What is Digg?89 Comments
- Arcezzu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60The ACLU isn't limiting America's options in the war. The Geneva Convention is.
and everyone should support it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+57Actually, its actions like this that place the ACLU squarely on America's side. America is a country of laws and rights. It's terrorists that like to torture people.
Based on your comments, sonofdy, I think we can see where your sympathies lie. Call yourself whatever you like, it doesn't change things. - Winters, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51I love how so many people have such a huge problem with the ACLU when all they do is follow the constitution that governs the country.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52Yes, ACLU is on the side of human rights, which is appearantly something that US to support as well
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30America should lead the way in respecting human rights. We should not be acting like savages from third world, lawless countries.
I don't understand how people who claim to be patriotic can accuse those who defend American ideals, American soldiers and human rights as unpatriotic terrorists. Crazy people. Don't you neo cons realize that you are the danger? Even as the government tries to strip you of your guns and your right to be free you defend it. Today they torture prisoners. What happens if tomorrow they arrest you, strip you of your citizenship (which the patriot act two lets them do) jail you for endless years and deny you legal representation or even a trial? What if they torture you? Will it still be okay? You are not in some special immunity bubble. Wake up! - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22@sonofdy
Even in war there are rules. It might be expedient to ignore those rules, but it doesn't make it right. Terrorists use the same arguments to justify their actions. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20the ACLU is an organization devoted to protecting the bill of rights. how is that unamerican?
re my earlier comment: i am now unsure of whether the american courts can prosecute war crimes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@Brewdaddy:
they have actually gone o court countless times FOR religion and christianity, they just go against chritsianity when it merges with government or is otherwise forced on those who dont want it.
It was started by a communist.. who after a year, threw out the communist in the aclu.
The same man was awards the highest metals in japan for starting an aclu like organization there and was awarded the metal of freedom in our own country., - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I didn't realize that the Constitution was such an anti-American document. But then again, I'm not a far-right conservative.
- AHue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Funny, I didn't know you could destroy America by protecting its Bill of Rights.
- acetv, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16_Everyone_.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@Winters:
the ACLU is often the only place a poor person can go to when confronted by the government. I know from experience.
people mainly go after the aclu because of it's frequent work against christians,, like ten commandments in courts, under god in the pledge, etc
because the christian right has taken over part of the gop, it has become a conservative issue to hate the aclu.
But basically the ACLU doesnt do anything, it never changes any laws or get any commandments removed from any court, they dont have the power..just like the PTC(parent tv council) doesnt have the power to leavy fines for accidental nudity on tv. IT IS THE JUDGES that rule on the law, they simply bring the case to the judiciary. Which is the american way and almost anyone can do it, the only thing stopping most is the money to get it done.
IF IT WAS TRULY UNAMERICAN, THE JUDGE WOULD THROW THE CASE OUT... - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"not intended to prove a war crime"
smart of the aclu. they'd lose because they (nor do the American courts) have the authority nor the legal precedence to prosecute a war crime, per se. however, the verdict of this case can be used in a war crimes case as supporting evidence. the testimonies may also be used.
at most, this could be used as ammo in an international tribunal. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8when a representative appointed to represent and serve the people has lied to the people against their wishes and better interest in order to facilitate other illegal acts and then covering them up violates civil rights through fraud, misrepresentation, and abuse of power-- not to mention the laws he flat-out broke. it's really complicated and lies mostly in the technicalities of specific federal laws (and as will become pertinent later, international laws).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Making sure the government's actions are in fact lawful is a good idea no matter who they're dealing with. Moreoever, if the government is going to torture foreigners, what makes you think they're going to hesitate to torture citizens? All they need to do is claim that you're a terrorist, and thus don't deserve rights since you're an unlawful enemy combatant.
- cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's never about torturing the guilty.
It's about torturing the innocent. Dozens of innocent people have been scooped up, held without contact with friends/family/legal, and tortured by us or our allies. Several have been released with a "whoops," and then told they had no recourse.
Being American is supposed to be about fighting AGAINST this type of thing.
How horribly backwards we've become in the face of attack. How quickly we've lost our values. - Gemini25RB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I think he is stating that Rumsfeld used torture as a terrible means to a good end. One man's pain can lead to saving the lives of many. (Not that I promote utilitarianism widespread, but I do consider it when I make decisions.)
And, yes, the Viet Cong was doing something wrong torturing POWs. Viet Nam ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1957(?). I don't think anything came of it, though. IIRC, the Viet Cong were not a government sponsored group, so I don't think the Geneva Conventions explicitly applied to them. - cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11All men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Our country was founded with those words.
Notice, it doesn't say "All Americans are created equal. Screw everyone else." Half of the administration's reasoning boil down to: these aren't Americans, so they don't have rights.
That is EXTREMELY un-American. - AHue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8That's more difficult than you make it sound. In America, we have the freedom to sue the government when it decides to torture people.
- valkyries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Gemini25RB
"And, yes, the Viet Cong was doing something wrong torturing POWs. Viet Nam ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1957(?). I don't think anything came of it, though. IIRC, the Viet Cong were not a government sponsored group, so I don't think the Geneva Conventions explicitly applied to them."
So why does the Geneva Conventions protect the people we are currently fighting in Iraq. The iraqi governemnt doesnt sponsor them - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7well apparently we have to apologize to some japanese people whom we convicted violating geneva for water boarding ally soldiers. because apparently a dunk in the water isnt torture.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7They also tend to forget teh aclu defends anyone whos constitutional rights are being violated.
They recently fought for a street preacher here who was frequently chased off as a noise pest.
The aclu fought for a girls right to sing a religious song at a highschool rally
In virgina they help the baptist church retain the right to perform baptisms in the river.
and many more times,
they really dont ask you if you are conservative or liberal unless that is part of your case
and they will fight for your constitutional rights no matter who you are. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5we have always been able to have been sued by the enemy, that is why we have the army field manual, that is why there have been leaks, that is why we have the rules of combat. If we couldnt get sued, then we should let our soldiers rape and pillage.
There is a point to were you are no longer protecting yourself.
and what will we win? and how many of your relatives will you let die in iraq to protect us from a country that isnt a threat?
Most of these mighty than thou people dont even know a soul over there.
I am all for the aphghanistan war so dont go labeling me weak on terror, but also dont try to convince me that iraq had anything to do with terror before WE arrived.
I support the troops more than you because i want them to live. And dont want them to die for a worthless unjust cause.
We already got saddam, and the iraqis dont want us there... THEY DONT WANT US TO PROTECT THEM OR THEIR COUNTRY FROM terrorists.
SO WHO ARE WE FIGHTING? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@leffunov:
first you are more likely to die from a heart attack than a terrorist, i hope your torture a cheeze maker.
That is a sick and evil thought, and people like you should be in an instition. It is not right to become evil to save anyone including loved ones..
so no it is not right to kill 9 innocent people to get one.. and plus you are assuming that the torture works on the one when every single person in the interrogation field agrees there are much more realiable ways to get actionable info from a person.
You know you cant tell if someone is lying if they are screaming. - Gir53457, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Explaining the justification of torture to these people is like teaching art to a logic board.
- firepig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm a retired AF intelligence officer and have taught principles of interrogation. To those who argue torture may be of value to save lives, let me say what we taught. Torture is against the Geneva Convention, which the USA voluntarily signed. More to the point, we taught torture does NOT work. Information so obtained just isn't reliable. People will say anything to avoid torture. Also, by the time a tortured prisoner breaks he may not even have enough mental faculties to even answer questions sensibly. I strongly support taking Rumsfeld to court and am also ashamed that Colin Powell hasn't spoken out more firmly than he has on this issue.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Other regimes using torture is one of the reasons we have such incredible disdain for those regimes. Hell, one of the reasons cited for removing Saddam from power was his use of torture!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In America, terrorists sue you.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Which one of Ann Coulter's books are you talking about? Or was it Bill? Rush?
- Morsetlis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Terrorist have no qualms about torturing their captives, even when they know there is no worth wile information they can extract from them."
And mimicking terrorists is how we uphold our values? - Gir53457, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yep. At least we don't kill all of ours intentionally.
Edit:
I'm aware thats like telling a quadraplegic at least he is not dead. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@kosmoX:
He seems to want more of them, as thats all his actions so far have done. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@leffunov
Give me a ***** break. If Hussein had gone on television to say "OK OK I do authorize and encourage torture, but it's saved so many lives!" would you be alright with the practice? Your rationalization is right up there with "we can't let this lawsuit go to court because it would jeopardize state secrets!" and "he's accused of being a terrorist so he must be a terrorist and thus deserves to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial". - fatesclwn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@gojeda
Sorry buddy, that ain't how things work in our great country. Taxes aren't some kind of payment for civil rights. Taxes get you roads, and schools, and a military, and all that jazz.
As a test, try this. Stop paying taxes. Never again give a cent to our country. Then commit some crime. Shoplifting will do. When you are arrested, and taken to court, see if you are still afforded your rights. You can even go ahead and declare you have not ever paid taxes the whole time. I seriously doubt it will affect the outcome.
Also, as for the comments on this in general, i am disgusted. There are far to many people willing to allow torture for their cause. I am one of those people that feel ALL people deserve the rights i enjoy every day. I freely admit i am just some stupid kid with stupid idealistic values. But i still feel that even if we capture and arrest a man who was JUST shooting at our soldiers, he deserves the same right as the rest of us. Heck, we give those rights to people who shoot at police, right?
I will shut my stupid idealistic mouth now. - AHue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You think your positive thoughts will prevent a rocket-propelled grenade from ripping into a US Army Humvee?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing will become of all this Iraqi and Afghan sniveling.
Rumsfeld will have a happy retirement.
Deal with it. - travis24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Oh I've never considered Iraq a threat to the American people, but I still think its a noble cause. Yellow Ribbons I could care less if people have "support the troops" stickers, just don't make us fight with a hand tied behind our back.... and our idea of torture is nothing compared to the enemy
2 time Iraq Vet, proud citizen - pluox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5from the article:
"Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity from lawsuits challenging his official actions as Defense secretary"
The Defense secretary can have your family family tortured, and get away with it. Because it was hes "official actions as Defense secretary." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4civil liberties are extended to foreigners based on our laws.. more so when they are visiting or actively working in the us
but based on the fact that we must by law honor our treaties, then the civil right not to get tortured extends to foreigners who have never even been to the US.
I do not believe they would be successful in a suit that had no bearing on us law or a us signed treaty.
Like if we havent signed a treaty not to polute canada and some candians get sick from our pollution i doubt they could go to the aclu. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@valkyries:
the geneva conventions covers everyone with some exceptions for spys and sabateurs until a world reconized trial(like a military court martial.. it doesnt have to be an american civilian criminal trial) says they are not covered, that included non uniformed soliders and soldiers of countries that never signed.. you did see where the supreme court recently agreed.
really you should sit there and read it... it specifically say that if you think some indivual is not covered by geneva you must have a fair trial proving it. - cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Meister:
Wars are are things that Nations fight. - gboodhoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3 >>All the American people need to do is support our efforts and we will win.
I'm pretty sure the guys overseas couldn't be happier that you've got a yellow ribbon magnetically attached to your car. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@kosmo
An anti-bush agenda is a Pro-Freedom anti-terrorist agenda.
I'm for it. - valkyries, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@PowerCow
My point wasnt that the geneva conventions should protect them sry for the misunderstanding. I have read the geneva conventions and if anyone searches for insurgent or terrorist, those words are not stated. The geniva convension protects only people figting for a government, not for a cause or belief. I believe anyone that fights against the US in Afgan/Iraq isnt protected by the geneva convention, unless they are fighting for the governments of those countrys. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3he's being held accountable. my greatest fear was that this wouldn't happen. while i hope he gets convicted, the prospect of the possibility of prosecution is more of a deterrent than anything else that's happened recently (since the 70's anyhow.)
to me, anyhow, the symbolism of this event is more important than the outcome. look at hussein. no one cared that he was sentenced to death, only that he was on trial (a generalization). - Melster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Steinbeckgirl: Okay, let's think logically. Nobody wins in war? Try telling that to a World War II Veteran, who ensured that you have the right to all of the freedoms that you presently are enjoying. Study history and you will see why it is necessary to win this war on terror. Study Sir Winston Churchill (WW II) and Ronald Reagan (The Cold War), etc. Many in the main stream media are biased towards President Bush, and therefore do not want success in Iraq. America is purposely being deprived of the good news that is occurring in Iraq, the DAILY successes that our soldiers are achieving. Look at alternative news sources, those who are interviewing our soldiers on the ground. The soldiers regularly tell the reporters (who actually dare to report good news) that they do not want to leave Iraq until the job is completed. They care about the Iraq people and about America's safety. Our troops need your support.
- cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It depends, is my family made up of enemy combatants? Did my family make war against the United States? Did my family conspire to commit acts of terrorism?"
Probably not. And neither are a good number of people we are holding/torturing, some of which were scooped up based on having a similar name as a suspected terrorist. Fact. WAKE UP! - Melster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The ACLU is an enemy within this country. Western civilization is in big trouble, especially with all of the politically correct agendas taking precedence over the terrorism threat. We have a leader who sees the threat (so does England). Remember 3000 innocents died on 9/11? Thank your troops for protecting your safety and freedoms and wake up to the threats within and outside this country. Remember: the main stream news media does NOT want us to win in Iraq.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Terrorist" is subjective. I think the government fits pretty well the definition of "terrorism" if you ask me (using terror for political goals).
If the Geneva convention doesn't protect "terrorists" as you claim because they don't fight for governments, then the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect them by forbidding the government to deny these "terrorists" due process of law and basic human rights, whether or not they are citizens. If you have proof they are terrorists, given them a public trial. If not, release them at once. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hope you're one of those 9 innocents that gets tortured. Only you not so innocent now because since you already advocated torture on innocents, you pratically deserve to be tortured. Hey if it just saves 11 people from being tortured!
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is