What is Digg?93 Comments
- ScottJG, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes?
Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution.
June 30, 2006
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
ADVERTISEMENTThe provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.
This novel theory served as the administration's legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.
Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as "waterboarding," placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda.
In 2005, Congress angered the administration by passing Sen. John McCain's amendment explicitly prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. But Congress did not attach criminal penalties to violations of the amendment, and the administration has repeatedly indicated its intent to ignore it.
The Hamdan decision may change a few minds within the administration. Although the decision's practical effect on the military tribunals is unclear — the administration may be able to gain explicit congressional authorization for the tribunals, or it may be able to modify them to comply with the laws of war — the court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees.
Common Article 3 forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The provision's language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That's why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention.
But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty.
Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, of course. For prosecutions to occur, some federal prosecutor would have to issue an indictment. And in the Justice Department of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales — who famously called the Geneva Convention "quaint" — a genuine investigation into administration violations of the War Crimes Act just ain't gonna happen.
But as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it's starting to look as if the Geneva Convention "is not so quaint after all." - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Irrelevant. The United States signed on to the Geneva convention and should have stuck to it. If they had done so they would have garnered a lot more international support for their war.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Impeach.
The.
President. - lengau, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35http://www.bugmenot.com/view/latimes.com
BugMeNot accounts.
UN:*****@you.com
PW:bugmenot - reppy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-4.html
In a September 24, 2001, letter to Congress, Bush noted, "Terrorists and terrorist networks operate across international borders and derive their financing from sources in many nations. Often, terrorist property and financial assets lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States." He affirmed his commitment to working with international agencies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) "to build momentum and practical cooperation in the fight to stop the flow of resources to support terrorism." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924.html
A White House fact sheet published on September 24, 2001, noted the launch of the Treasury Department's Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT): "The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html
In a September 26, 2001, statement, Bush said, "We're fighting them on a financial front. We're choking off their money. We're seizing their assets. We will be relentless as we pursue their sources of financing. And I want to thank the Secretary of Treasury for leading that effort." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-9.html
On October 10, 2001, Bush stated that the "nations of NATO are sharing intelligence, coordinating law enforcement and cracking down on the financing of terrorist organizations." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-6.html
During remarks at FTAT, then-Treasury Seceretary Paul O'Neill said, "[W]e have begun to act - to block assets, to seize books, records and evidence, and to follow audit trails to track terrorist cells poised to do violence to our common interests. " O'Neill added, "We have built an international coalition to deny terrorists access to the world financial system." http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/po769.htm
A December 2001 report on the steps the administration had taken to combat terrorism noted that the FATF "-- a 29-nation group promoting policies to combat money laundering -- adopted strict new standards to deny terrorist access to the world financial system." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html#5
A September 10, 2004, Treasury Department statement read: "The targeting of terrorist financing continues to play an important role in the war on terror. Freezing assets, terminating cash flows, and following money trails to previously unknown terrorist cells are some of the many weapons used against terrorist networks." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040910-4.html
OH NOES! TEH TERRORISTS KNOW WE'RE FOLLOWING THEIR MONEYZ! TREASON!!!
(Apparently, outing a CIA agent is perfectly legal, but talking about a program that does what the Bush administration have themselves been promoting is "treason." Perhaps because they mentioned the program's name? Perhaps because the program might not be legal under current laws?) - reddyman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
Al-Qaida doensn't have to be a signatory for it to affect the United States. Read the damn thing first. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33what the hell does latimes have to do with anything? The truth is the truth, no matter who reports it. Or are you the type of person who ignores the truth in order to live in your ideal world, blind to the outside world?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25 Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Gevena convention
It also applys to those not wearing uniforms, the point of the clause is that they(the uniformless soldiers) can be charged with violating the rules of war. DO you think that if we got invaded and the enemy made it to my tow i shouldnt get the protections of geneva because i shoot at the invaders without a uniform?
Geneva was never about who signed it and who didnt, it is an agreement on how people even your enemy deserve humane treatment. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26It doesn't seem to me that it's a question of whether the war on terror is illegal under international law, but that certain actions undertaken under the execution of the war on terror is illegal under international law.
- phoenixsflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Ok. p0s3r.
Read it carefully. The wording of the convention is very legalese.
(Article 1)
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
(Translation : It matters not who is, or is not signed into the convention, those who sign into it are to abide by it and are under International Law if they break it.)
(Article 2)
They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
(Translation : The important thing here, is LATTER. If you read the previous article you will see that the LATTER is the power who signed the geneva convention. This means, that under International Law, during a struggle, weither or not the power signed into the article. IF the Power (The US) Treats them in such a way that is in agreement with the Geneva Convention, that the other power (A non-existant one here.) would be bound and able to be tried by the same standards. But, only in Relation to the POWER (The US) Whom acted in accordance to the Geneva Convention in the first place.)
It's tricky, but it's there in black and white. The US can now be brought up under an international court based upon the lack of enforcement of the Geneva Convention.
Remember, we made the decision as a country to act morally in the face of immorality. It doesn't matter how the enemy acts, because if we let ourselves act as they do, we will never be any better than those we try to fight.
"Be careful when hunting Monsters, that one does not become a monster himself." - Bonzodog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25I hope they impeach him and try him. He should be brought to europe ands tried as a full war criminal in the Hague guilty of false improsonment, torture and other various crimes. There is a Michael Moore campaign which appears to be gaining steam rapidly to do just this.
His site contains links and latest news on the process.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=622 - protokol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Who cares if they charge him? They'll just replace him with someone else of the same ilk. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. None of this will be fixed without major institutional change. If Kerry was elected, would he immediatly cut off all political and economic ties to oppressive countries, legalize marijuana, etc? I think not.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28This is horrifying. I don't expect Bush to try to stay president until the end of his life, but how long until we stop pretending and just call it a dictatorship with alternating heads of state? The whole American system of checks and balances has been thrown out the window.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16[quote]i shouldnt get the protections of geneva because i shoot at the invaders without a uniform?[/quote]
So, basically, you're saying Iraqi insurgents should be protected by the Geneva Convention. Yes, I agree.
Yet, under the Bush administration, they are not. They're tortured, and sometimes murdered in cold blood.
Not only insurgents (which is arguably justified opposition to a foreign military invasion), but dozens, if not hundreds of *completely innocent civilians.*
For authorizing and fostering this kind of behavior by US troops and quasi-legal corporate mercenaries, the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes under both international law, and US law as this article points out.
The key point here is not that these were accidents, but that this behavior was authorized by the Pentagon. When told by the court that torture of prisoners was illegal (both military and civilian), that imprisoning civilians without charge was illegal, Bush disagreed and continues to do so. - unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Come on.
Impeach a man for sex, but give a break to a man who has caused the deaths of thousands?
Where are your ethics? - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23So the war on terror is potentially not even legal, according to international law?
- Lyianis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@brick71
You seem to make a good argument, with one very specific problem.
We
Are Not
At
War
We are in a presidentially declared military action. thus wartime power do not apply. the very fact that our government calls it and acts like it's legal war, with powers included. Is the one of the most disturbing things to me as a US citizen. - mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"I actually googled your comment to make sure it wasn't astroturf as it sounded immensely like a pre-packaged GOP mass-submitted editorial. I cannot believe anyone would believe in it."
those were my immediate thoughts, too. i found out where he plagiarized it from, too (you'd think - if he wasn't plagiarizing - he would say these words were not his own, and put in a link to where he got them from): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYwOTYzMWY5NGZlNDM0MTg2MDc3ZjkxYmI4ZmY4NmU= - phoenixsflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, ***if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.***"
"Now, pray tell, when has Al Qaeda accepted and applied the Geneva Convention?
Seems it isn't so black and white."
I already posted above this exactly why the wording is tricky. This is a common tactic for people to change the topic.
We're not discussing weither or not Al Qaeda, or ANYONE signed it. We signed it, that is all that matters. The Geneva Convention *does* apply, even in the statement you're trying to turn to your ends above.
Who is the latter in the statement? Let's carefully look at this.
Although one of the Powers (Al Qaeda) in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers (US) who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations
Latter : The Second of Two Parties Mentioned. Thus, they're speaking of holding the Al Qaeda to the Geneva convention, only if the US holds itself to the Geneva Convention. But, here is the crux.
Al Qaeda is a terrorist network, not a State. It cannot SIGN INTO The Geneva Convention in the first place.
No more than Fox News, CNN, NPR, or a corporation could.
Stop obfuscating the facts with an attempt to turn the conversation towards OTHERS actions. We need to stand behind what this country IS and has stood for since the Founding Fathers. - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Good god. Are you actually advocating that your leader should be above the law imposed on his own people? Are you seriously declaring that those who are in a better position to analyze the law of the land should have no say in who gets to follow it?
I actually googled your comment to make sure it wasn't astroturf as it sounded immensely like a pre-packaged GOP mass-submitted editorial. I cannot believe anyone would believe in it.
[quote]Hard as it may be to believe that the Court, without any grounding in either American law or the Geneva Conventions, has effectively signed a treaty with al Qaeda for the protection of its terrorists, there may be a silver lining.[/quote]
I'm sorry, I really needed to supress a slight bit of vomit on that one. The court did not "sign a treaty[...] for the protection of its terrorists". They declared that NO MAN has the right to treat ANY MAN in a way that is not consistent with a international agreement on the rights of all humans. It doesn't matter what that other human did as so long as they are HUMAN. If you do the devil's dance, how are you different from the devil?
"Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't fly when people get killed or treated like animals.
May god have mercy on your soul. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10YES!!!!!!!
He's viewed as a war criminal by many and now we see that he will possibly be held accountable for his actions. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I'm afraid that bush could just pardon himself of all crimes. That pardon system is the dumbest thing I ever heard. It's pretty much giving the president power over the judiciary branch.
- refulgentis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This is an odd time to make a comment like that. The article is a clear example of how the system of checks and balances still works.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Bush is President of the United States, not the world. An International crime is above his head
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Bush can't pardon himself, but he could resign and Cheney could pardon him. For example, after Nixon resigned, Ford pardoned him.
- mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7From the Digg Terms of Service:
"6. COPYRIGHT COMPLAINTS
Digg respects the intellectual property of others.If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitues copyright infringement, please email abuse@digg.com."
brick71 - you should be a bit more careful to attribute "your" comments to their actual owner. it's, at the very least, dishonest to post the national review's editorial as your own words. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11A Supreme Court decision that sided against the president, saying he needs to work with Congress more, has thrown out the whole system of checks and balances?
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@reppy
Thanks for finally posting all of the information I didn't take the time to find regarding the fact SWIFT and FTAT were _NEVER_ a state secret. I was dugg down for insisting (in a comment to another article) the NYT, LAT, and WSJ did not reveal anything which was not already public. - dlbundo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6We can only hope!
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@ reppy
It's plain from your comments that you and I would disagree on a great deal, but your post is the closest thing I've seen to a proper, topical and constructive post in a political digg thread thus far. It's a shame that you've been modded down. - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@brick
We "absorb all the BS as stated fact" yet you plagiarize other people's editorials?
"We are at war"
No more then you ever were. There have always been radicals. There have always been "terrorists". There has been an anti-USA sentiment for as long as the USA has done things to be anti about. One faction found a nifty way to get planes to do some heavy bombing. It hurt. It left a scar. It was horrible and many innocent people died. But the USA IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN WHICH A TERRORIST ACT HAS TAKEN PLACE.
Let me put it to you in this way[this applies to you as a person and you as a nation]: You will -never- be safe. You will -always- have enemies. Death is -always- around the corner. It always has and always will. You must decide if it's the only goddam thing you think about every day or if you will live you life as the people before you appeared to before all this nonsense happened.
You are not above the world, and your gov't won't fix that. They will take your freedoms away if you let them by telling you they will make you safe. This is a lie.
Instead of focusing on being "safe", try finding ways to minimize the creation of the damn radicals in the first place[and no, jealousy of the "American dream" is not potent enough to create a radicalist movement. Seeing your mother and father with their legs and arms blown off -is-]. - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@mistermachine
dang, I knew it! I wasn't able to find it myself but it sounded faaaar too partisan pseudo-editorial for it not to be. Props on the finding skills:) - phoenixsflame, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't think it's the decision that Bush did something Illegal that makes people unhappy with the Supreme court. There have been other decisions that have been very ridiculous... At least, that's how I see it.
And the SCOTUS has only ruled against the administration in the extremes... Of any SCOTUS, any president, when it comes to presidential power that is.
This country doesn't speak democratically; the voice of the people isn't heard and instead is replaced by what politicians and pundits' "polls" tell them.
This country doesn't act very democratically either, mainly because of our low voter turn out. Instead, it is much more a facist state (The combining of the Corporate State and the Republic State) where most often those in power do what is best for the companies and not the people.
This country doesn't follow its own laws. In fact, they are broken on a daily basis by almost every official in power.
Just because a place has a system of checks and balances, does not mean they are followed or even acknowledged.
A Republic or Dictatorship can have the appearance of a democracy, but when those democratic foundations aren't respected by those in power (I'm not just talking Bush, I'm talking State Governments, Federal Branches, Legilsative Branches. Everything.) - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem lies in that it is harder and harder for you and I to have this discussion due to the current administrations politics. Even you must admin that simply stating the gov't. is harming the country in a public forum now carries that extra risk of someone kicking down your door.
read this for an example of what I mean:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9085
Would that have happened just a decade ago? - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7As the site prevented me from adding a dang paragraph to my comment above, I shall start anew.
I will be convinced that there is a system of checks and balances once I see some administration guys drawn and quartered for this. The declaration and proof of concept of democratic practices does not a democracy make. This ruling means nothing if it fails to do anything because the guys on top are too hard to take down.
This is in much the same way as Saddam-era Iraq used to have "elections" which were just for show. No one will argue if old-era Iraq was a democracy, but they did have elections. Thus elections(staple of democracy) != democracy itself.
In this way, declaration that your supreme court recognizes your gov't as being a bunch of criminals != fair gov't. - cmallinson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Bush has no power to pardon himself of anything he may be charged with in an international court.
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Al Qaeda isn't a state, can non-states excersize the option to "not accept provisions" of the geneva convention?
- phoenixsflame, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Unfortunately, as it stands. The Checks and Balances that have kept the US relatively stable have been undermined by years and years of inaction.
The media, once the Third Estate has become propganda for one side or another.
The Supreme Court, in a rare instance or two upholds the Constitution, but mainly upholds the desires of those who put them there. (This has been so for every administration since Nixon, I've seen very few justices who were worth their weight in broken Barbie dolls.) - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4[quote]So the war on terror is potentially not even legal, according to international law?[/quote]
I assume it's illegal to willfully submit false information to the UN Security Council, isn't it?
Yeah, I know, good luck proving they willfully did it. But I think we all know that Bush (I mean his father) planned this war with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole Neocon cabal before Bush (the son) was ever elected. At least as early as 1995, when they wrote a letter to Clinton imploring him to invade Iraq.
9/11 and the Anthrax letters was the excuse they've been waiting for ever since the failed coup against Saddam in 1991.
Was Saddam that much of a threat? I wonder. Look at the middle-east without him. - rogueman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6 I don't really see the big problem here. True, al Queda may very well be a "ghost" entity, but I don't really see a reason why the existent rules can't apply. Each alleged terrorist is a person, and has at least one citizenship. He may be a citizen of Afghanistan, Irak, US, Great Britain or whatever, but he is a very real person born in a very real state. And as such he has rights. The fact that he is accused of certain things doesn't change that one bit. He is NOT an al Queda citizen. He is NOT born on Mars. There are already a lot of rules about what any government can do to him, and they still apply. So weather the war on terror is really a war or not is not really a point. The point is these people are protected from certain things by birth and citizenship.
- Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ wetworx
WTF? - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the dangerous part here is Bush's imprisonment of people all over the world without trial. Not only have several innocents been imprisoned and tortured (or so they claim), we don't know how many are still being kept in both known prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the unknown run by the CIA.
There's no oversight taking place. Whoever these people are that are carrying out operations for Bush are doing basically whatever they feel like. Where is all this being documented? Who approves it? How do we know there aren't crimes being committed by these intelligence agents and mercenaries? - buss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This likely wouldn't happen while Bush is still president. At that time he wouldn't have the presidential power to pardon himself. (And even if he was president at the time, there's probably a provision against pardoning one's self.)
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[quote]Impeach.
The.
President.[/quote]
Then send him to the Hague. Maybe send Saddam there too. Put them in a cell together. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Bush has no power to pardon himself of anything he may be charged with in an international court."
How dare you point out facts! This ruins our Bush Bashing. You deserved your -1 rating, and we hope that your comment continues to be buried. - aaryn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Thanks for that, lengau
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pabster
What possible threat could that student have posed the president? Besides, the student was not encouraging violence but rather attempting to show his freedom to speak of it.
It doesn't matter if it "tends to happen" it still flies in the face of free expression. It's that attitude of "that's how it works" that allows those with power to retain it without consequence. Free speech is important because it allows the greater populace to question "why". Accepting something without question is ignorance and such is dangerous.
Was it "smart" for the kid to do that? Maybe not. Was it "wrong" for him to do that, maybe. Should he be able to do that without the gov't treating him like a terrorist? Damn straight.
As for the comment of violence. I completely agree that violence or the encouragement of violence is the fool's way out. I will be the last person to advocate such. However, the "fear" of violence applied to a populace in order to gain an edge/goal/power, by its very definition, terrorism. By that measuring stick, the gov't itself, by encouraging this fear with these such tactics, is committing acts of terrorism.
I strongly urge you listen to the Massey lectures by Michael Ignatieff. He makes excellent points on the use of terror by the gov't to go above and beyond what they have been entrusted with. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://bush.justgotowned.com/
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Once he is out of office the vast majority of the world will rejoice.
We have jobs, families and we despise people who act and speak like you every day and try to find the time in our busy lives to tell you exactly how cowardly and ignorant you act, write and speak. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9with every comment, pabster consistently offends my notion of general intelligence, so much that I decided a little while ago that i'm going to write a script that automatically scans a page for him and mods him down
you know its bad when someone actually feels so bothered ;) -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is