What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
80 Comments
- freedomjoe, on 04/22/2009, -3/+56What poor leadership; deny you made the call and offer up your underlings as sacrificial lambs. If you can't stand by your judgment, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of anything other than working at McDonalds. this infuriates me.
- facttech, on 04/22/2009, -1/+46The most explosive part of the report is not the confirmation that high-level officials authorized the torture... it's that they started laying the groundwork in late 2001 -- possibly to help obtain the "facts" that would be used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
http://digg.com/politics/US_Torture_planning_start ... - LunusMaximus, on 04/22/2009, -1/+41Hmm, civilian government officials ordering the armed forces personnel to carry out these acts of torture and then hanging them out to dry. Supporting our troops indeed.
- LunusMaximus, on 04/22/2009, -0/+28Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust these people with chicken nuggets either.
- anubis2night, on 04/22/2009, -2/+23Is this any surprise ***** rolls downhill, and BushCo. is full of *****
- swrostmore, on 04/22/2009, -0/+18This has been obvious since 2005, anyone who claimed otherwise is a shill or a liar. The fact that the illegal interrogation programs were identical between Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram was more than enough evidence to draw that conclusion.
- freedomjoe, on 04/22/2009, -1/+17LOL You're right, look what they did to our food supply and the FDA. peanut poisoning anyone? Why staff the FDA and give them any money when they're just in charge of food safety. how does that make Bush and co any money? No, they think it's best to show how ineffectual govt is, like FEMA, since they hate government so much.
Can someone tell me why we pay them if they hate government and don't do any actual work? - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+15Note to any military personnel expecting to use the Nuremberg defense...
"What orders?" - DFutureIsNow, on 04/22/2009, -2/+17Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, Its always the underlings that have taken the blame for the Bush Regime. ENOUGH !!!
Bush and Cheney are and always have been the real criminals. JAIL THEM NOW !!! - IrishJoe, on 04/23/2009, -2/+16Bush Admin: Blame the troops. Make them pay for our crimes!
- Menzer7, on 04/23/2009, -1/+12Bame Canada!
- jaybol, on 04/23/2009, -2/+13I'm tired of bameshifters
- Calcularius, on 04/23/2009, -0/+10 The Pre-Ramble of the NEO-CON-stitution
We the Sheeple, in order to foul and morally pervert the Union,
extinguish justice,
incite domestic turbulence,
profit from corporate offense,
prevent the general welfare,
and surrender the blessings of liberty from ourselves and our posterity,
do dismiss and abolish that Constitution of the United States of America. - jstohler, on 04/23/2009, -2/+12And now we know officially that Rice gave the OK. How high up the chain can it go?
- buckrogers1965, on 04/23/2009, -0/+10Everyone involved in torturing prisoners needs to be given a fair trial and if found to have violated the law they should be given a fair punishment. The people who created the policy. The people who relayed the orders. The people who actually committed the foul deeds. All should face justice.
A trial and fair treatment that they denied to their victims.
After all, if they have nothing to hide they should welcome their day in court to clear their names. - m4lomb, on 04/23/2009, -4/+13Bush and Cheney must be put in Jail if America is to have any kind of credibility around the world. Failure to INCARCERATE them is equivalent to endorsing them.
- novenator, on 04/23/2009, -0/+9wtf are you talking about? Nancy Pelosi had absolutely nothing to do with this, but thanks for playing 'shift the blame'.
- BrownieMix, on 04/23/2009, -2/+11The Bush Officials really are parasitic worms.
- cerejota, on 04/23/2009, -2/+10I thought individual responsibility was a conservative value. Like all other conservative values lost to the *****. Chickenhawk cowards.
- WaldoX, on 04/23/2009, -1/+9this is good news. once the leadership blames the low ranks, the low ranks will fight back leaking more information.
- zervoslives, on 04/23/2009, -1/+8Read articles or just reply to them?
- novenator, on 04/23/2009, -0/+6troll or sarcasm?
- americanoboy, on 04/23/2009, -3/+9that's why you prosecute everyone so next time anyone gets an order, they'll think twice about carrying it out, and those issuing such orders will know there will be consequences.
- nudedos, on 04/23/2009, -2/+7Bame eh?
- novenator, on 04/23/2009, -0/+5coming from a troll like HansFriedman, that can only be taken as an ad for the HP
- swrostmore, on 04/22/2009, -4/+9Yet another "false flag" comment from an establishmentarian attempting to shift the conversational focus from concrete criminal acts to unprovable conjecture.
- novenator, on 04/23/2009, -1/+6ancient, do you honestly still believe that propaganda?
- JoeParanoid, on 04/23/2009, -0/+4That's what I call supporting the troops: make them take the fall for you.
- clickmyface, on 04/23/2009, -2/+6the poster could nay afford that 3rd L.
- mithrasinvictus, on 04/23/2009, -1/+5Heroes don't hide from responsibility behind their subordinates.
- kd1s, on 04/23/2009, -0/+3When the Abu Grahib scandal broke my immediate thought was that they were scapegoating the soldiers. This has legs and I suspect we may see trials soon enough. Oh happy day!
- cherrysweet00, on 04/23/2009, -0/+3Heckuva job, grunts! We'll think about you in prison while we putter about the club. ta!
- OrangeTide, on 04/23/2009, -1/+4Well there are conservatives and there are neocons.
- buckrogers1965, on 04/23/2009, -1/+4If torture was absolutely needed, then they do it and then they publicly confess and accept their punishment to protect the countries honor.
They do love their country right?
Of course torture is completely ineffective and never gives any reliable intel. - scrivener212, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2What bends me out of shape is that we knew this at the time. This isn't news. If Congress had done its duty by the laws of this nation instead of protecting its own self interest and gone in and really dug, they would have found the Rumsfelt orders okaying the torture. Everyone knew that soldiers would not procede without orders--they are taught the Geneva Conventions for their own sakes, when they are captured by enemy armies. Those who are in prison now shut their mouths and took the hint for the unit, but they knew they had legitimate orders, as did everyone around them.
This is not news. This is our national shame.
Relenga, the administration did not go after the people that did these things; they picked a few victims and gave show trials to cover up their own culpability. There is proof and it is coming out now. The lowest level soldiers don't take a move without authorization--have you never known anyone in the military? Otherwise they would have been hauled before a military court the moment their sergeants or their lieutenants or their captains saw traumatized prisoners, marks of ill-use, and missed patches of blood. - Hardataq, on 04/23/2009, -1/+3He spent too much on vowels.
- quomen, on 04/23/2009, -4/+6Bame it on the a-a-a-acohol.
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2we're on to you...
- Chrysalii, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2We really need a double-digg button.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -5/+7These plans were laid long, long before "late 2001."
- canchin, on 04/23/2009, -2/+4So now that it is clear - as in being reported rather than being clear as in everybody knew for years but since it wasn't reported it was just a conspiracy theory - and since Obama has said that he doesn't want to prosecute those who were "only following orders," does that mean the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were also "only following orders" but who were jailed will now be pardoned by the Obama Regime?
After all, they have been in prison for a few years for "only following orders" and fair is fair, not the Faux news(?) type of fair, but the equitable, balanced type of fair. If the CIA "order followers" are safe from prosecution (although the AG and the Justice Department are not supposed to be taking orders from the White House and will hopefully charge Bush, Cheney, Rumps-feldt, Turd Bloosom, Rice and Wolfy for the crimes they committed) then the soldiers jailed for their part at Abu Ghraid MUST be freed! - cerejota, on 04/23/2009, -2/+4Good point, but on this point, the two beasts are the same. There are some brave conservatives who are willing to admit this, but the rest join the Coward Chorus and line up like sheep behind Cheney and his ass-saving media tour.
For example, I do not think Bill O'Reilly is a neocon, yet he has been the mouth piece of this blame the troops bs. - Chrysalii, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2because no torture happened before 2007.
and what he said - bishop, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1Nancy Pelosi as well as a number of other people from Congress were present during various presentations the CIA gave about the various techniques that were going to be used when questioning the prisoners.
The CIA went over waterboarding among other techniques.
Pelosi never raised any objections.
I'm not trying to "shift the blame," I'm just trying to give a COMPLETE picture of the events. - Wag3Slav3, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1You have to remember that we don't live in a constitutional United States. I mean, our executive branch has ordered that the judicial branch cannot prosecute any of these guys for the torture.
When did it become legal for the exec to tell the judicial that it can't investigate the executive branch? Checks and balances? There ain't no checks and balances, the system as written would function correctly, the system in place is corrupt and completely broken. - Wag3Slav3, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1Heh, they say there are two kinds of people.
Glass half empty
Glass half full
I am a non conformist.
I say the glass is too big. - clickmyface, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1i love you all
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Good point.
- donnytomas, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1Case-in-point typing
- Wag3Slav3, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1I hear you there. It is completely unconstitutional for the executive branch to instruct the judicial in who or what it investigates and who or what it brings charges against by the law.
It's called checks and balances.
If it's not politically convenient to investigate and charge the previous administrations law breaking too ***** bad. You broke the law, and the level of public trust you broke makes it MORE IMPORTANT to punish you so the current administration walks the line, not less! -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is