What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
254 Comments
- MercyPolitics, on 04/24/2009, -9/+48Krugman nails it. This is about regaining moral credibility, not only within America but on the world stage. Getting to the bottom of this by running an independent investigation is the ONLY way to do it. There is no compromise possible in the matter. If the Obama administration doesn't press charge, they will loose an enormous amount of credibility. The political impact for him could be devastating.
- RagManX, on 04/24/2009, -11/+48Great column, as usual. I've been arguing some of these same points with friends who continue to support torture, the people responsible for the policy of torture, and also say we need to focus on fixing problems rather than pursuing "phantom crimes" (a term I've actually heard used in reference to the question of the legality of torture) of the previous administration. I fail to argue them as well as Mr. Krugman, of course, but I believe strongly in the arguments.
- aimhelix, on 04/24/2009, -5/+37Once again, I enjoyed George Clooney's article.
- kingsbridge77, on 04/24/2009, -11/+33Let it be known for the record that this is not the first time Krugman calls for prosecution of Bush-era criminals. He did so on January 16th, even before Obama became President (See his column for that day in the NYT archives). Krugman is a progressive hero.
- dagnabbit, on 04/24/2009, -6/+24A lot of commentary has been over whether the torture methods produced valuable information. This argument already cedes too much to the pro-torture side. This isn't about whether it works (which is dubious at best) - it's about doing what's ***** right (and legal).
- mjk340, on 04/24/2009, -2/+19"I think it's time to stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by the leftist political journalist class who have to make a living by whipping up fervor of some type or another so people read them."
This leftist journalist is saying we shouldn't sweep crimes under the rug and we should let the justice department do their jobs regardless of the political ramifications. It's not like he is telling Americans that they should entertain the thought of civil war because 5% of the population will have their taxes raised to levels below what they were 20 years ago. - rdeck17, on 04/24/2009, -14/+30So you're essentially arguing that there was no problem with the Japanese interment camps and that previous historical injustices that were conveniently neglected should reflect our reaction to the torture that occurred under the Bush administration?
It's also laughable that you think the debate is being manipulated by the "leftist" journalist class. No, our country was manipulated for years by an administration intent on keeping us safe while slowly eroding our freedom and undermining the law while the journalist class largely sat back and watched apathetically. There HAS to be an independent investigation given the severity in which our laws (and international laws) were flagrantly abused...otherwise there is little point to have a justice system at all. - Suzilla, on 04/24/2009, -2/+17* "These terrorists are unharmed and healthy..." except for the ones who died while being tortured.
* "Obama has already lost most of his credibility ..." USA/Today (just out) says otherwise: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-23 ... "56% say he has done an "excellent" or "good" job as president vs. 20% who rate him as "poor" or "terrible." An additional 23% say he has done "just OK."
* "We look like we are trying to be a banana republic that prosecutes and imprisons opposing politicians when we disagree with their policies."
I disagree. We look like a banana republic when we don't prosecute those who violate our highest laws, regardless of what office they hold. Our country was forged with the blood of patriots, but when we fail to prosecute criminals like Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, et alia, what it tells the world is that our Founders' sacrifice is but a distant, quaint memory, and that our Constitution and our laws aren't worth the paper they're written on. - brickbat, on 04/24/2009, -1/+15This whole thing is like when someone ***** in the pool. You can't move on - there is ***** ***** in the pool! The more you try to ignore it, the more ***** you get on yourself.
The sooner you stop, clean up the *****, and beat up the ***** that did it, the sooner you get beck to swimming in the pool. - scottknick, on 04/24/2009, -4/+15FTA: America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.
So Krugman is not saying we were squeaky clean before Bush. He's saying that Bush trashed American ideals (and the Geneva Conventions) and did it defiantly, brazenly. If we don't prosecute him, all that's left is our money and our power. Even China has that. - dougs55, on 04/24/2009, -2/+12Well one thing it worked great at was making Americans scared of their own government. Don't forget that Karl Rove was a big fan of Machiavelli.
- Suzilla, on 04/24/2009, -0/+9"Democrats will face criminal retaliation when the Republicans return to power."
And that pretty much illustrates what's wrong with the Republican Party and why the shouldn't be returned to power in their current form. This is not the party of Lincoln, or even Goldwater; it's the party of Gingrich and Atwater, of Falwell and Dobson. Lincoln looked to what was good about the Union and sought to preserve it. Goldwater, strident as he was, pushed what he felt was the strength of his (conservative) position, rather than nattering and outright lying about his opposition. The Republican Party today has no character and no moral compass. They will do anything, ANYTHING to gain and hold power, and, as we have seen, once they have gained power, they will ignore any law they deem contrary to their aims and use that power, as you have so aptly pointed out and as they have indeed demonstrated, to retaliate.
I agree with Krugman, and disagree strongly with Obama on this position. But, I respect both of their opinions, and can see they both have reasonable arguments. Reasonable people can and do disagree. But they remain reasonable, they disagree agreeably. This is something that is apparently foreign to the Republicans "leadership", who, for the moment, seem to be reduced to throwing what turns out to be their own feces. - funkyloki, on 04/24/2009, -1/+10Obama does not prosecute, the Justice department does. Obama is actually legally obligated (by the Constitution) to let Justice decide what to do.
- smcavoy, on 04/24/2009, -3/+11So if the (agents of) government commit what could be crimes they should not be investigated to be determined as crimes or not but rather viewed as learning experiences?
Wouldn't that be ignoring "the rule of law"
And if there is something to be learned from it, what is it? How can that be known without a proper investigation of what actually went on? - seltaeb4, on 04/24/2009, -3/+11Also a consideration: it only starts with fresh water.
They hold a bucket under your head and "recycle" the fluids. Why continue to waste good, fresh water?
So you're being smothered while being drowned in a increasingly thick shake of your own blood, snot, drool, and puke.
By the way, this is all before the guards decide to get creative.
Is it torture yet? - zip000, on 04/24/2009, -2/+10While I agree mostly, here's my problem:
"I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business."
I'm just not sure that we are. I've mostly been of the belief that we can't prosecute these guys without giving up a lot of what I feel needs to get done in the next 4-8 years, but I'm beginning to get won over by the argument that the Republicans are just not going to support anything progressive even if it is desperately called for. So why not go ahead with the prosecutions. - seltaeb4, on 04/24/2009, -1/+8Whiskeythief, you sound just like a mid-80s right-wing fundraising letter.
You should write up a few more pages of this and make a bot out of it. - MasterAmerica, on 04/24/2009, -6/+13Korematsu's court case was against the United States, not against particular people involved with FDR's executive order.
Understand the difference between grievances levied against a government as opposed to targeting specific people for prosecution.
Apples to oranges, but nice try. - gobbleplex, on 04/24/2009, -3/+9'We look like we are trying to be a banana republic that prosecutes and imprisons opposing politicians when we disagree with their policies.'
That surely didn't stop Republicans in the 90s in re: Blowjobs.
For someone on such a high horse, it sure is easy to look down on your arguements. - booksnmore4you, on 04/24/2009, -4/+10You set a false precondition with America being a team player in a changing world with a requirement that Obama meet demands to go after Bush Co., and dismiss my arguments with but scant evidence.
I fail to see a U.N. resolution indicating what you said.
I fail to see the British parliament, for example, going after Blair for leading their nation into Iraq and being complicit with Bush Co. in torture.
Etc.
I only see Spain going after Bush Co....for abridgment of the rights of Spanish citizens.
I fail to see any pattern in advanced countries where succeeding administrations go after the preceding one - you can't possibly think that is because they are all so innocent, do you?
Rove is a ***** of the Highest Order, but he is right that that sort of behavior is not engaged in by advanced countries, but only places where a coup has happened.
Why?
Because once you begin it never ends, because no administration is ever completely innocent after 4 or 8 years, because high level politics is inherently dirty and no one high up comes out clean. Sorry to break the news, but no president ever has and Obama will not.
If the Left (of which I am part) gets what it wants, the "new reality" it will bring to the presidency and the country are profound. It will force very deep pockets of covert darkness where the same things that have always gone on will still go on but they will be hidden deeper than ever, lest entering the presidency become also a resolution to afterward go to jail, a two-fer of the same package.
These are not pleasant arguments I am making, but I think they are grounded in what is realistic. When you don't hear any cacophony of historians and political scientists joining you, it's time to take pause and ask why. I think I've just sketched out why. - funkyloki, on 04/24/2009, -4/+10"To have a succeeding administration go after a preceding administration would be utterly, utterly unprecedented in American history, and there will be nothing good come of it."
Your understanding of how our political system works is sorely lacking. The Justice Department and the Administration are two separate entities in our government, the Judicial and Executive branches. The Justice Department is the one who would be pursuing the matter, not the Obama Administration. In fact, by our Constitution, the Obama Administration would have absolutely nothing to do with it. All Obama needs to do is let the Justice Department make the decision on who to go after, if they decide to prosecute at all. If people broke the law for eight years, they need to be punished, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. It isn't about exacting blood, it is all about justice. We are a nation of laws if nothing else. If we can't hold our own leaders accountable to those laws, then there is no hope for us. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+8What?
- MindTrigger, on 04/24/2009, -2/+8And what happens to all those people we torture who really had no information to give, or were picked up mistakenly? Is that ok too? What if you are picked up at your home by the government based on some false information, and you are tortured? Is that ok too?
What idiots like you don't understand is, if torture is allowed, innocent people will be tortured as well. What do you care though, right? As long as you aren't one of those poor bastards left in the wake of collateral damage... - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -8/+13Hey Paul, make sure you hold the administration's feet to the fire when they don't include the Clinton Administration's extraordinary renditions. I know you wrote about it in the past... just wanted to make sure you remember.
- mjk340, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5I'm not asking for a double standard. The argument shouldn't be 'If you put my party on try then I'll put your party on trial.' That is ***** ludicrous.
If probable cause has been established then you get arrested and tried. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -4/+9That's strange, I seem to recall Obama saying that he would not engage in a witch hunt.
It appears to me that it is not the Democrats who are baying for blood over the last 8 years, but a large proportion of the American people. So you should point your finger at the public who are calling for investigations. - ericdano, on 04/24/2009, -8/+13Sounds good to me. As long as that bitch Pelosi is found out to be lying about her role in all this. I don't believe for a second that SHE did not know what was going on. Or anyone in the committee that has oversight into this.
So, I'd expect some Senators and Congressmen to be implicated in all this, and they will deny it, like Pelosi already is....... - ratherstupid, on 04/24/2009, -2/+7Illegal torture is illegal.
- LastVisibleDog, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5...and the killing of innocent civilians in a country we are not a war with.
- acehorne, on 04/24/2009, -1/+6Isn't the point is that while torture may have happened in the past, it wasn't mandated by the President himself?
- GnralHavoc, on 04/24/2009, -10/+15You really don't understand how badly this is going to divide the country. Not because it argues whether torture is wrong or not. But many will take is as a attack by Democrats on Republicans. The CIA will not trust this administration and will inhibit much of our intelligence gathering.
Guess what, waterboarding happened. The United States did far worse against Communists during the Cold War and Germans/Japanese in WWII. Vietnam, Korea. We have either helped in harsh interrogation or advised on how to do it for a long time with many different Presidents Democrats and Republican a like. To think that we are now, just now some morally high country that doesn't do it is insane and you are ignoring the past.
Jeez this is such a witch hunt by Democrats to get Bush. - scottknick, on 04/24/2009, -2/+7That's funny, I don't agree. And Gerald Ford has said he regrets doing it.
- Dalhectar, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5And yet every generation of Americans has reevaluated itself and made considerable steps to not repeat the wrongs of previous generations. That is a very important thing I give credit to white Americans for. No man is perfect, but enough white Americans desire to build a more perfect union, and make their society more moral than their parents' America. White Americans have found examples of various -isms in their past, and worked to eliminate them as moral wrongs.
If fact, it's rare to find instances where America ever went backwards morally. It's not the norm. America using tactics previously considered torture is anexceptions. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+6I think it's great that we live in a world where the mentally ill have a right to express their opinion.
- booksnmore4you, on 04/24/2009, -36/+40Whatever happened to reading history?
Krugman's argument is frankly pretty ridiculous.
If he is right, then in order for America to have been America after a period of dark acts, the Truman administration would have had to push for prosecution of no less than people in the FDR administration for interning Japanese-Americans in concentration camps on America soil. The first years of the Truman administration would have been preoccupied with hauling in FDR's cabinet and so forth, all ending with placing some in jail. As well, all those folks who ran the camps, prosecute them too.
I think it's time to stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by the leftist political journalist class who have to make a living by whipping up fervor of some type or another so people read them.
The point is whether political learning has happened such that ill deeds can never occur again because we have learned our lessons from history, not whether blood is exacted (I can hardly even believe I have to write that to political progressives!) To have a succeeding administration go after a preceding administration would be utterly, utterly unprecedented in American history, and there will be nothing good come of it. - mediablitz, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4"I support torture if it works -- and it does! "
Except is doesn't. Decades of research shows that it doesn't. Decades of professional interrogators saying it doesn't work.
And what of the ONLY argument I keep hearing from you torture supporters?
"If there was an imminent attack, I support the torture".
Yet, we tortured a guy 6 times a day, for a MONTH. What, did the terrorists hold off for a month while we worked on that torturing?
You have no argument, other than "I am happy to be just as horrible as my enemy." That is so un-American, you don't even deserve to claim to BE an American. - ZenMojo, on 04/24/2009, -1/+5Phantom crimes at phantom sites that turn people into "ghost detainees" and occasionally just corpses. Sounds appropriate.
- duncan202, on 04/24/2009, -1/+5Which is why this won't happen.
- ejpusa, on 04/24/2009, -6/+10This is the point. YOU do NOT torture. You just don't. I don't care if it's to save a billion people. It's a point where you lose your right to be a human. How these old white professors could even in a million years think that this was even on the plate is astonishing. These people are mentally *****. They either were abused as children, have serious mental issues, and are just not part of our world.
YOU DO NOT TORTURE. PERIOD. - acehorne, on 04/24/2009, -2/+6So you are saying that in extenuating circumstances we should just ingore our own morality/laws? Sounds like the same defense the Bush Administration were using for years.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+5So you're saying it's ok for the US to be evil because it's always been evil?
I'm not sure most people will be on the same page with you on that. - Beatmiser, on 04/24/2009, -3/+7It makes me extremely sad for our country that there are even people who are debating that an independent investigation would be a bad thing. Well, if you truly in your heart believe that the Bush administration did no wrong, let an investigator look into the matter, the Bush administration would have nothing to hide after all and no reason to be concerned, right?
- dman24752, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4How would that be bad? Maybe we need presidents who, I don't know, follow the law? The Constitution was set up under a system of checks and balances and we are currently in a situation where those checks and balances on the president are simply not being executed. It's high time we started performing the checks and balances.
- downinit369, on 04/24/2009, -3/+7To all you nut jobs who support torture, here are some quotes from someone who actually has experience with interrogating terrorists:
"Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned Abu Zubaydah from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence."
"This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives. There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified."
"Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May."
The author was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005. The full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan ... - buckrogers1965, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4It is not about criminalizing policy decisions. That is total bull *****.
It is about upholding the law. The law is crystal clear. It is illegal to torture anyone. Nobody is above the law. Especially not the president. If someone broke the law, they should be arrested and prosecuted. - GnralHavoc, on 04/24/2009, -5/+9Geneva Conventions only applies to organized military. Taliban/Al-Queda are considered a guerillia force/terrorist element. The rules don't really apply to them. Also American ideals have been swept under the rug by past presidents so many times to protect it, I don't think you even want to go there.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4Fine, then let Obama pardon Bush et.al. if that's what he believes is best.
As Ford noted at the time, acceptance of a pardon would indicate admission of wrong doing. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -3/+7Uh.. no.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch.
Jesus, we really don't teach civics in school anymore, do we? - Sean42, on 04/24/2009, -4/+8Torture is not a joke, *****.
- funk49, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4So if we are to go after politicians for wrongdoings, why stop at the waterboarding issue? It's not like there's a ***** shortage of crimes being committed by both the House and the Senate as well. Would you favor investigating Harmon for obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the recent allegations that have come out? Funny how the case against those two guys is falling apart.
You can't have it both ways and both parties are filled with crime committing scumbags. -
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is