What is Digg?134 Comments
- chiatar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30I hope one day we impeach this ass clown
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Bush is leading this country to a very dangerous place, a place nobody wants to be. It's a place where nations like Syria, Khazakstan, Iran, China, Egypt, and Indonesia are mentioned...in UN Reports of States that sponser Human Rights abuses and Torture. THAT is not my America and it shouldn't be any American's vision for this country. The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves in disgust for this disgrace of a President(and I use that term lightly).
- techsingularity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Bush & Co realize that they are war criminals and are trying to cover their asses:
As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the
August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's
decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already
committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military
tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found
that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes
Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar
argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war
crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the
testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3. - atlantean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24@Dred: "The enemy does not follow the Geneva Convention at all. So everyone who has commented already that is saying this is bad please explain to me why?"
I'm gobsmacked. Really I am. Are you for real?
The moment you condone torture, you cease to fight terrorists and instead become one yourself. - celopes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23So, pretty much it will say that we don't care about the Geneva convention.
I hope we don't get an american soldier aprehended by enemy troops (not terrorists, actual troops - terrorists don't care about the Geneva convention). They are going to suffer...
That is what you get when checks and balances go out the window. Bring back an active congress, please. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22This is rather disturbing. I can understand and agree with his desire to have a bill that would detail what is and is not legal under the Geneva conventions - the problem with this line of thinking is it pretty much says "Whatever the CIA/NSA does is legal, and if you don't like it, you can't go after them for doing there job".
There has to be a clear line. You can capture people. You can question them. You can subject them to sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop, deception, and so on. But there is a clear line between "questioning" and "pressure" and "torture". The latter is, and should always remain, illegal - and those who would use it must have it made clear that if they do, they will have to risk going to jail for it.
So let's have an open and honest debate about where the line between "questioning" and "torture" is, where one stops and the other begins. No vagueness so we can have "well, we can't tell you what we're doing because that would let the enemy find counterangles - but *trust us*, we're the government!"
We have it specific so we can hold it up to the world that our actions are civilized and good, and those who violate these standards - whether our allies or enemies - risks the wrath of all humankind. And if they violate them, then they can be punished and executed for their crimes.
To do otherwise would give every terrorists and dictator the excuse. "You can't punish me for doing this to your soldiers and citizens, when you do the same to us!" We have to be *better* in our law enforcement against terrorists and those who support them - and having a "what I say goes and you don't have to know about it" serves us all ill.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Grayslin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@Dred
I can explain it to you. America is supposed to be the good guys, the good guys do not torture someone for information they may or may not have. The good guys follow rules, the good guys set and live up to standards of decency and honor. If America throws out standards, if America throws out the rules and decides to make them up itself America would be no better than Iran or any other Terrorist or rogue nation. Might does not make right. What has always made America a great Nation is ideals, its a nation built on noble ideals. Many people feel what Bush is doing and has done is akin to throwing out those ideals. - tdkme, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Does anyone in the government see how bush is going around laws, voiding ones that affect him and creating new ones to cover him? Why do we see these things and point them out and we don't see any CNN or other news people point this out?
- wirelesshnic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16First off let’s fix the wording by replacing the word tough with the correct word torture. In no society should it be legal to torture! He claims they are evil and we are superior in one word and then insults the very things that make us civil with the other. I am a proud American and love my country but things like this make me ashamed. He is discrediting us to the world and destroying all that our pervious generations strived to protect.
- hlampert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It's more than disturbing. They are either insane or they know exactly what it is that they are attempting to do... the question is, is there anything that can be done to stop them? And if so, when will it be done?
- oneiroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12In our declaration of independence, in the bill of rights, we have certain ideals which we hold to be true for humanity. Not a sect of humanity, or just "us" but more of a broader picture of how humans should be treated.
Do you realize how sickening it is that someone who's supposed to act as the Representative of the US, is actively trying to find ways around rules against torture? Where's our human decency?
Even the Pentagon has recently released articles saying how torture provides unreliable information. It is now in the military handbook and why Bush is so gun ho on torturing people is beyond me (if you want a link to the information I will dig it up, I believe it was another salon last week). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16This is much more reason to impeach Bush than several thousand dying in Iraq (thats a product of fighting, you can't get around it). This is a direct assault on humanity itself. The best part of the article lies in the words "stoking the anti-American sentiment that fuels terrorism." If the US didn't have itself up everybody's arse we wouldn't have these terrorists.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14even easier
open story, put link below in browser..go
http://www.salon.com/news/cookie756.html
save bookmark for future salon articles.. it really was made for boing boing readers but works fine for us diggers as well.
edit**
geez if i had known you were going to copy and past the whole article i might not have commented. - epitaphic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"The White House is also seeking to roll back the ability to enforce the Geneva Conventions in U.S."
The Wal-Mart nation! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Typically takes the trolls around an hour to muster enough support for that.
- shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Torture is a form of terrorism, and it is wrong. This country is great because of the rights codified in the Constitution. Let's not throw them away.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Agree with what happened or not, allowing a "get off free" rider on this bill is WRONG!
- dburka, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Salon lets you read their stories if you click through the advertising. This article is worth it. I think you can run into problems if you've got AdBlock running, which sucks, but you could selectively disable it for Salon to read their content.
- FDDIcent, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24***** Bush.
- puddgomez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Why does it seem like everything Bush does ends up shady. Everything, every action, every bill he supports...everything he does, there is always "more than meets the eye"
- wirelesshnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Making us no better than them and thus making us the terrorists.
But then again I read an article on digg yesterday and someone had this to say.
"In a world where everyone is treated like a criminal to prevent crime, there is no reason to not be a criminal."
I think it is a wonderful Quote.
We have done this twice before. Once in Salem where we killed many innocent people, again with Communists and now with terrorists. The other two turned into tragedy why shouldn’t this one?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ Dred:
Exactly. BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM. Lock them up and throw away the key if they are convicted. Do not stoop to their brutality. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13and if it was up to the "righties", the contitution would be 'just a damn piece of paper', everyone's houses would be wired with cameras and microphones and we'd all have gps tracking chips embedded in our skin.
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Because his family gets billions out of making war against other countries.
- Grayslin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Dred
No the people that we are trying to protect under the Geneva Convention is our own Armed Services Men and Women, if we do not uphold those conventions then in the future no other Nation will feel the need to uphold the Conventions with our captured service men and women.
Protecting the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with terrorists, terrorists will do what ever they want, Protecting the Geneva Convention has everything to do with protecting our own people. - altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So if I get this right,
Bush wants to invalidate the rules of war outlined in the Geneva Conventions so that he can try "Illegal Combatants" based on testimony obtained through illegal means at secret prisons during a War that was never declared in a military court? - SoullessDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11There is a lot of things wrong with the world and America, Bush seems to support most of it
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10He doesn't care about people. All he cares about is himself.
- ENEL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Welcome to the People's Republic of China...err United States.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Because he's a Transformer. What you don't know is that when the cameras are off of him, he turns into his Robot Transformer device - a wood chopping chainsaw.
It's actually kind of cool. - ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The problem is that it's ineffective to make a list of specific things that are allowed and things that are not, because somebody will invent a new method or slightly alter an existing method. Then they can say "well, it wasn't on the list!" and get off scot free. The Geneva Conventions are intentionally vague about what's allowed and what isn't in order to keep it effective as a ban against anything that is inhumane... even things that the original authors did not anticipate. Bush's new bill with its specific list will become less effective as new forms of torture are invented and any forms that were omitted (purposefully or not). The argument that it is more specific or detailed is tempting and looks good at first glance, but ultimately it's far less effective.
- Vertabreaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"...unveiled a bill to set up military tribunals to try the prisoners."
So they're going to be tortured more? - bluejaypsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9On the topic, this proposed law is very scary. follow the logic with me if you please:
1) we modify the Geneva convention - enemy combatants can are anyone, anywhere, involved in "terrorist" activities
2) The crime of terrorist activities has no definition and no judicial precedence for evidence, etc.
3) we establish a parallel and secret justice system (military tribunals) outside of the US justice system.
4) within that justice system you can submit secret evidence (you aren't allowed to face your accuser) and hearsay is an acceptable form of evidence (Hearsay!)
5) Anyone can be an Enemy combatants - even US citizens. We can pick up those combatants in any country (the US administration recently passed a rule stating that the US military can perform operations in any country in the world by simply informing the US ambassador in that country.) including the US.
6) Even US citizens can now be enemy combatants - meaning you can be arrested and held without charge.
Conclusion: you can be picked up anywhere in the world, charged with a crime that has no definition, secretly arraigned and charged by a secret military tribunal. Tried without seeing any evidence, not facing your accusers, nor understanding what the conditions of guilt might be. And sentenced with no possibility of appeal - as there is no appellate system.
Am I missing something here? I don't know about you, but this law scares the pants off of me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"In a world that is increasingly like a maximum security prison, the only sane thing to do is plan a jail break."
Paraphrasing Robert Anton Wilson (I forget the actual quote). - atlantean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6PotatoSalad, thanks for the links. I'll take a look.
I must say, however, I still stand by what I said. Whether someone is classified as a citizen of an enemy nation, an "enemy combatant" or a terrorist... they should still be subject to humane treatment.
One quick point: "...February 7, 2002, the President determined that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not apply"
Now, I'm no lawyer, I'm not familiar with international law in this respect, but does that suggest that Article 3 is open to interpretation? Why not simply interpret that it *does* apply and do away with all the extra law making? - Merkidemis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The more I hear about the stuff Bush is doing, the sicker I feel. Can anyone list some things that he has done that profoundly good? Please? (Note that I don't consider the "war on terror," tax cuts for the rich, or the formation of the DoHS to be good things)
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah I so need to get my own island without a US Embassy on it.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Brilliant Editorial.
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7But is that how you want your self to be treated?
- PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@celopes, @atlantean, and others: Perhaps you could benefit from actually reading the Geneva Convention articles and the actual bill itself.
Third Geneva Convention (POWs) articles - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006 (S. 3861) - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3861:
Here are a few important points from the bill...
* "...February 7, 2002, the President determined that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not apply with respect to the United States conflict with al Qaeda because al Qaeda was not a party to those treaties and the conflict with al Qaeda was an armed conflict of an international character."
* "...the Act makes clear that the Geneva Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights, thereby reaffirming that enforcement of the obligations imposed by the Conventions is a matter between the nations that are parties to them."
If you actually read the Geneva Convention articles, you'll see under Article 3 "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character." I'm pretty sure we're fighting terrorists on an international level, which excludes them from anything listed below that. However, the bill does mention another bill, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which does provide for detainee treatment within Article 3 Section 1, excluding (b) and (d).
This bill explicitly states that "Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" are still protected for all detainees.
Many of you need to stop believing every sensationalist story you read. If you love our country so much, do the research yourself.
Marked as inaccurate. - Rivetgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Guantanamo, is in Cuba you retard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@4wheel.
Oh, forgive me for making a typo you pathetic son of a bitch. - whiteghetto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ScionAltera
Just wanted to point out that that's a Benjamin Franklin quote, not a Jefferson quote:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
I also thought about using that quote, but they are differnet quotes
my quote was indeed from Mr Jefferson - lectrify, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Past Administrations have been called on the carpet by Congress for their shady doings. Reagan and Oliver North, Nixon and Watergate, Clinton and his libido.... What makes Bush seemingly beyond reproach? I will not be surprised if he cancels the next Presidential election.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I did do the research and a person can not be removed from geneva without an international reconised fair trial.
It doesnt matter if they have no uniform
it doesnt matter if he comes from a country that hasnt signed
SO the president cant make the determination for himself byt just saying "i have come to the conlusion that geneva doesnt apply too them"
This point was put in geneva for two reasons
one to give us a way to get arround geneva, for spys and other non uniformed soldiers and
two still provide basic protections by not allowing this loophole without a trial to actually determine their status.
yeah read article 5 - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's amazing how hard it is to get some stories through the Broadcast media, when their jobs are based upon not telling those stories.
The public is in a real rough place right now. The broadcast media can barely be trusted. As an example, the next time you watch the news, watch the show before and after the news for commercials. You'll start seeing commercials for companies that don't sell anything to anyone that would possibly be watching. Those are companies paying for stories not to be aired. (Seriously, do you think Dow and Dupont chemical need to advertise on primetime TV to improve business?)
Then there's the blogs...Ranging from startlingly well informed to, well...you have to wonder if the author was drooling on his keyboard. Making it a real hit or miss on being an accurate story.
There are also foreign media outlets, wich tend to either be very accurate or extremely biased to someones agenda. Leaving the US public not knowing who they're listening to, or if the broadcaster can be believed. (Generaly I've found the BBC to be accurate for the news but WAY off on most predictions, New Zealand oddly enough gets some good American news, but also has some wild crackpots mixed in, good luck filtering it.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zelig
You shouldn't try to fight evil with evil. Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and all those cliches. But the truth is these cliches are repeated because they've so far held up.
Torturing someone because of suspected "terrorist acts" (which is pretty nebulous anyway) doesn't make you any better than the one you're torturing. - mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Has anyone created a website / list of all the things that he and his staff has done?
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not to mention the loans from China to support the war effort.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is