What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
109 Comments
- jpsoraire, on 05/02/2009, -8/+76"No one is above the law" - The President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama
"Waterboarding is torture" - The President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama - digg4peace, on 05/02/2009, -2/+45fta:
“What we know is that we had at the time a rogue government that created an environment where this sort of conduct was condoned, if not encouraged,” he said. He added, however, that relying on illegal opinions or orders would probably not be a defense.
Well...if relying on illegal opinions and orders is not a defense for the "Bad Apples"... it most certianly cannot be a defense for the Rogue Government....Where are the arrest warrants already? - Ysabetwordsmith, on 05/02/2009, -0/+37It has previously been established that "just following orders" is not a permissible defense. However, soldiers should always have a *protected* option to refuse illegal orders. In practice, they don't; refusing even an illegal order is the end of one's career at least. That contributes to the problem, and needs to be fixed. The primary blame falls on people in power who *designed* the whole torture program. They should be tried for war crimes and punished accordingly.
- jleopold, on 05/02/2009, -3/+29I hope their appeals are heard. They were prohibited from introducing evidence, if I remember correctly, to show that the senior Pentagon officials like Rumsfeld created the policy that resulted in the abuses and torture. And when the Pentagon releases the next round of photos later this month showing even more atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere the Obama administration should go after Rumsfeld and others like Pentagon general counsel William Haynes. Last week's Senate Armed Services Committee report said the abuse "wasn't the work of a few bad apples" as the Bush administration maintained.
- footbag01, on 05/02/2009, -4/+26Bush & Cheney should be sharing the cell with them.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+19He also added that he won't be charging any CIA agents who used "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
Isn't that obstruction of justice Mr. Obama if one of these agents killed or seriously injured a detainee? - BoulderSue, on 05/02/2009, -0/+19I think these people are right in a way, but some of those grins on their faces I saw in some of those pictures tell me they weren't exactly disobeying orders on grounds that what they were ordered to do was illegal (which I would not necessarily expect) or at least intuitively wrong. They were young, inexperienced and fully imbued with the idea that in the military, you follow orders. I get that. My step-daughter and her soon to be husband are both former Marines, but they were in command positions to an extent because of their education and rank. I cannot envision either of them ordering anyone to do what the "bad apples" did. My step-daughter, BTW, switched to the Coast Guard at the cost of loss of rank and pay grade ASAP after the second deployment. Something happened the two times she was in Iraq, probably the second time, because she doesn't talk about her experiences during that deployment at all. We don't ask but I think she must have seen something she really didn't like. Maybe it was the war in general, I don't know. I just know that the "bad apple" most likely did not think up what they did on their own.
I'm just glad my "kids" are out! - philodygmn, on 05/02/2009, -2/+17Even if they were they should still be convicted, because what they did and for them to do it was still just as illegal. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath it, either.
- flossdaily, on 05/03/2009, -1/+16"I was just following orders" was not an acceptable excuse for Nazi war criminals. It is not an acceptable excuse for United States war criminals either.
But, I'm all for lessening their sentences if they will testify against their superiors. Let prosecutors build a case all the way up to Bush. I'd love to see him held to account for his crimes. - eco57, on 05/02/2009, -1/+16I'm not sure of the credentials of these Gittins and Myers attorneys, but I'd like to see the guards get some high-powered representation who can take this all the way, if necessary.
- Lefts, on 05/03/2009, -0/+14Regardless of whether they were made into scapegoats or not, they are as guilty as everyone involved.
We had to face this question before, and "just following orders" isn't a good defense. - 8FoldPath, on 05/03/2009, -0/+13Pelosi was the only name you are right on. There were only four people on the Hill briefed about the CIA program in Sept of 2002. Read it for yourself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Too bad none of them had the power to stop it. Who was in power back then? Who could have stopped it but instead carried it further? Care to refresh my memory? - c0mputar, on 05/03/2009, -0/+10Prosecute all of them. They all committed war crimes.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -1/+10i love the Nuremberg Defense, because when the enemies "only follow orders" and they kill and torture they are guilty, but if it our side that does it, it not there fault.
- maccoup, on 05/02/2009, -2/+10Good luck to them.
And if they win their appeals on these grounds? - inactive, on 05/03/2009, -1/+9bush was a horrible president...
- smotpoker, on 05/03/2009, -1/+9I don't care if they're unheard but I don't think any appeal should absolve them of their punishments. It is just as much their duty to disobey unlawful orders as it is to obey lawful ones. If they cannot tell the difference (or choose to ignore it) they shouldn't be protected any more than anyone else in the same circumstance. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Regardless of who tells you to do something, it is your responsibility to make sure it is legal and accept the consequences if it isn't.
- samuelburns, on 05/03/2009, -1/+8Doesn't matter, they did the crime, they need to do the time.
- hereticoftruth, on 05/03/2009, -0/+7While you are opposed to the treatment imposed on our war prisoners overseas, consider what happens within our stateside prisons. While deep within us we would like to see the bad guy 'get what he deserves', we should all practice the compassion to protect them from others and see that they have the social skills to approach life as a good citizen would before letting them free in society. But the first priority is protect society from them. I don't want our criminal justice professionals thinking it's OK to freely abuse criminals like the 90% of rentacops like to talk in favor of. In this Christian culture I shudder to think about what they are thinking when they ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" The practiced morality of Christians has been grossly cheapened over the years to think that the Moral Majority can picture Jesus waterboarding the truth out of anybody.
- Deguello, on 05/03/2009, -0/+6Is anyone surprised that a place that held high level detainees and was in the business of extracting information from those detainees, was getting its orders from the highest levels of Washington?
Or it was all masterminded by Lynndie<sp?> England? - bobbi21, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5yes.. don't dig up the past. what's the point of catching criminals? The crimes already done lets not dig up the past.
Murderers, rapists, robbers, the crimes done lets just move on. It'll cost so much money to prosecute them. - Lefts, on 05/03/2009, -0/+6The signs seem to say that the bad apple defense was a lie.
They do have a case. But they are still guilty. - inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5Yes they were scape goats.That does not change the fact that they not only broke the law but evidently had a good time doing it.A soldier is obligated to disobey an illegal order.To me their case only proves the need to insure that those who created the environment for such as these to flourish openly, Are made to face similar though greater penalties.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -4/+9Hold on a second, the ***** they did at Abu Ghraib WERE NOT the techniques in the memos.
The enhanced interrogation techniques in the memos were not what we saw depicted in the photos. - jakem1, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4There's no such thing as a good apple in an army that illegally invades and then occupies a country that's done nothing wrong. I'm glad your step-daughter's out of the army now but she and her husband should never have got in in the first place. They've got just as much blood on their hands for the crimes that have been committed in Iraq as anyone of their colleagues. Has it occurred to you that she might not want to talk about her experiences because she's ashamed of what she's done?
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5Thank you for admitting these things are crimes and the enablers should be investigated. You're coming along.
- sheasie, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5Wait what ? Really?? I am socked.
/s - SpinningHead, on 05/03/2009, -1/+6Rumsfeld also went there personally and put a note on the wall saying, "Take the gloves off".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/in ... - buckrogers1965, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5Whoever tortured or approved torture or passed on the orders needs to goto prison for a good long time.
Torture is illegal. If we just let people break the law at the highest level they are going to learn that the law does not apply to them. And power without law is a recipe for fascism. - jakem1, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4They aren't innocent regardless of whether they were following orders or not. Torture is illegal and it was their duty to disobey any order that was given to commit it. These people are not victims, they are cowards who committed the most grievous human rights violations.
I agree that those who gave the order to torture prisoners should be tried and punished but this is not an either/or situation. The soldiers who ultimately carried out these crimes are just as guilty as the officers and politicians who ordered it. They are not scapegoats, they were just to gutless to stand up for the rights of the men they willingly and happily tortured. - pintomp3, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4sharcasm?
- aaronhoffmeyer, on 05/03/2009, -1/+5Most of those prosecuted were charged because they appeared in pictures. In many cases, the people in the pictures were not the people who had perpetrated the abuse. The CIA agents were conducting the torture, and these soldiers took pictures of the torturees and victims, often in the aftermath of the CIA agents finishing or taking a break from what they were doing. The famous picture of the guy with a sack over his head, balanced on a box with jumper cables attached to his hands ... perfect example. CIA agents put the guy up on the box, covered his head, attached the jumper cables to his hands, and told him that he would be electrocuted to death, if he fell off the box. He didn't know that the cables were not attached to any electrical source. Some reservists working at the prison walk by, take pictures of it, and THEY get prosecuted ...
Another example ... the famous pictures of the victim who had been tortured to death ... with cause of death unknown ... who was put in a body bag and iced down until the CIA could figure out how to remove the body and all traces of what they had done. Well, the reservists working at the prison had to keep icing the body down, and a few of them decided to take some pictures. They put themselves in the pictures, and one woman gave a thumbs up signal, which she described afterwards as her sick sense of humor coming to the forefront. What she said she meant by it was ... see how ***** up things are here at the prison ... the CIA agents are torturing people to death ... and the thumbs up was like "good job, America." Did the CIA agents who killed this guy get prosecuted? No way. Did some girl who appeared in a picture with the corpse with her thumb up get prosecuted? For sure. Did she get convicted by Bush's kangeroo court? You know it.
In fact, one person convicted was a mechanic in the motor pool who helped escort a prisoner at the CIA's request, and when he went into the prison area, came upon the famous nude pyramid crap. He ended up in the pictures that were being taken. Did he do anything illegal at any time? No. Was he involved in the stupid Sft. Graner pyramid? No. Was he prosecuted? For sure. Did he get convicted by Bush's kangeroo court? You know it.
Those prosecuted did not waterboard anyone. A few were guilty of naked humiliation of the prisoners, and most of them only started doing that at the CIA's behest. Sgt Graner and another sergeant did punch and physically abuse some prisoners, but most of those prosecuted were not involved in interrogations, did not beat anyone, did not torture anyone, and WERE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS of the CIA agents in many instances where they were involved directly.
The CIA recently acknowledged that they destroyed over 92 hours of their own videos that surely would have shown them conducting interrogations involving torture ... videos that would have led to huge international condemnation of the US policies regarding detaining and treatment of prisoners, and probably would have led to the widespread call for the CIA agents to be prosecuted.
Bush's henchmen conducting the real torture were protected by the Bush administration and are now being protected by the Obama administration. Some plebian reservists who got stuck manning a prison in Iraq, with almost no formal training, who followed the orders of the CIA agents working in the prison, but who were dumb enough to 1) take pictures, and 2) allow themselves to be photographed in scenarios where prisoners were being humiliated, were the fall guys for an administration's illegal and repulsive policies.
They were the fall guys. They are only getting the credibility because they are finally being allowed to tell what happened. - inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4Yep another reason to fight for your country
- gemlarin, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4Thank you! I'm glad someone said it!
As a vet I can tell you, we were trained to disobey an order that we knew was unlawful. If you claim you did not know that stripping down POW's and making them simulate sex with each other was an unlawful order, then you deserve whatever conviction you received.
In saying that, I am not excusing Bush. I want to see him burned at the stake as well for his actions in this, but his actions do not excuse the actions of those below him. - motters, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4"I was only following orders" doesn't excuse what these people did - soldiers are obligated not to follow illegal orders - but there seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that this really wasn't the "bad apples" scenario which it was depicted to be at the time.
- IIAmusedII, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4You're soft on crime and you apparently don't believe in the Rule of Law. Further, you fail to see how not prosecuting this will guarantee it happens again.
If you want to talk about costing us $$$$ needlessly, perhaps you should consider the war over WMDs that were never there.
You are a conservative nut job.
If you don't like Kevin Rose, perhaps you should not log on to Digg. You'll find AM radio much more to your liking.
Stop uttering such poorly written nonsense here on Digg and go back to your LOTR dolls, Gimili. - jakem1, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4"Too bad none of them had the power to stop it"
You mean to say that respected, powerful politicians don't have the power to draw international attention to crimes being committed in their names? They don't have access to the media? They aren't in a position to discuss and debate these issues in Congress and other forums?
Give me a break. Anyone who new about this and refused to do anything about it is guilty - morally if not legally. - squatz, on 05/03/2009, -1/+4Actually, they were scapegoats for agents of the CIA, but whatever.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -3/+6One more thing: Those guys (and gal) weren't convicted of torture. They were convicted of abuse.
- aaronhoffmeyer, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Of all those prosecuted to date, only two are still in jail. The rest have done their time and been released. Several of them were completely innocent of any abuse, but were convicted anyway ... because they appeared in pictures depicting abuse. They were not the perpetrators of the abuse ... just happened to be passing through.
- enssss, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3In all fairness, shouldn't Obama clear these people's names? If not, shouldn't Obama prosecute people who enabled and executed torture?
- 5urr3al5am, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Officials: Gitmo court system likely to stay open
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_go_ca_st ... - flossdaily, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Hate to break it to, JimyCrow, but history is full of examples of presiding judges making stupid comments and bad decisions. I just spent the past 3 years reading a ton of them!
- aaronhoffmeyer, on 05/04/2009, -0/+3@WhiteRaven
Waterboarding is torture. Beating prisoners to death is torture. Torture is illegal. Who conducted waterboarding? The CIA agents. Who beat prisoners to death? The CIA agents.
I only put some faith in the words of those who were prosecuted because I have watched several documentaries in which all those that have been released described their actions, what got them charged and indicted, and not only do their stories support one another, but a series of more than 2000 photographs supports their stories.
The two reservists that are still in jail were indeed guilty of crimes against prisoners, because they did abuse the prisoners. They independently started conducting treatment of the prisoners that mirrored what the CIA agents were doing. They really beat the prisoners, and just like the CIA agents, started using dogs to terrorize the prisoners.
The CIA agents attacked the prisoners with dogs, tortured them, beat them, humiliated them, and got almost not actionable intelligence from those efforts. They did all that on orders from the Bush administration. Remember, several of their prisoners were the highest profile prisoners that were captured during the entire war. Rumsfeld went to the prison in person, so did the head of the CIA.
Those reservists that were involved in the picture taking that have already been released from prison were mostly guilty of allowing themselves to be photographed. Those photographs turned out to be an international embarrassment, and the Bush administration needed to convict those people in the pictures so they could tell the world, "Look, this was the action of a small handful of bad eggs, and we have taken care of it." Nothing could be further from the truth.
The real abuse and torture was taking place every day ... was not photographed ... rather, it was video-taped, and the CIA made sure that none of that video has seen the light of day. Because there is almost no video or photographic evidence of the CIA's abuses, they have claimed that they didn't abuse the prisoners beyond what the Bush justice department told them was legal.
However, of the 2000 pictures taken by the reservists, hundreds are actually examples of abuse committed by the CIA agents ... not the reservists. The reservists are pointing this out now, to anyone who will listen. They are saying things like, "You see these two guys with the dogs attacking this prisoner. Those are CIA agents. You see the dogs biting the guy. Now here he is bleeding all over the floor. These are now pictures of the emergency medical personnel brought in to save the guy from bleeding to death. Here they are stitching up his leg." What the reservists are asking all of us, is why, in a series of pictures like that, the only people to be prosecuted are the people who took the pictures. - RickMassey, on 05/04/2009, -0/+3That is exactly right. These soldiers were going to catch hell either way. I don't condone what they did. But punishing them while letting the chief architects off the hook is unbelievable! How can following orders be a war crime when giving the same orders is okay?
- flossdaily, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3You seem to be implying that the US didn't actually believe in the principle that lowly soldiers had a moral obligation to disobey immoral orders, that they were prosecuting Nazis for some other reason and that this was just an excuse.
Did you actually mean to imply that? I want you to think carefully, because your answer will determine if you are, in fact, a huge douchebag. - geodebug, on 05/03/2009, -0/+2At least make them all stand up in front of a congressional hearing and admit their crimes before letting them off. I doubt anybody will go to jail over this because nobody has the balls to do the right thing.
Sometimes the right thing will do some harm to our security, but principles are principles. - aaronhoffmeyer, on 05/03/2009, -0/+2A handful are guilty of abuse. Most of them weren't, but were convicted anyway.
However, in comparison to the abuse enacted by the CIA agents, these guards were doing almost nothing to the prisoners. The CIA agents were torturing prisoners every day ... beating them, waterboarding them ... depriving them of sleep ... Most of the reservists only started the naked humiliation games at the CIA's request.
The CIA agents were definitely guilty of massive torture, and were never investigated. They literally killed prisoners and made them magically disappear with no record. If the guards had not taken pictures, there would be no evidence of the people the CIA agents killed.
So, who do we prosecute? The photographers and guards who appeared in the pictures. Did we prosecute any CIA agents? No. Did we prosecute anyone in the chain of command who ordered these tactics? No.
Why did we prosecute a sergeant who punched a prisoner in the head and set up a naked human pyramid and sentence him to ten years, but we did not prosecute CIA agents who tortured people to death routinely? Why have we not prosecuted administration officials who ordered the torture? - bobbi21, on 05/03/2009, -0/+2Sadly a lot of ppl don't think that's unlawful :(
- bobbi21, on 05/03/2009, -0/+2Look of the milgram experiment. A lot of ppl don't recognize pretty bad things if someone tells them to do it...
Summary: 2/3 of ppl were willing to electrocute someone to death if they were told to. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is