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

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.