Bush Admits He Personally Authorized Waterboarding!

No. He did what it took to save american lives. Is water boarding nice? Is it good? No. But then 9/11 was not nice either. Neither would it be if it happened again. He had to make some hard decisions (that is what he is paid for) and in the end he decided to do what it took to protect us. What would the citizens of this country think of Bush if we had another attack here on our soil, and then we found out we had in our captivity terrorists who could have given us information to save those lives but we didn't do anything to make them talk? Everyone would be screaming for his head that is what would have happened. What is more important? The terrorist that wants to kill us or the innocent people that their only mistake was getting on a plane or going to work that day. It is not a easy decision, there is no good decision. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I do not think he should be accused of war crimes. I have absolutely no problem with torture tactics to save American lives. These people had no compunction about taking American lives so if they have information that could be helpful to us in protecting lives then I say get the them to divulge that information by ANY means possible.

Trying to find a modern definition of Torture is an interesting exercise. It seems that people have fun with the intellectual game of defining torture. In one article an example of Torture was searing some one with a hot rod. However if A had B restrained and A seared B intentionally then it was torture, but if A accidentally seared B then it is not torture. If B consented to A searing it was not torture. If B did not consent but had the means to object or resist it was not torture but if B objected but did not resist it was not torture. By some definitions having a woman question an Arab Man would be torture because he is being forced to endure something that is mentally distressing. Torture used to be any action that was physically damaging a persons being and causing great bodily pain. What is happening is that we are defining torture after the fact and citing some obscure document to prove the point. If you look at the Geneva Convention it defines POW, enemy combatants, and Illegal enemy combatants, yet some choose to consider anyone fighting against the US as a POW ignoring the definition in the Geneva Convention. Take for example the people being held at Gitmo. According to the UN Convention on Torture we can not send any of those people to a country that might endanger their life. According to the Geneva Convention we can not detain POW beyond the end of the war (as defined by a signed peace treaty) then we have to return them to their country of origin. Which do we follow? I do not believe that President Bush authorized torturing prisoners but he did authorize the use of extreme interrogation methods based upon conventional practices at the time, not by the future definition. PS Annie please do not torture me by making me wait too long and causing me undue mental stress in anticipation of a future negative event. (Defined by some as torture)

I think he should, but I really don't think Obama will do anything about it. He's said several times that we need to "look forward". The way I see it, though, is how can we look forward until we've dealt with the past? We don't want to just ignore it, and leave it where a future president can do the same, and say it was legal because Bush did it.

President-Elect Obama has already done a wonderful thing, which will help me get over the feelings I've had in the last 8 or so years, of being ashamed of America. He absolutely forbids torture in our country or by anyone representing our country, such as soldiers and guards. Finally!

Again we are in GitMo, the Government knew exactly what they were doing and what "torture" we were allowing. As in one of my earlier post to you, I am attending a lot of the things going on right now in NYC. Yes the ACLU wishes to bring him up on "war crimes" but I am not sure that will happen. The UN is talking about it and well needless to say those tactics that were used are not supported by that silly little paper from the Geneva Convention. It's ok though, remember Cheney got away with legally shooting someone too... Ainge

So what? Do you know what "waterboarding" is? It's used to train some of our very own elite troups, for heaven's sake. War crime?? You're stretching pretty far there.

I don't think he will be accused of war crimes and if the statements made on here regarding "waterboarding" are true, he probably shouldn't be. Still, I have to admit that the whole idea of torturing prisoners of war is disturbing to me. When did we get to be the bad guys? We're supposed to be the ones who act against torture. I'm very happy that Obama plans to close Gitmo.

This isn't really anything new. I knew this a while ago. Either way, waterboarding = torture? I still think it's a stretch.

Hi annie, Bush may be accused of war crimes, but nothing will ever come of it. I'm sure a lot of our foreign friends are upset about it though. I think everyone knows that Cheney, Bush and Rummy were aware of what was happening and probably put their stamp on it.