What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.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.
720 Comments
- InfamousAtheist, on 04/11/2008, -32/+248I'm so frustrated and ashamed of the United States government right now. I never believed I would live to see our nation's leaders become war criminals.
These people are despicable. I truly hope the next administration opens up the records and prosecutes these ***** for every single law they've broken.
I'm also seriously concerned about the next administration potentially continuing the pattern established by Bush & Co.: getting the DOJ to green-light an illegal, even unconstitutional activity DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL. Congress and the Supreme Court need to get involved and put a STOP to these practices - the executive branch has illegally become far too powerful with this and other methods (signing statements are incredibly dangerous, for example)
So many constitutional violations - when will it stop? Will the next President end these illegal practices? - MrBabyMan, on 04/11/2008, -10/+207PDF link to memo itself http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.0 ...
- Sogui, on 04/11/2008, -22/+146Ok I'm one of the last people who should be defending Bush but somebody needs to say this:
1) Saying that this "authorizes" torture is a BIG stretch considering half the document talks about treating detainees "humanely" and "consistent with the principles of Geneva".
2) Is the huge wall of text necessary with the actual document at the VERY end? Thanks for throwing in all the gory Abu-Ghraib photos too! There has never been any proven connection between the White House and what happened there, reason/facts/logic tell you that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of sick soldiers doing sick things. Just because Bush loves to use tenuous logic doesn't mean you have to fight him with it.
3) This is old news, everyone knows Bush and his legal team insist Al-Qaeda affected by the rules of the Geneva convention, this is a document that says just that, but reinforces that detainees should be treated humanely, etc... I'm NOT saying that we are treating them humanely, I'm just saying this isn't the SMOKING GUN that the DailyKos is parading it as. - KraftDinner101, on 04/11/2008, -19/+106I'm so sick of you guys sitting here saying "Why isn't Bush impeached?" "Why isn't anyone doing anything?". No one is doing anything because they're all asking the same questions as you are and expecting someone else to fight their battle. I also know the usual response to my claims. Ones like "I sent a letter to yadda yadda, I'm doing something", well it hasn't worked. If you really want to instill change, go protest until you're blue in the face. Get others to join in. It's much more effective if there's more people, I hear. If you people were really adamant about change, then all we would see on the front page is news articles about Bush protests and public outcries for impeachment, but all we see is Obama and Apple blogspam or "Top 10 ways to get a girlfriend while living in your mom's basement".
- Jareth86, on 04/11/2008, -15/+90If President Gore had approved of torture and the general circumvention of the constitution, I'm willing to bet money that you would call him a Stalinist, and scream for his impeachment and immediate removal from office.
- InfamousAtheist, on 04/11/2008, -15/+83It's refreshing to see patriotic Americans defending their president for the war crimes he's committed while in office. I feel much better about the situation knowing that our beloved commander-in-chief can get away with violating every law ever written without having to worry about silly things like human rights, domestic and international laws, treaties the US has entered, or the very real possibility that the US is now a fascist state.
(Do I need my /sarcasm tag?)
YOU SIR, are a traitor, and should be punished as such along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, and all the other war criminal in the Bush Administration. - khail250, on 04/11/2008, -14/+77why isn't this known from the start?? isn't the government supposed to be transparent so WE THE PEOPLE can decide how things are run. not by some neo conservative fanatic!
- jeremyduffy, on 04/11/2008, -12/+62I wonder how many more lies and acts of evil the president will have to be proven of before someone actually does something about it. Where's my impeachment? We only have a few months left. Of course, putting him in jail after the fact would be nice too.
- tomboy501, on 04/11/2008, -24/+71Sorry...I'm not seeing it that way. Items 3-5 are really the candy coated cut-and-paste disclaimer inserted at the end of this disturbing document. Reminds me of a wife-beater telling himself what a really good guy he is deep down inside.
Here's what I see:
Item 1 - The Geneva Convention is suddenly awash with very complex legal questions - despite the stunning clarity of its intent. Also..the terrorists started it! What can we do but sink to their level? (please forgive us). And there's some mention of 'new thinking'. NeoCon new thinking, I gather. Time to rewrite the Geneva Convention.
Item 2 - Having been advised by my Atty General and Justice Dept (the scariest subset of mankind ever to be born on this Earth)....I'm going to suspend the Geneva Convention because:
a) al Qaeda never signed the Geneva Convention
b) this is not really an old school war (even though countries have been invaded and cities and peoples have been razed to the ground).
c) Something about relevant conflicts and international scope muddies the waters here (moving on)
d) the phrase 'unlawful combatants' (a phrase most assuredly invented by the aforementioned Atty. General) rears it's ugly head and seems to seal the deal.
Basically, call someone an unlawful combatant, and as long as Alberto Gonzales said so....torture is a green light! This is one very sick document. - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -7/+38Jimmy, I can only hope I get to see the video, when the true patriots of America finally get to see you(and your kind) for the traitors you are. Your ignorance, and apathy has allowed untold harm to humanity, that is a debt that will eventually be paid back. Either to you, or your children.
Knowing what type of fine, upstanding member of society you are - you'll sacrifice your kids for your cowardice instead of facing the music for your actions like a man. - johnhummel, on 04/11/2008, -1/+30I have to say I disagree. Think about your statement: "Well, torture them to because we know the truth, and that they did it."
And then you turn around and say "Well, but don't torture people who only *might* be guilty."
So right there, you have an issue - how do you *know* someone did something bad, and they have the information they need?
Secondly - what makes you think they're going to tell you what you want to know just because you hurt them? I never understood that argument. "These terrorists are the worst enemy in history - we have never fought a foe as determined as them, as radical and twisted by religious fervor and hate! But - if we just hurt them for awhile, they'll tell the truth! Because they're stupid and weak!"
It's at the heart of the whole "Jack Bauer 24" nonsense: Jack, being the Brave, Good American, can withstand *years* of torture. But an Evil, Foreign, Brown terrorist - they crack within minutes so we can race to stop the bomb!"
Every indication from history shows torture doesn't work as a method of getting accurate information. That would be reason alone not to do it. History also shows that torture is *only* effective in making people afraid - and that should be another reason to remove it from our thinking.
The Founders, and the creators of the Geneva Conventions, understood that torture was *only* effective as a method of short term control and potential population control through fear. Pinochet used it on union leaders - and suddenly, nobody wanted to bother Pinochet about workers rights. Saddam Hussein used it in Iraq, and it made it easier to control a majority that outnumbered the Sunni minority by some 7 to 1.
We also know from history that once the torture stops, those who have been tortured don't go "Dang, I'll never do that again - that hurt!", but instead go "Those mother ***** are going to *pay*." We see it in the rise of al Qaeda, who's initial members and philosophy came from people arrested in Egypt and - anyone, anyone? That's right, were tortured.
Now, contrary to some other idiots, most people don't think you give terrorists a comfy chair and they'll confess all. But you treat them like we expect any other police officer in our country should act towards any other person suspected of a crime: You do your homework, you find good cause, you arrest them, you present information to a judge, and you convict them. You offer them plea deals on condition of telling the truth. If they take it, great. If not, then you find other ways to get the information - undercover, working with informants, looking over records, surveillance, and so on.
Techniques that have, over the last century, or two, or three since the US said "Hey, let's make an amendment saying that torture is bad", proven pretty good at taking down bad people, from criminals to Nazi's. - BrainInAVat, on 04/11/2008, -6/+35Your reading comprehension isn't all there either.
2. b. I won't suspend Geneva
2. c. because I have decided it doesn't apply here
2. d. and therefore I can ignore it but still claim I support it - notBrit, on 04/11/2008, -17/+45RTFA:
"What's important now we have at least ONE signed memo which establishes George W. Bush as the executive authority making final decisions in the NSC process which established a United States run torture regime..." - swrostmore, on 04/11/2008, -3/+31Before you start apologizing for torture as "necessary to protect Americans" you need to know that the FBI declared information given under torture from Abu Zubaydah to be "crap." Zubaydah talked willingly and truthfully before being tortured, and was mentally ill due to a head injury. The CIA did not believe he could know so little, so they tortured him anyway. One FBI agent who had participated in Zubaydah's interrogation threatened to arrest the CIA agents that were torturing him.
This was an interrogation that was "explicitly approved" and "choreographed" by the White House. - adwarereport, on 04/11/2008, -6/+33Thanks for beating me to this. I am also no fan of Bush nor of torture, but the headline is blatently inaccurate. The memo simply proves that George Bush was personally involved and making decisions, not that he expressly authorized torture.
The fact that you are being dugg down suggests to me that Digg is just as biased and sensationalist as Fox or Daily Kos. Shameful. - cdoughty77, on 04/11/2008, -4/+28What you fail to understand apparently is that this is only one step away from the government doing this to anyone they want. Who decides who gets tortured, who is considered 'good' and who is considered 'bad'?
- Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -4/+28@ JImmy, you can call whatever you like. You seeing this as wrong, only vindicates it as right. Your racist depiction aside, people from different religions wear different things - like those idioic beanies worn by the Jews, or those girlie ringlets from the orthodox, to that crazy ass hat the pope wears.... If I poked fun at the Rabbi's head gear you would see it as the racial tripe it would be - as yours has been noted.
So now that that is done - When/If China invades the US, or Israel, are you going to fight them off or greet them as liberators? Are you willing to be what you hate? I mean more so than you are now. - KraftDinner101, on 04/11/2008, -2/+26Troll
- Tangaroa, on 04/11/2008, -16/+39It has long been established that any prisoner who does not fall under Geneva is to be considered as a civilian. It has also long been established that many of the "terrorist detainees" are not terrorists. The US grabbed people off the street and from their homes based on bad intel and won't let them go because it would look bad for the VIPs who decided they should be captured / tortured / kept longer.
- humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -4/+26Summary:
ITEM 2:
a) The Geneva conventions do not apply to our 'conflict with al Qaeda'
b) I have the authority to suspend Geneva if I want to. In this case, I choose not to. (Because Geneva doesn't apply anyway).
c) Geneva does not apply to any al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners we have captured, because they were not captured as part of an international conflict.
d) Taliban prisoners are not prisoners of war. They are unlawful combatants. Therefore Geneva does not apply.
ITEM 3:
We promise to apply the Geneva conventions whenever possible. We decide when it's possible. - snugglebear, on 04/11/2008, -5/+27Dugg for being the first logical post here.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 04/11/2008, -7/+29Torturing people is having backbone? What the ***** are you? If you are American, get the ***** out of my country. Seriously, have I been in a goddamn nightmare for the last 7 years? Since when did so many Americans turn into ***** like Wargalas? I mean the worst kind of *****. Unwiped, hairy, anal wart infested, ripped by horse ***** type *****. Whats funny is so many dialated anuses like you call yourselves patriotic, even Christian. Torture couldn't be more antithetical to either one.
- deweyhewson, on 04/11/2008, -5/+26Guys, c'mon. Did you read the memo? I'm as anti-Bush as any reasonable person, but this memo is not "authorizing torture". It is just stating that legally the detainees are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention - which of course is debatable - and even goes on to state that the US Military still has an obligation to treat the detainees humanely. I have no doubt torture is occurring, but this isn't the smoking gun.
- Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -8/+29It has been a viewpoint of this Admin that the Geneva conventions don't handle non-uniformed combatants - however, what people fail to see is that when you invade a country you turn all of its populace into "non-uniformed combatants".
This, like everything else from this Admin, is a semantic argument used to deflect from the true discussion. - humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -8/+28Did you expect him to write "yarr I love torture, everybody go wild and torture the ***** out of anyone you can get ahold of!"
Of course it's worded in a way that sounds benign. You have to look at what's actually being said. What the document says is, "we don't have to apply Geneva conventions if we don't want to. And anyway, Geneva conventions don't apply here".
That means "go nuts and torture anyone you like". There's no uncertainty about it. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -10/+30Mr bush is a embarrassment to our nation!
- Horace, on 04/11/2008, -10/+29Did anyone actually read it?
Paragraph 5: "I hereby reaffirm the order ... that the detainees be treated humanely"
How does that equate to authorizing torture?
Buried as inaccurate. - MCBowelmovement, on 04/11/2008, -6/+25So, according to this document, and my well thought out interpretation of it's provisos and binding agreements (with special regard to #4), we can legally jam plungers up pretty much the whole administrations ass. Is that about right?
- humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -2/+21In legal terms, "humanely" has no meaning. It means whatever we want it to mean.
In legal terms, "do not qualify as prisoners of war" has a very clear meaning. It means the Geneva conventions don't apply, and therefore torture is not illegal. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -13/+32Bush keeps America secure? Tell that to the families of the 9/11 victims. The worst terrorist attack ever to occur on U.S. soil happened while Bush was reading a children's book.
- hauntedchippy, on 04/11/2008, -5/+23Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave.
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -4/+22hmm, sorry to tell you this but your leaders were war criminals before you were born. Unless you're over 70.
- Tangaroa, on 04/11/2008, -9/+26I gave you the plain facts. You just aren't interested in them. Civilian trials are how we tell whether any prisoner is a Khalid Sheik Mohammed or a Joe Al-Schmo rug salesman. The court system is a regulated effort to find the truth. It is clear that you don't care about the truth and you don't mind your government having the power to torture innocent people who have never been allowed to defend themselves. You are not much better than the terrorists.
- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -4/+21jimmy, try some light reading:
MYTH: The detainees at Guantanamo are the “worst of the worst."
Fact: Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.
MYTH: All the Guantanamo detainees are combatants who fought against the United States.
FACT: Many of them were not picked up on or anywhere near the battlefield. Detainees were taken into custody from 14 different countries, including Gambia, Bosnia, and Thailand. About half were taken into custody in Pakistan – and, as noted above, the thousands of dollars offered by the US to bounty hunters encouraged false arrests. According to US military records, the US has not even accused the majority of them of fighting US or coalition forces.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ... - WNW3, on 04/11/2008, -11/+28Well, I read it. What I got from it is "The Geneva convention rules are awesome but Al Queda/Taliban are not covered by it. We intend to treat prisoners humanely but we don't have to and I can change my mind about that whenever I want." I wouldn't say it's a contradiction. It's bad but not as bad as the article says. The really bad stuff hasn't been declassified yet.
- 0Degrees, on 04/11/2008, -11/+28I'm sick and tired of seeing rebel insurgents labeled as "war criminals". We ***** their country up, now they want us out, period. Just as our forefathers who fought off the British during the US revolution, they are not criminals.
If there are any real war criminals here it's Bush and Co. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -2/+18newsflash - it doesn't
- beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+16noahhoward: Well, you claim that they "DO NOT apply" as if it is established legal fact. It happens that your opinion and the Bush administration's official position match in this respect. That's the point of the memo. It was not established legal fact before the memo. The memo is a clarification of the administration's opinion. A ton of people disagree though... and not just ignorant jackasses like myself. All I'm saying is that we should think long and hard about removing broad protections like Geneva (even from our enemies) since this kind of thing can become a slippery slope. I think you share my love of this country. No one wants to see its core principals tarnished because of fear. In my opinion, the memo skips us one more tiny step down the road to eroding certain protections and freedoms for the sake of a feeling of security. I don't like it.
- beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -2/+17witte: I am not cool with the president of this country signing a memo that says we don't officially consider prisoners from this particular war/conflict as having rights under the Geneva Convention. The fact that the end of the memo tries to candy coat the beginning by stating that we'll "continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles" doesn't make me feel much better. The memo (if real) clearly, explicitly, without a doubt shows that the president signed off on officially removing certain prisoners in this conflict from Geneva's regulations. If you are cool with that I definitely respect your opinion and an honest debate can be had regarding your opinion. Saying that the memo says the opposite of the article title is a large stretch.
The article title IS overly-sensational though. Don't let someone else's sensationalism drive you to represent your own opinion in a sensational way as well. - beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -1/+15noahhoward: Yeah, but the memo as a whole (if real) definitely shows that the president officially removed certain prisoners in this conflict from Geneva protections. The fact that the second half of the document says some nice things about Geneva, such as the vague "Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles" isn't an official promise of anything. tomboy501 called this "candy coated" language. I agree with that. The purpose of the memo is clearly not to reaffirm our adherence to Geneva's regulations. The purpose is clearly an official break from Geneva in certain specific cases. You don't agree with that assessment of the document as a whole?
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -4/+18When the dollar is onefourth the current value and people are dying in US streets, and the whole US is one giant dustbowl, and everyone defaults on his ***** mortgage, we'll make you and your kind eat these words.
- KraftDinner101, on 04/11/2008, -2/+15Check my country, moron.
- lokee73, on 04/11/2008, -4/+16Clinton was trying to do something about Osama, but the Republican Congress kept screaming "Wad the Dog!"
But hey, if you want to start blaming prior presidents, let's go back to Reagan. Remember the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 224 American soldiers? Reagan pulled out of that; giving the world; and especially terrorists; the idea that if they bloody our nose we will slink away.
Also, before you start saying that Beirut is the same as Iraq and if we leave it will make us look weak, they are totally different situations. Iraq was an unprovoked war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I’m not saying Sadam was a saint by any measure, but we had him contained and the region stable until Bush ***** it up. - revjustin2, on 04/11/2008, -2/+14@noahhoward You're latching onto your claim like a pit bull ot the point of of not being able to see anything else. Let go, man. You're just plain wrong. Accept that and move on. It's okay to make mistakes.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/11/2008, -1/+13Dude, why would the Bush administration need to write a Memo, re-defining torture if they were just going to go with the Geneva conventions? The memo was to say; "we are following the same policy?"
Then they go and torture in GitMo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and certain third-party countries with a network of "bad apples?"
Also, why are all these legal documents secret? Why would ANY legal document be secret, much less one that was a statement of principles and had ZERO to do with foreign policy or military strategy? - RazDakarn, on 04/11/2008, -0/+11"Are they afraid of the truth?"
*sigh.* It's a HALF truth.
"-=to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity=-, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
In other words, they'll abide by it unless they decide not to for reasons of necessity. Basically, whenever they feel like it.
They word it like this to get what they want, and simultaneously fool do-gooders like you, who want to believe that no one would possibly abuse power. - floort, on 04/11/2008, -22/+33buried as innacurrate. Nowhere does it authorize torture. In fact, it says the opposite at the bottom. (Section 5)
- m0tbaillie, on 04/11/2008, -1/+12You clearly missed the big "UNCLASSIFIED" labels at both the top and bottom of each page.
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -1/+12you know.. back in the 30s and 40s.. if the government told people to be quiet about something for national security reasons, they did it because of patriotism. Because they trusted the government. Can you even imagine what thats like? The concept is so beyond me right now that it is almost impossible to grasp.
Its not like the government was perfect and not entirely without a certain level of corruption, but imagine what it would be like to have a government official talk to you and you think to yourself, 'there is a respectable patriot. They work for me, and they know it. I have respect for this person.'
How cool would that have been? -
Show 51 - 100 of 737 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