Digg

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Memo Signed By Bush, AUTHORIZING TORTURE, Surfaces

dailykos.com — This memo undercuts the frame that the recent ABC torture story suggested, by simply not mentioning the central role of the president in the NSC, that George W. Bush was elsewhere when decisions were made about torture. Now, we have signed memo indicating Bush was probably at the helm.

Bury

MrBabyMan 36 days ago, made popular 35 days ago

3274 diggs
digg it

741 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

MrBabyMan, on 04/11/2008, -10/+207PDF link to memo itself http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.0 ...
- bamapachyderm, on 04/11/2008, -56/+41All should take note of that memo, and read it IN FULL. Specifically, items 3-5. That contradicts the headline here and especially the post at Kos. The story at Kos is INACCURATE. It's pure fallacy, and the memo around which the story is centered says precisely *the opposite* of what the author says.
  - 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.
    - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -28/+15Your reading comprehension is *****.
      
      2. b. I accept the Iegal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the united States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise tbat authority at this time. Accordingly I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban.
      
      3. Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment, Our Nation has been and will I continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
      
      Try again.
      - 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
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -19/+7I know it is hard to think with your brain in a vat somewhere so I'll make it easy.
        "Accordingly I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban."
        
        There you go, you only need to comprehend one line. Try it again.
      - 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?
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -14/+4The memo doesn't redefine torture, it states a position, whether you like it or not the Geneva conventions do not apply in this situation. The purpose of writing this memo was to make them apply anyway.
      - Linzee82, on 04/11/2008, -0/+92a) I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
        
        last two lines of 2b) Accordingly I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts.
        
        Now you can have it both ways, huh, Georgie?
      - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2"The memo doesn't redefine torture, it states a position, whether you like it or not the Geneva conventions do not apply in this situation. "
        
        Sorry, we are the good guys whether you like it or not, so the Geneva Convetion always applies. If you want to sink down to the terrorists level, you go right ahead, but don't drag my country down with you.
    - 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?
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -14/+4He doesn't remove anyone. The Geneva conventions DO NOT apply to these people and never have. I agree that they probably should but that is beside the point. He opens with the official legal application of the Geneva conventions (they do not apply) but goes on to say 'however, we will still apply them because that is the right thing to do'.
        
        The candy coating is actually the Genenva convention, the Geneva conventions do not apply in this situation, if they wanted to endorse torture, there was no need for this memo, they are BY LAW free of Geneva obligation. This memo is a self-obligation.
      - 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.
  - AmaDaden, on 04/11/2008, -7/+142.b "Accordingly I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban."
    As much as I would love for this to be a smoking gun, it's not. All it said is "yes we could ignore the Geneva Convention on this one but we will not"
    - saxamaphone, on 04/11/2008, -3/+10All 2.b does is clarify that when you torture someone, make sure to call them Al-Quaeda, not Taliban.
    - TheSwashbuckler, on 04/11/2008, -2/+8It really is important. They claim that Geneva doesn't apply, but decide to abide by it anyway. In actuality, they knew it applied, but needed to say that it didn't to justify their position that the President can do anything he wants in a time of war.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -10/+1As someone who is covered by the Geneva conventions I can tell you they didn't apply.
      - AmaDaden, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4"In actuality, they knew it applied, but needed to say that it didn't to justify their position that the President can do anything he wants in a time of war."
        
        I'm with you on that. I just don't feel that this memo is proof he told them to use torture. It is not the smoking gun people are saying it is. I am rather confident that Bush has said publicly Geneva does not apply to terrorists. So this memo is nothing new
      - DarkShroud, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1You people need to go and actually read the Geneva convention before making claims to what it does and does not apply too.
        
        Either way buried as inaccurate.
    - 5urr3al5am, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5LOL - what a joke of a "SHOCKING" story..! the liberals are going to try to milk these 'stories' right to the end -- know why they keep using them? because there are idiots out there who believe this -shocking- news.. hey here's a tip: don't click the link in your email that says, "BRAND NEW AND TOTALLY FREE COMPUTER FOR FILLING OUT THIS FORM".
- witte, on 04/11/2008, -40/+46LOL. In this memo, President Bush's statements EXACTLY CONTRADICT what is written by the poster "MrBabyMan" and "Daily Kos".
  
  What the hell is this, a joke? What is "dailykos.com", a Bush-bashing website? How retarded!
  
  Digg the memo.
  - 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.
    - 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.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -20/+13'That means "go nuts and torture anyone you like". There's no uncertainty about it.'
        
        Except for the fact that he says plain and clear we will treat them humanely, then reaffirms that statement again.
      - 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.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -12/+6'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.'
        
        That is a matter of fact, the Geneva conventions don't apply. However, regarding your first legal term, "I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. " kind of clarifies what is meant by humanely.
      - CourtesyFlush, on 04/11/2008, -7/+3This is all very simple.
        
        The Geneva convention states clearly who it protects and who it does not. It states clearly who qualifies as POW and who does not.
        
        Therefore, following the Geneva convention to the letter will exclude outlaws from protections. It does not protect everyone and it clearly states that it does not protect everyone.
        
        Those who wish to protect outlaws are not endorsing full compliance. They are ignoring the parts that do not agree with their stance.
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9And yet, how can somebody be an outlaw when no charges have been filed against them? Therefore there are no outlaws whose rights, under Geneva, are being violated.
        You seem to suggest that trying to protect these individuals from torture is against the principles of the Geneva convention, and therefore a person is not completely following the intention of the convention if they are opposed to this torture. You fail to realize that these people are not legally outlaws, and in fact many of them are very literally NOT outlaws. They simply do not belong to a state or larger government body and therefore are not technically covered by Geneva.
        It's called a loophole.
      - CourtesyFlush, on 04/11/2008, -7/+2I'm actually suggesting that the US follow the Geneva convention to the letter. Your conjecture as what I "seem" to be saying is irrelevant.
        
        It might help you make a more solid case if you look up the term "unlawful combatant" and read the Conventions in their entirety.... instead of fabricating arguments for me.
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+4I'm aware of the definition of unlawful combatant.
        And I can also say that I'm going to define anybody with a toilet reference in their digg handle as an "unlawful combatant". Therefore the Geneva convention no longer applies to you. Now if i was the US.Gov saying this, would it make it true?
        The reason why this is NOT out of context, is because the US.Gov has defined ALL DETAINEES that they deem as related to the al Queda or Taliban conflicts, as unlawful combatants without filing charges against them. Hence, they aren't charging them with any violent action, but are still going to give them a label that excludes them from Geneva rights.
        See the problem now?
      - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1No, he can't and won't ever see it from your point of view. He is a NeoCon traitor, who should be run out of this country.
    - VieRelative, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Close, the memo says that the Geneva contention's article 3 does not apply to the taliban, but the rest does.
      Whereas nothing about the geneva convention applies to Al-Qaeda.
      
      And I think you're right, the really bad stuff is still classified.
      I imagine it says something like: "If you have a gun in Iraq or Afghanistan and you're not part of the Coalition Forces, then you are presumed to be part of Al-Qaeda".
      It'll probably say something about giving cake to non Al-Qaeda prisoners (which won't exist anymore). Y'know, just to keep noahhoward's fantasy alive.
      - unclesam5, on 04/12/2008, -2/+0Latest news from FOX: "Bush approves use of waterboarding by the IRS in audits. Says 'It's the only way to get the truth. Geneva Convention does not apply to tax-payers. Unless you're really rich.' "
  - diablo75, on 04/11/2008, -4/+5Did you skip over Item 2?
    - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -18/+7The part where he says the Geneva conventions apply? No, did you?
      - BrainInAVat, on 04/11/2008, -1/+10What part of "common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees" from Item 2 do you think means the Geneva conventions apply?
      - 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.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -11/+4"Accordingly I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban."
        
        There you go Vat, third times a charm, keep trying, you'll get it.
      - beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7BrainInAVat: Wasn't the line you quoted written by legal counsel for the Bush Administration? In other words, this memo clarifies the administration's legal opinion that Geneva doesn't apply to certain people in certain conflicts. This implies that the legal opinion was not clear before the memo. I don't think quoting lines from the memo itself is a good way to support your argument that Geneva doesn't apply to these detainees. This is similar to when people quote from the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible. Please note, I am no Christian basher... but I think we can all agree that quoting from the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible is a bad piece of logic all around.
      - BrainInAVat, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4@noahhoward: Well, it seems like in one section the memo says Geneva will apply and in the next section it says it won't. No wonder we're all confused.
        @beakerwimp: I'm not making any argument, just pointing out what the memo says. Noah said the memo says that Geneva applies, I pointed out that the memo says Geneva does not apply. Turns out it says both.
        Or more exactly, it says Geneva applies to the conflict against the Taliban but not to the detainees.
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5I don't understand HOW you came to the conclusion that it says that it applies.
        
        2a. "I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda..."
        2c. "...common article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban..."
        2d. "...the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva..."
        
        You read that and decided it meant that Geneva DOES apply??
      - noahhoward, on 04/12/2008, -3/+1No relic, I read the whole thing and decided it applied. The truth gets funny when you get selective I'd suggest you don't do it again. Brain is right although I do not agree with the tone that this makes it officially endorsed, he applies it to the Taliban but not Al Qaeda.
        
        The reason why I maintain that he is still applying to it to Al Qaeda is because there is no legal difference between the two groups. If he applies it to one he applies to the other by default.
      - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2Yes there is a difference. The Taliban were running a country. Al Qaida is a band of thugs that have a whole political party scared *****.
      - relic180, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1noah. The simple fact is you're wrong. You wrong in saying that this memo states the Geneva convention does apply, and you can keep talking to people like some smug asshole ("The truth gets funny when you get selective, I'd suggest you don't do it again.") but it doesn't change the fact that this memo, which I have read in its entirety several times over, states CLEARLY that the articles of the Geneva convention which prohibit the torture of prisoners do not apply to these prisoners.
        
        Now if you want to continue on about how obvious it is that nobody else read the article, there's nothing anybody can do to stop you from acting like a child, but the fact remains that the memo is right there, available for anybody to click on and read for themselves, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the memo uses a gentle manner and a patriotic tone to approve the use of torture. Period.
    - beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3BrainInAVat: oops, my bad. My reading comprehension needs some work. I need to read the whole thread first. :(
  - 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.
    - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -13/+4What's not to be cool with, according to law they don't have any rights. That's not saying they shouldn't have them, but there is no law that says they have the same rights as our troops. He didn't have to say treat them humanely, I'm impressed that he did.
      - revjustin2, on 04/11/2008, -5/+11You are impressed with smoke being blown up our collective asses?
      - beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+10noahhoward: In your opinion (and apparently the president's) there is no law that affords prisoners in the current conflict Geneva rights. A lot of people disagree with the opinion that you and Bush share. It is not a completely black and white issue. While I respect your opinion, I feel that it is dangerous ground for the U.S. to be officially stripping Geneva rights from certain types of prisoners in certain types of international conflicts. Do we really want to be a country that detains certain people without broad legal protections? We should think about it long and hard. I'm not willing to trade those kinds of broad protections for all people (even my enemies) because I think the only benefit we get from trading away those protections is a false sense of security.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -10/+1Beaker that isn't my opinion that is a verifiable fact. In my opinion they should be addressed by the conventions, but the fact is they aren't.
      - Wartyboskfapped, on 04/11/2008, -1/+8noahhoward, establish the reasons why these combatants do not have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Just saying that they don't "it's a fact" over and over does not make it so. Your opinion appears to be tailored simply to cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary.
      - beakerwimp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6noahhoward: Interesting. How can we verify it as fact? I'm not being sarcastic. In your opinion, is the reason Geneva should not apply the fact that these detainees are captured on the soil of a country that did not ratify Geneva? Does the fact that they are held on the soil of a country that did not ratify Geneva (which is shady by the way) also play in to your legal opinion? Just because we CAN do stuff like that to avoid being within the technical language of the conventions doesn't mean we should. I've read most of the Geneva Treaties. Pretty dry stuff! I don't feel that it is a clear cut matter to say that the treaty language alone "proves" that Al Qaeda suspects are exempt from Geneva protections. It seems like our country is helping itself to a new interpretation, or at least one that most other Geneva-ratifying countries have always frowned upon.
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7"He didn't have to say treat them humanely, I'm impressed that he did."
        
        First off, they're not being treated humanely, and to try and convince yourself that they are is ridiculous.
        Second, IMMEDIATELY following both statements that the US will try and treat detainees humanely, it says "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity". Maybe a person who simply nods along with the president would see nothing wrong here, but it states plainly that 'If we don't get what we want as fast as we want it, then we reserve the right to decide how humane we treat this person.'
        
        Oh and for the record, again, the majority of individuals who are held under these pretenses are never charged with anything, and hence are not criminals. They are only detainees. And this document recognizes that by stating that "they consider these detainees as war criminals". So you see, they're not actually criminals, the US Gov is just going to call them that so it doesn't look so bad when they torture them.
      - lateralus, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8Noahhoward is impressed so please call off any oversight of authority. If noahhoward is impressed, then it's good enough for the nation.
        
        For the record, noahhoward was impressed when Dick Cheney didn't fire a 2nd round into his hunting buddies face.
      - noahhoward, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2"How can we verify it as fact?"
        
        Read the Geneva conventions?
        
        Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
        
        Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
        
        clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war
      - beakerwimp, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1to all: Sorry I never came back to this. My wife was in the hospital on and off for the last 25 days. I wasn't purposely ignoring. I appreciate the effort that my opponents put into refuting my points.
  - zulfy26, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"Then Bush delegated to Rumsfeld the authority to implement the torture policy and from there Rumsfeld delegated down the line."
    
    It would appear the author of the blog entry thinks the memo is just a way that Bush can "cover his ass" as it were.
- ProjectGSX, on 04/11/2008, -23/+2That signature doesnt look like it says George Bush. Do we have any other documents showing his signature to compare to these?
  - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+4Valid point. Unfortunately G.W.B. only has the mental capacity to sign his name once a year, to be used for that year's rubber stamp.
  - gn0stik, on 04/11/2008, -3/+1Fake. If it was real the signature would be an X in crayon.
  - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Your kidding right? You haven't seen Bush's signature? In all of the documents released on this war criminal, you haven't seen it once? Oy!
    
    That's the friggin' sig dude. Lame try.
- humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -11/+17I think it's time our head of state took a little trip to NUREMBURG
  - Monk22, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6for what? following the justice departments legal recommendations?
    - gavinonymous, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2same defense didn't work in nurmberg either 've vere just following legal rrecommendations!'
      - Monk22, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1we also havent tried to exterminate a race of people, its a bit different.
  - witte, on 04/11/2008, -7/+3fascist
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Can you even define fascist? Or do you just enjoy slinging mud?
      - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3I am still amazed that Americans haven't started slinging politicians to be honest. Mud is downright polite after the last 7 years.
    - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, fascism is when the corporation run the government. Right wingers love big business and think they should run our lives and make our laws. Fascists.
- noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -20/+9Pro-tip: reading the memo and posting the real contents is an auto-bury.
  - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9I'm sure you'll try. Could you try and explain one more time how this document somehow says that the Geneva convention does apply? Because all of those "does not apply" phrases keep getting in my way.
  - VieRelative, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Get that broomstick out of your ass and say what you really mean:
    "Like most of the other people here I've read the memo and I understand its contents. It clearly says that the Geneva convention pretty much doesn't apply to most of the people over there and even some of the people over here. And it's a GOOD thing too! Like say Ahmed is an american immigrant living in the united states. And once his cousin came to visit and then it turns out that his cousin's husband was an Alqaeda member. Well, now we torture Ahmed until he pukes his testicles out of his nose. Haha.
    But seriously, I'm upset with the people here talking like Bush thinks the Geneva convention is full of *****. First of all they make it sound like we shouldn't be doing anything to Ahmed's testicles. But most importantly, they're forgetting how important the Geneva convention is for protecting OUR troops. Without it, the chinese could do to us what we like to do to Ahmed."
    Am I wrong?
- humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -3/+13ITEM 2
  a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
  
  b. I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspendGeneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts.
  
  c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."
  
  d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
  
  ITEM 3
  
  Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extend appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
  - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/11/2008, -2/+12Why 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?
    
    >> By the way, I'm reading Paragraph 2.A -- yup, He's basically re-affirming the crony document of Yu or Gonzales who authorized this crap to Cover their Asses.
    
    The basic way to read this is in two parts. 1 Part says; "We will do what we want." the other part says "The Geneva convention is a nice principle that we really admire." It only means they are going to observe Geneva where they observe it, and ignore it where they the President decides it is not in our interests.
    
    Again, why would you need this document stating that we observe Geneva when we already observe Geneva and many generals have quit their jobs because we were not following military code?
- whoreable, on 04/11/2008, -14/+5Pro-tip 2: Why would our government still use a typewriter font on "top secret" documents. This ***** is obviously fake.
  - humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7I'm digging you up for being unintentionally hilarious
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3I'm burying him back down.
  - m0tbaillie, on 04/11/2008, -1/+12You clearly missed the big "UNCLASSIFIED" labels at both the top and bottom of each page.
  - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -7/+3This was never top secret... unclassified means never classified. But you do have to wonder why they're using a typewriter. Is George uncomfortable with computers?
  - MadHarvey, on 04/11/2008, -4/+1There are several aspects of the document that would lead me to believe that it is fake. First, as you pointed out, a document from 2002 wouldn't look like the declassified documents we see from the 70s. Second, something of this nature is sensitive, and still relevant, so I don't think it would even be considered for declassification just 2 years later, which is not a standard declassification time period. Third, the document was previously classified, yet doesn't follow any modern classification guide..
    - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -5/+2'Unclassified' = it was never classified. Trust me if this document said what The Kos thinks it says it would have been classified and it would never have been declassified.
    - MadHarvey, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6Look on the bottom of the first page. There is a classification stamp to the left. These don't exist on unclassified documents. Then look to the right, unclassified documents don't go through declassification reviews. Also, the blacked out boxes on every page were probably intended to be the previous classification. Any other questions?
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3Ah, you're right, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense though.
  - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6It is clearly a forgery, because it is signed "Beelze bub."
    And that document that got a certain CBS reporter (Dan Rather) fired that showed Bush was AWOL,... also a forgery, according to a crack team of White House aides from the Bush administration. Nope, no conflict of interest there. Nor the White House favors to CBS after the firing.
  - ryllharu, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5I interned at a defense contractor for a while. EVERY government corresponence is written in courier font. The fact that it's written that way should actually increase the authenticty of that document to anyone who's worked where you get a lot of governement or military documents.
- 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.
  - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4Correction:
    2c) Does not apply because they WERE captured as part of an international conflict, and Geneva does not cover them because of this.
    2d) Taliban or al Queda related detaineese are defined by us (US Gov) as unlawful combatants. Therefore Geneva does not apply.
    - humanerror, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4You're right about 2c. Thanks for the correction.
      
      As for 2d, that part is implied. The memo is from Bush.
  - obliviousfool, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1The problem is, of course, if Geneva doesn't apply, and American laws don't apply, then these human beings basically have no protection whatsoever. Think of how you would feel if you were cast into such a loophole.
    - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1He can't, he is self righteous and thinks nothing the republicans do is wrong.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/11/2008, -3/+11This may perhaps be the greatest example of Weasel words that mankind has ever known.
  What's amazing, is that we have gotten so sophisticated in decoding this double-speak. Great job HumanError!
  
  This is a total smoking gun. Here is the translation I got; "We don't need to suspend Geneva because it doesn't apply where we say it doesn't. We think the Geneva Conventions are some nice thoughts, that we'd like to re-commit to except when we don't want to. Also, our crony in the justice department -- we agree with what he wrote for us."
- Picaroon, on 04/11/2008, -13/+11I think it's funny how Diggers hate Fox news because they see it as unbalanced, biased, and unfair. Yet, here they have some stupid blog website making extraordinary claims based on a memo that, if you actually read it instead of the stupid blogspam, specifically defines that humane treatment is to be given and Geneva is to be followed.
  
  What a joke. Buried as inaccurate.
  
  Diggers, realize that sometimes just because someone is on your side of the political spectrum, it doesn't make them right about everything!
  - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10First, the humane treatment you're "citing" is only applicable when it doesn't conflict with "military necessity". This is a loophole, right in front of your face.
    Second, nowhere, ANYWHERE in this document does it say that the articles of the Geneva convention WILL BE applied to dealings with Al Queda or Taliban related detainees. It very clearly says the Geneva convention "does not apply" several times. (2a, 2c, 2d)
    Third, I personally didn't read what was said on the blog site because, apparently like you, I agree that most blogs are too biased to be taken seriously. I did watch the interview with K.Olberman, then read the PDF document for myself before stating my take on this.
    
    And for the record, I try not to have a "side of the political spectrum"
    - Linzee82, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3It doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that the Geneva convention will be applied, but Bush has a nice double-talk going on in the ending paragraphs. That's where so many are getting confused. He said it in a way that he can't be wrong no matter what he does.
- eddy23170, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3The people who authorize torture...don't they realize that they could be next??
- eagles2k3, on 04/12/2008, -3/+2I hope Bush did authorize the torture. At least someone around here has some balls when it comes to dealing with this *****. You all damn well know that the people that get that treatment are quite deserving of it.
  - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1No, we don't.
- pentupentropy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1If anyone would like to see white house staff caught lying, here are some interesting links:
  http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/79/30/ - Karl Rove
  http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/54/30/ - Condi Rice Lying and being called on it
  http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/40/30/ - DIck Cheney Lying - proven.
  The Dick Cheney clip is one of the most popular on my site. It had over 4000 views before we changed servers.
bamapachyderm, on 04/11/2008, -96/+43Wait, how is this news? It's long been established that terrorist detainees, not being part of a regular army, don't fall under the terms of the Geneva Convention. There's nothing there that "authorizes torture" with the specificity implied in the article.
- 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..."
  - bamapachyderm, on 04/11/2008, -23/+25I *DID* RTFA--thoroughly, in fact, because I'm frankly mystified as to how this is news. Your answer doesn't answer my question, because obviously the President makes the final decisions in the NSC. "Which established a United States run torture regime" is conjecture and opinion based on the President signing off on the legal decisions saying terrorists do not fall under Geneva Convention rules.
    There is NOTHING saying "torture is okay," which is precisely what the article's author is saying. Okay, yes, Abu Ghraib happened. NO, Bush did not "authorize" what happened there.
    - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -8/+30It 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.
    - JimmySpaza, on 04/11/2008, -28/+6@ Waiting2awake
      
      I call bullcrap since every terrorist wearing underwear on his head and being "tortured" was not a resident of Iraq who was a simply farmer before the U.S. invaded. Bleh!
      - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -4/+29@ 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.
      - 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 ...
      - JimmySpaza, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2@ pintomp3
        
        I never said that the detainees at Guantanamo were the worst offenders. I never said that all detainees at Guantanamo were combatants.
        
        The post I was replying to, however, made it seem that everyone in Guantanamo was the victim of overzealous, unjustified abductions without sufficient evidence. THAT is bullcrap.
      - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Nobody said "everyone" but you. It is a really stupid way to argue.
  - bamapachyderm, on 04/11/2008, -7/+9Please, RTFM (memo).
  - dk911, on 04/11/2008, -9/+7I read the ***** memo you stupid assholes... And it says quite plainly (as I point out below) in text that is EXTREMELY CLEAR:
    5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
    So, what did I miss?? Did I miss the fact that because this is Digg, I HAVE to say the president should be impeached and tried for war crimes? Do I HAVE to agree with the effluvia that this abhorrent website (and others like it) constantly spew forth as FACT without PROOF? Do I NEED to follow along like all of the ignorant sheeple on this site? You're all like the ***** Borg -- you are absent of the ability to think for yourselves!
    I've quoted the ***** document directly -- so what don't you ***** understand? Maybe YOU need to RTFA or RTFM!
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3You missed the part that says "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity". That part RIGHT IN THE CENTER of your post.
      I know most of you deniers get excited about the use of the word "humanely", and that's why it's there. But, they're reserving the right to weigh humane treatment against military necessity. Would you suggest that the US Military is renowned for it's uncanny ability to wait around for people to tell them *****? No, so they give themselves a loophole to immediately begin the torture, because military necessity is at stake. But at least they can say that they WOULD have been more humane, if it wasn't so necessary to torture.
      
      And you can believe whatever the ***** you want to. If you've already made up your mind, then you've already made up your mind.
    - SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1"to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity"
      
      This time when you RTFA/RTFM, comprehend it also.
- 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.
  - bamapachyderm, on 04/11/2008, -33/+9Yeah, I know--the plain facts just don't work when you want to believe Bush "authorized torture." Whatever.
    Look, I don't like torture either--as a veteran, I'm sure I'm even more outraged by things like Abu Ghraib than any of you are, if you aren't veterans. However, it's absurd to imply that Bush specifically authorized torture.
    Furthermore, "any prisoner...considered a civilian" is *****. Are you saying someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the same as you or me? Or rather, Joe Al-Schmo rug salesman? Don't make me laugh.
    But again, whatever. I know the game around here: Bush= Bad, Bush = Torture!!!1! Bush = Hitler. Yawn. Next story: Bush refuses to abdicate in January 2009!!!
    - 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, -3/+10bamapachydem: you should read up on the facts about detainees before commenting:
      http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ...
    - glasnostic, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6"I'm sure I'm even more outraged by things like Abu Ghraib than any of you are"
      
      your words suggest otherwise.
    - kreneskyp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4just because he is a "civilian" doesn't mean he can't be guilty of a crime. Being a "civilian" doesn't lesson the crime of terrorism. And yes, a murderer is just like you until they kill someone.
      
      Its not ***** that we are trying to uphold morals, It *is* ***** that you are redefining someones status to legally justify an immoral act through a technicality.
      - glasnostic, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1should the pilot of the Enola Gay have been sentence to death for singlehandedly killing hundreds of thousends of civilians in one of the worlds worst terrorist attacks?
  - falstaff, on 04/11/2008, -12/+6[citation needed]
    Oh wait, it's anti Bush. Nevermind. You can say whatever you want to get diggs.
    - kreneskyp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2From wikipedia with citation.
      
      The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1]
      
      1^ The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No." IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgement instead of the Trial Judgement. However the relevant section of the Judgement is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimina ...
      http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm
      http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm
- NATED066, on 04/11/2008, -3/+10Then I guess the Geneva convention doesn't apply to Blackwater either... So you heard the man, any Iraqi's that capture Blackwater agents, feel free to subject them to torture... it's 'legal' after all.
  - lhbaker, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1.
- hjdutch, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2ACTUALLY:
  US Supreme court has ruled not long ago that any detainees held by US fall under geneva convention's rules and therefore are not allowed to be subject to torture.
Stevanoski, on 04/11/2008, -184/+31Good for Bush, glad we still have a leader who wants to keep America secure and not some limp wristed Leftist who would apologize for America's very existence.
- 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.
  - Wargalas, on 04/11/2008, -43/+9Actually, I'd give him credit for having a backbone for once.
    - 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 assholes like Wargalas? I mean the worst kind of assholes. Unwiped, hairy, anal wart infested, ripped by horse ***** type assholes. Whats funny is so many dialated anuses like you call yourselves patriotic, even Christian. Torture couldn't be more antithetical to either one.
    - bizarrojack, on 04/11/2008, -5/+11Congratulations, you're officially evil.
      - CourtesyFlush, on 04/11/2008, -9/+4A SINNER!
        
        He has sinned in the eyes of the GORITE congregation! Cast him out brethren!
        
        You know....when Christians do this same moral condemnation routine, it's considered shoving their beliefs down our throats.
        
        Good thing progressives have a superior way of life that gives them a free pass to make snap moral judgements of complete strangers.
        
        Preach on, Brother.
      - bizarrojack, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1I see what you mean now - it's a double standard. I should have said that whatever people of your religion choose to do with prisoners in the privacy of their own dungeons is your own business.
        (I don't really mean to lump people of some religion into this, i'm just being facetious because it's that kind of discussion here)
    - dk911, on 04/11/2008, -17/+2You really have an anal fetish there DiggasWAttitude... is there something you want to tell us, fag?
      - brownsound00, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6wouldn't you want to know.
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6dk911, I don't say this often but you're an idiot.
      - Jareth86, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Nice leap to gay innuendo. Repressed thoughts much?
    - fuzed, on 04/11/2008, -4/+8DiggasWAttitude - Dug up for use of 'Unwiped, hairy, anal wart infested, ripped by horse *****' in a post. WIN!
  - burchie2, on 04/11/2008, -3/+1You wouldn't give a *****.
- InfamousAtheist, on 04/11/2008, -15/+84It'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.
  - JimmySpaza, on 04/11/2008, -48/+5Nah. He's just telling it like it is. It appears that YOU SIR are the real threat to this country with your bleeding heart liberal policies and voting preferences.
    
    And you exagerate given your emotion-based ideas: "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."
    
    Yeah, like Bush literally did all those things. Whatever.
    
    That's the problem arguing with a liberal and an atheist. It's all based on how they feel at the moment.
    - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -7/+39Jimmy, 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.
      - neognostic, on 04/11/2008, -5/+13*standing ovation*
    - Dumbledorito, on 04/11/2008, -6/+10Actually, Jimmy, Bush HAS broken several treaties while in office, claiming he has the exective power to do so (i.e. the ABM treaty, the treaty regarding building along our northern border with Canada, etc.).
      
      What a lot of people like you seem to be ignorant of is the precident this sets: If allowed to stand, any president, without consulting congress, could leave any treaty that the nation had previously ratified, like NATO, for example.
      - CourtesyFlush, on 04/11/2008, -4/+2...
    - motogoat, on 04/11/2008, -6/+15James Spaza has been trolling digg for years, promoting the demise of this country and the rise of the police state and fascism. He gets off on masturbating and fantasizing about the end of the United States as we know it. He is a traitor. In the worst sense of the word. He's had so many profiles on here that I can't even keep them all straight and each one has posted endless comments celebrating the end of the Constitution, the disruption of our civil rights and rooting on the continued war and self-destructive course this country is set on.
      DOUCHE BAG. As long as their are people like this in our country, it will NEVER be safe.
      - brownsound00, on 04/11/2008, -3/+1sorry i clicked digg down when i meant to digg you up.
      - JimmySpaza, on 04/12/2008, -3/+3Actually, I first got an account on Digg late last year...not "trolling digg for years".
        
        Motogoat is a liar.
      - brownsound00, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1the cake is a liar
    - PhildoVT, on 04/11/2008, -3/+0was that capitalized "YOU SIR" supposed to be read/interpreted in the same tone that bill o'reilly uses when he says that exact same thing every 5 minutes on his show?
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3So... you're entire defense is "yea right, he totally didn't do that stuff". That's it?
    - Jareth86, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Unlike conservatives, who feel the same way, no matter what the situation calls for?
    - starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3Yawn.
      
      Aren't you the guy who claimed he would have no morals without God? Forgive us if we don't find your opinion to be worth very much.
  - Wargalas, on 04/11/2008, -15/+5The whole "You Sir" bit reeks a bit like Keith Olbermann. Perhaps you can't come up with your own thoughts and phrases and feel the need to steal from Keith?
    - Dumbledorito, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6You sir, are no Jack Kennedy.
    - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6You sir, are an ass. And only barely a "sir".
      - CourtesyFlush, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3Ah, always the intellectual. You always add so much to the debate with your usual ad hominems and poop flinging.
  - dk911, on 04/11/2008, -14/+2Bring it on you *****. I'll take on your bleeding heart, pansy ass any day. I'll fight for what I think is right -- not what other people TELL me I should think is right.
    - Dumbledorito, on 04/11/2008, -2/+11Good luck with that train of thought if you get arrested for somethng.
      
      Or perhaps I should just say "Grraagh! Oog bonk with big stick! Big stick make Oog's thesis more valid! Bonk-bonk!"
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3That's right, because everybody has HUGE balls when they're hiding behind a keyboard, in their parents' basement.
      
      So because some "bleeding heart" hippy told you that they hate having a president who waves his dick around with complete disregaurd, and you obviously HATE "bleeding heart" hippies, that you're going to flip out, kick his ass, and support the prez doing whatever the hell he damn well pleases, because ***** those hippies... right?
      
      How about you grow up or shut the ***** up.
- MadKennyP, on 04/11/2008, -14/+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.
  - woodrow8292, on 04/11/2008, -25/+11Why not have the Clinton adm. tell that to the families since they failed to do anything to stop the attacks of 9/11
    - 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.
    - niczar, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6Why not blame Lindon B. Johnson, too.
    - brsmnky007, on 04/11/2008, -3/+9Well said; I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the only administration that should escape any sort of accountability for 9/11 is the one that was actually in POWER when it occurred. I, for one, hate FDR for what he allowed to happen to this country on 9/11.
      
      /sarcasm
    - StarlessKnight, on 04/11/2008, -3/+12Yeah, the whole 9 months between January and September, where he (as in George W. Bush, not William Clinton) was briefed on the possibility of an attack... well, we all know anything in the first year is totally not the new guy's fault (even if "the buck stops here").
    - MadKennyP, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3I'd rather blame the guy who was in piloting the ship when it slammed into the reef and had been piloting it for the 9 months prior. You can blame the guy who used to be the pilot, but who had since retired and was relaxing on a beach somewhere, if that's your idea of accountability.
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2I propose to start a Wiki site based solely around who we can blame for *****. I personally think blaming everybody else for everything bad is what makes this country so great.
      
      Maybe I should add /sarcasm
    - OneLess, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2It was Jefferson's fault!
  - JimmySpaza, on 04/11/2008, -25/+4Are you really going to partially blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks? BDS is in full swing today.
    - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -5/+9Where does the "buck stop" as Reagan once said? Dufus. You fail your own supposed philosophy.
      - noahhoward, on 04/11/2008, -9/+7It stops at the ***** who was flying the goddamned plane!
      - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6 How about the cause of that ***** taking the plane in the first place? Think of that Noah?
        
        How bad would life have to be for you before you would be willing to do that? Think it was just "freedom" that caused that? Seriously, time to grow up.
      - brownsound00, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3as much as I agree with you, it was not Bush's fault. Sure, it was his fault in the sense that he could have improved relations with the middle east/al Queda, but then you should really be blaming his dad for invading the middle east and ***** everyone off in the first place (at least people getting ***** at America)
      - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Or how about not blaming anybody because this isn't 3rd grade anymore, and trying to fix some ***** around here.
    - neognostic, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9You haven't trotted out Jimmy Carter's name yet, I'm sure you blame him for it too.
    - MadKennyP, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3YES. BUSH FAILED TO PREVENT THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK EVER TO OCCUR ON UNITED STATES SOIL.
      He should be ashamed of himself.
    - biotch, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Considering he didnt listen to Richard Clarke who was denied counter terrorism meetings with Bush despite warnings as early as January 25th 2001 about escalating terrorist threats posed by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
      http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/cla ...
      .. and who was at the helm when the terrorist plots in 2000 were averted, and considering Bush went on vacation for the entire month of August just before the attack, was ignorant of a Presidential Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack US." as evidenced by his continued vacation till sept. 4th despite that warning, and considering the CIA director Tenet had learned Aug. 24th that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747 but could not reach Bush because he was STILL on vacation,
      http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/
      and just using common sense in the consideration that Bush had been president for 9 months.... yes.
      
      You all missed your chance to validly blame Clinton for 9/11 when no one blamed Bush sr. for the terrorist attack on the world trade center 3 months into Clinton's presidency.
    - starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2If there is an attack during Obama's presidency, will you hesitate to blame him for it? Of course not. Why should you expect people to give Bush the same leniency?
  - Wargalas, on 04/11/2008, -17/+4And who does the head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit blame most for us failing to get Bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks? Bill Clinton.
    
    http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden- ...
    - StarlessKnight, on 04/11/2008, -3/+12[Objective citation needed]
      
      Seriously, "ringwinglunatic?" Should I get my pharmaceutical studies from a journal titled "GetRichQuick" too?
    - MadKennyP, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4A citation to "rightwinglunatic.com"??? Amusing.
    - starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Sorry, how long had George been president by the time 9/11 rolled around? I just can't remember. Could you remind me? Thanks.
      - Wargalas, on 04/12/2008, -3/+4Yes, Do tell me how long it was when Bin Laden declared war on the US (1992-93) and with all the attacks, including the US Embassy bombings, until Clinton left office (2000). 8 years and he didn't do a god damned thing.
      - caramba420, on 04/12/2008, -1/+0This whole thread is a false dichotomy. How can anyone say 9/11 was solely Bush or Clinton's fault with a straight face? Bin Laden really gives a ***** about our partisan squabbles? Really? Does anyone else notice that we've been waving our dick around the whole world since after WWI? America and Great Britain have been blowing ***** up on every square inch of the planet for about the last hundred years. Now the cumulation of decades of foreign policy blunders is going to get blamed on one of two people?
        C'mon...
    - Wargalas, on 04/12/2008, -4/+5And there you have it folks. None of you bothered to read the article and yet, you denounce my source. Take a look around Google and do a search for Michael Scheurer.
      
      It's ***** idiots like you that allowed the Al-Qaeda threat to grow and fester until it boiled over and killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen. And all you seem to give a ***** about is going against Bush.
      - MadKennyP, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Go screw yourself, little man. Your boy Bush is the one who allowed Bin Laden to fly jet airliners into The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. You point the blame at the commentators on this thread? You are truly delusional.
        
        I blame the Commander in Chief. You know, the guy who was told "The United States is under attack," and continued to read a goddamned children's book for seven minutes! I blame that guy.
  - nathanbutnet, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6And yet no one was held responsible or fired for the incident - in some cases the exact opposite in fact.
  - ventralnet, on 04/11/2008, -7/+4The 9/11 attacks fell pretty much on the Clinton administration not Bush...
    - caramba420, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Right because Clinton was the one who was bombing Al Qaeda camps in Afganistan, and Bush was the one who spent nearly a third of the time between his inauguration and 9/11 on vacation in Texas.
    - MadKennyP, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4"Pretty much" = 9 months later? Nice try, though.
- gametavern, on 04/11/2008, -16/+4Heh, I like you!
- hauntedchippy, on 04/11/2008, -6/+23Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave.
  - Wargalas, on 04/11/2008, -9/+4No he's not. He rose from the grave to be an extra in Michael Jackson's Thriller video. He's living in Florida these days.
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1Leave it to a fundamentalist...
  - NachoBusiness, on 04/11/2008, -9/+4The same Thomas Jefferson who was fine with people being kept for life as slaves because of their skin color? Yeah that really sounds like someone morally opposed to subjecting people to unpleasant experiences.
    - swr1ght, on 04/11/2008, -2/+11That's simply not true. Thomas Jefferson fought hard to end slavery, but was over ruled by others in the Continental Congress. Prior to the continental congress, at the Virginia House of Burgesses he proposed a bill outlawing slavery in Virginia. He was very much against slavery. Wikipedia the man, or look him up in an encyclopedia.
  - dk911, on 04/11/2008, -7/+2Jefferson wanted us to help the French fight the Brits. He wanted us to give up being neutral and join their battle and take a side. Well, in this war we DID take a side, and look where it's gotten us -- the world is against us. If we had just ignored the attack on our people and instead remained neutral, maybe you spineless asshats would have been happier, eh?
    - Dumbledorito, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5What side did we take that wasn't our own? There aren't any clear-cut enemeis in this fight, and that's most of the problem. We declared (and I use that term very loosely) war on "terrorism." We also promptly attacked a country that had nothing to do with the attack you cite. This isn't a war like a video game with nice tags hovering over who is on your side and who is the opposition.
      
      Al-Qaeda doesn't wear uniforms. The world is not a GI Joe cartoon. Get over it.
    - brownsound00, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3well, the US could have taken a side.. and made a more effective campaign instead of Bomb the ***** out of 2 countries in order to catch/kill a bunch of people that make up 1% of the population
    - caramba420, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Spineless? Sorry...I guess not all of us can approach the unparalleled bravery you exhibit by adhering to a political ideology. I only wish I had the guts to fight a war from behind my television set.
- cdoughty77, on 04/11/2008, -4/+29What 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'?
  - dk911, on 04/11/2008, -8/+1How? What PROOF do you have that we're just one step away from them making people disappear in the night? Give me the goddamned proof that you have!! Stop making accusations that have no basis in fact and instead provide us with the proof (and please don't call us all fascists and ***** like that). You continually think the government is out to get you. The could give two ***** about you, or even me.
    - brownsound00, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7How about people being harrassed at the border for being brown. And all the people that get imprisioned for no reason at the Bay
      - PlagueOfMorons, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3@ dk911. Okay, how about a lying Attorney General of the United States, warrantless wiretaps, reading all email, REAL ID without which we won't let you into Federal buildings, even if the IRS called you in to audit you!, secret No-Fly lists with no appeal, even stopping Ted Kennedy from flying once, and then there's Halliburton's no-bid contract to build enough detention camps to hold 1% of the US population. Go ahead, you rightwing shill, deny all of this is just innocent fun.
    - relic180, on 04/11/2008, -2/+5That's right, they could give two ***** about me, or even you.
      And yet you're still ok with them picking whoever they want off the streets and torturing them based on whatever reasons they decide are reasonable.
    - caramba420, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2By the time it's unequivocally proven, it's too late.
- ralphthemagi, on 04/11/2008, -9/+8I agree. Why are you getting buried? This man is right.
  Can I waterboard you? You know, for security?
- KhanneaNL, 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.
  - PhildoVT, on 04/11/2008, -7/+2wow...talk about blowing things out of proportion...
    - KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1Tell that to half a million dead Iraqi civilians, a few million Iraq refugees and a million iraqi traumatized, scarred, diseased, downtrodden, enslaved, forcibly prostituted or dismembered. American appears to be a country of largely racists - they are incapable of seeing Iraqi as human beings. If the same hardship was applied to the US rivers of lard and ***** would run the streets of the US.
- SpencerMc, on 04/11/2008, -3/+11Internet troll trolls on the internets.
- dimebags, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7bush isn't a leader by any stretch of the imagination. i would recommend the frontline series Bush's War.
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
  notice during this report what a total lack of leadership bush demonstrates.
  - Stevanoski, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Bush the best leader we have ever had. Ah, but you want a president who leads by how he feels.
    - PlagueOfMorons, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2No, we want a leader like Bush who claims god told him personally to do things like kill people in other countries. That's much better than feelings, morals, and ethics.
- motogoat, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6Oh, look. Another uneducated American waving the flag for perpetual war and demanding to lost more rights in the name of 'security.' We will never recovery as a country as long as misinformed, unlearned idiots like this are walking our streets.
- Andysan, on 04/11/2008, -9/+4If any of the America haters knew something of value (doubtful) and were apprehended anywhere in the world, they should have a choice of a country for their interrogation. The fact is every last one of them would choose America because the worst that might happen is a water boarding. There really is a real world out there where they wouldn't even let you keep your head let alone post your *****. If America were not a great country, all the whiners and cry babies would be locked up by now -- which might happen eventually if people don't grow up and stop acting like two-year olds with dirty diapers.
  - Dumbledorito, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6Gee, I think you were just a HAIR away from realizing the purpose that Guantanamo serves, as well as the "extraoridnary renditions" program.
    
    And water boarding SHOULDN'T happen in America. We kind of hung Japanese after WWII for doing that sort of thing.
  - caramba420, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Ok...hold on a minute. You said, "If America were not a great country, all the whiners and cry babies would be locked up by now." The implication here is that the fact that we don't lock people up arbitrarily is what makes America great. Then you go on to say, "which might happen eventually if people don't grow up and stop acting like two-year olds with dirty diapers." The implication here is that that would be your solution to people "not growing up," i.e. not getting on board with your torture plan. So in your very own remark, the logical end is that your solution for people not agreeing with your viewpoint is to make America not great anymore, by arbitrarily locking people up. Your views are so ass-backwards that you can't even reconcile them with themselves. You, sir, are a walking contradiction.
- MrNexus, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3Are you really that safer now that everyone hates America. You sound like some dimwit Fox News pundit.
- moomza, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5ah Stevenoski - I've been looking through your profile ... submissions, thousands of neocon-troll rightard comments, and I've had quite a few chuckles. :-) You love the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome", among your many other overused hack phrases (repetition = dumb, btw) and well, I've come to the confident conclusion that you suffer from *General* Derangement Syndrome.
  - Stevanoski, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2I have used it one time. You may suffer from stevenoski derangement syndrome.
- thaistick, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3I love these types of Neocons (look at Stevenoskis) profile btw - it's just pure entertainment for me watching these clowns spout off, and it's funny how they can just keep spouting and being wrong endlessly about the war and most every topic, no matter how ugly things get as progresses, the spout will never shut off. If anything, they spout more as they lose power. These clowns never cease to entertain, it's the spice of life.
  - Stevanoski, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2I have noticed the terms of derision a person uses on another is usually the term they most fear they are.
- eddy23170, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3These people who authorize torture...don't they realize that they could be next??
- eatasandwich, on 04/11/2008, -3/+4When is Digg going to implement the "***** idiot" feature?
  - Stevanoski, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3You are fearful for yourself?
- Arkons24, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Cheers to this guy.
veloscaper, on 04/11/2008, -52/+11Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't comin' back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
There's no place I can be
Since I found Serenity
But you can't take the sky from me...
- khail250, on 04/11/2008, -10/+8go write your poems where they have context
  - AngryAngryBrian, on 04/11/2008, -2/+11Not a poem, its the opening lyrics to Firefly. I will let you go this time but this sort of thing can cost your 10 internets and 1 point on your geek license. If you get 10 points you can do a saving roll and if that fails you will have to take a three day class or have your license suspended for six months.
  - johnhummel, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7He was quoting "Firefly". Not entirely in context - but I can understand the sentiment.
- loneBoat, on 04/11/2008, -3/+13Were no strangers to love
  You know the rules and so do i
  A full commitments what Im thinking of
  You wouldnt get this from any other guy
  
  I just wanna tell you how Im feeling
  Gotta make you understand
  
  * never gonna give you up
  Never gonna let you down
  Never gonna run around and desert you
  Never gonna make you cry
  Never gonna say goodbye
  Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
  
  Weve know each other for so long
  Your hearts been aching
  But youre too shy to say it
  Inside we both know whats been going on
  We know the game and were gonna play it
  
  And if you ask me how Im feeling
  Dont tell me youre too blind to see
  
  (* repeat)
  
  Give you up. give you up
  Give you up, give you up
  Never gonna give
  Never gonna give, give you up
  Never gonna give
  Never gonna give, five you up
  
  I just wanna tell you how Im feeling
  Gotta make you understand
  
  (* repeat 3 times)
  - veganvelma, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1ftw.
- myxyplik, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Dugg up. Firefly rocks!
  Khail, it's the theme song from Firefly. Do some research.
- veloscaper, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Yes, Firefly. Just watched the first season eps. Didn't like the song at first but then it got stuck in my head.
  Anyway, Alliance = Bush&Co. "Make the world a better place" = War on Terror. Revers = Terrorists.
- Kordras, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1How did a Firefly reference get dugg down? :(
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?
- JimmySpaza, on 04/11/2008, -56/+4Or maybe you're simply wrong about the U.S. Constitution, Bush's actions, and the reality of the Islamic war that we are fighting. Hmmmm???
  - KraftDinner101, on 04/11/2008, -2/+26Troll
  - zombies187, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5I for one welcome our new trolling overlords. (But secretly I just digg them down)
  - temujin2012, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4What a *****.
  - MrFisty, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Bush's war never had anything to do with Islam. It's just the sheep's clothing to make gullible fools like yourself believe he's fighting some kind of evil.
    
    As much as we can sit hear and say Bush is stupid, he's still clearly one up on people like you.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/11/2008, -4/+23hmm, sorry to tell you this but your leaders were war criminals before you were born. Unless you're over 70.
  - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8True - but as the former Prime Minister of Canada said in regards to the past indiscretions of Canada "It is enough to be Just in our time", meaning essentially while we may look at trouble with the past problems, they are the past. We can not right the wrongs of the past - but we can work against the problems of the day.
    
    The trouble with looking at the past problems is, IMO only, it starts to overwhelm the people. The troubles so many, the injustice so profound, the inequity so all encompassing. When faced with the full reality of the situation people tend to go into their own little world and turn into Jimmy Spazza. That type of willful ignorance is dangerous for society.
    
    If we can just bring these clowns(the their allies - Canada included) to face up to what has been done and have their day in court(as we all deserve) that would be a great accomplishment. Let the pasts injustice shine as a lamp for the future not to tread on.
    - ElAssoWipo, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Yeah but I hold a grudge and I'm an asswipe. FREE THE NATIVES.
      - Waiting2awake, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3LOL. You sure are. I can read the hate in your posts.. ;-)
        
        The Natives are a horrible part of the past. Unfortunately there are always two sides to every story and when only one is taught "as history" things change slow. I have faith though. Kids today are no where near as racial as I was growing up. Listening to those older than myself is painful they are generally so racial. So, I think, we are moving in the right direction. Hopefully there will be a day when the only race is the human one.
        
        That said - keep the grudge. It keeps people honest.
  - spongya77, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Maybe facing your past, and not trying to convince yourselves how great you are would improve the present. Let's say, facing the Mexican war, and its consequences, the unfortunate ending of WWI, the war crimes committed by the Allies in WWII (firebombing; does it ring a bell?), Vietnam, and that few million souls perished, Laos, and so on, and so on. Or wait, I have a better one. Facing the fact that Islamic fundamentalism was fueled by the US in the '70-'80s, because it looked like a good idea. The fact that Saddam did what he did with the West standing next to him. The fact that Iran would not be such a ***** if their government wouldn't have been removed by the US and GB. Or the whole mess in South America. How different would be the world now, if this reckoning happened after 9/11? That all those monsters were created by you, and you alone?
    It's easy for you to say "forget the past" when you have so much dirty laundry. Maybe it's time to clean them up.
- 533n, on 04/11/2008, -6/+3I don't think such a thing could happen in Canada. FYI Canada doesn't have an active military presence in Iraq, just afghanistan.
  - themonkman, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6Your either ill-informed or fooling yourself. The Canadian government was aware when the US renditioned Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured as a terror suspect. He was held for a year without charges. During his time there, Canadian Intelligence (as revealed in government hearings on Arar's matter) had visited his jailers to exchange information regarding Arar. It wasn't the Canadian government who secured his release, it was private human rights groups led by his wife back in Canada. He was released without any criminal charges against him, either. He also spent time there with several other Canadian prisoners. You don't see the Canadian government lobbying for them too hard either, do ya?
    
    Unfortunately, Canada has egg on their faces, too. This doesn't excuse the US at all, because the whole "But they do it too..." excuse is no longer viable. I'm sorry to have to shame your generally lovely country, but they are part of this problem, as well. Terror suspects need to be brought forth to the public justice system. If you need to give the jury clearances, then give them clearances. This cloak and dagger ***** derides any notion of liberty or democracy that our forefathers built this nation on.
    - 533n, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Of course their will always be incidents. Of course the government will make mistakes. Not to mention nobody knows the full details of that particular incident make it hard for you to label Canada under the same brand as the US, who has not a few isolated incidents but thousands...
      - spongya77, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Disregarding international law is not an incident. It's like saying killing one or two men is an incident, as mass-murders happen all the time. Law is law, no matter what. If you throw it out just once, you are just as dirty. So quit the apologetic BS. Canada has sinned.
- Midtowner, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Does Canada recognize Al Qaueda's rights under the Geneva Convention?
- LukasSmith, on 04/11/2008, -7/+3Lincoln was a war criminal who even quite obviously ignored even the constitution. Yet he is a hero today. Kennedy kept us in vietnam and presided over the disaster at the bay of pigs. I think the only way to be remembered as a great president is to be shot.
  - bizarrojack, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5It looks like you have your work cut out for you.
    - bizarrojack, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5note to FBI and secret service: THIS IS A JOKE
- provost, 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?
- dk911, on 04/11/2008, -9/+8Uhhh... Paragraph's 3 & 5 tell me something different than what you sheeple WANT to believe: (FTM - from the memo)
  
  3. Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, Including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and wilI continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles - As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
  
  5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
  
  If I read those two, it says (to sum it up for those who've already made up their minds) "We (the U.S.) DO NOT CONDONE and WILL NOT USE torture because it VIOLATES Geneva, even though THEY DON'T DESERVE, or recognize, it (Geneva) themselves."
  - Janv1er, on 04/11/2008, -8/+3I have no idea why someone dugg you down for stating those two paragraphs word for word...
    Are they afraid of the truth??
    - 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.
- synthpop, on 04/11/2008, -1/+8to answer your questions:
  * "The constitution is just a goddam piece of paper"
  * "They" hate our freedom
  * We're torturing them over there so that they don't torture us over here
  * So?
- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5obama ftw
- BobOki, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7No, they will not continue..... if you have a president who thinks of the constitution a little more than just "a goddamn piece of paper"... like Ron Paul perhaps.
  - anstice85, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3And there's no possible way that Paul will get elected, so forget about it. Just make sure you don't vote for McCain.
- CrazedLeper, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7The next president will not be able to stop it (if he even wants to). This latest chapter is a part of something much larger than Bush, himself. He is so obviously such a small-minded man that he couldn't be thinking up any of the atrocities which are inextricable from his legacy and synonymous with his name.
  
  The conspiracy is so vast and so far reaching that it would take months of deep research into the boxes labeled "PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORIES" that the average person will never know the whole truth. The worst part: the average person doesn't *want* to know.
  - GhostyBoy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4If you peel off the "PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORIES" label you can see that underneath they used to be labeled "White House historical records".
    
    Whew. Glad they fixed that.
- sullivans, on 04/11/2008, -5/+0"I never believed I would ..." Infamous

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Memo Signed By Bush, AUTHORIZING TORTURE, Surfaces