What is Digg?166 Comments
- mirzmaster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+95It takes a true act of cowardice to sign into law the permission to treat other human beings in such derogatory fashion. What separates us from terrorists (of all shape, colour, and political persuasion) is that we value life, all life, whereas they do not. More than that, we value the ideals that protect life and dignity. Today it's clear that Americans value their lives over their just ideals that they are purporting to spread throughout the world.
The remarks of members of the current American administration, and other political figures in support of dehumanizing treatment in order to "protect" American lives will forever be remembered as the moment America clearly said "we value our lives over yours, and our dignity over yours".
Any American, any free person, any human being not willing to lay down their life to defend the ideal of good treatment for all others, including criminals, is a true coward, and history will remember this administration and the people of this time as true cowards that acted out of fear.
America, the democratic nation led by cowards. If you're American, great... if you're not, they don't care a whit about you. Welcome to "freedom", "justice", done the American way. - mirzmaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35Feel free to quote me without credit.
- devin_mm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32Do you mind if I quote you in an article? I think that your words sum up the feelings of everybody on the planet right now that has even the faintest sign of a heartbeat or a soul.
If so then who should I credit it to?
I hope that you will allow me to do this as I think people should realise that they are not alone in thinking what we think.and knowing what we know. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Can someone explain to me how this Congress believes this law to be constitutional? It explicitly denies the right of habeas corpus to these prisoners. Here is the second line of Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Last I checked, we're not under rebellion or invasion, so how does this work, exactly? It's almost as if Congress went through the Constitution, picked out lines, and said, "Okay, what does that say? Perfect, let's write a law that does the exact opposite of that." - devin_mm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I would consider human rights a form liberty.
- starvo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28We've truly started to reach some bizarre new low at this point in our Democracy.. Maybe we did worse things during WW2, or WW1, and other wars.. But you'd think that as time goes on, we would learn to value all human life equally, and give people even more rights and liberties despite the circumstances of the world.
It's sometimes a bit scary at how the world is sometimes starting to mirror that of the movies.. The world that is portrayed in V for Vendetta now seems like an eventuality, rather than some fantasy. And I am profoundly scared of that. - tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The law doesn't have to be constitutional to achieve it's purpose. The purpose being to convince voters to vote for some people and not for others in the upcoming elections. Hell, if it gets struck down, all the better to rail against the 'activist judges'.
- WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18A clause from the bill:
"Defendants would be barred from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts."
How are the Supreme Court going to give it the boot with that line in there? If the detainees cannot seek any redress through the civilian legal system then the Supreme Court cannot rule on it.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the setting of a precedent or the testing of a law by a court of any description requires a case be brought before it to be tested?! - deusexlibris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@SingLow:
Every single American lost a little liberty today. What the Congress and this administration have said is that in the interest of a little security, we are willing to abandon the fundamental tenet on which America was founded, and I quote - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Not only have they made a clear statement that in America, not everybody is created equal, but they have abandoned a fundamental right originally established almost 800 years ago with the Magna Carte - the writ of Habeas Corpus - the right to challenge the evidence against you. - Norweed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25EXACTLY. I can't believe we're signing into law that we're officially bullies. we're not spreading democracy, we're spreading crap and adding some of the same to our laws at home.
- localoptima, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Is there any evidence that torture produces better intelligence? That's the question no one seems to ask. Everything I've read indicates that when tortured, people are just as likely to lie as tell the truth.
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Good call, this is likely to go to the supreme court, and it will be struck down. It worries me that it passed in the first place, though.
So if I say that I'm going to do some flag burning on campus, does that make me a suspected enemy combatant? I had better lock my doors extra tight tonight. - m242, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15That's the problem: Bush is authorizing the CIA and the Army to violate the Geneva convention, and with the signing of this bill, the accused have absolutely no way to challenge their treatment.
Look past the innocent/guilty issue: the real problem is that there is no legal recourse to even find out if someone is innocent or guilty. That's one of the principals that America was founded on: everyone, and not just citizens, get all of the rights that we set out for ourselves. - buss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I have heard (and also really believe) that people who are tortured are much more likely to lie just to get the torture to stop. If you really know nothing and they're going to torture you anyway, then I would just start saying anything that I could think of.
- PvtJenkins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Well...this ***** sucks.
- PhantomRogue, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Is anyone else reminded of the Cold War?
A War we cant win, and will never fully engage in, without pissing off 95% of the country and world.
A War that Defense and BioTech Firms soar (like Space and Defense against Russia) and Other Departments flounder.
Its becoming evident that we are walking blindly into the same circles of the past. - kolwrath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13(translation) Since I have no personal exprience of rights violations .. it must not be happening. The world revolves around me. Everything is fine.
So ... houw about Maher Arar .. he was an inocent canadian who got deported and tortured based on no factual information. Probably due to him having an Middle eastern name.
So ... how about the wiretapping violations (as stated). Your under survalence right now you know. Be certain not to say "jihad" or "kill president" while talking on the phone.
So ... how about the bank records violations. Your bank records are under survalence right now you know. Be certain not to make any large transactions, lest you be put on a "potential terrorist list". (this happend by the way to a guy in the states, he made a big credit card payment and they thought he must be a terrorist.
I could go on, but since none of this has impacted you in your day to day life *so far*, it isent really happening. Everything is good. I mean, if your doing nothing wrong then what is there to worry about.
Dumbass... - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14If the people in Congress today were running the colonies in 1776, I bet they'd have decided it was just easier not to risk their safety to fight for freedom from the Crown and instead just come down hard on the anti-British dissidents.
- deusexlibris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13So, as long as it doesn't happen to you or anyone you know, that makes it OK? How long before the administration decides that members of drug cartels are also "enemy combatants" (remember the War on Drugs)?
This legislation also broadened who can be designated an enemy combatant to any non-citizen, whether they have been productive and legal members of American society for decades or not.
The point that you (somewhat willfully, IMHO) are missing is that there is a bigger issue at stake here than whether terrorists meet the strict definition to which the Geneva conventions were originally intended. This is a question of how we, as a people and a society treat others. Do we or do we not believe that all people are created equal and are invested with certain inalienable rights or not?
We will be judged by history not by how we treat the best among us, but by how we treat the worst.
I for one want us to stand up for what we believe in and show the rest of the world that we are not willing to compromise those beliefs in the interest of protecting them.
What this administration and congress have done is to say that they are willing, in the interest of national security, to abandon that fundamental tenet on which this country was based (check the Declaration of Independence, it's right there at the beginning) and say that the government has the right to designate anyone it chooses as not worthy of those fundamental rights. That the current legislation limits the application to non-citizens does not change the fact that the government has set a very dangerous precedent.
This may not effect you, your family or your friends today, but are you so certain that it won't tomorrow that you are willing to sit by idly and not challenge your own government when they take away a right that has served humanity well for almost 800 years (the write of habeas corpus is based on the rights originally set forth in the Magna Carta). - WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14How about the 50,000,000 people who had their phone records taken without their consent or knowledge?
It may not be the most insidious use of the acts put in place but it is, nonetheless. a breach of the constitution which is, as far as I am aware, the only rights that Americans are "guaranteed" - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Guilty until tortured to death = Misguided Republican Mindset!
- charged2885, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12how is it possible for the legislative branch to grant the executive branch the power to do the judicial branch's job? will they have to re-write the textbooks?
- WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"will they have to re-write the textbooks?"
I think that they just did! - charminglazar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@ Sailor
I think your logic is pretty scary. I'd like to think that as a country we would base our laws and policies on a high, unwavering standard defining human rights, including criminals. Following such a standard is what nurtures honor, trust, respect...
What you describe is a sliding scale of human rights that shifts to match that of any given opponent, such that we abandon our "ideals" if they do not share high standards.
An eye for an eye?
I understand you're angry and afraid. We all are. The ends justify the means is a very dangerous mindset to embrace. But what kind of world do you want for your children and their children? A peaceful world? A world in which the human spirit it's realization is valued above all else? A free world? Surely this law is a step in the wrong direction.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What endangers this country the most is not terrorism, but rather those who would put their own political gain before the good of the nation.
Both parties are guilty of such behavior, and a perfect example is this bill -- everyone knows it has no chance of standing up to judicial review, but it's pushed through anyway to manufacture a talking-point for an election cycle. By-and-large, our elected representatives represent only themselves and their party, not their constituents nor the nation as a whole. It's a broken system. - kalte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@killinger
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0208-02.htm
55% of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody when the US was offering bounties for these sorts of captures.
Sit down. - kalte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The government invaded Iraq, which had no ties to al qaeda, and killed tens of thousands of people, helping to inspire waves of new terrorists. How does that make you safer? Think before you speak please. The government doesn't give a damn about you.
- FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@SingLow
Yes, you are right, but we did not protect our own citizens. Soooo, any of the things we can now do to badguys overseas the government can now do...to YOU. And Me. And anyone they want.
And yes, I know, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?" Keep living by that then you won't have any problems when someone you know and love says something out of line one day and disappears forever. - SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11#1 Good bye geneva convention
#2 Welcome to 21st century gulags!
#3 We are officially back to the middle ages - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Interrogator: "Are you going to tell me about the Syrian terror network?"
Detainee: "You got the wrong guy! Ouch! make it stop!"
Interrogator: "Are you going to talk?"
Detainee: "Augh! Um, ok, uh, how about (blah blah blah, made up details...)"
Interrogator: "Ok, that's all we needed. Maybe we'll let you see a lawyer sometime this decade."
(One week later...)
Headline: "Detainee confession gives undisputable evidence for invasion of Syria!" - neko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11nah, it's just humans.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The Ben Franklin quote, while quaint and all, is tired. So let me give you a new one to chew on.
"Liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war-footing, or even a near war-footing. Permanent crisis justifies government control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government. And permanent crisis is what we have to expect in a world...in which dictatorship under Communist auspices becomes almost inevitable."
This was written by Aldous Huxley nearly 50 years ago in his treatise surrounding his book "Brave New World." Granted, at the time the great fear was Communism, but that statement is equally as appicable today as it was in his time. Simply repace Communism with Totalitarianism, Theocracy, or whatever you like, and it's a very contemporary, very telling statement of our times. - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@sailor
How does it feel to live in fear?
I had this same discussion with my mother and father recently. They are completely against the Bush administration, but still have a hard time staying out of the fear mongering fray on occasion.
I told them that I will take my God damned chances with being blown up at a mall or nuked in a city, beheaded or burned but I do not want to see my rights as an American stripped away, or the HUMAN RIGHTS of people all over the world, because of fear of these things. We can defend ourselves without going down this path.
- WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Thank you mirzmaster!
I have added your quote to the beginning of the following article. It just fitted so perfectly and gave the article the intro that it required that I could not write!
http://www.digg.com/politics/The_Detainee_Law_Explained
Thank you again. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Star Wars ended the cold war? Wow sailor, you really are a ***** idiot aren't you?
- COBOLdinosaur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Hmmm... The objective of 911 and most terrorist attacks to to so frighten the victims that they cower in fear. 911 was victory for terrorism. The specific objective of 911 was to bring about the fall of American democracy. On that count it was one of the most successful acts of terror since Hiroshima.
The democratically elected legislators hand power to a "strong man" that sets him above the law out of fear of external forces... The citizens sit on their asses and perhaps whine a little; many even proclaim it a great step forward against the "enemy".
Read the history books to see where you are going my American brothers and sisters. Germany in the 30s might be a place to start. Bush isn't Hitler, and the Senate is not filled with Nazis but you are on the same road. Your won constitution says they cannot do what they are doing. Your courts can't save you if they legislate around court rulings.
The only salvation for you is what it has always been. The citizens have to say "enough of this crap" and take control back. It is getting very late in the day... Good luck and God bless you. - SimonGray, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
When the German parliament was burned down in 1933, a bill was passed not unlike this one. It set aside traditional liberties described in the German constitution when the detained were suspicious enough. This is what led to the dissolution of the German democracy and the beginning of Hitler's fascist rule. If you care to read it, here it is (taken from the Wikipedia page):
ยง 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. - kalte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You are assuming that everyone captured is a terrorist. In fact, the majority are not. And so much for them getting a fair trial to determine whether they are or aren't. How can you fail to see what a scary picture this paints for anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? You must live a very sheltered life.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Never has a budding totalitarian state faced a more educated, effective populace. This isn't 1920's Germany. This isn't China before the revolution.
Anyone seeking to define a dictatorship needs the help (or at least sufferance) of technical people like those that inhabit the Diggnation. As with McCarthy and Vietnam, when a significant _minority_ of the population decide the facist party is over, the facist party will end. - WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Statements obtained using interrogation methods that violate a 2005 ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" would be admissible as evidence if they were taken before the ban went into effect and a judge found the statements to be reliable and would serve the "interests of justice."
So, essentially, if the prosecution think that statements obtained through torture prior to the 2005 ban are likely to sway the outcome of the case, they are admissable. - dose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Maybe because that's what makes/made us Americans and them terrorists.
- orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The interesting part of the Reichstag burning was that it was staged by AH and his crew to scapegoat the Jewish groups and push everyone into being scared enough to agree to the decree...
- MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So where are these cells you speak of? If our government knows about them, shouldn't they go ahead and ARREST THEM? What you are asking me to do is live in fear because there *might* be terrorists living next door to me.
I am aware that there are probably cells in our country. I choose not to fear them, and I wish to live my life accordingly. Our government is taking shortcuts to protect us, at the cost of human rights and liberty. Frankly, after keeping a close eye on border security, and the happenings before and after hurricane Katrina, I place little faith in my government to protect me from anything. I keep my own disaster supplies and self defense needs. - kalos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Didn't you know that Jesus was a Republican, just like W? Aren't they on each other's speed dial or something?
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You know, forty or so years from now, people are going to learn about this in school and go "What the ***** were those guys thinking." Just like they do now about pretty much every other time America has ***** up.
I don't really have any answer for them now, and I probably won't then either.
Also, is it just me, or does it seem really stupid to take a lot of people who aren't terrorists, give them a reason to hate America, and throw them in with people who actually do have terrorist contacts. I wonder where the next wave of recruitment will come from. - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Singlow - the alien provision isn't the problem; it's the problem that anyone deemed an Enemy Combatant, regardless of citizenship, gets to be detained indefinitely. This is suspending the writ of Habaeus Corpus, or the right of Due Process for anyone on the *****.
The definition of Enemy Combatant is defined specifically by the Executive, and this law refuses the courts to administer relief (to challenge the status). You are partially correct in your analysis, and that portion of the law makes sense.
However, the big 300lb gorilla in the room is this Enemy Combatant piece of the law. That is what throws the Constitution out on its ass in the face of a determined Executive Branch - it strips away the check and balance of the three branches. - Democritus2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Your post is complete ***** *****.
No nicer way to say it.
Most likely an astroturfer. Rove is that you?
Your post is disgusting. Completely. I have read a bunch of ***** on digg, but this one tops the cake. It shows that you are NOT listening, you are NOT reading, you are so stuck in your partisan divide that it is us and them. US versus the world- repubs versus the dems. Perhaps that is what is wrong with this ***** world. People who cannot go beyond rationalistic thinking.
Your facts are wrong on every stinking example you said.
This bill applies to ANYONE. OK you got that? Ok so we have completely wiped out one of your paragraphs. It is 100% wrong, your point lay in the dust dying where it belongs. Dont make reference to it again. It is a falsehood. You got it?
I expect you to respond to this in full. Also, since one of your core facts was incorrect, I assume you wish to have a different conclusion. Go read the bill, go read the analysis of the bill. This is not for FOREIGNERS. This is for anyone suspicious of anti-american activity or giving support to anti-american activity. If you cannot see the danger in this, perhaps it is really time for me to leave my beautiful wonderful america in search of a truly free society.
America as we know it died yesterday. If you are under suspicion for terrorist activities you can be held and detained (and tortured) without legal recourse, and without legal notification of your arrest. The language of the bill is completely open-ended. the "you" could be foreigners or citizens. So you are 100% off. Please retract your statement.
Next, ALL phone communications and internet communication are/were under surveillance. Ok so you dont mind. That is not your place to tell me whether I mind, AND it has been ruled illegal and unconstitutional. I am so ***** happy you dont mind. I do. - WinstonsMyth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It gives absolute immunity to anybody that has already committed any act of cruel or inhumane PRIOR to this act.
It may well ban torture now, but it also gives a free pass to any who have committed the act previously...
Is that not an OK for torture?
Crimes that have already been committed are not worse than ones that may be committed in the future, are they?! -
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is