What is Digg?321 Comments
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -10/+189If the president doesn't follow the law why should anyone else, presidents are not above the law or the people who elected them.
- yocouchdigga, on 06/26/2009, -8/+124no matter how you slice it, they need to be held accountable.
- supferrets, on 06/26/2009, -11/+91It'd be nice to see justice served to some of these *****, but I doubt we'll ever see that day.
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/26/2009, -3/+66If it's not perfectly clear to you that war crimes were committed, human rights were denied and the geneva convention was violated, i hope you can at least recognize that there is more than enough doubt about these issues that an investigation is required.
- DirtyVicar, on 06/26/2009, -2/+53Who has time for accountability when they're doing elimination rounds on "So You Think You Can Dance"?
- bigp3rm, on 06/26/2009, -5/+51For some reason it's hard to do the right thing in America these days.
- enantiodromia, on 06/26/2009, -5/+46I expect we will see quite a few comments here about how evil the ACLU is. I encourage everyone to read through the comment histories of those posters.
I'm sure you will see many comments from the last few days about how Obama is slowly taking away our "freedoms".
Seems to me a group of people so concerned with our civil liberties, would support the ACLU, but for some reason this is not the case. - MatzahMan, on 06/26/2009, -14/+49***** BUSH
- sodade, on 06/26/2009, -2/+333thedude3 is a terrorist. Hope you're looking forward to some govt thug shoving a baseball bat up your ass because we can do anything we want to you now that you've been declared a terrorist. Proof, you ask? We don't need any. Welcome to fascist america, brought to you by FUD infested pussys like 3the3dude3...
- ShingoEX, on 06/26/2009, -1/+28I figure you'd realize we're blaming individuals within an administration, not the entire party. Use your head.
- bsmang, on 06/26/2009, -3/+29I think you'd have to be retarded to think Bush and Cheney aren't criminals.
- FlaNative, on 06/26/2009, -4/+28I'll bite:
"Abu Ghraib was a government sanctioned sexual molestation camp."
Your words, not mine, but children raped in front of parents, to make the parents talk?
"Hippies and left wingers will tell you that torture doesn't work. They say just polite conversation, tea and crumpets, will be more effective. How do they get away with this?"
Actually, checkers and coffee worked against the Nazis.
I have not seen any "straight perfect line formations", unless maybe you count convoy duty, in George Bush's illegal war? Just a quick reminder: The American people are the ones who lost in Iraq.
"Obama seemed petrified by the riots in the streets of Iran"
The death of Neda Agha-Soltan petrified us all.
As for Obama sleeping at night, until the entire Bush Whitehouse and the right wing murderers who supported and carried out those orders are locked up, I hope he doesn't sleep, he doesn't deserve to sleep. - ethan406, on 06/26/2009, -4/+24So, basically, you think that Bush and Cheney are "above the law?"
- sadGuru, on 06/26/2009, -2/+20It is very rare that a head of state gets prosecuted. This is because a country does not want to scare his successors of making hard decisions.
... but they should definitely make an exception for these idiots. - treehugger87, on 06/26/2009, -1/+19I don't want Obama to be above the law any more than Bush or Cheney were. That's why YOU should want Bush & Cheney prosecuted. It would prevent future and current Presidents, who you may not be ideologically aligned with, from persecuting you the way the Bush people persecuted liberals.
- InetRoadkill, on 06/26/2009, -1/+19True. They do need to be held accountable. But Obama doesn't have the stomach for it. He is doing something Bush was famous for which is ignore a problem until it goes away and hope someone else takes care of it. Obama doesn't want to get his hands dirty with this. The problem is that by refusing to bring these war criminals to justice, he is sharing in the stench of their crimes.
- norman619, on 06/26/2009, -1/+18Look up Conspiracy of Silence. It's about how a bunch of pedophile politicians used the kids from the Boy's Town orphanage as sex slaves. Was ANY of them brought to justice? Hell no they weren't. If they weren't what makes anyone think the president of the US would?
- diggerado, on 06/26/2009, -3/+19Please, Please, PLEASE let's not let this go. Bush etc getting away with everything is proof to the world that we're not sorry for what he did to us and them
- ethan406, on 06/26/2009, -7/+23Why are Rethuglicans obsessing over Nancy Pelosi?
- Pssdoff, on 06/26/2009, -4/+20Amazing how some guys in a cave near important middle eastern oil pipelines were able to get NORAD to stand down...
- h3lx, on 06/26/2009, -1/+17All prisoners held by the state are protected by the Geneva Convention. It simply isn't nullified by augmenting a definition. When the US entered into the conflict in Afghanistan, these persons were actually POWs and only later reclassified as terrorists, which is nothing more than a trumped up word for a guerrilla fighter. Regardless of their status, there are things the United States simply should not openly do, we don't bomb women and children, we don't eat dogs, and we shouldn't torture.
You're innocent until proven guilty, given these individuals were never afforded a legal avenue to challenge their detention, we tortured innocent people... and that is unacceptable. - Junkyarddawg, on 06/26/2009, -6/+21It wont happen.
Firstly because the GOP would obstruct Obama for the rest of his presidency if the administration tried to move on Bush. Yeah, they sortof do that now too, but then they'd pull out the stops, and all hope of any bipartisan solutions, ever, would be gone.
Secondly because prosecuting an ex-president and his aides would set a precedent which might bite Obama in the ass if a crazy GOP rightwinger like Jeb Bush wins the next election and gets vindictive.
Thirdly because Bush is going senile, and prosecuting him would be like kicking a sick and confused elderly puppy.
I'd like to see the bastards prosecuted for treason for lying to congress about WMD's in Iraq, for pressuring CIA to cook evidence prior to the Iraq war, for wrongful extraordinary renditions, for Guantanamo, and for torture - but it wont happen. - h3lx, on 06/26/2009, -1/+15@3The3Dude3------------------------^
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
I re-read it, please highlight your citation that excludes "Enemy Combatants" and makes it legal to use torture.
Because I found this in the second article and that pretty much sums it for me.--
Art.2:2 'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.'
Art.2:3 'An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.' - defektiv, on 06/26/2009, -1/+15It's pretty hard to argue against the truth, that's why the argument sounds so thorough. And even though the whole thing is on video thanks to the internets and micro technology, lots of people still denied it for 8 years, some still do.
- felman87, on 06/26/2009, -2/+15Yeah, like reporting the truth. How dare they!
- ShingoEX, on 06/26/2009, -9/+21Picture this:
A home owner completely wrecks the place, and leaves it for someone else who's moving in. That person finally moves in, and after 5 minutes, you're bitching that he hasn't cleaned the place up yet.
This takes TIME, moron. I can't believe I actually have to tell you these things. - treehugger87, on 06/26/2009, -1/+13I don't give a ***** what laws or statutes were in place regarding *torture* at the relevant time. Torture should not be made legal by any civilized country at any time. It's that simple. Civilized people have abhorred torture for centuries. This country won its independence largely by a General whose policy it was to treat prisoners of war with dignity and respect, while the British abused, tortured and mistreated everyone they encountered.
If you would like to know what is "the basis for prosecution of Bush officials", then you should watch the video referred to by this Digg story: http://digg.com/politics/ACLU_No_One_is_Above_the_ ... In it, there is a thorough argument presented by ACLU executive director Anthony Romero about what the basis is. - TheSwashbuckler, on 06/26/2009, -5/+16Pelosi didn't authorize it so she cannot be culpable in a legal sense.
Quit obsessing over her and accept the evilness of your heroes... - treehugger87, on 06/26/2009, -0/+11@thedude. What is the basis for designating someone a terrorist? What does the Geneva convention say about that? Because the President, the CIA or the military picks someone up on a battlefield do they automatically become terrorists? In order to satisfy the Geneva convention in the way you describe, it would have to be true that anyone we call a terrorist is a terrorist, and there is plenty of evidence that that is simply not the case.
- brainflakes, on 06/26/2009, -5/+16When the President does it, that means it is not illegal dammit!
- jmferris, on 06/26/2009, -0/+11But apparently it takes no time to learn how to backpedal. He has been doing an awesome job with that so far!
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/26/2009, -1/+11"these hippies and left wingers act and want you to believe hundreds of people were tortured. Reality is single digits"
That's not a defense, that's an admission of guilt. - curtisag, on 06/26/2009, -8/+18No one will be prosecuted even if crimes were committed.
- theaceoffire, on 06/26/2009, -0/+10^_^ We created a new term called "Enemy Combatant", which has no rights. We have applied it to both foreigners and US citizens. It doesn't require you having a trial, being accused of anything, or having due process.
Creating such a term is reason enough to investigate. We were doing something we knew would be wrong on POW's, so we avoided the word. - bsmang, on 06/26/2009, -2/+12Holy ***** dumb, batman.
- DankBuddz, on 06/26/2009, -2/+12My one goal in life is to make sure my son doesn't grow up to be as pathetically retarded as you.
The fact that I'm not directly related to his mother may somewhat help things, but you never know. - mah2cent, on 06/26/2009, -13/+23So, if Bush and Cheney are guilty of torture, then so is Obama. He is continuing the practice, if not explicitly, then implicitely, by having them transfered to other countries that carry out the torture. Either way, it is still torture.Of course, it is easy to convict them on-line. But, essentially, that is what we are doing with the "suspected terrorist" we have been holding and torturing for several years. Equal justice under the law? Probably not.
Move along, nothing more to see here. Just another waste of words. Good thing we are not using paper. The environmentalist would be up in arms. - treehugger87, on 06/26/2009, -2/+11Because Limbaugh & Hannity use her and Harry Reid as poster children for the Democratic party. They talk about them every single day on their shows. Harry Reid can't take a crap without Limbaugh's people doing a little research into it.
- opitica, on 06/26/2009, -1/+10holy ***** there is so much hate in that comment.
- yttrstein, on 06/26/2009, -2/+11Lukas, if you cannot abide by the philosophy of the US constitution, maybe its time for you to leave.
- RagManX, on 06/26/2009, -0/+9http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.h ...
- CIA documents show waterboarding used 86 times in one month on Abu Zubaydah and 183 times in one month against KSM. My calculation using authorized use of waterboarding according to previous document, assuming only a single day interruption between each authorized 5 day session and limited to the 30 day maximum given, is 50 allowed uses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
- Interrogator shares experience with normal interrogation techniques and ineffectiveness he has seen with adversarial interrogation techniques.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm ...
- Another professional interrogator, in testimony to Congress, on ineffectiveness of torture and success of rapport-building based interrogation.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
- The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. signed on to by Pres. Reagan in 1988 and which was fully ratified by Congress in 1994. Prohibits as torture acts of degradation, which is one of the stated purposes of the "enhanced interrogation" process authorized in the 4 memos hosted at the ACLU as linked above. The act of degradation in those torture memos is authorized for purposes of weakening detainees resolve, which is one of the explicitly covered reasons against torture in the UN convention. This convention also requires a state (politically meaning a country, in this context) investigate accusations of torture, which we in the US have failed to do so far regarding detainee treatment which has been called torture by the Internation Red Cross.
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
- International Red Cross report (which was supposed to be confidential but was leaked by a source I don't know) which labels treatment of 14 detainees, including Zubaydah, as torture.
--
I'm open to any presentation of how I misunderstand or misinterprept any of the above. I have additional sources that I used for deciding that this is torture, is wrong, and needs to be prosecuted to prevent future incidents. Any counter-arguments would be appreciated, too. - RagManX, on 06/26/2009, -0/+9From an earlier digg story re: torture program of Bush, et al. Split to 2 replies because the length breaks Digg otherwise.
I don't have all the sources I follow, used, or researched handy right now, but here's a substaintial but incomplete sample of the reading I've done on this:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_i ...
- torture timeline. Useful for evaluating dates and allowances based on later documentation outlined here
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/re ...
- Pres. Bush spoke of Feb. 2002 break up Library Tower attack with help of foreign intelligence. Also talks of arrest of shoe bomber Richard Reid in Dec. 2001.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11266564/from/ET/
- reiterates Pres. Bush statement that Library Tower attack prevented by intelligence from unamed South Asian country. Adds that 2nd planned hijacker withdrew from planned Library Tower attack after seeing 9/11 results.
http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-me ...
- Copy of official government documentation authorizing harsh interrogation methods of Abu Zubaydah. This document also available at ACLU site listed below. This authorization comes at least 5 months after Library Tower attack already stopped. Cheney et al claim this torture of Zubaydah instrumental in stopping Library Tower attack. I'll assume you can provide your own source for supporters of torture saying this, but I can provide that information if necessary.
http://www.drudge.com/news/120291/fbi-agent-we-did ...
- ultimately links to original story at http://www10.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23souf ...
- FBI agent responsible for interrogating Abu Zubaydah prior to CIA's use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and so on. Interrogator says information, including KSM's (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) involvement in 9/11 and rebuttal of claim the Zubaydah harsh interrogation lead to capture of high level aide to KSM. Points out "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla arrested in May 2002 while "enhanced interrogation" didn't begin until August 2002 if interrogators did not use harsh methods until receiving official approval.
http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/ ...
- Official U.S. Army Field Manual FM 2-22.3 - "Human Intelligence Collector Operations" - latest version of official interrogation guide used by Army in various revisions for over 50 years. Prior to enhanced interrogation memos, recognized as official guide for U.S. interrogators regarding allowed and prohibited methods. Specifically prohibits waterboarding, food and water deprivation, infliction of physical pain, sexual degradation, and more methods on page 5-21. Addresses as prohibited techniques which interrogator would object to if enemies used against US soldiers or which would violate the law. Manual also specifically states one reason for not using harsh interrogation methods is the unreliability of intelligence gained via those methods and greatly reduces further gathering of useful intelligence.
http://www.zimbio.com/go/http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/ ...
- Inspector General's report on FBI's involvement in harsh interrogations. Pages 47/48 regarding official FBI requirements of confessions - "The most important limitations on the admissibility of an accused's incriminating statements are the requirements that they be voluntary; that they be obtained without the government resorting to outrageous behavior; and that they be obtained without violating the accused's right to remain silent of to have a lawyer present." Additionally - "A coerced confession will undermine the legitimacy of a conviction. . . [i]t is the policy of the FBI that no attempt be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises." More useful information in that section on assessment of voluntariness, including duration of questioning (relevant to the 8-hour uninterrupted interrogation expressed in released torture documents).
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.htm ...
- ACLU hostst PDF copies of legal memos regarding "enhanced interrogation." Note 2nd document, from Steven Bradbury, allows stress positions, waterboarding, walling, sleep deprivation, and dietary restrictions. All questionable allowances, at best, according to historically previous documents. Specifies limits to water dousing according to probability of causing hypothermia. Limits waterboarding to no more than 2 sessions of no more than 2 hours in 24 hours and no longer than 5 days. Total cumulative maximum time in a single day is 12 minutes total exposure to water and sensation of drowning and associated panic. - IgorUnchained, on 06/26/2009, -17/+26Just one more bit of "Change" that Obama has failed to come through on.
Anyone tired of keeping track of those yet? I know Ive lost count already and he just got into the White House.
It is going to take foreigners to bring these people to justice. There are alot of things about this issue that should make the American people ashamed of themselves, but that is the main one. - treehugger87, on 06/26/2009, -0/+9It's the corporations. Follow the money. They own our Congress and our executive branch and so they own us all.
- Elranzer, on 06/26/2009, -1/+9Wow. I see Digg's premiere toe-tapping closeted Texan queer has crawled out of his closet to spew his Rush Limbaugh-fueled irrational garbage to those unfortunate to read them.
Remember never to look directly at any of LukasSmith's posts on Digg. Your IQ drops for every second you waste on him. - Libertaire, on 06/26/2009, -0/+8It's unbelievable to me how some people can dismiss the fact that very serious laws were broken by the country's "leaders". What the hell? Since when did we give up on prosecuting crime? Oh yeah we didn't really, only certain crimes by certain people; it boggles the mind that even people who would find that statement ridiculous allow these perpetrators to get away with it.
- logir, on 06/26/2009, -0/+8Yes... the media should start reading up on how, exactly, the technical details of bringing Bush, Cheney, etc, etc. to justice would happen.
- Elranzer, on 06/26/2009, -0/+8Shouldn't be an issue for you You're basically in love with George W Bush, so you should have no problem with anyone who continues his policies.
- cshilney, on 06/26/2009, -0/+7So we should let whatever bad that happened before Obama be let go as if nothing was wrong with it? Be sensible.
- kemp34, on 06/26/2009, -0/+7Corporatism is a cancer on free society.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 329 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is