What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
119 Comments
- lukifer, on 12/14/2007, -0/+82Cue Bushie's veto-hammer.
- ComstockGordon, on 12/14/2007, -1/+54The scary thing is that 199 members do not believe that waterboarding should be banned.
- hawkeye17, on 12/14/2007, -0/+53Nice to know that there are still some people of conscience in America.
- happybot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+47Wow, something good happened!
- yomamaisfat, on 12/14/2007, -0/+38Bush will just change the name of the practice to "simulated swimming" and will keep allowing it.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -0/+34I thought the McCain Detainee Amendment 1977 already outlawed waterboarding, and Bush already added a signing statement saying the ban is optional. In any case, I think I can foretell what's going to happen to this ban...
- fairley7, on 12/14/2007, -2/+26Or are they just going to "render" the poor souls we've "disappeared" to some country like Egypt or Syria and let them do the dirty work for us? How many crimes against God and man does our government continue to commit without our knowledge or consent? Some of the crimes have been leaked, but how many remain hidden?
Ours has become a secret, unaccountable government led by people like Bush and Pelosi who no longer believe they need to follow the will of the people, or tell the people the truth. It will be a long time, if ever, before the Windbags of Washington restore my faith in this so-called democracy. - Gemfinder, on 12/14/2007, -1/+25Oh, you KNOW he's gonna pull either that sucker or his "No. Don' wanna. Can't make me" crayon out.
- GreyICE, on 12/14/2007, -1/+21Veto? You know this is going to get a signing statement. Something along the lines of "The following bill is being taken as advisory. I will carefully peruse it in the bathroom every time I don't have toilet paper, just as soon as I'm finished with the constitution."
- kwansolo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+19i find it funny we have to actually ban this
- innocentsinner, on 12/14/2007, -0/+17Now that I've read the comments on that page, someone replied to that same question with "Because it is already illegal and this vote is a sham that Bush can use as cover that it was 'previously not illegal'."
- 1town, on 12/14/2007, -0/+16Because it's a ***** joke that this is a ban we need to pass. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. TORTURE IS IMMORAL. And there is no ***** confusion about whether simulated drowning is torture or not, there are just evil ***** humans in washington who pretend like it is.
- pehpsi, on 12/14/2007, -2/+17Look how many sick-***** voted against it! 222-199! Shame on all of you! But congrats on something being/appearing to be done.
- obliviousfool, on 12/14/2007, -1/+15I'm speculating, but he may feel torture is already banned. I certainly do.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11 i dont trust it, the torture continues til we kick out all neo cons and restore the bill of rights and constitution
- aquadoctorbob, on 12/14/2007, -4/+14No offense, but the guy wasn't elected to campaign.
- Everglow, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11This actually brought tears to my eyes, oddly enough. Being an American often puts me at the two different sides of the spectrum: terror and fury at what how utterly stupid our government is, and joy at thinking that this country might actually, someday, make a turnaround. I still plan on raising my kids out of the country if I ever have a family (if I ever make it out of COLLEGE), but I would love my mind to be changed by our beautiful democracy.
- Tangeuray, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10thats about 199 members who should not be getting re-elected period.
- innocentsinner, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11Why the hell did Kucinich vote no?
- sancho, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10I don't know. It's pretty scary that 199 people voted against this bill.
- kwreid, on 12/14/2007, -0/+9Boy am I glad they made it illegal. Now we're guaranteed that they'll stop doing this in Guantanamo.
Can you feel the sarcasm? - obliviousfool, on 12/14/2007, -2/+11Yeah, but they overwhelmingly passed that Homegrown Terror Bill. It's like the house is filled with schizophrenics.
- balla1ap, on 12/14/2007, -5/+14ok, so click under the video where is says full role call vote. And notice the division between dems. and republicans. This perfectly illustrates how republican officials are either incompetent or are for torturing innocent people. And also, please notice that Ron Paul didn't think that this was important enough to do his job and vote.
- d3faultnet, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10Why do people resize (shrink) embedded youtube videos? They're small enough as it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuEmUcNlzNg - Khast, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8You know, Bush doesn't even have to change anything, if you remember his little power grab earlier this year....paraphrasing.
1) I am the President
2) Whatever the President says is so.
3) If President is Wrong, refer to rule 2.
So, in theory passing the law doesn't apply to Bush, or anyone else he appoints to do the job, because he can. - pehpsi, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8I think we all know what's next: Another Bush Signing Statement.
- Xvash2, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9Right, like the Congress has any real say as to what goes on anymore.
HA! - diggduggDOOM, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Oooh... scary! A law?
Why bother when the Executive can outsource torture, write a signing statement, break out the veto pen, or continue to deny and dare investigation?
Silly Congress, you can't repel arrogance of that magnitude! - parax, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7This doesn't mean anything. We weren't supposed to need a law to ban torture, that's what the Geneva Conventions were for. If we would ignore a worldwide protocol, why would we pay anymore attention to finger wagging by mid-level bureaucrats? Torture has been illegal both nationally and worldwide for a very long time. This law doesn't even put anything on the books that wasn't there before. The whole problem with the torture scenarios is that it was already illegal but we're doing it anyway.
- iPirate, on 12/14/2007, -4/+11To all the Kucinich fans: Why did he vote No?
- thatcrazycommie, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Why did Ron Paul abstain?
- zephc, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Dihydrogen Monoxide
- DesignerDave, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Call it being blind if you will, but you can't win every battle. The fact that this is now considered a crime is at least a step in the right direction.
- Everglow, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7It does make you feel good, doesn't it. A welcome change.
- sodoh, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7hate explaining. Basically it is this. People are hung up on "Water Boarding" like it is the only torture they are doing. It isn't. There are other forms of torture that are being used that cause mental and physical damage to the person. You have 100's of people kidnapped, held without trial or even a chance to know what crime they have committed. You have extra-ordinary renditions. A war the administration lied to get into and is breaking all manners of laws and raping your tax payers money while the USA goes down the toilet.
This isn't something good happening. This is someone throwing a bone to a hungry dog. Until you impeach, and put those in jail that have turned the USA into a joke then it is not something good.
So you enjoy your ice cream, but at the end of the day it is still covered in poop. - AnarchoGoth, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6Thirty retired admirals and generals have penned a letter to key Democrats, urging them to defy President Bush's veto threats and pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow strict standards for detainee treatment.
http://digg.com/world_news/Military_Leaders_Ignore ... - inactive, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7sorrie i is too stupid too understood you're comment
- bxblox, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5Try because banning something thats already banned is, how do you say.... dumb?
- mithrasinvictus, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6For the same reason Ron Paul did. Why outlaw something that already is illegal?
- sodoh, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5They will just change the name to something else like "Hydrogen Dioxide Communication". Or claim the law doesn't apply as they are outside the USA, thats been working for them so far.
- Seeker135, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6The Senate (the ultimate TOOL of the Corporate Elite) will kill it. Bet the farm, you'll be rich. Betcha Vegas won't even take the bet.
- haoest, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4So, bush will just append a sign statement and keep rolling
- Tangeuray, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Because this is all ready Illegal.Redundant laws need not be passed...we need to hold the administration accountable for the laws they have broke.
- thesonofdarwin, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4This is a common theme coming from Digg posters that are unabashedly for the current administration. You DO realize however that your comment is more un-American than what floatingpoints said, right? If you don't, that's a sad state of affairs. Our country was not intended to be governed by blindly following the government. We are a democracy (sort of), so if we don't like something we have the ability (sort of) to change it. Telling people to leave if they don't like something is more supportive of making our government a dictatorship - how goddamn un-American can ya get. Follow the government or leave. Clean up, Isle 5 - Someone lost their brain.
- darnit, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Jon_Stewart_Lets_dri ...
- azimir, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3High school leaves out a number of details when it comes to the modern workings of our government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28 ...
Have a read. The current US executive has been abusing the use of signing statements for a while now. - inactive, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Ugh.
Ban waterboarding, they'll just find something else to use.
Torture is already banned.
America is the land of useless ***** laws. Too many supplemental laws to back up things that are already illegal. For example, a passenger in a car can't drink alcohol. Why? It's already illegal for the driver to drink and drive, so why is there a limit on my ***** passengers?
This country is a joke, really. - bumcheekcity, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Won? Americans have shown that they've risen ABOVE the level of the terrorists. If you torture terrorists, then you can't exactly complain if terrorists torture you, can you? The terrorists would have won if you stooped to their level (Brit here, by the way, to clarify my use of the 2nd person).
You should be pleased that your government have stopped torturing people. Or at least, would stop torturing people if they didn't continue to torture people in Guantanamo and just send them off to other countries where they TOTALLY WONT BE TORTURED PROPER HONEST.
So actually, it's not that brilliant really. - schneidafunk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3If you prefer reading, here's the story in text: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/national ...
FTA: "CIA Director Michael Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The U.S. military outlawed it the same year."
Did I miss something here? I thought waterboarding was still being used, why else create a ban? -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 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