digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at harpers.org

King James I Considered Waterboarding Worst Of All Torture

harpers.org — In ascending order of severity they were: thumbscrews, the rack and waterboarding. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of tortures. That ’s right. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of the official forms of torture. Worse than the rack and thumbscrews.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • diggerydood, on 12/16/2007, -11/+202I guess King George has a different view.
    • sanman, on 12/16/2007, -40/+2King James?
      So does this mean waterboarding was in the Bible?
      11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Waterboard Thine Enemy, But Rather Take an Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth
      • djdavey, on 12/16/2007, -4/+31Actually, sanman, there really was a King James I of England. And *he* was the one who commissioned the 'King James' version of the Bible you mention. But this article has nothing to do with the Bible. Please don't get our neo-jesus-freak friends started here.
        • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -3/+11That's King James VI thank you. He was King of Scotland before he had the English throne, in the process becoming the first king of the whole of Great Britain.
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/16/2007, -1/+11Same guy. James I of England was James VI of Scotland.
          • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3That's what I said. He became king of Scotland in 1567 but didn't inherit the English throne until 1603, at which point he became the first king of the whole of Great Britain (and Ireland).
      • skabyss, on 12/16/2007, -4/+6An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
        • armoreddillo, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2no quotes?
          is that a skabyss original?
        • projectstartrek, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1Actually, just two people.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4I would think the rack or maybe the iron maiden might be worse than water boarding
        • PopcornDave, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Or even being drawn and quartered.
      • projectstartrek, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2One: you're retarded; Two: don't reply to a comment at the top of the chain just to get priority over everyone else's comment, thanks.
    • atbnet, on 12/16/2007, -2/+11The King James version of the Bible is named after King James I of England or you may know him as King of Scots James VI.
      • bemidia, on 12/16/2007, -7/+3Yeah, and he ***** the Bible up more than anyone who rewrote it before him. Look it up for yourself.
    • Modizzle, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Kings James didn't subscribe to the Weekly Standard.
    • PyrotekNX, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1You mean the reign of King George II.
  • TheSkunkMonkey, on 12/16/2007, -23/+1King James > King Georgie
    http://www.stupidprize.com/?name=King+George
  • IMJGalt, on 12/16/2007, -11/+146Alright then, no more waterboarding . Terror suspects to the rack and thumbscrews.
    • capiCrimm, on 12/16/2007, -8/+13FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!
    • tillerman00, on 12/16/2007, -0/+15Hell, while we're at it let's bring the iron maiden back up in this *****.
    • obxjdt, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I've always said "I'd rather be beaten, burned, electrocuted, have salted alcohol poured into open wounds, put on the rack, and my nails ripped off than to be water-boarded..."
      Not that I want any of it to happen to me, just saying....
      GET REAL PEOPLE!!!
    • mightydavefish, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1Once again a rightard just doesn't get it.
  • Rotzooi, on 12/16/2007, -17/+47The neocons have redefined 'worst'.
    • geoboy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6They've also redefined 'torture'. If it's for interrogation purposes, and you leave with all your body parts intact, then it isn't torture.
    • mabhatter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4exactly, we have actual Doctors administering this stuff so we are really killing people and brining them back. Note that they narrowly defined torture as "organ failure" or "dismemberment"... There's been a host of new ways to torture that even the communists didn't use in the Cold War. This is classic "moving the cheese" tactics.
    • droo31, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1Everytime a hippie uses the term "neocon"...an angel gets his wings.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -10/+184I don't know why you all concentrate on waterboarding anyway. It's just one of very many tactics employed.

    There's psychological torture, sensory deprivation, starvation, thirst, sleep deprivation, forced standing, Palestinian crucifixion, sweat boxes, sexual abuse and sexual humiliation on top of the regular physical torture (beatings).

    Then when that's done, (once the mind is broken, something in between the Stockholm syndrome and acute depression), they start to interrogate suspects using induced hypnosis, sedatives, drugs, and bribes (food and water).

    I don't see why they would even care about whether or not waterboarding is illegal anyway. The CIA doesn't have to testify about anything. That's the whole point of a secretive agency. Tapes were released so now we know. Who's going to stop them from doing it again? The CIA maybe?

    The only thing they changed is cameras. No more cameras. No more leaks.
    • Albionshores, on 12/16/2007, -3/+10Somebody leaked it in the first place - so why you should rule out more leaks or more whistleblowers in the future I don't know.
      • TheFiestyFaun, on 12/16/2007, -2/+15because now they wont be recording it.
        • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -2/+9Right and we all know that official government cameras™ are the only way people ever out something.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11Who else will?

          Soldiers again? Even cellular phones aren't allowed anymore. The press? Denied access.
        • Tangaroa, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6Digg isn't the only place people say "VIDEO OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!"
    • impei, on 12/16/2007, -0/+76Their response to Abu Ghraib was the same: ban cameras in the prison. They weren't angry about what happened they were angry that it became public.
      • Breepee, on 12/16/2007, -1/+21If that doesnt gives you the shivers, I'm not sure you're a human...

        Creepy, creepy people, those prisonkeepers
        • JapaneseEconomy, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2You should see the German movie The Experiment. Its based off of a true story/experiment that once the prison guard gain all this power over the prisoners they abuse it and proceed to mentally and physically abuse the prisoners.
          Now imagine if the guards really hated the prisoners and were given orders to break down the prisoners by any means thought up. Thats what Abu Ghraib was like and the worst kinds of torture they submitted the iraqi inmates to you can be sure was way worse than those displayed in the few photographs the media obtained.
    • poiuytrewq44, on 12/16/2007, -5/+26That's really 1984-ish. God damn. I thought it was basic we're going to torture you and we'll stop if you'll talk. That is seriously Orwellian.
      • joegibes, on 12/17/2007, -1/+6WAR IS PEACE
        FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
        IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    • Ramble, on 12/16/2007, -7/+6Guantamino "The Village" Bay.
    • antoniuk, on 12/16/2007, -10/+1The act doesn't matter it is that the public is now being told to care about what is done. We didn't care that a few "rag heads" got beat up so long as gas was cheap and interest rates low. Tables have turned and we must now have a villain. The wicked witch of the west is in office and time has come for a lynching. Pardon me why I get my sheet and torch out...
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/16/2007, -5/+21"I don't know why you all concentrate on waterboarding anyway"

      Because it's torture and thus illegal under U.S., no matter what the Bush administration claims.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -2/+16Lol, you mean like presenting falsified evidence to Congress in order to make it vote for an illegal war?

        Waterboarding is actually one of the nicer things you do to these people. Compare waterboarding to losing a leg, your home, your freedom and your family.
        • Breepee, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2It's one pestering group of sick people you have up there in any case. Please make sure that group doesnt return in 2009.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Who the democratic congress?
      • theshalit, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8you misunderstand.

        He's not advocating we should stop caring about waterboarding, he's saying there are lot more ways we torture and the American people should be aware enough to stop focusing on that one aspect, ghastly as it may be. Waterboarding is simply the tip of the iceberg.
    • Syntaxis, on 12/16/2007, -15/+3Psychological torture = homework overkill
      Sensory deprivation = not sleeping a lot
      Starvation = no time for breakfast
      Thirst = the feeling you get after getting too drunk
      Sleep deprivation = clubbing 'till 6 am
      Forced standing = clubbing 'till 6 am
      Sweat boxes = clubbing 'till 6 am
      Sexual abuse = ugly chicks riding up on you
      Sexual humiliation = waking up sober the next day and looking to your right
      Physical torture (beatings) = clubbing 'till 6 am
      Induced hypnosis = repetative music, clubbing 'till 6 am
      Sedatives, drugs = ...do I still need to explain?

      Sounds like the life of any college student in the Netherlands, really.
      • theshalit, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2No it actually doesn't. Not even slightly
      • roodammy44, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Even as a joke that ***** sucks.
    • tillerman00, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Yeah, and they killed Kennedy too.
      • incubusnb, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Oh my god, you killed the Kennedy's, you bastards!
    • drizzlelicious, on 12/17/2007, -3/+1So, when you really don't have anything to say, just make stuff up.
  • allywilson, on 12/16/2007, -4/+12King James VI to some of us...
    • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Yep, if Queen Liz is Elizabeth II then Jamie was James VI.
    • gak001, on 12/16/2007, -4/+6Wow - thank you for that. There's nothing quite like some obscure historical humor to really up the intelligence quotient on digg.
      • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -2/+7It may be obscure to you but it certainly isn't obscure here in the UK. In the '50s when they decided to call Queen Elizabeth "the second" people actually starting blowing up mail boxes here because they were so insulted!
        • jm9206755, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard of people doing.
        • CCoe, on 12/16/2007, -2/+8No, electing Bush a second time was dumber.
        • yournightmare, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3"people actually starting blowing up mail boxes here because they were so insulted!"

          --Religion of peace strikes again! Oh, wait...
    • RanIntoTheDevil, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3The Stuarts sucked though anyway. Go Tudors!
  • carpespasm, on 12/16/2007, -10/+6Watching the video linked from that article, the guy being interviewed was a complete tool. He was honest, but he's a damn tool.
  • rda1441, on 12/16/2007, -4/+15This is good to know. Might as well use the best!
  • OldRick, on 12/16/2007, -40/+16King James didn't have alternatives like drugs and electricity.

    Waterboarding does not cause permanent damage, unlike most other alternatives. Would you prefer to allow hostiles to blow up our buildings and citizens? Does your prissy sensibility extend so far that you would sacrifice your own because you believe waterboarding is cruel to someone who wants to kill you and all you believe in?

    • soot, on 12/16/2007, -7/+32That's a good little sheep, be afraid of the amorphous omniscient muslim bomber ready to strike your family at any moment.
    • atbnet, on 12/16/2007, -6/+17You're an idiot. People are ***** off because we are torturing innocent people. How about one day I kidnap you, beat the ***** out of you for a while just because I can?
    • satx, on 12/16/2007, -6/+18Right, because would never waterboard any innocent suspects, that's impossible. Also, waterboarding is always completely effective and never yields false information.
    • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -5/+14Oh I see. So they're only torturing people who have been found guilty in a court of law are they? No? Just people they think might know something? Better hope they don't decide you look suspicious then OldRick, 'cos you might not get much older. Idiot.
    • DangerCollie, on 12/16/2007, -5/+13"Waterboarding does not cause permanent damage, unlike most other alternatives."
      Then you wouldn't mind volunteering to test that hypothesis. Or your family. Right? Then let's hear your opinion about permanent damage. Maybe we should let the police use this tactic since it's so harmless.
      It's not a choice between waterboarding and people blowing up buildings. Stopping terrorists can be done without sacrificing the national character fraidy cats seem so determined to throw away.
      In case you forgot...or never knew...the FBI had clear warning about the 9-11 hijackers. It's not that we didn't know about them, it's that we didn't act on what we knew. We knew about them in spite of the FISA court, not having the Patriot Act, water boarding National Security Letters and wholesale spying on the American public. We knew and we did nothing. That's why 9-11 happened.
      So, when exactly did you turn into a gutless twit scared of their own shadow? Such a coward you would justify torture to protect your worthless, sniveling theft of oxygen that you call a life.
      • Fabozz, on 12/16/2007, -13/+2Everyone who conducts waterboarding has indeed has it done on them with no ill effects, as part of training. Waterboarding is used to train soldiers and agents to resist interrogation, precisely because it's an effective but non-damaging technique. It's just like tear gas, which is a "chemical weapon" that has no lasting effects and is thus safe to use to train soldiers how to react to chemical weapon attacks.
        • adnams, on 12/16/2007, -1/+11im pretty sure waterboarding for training by your own side and friends is worlds apart from having it done to you by a hostile enemy, for this reason i dont think we can really tell if it is non-damaging
        • Mononuclear, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Any form of torture has ill effects mainly psychological. The training they know nothing is going to happen to them and it's very controlled. When you are actually tortured the conditions are not the same and there is psychological damage done.
        • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3The difference is that the people being trained know they aren't going to be drowned. Real suspects under interrogation don't know whether they're going to live or die. Now tell me that doesn't have psychological consequences!
          • dgendreau, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1And remember these people have all been disappeared. Who knows home many suspects have accidentally died during the procedure? This is a modern day Inquisition and it must stop.
    • technoredneck, on 12/16/2007, -2/+8Let's waterboard you a little and see if it changes your mind any. How, exactly, does it stop 'hostiles' from 'blowing up our buildings and citizens', anyway? You certainly can't get any accurate information from it, because victims would say anything you want to hear, to make you stop doing it.

      And let's not forget that terrorists are human beings too. By not giving them human rights, we're being terrorists just like them. Moral relativism is hypocritical.
      • PopcornDave, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Sorry, when you start killing innocent people under the guise of religion you stop being a human being. No matter who's trying to hide behind the mantle of religion, they're a piece of *****.
      • Luminoth, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1@PopcornDave - They may be a piece of *****, but they're still a human being. The better person recognizes this and acts accordingly.
  • Andysan, on 12/16/2007, -20/+15Waterboarding is what it is, but the threat of waterboarding is where its real strength is. The administration of a terrorist activity is greatly complicated if the waterboarding threat exists. The leadership must constantly insure that no individual knows very much about anything. That makes it extremely difficult to develop, plan, equip, and carry out terrorist activities. Removing the threat of waterboarding makes life much easier for the bad guys.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -2/+13You are talking about people who think that dying in combat is the best possible way to die. They don't even consider getting caught.
    • Fafnir43, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12You're neglecting the possibility of inserting moles into terrorist cells, a saner activity which would have more or less the same effect.
      • EditorResponse, on 12/16/2007, -7/+2A few of the people that were grabbed off the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan were taken to Guantanamo. Given that they were taken form there during the wars there was no way to infiltrate there group ahead of time...unless you think the USA always is infiltrating groups worldwide no matter what country, location, need. Infiltrating groups is only possible if you know before the attack what is going on and perceive a danger and have time to train people and make contacts with people capable of infiltrating the group. You need time to go to the indigenous people and locate people capable of and empathetic to your cause to infiltrate a group and that I would think might take six months or more. Don't forget you are asking them to infiltrate a group that they more than likely already know would cut their head off if the group found them out....not that many people are willing to take the risk unless they are already at war with that group. The fastest way to get the intel would be to waterboard.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Tim Osman.
        • init100, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Except that no information gained through torture can be considered even remotely trustworthy.
    • Izult, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2You're completely ignoring the fact that by our own country sanctioning torture against people when our soldiers are imprisoned by another country the likelihood of them being tortured has greatly increased. So you would rather endanger our men and let Bush keep his little torture loophole just so a few people know that they'll be in deep ***** if they cross us? That's insane.
      • Andysan, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2What's insane is thinking that captors of our troops are going to care one wit about happens in our prisons! When that terrorist has you by the hair and is cutting your throat, between gurgles and screams you remind him about your high and mighty intentions. You my friend, are nuts and dangerous. This is NOT about war with civilized armies of civilized people.
  • Rehnborg, on 12/16/2007, -26/+5Isn't the point or torturing people to get information out of them? So we might as well use the worst one.
    • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -1/+19If you torture people they'll tell you whatever they think will stop the torture. There is also the not so small matter of the rights of human beings who have not been found guilty of any crime.
    • Tippis, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2The point of torture, as has been proven over and over again over the last 800 years or so, is that it won't provide you with any useful information that cannot be had faster and easier in other ways.
  • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -14/+18If we're going to start taking advice from irrelevant historical figures, I wonder what Henry VIII would do?
    • Adelski, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2That's not advice at all. It just happens to be a matter of opinion from a historical figure which takes up no more space than a paragraph in the article.
    • danro, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Oh and I don't know if you've realized it but back in the middle ages things where much cruder. Witches where burned at the stake, people still believed in vampires, infants where left to die in the gutters. I just thinks it's funny that such and uncivilized, barbaric society was able to see the unethical, cruel nature of waterboarding, but President Bush seems to think it is okay. I guess evangelicals like him where responsible for the Children's Crusade so you can't expect anything less.
  • fearziz, on 12/16/2007, -29/+4take your king james b.s. post and go to la la land you pussy.
  • BannedTwice, on 12/16/2007, -32/+4What a bunch of pussies. seriously. this country if ***** w/ tards like growing up
    • SpookyPig, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9Something tells me your name is going to be "BannedThrice" pretty soon.
    • ReyX, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2What ***** wrong you?
    • swab, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Plenty of tards are living kick ass lives!
  • Upperdeck, on 12/16/2007, -10/+2Lebron is the only King James I trust!!!!!
  • scuro, on 12/16/2007, -7/+17The land of the free and the home of shameless thugs who torture.
  • JaneJetson55, on 12/16/2007, -3/+24Water boarding has been accepted as torture for hundreds of years. By using this technique we no longer have 'a leg to stand on' when our shouldrs or operatives are water boarded. What happened to America?
    • alittleroy101, on 12/16/2007, -4/+5Please tell me "shouldrs" isn't supposed to be "soldiers."
  • Kythas, on 12/16/2007, -21/+4Why is this still an issue? It's only been done on 3 people and was last used in 2003. The CIA and the military have both officially banned the practice in 2006. It's a non-issue.
    • EditorResponse, on 12/16/2007, -11/+1It remains an issue because 1)the libtards have such a soft life 2)they think that it is easy to secure their easy life and 3)they sit behind their computer keyboards and spew garbage because the right has been protected.
      • Izult, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3No rather it's an issue because "We don't torture" has been proven to be a lie. Screw waterboarding.. Torture is torture is torture.
      • yournightmare, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2"Libtards," huh? Is that kind of like "Republiqueefs?" Just typing something so stupid marks you as a moron.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Yes, let's take the word of the CIA and military.
  • spidoman, on 12/16/2007, -5/+4Oh, not about Lebron.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 12/16/2007, -25/+7Buried as misleading. The CIA waterboarding drastically differs from the King James one. Specifically, the CIA covers a terrorist's mouth with a plastic sheet so that no water can get into the lungs. The waterboarding is a safe and effective (i.e. fast) method of extracting infromartion from quranimals, and should be a starting point of every CIA interrogation.
    • ptrix, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11that sounds FAR from safe.

      covering the mouth with plastic also means that no OXYGEN can get into the lungs that way (you know, that stuff we all need to live?), and at the same time, al the water poured onto your face gets into your nose (which, if you've ever had that happen while swimming, can be unpleasant or even painful), coupled with the fact that you're trying to breath from your nose at the same time would be terror-inducing.

      every time you try to inhale, you're taking in water, and you can't cough it out because your mouth is sealed by plastic. it would feel like drowning, and essentially, it would be just that.

      Does that sound safe to you? does it sound even safer that people are holding you down while it's being done to you? Doesn't sound that way to me.
    • dood, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Hell, why stop with interrogations. Let's make waterboarding the starting point for CIA job interviews.
    • 3Den, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Umm.. they cover the mouth so you don't drown yourself quickly.
      Water enters the sinus cavities through the nose, uncontrollably (like when you are upside-down in a pool) and then when you come up, gasping for breath, it enters the lungs.
  • Auxon, on 12/16/2007, -8/+12I searched for the terms water boarding and thumbscrews in the supposed source, but there is no reference. I searched for the quote that was attributed to King James I, "approve no new torture", and there was no reference other than the article. So unless they really can prove the source, they are just making ***** up.
    • RonObvious, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10You aren't supposed to actually read it.
      • curmudgeon7205, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1The actual text was King James' references to the three ways one could die (in order of "cruelty": (1) was at the hand of sentient beings; more cruel was (2) At the hands of insentient beings (animals, "like Daniel in the lion's den); and the worst was by act of nature ("Water and Fire" (and the water reference was in the context of Noah's flood. The cruelty was measured not by the method but, rather, by the type of INTENT behind the mechanism of death. Least cruel was death by intelligent intent. Most cruel was death by act of nature, where intent was - presumably - divine, if at all.

        This was NOT spoken by James in the context of torture. In fact, by his reasoning, the death of Guy Fawkes and his colleagues by being hung, drawn, and quartered was the least cruel because it could be explained in terms of the intent of the state, whereas death by flood or fire was most cruel because there was no apparent rhyme or reason.

        As usual, RTFM applies here.
  • Jozer99, on 12/16/2007, -11/+4By the time James was King, he had an IQ of about 14, due to advanced syphilis. I really wouldn't take his advice. Plus, the modern debate is whether water boarding is or is not torture, not if it is the worst torture. It takes 5 minutes of research into Midiaeval torture devices to see water boarding is pretty tame. Two examples that come to mind are "the wheel" and "the Judas chair". Don't look those up on wikipedia if you have a vivid imagination and/or a weak stomach.
    • init100, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1"the modern debate is whether water boarding is or is not torture"

      There is no debate. Waterboarding is torture. It's just the Bush administration that want to make it look like there is a debate to cloud the issue.
  • forcedfx, on 12/16/2007, -7/+2King Bush disagrees!
  • omnithought, on 12/16/2007, -5/+20Time for our gov't to undergo a trial like Nuremburg.
    • bunit03057, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3Wow, you are saying that because the U.S. government is a little corrupt at the moment, we should treat them as if they are mass murders who committed a genocide. Wake up...
      • greenblob, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Yeah, because they aren't mass murderers who caused numerous genocides.
        • bunit03057, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Yea thats right they are not. If you are saying they did, I would like to know where and when they systematically killed innocent civilians.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -5/+2Oh and BY THE BY, The Nuremberg trials came to pretty incorrect conclusions. They decided that ANYONE who commits a crime against humanity under orders is just as guilty as the person who issued the order. Of course the Stanley Milgram experiments at Yale in the 1960s tell a different story. It's really hard to say no to an authority figure, but Nuremberg didn't think so. They thought they were better people than the Nazi officers that were following orders and so they sentenced many of them to death or prison for life. Nuremberg was a joke.
        • Groovemaster, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2I agree with the results of the Nuremburg trials.

          Soldiers might not be so willing to blindly run into wars if they know there could be dire consequences to being ignorant, subservient and misinformed.

          They might even refuse to deploy on a "pre-emptive" war of aggression such as Iraq (because such attacks are illegal according to international law).
      • init100, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2Well, they are equally evil in my opinion. The Nazis were clearly evil, but so is the Bush administration. They should spend the rest of their lives in jail for this (no, I don't support capital punishment).
        • bunit03057, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1One of us has lost our mind and I think it is you. You are verging on denying the holocaust or you are suggesting that there was an American equivalent of the systematic slaughter of millions of people. That would make you a conspiracy theorist, unless you know something about a genocide occurring that the rest of the world does not know about.
          • init100, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1"You are verging on denying the holocaust or you are suggesting that there was an American equivalent of the systematic slaughter of millions of people."

            No, I'm not. What I said is that like the Nazis were, the Bush administration should be tried in court for their crimes against humanity and hopefully spend the rest of their lives in jail.
        • droo31, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1Bush administration = Nazis? Here's a tip:

          Ready...

          LISTEN TO YOURSELF!!!!!!!!
          • init100, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1That both the Bush administration and the Nazis are evil does not make them equal.
      • omnithought, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Genocide? Perhaps not. War crimes? Definitely.
  • nastronomical, on 12/16/2007, -11/+4I searched for the terms water boarding and thumbscrews in the supposed source, but there is no reference. I searched for the quote that was attributed to King James I, "approve no new torture", and there was no reference other than the article. So unless they really can prove the source, they are just making s
  • gordonj, on 12/16/2007, -4/+12It comes as no surprise that the American administration is of a (sub) medieval mindset that condones torture. That's what you get when you elect a bunch of retarded fundamentalist christians to rule a country.
    • Defuser, on 12/17/2007, -1/+0No, it's what happens when a country is full of hateful assholes like YOU. The fact is, your post demonstrates no discernible difference between George Bush's mentality and your own. The fact that you're BEING a douchebag asshole to COMPLAIN about a douchebag asshole doesn't alter the fact that you're both douchebag assholes. I'll never understand why Diggers think that being gigantic ***** some how makes them "better" than other *****.
      • gordonj, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Really, am I hateful asshole because I stand up and say something against the American administration that condones torture? At least I only use words because I believe that torture is wrong. Whatever you say or think about about me, don't let it detract from the fact that AMERICA TORTURES PEOPLE! That is the message here and the reason for my hateful post. You can quote all the ***** about freedom and democracy, but it doesn't mean ***** if people are being tortured by the regime. Actions speak louder than words, as the old adage goes, and in those terms the american government has spoken volumes! Yes I'll admit it I hate people who torture others! And I hate people who condone it. Are you willing to admit that you are in one of the latter categories, or are you just a fence-sitter who takes a laissez-faire attitude with everyone because you don't want to get involved even if people are clearly performing atrocities?
  • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -12/+6I could see a lot of hypocrites in Digg waterboarding discussions. Most of people who are screaming against waterboarding support persons and groups who are conducts killing and terrorist acts for left or "progressive" causes. Che Guevara, who tortured and execute people is hero for them. Arafat, who is responsible for death of 1000's people is hero. Mandela who planted bomb on city square than killed 28 people is high moral authority. Lenin, Stalin, Mao. I could continue and continue.
    • nblsavage, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9nice generalizations there sport. "If you don't agree with me, you're a commie!"
      • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -7/+1Where are you see word disagreement world in my post? This is facts based on other Digg's discussions.
        Could you post fact in respond, not generalization?
      • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1By the way, could you give direct and honest answer on questions?
        Do you consider Che, Arafat, Mandela hero and moral authority?
        • jm9206755, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3How aptly you have named yourself.
        • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1When somebody does not have valid arguments to answer Hi start to try insult. Could you post something more intelligent?
      • init100, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Which in Bushlish is known as "you're either with us or against us".
        • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1It is not answer. Why nobody could give direct answer on simple question?
          • kurttrail, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Because the premise of your "question" is total *****, douchebag.

            Most American Liberals have no great love for most of the historical people you have listed. So go back to the public mens room of your choice, *****-for-brains.
          • redmonkey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1First of all, I am not talking about real American liberals(I don't know if they exists anymore). I am talking about Digg posters. Second, real American liberals don't use insulting words in discussions. Why most of left posters immediately start to insult opponent? Third, in couple hours I did not got one real answer. And Che T-shirt is very popular through left.
          • kurttrail, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1LOL! I do love how you contradict yourself!

            First of all, I am not talking about real American liberals(I don't know if they exists anymore) . . . . Second, real American liberals don't use insulting words in discussions."
          • redmonkey, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I am not contradict to himself. Do you understand word irony and SARCASM?
    • Izult, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Ok. So here's a thought for you. The coming of the Christian Christ was supposed to herald an end to the old Jewish laws including eye for an eye. You're obviously still living by the eye for an eye theory so that begs the question. IF you're Christian how can you continue to call yourself that?
      • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1I an not Christian. And I cannot understand your reply. I just underlined fact that a lot of people on Digg are not sincere when then screaming against waterboarding and supporting worse act committed by left hero's.
    • init100, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1"Most of people who are screaming against waterboarding support persons and groups who are conducts killing and terrorist acts for left or "progressive" causes."

      *****. I'd say that most people that oppose waterboarding and other forms of torture oppose it because it is plain and simply evil. If you support torture, you are evil too. If you believe in an afterlife, you are clearly going to Hell (or equivalent), along with your fellow Bushies.
      • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Why it is *****? This is real fact. By they way, I did not get any clear answer on my post, only insulting words. I am not supporting torture in general, but in case of "ticking bomb" when it could save human life i am for it.
        • kurttrail, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Name one REAL instance where torture stopped a "ticking bomb.

          Jack Bauer doesn't count moron.
        • redmonkey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Waterboarding was used only 3 times and allow to get information to stop terrorist acts. Also, could we discuss some future situations? And, please, could you stop reply with insulting words? Use some intellect sometimes.
        • kurttrail, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1"Waterboarding was used only 3 times and allow to get information to stop terrorist acts."

          LOL! Proof! And from a source that ain't getting it from the liars in the Bush Admin.
        • init100, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1"Why it is *****? This is real fact."

          It is a fact that only the "left" (which could be interpreted as commies) oppose torture? The conclusion that follows, i.e. that all people that support right-wing policy supports torture, is clearly a far too broad generalization. Who are you to claim to speak for all right-wingers?
    • yournightmare, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1" persons and groups who are conducts killing and terrorist acts for left or "progressive" causes."

      --Huh. You mean like the Founding Fathers of the U.S.? With the Boston Tea Party and attacks against their own government? Oh, how about the federal government sponsoring raids into the Southern states before the Civil War to try and force the South to voluntarily give up slavery? The raiding parties killed and stole with impunity. How about the U.S. taking the southwestern states from Mexico by force? How about the U.S. taking land all over the continent from Native Americans by force, killing and raping thousands? I guess all that ***** was OK because it benefited you, huh? So when WE are being oppressed, it's ***** fine for us to fight back. Or if we just want some ***** land, it's fine for us to kill whoever we want. But if Mandela fights back against the oppression HIS people were facing, he's a terrorist, right? You are a complete idiot. If you really love this country, you will refrain from voting again until you manage to come up with at least half a ***** brain.
      • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Your post confirm my one. You are approving killing for right cause. How you could be against torture and for killing in the same time? By the way, you are typical left poster. You cannot discuss issues, immediately starting insult opponent. And Mandela is terrorist not because he fight for right of his people, but because he plant bomb on city square and KILLED 28 PEOPLE.
  • Luthorcorp331, on 12/16/2007, -12/+5Can we ban the flood of Left Wing propaganda infesting digg until the elections are over? At the least keep it locked up in political and away from the main page?

    The jibba jabba from the loonies is ruining this damn site.

    Buried for immature manchilds whining like spoiled brats whilst not checking their facts.
    • DefianceOhioFan, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4"jibba jabba"? Is Mr. T posting on digg?
    • Luthorcorp331, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2I wish.
    • init100, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2So opposition to torture is now "left wing propaganda"?
      • kurttrail, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1No, this guy just wants to live in a world of conservative values:

        Torture, Going to War based on lies, and Fear.
        • init100, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Are those "conservative values"? I thought they were mostly neocon values.
  • JohnnyCreepy, on 12/16/2007, -3/+5I Agree, my Masochist friend was arrested, and he Loved it the Least.
  • kroni, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/8/n/0/-/-/abug ...

    "A victim of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The prisoner is simultaneously being subjected to forced standing, Palestinian hanging, forced nudity, and sexual humiliation (as his face is hidden by a woman's underwear)."

    • Arkons24, on 12/16/2007, -5/+2awesome
    • mabhatter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1our guy two articles down getting 438 years did considerably LESS than that out of rage to two women and got the book thrown at him... these guy in the "secret" agencies do worse, and plan it out..
      • Defuser, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0"Considerably less"? I'm assuming you're just to much of a ***** to realize that the guy you're talking about is a serial rapist and murderer.
  • chubbybubba, on 12/16/2007, -3/+6Clearly King James was a pussy :)
  • ssawyer06, on 12/16/2007, -6/+3I'm not debating torture here, but don't you think it's possible that King James' version of waterboarding could be different than America's in 2007? I don't think our government has the gusto to torture with as much rigor as they had back in the day...
    • danro, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I'd beg you to do some research and think again. You do realize that we send many of the prisoners we have to Egypt and such so we can "legally" torture them there, where much more gruesome forms of torture are commonplace, don't you?
    • mabhatter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1the difference is that they couldn't be as severe because they didn't have medical staff with full ER rooms to bring back the witches after they drown them.. they could only "kill" you once in James time... they are doing much worse now.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2I wonder what King James has to say about women and Africans (and no not the colonists)...
  • riscpilot, on 12/16/2007, -3/+6the only thing worst than waterboarding is seeing this crap on the front page of digg every freaking day.,
  • bentman78, on 12/16/2007, -11/+18Buried. Waterboarding in those times consisted of actually pouring water down the throat so the stomaches would actually inflate due to the mass amounts of water forcibly consumed. Waterboarding now (from what we're told) doesn't do that, it just simulates drowning. It's easy to blame the Bush administration for this but the fact is we've used it before in WWII, Vietnam and I would venture to guess the CIA has used it Afghanistan when they caught Russians and needed to interrogate them. Just look here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

    So people blaming the Bush administration are falling into the common fallacy of BDS. Whether you agree with the method or not, it's not the Bush administration who created it or the first to use in in war time here in the US.

    Someone mentioned above about other "tortures" such as sleep deprivation and loud music, sensory deprivation. Sorry, I don't consider these methods torture. I was subject to sleep and sensory deprivation in the military for training and while I can say it was uncomfortable it wasn't torture by any means. If US military women can deal with this, so can some jihadis. Besides we're not there to coddle them once we catch them. People seem to forget they are intent on killing our troops and if they could, every one of you Americans on this page regardless of your political ideologies, unless of course you submit to their will (which plenty on here would do I fear). If simulating drowning for a few seconds makes them talk about where the next weapons cache is that houses explosives that will be used to create IED's that will kill OUR TROOPS, then so be it. They can deal with a few seconds or minutes of discomfort to save some American's or Iraqi's lives.
    • init100, on 12/16/2007, -4/+8"I was subject to sleep and sensory deprivation in the military for training and while I can say it was uncomfortable it wasn't torture by any means."

      That's because it was applied by friendly US soldiers. It would probably be much harsher if you were a captured enemy "combatant".
      • MadN, on 12/16/2007, -3/+3"If simulating drowning for a few seconds makes them talk about where the next weapons cache is that houses explosives that will be used to create IED's that will kill OUR TROOPS, then so be it."

        As long as we stay in Iraq and kill Iraqis; their brothers, fathers, sons and daughters will become more "insurgents".
        Waterboarding is NOT "simulated drowning" it is repeated REAL drowning, with CPR and/or first aid given to keep the victim from staying dead. As for the IEDs, what would you do if Russians invaded and occupied your trailer park?
        Also, you should ask the Blackwater corp. about selling IEDs to insurgents in Iraq.
        • pickypg, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3"As for the IEDs, what would you do if Russians invaded and occupied your trailer park?"

          Well, first off we'd probably have to find and kill you to stop you from informing on us to the Russians about our activities. Second off, I'd probably join the military to fight them off. Third off, if the Russians simply drove around and gave us food, water, and restarted our economy, then I'd probably be pretty happy.

          Oh, and I love the trailer park shot; feel free to move to Russia where you'll clearly love it more.
      • bentman78, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1"As long as we stay in Iraq and kill Iraqis; their brothers, fathers, sons and daughters will become more "insurgents".
        Those "insurgents" also kill a lot of innocent Iraqi's that have mothers, sisters and brothers. The difference between us and the insurgents is we don't cut peoples faces off with piano wire, behead, and try to convert people to a messed up interpretation of a religion.
        • aurorion, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Good. So Americans are marginally better than uneducated Iraqi militants.
        • init100, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1"The difference between us and the insurgents is we don't cut peoples faces off with piano wire, behead, and try to convert people to a messed up interpretation of a religion."

          Because torturing them in prison is so much better and more civilized than beheading or cutting the face with piano wire. Let's face it, you are just as bad as they are, and you have the gall to try to make their actions sound worse than the torture performed by the US government.
    • bwa236, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1People are bringing this up so often and blaming the Bush administration because this is on top of the other thing Bush has taken it upon himself to do. This is one more thing where it seems Bush is putting aside decades of adhering to an international treaty all under a pretense of protecting us here at home or our troops abroad.

      If you were actually in the armed services, then I am very surprised you did not bring up the administration of mustard gas to troops where a full breath has to be inhaled, then the soldier is to say his name, rank, and SS number. I am inclined to think that the fact you did not bring that up as an example is evidence that you did not serve. If you did, it would have been a good argument, and thank you for serving. If you didn't, stop using it as a shield.
      • bentman78, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1your ignorance shows. Not all services are subject to the gas training. And it's not mustard gas either. Go back to playing xbox in your parents basement and leave debates to grownups.
      • init100, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1"you did not bring up the administration of mustard gas to troops where a full breath has to be inhaled, then the soldier is to say his name, rank, and SS number."

        If Wikipedia is correct, such a test would not make sense. This is because the gas does not produce any immediate symptoms, but rather severe blistering after several hours. Thus, inhaling the gas and then saying your name, rank and SS number wouldn't be a problem. The symptoms would appear after several hours, causing serious problems with the respiratory system. Why would anyone subject troops to such a dangerous and useless test?
      • curmudgeon7205, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The gas in question was CS, a form of tear gas.

        It seems that there are a lot of folks in this venue who shoot from the hip with "facts" that are not factual.
    • danro, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2And how long did you have to undergo sensory deprivation? Maybe 48 hours at most. Most of the enemy combatants that we put under sensory deprivation undergo it for weeks.
      • bentman78, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1oh well...not my problem. They also receive three square meals, we accommodate their religious believes and receive better medical care than they would otherwise.

        Besides...have any evidence they receive it for weeks?
  • bincoder, on 12/16/2007, -8/+3Bah.
    Given the choice of me getting waterboarded on live Tv with the payment of $100,000 cash Vs. my bank account being emptied and me living on the streets as in homeless, take a wild guess as to which I would select. The king was spoiled by his wealth and the whiners about waterboarding are whimps.
    • EmperorCheese, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0The only wimps here are the cowards that have thrown away the freedom and righteousness of this once proud country because they're afraid of some terrorists half a world away.
  • Arkons24, on 12/16/2007, -4/+15Buried as inaccurate. The poster and author don't know what the ***** he is talking about. Waterboarding used to be a much more severe torture where they would literally force water into your stomach until a) you talk b) you drown or c) your stomach explodes. As you can imagine this resulted in frequent, not to mention incredibly painful, death.
    Critical thinking: An important skill that the vast majority of you that post here need to acquire. See anyone with half a brain would have realized that thumbscrews and the rack are far more severe than modern waterboarding.
    Also, other than that quote, none of that information can be found in the King's Book. In fact, the King's Book doesn't even seem to mention waterboarding.
    Another terrible article from libtard web blog #203003.
    • Karmashock, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Well said, the point is obvious from the title to say nothing of the article itself. Waterboarding doesn't actually physically harm the person. Where as thumb screws will break your fingers and the rack will break you back.

      The people going along with this are either foolish or dishonest... or some combination of the two. The most unfortunate thing about the internet is that you can't shame people into humility.
  • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -7/+2Zl snibevgr jngreobneqvat fprar jnf va Gnax Tvey. Rirelbar fubhyq jngpu gung naq yrnea sebz vg. Zvaq lbh, gung vf bayl bar bs znal grpuavdhrf gurl jvyy hfr, fb or cercnerq sbe n frevbhf zvaq shpx. Qbu... V nz glcvat va EBG13 ntnva.
  • kreatre2007, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Who in the hell cares? This is from a time when people were burned, beheaded and hanged for going against the king.
  • testcase, on 12/16/2007, -6/+33I am astounded at the surreal turn the debate on torture has taken. I cannot believe we are even discussing this.

    Let me simplify this for everyone;

    1) Waterboarding is torture. Period.
    2) Americans must not commit acts of torture under any circumstance; our Constitution expressly forbids Cruel and Unusual Punishment, without exception.
    3) Any American who tortures anyone, for any reason must be prosecuted.
    4) Anyone who condones torture is aiding and abetting criminal activity, and is therefore complicit *before* the fact.

    We executed war criminals during WWII for simply being in command of military units that performed acts of torture.

    Debating the relative merits of one form of torture over another is MADNESS.

    The root of this present MADNESS lies in the fact that now, AMERICANS are committing acts of torture during wartime. Which automatically makes US war criminals. So how do we explain this massively dissonant fact? We must of course deny that waterboarding is torture.

    This is CRIMINAL INSANITY. The world will eventually make us pay for this, if it does not stop right now. And even if we are not punished by others, our certain moral degradation will be its own punishment. No great nation can possibly remain great for long if it so much as flirts with the idea of torture.

    The man in the street, you and me, we will all pay for this, one way or another. Make no mistake. It's inevitable.
    • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -8/+2You write a lot of right words, but what you going to do in case of "ticking bomb"? Stay by principles and let hundreds and thousands people die? Time changed. We are not fighting regular army and waterbording was used not against POW but terrorists who disregards human life and does not have any moral.
      • Ogedei, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10you grammar good.
        Ugh! Me Tarzan. You Jane!

        His point is that if you apply these methods to the terrorist, you are also a country that disregards human life and does not have any morals.
        • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2I am not talking about mass implementation of this methods. I am talking about "ticking bomb" situation. I want to hear clear answer: are you ready to sacrifice thousand people lives based on your principles ? Yes or no.
        • nextedge, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Yes, when you take a moral stand, you keep it, you don't dismiss it when you feel like it. So yes, you lose the thousand lives, and it would be a tremendous tragedy, but you then work that it can never happen again. Torture is the easy path, not the high path. So I ask YOU, are you a moral person?
        • redmonkey, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2 I cannot judge himself, but I am consider human life more important that any principles. This is my principle. God forbid, but are you going to sacrifice your kid life based on principle? I am not going to believe you if your answer would be yes
        • eridius, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3redmonkey: your argument is based upon the assumption that you know with 100% certainty that the man you wish to torture actually knows what you're trying to get him to say. Aside from all the human rights violations issues, the practical problem with torture is it's just as likely to produce erroneous information as correct information. Thus, anything learned from torture cannot be trusted.
        • redmonkey, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1eridius. I am ready to agree with your arguments. Almost. In regular cases when there is not immediately treat to human life torture is not practical and ethical. (except what you consider as torture, but this could be another big discussion). But in case of "ticking bomb" situation and you sure 100% person is member of terrorist organization you have at least 50% chance to save people lives.
        • aurorion, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1@ redmonkey

          You think the Bush administration uses torture only in "ticking bomb" situations???
        • redmonkey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I am not talking about Bush administration. I am talking about general use of waterboarding. And waterbording was used only 3 times and only against well known terrorists and saved lives of people.
      • EmperorCheese, on 12/17/2007, -1/+0Because a tortured terrorist would never lie about the whereabouts of a ticking bomb.
    • Arkons24, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3Let me simplify this for you. Life is not a series of decisions where all options are completely black and white. There is gray everywhere. The biggest indicator of an unformed mind is the inability to see the overwhelming prevalence of gray.
    • Defuser, on 12/17/2007, -3/+1Oh for hell's sake, Testcase! Quit being a moron! Nearly every damn person here agrees that Waterboarding is torture, and that America shouldn't be doing it! It's only the psychotic Bush-Haters that keep bringing the ***** topic up, as though maybe there were some disagreement about it! Yeah, we get it, "Waterboarding Bad". Thus, we really don't need another sixteen articles on the topic, basically implying that the rest of us were somehow "in support" of it.
    • Lavarock, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2MADNESS?

  • eweb, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3I'd say genital mutilation would be a far greater torture.....
  • farblestans, on 12/16/2007, -3/+6testcase: That was the old America, the one that the rest of the world could look up to. The new America is a nasty piece of work, the town bully on a PCP binge, and not only can this new America torture people to death without breaking a moral sweat, it can do anything the heck else it likes too. What are you going to do about it? GLASS PARKING LOT. The rest of the world can suck it, USA USA USA.

    Me, I miss the old America.
    • la7dfa, on 12/16/2007, -5/+01 American equals 10 dogs. (But the dogs have better health care program).
      1 dog equals 10000 Muslims.

      Just watch Animal Planet & FOX news.
    • MikeFallopian, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1What "Old America" are you talking about? Vietnam-era America? Pre-civil rights America? America during McCarthy and the HUAC? The America that tossed thousands of its own citizens in concentration camps based solely on race? Civil War America? Or perhaps you mean America when the constitution was written, when slavery was taken for granted. There are serious problem in our country right now, but I'd rather live here today than in any other historical era. There is no such thing as a golden age when everything was hunky-dory.
    • Arkons24, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1you're just confused about the history of torture in this country.
  • nextedge, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3All the people that are condoning torture as a tool have to also then approve of all the torture done to US soldiers in Germany, Vietnam, and other wars. So they must think that all the moral outrage of the government and families of these tortured US soldiers should just be ignored and they should be told to just buck it up. Hey, it was to save lives right?
    You wonder how people could have let the Nazi's run prison camps with mass torture and killings? look at yourselves, attitudes like yours are what let them take power and do such evil horrendous things.
  • amightywind, on 12/16/2007, -10/+4I think King James was opposed to drowning. Waterboarding is not torture, it is a safe, modern technique for eliciting confession and we are all safer for it.
    • Groovemaster, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4Yes, A Mighty Wind does surely blow from your ass.
    • aurorion, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I am sure you would feel the same way when you are at the receiving end.
  • Heptaphobia, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I like how the title of this topic is only briefly mentioned in the main article...I was expecting to read something into King James' preferred methods of torture.

    It's an interesting article, nonetheless. Just misleading (or at least the person who dugg it made it so).
  • edwartica, on 12/16/2007, -6/+7I thought the worst torture possible was when a bunch of Ron Paul faboys hijack the comments of a digg article.
  • Williamthe5th, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2This is coming from the same King James I who Guy Fawkes tried to kill on the 5th of November. That same 5th of November that Ron Paul based his "money-bomb" on. Enjoy!!!
    • mabhatter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2that would be the point.. these were statements by the kings that Caused the American Colonists to rebel in the first place. It's time to stop playing games and realize that the current US president is the same petty tyrant that George Washington took up an army against.
  • dennycautrell, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3The level of pain felt by the victim is not shared by the torturer, who would never call it torture unless it were to be used on him. One should have already analyzed from all this discussion on what constitutes torture that Americans falling into the wrong hands will now be subjected to an ever-increasing level of torture. It has always been a game of one-upmanship. Once the bar has been set, the enemy is compelled to raise it higher.
  • leefnaspleaf, on 12/16/2007, -2/+8If I were an actual torture victim, I would be so ***** off that this word has been politicized and manipulated to define basically "anything mean," while there are people in this world who have been burned, mutilated, amputated, raped, and you know actually bound up and subjected to ACUTE PHYSICAL PAIN which incidentally ***** EXISTS.

    So yeah, this country should be ashamed of itself for
    A: Unlawfully detaining people and subjecting them to questionable interrogation methods and
    B: Making a bunch of stupid ***** up about "torture" when there are people in this world who have actually been subjected to unspeakable agony.

    • leefnaspleaf, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2And not only that, but now if we ever DO start torturing people, nobody is going to do anything about it because a bunch of well-intentioned yet woefully IDIOTIC liberal ***** cried wolf and completely robbed the word of its meaning.
    • Antimatt, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Thank you. When the articles first came out, I was surprised that the civilized world was torturing people. Then I found out they were just scaring the hell out of them. Sounds like they found a perfectly humane way of getting answers out of people.
    • mabhatter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2the point of the uproar now is that we shouldn't be tourturing people.. the USA does not do that thing.
      Once it becomes OK to violate our standards for torture, descending to cutting off body parts and burning people etc, is just a step away. we already excuse blowing up people with smart bombs as "acceptable" loss, so it's just a matter of time before the standards slip to full-blown medieval standards just like the "terrorists" do... if we become just like them, then there's no point fighting an all-out war.. what is it over if not about our "morality"?
    • Pherdnut, on 12/17/2007, -1/+0You kids really need to read up on waterboarding.
      • shcon, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I think YOU need to read up on waterboarding. It creates a fight or flight instinctual reaction in people, because they don't want to drown. It takes them to a psychological point where they will do or say anything, because they're scared they are going to actually die. Yes, they will actually drown if they are subjected to this procedure improperly but thats why they use trained professionals.

        Waterboarding isn't torture imo. I think it probably really sucks, but its not the same as being force-fed your own testicles. I'm sorry, its just not.
  • Niteryder, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Did you think that someone who thinks he is royal, would do anything different than his forefathers, inbreeding causes some strange things to happen.....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.