What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
110 Comments
- sharpfork, on 11/07/2007, -6/+59The bush apologists on digg have all become experts on how waterbaording is not torture because the "thruthiness" of the matter. Just becuase Rush or some other right wing tool told them to believe it, they blindly support the president. Lets tike a side trip to reality and see what we come up with:
Bush's AG nominee Michael Mukasey said "If waterboarding is torture... torture is not Constitutional".
Lets take a look at the legal precedent:
- In 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime and sentenced a Japanese officer to 15 years hard labor.
- In 2005 "the U.S. Department of State formally recognized 'submersion of the head in water' as torture"
- On September 6, 2006, "the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel."
To support bush on this is to put the GOP over the constitution of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness - lhbaker, on 11/07/2007, -1/+42Anybody in favor of waterboarding should at least be willing to endure a few minutes of it. It just seems fair.
- hawkspur, on 11/07/2007, -4/+30Anyone who thinks that the United States doesn't psychologically torture prisoners on a regular basis is in denial. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation galore! The Founding Fathers would weep at the death of their ideals.
- AshamedAmerican, on 11/07/2007, -6/+31Those criminal ***** in Washington KNOW it's torture; they just don't give a ***** because it's not THEM on the business end of all their torture methods.
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -0/+19"just because one part of the government decides something is illegal does not necessarily bind all other parts of the government."
Quoted to draw attention to the anti-americanism of this statement. Last time I checked we didn't have separate laws for each branch of the government. We have ONE set of laws that EVERYONE must follow. "It's not illegal if the president does it" is an argument that has been proven to be morally bankrupt. - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -3/+21Feinstein and Shumer should be waterboarded.
How many tons of pork were they promised anyway? - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -1/+16the spanish inquisition used it.
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -3/+17It cracks me up when apologists make the argument that waterboarding is not torture because the Military uses it to train recruits to resist torture.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+13If waterboarding wasn't torture, why would the US government be so intent on using it in interrogations?
- kingkilr, on 11/06/2007, -1/+141) Time is irrelevant, the argument of victor's justice(similar to post WWI) may have some merit.
2) No, it just is further evidence against it, torture is blanket illegal as pet the Bill of Rights, this is just further evidence that the act it question is torture
3) Ad hominems ftw - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -1/+13McCain did that exact thing - and Bush added a signing statement to the effect that the law is optional.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic ... - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -0/+11These men say it is illegal. I think they outrank you.
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88 - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10"only three...THREE...enemy combatants have ever been "water-boarded"...."
Which orifice did you pull this "statistic" out of? - Arkavus, on 11/05/2007, -2/+12And then I get to kick them in the nuts really really hard.
- mclumber1, on 11/06/2007, -2/+10If the congress believes waterboarding is toture, and should be outlawed, then why the ***** don't they make a law outlawing it?
- spucky, on 11/05/2007, -0/+8YES! For every digg down I get, give parent one up. No matter who you are, a billionaire captain of industry or a powerful politician or someone skimming the tills at 7-11, we must all live under the same laws or we are no better than a third world banana republic.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -0/+83 people were waterboarded *by the CIA* from 2001 to 2004. However if you are familiar with Abu Ghraib you will know that the CIA is hardly the only organization that interrogates prisoners.
That point aside, the real point of contention isn't that the CIA waterboarded 3 people. The outrage comes from the fact that high-ranking Bush administration officials specifically AUTHORIZED the use of a technique widely considered to be torture. They didn't say, "ok, you guys can waterboard but you can only do it 3 times and only to really evil people." They said "it is now ok to violate the Geneva Conventions whenever you want, because we say so."
Furthermore, what those opposed ought to be willing to say is this: "Hey, KSM may be a mass murderer. But as a prisoner of war, he should be treated the same way that any other prisoner of war is treated, in compliance with international treaties that have been ratified by the US and therefore carry the full weight of US law as mandated by Article 6 of the Constitution." - digbird, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6so why haven't they done anything to hold him responsible? because they don't have the courage of their convictions.
- VinceNoir, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6You're more than an idiot. You're a completely sociopathic jackass who happily and foolishly supports a double standard.
Situation A: A foreign POW in an American concentration camp (yes that's what they are) is subjected to water boarding and far worse by American soldiers (or Blackwater nutjobs) to try and get information out of him. You're OK with that.
Situation B: An American POW in an foreign concentration camp (call a spade a spade) is subjected to water boarding and far worse by foreign soldiers to try and get information out of him. You're NOT OK with that.
What's the ***** difference between the two situations other than who the torturer is and who the victim is? What is is that makes situation B any different to your deluded mind than situation A? Why is it when "the enemy" uses the same tactics against us, those tactics are suddenly war crimes, but if we use them, they're "alternative info gathering techniques"? I'll tell you what the difference is. The people who think like you are dangerous and mentally disturbed people who have been put in a position of power. Because of their mental disorders, they believe they are right no matter what they do. The other side in the fight is composed of the same sorts of people. Then there's the rest of us who just want to live normal lives without having to deal with your kind of people and the ***** you bring about in the world. Just ***** knock it off. - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6"In extraordinary cases, the innocent have more rights than the guilty"
You say this as if it is conventional wisdom, or you are quoting something. What makes you think that statement has any credibility? It is borderline nonsensical.
"he is not a prisoner of war"
The Supreme Court has ruled that the military tribunals which decide POWs status were unconstitutional. Furthermore, the term "enemy combatant" is meaningless under international law, which is considered US law under Article 6.
"you shrink from saying what I said in my post"
Why would I let some partisan hack put words in my mouth? Regardless of personal opinions, whether they be yours, mine or the President's, the US IS bound to obey international law under Article 6. - lead2thehead, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Sure he did. It's called "Baptism".
- bacon_skoda, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5look up John Yoo and his torture memo.
- IrishJoe, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6Are you the stupidest human who has ever lived???? These are JAGs, Judges Advocate General. Military men who are experts in military law who are informing a United States Senator that waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. Again they are military men expert in this subject and you are some Bush lover who lives in his mother’s basement declaring that “There is no pain involved with waterboarding...it's NOT torture” because you saw Jack Bauer do it on 24 while your mommy made you smores and hot cocoa and brought it downstairs to you.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Um some of these responses are absolutely outrageous.
I mean... if you are a Christian for example. You would then need to follow the teachings of christ, to at least some extent. I can't see Jesus holding someone's head under the water.
I can't see how that is even remotely ethical, or moral under any context.
And legality (even flimsy Bush make believe reinterpreted legality) does not equal morality. - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5*THE CIA* has only waterboarded 3 prisoners. Are you familiar with Abu Ghraib? If you are, then you know that the CIA is not the only organization that interrogates prisoners.
- VinceNoir, on 11/05/2007, -1/+6Yawn. I'll bet you go around telling males who support gun control about the ever ubiquitous hypothetical situation where there are crazed men raping that person's wife and/or daughter. The only thing you need to do now is end your post with a wide eyed, "But... but... but... it COULD HAPPEN"! Idiot.
- FluffyWolf, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4Great, then we only need the names of the people who did the torturing and the whole chain of command up to the president that approved of the treatment and lets have them convicted of war crimes. The number of times you have to torture anyone to be convicted is one, the number of times you have to approve of using such measures to be convicted is also one.
As a pure coincidence one is also the amount of times you need to rob a bank to get convicted, and it is also the number of times you can rape anyone and get convicted. (And I find both of those crimes to be less severe or equal to torture such as water boarding) - arbulus, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4Seconded. Anyone who would say "it doesn't cause pain" should have to be subjected to it. Oh, I'm sure they won't mind, since it's so benign and painless.
- Kinkistyle, on 11/05/2007, -2/+6Oh in that case our own soldiers who are held as POWs should have no problems with waterboarding then since its all just fun and games and they are so used to it from military school.
- arbulus, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5I agree 100%. Anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture should be subjected to it. I'm sorry, but if you think it's ok to do it to someone else, you should think it's ok to be done to you. If you think it's so benign and harmless, then you step up and be subjected to it.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -1/+5the evil that men do is often not interred with their bones...or the ending of their administration. This isn't about Bush, but more the halting of the vile procedures and programs that he has allowed to flourish.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -4/+8News flash for you, *****. The United States is not a terrorist country. We do not resort to the evils that others would do. Now go ***** off. There's probably a nascar race on or something.
- Samwizen, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5Waterboarding is torture.
Anyone who foolishly thinks otherwise needs to be strapped down & partially drowned.
America has lost its way. - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -3/+7***** archaic practices. This is the world we live in people.
- mclumber1, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Judge Advocate General - a military lawyer
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3i notice many of the right really think the left cares about bush personally and bush only. haven't you noticed most also talk about cheney and rest of the cabal? in extend, also those voted for them. so, trying to say it's all an attack on bush is not the point and it seems to take all the responsibility from everything behind bush supporting him.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3What you are talking about is a Supreme Court challenge to the Presidential authority to issue signing statements, which is not a fight the Democrats want to pick, especially since 5/9 Supreme Court Justices are Loyal Bushies.
- pintomp3, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3funny how fundie christians support it now too.
- mattsw84, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Hooah!
- pintomp3, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4that's not the same argument. those who are in favor of the death penalty aren't claiming a lethal injection is not deadly.
- pintomp3, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3and one of the guys who teaches in those military schools calls it torture:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/31/200 ... - neuropsychguy, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3"5/9 Supreme Court Justices are Loyal Bushies"
No, 5 have conservative interpretations of the Constitution and tend to have conservative values. By your reasoning, Ron Paul (as much as I hate to bring him up {note: he's not my first choice of candidate}) is also a "Bushie" because he is conservative. - grr74, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4According to your logic, the constitution is not relevant. Just toss the law books, and let us be ruled by you. All hail digbird.
- bcat, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Waterboarding "is in no way illegal, nor does it cause pain"? In that case, I suppose you wouldn't mind being the subject of a little experiment...
Really, I doubt you'd be screaming "it's not tourtue!" if it had been used on you. - bhudagod81, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4If you do not believe that a practice such as water-boarding is torture, ask yourself; could I stand by and watch my family go through such a thing?
- neuropsychguy, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Why is psychological "torture" inherently bad? (I would never do it personally and am opposed to it in light of better alternatives {which there are}, I'm just laying the cards out on the table). There are no lasting physical or psychological effects as a result of sleep deprivation or sensory deprivation. Yes, I am training to be a psychologist and have studied both of those issues. We used to think that lack of sleep could kill you or damage your health; however, there is no evidence to support that. The brain doesn't run ideally (also, a person could have short dissociative episodes but these go away) with sleep deprivation but that goes away after the person gets sleep. I'll admit that a person who has years and years (10+) of sleep deprivation might cognitively or psychologically be harmed but there is no research that supports that. Sensory deprivation also only has transitory effects (at the extreme (i.e., rarely happens), a person subjected to sensory deprivation may feel like killing himself after a day or two but once the deprivation ends, that desire goes away). What I don't get is how stuff like that is called torture. Torture has huge negative connotations (as it should) and I think it is wrong to call sleep and sensory deprivation torture (after all, deprivation studies can pass IRBs and be conducted at U.S. universities).
I think water boarding is awful and should never be done.
The best way to get accurate information from people though is to be friends with them. Treat them with respect and treat them well. Never leave the door open for them to manipulate you (which a lot of people will try to do) but be kind to them. It might take longer to get information but it will likely be more accurate and is certainly more humane.
If you want research citations, I can post citations. - FluffyWolf, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Yes, that is a fair deal, I get to watch an episode of 24 (I'll try to pretend it's real) and you get a few minutes of waterboarding (you may also pretend it's real).
- ZenMojo, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Feinstein's changing her mind apparently. Imagine that.
- VinceNoir, on 11/06/2007, -2/+4You asked. My sources say: YES. I oppose the death penalty. Period. I do agree with you on Bushie though. I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004. My soul is clean of that sin.
- tybris, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2So far things are still fine in Western-Europe and Australia.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is