What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
132 Comments
- inactive, on 05/01/2009, -13/+131Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Rice, Ashcroft, et al, are all treasonous!
- dreamtiger, on 05/01/2009, -5/+92She admits it came from the top. What else do you need to know?
- Sucka27, on 05/02/2009, -5/+77"And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
Now I've always known that this woman was a wolf in sheeps clothing, but I always thought she was 10x smarter than GWB, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld etc. I had no idea she was stupid enough to say something like this. - JoeParanoid, on 05/01/2009, -12/+70Condoleezza Rice is one of the stupidest women to hold high office. Her excuse before the 9/11 Commission was incompetence, and now she's confessing to being an accessory to a crime. And her facility with Russian was no better than Bush's skill with Spanish.
- MoneyShot, on 05/02/2009, -2/+48You don't even have to turn the first page of her cited source to demonstrate how unimaginably ignorant this statement was. Part I, Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture reads, in part:
"3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
Source: http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/cat.htm - seltaeb4, on 05/02/2009, -3/+41I couldn't believe my ears when she said that. She probably couldn't believe her own ears as she heard herself speak it.
Might as well have said, "If the President does it, then it is not illegal."
Videotape was invented for moments like this. - draculthemad, on 05/02/2009, -3/+41No, it pretty much is the definition of a conspiracy.
Her statements show that she knew what was happening was very probably illegal and took steps to provide herself with plausible deniability in the course of facilitating it.
She is therefore culpable ( it could not have happened without her) and complicit ( she knew it was a crime).
Here is a link to the legal definition of conspiracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) - thegsa, on 05/02/2009, -6/+37But it's not treason if you are a republican!™
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -2/+29"I guess you wingnuts are focusing on stuff from the past because you can't muster up the courage to tackle today's problems."
Yeah, we know the Right is *so* quick to give up harping on the past. That's why you lot still whine on endlessly about Ted Kennedy and blame every problem on Clinton. /golf clap
Nothing will happen to any of Bush's cronies? Maybe not. But the more this stuff leaks out, the more hysterical and unhinged you guys get, the less chance of the Republican party ever being rehabilitated. GOP back in 2012? Not at this rate. And I imagine the worst stuff will only come out just prior to elections. ;)
GOP stinks of panic right now. You only have yourselves to blame. You did this to yourselves. - SteveIsTheDude, on 05/02/2009, -7/+31"Authorized by the President" does not equal "Legal"
Will she end up in jail? Nah... Should she be put on trial? Probably.... - haydesigner, on 05/02/2009, -2/+26Yeah! You TOTALLY proved him wrong with all the evidence you presented!
- Burritoboy, on 05/02/2009, -6/+29Never confuse education with smart. There is quite often some overlap there but not always.
Try working with a few MBAs, you'll get the picture quite quickly. - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+22Is that the new talking point? Won't work any better than the other ***** you've tried. The majority of Americans agree that the Obama Administration gets things done. You're the minority.
You lost. Get over it. - LenBaird, on 05/02/2009, -4/+24No one will be prosecuted.
- haydesigner, on 05/02/2009, -0/+20@theavenger2: "Enjoy your brief moment in the sun while it lasts."
You mean, like that 40 year period before Reagan? - wjappe, on 05/02/2009, -6/+25It seems it never gets enough traction to get this guys
- fury420, on 05/02/2009, -4/+21no more of a stretch than claiming that waterboarding is somehow not torture anymore, when it has clearly been considered so for several hundred years.... including by the United States, who has tried & convicted foreign fighters for waterboarding US troops in an attempt to extract information about a possible attack using WMDs, as well as more recently convicting a sheriff and his deputies of waterboarding prisoners in a US jail back in the 80's.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+17"Your profile says you are Australian."
My profile lists my *current location*. This says nothing about by nationality. Thanks for demonstrating your lack of cognitive nuance.
"Australian politics sums up the ineptness of liberals quite nicely. Two words: Kevin Rudd."
LOL. From what I see Rudd trounced the conservatives. They lost for the same reasons Bush lost. Rudd looks to be doing a good job, so far, he is far more popular than the do-nothing war criminal they had in before him. I have to thank him for my American employers' business still being viable here, which is more than I can say for the situation back home. Australia is higher on the Human Development Index than the US. I can really see why.
Hey, I was back during the election. Guess who I voted for? ;) - fugazied, on 05/02/2009, -2/+18You completely miss the point. Torture goes against the political and philosophical foundation of the United States and destroys the international reputation of the United States. The US deserves to be the beacon on the hill, the world's greatest capitalist democracy with respect for human rights and which hold high ethical, humanistic and moral values. Instead the republican neo-conservatives invaded countries, killed thousands of civilians and tortured. You are a disgrace, and if you like torture so much and are disappointed that we have evolved as a country enough to no longer do it, you can always move to a country where it is acceptable, somewhere lawless like Somalia, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan. It's a shame Saddam isn't still around, he found torture quite acceptable, you could have joined the Iraqi army.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -1/+16Don't forget: he watches Colbert and *whisper* doesn't know he's joking.
- haydesigner, on 05/02/2009, -3/+18I think you have a typo there. I assume you meant:
"only been 100 days since these idiots have been OUT OF power".
Otherwise, your tone looks mighty weird. - haydesigner, on 05/02/2009, -2/+17See --> Geneva Conventions
- frankdozier, on 08/10/2009, -4/+17She went to school...she went to school....she maybe even went to class. Got some slips of paper from people who taught her. Great. She went to school. My uncle Ned went to school, and he's dumber than a ***** rat! hell, I went to school and got some papers to put on the walls...some permission slips to do my job...but I ain't smart either.
- enantiodromia, on 05/02/2009, -1/+14yes, i can't wait for the GOP to storm back and continue ***** the country up some more.
please explain what mental gymnastics you use to validate this opinion:
"The Republicans did such a great job running the country, that in the past few years, the largest industries in US are now either crippled or destroyed, the US is in the middle of a recession, and unemployment is way up." - NidStyles, on 05/02/2009, -1/+14Not true...
- AndrewDB, on 05/02/2009, -3/+16Chapter III
PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
I. General provisions
Article 82
A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.
If any law, regulation or order of the Detaining Power shall declare acts committed by a prisoner of war to be punishable, whereas the same acts would not be punishable if committed by a member of the forces of the Detaining Power, such acts shall entail disciplinary punishments only.
Article 83
In deciding whether proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a prisoner of war shall be judicial or disciplinary, the Detaining Power shall ensure that the competent authorities exercise the greatest leniency and adopt, wherever possible, disciplinary rather than judicial measures.
Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
Article 85
Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.
Article 86
No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act, or on the same charge.
Article 87
Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.
When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.
Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the Detaining Power, or prevented from wearing his badges.
Article 88
Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank.
A woman prisoner of war shall not be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a woman member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
In no case may a woman prisoner of war be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a male member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
Prisoners of war who have served disciplinary or judicial sentences may not be treated differently from other prisoners of war.
From The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm - moofree, on 05/02/2009, -2/+14Domestic United States Code defines torture as...
...an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
Whether we go by the Geneva Convention or United States definition is irrelevant; torture was committed. - NidStyles, on 05/02/2009, -4/+16I'm burying you for the fact that there's no clear message in your post. What does Rice and her slip of a conspiracy have to do with Obama.....
- mikelieman, on 05/02/2009, -0/+12Man, I remember those Clinton Years.
Your 401k had some value, and gas was a buck a gallon.
Good Times.
Torture is a crime, @theavenger2.
Why are you SOFT ON CRIME?
Why do you CODDLE ALLEGED CRIMINALS?
You can't Love America *AND* promote immunity for violent criminals. Sorry. You wanna hate America like that? Get out and move to some banana republic where torture is A-OK!
But if you support Torture, you ain't no AMERICAN, comrade. - IIAmusedII, on 05/02/2009, -3/+14As you mindlessly lap up Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly.
- mikelieman, on 05/02/2009, -1/+11Condi Rice is SO STUPID -- she doesn't know that TORTURE IS WRONG!
- netneutrality, on 05/02/2009, -2/+12Doesn't matter whether it's "torture". It's still blatantly illegal under US law. Crimes have been committed, and law enforcement should go in to find out the people responsible.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -2/+12The whole former leaders of the administration should be brought to justice. If not criminally convicted then publicly shamed so no corporation in it's right mind would ever consider hiring these crooks ever again.
What a bunch of lying pieces of ***** they are.
Lying to the whole world to start wars, hell, lying to the world about just about everything.
Criminals without a doubt. - Sil369, on 05/02/2009, -1/+10TM™
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -5/+14Give it time. Give it time. Obama Administration are letting the info out slowly, wait until public outcry is so huge that they *have* to 'cave' to investigations. Until that point it is not politically savvy to openly state a desire to do so.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -5/+14Obama hasn't let out any of this info. It's all been done by independent journalists.
In fact, Obama has made it clear that Bush was a "good man" who "served his country" and who will not be investigated. Obama also made it clear that he would not even prosecute the minions who carried out the torture.
So again, you're imagining Obama to be something he isn't.
I'm just calling it how I see it. - Jeepy, on 05/02/2009, -4/+12You do know there's a difference between the crime of conspiracy and the idea of a conspiracy theory right? I guess I shouldn't ask questions I know the answer to.
- frankdozier, on 08/10/2009, -0/+8Damn! You sure know how to paint a picture!
"It's a shame Saddam isn't still around, he found torture quite acceptable, you could have joined the Iraqi army."
It seems so obvious to the rest of us. How can any human think that torture is a good idea? - AmazingSteve, on 05/02/2009, -0/+8Didn't Bush say that "I was just following orders" would be no excuse when going after War crimes? Then again Bush said a lot of things that were is fact *****.
- ackbz1, on 05/02/2009, -0/+8"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"
-Part One, Article III, 3rd Geneva Convention
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
the debate is around whether you think "enhanced interrogation" is "cruel treatment," 'torture," "humiliating treatment," etc. - audiorage18, on 05/02/2009, -0/+7@MacParrot
You forgot the 7 years before 1940 Roosevelt was president for.
You also forgot that Eisenhower, while Republican in name, would be completely liberal by today's standards (55% tax on highest income earners compared to Obama's 4% increase to like 39% the Republicans are complaining about lol).
Arguing which party is 'winning' or whatever is completely besides the point though. - mikelieman, on 05/02/2009, -0/+7See, the problem here is -- you *tried* to use that "Wonder Twins" pattern for humorous effect, but instead just embarrassed yourself.
First, you need to close the pattern. Shape of a Gorilla... Wave of green jello... sort of thing...
Second, if it's 'auto-bury', you DON'T NEED TO ACTIVATE IT!
"Good thing I had my blah-blah-blah engaged prior to this" would have worked better. - Kyan, on 05/02/2009, -1/+8YouTube was invented for moments like this.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+7If you are constantly reading articles about this "techniques" and getting pissed off, PLEASE
Spend 2 minutes and email your congressman
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml - hawkeye17, on 05/02/2009, -0/+6This douchebag probably thinks it's only illegal if Democrats do it. Imagine how he'd be talking smack if Clinton had used waterboarding when he was in office. Never pay attention to anyone posting here who throws out the words 'liberals' and 'wingnuts' often. It's a sure sign of a brainwashed child.
- JPHR, on 05/02/2009, -0/+6Neurenberg trials....
- enantiodromia, on 05/02/2009, -2/+8"Having to see yet another person pose this ridiculous request"
- sutterm, on 05/02/2009, -0/+6Exactly.
Kissinger was a smart guy, too.
Also a war criminal. - ykinc, on 05/02/2009, -0/+6Again, the US people can blame Rice, Bush, etc. but what they will never admit or will blame are themselves, the one nation allowed this non-sense for *eight full years*.
- Triticum, on 05/02/2009, -0/+618 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is