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

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.