What is Digg?143 Comments
- MrTonic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41well... it is easy. When you lie enough, public will eventually believe.
quote:
""Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."
R.A. Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996" - juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33I believe the politically correct term is "enhanced interrogation".
Jesus, what has the country become when we have a politically correct term for torture? - otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32Wow, he's straight up ***** lying.
As reported by Jane Mayer, the author of the incredibly insightful expose on the U.S. torture program (published a few days ago, New Yorker) Bush feels that since he has medical doctors (psychologists) who sign off on the techniques, they're not really torture, just procedures. Unfortunately, for Bush, the Red Cross and a torrent of other experts have concluded that the "procedures" are indeed torture. - shawnfassett, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25On how many issues can every single person in this Administration claim ignorance before we start to believe that they are really ignorant (either that or lying!??!)
Gonzales gets to decide who the Bush Admin gets to spy on and nobody can watch over his shoulder. Give me a break...when laws are broken the excuse is always 'I cannot recall' (ala Iran-Contra) - notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17By Noam Chomsky -
In 2002, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales passed on to Bush a memorandum on torture by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). As noted by constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson: "According to the OLC, 'acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture... Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'" Levinson goes on to say that in the view of Jay Bybee, then head of the OLC, "The infliction of anything less intense than such extreme pain would not, technically speaking, be torture at all. It would merely be inhuman and degrading treatment, a subject of little apparent concern to the Bush administration's lawyers."
Gonzales further advised President Bush to effectively rescind the Geneva Conventions, which, despite being "the supreme law of the land" and the foundation of contemporary international law, contained provisions Gonzales determined to be "quaint" and "obsolete." Rescinding the conventions, he informed Bush, "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." Passed in 1996, the act carries severe penalties for "grave breaches" of the conventions: the death penalty, "if death results to the victim" of the breach. Gonzales was later appointed to be attorney general and would probably have been a Supreme Court nominee if Bush's constituency did not regard him as "too liberal." - siszam, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21He might as well stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes and go LA, LA, LA, LA, LA. Bush is such an embarrassment. He made is ok for children to have their genitals ripped off to make their parents talk. This man is in charge of our country? God help up all.
- skitle007, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17huh
- siszam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Because I know someone won't believe me: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/290906sexuallytorture.htm and the audio: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/yoo-1.mp3 of the press secretary defending Bush's choice.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15100% correct. Anyone ever read Brave New World? Same principal applies. If the human mind hears the same statements over and Over, no matter how absurd, it will eventually accept it as truth. This is what the Bush administration has been doing since the start.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20Bush has an exceptionally narrow definition of the word torture (about as narrow as his mind). Basically anything short of killing a person doesn't count as "torture" in his book.
- samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Digg links are user submitted. Go forth and submit content saying what a great job Bush is doing. I'm sure there are articles about that somewhere out there. Best start searching now. It may take a while to find one.
- CrimsonParser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11The only way you're ever going to get the truth out of that lying ***** bag's mouth is to not torture him too.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11*knock knock* anyone home? That was a joke sparky.
- crosswick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9We shouldn't go ad hominem at Bush like that, I think, in calling him stupid. I consider it to be a meme conveniently started to distract us from the real underlying issues, such as what his father and grandfather have done. Prescott Bush worked to finance Hitler, for crying out loud.
- scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12It wouldn't have changed the answer, but I think Bush really hates it when people call him "Sir" and not "Mr President". He's freaked out about it in the past.
Cos he is insane. - unclefire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11We don't torture? That's a good one. Ask the guys in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Or better yet, yeah, we don't torture, we just grab US citizens/residents and send them to countries where the DO torture-- oops he was innocent after all.
Scary stuff. - grungegbunny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Torture is for 3rd world countries that like to extort false confessions. It has never been shown to get factual information, people will lie about anything to get said torture to stop.
Besides, don't you think our country has evolved ethically enough to move past it even if you have not? - Cloned, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Maybe it's more along the lines that the country has gone to ***** and it's just showing on digg.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Wahhh....people are posting things I don't like.....wahhh
- samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11I hate Bush with the fire of seven suns, but that's an edited clip. There's over a minute of content edited out prior to his answer. Check the clock on the bottom right.
- SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6When was torture ever considered a finely honed science, and by whom?
Since when does one groups unethical behavior justify unethical behavior on our part?
Since when is unethical behavior on the part of fictional protagonists adequate justification for unethical behavior in the real world? I killed a guy playing GTA the other day, because my character was broke. I'm also broke in the real world, should I just dispense with the petty pretensions of morality and "do what I gotta do" because I saw it done in something fictional? - otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The quote "Haven't seen it, we don't torture" was his full response.
Here's the transcript of the question in full:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070809-1.html
"
Q Thank you, sir. A two-part question. The New Yorker reports that the Red Cross has found the interrogation program in the CIA detention facilities use interrogation techniques that were tantamount to torture. I'm wondering if you have read that report and what your reaction to it is? And the second part of the question is, more than a year ago you said that you wanted to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, and a year later nothing has actually happened in that regard. And the Vice President, Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary are reported to be resisting such a move. I wonder if you could tell us who's really in charge on this issue, are you doing anything about it, do you expect Guantanamo to be open or closed when you leave office?
THE PRESIDENT: I did say it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guantanamo. I also made it clear that part of the delay was the reluctance of some nations to take back some of the people being held there. In other words, in order to make it work, we've got to have a place for these people to go. I don't know if you noticed a resolution of the Senate the other day, where all but three senators said we don't want these prisoners in the country. I don't know if it was a 97-3 vote, but it was something-to-three vote. In other words, part of the issue, Peter, is the practical issue of, what do we do with the people. And you say nothing has taken place. I strongly disagree with that. First of all, we are working with other nations to send folks back. Again, it's a fairly steep order. A lot of people don't want killers in their midst, and a lot of these people are killers.
Secondly, of course, we want to make sure that when we do send them back, they're treated as humanely as possible. The other issue was whether or not we can get people to be tried. One of the things I'm anxious about, want to see happen, is that there to be trials. Courts have been involved with deciding how to do this, and Defense is trying to work out mechanisms to get the trials up and running. And the sooner we can get that up and running, the better it is, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to make any predictions about whether Guantanamo will be available or not. I'm just telling you it's a very complicated subject.
And I laid out an aspiration. Whether or not we can achieve that or not, we'll try to. But it is not as easy a subject as some may think on the surface. Again, I refer to you to the Senate vote. When asked whether or not you want to shut down Guantanamo, and therefore receive some of those prisoners in your home state, there didn't seem to be a lot of support for it. Like, three people said, it's okay by me, in the Senate.
Your other question, sir?
Q Red Cross report?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen it. We don't torture.
Yes, Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. [NEXT QUESTION, UNRELATED]
"
The entire first part of his question addressed the issue of Guantanamo and proceedings for the detainees. In response to whether or not he's seen the report and whether the U.S. tortures, he simply says "Haven't seen it, we don't torture." - grungegbunny, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Wonder if when this country gets back on its feet and becomes the leader of freedom and democracy again we'll be able to prosecute Bush the war criminal.
- murch33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'd make the argument that this country has gone to *****, and Digg is just a reflection of peoples' reactions to it.
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5One of the problems with politics is that no one is held accountable for lying to the public. Not to say that I'm 100% sure that Bush lied about the torture and all, but in general, no one is getting called out or even tried for deception. Yeah...so, we should do something about that...
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Ok...well that settles that I guess. Hmm...what's on tv?
- dyslexicsUNTIED, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"something political about bush...or some other random story"...like something about..politics..that should be in the politics section?
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5They are lying, that's clear. Read my reply to the first post for more information on the specific situation.
- lordmutt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The Germans practiced genocide...they called it the final solution. You practice torture, you call it "enhanced interrogation"
- SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Wow, Bush didn't read something? Shocker.
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're ***** retarded.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the only fags ive heard of molesting children are the closeted neocon fags and the closeted priest/religious fags. find me a story proving otherwise.
- Coven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They why view the Politics section? Digg has the features to ignore it.
- sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately reality has shown us that torture only give us unreliable information. Just ask the church how well the Inquisition worked and they knew how to torture! Boy did they know how to torture!
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3dont worry they just edited out one of bushes famous long pauses where he looks at the ground like an idiot muttering ummm, uhhh, ohhh until he can remember what cheney told him to say.
- monomyth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the real question here is who are those "we" he was talking about ?
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4you guys are wasting your time. neocons dont read facts and even when they do their brains automatically reject it because the voice in the back of their heads, you know god, tells them what the 'real' facts are.
- geekmansworld, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4We are at war with Pacifica. We have always been at war with Pacifica.
- shorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We are NOT at WAR!!! Goddamit I hate it when you ***** neocon recepticles say that! This country has not declared war since fscking WWII (or possibly Korea, but I don't think so). When me and you and every male on this forum is in uniform and all of our wives and girlfriends are at the factory making munitions and planes, when there are ration cards for butter and kids scrounge around for tin foil to contribute to military production, THEN you can say we are in a fscking war. Until then, just SHUT THE ***** UP with that!
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"we simply do not have the intelligence resources available to get our information any other way."
we actually did and all the intelligence they gave us told us that al queda is a myth and other than a few fringe fractions of amateur islamic fundies who dont have the power to pose any great threat, there isnt any true terrorist problem. i dont have to tell you all those guys have been fired.
torture only gives us mis-information. if you read any recent book on the subject you would be a little educated and know that many of the things told to us by the so called terrorists who were tortured were all lies and no information has given us anything significant. i know neocons typically dont read so just do yourself a favor and watch the documentary power of nightmares, its all in there too. - LeeJunFan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Haha, plausible denyability or plausible stupidity - you decide!
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if you want a technology news site go to slashdot, youre in the wrong place *****. i am happy to see so many of these kind of stories hit the front page everyday, it shows not everyone is a brainwashed sheep who relies on fox, cnn, nbc and the other handful of mainstream media news outlets who wouldnt touch these subjects with a ten foot pole.
- dudad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3According to the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, we aren't supposed to even torture noncitizens. If we torture, then how are we any better than terrorists?
- g00dETH3R, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You know what pisses me off most it's not Bush, it's that bought and paid for media that still gives him so much respect and credibility, without their support he'd be out. The lies, the scandals, the erosion of freedom and the contempt for the middle class, you need to be mentally inadequate not to see through the spin. Think about who the real traitor is, Bush is in office because thats his role, he was put there and supported by the real traitors FOX, CNN, NBC, The Times....... the list goes on.
I think we've had enough Bush bashing lets go after the real ass holes. - 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stories about the President of the United States in the Politics section? Who'd a thunk it?
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2god damn youre an idiot if you think they are seriously plotting some kind of plot to harm you in your third world american town in some flyover state, or anywhere in america for that matter.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647
There is another study that torture is ineffective. - PFS1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Ba dum dum tshhh
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Additional reading
http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/gonzales-15nov04.htm
"Well before the shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib hit the headlines, Gonzales was hard at work advising the president on how to dodge the U.S. laws against torture. In a memo dated August 1, 2002, Gonzales summarized his findings as follows:
"We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention [Against Torture]. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture."" - sealbeater, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh? You mean that unconsitutional undeclared by congress war? Only congress can call a state of war. Is the excuse "we are at war" good enough to cover anything with you?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is