What is Digg?118 Comments
- swrostmore, on 11/02/2007, -5/+72This title is inaccurate - Blackwater was in fact "offered" immunity, only the people who offered it were not legally capable of granting it.
From the NYTimes article: "The State Department investigators from the agency’s investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, offered the immunity grants even though they did not have the authority to do so, the officials said." - LuciferChaos, on 11/01/2007, -3/+33Both the title of this submission and the supposed quote in the description are false. The actual title from the CNN story that this links to says the exact opposite of the title of this submission: " Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity"
Furthermore, the quote listed in the description does NOT say "No immunity deal was offered to Blackwater..." - the actual quote from the CNN story says:
"No BLANKET immunity deal was offered to Blackwater guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, two senior State Department officials told CNN Tuesday.
HOWEVER, some kind of limited immunity was apparently offered by State Department investigators when they questioned the Blackwater personnel apparently involved in the shootings, the officials said."
Both the title of this submission and the quote included in the description are completely false and in fact completely opposite of what the actual CNN story says. - Bagos1, on 11/06/2007, -7/+30Good...the new police in America should be held to law.
- Omeganon, on 11/01/2007, -7/+22Digg is amazing! Within minutes of being on the front page the State Department folds on their stance! Power to the People!
[/tongue-in-cheek-commentary-on-the-accuracy-of-unverified-reporting] - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -1/+12well then big shot, how many leaders have you made "examples" of?
- Grumps, on 10/31/2007, -0/+10Thats simply a misleading title, Source says that Black Water are offered LIMITED IMMUNITY, not NONE! After all, immunity or not, lets face the fact that they wont be trialled at all.
- Bagos1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+10And then you would have a lot of dead sons, dads moms and sisters....not a good outcome of outrage.
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8far be it for anyone to doubt bangor (as a submariner, I resent you using that name), but stories EVOLVE, unlike his opinion...
- tehpwnrate, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9You are ignorant. The deals that are offered are given to the guys on the ground in order to prevent the statement they give from incriminating them later. If these weren't given, they would be more likely to lie on the reports. You can still get them, just not use that statement as evidence.
Remember what they say about assumptions. - pintomp3, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9so if i get paid to walk into your home and proceed to shoot your entire family, it's self defense?
- sunkist22, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10And you know that because most are in your class
- jmpeagle, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7@card
Ghandi was a Hindu nationalist who oversaw the deaths of millions of Indians and Pakistanis due to the new founf independence of the Indian subcontinents and MLK only became a leader after people seeing an alternative movement coming from Malcolm X which scared the ***** out of people. Do you not remember the race riots?
MLK and Gandhi both oversaw great changes in history but it was definitely NOT without violence. - brufleth, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Then the question becomes, who is going to step up and prosecute if there is in fact a case to be brought (which there seems to be). They've made it clear they won't stand before an Iraqi court. So do they stand before a US federal court? Who will prosecute on behalf of the dead civilians then?
Could someone with some legal experience explain how something like this could play out? What similar cases have there been and how were they resolved? It seems to me like the investigation will be botched, witness testimony will be ignored or discredited and there might be a slap on the wrist for Blackwater and then back to business as usual. - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7so the offer was null
- whatthefu, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7Technicalities like these are irrelevant when you've got sensationalism using these stories to make points.
- jmk4422, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8This is such... total... *****.
Please don't just don't read the headline, people. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Galactus.
- cobaltblue12345, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8See these: " " ? They're quotation marks. You used them in the description you wrote for this story but apparently you don't actually know what they mean. You see, when you use quotation marks the words that appear between them should be the exact words that someone else used. However, this is what the CNN article actually said:
"No blanket immunity deal was offered to Blackwater guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, two senior State Department officials told CNN Tuesday."
Note the correct use of quotation marks. There seems to be an important word in my quote that's not in your pseudo-quote. See if you can spot it. - jmpeagle, on 10/31/2007, -4/+9if you want change, then you have to be prepared to slaughter thousands if not millions of people. The only way this country will change is via a very very bloody civil war in which horrible atrocities will be committed by ordinary Americans. Tens of millions will have to die. Like it or not, change through "democracy" doesn't work as you can't change the system by using the mechanisms of the system.
- pintomp3, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6they didn't get full immunity, but anything they say can't be used against them in a trail. it's like the opposite of miranda.
- bowens44, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5So , as you have just stated, they were offered immunity as were many others who committed crimes against the Iraqi people while doing the bidding of the bush administration. This is another case of the administration pushing the boundaries until the outrage became to much for them to ignore.
- felidaeus, on 10/31/2007, -8/+12Either way, blackwater sucks.
- amigabill, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6Other stories that this is not over yet
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306057,00.html - opiniastrous, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4It's as good as not offering immunity. Limited immunity is often given in the US to protect individuals from self-incrimination, which is their constitutional right. It is not immunity from prosecution, which all of Digg obviously thought it was (and in the context of that furious uproar, the title makes sense). Limited immunity also makes sense because it allows authorities to make investigations without providing people with an incentive to lie.
- legendxx, on 10/31/2007, -4/+8yeah lets act like Arabs. That will get ***** done!
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5But whos law?
They certainly will fight tooth and nail to be held accountable to the same laws they enforce.
Who watches the watchers?? - scottknick, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4So Condi's State Department denied doing something improper? Well, the Associated Press and the New York Times must be wrong! I mean, why would the State Department ever lie?
- Bdog2g2, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4"This will never make the front page"
Damn I should have bet you money on that. - jmk4422, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4That's not what the headline says. The headline reads, "Blackwater not offered immunity". Read it again and then tell me I'm wrong.
- Troika37, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Explain again then how Blackwater armor got those inconvenient bullet holes in them...
- Waiting2awake, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Over the government - sounds reasonable.
- synthox, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Guys how much more obvious does a troll need to be.
- DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Ah, the fabled internet tough guy. Lead by example jackass. Right, thought so.
- card51short, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7tell that to martin luther king and ghandi.
Killing people doesn't change anything. It stoops to the evil of our government, the terrorists. - cobaltblue12345, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3The headline of the article on CNN reads "Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity."
- bowens44, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4You're absolutely right, it is SOP for this administration to commit atrocities of varying severity and then ask for a 'do over' when they get caught. It's no wonder our nation has lost all credibility, we have a president with the maturity of a spoiled twelve year old
- 2Bnor2B, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Today, Iraq drafted a law which would make private security companies subject to Iraqi law.
It now is heading to their parliament for approval.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7069173.stm - tehpwnrate, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4I was suspicious from the beginning, when the AP article said simultaneously that they had learned of the immunity, but high level people said that they had not offered it. Then the big Reuters article detailed that the people who allegedly offered immunity had no authority to do so. But this is Digg, so what do you expect?
- objectcode, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Blackwater kills babies
- cobaltblue12345, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4In this case reading just the headline would be enough: Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity. This article is pretty clearly not saying what the person who submitted it to Digg claims.
- IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Digg poster irvman21 is BUSTED!
He deliberately changed the title of the article from CNN's title "Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity" to "Blackwater not offered immunity" and stated falsely that "No immunity deal was offered to Blackwater USA guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, a senior State Department official told CNN Tuesday." In quoetes no less when CNN actually says, "No *BLANKET* immunity deal was offered to Blackwater guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, two senior State Department officials told CNN Tuesday." Read the article he links to and you will see irvman21 edited out the word “blanket.” The Bush Administration did NOT offer "blanket immunity" they offered "limited immunity" meaning that the shooters would not be prosecuted based on their testimony and it could not be used in court against them. They could be convicted using other evidence. Blanket immunity would have prevented them from being prosecuted at all. The Digg Poster, irvman21, deliberately removed the word "blanket" and changed the title of the post to mislead Digg users. Another Digg user michaelnew20 did the same thing in another post linking to the same article. This has become one of the Bush Administration’s “talking points.” False information repeated over and over again to mislead the American people. This is Republican propaganda.
Digg poster irvman21 is BUSTED! - ehalasey, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Considering that they face the risk of prosecution for printing things that aren't true, YEAH. I can't believe this is the second time in as many days that I've had to say that.
- scottknick, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2First off, two major news organizations reported independently on this, so it's not just some reporter at the NYT. Secondly, the Bush Administration just has absolutely no credibility at all. They'll lie about what day of the week it is. They've shown that over and over again. So, no, I don't find their denials in this instance at all credible.
- cheesehead, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Bullet holes in armor? Blackwater took their equipment and fled the scene. Only later did they produce this so-called evidence.
- oldhick, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Just to clarify, there are more security contractors in Iraq than US soldiers. But I agree people need to calm down. We need to recall Blackwater and get rid of mercenaries. But you can blame them for fulfilling a need. You have to blame the administration that sent them there. You can of course hold Blackwater responsible for any murders they are guilty of, but thats hard to prove in a combat zone. But I'm all for trying if you got the evidence.
- jtcalhoun, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Actually, for those claiming that the title and description are misleading, at the time that this Digg submission was made, CNN was, in fact, reporting that Blackwater was not offered immunity. The quoted portion in the submitter's description was a direct quote from the first paragraph of the then linked article which was published by CNN at or before 6:41 AM on Tue. Oct. 30.
CNN has since changed the article, thereby making this Digg submission appear inaccurate. - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -5/+7that is not my face and i am anti-bush!
- Waiting2awake, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3If there is one thing I am sure of - the people in charge need no incentive to lie - it's habitual for them.
- hittnrun, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Even after your nuance, it's still a lie. They are not immune against Federal prosecution.
- neozeed, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2They destroy America by shooting at civilians, driving around throwing gernades in traffic. They are responsible for igniting the civil war in Iraq.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is