What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
182 Comments
- geridigg, on 11/28/2007, -1/+193Lets do it on TV during the half time show of the SuperBowl where a billion people can watch!
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -6/+95We're supposed to believe that?
This guy hasn't made an honest statement in years, but NOW he's telling the truth?
Lying sack of *****.
But it WOULD be freakin' GREAT to see a traitor like Ashcroft treated that way. - jkbowman, on 11/28/2007, -2/+90Great.. Let's hand someone from Iraq the bucket..
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -4/+74Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Can I do it?
- Insightful, on 11/28/2007, -0/+55The important thing is not just that he is willing to be water boarded. New reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed won the admiration of his interrogators when he lasted 2 to 2.5 minutes before begging to confess. Heck, I am willing to be waterboarded too since I do not expect to last more than a few seconds.
The vital point is does torture, like in waterboarding, produce credible intelligence? The hypothesis to test would be: would Ashcroft confess to things that are *not* true under waterboarding?
It is known that Ashcroft is NOT an Al Qaeda terrorist. If waterboarding is effective as an interrogation technique, he should NEVER confess something that is not true i.e. that he is an Al Qaeda terrorist I bet after a few minutes of waterboarding he will be not only beg to confess but will also disclose Bin Laden's location and what is on his iPod. That is how "effective" waterboarding is. - Spartan225, on 11/28/2007, -1/+40Talk is cheap. He knows he will probably never ever have to back this up for real, so why not say it. Also knowing you are about to have this happen to you is different then surprising someone and doing it. He knows nothing is going to happen to him, the detainees don't have that same assurance.
- Jmuduke, on 11/28/2007, -1/+37The fact that he said "as long as it doesn't kill me" should be evidence enough that this practice is dangerous. If it could kill you, why is the supposed leader of the free world using it? The hypocrisy is staggering. We bitch and bitch when terrorists torture their captives and we do the exact same thing.
- Joscarfas, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3720 bucks he'll ***** his pants.
- RollFizzlebeef, on 11/28/2007, -3/+38I want to make a I-want-to-drown-John-Ashcroft joke, too - but defending the Constitution against Gonzo on his near-deathbed still gets some respect points from me.
Too bad he's otherwise a fundamentalist Republican douchebag. - mrdeathgod, on 11/28/2007, -1/+36Oh, if it's not torture, then why are worried about it killing you?
- PerfectTommy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+30Hey John, guess what? Someone from your own department already did it, remember Justice Daniel Levin?? He volenteered to be waterboarded in 2002, said it was ***** torture and then was fired for doing so! Then the Bush Administration blocked him for filing the report saying that yes, obvious as it is to everyone else in the country with half a brain, waterboarding is torture.
Here's the story: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076
So how about you submit to doing something real like telling the truth like you were sworn to do when you took your oath of office? Hearing your voice is torture enough. Get bent, jerk! - vanguardanon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+29It's not real waterboarding if it's done by friendly people willing to stop as soon as you ask them to.
- ravage86, on 11/28/2007, -7/+30He should be treated humanely, no matter what his crimes were. Thats what this is all about. You can't make exceptions just because someone doesn't believe what you believe.
- ScornForSega, on 11/28/2007, -1/+22Wow, what a great idea. If we can start waterboarding public officials, we can do away with those "congressional investigations."
How soon can we start?
Hmmm, we'll need at least another 2 CSPAN channels for maximum coverage. - lewscroo, on 11/28/2007, -1/+21Definately. Part of the 'torture' aspect is that it is also being done to you unwillingly. There's certainly a difference between willingly being waterboarded and forcefully being waterboarded. It's why Boxing is acceptable but beating some random person to a bloody pulp on the street is not. I'm sure either would be very unpleasant for both parties, but consent makes a huge difference in the definition of 'torture'.
- gadgetuk, on 11/28/2007, -0/+20You make a very interesting point - if Ashcroft did get waterboarded by someone from the US military no matter how unpleasant it was he'd know that they'd stop short of killing him. Part of the fear of death that forces people to confess (to anything) must come from the idea that they could, really, actually die.
- jixx3r, on 11/28/2007, -2/+20"He also defended waterboarding, suggesting he'd be willing to be waterboarded so long as it didn't kill him."
If he knew it wouldn't kill him it's not the same torture the prisoners are subjected to. The feeling of not knowing whether you will live or die is a big part of the torture. - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -3/+20its called poetic justice and learn what irony means
- thepeacemaker, on 11/28/2007, -0/+17nope ...get back in line.
- GMorgan, on 11/28/2007, -0/+16If he wants to have it done to him then great, go for it. I personally believe in self ownership and if someone has a torture fetish then each to his own. However, it is entirely meaningless on the scale of what is acceptable conduct towards the unwilling.
- sponeil, on 11/28/2007, -1/+15But according to Ashcroft, it's not inhumane. If he won't believe it's inhumane until someone does it to him, then we should let him become educated on the matter. If it's merely unpleasant, as he seems to think it is, then he can be subjected to it daily for a week to see if he changes his mind about it during that week.
- kooft, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13I'm against torture altogether but if Ashcroft wants to 'prove' how non-torturous waterboarding is, he needs to get the circumstances setup just right. Have a group of gun wielding Arabs abduct him without warning, screaming at him in Arabic. Drug him and as he awakens he realizes he's exiting a plane. As he's being carried to a car waiting on the tarmac he is able to see a sign saying 'Welcome to Syria' (multi-lingual sign). Then, after locking him in a cell for weeks, enduring sleep deprivation, blaring music, feces being smeared on his Bible, then and only then does the waterboarding start.
It's just not the same when you say, "hey, we're gonna waterboard you now, but we'll stop as soon as you feel uncomfortable". - roystgnr, on 11/28/2007, -0/+12No. Anyone pro-waterboarding who volunteers for it knows it'll be done by his friends who will stop when it gets too hard, not by people who are actually hostile and won't stop until they hear the answers they want.
Even if you did get to do it, Ashcroft would probably be pretty sure you'd keep your agreement not to kill him. I don't think we try to kill our interrogation victims either, but the US military has reported homicide investigations into dozens of inmate deaths, and anyone under that level of interrogation now has to wonder if they're going to be next. So even if you got the physiological torture right, you're just not in a position to duplicate the psychological torture. It would be like the difference between being mugged and acting in a play where your character is mugged. - alperea, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11Your proposal is acceptable.
- kent1146, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11Do not pass up this opportunity. Somebody must be held accountable for letting him sing Let the Eagles Soar.
- tightscrummy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11The real question is whether he's willing to do it when he's not sure the people doing aren't going to actually drown him. It's probably little more than frat hazing when you *know* that you aren't actually going to drown.
- patflex, on 11/28/2007, -2/+12I can smell a new FOX series cooking - "When Politicians Get Waterboarded"
- vatosplace, on 11/28/2007, -0/+10exactly, if you were to arrest him detain him for a year or two without charges or access to legal council. Then waterboard him and see how he feels. Waterboarding has to suck but add in all the spices and the torture ***** sandwich tastes all the more ripe.
- thcobbs, on 11/28/2007, -7/+17You can't exactly speak up after your head is sawed off.
- kmbrooks, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9The Mythbusters did an episode on Chinese water torture with Kari undergoing it while strapped to a table, and Adam undergoing it while sitting in a comfy chair. Adam seemed merely annoyed, but Kari appeared to be severely distressed by it. An expert they talked to said that even if someone agrees to be tortured they can still experience negative psychological effects.
- Humptydank, on 11/28/2007, -1/+10Do we get to submit the questions?
- grat2001, on 11/28/2007, -1/+10We'll call it Jackass 3!
- robberry, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9Which makes you realize just how bad Gonzales really is-- you've gotta be pretty *****' evil to make John Ashcroft look like a hero.
- Shaman760, on 11/28/2007, -0/+8Bill O'really was talking about child discipline today and how spanking is being made illegal in massachussets. I have a solution for him- Waterboarding. According to the USA, it's perfectly fine.
- monkeyrun, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9We should have a new TV show on Fox called "Waterboardng the neocons"
- Nazuel, on 11/28/2007, -0/+8This is empty bravado at best. The main difference is that a "detainee" in G-Bay does not have any idea when or if it will stop. Part of torture is psychological. You don't know if they are going to kill you, or keep you in agony for days, or hell maybe some permanent damage that will keep you in a wheel chair your whole life? That is the defining difference between some jackass like Ashcroft and a victim of torture. Ashcroft *knows* even if someone did it, they would do it half assed and be afraid of hurting him whereas the prisoner has every indication by his treatment that they would very much like to hurt him......even kill him. It is that difference that some government toady will never experience. Unless they fall into enemy hands, in which case yes he would probably ***** himself.
- insllvn, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9No, but people who DO watch the Super Bowl can't count.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+9I thought the whole idea behind torture was that its not supposed to kill you.
- GMorgan, on 11/28/2007, -3/+10People have committed suicide for the hell of it in the past.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7I say let's do it. I figure after a couple of minutes he'll change his mind.
- obelisky, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8equality...
- Awap, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7No, it's not hypocritical. Consider an analogy: When I was little, I was having an argument with my mom, and I threatened to run away if she didn't give in. Rather than caving in, she said "alright, you're on your own ...". Then she left the room. Of course, as a scared little kid, I didn't run away. And more importantly, I could never use that threat again. By what you're saying, my mom was being a terrible mother by trying to get her son to run away, but that's completely missing it. She knew that I wouldn't run away, and she was calling my bluff. If she had caved at that threat, or kept arguing, I would probably use it again.
Similarly, we all know that Ashcroft, and everyone else, don't really want to be water-boarded. However, these torturers will keep using the empty promise to subject themselves to it as a justification for what they're doing. Hell, they may have even convinced themselves that they would be willing to do it, but that's not the point. Just like a little kid who gets to the end of the street before turning back, they won't go through with it. They will just keep saying it until someone with the means calls them out. - samcrut, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8actually, I've seen a few people volunteer to be waterboarded and they all come out the other side with the same terrified look on their faces. Pretty sure advance notice won't make it any less torturous.
- GhostyBoy, on 11/29/2007, -0/+6That will be the first time in months I watch Fox.
- AndrewJC, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6Obelisky got it right. It's for Equality, but it's more than that. Essentially, it's used as a gay rights banner, suggesting that all people should be treated equally.
- samcrut, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIT! Please? I would so love to see the whole Bush administration get a good long pour and see how they feel about torture after that.
- RansomHoldiay, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6He doesn't have to. A government official already has done it. His name is Daniel Levin. And guess what he said? IT'S ***** TORTURE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Levin - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8thats not a fact, thats ***** that you just made up. Its over-the-top laughable that you'd try to compare government-sanctioned torture tactics with people expressing their opinion that Ashcroft should go through with his statement.
- StopTheLie, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6Sure, with the condition being: We won't stop until he "gives us the information we want." That's how it works in real life, right? I'm sure he'll admit to "training the 9/11 hijackers" himself! And then, since we'll have "proof he did it" we can punish him accordingly, right?
- getatmedigg, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5Let's have Joe Rogan host it Fear Factor-style. "Waterboarding in 3..2.. 2"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is