWII than Bush did in the war against terrorism. "
So, by your logic, the ONLY part of war is preventing attacks on the homeland. That is a part, yes, but we made progress in WWII. But, that's a different debate, and if I go into that, I will undoubtedly run out of room.

As it happened, George W. Bush vetoed the ban on waterboarding, thereby allowing what most agree is torture. Torture is undoubtedly illegal. That is a huge human rights violation. If he was a CEO of a company which was found out to do something half as bad, he would have been kindly asked to step down. As president, he was protected by the second and third in command, who were just as bad, or worse.

On his second day as president, Barack Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay federal detention camp. that was a giant leap in the right direction, and we will see how that turns out. All of the detainees will be put on trial. I have no doubt that some will be found innocent. Some will be found guilty. They will go to a prison where they are treated like prisoners, not dirt.

" Pro has provided no evidence that Bush thought he was violating human rights, so it follows that Bush would not claim to be violating them."
When did I ever say that he admitted to violating human rights? No one, not even George W. Bush would do that.

I would like to thank my opponent for a most excellent debate. I honestly don't have any idea of who will come out with the most votes, because we both argued quite well (although you might want to check your sources before posting them =-]). So, thank you for accepting this debate, and may the better man win! (and I almost used up all of my characters!)
RoyLatham

Con

Pro seems to concede the point that there was no religious discrimination practiced by the Bush Administration at GITMO. Pro makes the irrelevant comment that there are other jihadist groups. Sure, so what? I'll bet that all of the KKK members locked up were white. Would Pro then conclude there was racial discrimination against whites? It's nonsense.

Pro says, "we can lock up jihadists, but we have to be equal opportunity about it." There is no presidential responsibility to go around the world finding jihadists and locking them up. The President's obligation is to protect the United States, so his job is to lock up the one's that are at war with the U.S. Pro offered no evidence that the Administration ignored other anti-American jihadists in favor of locking up Muslims. Moreover, if there were such cases, Pro would have to show that the preference was based upon religion, not upon practical or legitimate policy considerations.

Pro claims "They are discriminated in the fact that it is a concentration camp, not that they weren't allowed to practice their religion." Those assertions are completely false and Pro has not provided any evidence of either.

"Each detainee is provided with a copy of the Koran, prayer rug and beads, skullcap and oils-and the chance to use them five times daily during calls to prayer. Black arrows pointing east to Mecca are painted everywhere, even in hospital and interrogation rooms. There's no mystery about what the detainees pray for: They readily admit they implore Allah to cause the slow painful death of their captors and the annihilation of Israel and America." http://findarticles.com...

Incidentally, if every detainee were issued a Bible, that wouldn't make them all Christian. It does show, however, that great care was taken to facilitate Muslim religious practices.

Pro says: "On his second day as president, Barack Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay federal detention camp. ... They will go to a prison where they are treated like prisoners, not dirt."

The detainees are the scum of the earth, but are nonetheless treated extremely well. This has been verified by direct Congressional investigation.

" 'Troops who come through here feel like they're getting slugged in the chest when they should get patted on the back,' said Crouterfield, who acknowledged he wouldn't flinch at the death penalty for some prisoners here. '"But they have to come back to work every day and treat the Quran with respect and make sure the detainees' needs are met.' "

Descriptions of detainees hurling cocktails of feces and urine at guards, or spitting on them, were volunteered during almost every interview with military officials. The method is to "save up" human waste in Styrofoam food containers and launch them at opportune moments, they said. ..."
http://www.snopes.com...

Pro concedes he has no evidence that persons unrelated to the war were detained. He has the affirmative burden of proof. Note, for example, that in WWII about 500,000 Axis prisoners were detained in the U.S. without trials. I agree that the supreme Court decision requiring military tribunals to better classify prisoners was correct, and Bush and the Congress responded correctly by implementing such a system. It is absurd to demand trials; that would imply collecting forensic evidence on the battlefield, revealing classified sources, removing troops from combat to testify, and imposing an intolerable burden on the Courts. Does Pro contend that all 500,000 WWII prisoners should have been afforded trials?

Pro wants to argue the meaning of the word "torture." The dictionary definition is not a legal definition. It includes "torment." That is a basis for claiming, for example, that playing loud music outside Noriega's sanctuary was "torture." What we need is not the dictionary definition, but a legal definition. I proposed one in terms of permanent harm. However, the Bush Administration sought and obtained a legal definition of torture from the Justice Department that definition excluded water boarding. I acknowledged that many people, including Hitchens, think waterboarding is torture. That is also not relevant to the legal definition, just as many people have definitions of "insanity" that do not bear upon the legal definition. Congress can pass a law making the legal definition of torture anything it wishes. At the time Bush authorized waterboarding there was no legal definition excluding it.

Pro concedes that waterboarding is not illegal under the Eighth Amendment, but then points to the Geneva Conventions as grounds for it being illegal. The Geneva conventions only apply to countries who have both signed the treaty and live up to the standards of the treaty. Terrorists have not signed nor do they live up to the standards, so it doesn't apply. Those who want to protect terrorists use a clause designed to protect innocent bystanders in a war and apply it to the terrorists who are the instigators. That's nonsense.

However, the topic of this debate is not legality it is human rights violation. The acute question is whether it is a violation of human rights to extract information that saves lives. this is the "ticking time bomb" problem. Pro refused to address the problem, because he knows that he cannot provide a satisfactory answer. Instead he implies that human rights are maximized by following the law, no matter how disastrous the consequences. Pro claims a high moral position, but when put to the test he won't address the issue.

Pro claims that polygraph tests are as effective as waterboarding. Polygraph tests are ineffective and not even allowed in court, so the notion of effectiveness is unproved and false. Beyond that, there is no way to use a polygraph to discover unknown plots. To discover the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, interrogators whould have to ask if there was such a plot and the terrorist would have to voluntarily answer. I'll let Pro try to explain how a theoretically perfect polygraph would get the nature of the plot and the names of the perpetrators.

Pro concedes that FDR did no more in WWII than Bush did in the war against terror. Surprise attacks against U.S. Navy bases were as unprecedented as WTC attacks. Both Presidents prevented further such attacks while there were worldwide hostilities. Pro says that the debate is not about WWII. That's true, it is about Pro's logic. If Bush deserves no credit, then the same logic means that FDR deserves no credit.

Pro says: "When did I ever say that he admitted to violating human rights? No one, not even George W. Bush would do that." You said it in the resolution, which I analyzed in the first round. The resolution says "George W. Bush violated Human rights, and claimed it stopped Foreign Terror attacks, which it didn't." So did Bush claim that violating rights stopped terror attacks? No, he did not. Pro has provided no evidence that Bush claimed he stopped terror attacks, nor that violation of human rights was the mechanism for stopping terror attacks. Bush did claim he stopped further large-scale terrorist attacks against the U.S., and that claim is valid.

Pro contended that the Bill of Rights embodies human rights. That's not a bad starting point. Thus far, Pro has conceded Bush did not violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Pro has nearly conceded that there were no violations of the Fist Amendment. On that we await evidence supporting his new argument that even though detainees at GITMO were each given Korans, they were nonetheless prevented from practicing their religion. Pros broad claims about GITMO being a "concentration camp" are absurdly false.

In the last round I asked Pro some pointed questions: How would Pro resolve ticking time bomb cases? Is Pro arguing that the Supreme Court allows violation of human rights? We await his answers.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
I might later on, but I'm planning on taking a short hiatus from debates after I finish the two that I'm on...
I haven't had much time lately, so I need a break...
But, I will keep that in the back of my mind for later.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Abard, Would you like to debate "GITMO is a concentration camp like Auschwitz."? Then you can present all your evidence in affirming the resolution. Send me a challenge.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Radical, you really are radical....
Bush was horrible.
Obama's economy was going down from Bush momentum, and it's going up right now. I'm no economist, but I think it hit bottom, and we're in recovery.
Now, Obama has been president for a few months, and he already closed Auschwitz--I mean Gitmo.
Besides that, your point was completely irrelevant and pointless, especially saying that to a liberal democrat, such as myself.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Radical, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.

Also, waterboarding IS UNEQUIVOCALLY torture. People may try to put it into any other light that they would be like, but it is torture plain and simple. If you don't believe it, then give it a go for youself. And I mean be the one to be waterboarded, not administering said torture method.
Posted by radical 7 years ago
radical
All you people say that bush was the worse president but now look at your president
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
And I said assumption, because that is not necessarily what I believe, but for the sake of this argument, that is what we ASSUMED.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
There is a difference between foreign terrorists and domestic terrorists. Because frankly, the DHS isn't going to do much to prevent a domestic terrorist attack.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"225 years, and we had never been subject to a foreign terrorist attack."
False... I belivewe were attacked a few times during the Clinton era...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"the assumption that it was not known about beforehand and was not an inside job"

Assumption or fact? Your radical opinion only makes me believe your arguments less...
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
abard, Note that, predictably, you avoid answering the ticking time bomb problem and avoid confronting the issue of whose human rights take precedence. The way to tell if there really is a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge or to ambush soldiers or whatever is to go there and see if it is true. Waterboarding was used three times by the CIA, and two of the three times it led to saving lives by uncovering plots that were verified as true.

There is no need to ever use anything more harsh than waterboarding, because waterboarding works. There should be safeguards against abuse. It should only be allowed to be used by CIA agents (or other spooks), not the military, and only when authorized by the President or by a supervising judge.

You are, apparently, comfortable letting hundreds die on the grounds that you think a UN resolution forbids waterboarding. I think that is a cop out that avoids the moral issue. I think there is a moral obligation to uncover terrorist plots and protect innocent people, and that obligation is greater that the right of terrorists to avoid the temporary discomfort of waterboarding. If terrorists change their policies and honor the Geneva conventions, then we should afford then those protections. Of course, if they do that, they won't be terrorists.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by falafel 7 years ago
falafel
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 7 years ago
cooljpk
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
abard124RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07