What is Digg?51 Comments
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35The Actual Letter:
Dear Senator McCain,
I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.
I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one my [sic] distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and fact his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It was written after all the horrors of World War II and General George C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those in our custody.
Sincerely,
Colin Powell - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36I would like to see Colin Powell throw his hat in the ring for the presidential run in 2008. It's good to see him standing up against the administration.
- da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I don't believe Bush when he says he needs these things to properly fight the war on terror. This begs this question: what does he need it for then? He seems to be risking everything for this and I can't figure it out. Is it just power?
- linuxhansl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Maybe Mr. Bush should study the history of witch hunts in medieval Europe.
"Oh he might be a terrorist... Let's dip him in boiling water and see if he has anything to confess."
I can't believe what I am reading here!
Allowing coerced testimony?!
Protecting interrogators against prosecution?!
Withholding evidence from court and defendant?!
How can that even be subject to discussion in a free country. - creloaded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22People say whatever their captors want to hear to make the torture stop. Torture is not only inhumane, it is simply ineffective.
- da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Go Powell. Wow.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Powell was one of the first (and only) to admit that the whole Iraqi WMD thing was a huge ***** up. I'm glad he's continuing to speak out despite not being part of the Bush administration anymore.
- existent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Beginning to doubt?
- sathias, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11 BEDEVERE:
How do you know he is a terrorist?
VILLAGER #2:
He looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring him forward.
TERRORIST:
I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a terrorist.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
TERRORIST:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
TERRORIST:
And this isn't my beard. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the beard.
BEDEVERE:
The beard?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but he is still a terrorist!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn him! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress him up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
He has got a koran.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think he is a terrorist?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, he blew me up with a nuke.
BEDEVERE:
A nuke?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better. - b7illsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10so...
Evidence to convict is obtained by torture.
but...
Torture is against the law.
so...
Legalize torture and share the burden of war crimes unto congress.
problem...
congress doesn't want it :( - zorpscorp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"It's to make the opposition look soft on terror."
I really dont think this kind of thing would just be a publicity stunt, and I seriously doubt it's "to properly fight the war on terror"...
Suppose the Bush administration gets their way, coerced testimonies, legal torturing, ignoring Geneva conventions, warrantless wiretaps... oh but these are just for terrorists, right?
Even IF Bush is doing this because he thinks it will protect us, and even IF it were morally OK to do this to people, what's stopping someone else later down the road from abusing this? Lets say you have some disagreements with the future administration, and are voicing them to a friend over the phone. What's to stop them from claiming you violated so and so part of the Patriot Act, and shipping you off to a Guantanamo camp, or torture you until you admit to a terrorist plot?
Whether they are doing it purposefully or not, they are laying down a framework for totalitarianism. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14i'm not saying everyone is racist...but enough to make a difference. it's not a fact, just imo
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Maybe obtaining evidence by torture is illegal because using enought torture you willl admit you DID eat 40 cats this morning.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's to make the opposition look soft on terror.
- realitybased, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Hmm, I'm modded down already. Frankly I'm surprised that so many are so forgiving of Powell that they can't stand criticism of the idea of a Powell candidacy. Powell one of the first to speak up? Hardly. Just doing his job and duped? So why do those screwups make him a desirable presidential candidate?
- wraithlabs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Presidents are out of style...let the corporations rule the US... then people can get fired from the country...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Allow me to clarify, he was one of the few *within* the administration to admit to any wrongdoing. Compared to the neocons and yes-men that comprise our central leadership, he hasn't been umm, what's that word.. *evil*. I still wouldn't vote for him in a presidential race, as he has some rather contentious views, specifically being against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.
- puke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ realitybased: I'm with you, actually. Powell was the one that went in front of the UN and straight-out lied to enforce Bushco's rational to invade Iraq. Yes, he admitted later that it was all lies. But he went through with it. Any credibility he had is now completely shot. He's pretty much done, politically.
- lumberjack01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Doesn't this administration understand anything that its doing? Might as well get rid of the Geneva Convention all together just like they did with all the Environmental Protection Acts that they got rid of in the early 2000's. As a side note I love the picture MSNBC chose for this article, couldn't have been taken at a better moment, lol. "duhhhhh"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Plus he was one of the main men involved in covering up the Mai Lai massacre.
- ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Holy Grail, Python, witch hunt.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Americans are still too racist to elect a black guy
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Unlike the chicken hawks of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Powell had the experience and understood that this Iraqi war wrong in the first place.
Unfortunately, like someone pointed out here, that he was duped and misinformed when he spoke at the UN. He was only doing his job and had to work with what was given to him.
But like a real man, he is trying to do what is right and correct the mistake that he made in the past. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney don't understand that. They think that if they admit to being wrong then they are weak. Instead, they go on being pig headed and continue to lie to the American people and to the world.
But the joke is on them, because everyone now knows that this war is based on a lie. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do not have any more credibility. That's a shame because, I remember when the word of the President of the United States of America actually meant something.
And yes, Bill Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath which was the right thing to do. And America now needs to do the right thing and impeach George W. Bush.
Truly the sadness thing of it all, is that poor American soldiers continue to die and lose limbs based on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's pack of lies.
Have you no shame Mr. President and Mr. Vice-President?
America's Amazing Disgrace ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/angryintheusa/294337 - vectorprime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A tiny bit off topic, but am I the only one bothered by the statement that “...the most important job of government is to protect the homeland”? It may be just a semantics thing, but still, it seems to worderfully illustrate a problem in perception.
In the good old days, when we were worried we would say "national security" or "protecting the nation from attack". We used the word "nation", as in a group of people. Now we use "homeland", as in a geographic area. Our concern has shifted from defending and protecting people to defending and protecting real estate. It seems to me that this mindset is how we get around to thinking that security becomes so much more important than civil rights, because civil rights aren't primarily what we're protecting anymore. - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not about detering those who already fanatics...history shows that nothing deters them. You need to take a longer view of this.
What this accomplishes is convincing the world (which includes allies and the Arab street) that ours is the side of justice and right, and encourages them to support our efforts and reject those of the terrorists.
It is also a way to garner (or at minimum, retain) international support. There is no success in fighting a global war without allies and the actionable intel and support they can provide.
We're the good guys. Our morals and our Constitutional laws are not a weakness to be discarded when the going gets rough. These things are the source of our strength, without which we cannot win. If this is a battle of civilizations, let's make sure we're the civilized ones, who live up to the principles that are worth fighting for, not some perverted practices which belong to monsters.
Let's listen to these guys -- McCain, Powell, Vessey, John Warner, who have firsthand closeup experience with these issues in wartime, and are telling us that it's self-defeating. Let's be able to look the world in the eye and say "we don't torture, and we prosecute anyone who does." That is something our enemies can never lay claim to. Their's is a barbarian way. We are stronger and better than that.
Torture will never keep you safe from radical terroists. Besides being wrong, it is ineffective. It may very well put us in more danger though. And torturing suspects certainly isn't "the American way" we're supposed to be fighting to protect. Do you know what a "radical" is? It's someone who redoubles their efforts when they've forgotten their aims. Get tougher yes, but don't lose sight of what it is you're fighting for. That's what makes terrorists the sub-human scum they are. They think they can liberate themselves by blowing up innocents. They think the end justifies the means, which any first year philosophy student can tell you is the path to evil.
Don't forget what we're fighting to protect. Equal rights for all, due process of law, presumption of innocence, a basic respect for the opinions of mankind. That's what makes America strong and something worth fighting (and dying, if necessary) to protect. Torture, secret laws, secret prisons -- these things weaken us and are not properly called "freedom". They belong to the monsters our forefathers have fought and died to defeat. - kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4remember the movie Equilibrium? I think you guys are heading there..
- McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What blew me away was the statement by the President below:
From this article:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2450496
[Quote]
"Growing animated, he (President Bush) said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
[/Quote]
I wonder how many Innocent Iraqi women and children have been killed by the US invasion of Iraq? Was the "objective" to remove Saddam really worth the loss of innocent lives? It's interesting to note that this information isn't easily found by the major news networks....
Remember, the President recently admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and the tragedy of 9/11, yet the focus of the Administration shifted away from Osama to Saddam...
These are truly crazy times we're living in.... - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good, the article must have been written by a disabled toddler it's unreadable.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7He was duped & was doing his job when he gave his speech to the UN. I fully believe that he resigned after the first term because he was duped and given false information about the so called WMDs in Iraq.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You are a terrorist. You just hate our FREEDOM (to torture).
- nikebud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's a little nagging thing called 'conscience,' I'd expect.
- Unipuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They already run the country. Check the lobby groups, and the laws they have been buying.
- arizonabay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So, let me get this straight. He's done politically because he parroted inaccuracies and misleading intelligence as a justification for the war in Iraq -- by those standards, shouldn't nearly all politicians and officials in the US federal government (including most Democrats) be "finished politically" ?
- angulion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1to topic of witchhunt:
The story I have heard is that someone accused of being a witch was usually thrown in a lake/sea from a pier. If they could swim it would be black magic or something and they would be picked up and burned.
(The others drowned...) - floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Doesn't change the fact that he's the prick that made the case for war in Iraq in front of the entire world back in 2003, with his tiny bottle of 'anthrax' and a PowerPoint presentation.
- nikebud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well, the 9/11 "fear" card was just played, through the media, as it was the fifth 'anniversary' (btw, how can anyone use the phrase 'the fifth anniversary of 9/11' like it's some sort of celebratory remembrance?)
Now that we have everyone fired up to fight the brown man, perfect time to draft legistlation/pick away at the constitution some more. - DawnJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think Powell should be commended for taking a public stand. I think he was duped by the administration and got out when he could and instead of retiring quietly, he stepped up. I don't understand why more people aren't arguing that innocent people can be tortured as well and why don't we care about that? And when we shred the Constitution for a little "security" what America are we defending anyway? As Ben Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom or security.And by the way, the 911 commission found the weaknesses that could've prevented 9/11--none of those weaknesses were the result of not torturing people or tapping their phones. We had more intel than we knew what to do with, we just couldn't process it or have it communicated from one branch of government to the other. Those problems still exist.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, if you buy some actions from your country you'll probably have more power than you do now.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It all comes down to the electoral college now doesnt it?
People's opinions don't have much effect anymore.
He does seem like a good contender for 2008 though. - n00ch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Powell is a general first-now that he's no longer tied to the administration, you will continue to see him side with, and think as he is part of the armed services.
- Flyingv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think Powell is completely wrong on this issue. The US and its allies following the Geneva Convention will in no way protect our troops. Al Queda and/or whatever Jihad of the Week group don't give a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention and how we treat our prisoners will in no way deter the Islamic fanatics. This is strictly a move to placate international critisism.
- hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ever thought that maybe he's doing this to protect himself?
- twatwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The media and international community have been doing this for a few years.
So NOW why is it important?
Because of Powell?
prude. - ReinMasamuri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I've noticed that he's been through several administrations, including bush jr, sr, clinton, and reagan yet he doesn't bring this stuff up until now?
Besides, if they're not apart of the Geneva Conventions (of which these people are not eligible) then they do not have Geneva Convention protections. A stipulation placed IN the agreement itself.
P.S. @ Osjpr
You came out with a blatant falacy about the U.S. being "racist" as their is absolutly no proof to back up the claim.
We do not subscribe to "A black person has never been president so let's elect one president now!" or "A woman has never been president so let's elect one president now!" as you seem to suggest.
I would personally like to see Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton run for president. But I guess if a Male black guy was elected instead you'd call us a sexist country. - realitybased, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9As much as we might like Powell and appreciate his efforts now, we ought to remember that he was either shilling the war for the Bush administration or he was a complete fool on the question of the invasion of Iraq. Either way, he doesn't look to me like such a hot presidential prospect.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes, like I am having serious doubts about Santa Claus. Actually I am now beginning to think it was all fake. Sort of.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0wtf
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Do you live in the U.S.? If so where?
- wraithlabs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4The last ditch effort to save your professional career is to further yourself from someone the people don't approve of, no matter how much you should support him...a truly dick move...
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@Osjpr
And you know this how?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is