What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
149 Comments
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+152more reasons to hate bill o'reilly. if anything McCain's point of view should be MORE important since he's probably one of the only people in this government that has undergone extensive torture.
***** bill - igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -4/+65What a load of crap from FOX.
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55I second what Whisky said.
He has first hand experience therefore he should be listened to more. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39FTA: "O’REILLY: I’m saying to you, Senator McCain, the north Vietnamese were signatories to the Geneva Convention. OK? They broke your leg. They brutalized you and all of the other POWs at the Hanoi Hilton. They didn’t give a fig about the Geneva Convention. So how can you possibly put up an ideal that if we bend over backwards for terrorists, not soldiers, terrorists, that we’re going to get anything back? It doesn’t make any sense."
Well, Mr. O'Reilly, we choose to do the right thing because it is the right thing. If you only do the right thing because it advantageous, you're not doing the right thing at all. Not every action that we take as people need to be, nor should be advantageous to us in some way. Horrible corporations have this mentality, like the RIAA, and that's why EVERYONE, save for the people who are getting paid by them, hate them. If we continue to lower ourselves to their level, it will no longer be a battle between good and evil, or between free people and terrorism -- it'll be a battle of religions and of greed. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41I can't believe this. I'm simply shocked. I go to CNN today, and it talks about how McCain's '08 race could be threatened by his vocal opposition of Bush's pleas to 'narrow' the meanings of the Geneva cnventions. Now I come on digg and FOX News says to ignore his views on following the Geneva conventions because he's been traumatized.
...Is the WHOLE COUNTRY in support of following the Geneva conventions only as we see fit, and only to the most minute degree possible? I congratulated McCain for his passionate views on continuing to follow the Geneva conventions. But then I come online and see that the entire country, save for us internet folk who want freedom, is supporting president Bush's desire to essentially only follow the Geneva conventions enough so as not to get in trouble with the UN!
What the hell is our country coming to? I know that the Bush administration would like to follow the Geneva conventions as loosely as possible, but the citizens are for it, too?! Add this to the fact that the vast majority of American's didn't even -care- that their phones were being tapped, and here we are perhaps the only country in the world that essentially wants an evil, powerful government that will take away our freedoms without any consequences. - jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Regardless of anyones opinion, the US must follow international laws. Do anything other then this is just disgracing America
- dbloodnok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36theblooms:
That's what we're told goes on at Gitmo. Dont forget about all the other secret CIA prisons, let alone what came out in Abu Ghraib. We keep hearing about the soft, fluffy, New Age torture in Gitmo, but we have no idea what really goes on there or in other US-run places around the world.
Once the US legalises torture-lite, then it's an easy task to gradually progress down to more extreme forms of interrogation.
Things to remember are:
- The US cannot hold the moral high ground on Freedom, Democracy etc, unless it practises what it preaches.
- People under torture will confess to anything you want them to. It's great if you want to hold someone up in front of everyone and say "They admitted to planning a terrorist attack!", but not good for getting real evidence about anything.
- They might be toturing terrorist suspects now, but what happens if that extends to "domestic terrorists", rioters, anti-government protestors, subversive journalists, suspicious-looking people? - topher1078, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28My views are relatively conservative, and I can't believe there is even a debate about this. There is NO QUESTION that we should be adhering to every single facet of the Geneva Convention. Who cares if the terrorists will still treat us improperly; the US will not only maintain the high moral ground but will maintain and improve our standing worldwide.
- loggia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29The people who listen to and believe this stuff are absolutely are unable to answer the following question:
"What are we fighting to protect, if not the higher ideals that our country is founded upon? What do you think the American way of life is? Since when do we base our morals or ethics on the behavior of others? Do you believe we should base our behavior on that of terrorists?"
They cannot and will not answer the question, possibly because Bill O'Reilly hasn't given them the answer. They will keep repeating their talking points over-and-over.
Sadly, there are a lot of people in this country who want to be told what and how to think and that's O'Reilly's audience. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Wow, he must have some GIGANTIC cojones to say that about McCain. I hope D'Amato and O'Reilly get their anus (yes, not plural) punched in by "Mr. Traumatized-POW."
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27There's no low these people won't stoop to.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25What an *****. It's the people who have experienced War who know the most.
- malonie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18one of the reason why fox rating is down
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I said this in the last McCain digg, but I'll say it again:
I really feel like we're starting to sink their level and become exactly like our enemies--our current Executive administration has decided that the end justifies the means. We've given up our democratic ideals in exchange for an illusion of security. Bully for McCain for being the only one with the guts to say what everyone already knows.
So McCain is 'crazy' for being against torture? It's okay for us to torture because the enemy is doing it? What kind of Americans are we turning into? We fought a ***** revolution over this 230 years ago; we demanded the right of habeus corpus, the rule of law, due process, no unwarranted searches and seizures, no cruel or unusual punishment, and we abandon that because our enemies have abandoned it?
What makes us Americans is more than our geographical location. It's our values, and abandoning them to fight the war or terror cheapens the value of being a US citizen. - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@TheBlooms
The term "soldier" is being used as excuse to void the Geneva conventions. A new term, "enemy combatant", is being used and therefore the Geneva conventions have been obsoleted by Rumsfeld.
When he gets behind the mic and says "ofcourse every captured soldier is being treated with accordance to the Geneva conventions, he is actually telling the truth. Since there are no 'soldiers' in this war, only 'enemy combatants'."
Somewhere in the details, a mental midget like yourself got lost. It's okay. - diggmaddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"The American haters are still going to hate us!". It's this point of view that has ignited all the hatred that Americans have today.
Give respect, get respect. Give hatred, get hatred. It's as simple as that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12O'Reilly and D'Amato are both douchebags.
Im ashamed D'Amata is from my state. - MacBastard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Of course combat veterans don't know anything about how war should be waged.
And if you believe that one, here's some more!
War is Peace
Love is Hate
Lies are Truth
Brought to you by Jingo, the Super-Patriotic Chicken. - easy4lif, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13if we torture bill oreily do you think he'd want his rights observed?
Also, ***** bill. hes the world bigest idiot - Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12We should send that ****er to war and see what he says afterwards... but of course we can disregard anything he says because he'll probably be too traumatized to make sense.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I was a victim of the edit screen.
@ TheBloom:
If you're going to argue on a lame technically like "enemy combatant vs. soldier" or "what the definition of is, is" then you've pretty much lost. If this is a "War" on terrorism, then there are soldiers that get killed and imprisoned. Whether they have nice shiney uniforms is an archaic and trivial non-issue. I think any reasonable person would understand this.
If you're a Bush fanboi, i apologize for hurting your e-feelings. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11*****. Every decision we make on the basis of arguments like "we don't have to" instead of our moral compass is a further step down into an ethical *****-hole.
- jerowsm47, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12FOX cannot get its snorkel above the sewage. Anyone who listens and believes this tripe deserves to remain ignorant. There is an awakening happening and soon FOX won't even be able to sell ad space to Rush Limpbough.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I could think of MANY reasons to ignore McCain, but Fox are about ***** retarded for airing that.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You know, it's real simple: if you believe torture is acceptable, you are evil. That's all there is. We're lucky to have such a simple means of determining who is evil. Bear in mind that if you support evil, you are evil as well, so when you vote, don't vote evil, or Jesus won't let you into his clubhouse in the sky.
- djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13this is the most ludacris thing i've ever heard. bill oreilly is such and awful person.
- scottelloco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yes, of course Bill O'Reilly should be horse-whipped and tormented by vicious, rabid dogs...
But it was D'Amato who made the remark:
D’AMATO: Well, Bill, I give John McCain a pass on this only because I think he was so traumatized by the events that took place, that he doesn’t even really want to or is in a position to consider the impact of what his restrictions would do. And they are not going to make us look any morally better. - Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9*sigh*
Looks like the bushbots are digging comments down again. Next they will mark the story as inaccurate. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's not an either/or situation. And even if I believed that torture was okay, that belief would be tempered by the fact that torture doesn't produce reliable information.
No, I wouldn't let the 100,000 innocents die. But neither would I torture 99,900 innocents just so I can get quasi-reliable information out of maybe 100 or so genuine terrorists. The end simply does not justify the means.
No offense, but this is one instance where I take great pride in feeling morally 'superior' to your viewpoint. There's nothing condescending about being against torture. That we consider it at all is a testament to how low we've sunk and how far from our beloved American values we have strayed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's at times like these that I literally WEEP for the future of my country. How can my fellow Americans be so naïve?
How can they not see the hypocrisy of using TORTURE to fight TERRORISM?
How can they believe that the terrorists attacked us because of our freedoms and yet not understand that giving up our freedoms for a false sense of security is like congratulating those same terrorists on a job well done?
How do they forget our government's transgressions so quickly? Look at the spike in the polls because of lower gas prices. Are the sheep THAT easy to control?
Why do the people making the laws in our country not have the decency to READ THE ***** LEGISLATION before voting on it?
Why do they care so much about what other people do with their lives... even if their actions aren't harming anyone?
Why does our country waste time arresting people for possession of a drug like marijuana so often that it outnumber all violent crimes put together... even though it's safer than alcohol/tobacco, less addictive, has numerous medical benefits, results in much less crime/violence than alcohol, has non-narcotic variations with tons of commercial uses, and would generate tax money (not to mention the savings from cutting back on the War on Drugs)?
How do they not see our nation's decline? We are now fulfilling ALL of the fourteen defining characteristics of facism. Am I in some kind of nightmare? Please, let me wake up tomorrow to find that this was all in my head... - gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm sorry-does saying that torture is illegal and against what Americans stand for reactionary?
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Torturing people because it's "less evil" is not a serious position.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11No, they essentially said to ignore him. It's like saying "let the kid throw feces at the wall because he doesn't know any better."
- grazny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Jon Stewart has said these words in one of his shows:
"Can a prophylactic protect FOX News from anything it may contract during it's extensive GOP c**ks*cking?" Ohh sweet words of truth... - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Bill O'Reilly is insane -- plain and simple.
When you read his editorials you will see how he paints a simple image of the world with three factions. Here is a summary of the world of O'Reilly.
There are the evil forces of Islam that exist in the middle east. They hate the American way of life,and want to see all of the US ruled by Islam. In every major city, there are dozens of Islamic terrorists that want to hurt Americans, and they are waiting for orders from Bin-Laden to strike.
Defending against this evil are the neo-cons, and they are the saviors of America. These guardians of freedom only ask that you give up some of your rights -- its to protect against those evil terrorists. Preemptive wars are needed to stop the terrorist threat, and torture is acceptable as the evil Muslims are not really humans.
To make the neo-cons job even harder, there are these bleeding Liberals that are just helping the terrorists with concepts such as "Human Rights" and "Environmental Concerns". These liberals keep talking about "US Foreign Policy" like it's a bad thing. When will they 'get it', and realize that war is the only solution for peace? - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Jchavarria: It's not an either/or situation. Most terrorists with designs on attacking the US aren't from Afghanistan or Iraq or even Iran--they're from nations we're allies with like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Britain. Torturing Afghanis and Iraqis does nothing.
And we wouldn't need to be torturing people to get the dirt on Al-qaeda in Iraq if we hadn't gone there in the first place. Saddam was a ***** turd, but the evidence is clear that he had nothing to do with global terrorism. - Pancake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14wow. just... wow. i cant think of a logical rebuttal. im too pissed off at that comment to think straight.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8>>> "Sorry to disagree with you... these people are civilians,"
If you fight and kill people for a belief, you're a soldier.
>>> "SOLDIERS dont drive cars or buses into a square and kill 20 to a 100 civilians."
They don't? They launch missiles into them, right? Before missiles existed, knights launched the putrescent corpses of livestock over a besieged castle walls, hoping to spread disease to *everyone* inside. Were knights not soldiers? We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- did the entire US military system, from Truman on down to the pilot of the Enola Gay, suddenly stop being soldiers?
No. Who you kill does not define whether or not you are a soldier. Your role in combat defines that.
>>> "Even the Japanese Kamakazi pilots only attacked military targets."
They couldn't ***** reach anyone else, dumbass. Those planes didn't have very much range. And keep in mind that the Japanese *did* attack civilian targets. Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? Or those "balloon bombs" that landed on our west coast during the war? Or the Nazis launching a few little bang-bangs over the English Channel? Guess what -- the people who did all that ***** didn't magically become civilians. They were soldiers.
>>> "From the Geneva Convention: "Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets." Does a suicide bomb in a public square look like military target? The individuals are not Combatants and are not protected by the GC."
No, you are looking at this in a completely retarded way. These are rules for civilized behavior in war (heh), not rules for judging whether the guy with an AK-47 is a soldier or simply a malevolent citizen. Do you honestly think that soldiers stormed out of the trenches, charged the ramparts, and pulled out their guidebooks and said "I wonder if these people are civilians, or if they're ranked and decorated soldiers having taken officially-sworn oaths to protect their homelands from the Capitalist Running Dogs?" No, dumbass -- those ***** shooting at you are SOLDIERS.
>>> "The Geneva Convention specifically states: "However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections.""
You are arguing from the letter of the Geneva Convention, rather than the spirit. One hundred and forty years ago, a few little states told some other states "***** off and mind your own business" and formed their own country. The USA refused to recognize their legitimacy as a country, and thus would not recognize their army's legitimacy. As far as the Union army was concerned, the Confederate army was nothing more than a militia -- a group of unregulated, unordained, armed civilians.
But today, we know different. Not only was the Confederate army an Honest-to-$DEITY army, but it kicked the ***** out of the Union army a decent number of times. No one who has survived 5th Grade social studies would travel back in time and see that war any different than what it was -- a brutal and deadly conflict between two armies, one of which did not believe in the legitimacy of the other's existence, and the other of which did not believe in the legitimacy of the other's actions.
It's all subjective, perhaps -- but these are not villagers or schoolteachers who decide to do a little lootin' and raping. These are fanatical, highly-trained, dedicated, and somewhat well-equipped men communicating and operating in concert with definite plans for battle, for war, and for victory. That makes them soldiers, and that makes their side an army.
>>> "You tell me... are they soldiers? No way in hell. These people should be tried in a penal court and pay for their crimes."
And they'll cheerfully do so, proving their soldier nature -- laying their lives on the line for what they believe in, and holding up to torture as best they can. Feel free to debate that they are civilians until the cows come home, but consider that they are very much an army, in their estimation and widely-held opinions in the Middle East. Torturing them is not a good policy. Respecting them and maintaining the moral upper ground is the way to defeat them. Keep in mind that the civil rights movement in the US was largely a success because dumbass white guys kept beating up innocent black people on national TV. Not a good policy. - spiffyfitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"We should send that ****er to war and see what he says afterwards... but of course we can disregard anything he says because he'll probably be too traumatized to make sense."
We can disregard anything he says now, he doesn't make much sense in the first place. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"but I'd like to think we do something short of causing serious harm"
I bet that makes you feel good inside. Just because most people in this forum disagree with you doesn't mean we don't feel it, too. It's just that acting out on that feeling basically makes you exactly like the people we're fighting. - Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7congratulations to John McCain. He's gone up a notch for upholding the rights of prisoners.
Fox is owned by National News Network. NPR is also funded largely by Republican efforts. Quite a shame. Where do we get news from now? The world, each other, the net. - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"May God bless the American Service persons who finds themselves in harms way."
There is no God. He does not bless anyone, much less the people we send to die for abstract purposes. If you truly want those people to be safe, work toward reducing the root causes of terrorism rather than attempting to eliminate a symptom of our plutocratic ***** and alienating the other 6.2 billion people in the world while we're at it.
If there were a thread of truth in that repulsive pamphlet of volcano worship that enlightened beings laughingly refer to as the Scriptures, that omnipotent and wholly benevolent being would flood the world again at the sight of so many imbeciles spreading so much hatred and misery and justifying or excusing it in his name.
If I weren't already an atheist, I'd take the enormous arrogance displayed by our country's insistence that God is on "our side" (and the lack of a subsequent apocalypse) as a sure sign that He is not here. - Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ those that do not want to label terrorists as solders:
So if we are using our military to fight this war, and the enemy are not solders, then are we fighting a war against civilians?
And if so, would you people agree that it is morally acceptable for other countries to capture US citizens and torture them to death in other countries without trials.
America need to take the higher moral position or else what the ***** are we fighting for. Is it to spread freedom around the globe? Freedom for who? - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So often America's espoused 'values' don't match up with it's actions, especially in the geopolitics of the last half century. Perhaps a clue as to why so many are cynical towards, if not outright hostile to, America.
If America started to live up to it's ideals it would find itself seen in a much more positive light. - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hmmm, interesting. Mention Neocons and all your posts get dugg down. Looks like a right-wing modathon.
- apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Idiot. If that was what he meant by it he wouldn't have followed the pass comment with "..he doesn't want to or hes not even in a position to consider the impact of what his restrictions would do.." He is basically implying that he can say what he wants because of what he went through but his opinion is not valid anyway.
If you are going to defend this garbage at least defend the truth of what was said, don't try to twist it into something prettier than it is. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7At what point do we decide we've stooped too low? What is Senator D'Amato's threshold? What is Bush's? Is there anything they won't do, nothing too morally bankrupt to 'protect' us? Except for making millions of its citizens 'disappear,' it looks like the Bush administration has stolen their playbook from Soviet Russia. Stalin would be proud.
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You don't eliminate extremism with torture, you eliminate *one* extremist. For every extremist you torture, two new extremists are created. You're actually augmenting the extremist population by using torture. This is a race to the bottom. We're embarking on a path that's going to put us in Hatfield-McCoy Land. It's not working for Israel, so what the hell makes the US think it's going to work for us?
- SuperCujo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How about stop ***** around in other people's busniess...
The US has brought terrorists to their door by continually interfering overtly and covertly in other nations business. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Edit: The reply system is broken... - FluxHarmonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Changing the US's position on torture, by amending its interpretation of the Geneva Convention = gateway amendment to nastier torture, just like marijuana = gateway drug to cocaine and heroine (except the former is actually true, instead of a complete load of ***** like the latter).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is