digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

roguegovernment.com — George W. Bush who has already declared himself a dictator in the case of a national emergency has now issued an executive order that effectively destroys the Fifth Amendment

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iAlex, on 10/11/2007, -100/+66It is time for revolution and impeachment!!! How long will you wait? Do you really think the Republicans will nominate Ron Paul even if he is strongly supported? No. That would ruin all their evil plans. Ron Paul make people aware, and that's an important role. Do you think all the military would go against the people? No, they might also be tired of this. Maybe they would help you (the military).
    These idiots are also an influence on EU and other countries in the world, brainwashing them that wiretapping, censorship and so on is important for fighting terrorism, which is a lie. Terrorism is just a cover for what they want to do, turn USA and EU into a policestate. George W. Bush is just playing dumb so people would think "No way that idiot could be behind that", but the truth is, there are people behind him who take the decisions. The media is helping them very well, that is why they don't criticized the Iraq War and wrote so little about the so called WMDs. It is in everyone's interest to do something about it. It would be hard to organize, since the government would arrest people for "conspiring" against the government, and they would call it "Terrorism", they seem to be able to call everything terrorism these days. The wiretapping of phones and even Internet would also be obstacles. But there are ways to be anonymous on the web, with Tor http://tor.eff.org/ for example. It is time for you, the American People to do something about it, otherwise USA and the rest of the world is doomed to get worse and worse and what will you say to your children when they ask you, "why didn't you do anthing?"
    Do something, please!
    • Akaji, on 10/11/2007, -20/+64The enter key. DO YOU HAVE IT?
      • gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Akaji:

        I don't know if he used his enter key or not. I DO know that on many occasions all my line breaks just 'go away'. When I finish my comment, it 'folds back' into the discussion text, looks OK, then if I reload the page - the line breaks are gone.

        There is some kind of bug going on with digg responses and line breaks. There are several line breaks in this message. I have to wonder if they will disappear.
        • OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14It is the new comment system. There are many bugs with it. My Favorite bug is the double posting of comments.... Love that feature.

          Maybe they need to get some more Venture Capital to fix the problem?

          • nitramlliw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14i think my favorite is the one when you try to enter the text for "are you human" and it's wrong. no matter how many times you try.
          • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I think I am personally fond of comments randomly just not getting posted, either that or the inability to fetch replies to a buried comment.
          • SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14My favorite is when I open up multiple digg threads and my PC just basically takes a ***** and dies for a couple of minutes until the threads load.

            Also, I like how when I add one line break.. and then submit the comment, it puts multiple lines between my text. Then I have to edit it. The edit reverts it back to no line breaks, then I have to add a line break ... THEN it works.

            Thanks Digg for dumping this ***** comment system on us.
          • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I like how the entire comment system is pretty much unusable on Konqueror, meaning that just for one site, I have to use a whole different browser.

            There are thousands of other sites with comment systems with very similar structures that work just fine. Digg decided to go all fancy and "Web 2.0" and implemented it terribly.
          • enemyofstate430, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's sad. Internet Explorer works better on digg than firefox. I have problems with script errors among other things. Maybe you guys will see this comment...maybe not...we'll see if it thinks I'm human in a sec.
          • sexmonkey83, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I know it's both old and unfunny but... http://The.5th.Amendment.justgotowned.com/
          • sexmonkey83, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I know it's both old and unfunny but... http://The.5th.Amendment.justgotowned.com/
          • LordSalisbury, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1are you human
        • OGTL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4When are we going to get the old system back? I ***** hate this.
      • gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I reloaded. From my firefox browser, all line breaks appear to have been removed.
      • michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10How can a President abolish the 5th amendment?
        That would require another amendment that would need something like 60% of the States to ratify plus congress.

        I'm sure the very first incident of the this exec order will be challenged in court..
        • maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Will need a pro bono lawyer if all assets have been seized.
        • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"How can a President abolish the 5th amendment?"

          Dude, that's dangerously close to actual logic in a Digg political thread. that'll get you nowhere. You have to say things like " 911 was teh inside job!!!!!" and "Chaney is the anti-christ!!!!!" or the ever popular "IMPEACH!!!!!!" That'll get you dug up. The important thing to remember is whichever you choose be sure to use random ALL CAPS and lots of exclamation points.
        • LordSalisbury, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2To abolish an amendment is to stop enforcing it. The constitutional way of doing this is indeed to basically check to make sure 2/3 of the states are ok with not enforcing that amendment anymore, like with alcohol prohibition. However, if those states and the people of them are not willing, when the president decides to stop enforcing an amendment, to exercise their own authority to enforce the president's adherence to constitutional law in what ever ways become necessary, then that amendment might as well have been abolished.

          The other option, of course, is for a state to withdraw from the dysfunctional system that no longer serves it's interests, although the last time that was attempted, the system wasn't especially respectful of the states' decision to pursue their own course of self government.
    • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11This has Cheney's fingerprints all over it. Impeach them both!
    • pcghost, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26I know you are trying to be helpfull iAlex, and I actually agree with what you are saying completely.....BUT
      Please stop posting the exact same paragraph in every political thread, or at least fix the spelling on the master document before copying and pasting it everywhere. There is a Y in anything man!. Oh and Tor kicks ass.
    • eljeffethefirst, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10I didn't know we Republicans had evil plans, iAlex. It might do you some good to look at the other side of issues and use common sense, too.
      • tony4moroney, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Nope, the Republicans just happen to unwaveringly support evil plans.
    • 2timegrime, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8dont listen to these goons, keep doing what your doing. dugg you up.
    • haiduz, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7lol, i wonder if most Ron Paul supporters are as stupid as the candidate himself. thx god he has 0% in the polls
    • jtb4, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I just wish you people would wake up and see the potential Ru Paul has.
    • kday, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Nobody will vote for Ron Paul because idiots like you are the ones trying to promote him.
    • Frequency, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4stop spamming, jesus ***** christ
    • bethehammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Wow comment went from +150'ish diggs to -27 buried - the digg bury brigade strikes again!!!!!!
      • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1God bless them and the good work they do.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6What will it take for 9/11 Truth to enter into main stream consciousness? Yes, I once thought it was ludicrous and impossible - until I examined the overwhelming evidence of an inside job by CRIMINAL elements of our government. If you haven't "woken up" yet, there is still time. Please spend 30 minutes and watch Zeitgeist Part II:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160790539111319889

      Ask yourself why average American people are shouting this information with bullhorns, protesting, risking their careers, creating free documentaries, posting on blogs, writing articles and designing websites - devoting countless hours to ONE thing - waking up the people to what our government has done and is currently doing. I plead for you to continue to examine the evidence. Thank you.
    • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul is popular? Sorry to point it out but popular on Digg != popular in general.
  • httpgeek, on 10/11/2007, -93/+18RPS = Ron Paul Spam, thats all this is.
    • Tyrsson, on 10/11/2007, -8/+61Ron Paul doesn't even show up in the article!
    • gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8But he is popular and isn't part of the political machine. Blame him for everything! Hell, just replace "Clinton" with "Ron Paul" when it comes to the blame game.
      • Vermifax, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4So,...............what OTHER president abolished the fifth amendment?
    • jtb4, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Why is everybody so against Ru Paul?
    • Louie510, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This is no mention of Ron Paul in the article what are you talkin about? This is about Bush abolishing due process... if you're not angry you're not paying attention.
    • PongGod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I always thought RPS stood for Rock, Paper, Scissors.
    • tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Face the facts... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
  • jcm1701, on 10/11/2007, -94/+7you know what people need to learn how to read but just to PROVE A POINT.... HEY BUSH I AM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE IRAQ war so if this was true come take my *****>>>>>>> OH DAMN I AINT GOT NUTHIN HAHAHHAHAAHAHAH THIS WHY PEOPLE PUT ***** IN THEY MOMMA NAME HAHAHAH
    • wattznext, on 10/11/2007, -19/+4Ouch
    • DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4Bush orders all liberals to be dragged into the street and shot in the head! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
  • bjkrautk, on 10/11/2007, -58/+58...and if the EO was ever used in the way that it is being presented, that person would have immediate standing to sue in federal court.

    (Which should be enough to tell you that it's not going to be used against citizens of the U.S. Too bad the Anti-Bush reality distortion field is on full power.)
    • wattznext, on 10/11/2007, -15/+128How do you sue in federal court when you are being held in an undisclosed prison with with no rights and w/o being charged with anything?

      Everybody says "oh don't worry, they will never actually use this." i don't know about you but
      a. i feel much more comfortable with my government NOT having the right to do this, whether i think they will or not
      b. do you really trust this administration, and all administrations going forward to not take advantage of this provision?
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Hear hear.

        I mean, Jose Padilla's fifth-amendment rights were completely violated for years, and I'm sure he had SUCH an easy time suing, right?
    • antibastard, on 10/11/2007, -9/+21there's no telling how much damage can be done to a person's life while they wait for a chance to challenge this in federal court. the order explicitly states that it can be used against United States citizens, and you make the claim that they never will. you are an idiot.
    • tsaylor, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21Standing to sue the Government? Good luck.
    • soporifics, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Yes, immediate standing to sue in Alberto Gonzales's Federal "Court." There's definitely a reality-distortion field in effect, but it ain't on the anti-Bush side.
    • jgzman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9If I have no property, or interest in property, how precisely can I sue? Lawyers cost lots of $$$.

      More importantly, a corporation can be for all practical purposes destroyed with this. I hate to be concerned about corporations, but in this case, it is required to be concerned. Say, if the ACLU was declared in violation of this order, the entire organization could be eliminated in one fell swoop.

    • BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3hahahaha Dugg down for supporting Bush ;P
    • ra2bk, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7you guys are dumb. All it would take is one person to sue, not everyone, and it would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4If the Supreme Court weren't populated mostly by fascists.

        So the theory that we could count on the SC to go against Bush is kind of a bet I wouldn't want to take.
    • bellachainsaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Okay, obviously you didn't really read the document- it leaves many loopholes in which anyone can be prosecuted and have their property seized by the government. The language is so incredibly vague that there is no way you can say that it "clearly states it would not be a citizen of the US". It looks like the only difference between Anti-Bush people and Pro-Bush people is that the Anti-Bush people can actually READ.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3How can you have an anti-Bush reality distortion field?

      First, there would have to be a day when Bush isn't functioning under "Opposite Day rules" and second, you'd have to be able to distort things that are so vague as to be secrets wrapped in enigmas shrouded in fog. I mean -- Bush's own staff doesn't know what he means -- so how could anyone distort a Bushism? Like, if my glasses were out of focus -- would it matter when viewing the fog that is the White House? How could you tell?

      I don't think Reality means what you think it means.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Where have you been, bjkrautk? Bush has been in violation of the 5th amendment for quite some time now in terms of the novel "unlawful enemy combatants" category and treatment of even US citizens.
    • RecordHigh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You are correct. Executive Orders can't be used to revoke established law, and certainly not a Constitutional amendment. Anyone who thinks so isn't qualified to speak on this subject. Having said that, very few executive orders have ever been challenged in Federal court on the grounds that they violate the Constitution, but in theory that's how you would defeat an executive order that was unconstitutional. Article burried for being inaccurate.
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I dunno, given administration abuses of the 5th in the past, there's a strong pragmatic case for "effectively abolishing", if not legally so.
  • wattznext, on 10/11/2007, -31/+94This is the is on the front page RIGHT NOW (10:35am EDT July 20). Sheesh these dupes are getting old.
    • DeathBorn, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Right now, the only thing that could make me dislike Bush more is if he abolished the entire Constitution.
      Wait for it...wait for it...
      • thatbuncha, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10him breathing makes me hate him.
        • aadyss, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Are you calling for his death? Careful now...........paranoia rules. Do you know that no one dies at the receiving end of the Progressive weapon. Incessant hate speach.
    • Akronos, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/9789/diggdupebt1.jpg
    • Iriel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12If it can make enough of a wave to get America concerned about it, I'll gladly deal with dupes. This is something that no American can afford to ignore.
    • Lanketer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Am I the only one who noticed your grammar mistake?
  • seraph82, on 10/11/2007, -30/+50DUPE.
  • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -23/+11Would you people PLEASE LEARN TO READ.
  • LetsGoHawks, on 10/11/2007, -14/+33lots of dupes, I know

    This is just another case of civil forfeiture (look it up), which has been "legal" for years for drug cases. I don't agree with it either, but this is far from new
    • rsh28630, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1and the odd duck spelling of the week as it legitimately exists outside the rule realm: i before e except after c
    • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9IIRC, "civil forfeiture" sections are part of actual *laws* that Congress voted on and passed...not just random imperial decrees...uh..."executive orders"...made by The Decider...uh...the leader of the country.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The 5th Amendment says you can't be deprived of property without due process of law.

      An executive order authorizing it doesn't make it constitutional.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Civil foreiture is clearly unconstitutional.

      "no person can have their private property removed" without a trial.

      But this supreme court isn't too interested in musty old documents.
  • sgglynn, on 10/11/2007, -22/+44Unfortunately for our country, we're getting closer and closer to a police state. at that point it wont be long until our own people resort to terrorism in a sad attempt to gain back the freedom that has been stolen from us.

    It's obvious that our government no longer has any shame or pride. 5 years ago, if a senators name popped up on some pimps phone list (See: DC Maddam) he would step down in shame(Or any of the other serious ethical violations that are seen everyday). Now, you stay quiet for a week, apologize, and continue to ruin our checks and balance system
    • darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23"at that point it wont be long until our own people resort to terrorism in a sad attempt to gain back the freedom that has been stolen from us."

      Was George Washington a terrorist? It's revolution, not terrorism.
      • newsheatdotcom, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16That all depends on whose side you are on. The rest of the world consider some of the U.S.'s actions in other countries terrorism.
        • zelig, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2...until they get hit by REAL terrorists.
    • abbost27, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7The US is in the exact same place that Germany was before Hitler became dictator. The American people are just too optimistic about what's really going on. History is definitely starting to repeat itself.
      • zelig, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Do you moonbats know what you are saying when you compare Bush to Hitler? You seem to have no historical perspective at all. Hitler cooked people alive in ovens. Get real.
        • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Not before he became dictator he didn't. Abbots27 is absolutely correct in what he says.
        • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Well the real difference between pre holocaust hiller and Bush is that Hitler actually served on the front lines of a war while every regiment he was assigned to was wiped out he survived it.
        • ClosedCaption, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Patience, give it some time. Hitler didnt become a great sadistic SOB over night
      • intelmole, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes. America clearly has had the worst case of hyperinflation in living memory for some time now.
    • RecordHigh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I think Bush has been a disaster as a president, but he hasn't created a police state. And if you think he has, perhaps you should read up on your history, or just look at places today like North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, etc... The fact that so many of you are able to spout off about how evil Bush is on Digg is a pretty good indicator that the US isn't a police state. My life and the freedoms I enjoy haven't been noticeably changed in the 40 years that I have been alive, have yours? And answer honestly... no whining about theoretical threats to your liberties or crackpot conspiracies of an impending Bush dictatorship? Bush will be gone in 18 months. The next president, whoever he or she is, will probably be better.
    • jhott123, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I am by no means a Bush supporter, but the liberal apocalyptic talk about how America has reached a point where it is a police state is just absurd. It is very romantic to think of America as a Stalinist state and we, the people, need to rise up and stop it. But do you honestly think that this is turning into a dictatorship? There is no way that in a country like this one, where the president has less power than the senate, could ever get to that point. So for all you people who love to blow things out of proportion, just relax, there is only one more year of this *****.
    • lefooey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're right. People in federal elected offices don't step down out of respect any more. If you want to know why, ask the two gentlemen who both happen to have the names "William" and "Jefferson."
    • drummer1189, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1youve been watching too much v for vendetta
  • tucsonsun13, on 10/11/2007, -24/+32I know where people want to go with this. But in this case, I think we are over-reacting.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8Way to be vigilant.
    • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Dont ask diggers to be logical, we're outraged!!!
    • Takalth, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Sadly, that view is the reason why government is so bloated and corrupt right now. Every time something unconstitutional or inappropriate is pushed through, too many people say "It's not THAT bad," ignoring the precedent it sets.

      If Washington keeps passing unconstitutional laws, eventually, the constitution will lose even the lip service it gets right now, then all of your rights are forfeit.

      BTW, don't think that the mainstream democrats are going to fix this trend either. As a general rule, if the mainstream media presents somebody as a "big candidate" you can be pretty sure that you don't want to vote for them.
      • krazedkaoz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Sure while were at it lets give up all our rights.
    • roguenine2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This applies to Iraq, not to the US. If you want to talk about precedents... the US has seized property in enemy territory in every war we have ever fought. If this happened to someone in the US, then it would be thrown out upon appeal.
  • toxicityj, on 10/11/2007, -16/+46VIVA LA REVOLUCION
  • bonesaw, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13You assholes are so dramatic... I'm no Bush lover, but you guys are getting ridiculous.
    • mtrip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Just think, we're surrounded by these morons. Scary.
  • upquark, on 10/11/2007, -16/+14How can we get this to the mainstream press? This really should get out there...
    • bigjimslade, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7It would help if it's true. It would also help if the general public, who your "mainstream press" talks to, are a bunch of wingnuts like yourself.
      • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Damn, I wish I could digg that up more than once.
        Author, Author!!
        /golf clap
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8There is no reason for it to be in ANY press. The difference between mainstream pres and these *****, that keeps it out of the mainstream press, is that the mainstream press can read!

      This executive order does not abolish the fifth amendment. It gives the government the right to freeze the assest of anyone who commits or is proven to be planning to commit violence in order to assist america's current opponents.
      • musicbaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:"
        Where is it stated that proof of planning to commit violence is required? Where does it define what is considered a significant risk?
        What you are describing is treason or conspiracy to commit treason which are already coverred under U.S. law and do not require any new executive orders. So, if that was Bush's olny concern, why enact this uneccessary new order?
        • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Because this adds the ability to freeze the assets of those people.
      • jgzman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Have you read the fifth amendment? If not, please do so. It prevents the seizure of property without due process of law. An executive order is NOT due process of law.
    • cesig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6How can you get this to the mainstream press? CONTACT THEM. E-mail them. Call them. Drive down there. Tell them. Something.

      And take responsibility for the things you want. If you want the press to know take it upon yourself to tell them.
      • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1and if it were actually true they would print it. Why would they not? It would be a hell of a story, it would sell papers, attract viewers, etc. But the mainstream press know something these guys don't... they know that when you print a semi true story and play up the angle that smells the most like BS, people remember. Then when an accurate account of the story comes out in other news sources and yours smells even more like BS, they don't buy your newspaper next time. This only applies to the normal people, though, the wingnuts (left or right, depending which your are appealing to) don't care and will discount dozens of mainstream "biased" media to believe their pet conspiracy source.

        / not directed at cesia. just venting
    • TheRealAlzabo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I sent it to Rawstory yesterday, no sign yet....
    • abeduler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Um... It's clearly stated on the white house website in news. no real conspiracy here.
  • JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -25/+23This was debunked yesterday and it's back today.
    Buried
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8Debunked? Sounds like someone sipping a little too much of the Fox News, Michele Malkin Cool-Aid.

      • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12No, it sounds like someone is literate.
    • mepol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It was in the Washington Post.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -20/+13pathetic that militarist right wing extremists would abolish the 5th amendment for political reasons.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4And left-wing extremists wouldn't? Hello Communism!

      Pres. Bush is not a "militarist right wing extremist," no matter how much you hear it on Digg. He's definitely conservative but he's no more conservative than Hillary, Obama, or Al Gore are liberal. Bill Clinton was more moderate than Pres. Bush (although if you balance out Pres. Bush's social conservatism with his fiscal non-conservatism, he's quite midline) but just because Pres. Bush is conservative and you disagree with him, doesn't mean he's an "extremist."
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7And yet you defend the politicians because "THEY" would do it too...

        You are truly the poster child for submission and logical fallacies. If both sides do the same, throw both out, redesign the system and let the government fear YOU. Were I come from, the government fear the people, not the other way around.

  • edrainkona, on 10/11/2007, -25/+91***** You, George Bush.
  • SwordofKahless, on 10/11/2007, -22/+14Did anyone bother to read the actual order? Whether or not you agree or disagree with American troops in Iraq, if you are an American that is direcly messing with our efforts in Iraq it is treasonous.
    • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13treason to disagree with political decisions?

      look up democracy in a dictionary.
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8When has America ever been a true Democracy?

        *Just playing Devil's Advocate
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -15/+1When has America ever been a true Democracy?

        *Just playing Devil's Advocate
      • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Disagree, no. Use a bomb to stop, yes.

        It doesn't say anything about simply disagreeing or protesting. So thanks for proving that you didn't read a damned thing.

        All theis does is take the usual punishment for already defined treason and adds freezing their assets.
        • jgzman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Remind me, who is responsible for punishing violations of the law? Now, read the order, and tell me who decides to seize your property.

          Second, the punishment for treason is death. You'll have a lot of use for your property after that.
      • Boomh4u3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We're not a democracy. I believe it's called capitalism
    • wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5"messing" how? "messing" by speaking out? "messing" by writing legislation opposing the war? "messing" by bombing soldiers?
      The problem is that it is incredibly vague. And don't you think it's suspect that immediately after this they blame hillary clinton for undermining the war effort?
      "Pentagon Aide Says Clinton Helps Enemy"
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20pentagon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
      THAT is who they might use this against: political opponents.
    • LoopyChew, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Why, yes. As a matter of fact, it hit the front page earlier today.
    • CloudBearer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Whoa, now it's treason to disagree with a war. I thought that this country was founded on the principles of freedom and the right to dissent.
    • archer75, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3This has nothing to do with disagreeing or even protesting. It has to do with violent protesting. There is a difference.
      • Takalth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+01. That's not clearly stated (and yes, I read the order).

        2. IT"S STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We already have laws and prosecution to handle violence, including violent protesting. We don't need an unconstitutional executive order.
  • Mullinator, on 10/11/2007, -19/+25heh, I think people are really over reacting. Maybe they like the idea of being a part of a rebel alliance fighting the evil galactic empire but that really doesn't mean it's nearly that bad. Sure things aren't exactly great right now but they are no where near as bad as people make it seem. Plus I predict things will change relatively quickly for the better, the status quo is not going to worsen.
    • hotcoffeeburns, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3the world needs optimists. THANK YOU!
    • Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2the world needs more neo-con apologists.... /sarcasm
    • Takalth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3But what will make things change? Democrats don't exactly have a history of reducing government in ANY way, and while they're all glad to bash George Bush or suggest that things like the Patriot act need "revised," nobody will openly condemn that which is unconstitutional (with the exception of Ron Paul) and really move to change things.
  • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -18/+55And Bush supporters are like "What da' heck is the 5th amendment??"

    • ChazHollywood, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1You're a bitch.
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7I'm not a Bush supporter, but this has nothing to do with the 5th amendment. Can we get some opposition to the regime that is capable of reading?
      • cbarge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Please, oh great reader of political articles, tell me how this has nothing to do with the 5th amendment.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Yeah, they only know the 2nd amendment because they use it as a bad excuse to own some shiny guns...
    • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1of course, ha ha ha, it's funny, haha, because ,hahaha, people who ,lol, have different opinions, haha, from yours, ha ha, are stupid hicks, hahahahahaha.

      /slaps knee

      Ass.
  • jonathansoeder, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16Look at the bigger picture. Bush is one puppet in a series of them controlled by the same clique and he is simply laying the ground work for a future dictatorship. Impeach bush and there is going to be someone else to replace him and most of us will be in a hurry to trust whoever this is simply because he is not Bush and this will buy them another couple of years to further their agenda.

    For every millions of people striking away at the branches of evil there is one striking at the root. Thoreau.
    • Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
    • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Please, don't buy it to such BS conspiracy theories. You have absolutely no proof at all. This all here is BS as well.
      • Takalth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Actually, you might be surprised to find out how much evidence actually sits behind some (not nearly all) conspiracy theories. For example, Bush and Kerry are both (admitted on CNN interviews) members of the same secret Yale society (Skull and Bones) which weilds enormous political influence. They won't openly say what they are about, but they get a lot of politicians into office. In the case of the Bush and Kerry situation, notice that we were given the choice between two members of the same society for president. That's hardly a choice at all.
        This is only one of numerous pieces of evidence. Don't dismiss conspiracy theories just because they're conspiracy theories. Give each of them an honest evaluation and decide on them individually, rather than collectively.
  • BritishGolgo13, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF!
    • violetdc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ROFL!!! i remember that Dave Chappelle episode! it's my fav!
    • OkayDoood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Sir, will you tell us about the cartels you dealt with in your time as a crack cocaine dealer?"
      "Um, no, but I can tell you that I plead the Fizzif."

      "One, two, three, four.......FIIIIIIIIIF!"
  • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10Having read the article, This is complete BS. that picture is even really old. The very first statement is absolutely false "George W. Bush who has already declared himself a dictator in the case of a national emergency " =Bull *****. Lies.
    • darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3He has declared himself in charge of all three branches of government in states of national emergency in yet another signing statement. Look it up.
      • ed3839, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Executive Order, not signing statement. Signing statements are meaningless.
      • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7He has declared the PRESDIENT, not always going to be himself in charge in national emergencies which is a very good move. In the case of a huge emergency you can cut the red tape aside and make the immediate orders to control the situation. Is there room for abuse, yes, but that is what our checks and balances are supposed to be for.
        • gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Room for abuse? There isn't much room for anything but abuse. Assume there is a terrorist attack before the next election; The President can't stand down, he's too busy not abusing being dictator.
        • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Is there room for abuse, yes, but that is what our checks and balances are supposed to be for."

          Well, the big problem is that when you said "red tape" above, then you said "checks and balances" below, you were talking about the same thing.
          • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The checks and balances come into play once the job is done and the welcome is over. It there were to be some huge disaster, such as a Yellowstone eruption, the president would be able to temporarily circumvent the system to pass laws which would assist in the recovery process, he could declare martial law in the area so the military can police the area, he could drop taxes for the area to encourage rebuilding, etc. Now once things are settled down, if the president hasn't repealed some of the more distressign things (martial law) the checks and balances should come back in and say okay you accomplished what needed to be accomplished.

            It's a glorious system when people use sense.
    • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6No he hasn't. Look it up. Congress has made several laws that he vetoed, and theres a frickin democratic majority there. He is not a dictator, he is not trying to be a dictator. show me proof from a reputable source.
    • falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4You are right, he isn't a dictator, he's the decider (and that's before another national emergency)

  • bigjimslade, on 10/11/2007, -21/+10Hello conspiracy assholes! Tell us, what color are the walls in your little world?

    • falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Crumbling around us....and we are trying to wake you up to it, but you can't see the rubble, because you are sheeple.

      Just in case:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
    • superdupergc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2hopefully padded
    • zovres, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3dude not saying one is right or wrong, but questioning has to be done at every level at any time.
      you should try sometimes instead of accepting what's fed to you.
  • TheNapalm, on 10/11/2007, -21/+5this is moonbat nazi propoganda, you guys are ridiculous
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -24/+37Has anyone BOTHERED to read the executive orders that they are talking about? This is all a major overreaction from people who just absolutely HATE Bush and are so blinded by that hate that they will do whatever it takes to get him removed.
    • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10lol, and of course you get burried for speaking truth.
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14I'm noticing a trend any comment that suggests the order should be read is being buried.
      • RecordHigh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2To read the executive order and understand it requires some knowledge of the law and how the US government works. To spout off about conspiracy theories and how the US is turning into a police state requires no intellectual discipline at all... you just parrot all the crazy ***** that you've heard or read and forget about the facts and whether your theory is even rational. So, all of those undisciplined people just digg down anyone that challenges them to really think about what they are saying.
    • Trickybunny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5This digg illustrates the problem with democracy - college drop outs, twisting words to fit their thesis from a paper that they only half-read anyway getting to global soap box to spout their misunderstandings to the world....God help us.
  • seandfeeney, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5DUPE http://digg.com/politics/RIP_Fifth_Amendment_Of_U_S_Constitution_1791_2007

    exercise your burying rights!
  • bobcrotch, on 10/11/2007, -19/+18wow talk about an lame propoganda site
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10dictionary, the new amazing tool everyone talks about. look up democracy in it.
  • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -33/+91What? Are you people even *reading* the order? In order for it to apply to you, you must either:
    a) commit an act of violence that ***** up the effort in Iraq in some way,
    b) materially assist somebody doing A, or
    c) attempt to help somebody who gets nailed for A or B

    In other words, speaking out against the war is NOT covered by this order. Learn to read, people!

    Buried as inaccurate.
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -11/+23You have to... you know... follow the herd. If you don't blindly swallow the anti-Bush propaganda, you aren't a caring person. You're evil and are just like Bush. Therefore, your actions don't matter except where they can twist it around and try to make you look bad.
      • ChazHollywood, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4Buried for being a dumbass.
        • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I guess you've never read these documents then to realize HOW ***** STUPID this interpretation is? I mean, you have to go in to this and cherry pick parts of sentences and ignore the EXACT CAUSES that will invoke the RESULTS described above.
        • Chupathingy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Buried for being a dumbass."

          now THAT'S irony.
    • trolleyfan, on 10/11/2007, -14/+14a) commit an act of violence that ***** up the effort in Iraq in some way,

      With, of course, the government defining "act of violence" and "***** up the effort." Oh, and it also includes posing a _risk_ of doing that "act of violence" - again, with the government defining "risk of..."

      b) materially assist somebody doing A, or

      Like, say, driving them to the protest?

      c) attempt to help somebody who gets nailed for A or B

      Like - oh, I don't know - being their defense lawyer?
      • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12With, of course, the government defining "act of violence" and "***** up the effort." Oh, and it also includes posing a _risk_ of doing that "act of violence" - again, with the government defining "risk of..."

        You mean like someone threating to blow up a building?



        "Like, say, driving them to the protest?"
        You can PEACEFULLY protest all you want. But if you drive someone to a place where they set off a bomb... you bet your ass you're liable



        "Like - oh, I don't know - being their defense lawyer?"
        No, you are allowed a defense lawyer. You are not able to give money, items, or weapons to someone that is going to commit an act of violence.


        Nice way to cherry pick your way through a document. Next time, read it without assumptions and you'll have a better argument.
    • falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Ah, materially assist someone doing A....that is the problem......who decides what material support is...what is the standard......and what secret court or tribunal decides this?

      Technically, speaking out against the war (and its policies) could be construed as providing material support to the enemy (if speaking out blunts what the administration is attempting).
      • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Here's an exert from a paper about what is "Material Support". If you notice, they were beaten in court on some of their expansions that were then clarified in later laws.

        http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/material-support
        ==========================================================
        The original definition of "material support or resources" in the AEDPA included providing tangible support such as money, goods, and materials and also less concrete support, such as "personnel" and "training." Section 805 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition to include "expert advice or assistance." Some courts have found the terms "personnel," "training," and "expert advice or assistance" to be unconstitutionally vague. The courts have reasoned that enforcement of these provisions has the potential to criminalize First Amendment-protected speech.

        The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, signed into law in December, 2004, responded to these courts by providing more detailed definitions of the terms "personnel," "training," and "expert advice or assistance" (section 6603(b)). The Intelligence Reform Act also amended the material support provision to require that to be found to have provided "material support or resources" to a designated terrorist organization, a person must have "knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization ... that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity ... or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism" (section 6603(c)(2)).

      • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3It *defines* material support. Extremely well. Read the thing:
        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

        Under no interpretation could "speaking out against the war" fall under this order. Unless you're insane and incapable of actually *reading*.
    • TheCaterpillar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Otto: thank you, its nice to see that there is still some rationality on digg.

      Everyone Else: Please, turn your brains on.
    • honkeybot5k, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4I'm so glad to see there are people, even now, willing to rationalize for the President. WAKE UP.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Don't you understand? If you're not with the Digg crowd (no matter how stupid they are), you're against them.
    • KyleKruchok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That has got to be one of the most intelligent comments I have read in quite some time... Kudos to Otto.
    • cbarge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The order is ambiguously worded, so yeah, this newly imbued power could potentially be used for such insidious things. And besides that, THAT isn't what is pissing us all off so much, it's just that due process is being suspended. Death to America.
  • hangtown2004, on 10/11/2007, -20/+18I didn't vote for the *****!!!
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11I'm sure he's happy you didn't because you don't even take the time to READ THE ***** ORDER before you go start swallowing this drivel hook, line, and sinker.
    • OrganicDrew, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3BRITANY SPEARS HAS 3 NIPPLES .... Does that get your attention .. no please for the sake of your and my freedoms watch these videos and keep a patriotic eye open at least one eye open or I garrente on your watch you will loose all your freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for so many years ago

      Does anyone ever watch CSPAN COME ON PEOPLE !!! IT's OBVIOUS WHAT HAPPENED .. we live in a dictatorship mascaraeding them selfs as elected officials when they are not even elected. If you combine the frauded election with the post September 11th Patriot act "that was written long before September 11th "yet another smoking gun" you can paint a clear picture at the objectives of bush and the international bankers who puppet him around for their globalist eugenics agendas.


      WATCH THESE VIDEOS AND YOU WILL SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO STEAL AN ELECTION!
      what can it hurt for us to be aware of fraud, at best we can prevent it at worst we can realize it happened and deal with the tyrants who claim to be elected of the people for the people by the people

      DO IT YOURSELF ELECTION FRAUD "disclaimer I am not encouraging we fraud an election I do however encourage we be aware of fraud so we can stop it before 2008 election comes around!"

      AWARD WINING BBC INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER

      Greg Palast - Stealing Elections Part 1
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M0WHrLslZE

      Greg Palast - Stealing Elections Part 2
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmmYGKOeHI8&mode=related&search=

      Greg Palast - Stealing Elections Part 3
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY00Lqp-0mM&NR=1

      The story continues MORE CENSORSHIP of the REAL MEDIA UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7woOAjUm8vQ&mode=related&search=




      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUarSYLBpjk

      --> Princeton university Study Outlining Design Flaws of election voting machines: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

      • gandaar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just more *****' conspiracy theory drivel. Get over it the election was WON not stolen you moron. If things don't go your way people immediately start seeing ghosties and ghoulies. Have some more cool-aid and don't miss your comet ride.
  • marigold23, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9Bad News for Americans.
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Yeah, this story shows how lazy and/or illiterate the American public has become.
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Bad News for Americans who were thinking of strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up a base in an effort to assist our opponents.

      /Edited to comply with fact/
  • ausfahrt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3We don't even have that in Canada so it must not be too important ;-)
  • DynaDigg, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10Put down your corporate fueled media lollipops and just look at the everyday world of America. Once the sweet taste wears off your tongue you see the sulfur that is our future. Good thing we have such honest and morally sound men and women in power to foresee this soon to be dictatorship/travesty to the American ideal and mute its presence...
  • kprooney, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush has abolished the 5th amendment, more like taking a leak all over it. Trying to read and understand that damn executive order gives me a headache
    • nnewkirk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2There is a clear line set at it being a violent act or more than one violent acts. The problem with this is that should there ever be large scale anti-war demonstrations like those seen during Vietnam, it could be very easy to charge the organizers of that demonstration with inciting a riot. This executive order could then be propped up with that charge of inciting a riot. Sure, one could defend himself in court fairly easily, but what happens to your home, business, and family while the government has seized it?
  • johndoenumber2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

    This language seems to limit the applicable offense to one of acts of violence. This seems to indicate that the purpose is to freeze the assets of those in support of the insurgency or other violent organizations not to just people who do not support the war effort.
    That is my observation at least. This is being blown out of proportion just a bit I think.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Well put.
    • HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Thank you. Its aimed at those who support the enemy in their acts of violence, not those who speak against it. People need to read before they run around screaming revolution.
    • somegeologist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5So lets say Johnny Anarchy breaks a window at an anti-war demonstration. It's not the laws intentions that scare people, but how it can and will be abused. In our system of government, one man cannot have that much power.
      • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6>>>"So lets say Johnny Anarchy breaks a window at an anti-war demonstration."

        Then he should go to jail for being a violent *****. Where's the problem?
        • darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2You're right. The whole revolution was wrong, too. That terrorist Washington should have just stood outside Britain (far away in a safety zone so he doesn't disturb the king) and held up a banner, right?
        • maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The problem is that without due process he has all his property seized. I thought before trial he is an alleged 'violent *****'.
    • jordanlund, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8It's the "pose a significant risk of committing" bit that has people up in arms... Let's say you're in a protest march and a small group of anarchists set off a firebomb. The powers that be can declare the entire march poses "a significant risk of committing acts of violence" and can crack down on the entire protest, not just the chowderheads acting out.
  • chelios7, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7This story is getting old. It is the third time I have come across it.
  • mlock2k, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7***** you i wont do what you tell me. ......................................
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2There was a time when kids like you were spanked... I miss that time.
      • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Its a line from a song idiot!
        • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Gee, adn why would he use it here out of context like that? To make a statement y' *****.
        • 2timegrime, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2because its from RATM you ***** asshat and fits well as a statement here. so go ***** troll your pokmeman forums. ***** uhhhh!
  • wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Pair this incredibly vague executive order with this:
    "Pentagon Aide Says Clinton Helps Enemy" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20pentagon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
    • wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Hmm...maybe johndoenumber2 is right. Unless you really get into some dicey semantics (what type of violence?)...
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2... and it still doesn't mean what you think it means. Literacy is a gift.
  • kopasa, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20buried for no mention of Ron Paul
  • raitchison, on 10/11/2007, -13/+14Dupe and innacurate
  • theghoul, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Did anyone else read this as "Bush Abolishes Fifth Element" ?
    • h4mx0r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Oh hell no, Bruce Willis is coming home for some whoopass.
    • yargthepirate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2AZIZ, LIGHT
  • robflm256, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6America vs. Bush

    America will win. : )
  • untitlednet, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31, 2, 3, 4, FIF!!!
  • SD929, on 10/11/2007, -21/+19Buried, more lame propagandist *****.
    • furryplanet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3you are an idiot! check ur head, tool.
  • thatbuncha, on 10/11/2007, -11/+14it's far past this, but we definitely need a regime change - you heard right.

    read my lips: NO MORE BUSHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR IN WASHINGTON
    • swizzcheez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I'd be happy running them all out. How about no more dynasties, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Adams, whoever. I'm sick of political families personally. Too much tendency for them to act like mobsters.
  • fleischner, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13I wonder if the junior high-schoolers who post stuff like this grow up to be the "objective" journalists for the MSM.
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Yeah like Sean Hannity and Carlson tucker, Bill O Loofah Reilly?

      Get a life jack ass!
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I don't think he specified that any of them were actually objective.

        Bottom line is these guys are misrepresenting Bush on purpose.
        "A few days ago, Bush signed a new executive order in which he uses broad language to claim that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

        The actual order was pretty clear that it applied to people who *commit acts of violence* to undermine efforts, etc, etc. Convenient how that magically applies to "any person" now.
        • aadyss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3They really don't care about misrepresentation. The Progressives have gone insane with hatred. The all inclusive, loving party.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9I'm pretty sure that posting this many dupes (Plame x3, Bush fifth x2, etc) is now enough to get your property seized.
  • boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6DUPLICATE, DUPLICATE, DUPLICATE. How many times does this have to be posted. I think the post to the original source was enough.
  • stealthboy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I love how everyone pointing out the fact that this is an inaccurate title is getting dugg down. People, please learn to read. Read the executive order for yourselves. Stop getting caught up in your emotion-fueled anti-bush tirades that make no logical sense! You really are just making yourselves look ignorant.
  • falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Hate to use this example but even Hitler had to enact certain legislation before he and his party's seizure of power was complete....I doubt the people in Germany were any more aware of what was going on then we (as a nation) are now.

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.