What is Digg?164 Comments
- freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -8/+162same thing they tried to do to Holder...IF they did nothing wrong, why are they vetting people based on getting them to promise not to prosecute the Bush admin?
- Seminarian, on 03/27/2009, -5/+103It would be a huge relief to have smart, principled, independent people in the top legal jobs in the U.S. If the Republican Senators filibuster, it should be on prime time TV in all the states they represent, so their constituents can see them making asses of themselves. (I know, I'm dreaming.) She is eminently qualified, abortion is still legal in this country, last I checked--not that her abortion views make one whit of difference in the job she's been nominated to hold, and it's high time--HIGH TIME--this country got back to being a constitutional republic.
- Firstdaughter, on 03/27/2009, -7/+75^^ Digg is being diggtarded tonight.
The title of this submission made me cringe bc of the double entendre. - freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -25/+73same thing they tried to do to Holder...IF they did nothing wrong, why are they vetting people based on getting them to promise not to prosecute the Bush admin?
- freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -25/+67same thing they tried to do to Holder...IF they did nothing wrong, why are they vetting people based on getting them to promise not to prosecute the Bush admin?
- novenator, on 03/27/2009, -2/+41This Digg migration is really messing things up. I can't even see some stories and you get a triple post!
- thejimmyo, on 03/27/2009, -1/+40More on Dawn Johnsen here:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/AssistantA ...
Video of Johnsen discussing the role of the OLC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-FrzhHT_w - freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -3/+33I know! So sorry for that. I can't read some stories at all, and others I can't digg people. Now this....my, I'm verbose.
- novenator, on 03/27/2009, -3/+30Here we go, another nominee that will be under the most intensive microscope in political history in this country. I think the main issue here is once again Republican obstructionism more than anything. They are determined to delay nominations as long as possible to derail the movement for change that so many of us voted for (just like their stall tactics that leave the state of Minnesota with only 1 US Senator 5 months after election day).
Maybe Obama should just wait for congress to be out of session and appoint her to the post like Bush did when he appointed the douchebag Michael...no....John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN. - freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -5/+30the GOP must know that Obama won't abuse his powers, or they would WANT to have someone like her in office. That or they weighed his likelihood to do that (nil) against the likelihood that Bush et al could be/should be prosecuted...and decided they are much worse. This is an admission of guilt in my mind, same as the Holder holdup and attempt to coerce a promise not to prosecute.
in the end, they know Obama won't abuse his powers and they know that Bush covered his track with memos that "expired" or were repealed days before he left office.
meanwhile, we have minions like the above accusing the POTUS of being exactly what Bush was...except they have no evidence, except t the contrary given his appointments and cleaning up of Bush's signing statements. . Talk about projection. - lilzaphod, on 03/27/2009, -1/+26What happened to every nominee deserves an Up or Down vote?
***** joke. - VitriolAndAngst, on 03/27/2009, -1/+25You know who else could "nail Bush?" A certain CIA asset that told the administration point blank where, how and with what Bin laden (being the who) would attack the USA.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00028.htm
"For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush's retaliation against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the Justice Department indicted me for acting as an "unregistered Iraqi Agent" (not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the dire consequences of War.
"More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland with an arrest warrant.
"The indictment called me "Symbol Susan." It was a bizarre notation unsupported by any evidence or action in the indictment. It did however have one crucial purpose?to communicate a warning that anybody breaking ranks from the Bush White House should expect to be brutally crushed like I was.To speak the truth under President George Bush was the worst crime of all. It was treason.
'But what exactly was the U.S. government trying to hide?
"The answer is more far reaching than you would expect. In the first article of this series written and edited with the help of Michael Collins, we talk about the 9/11 warning that my team delivered to the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department in August, 2001.
"For those who think you've heard the whole story of 9/11, you might be surprised."
Susan Lindauer, March 1, 2009 - mgraham80, on 03/27/2009, -2/+22I doubt your dedication to reason.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -3/+23It was worth reading 3 times.
- apastafarian, on 03/27/2009, -2/+22Often, I've read a comment and wished I could could digg it 3 times...and now I did!
- Seminarian, on 03/27/2009, -13/+31It would be a huge relief to have smart, principled, independent people in the top legal jobs in the U.S. If the Republican Senators filibuster, it should be on prime time TV in all the states they represent, so their constituents can see them making asses of themselves. (I know, I'm dreaming.) She is eminently qualified, abortion is still legal in this country, last I checked--not that her abortion views make one whit of difference in the job she's been nominated to hold, and it's high time--HIGH TIME--this country got back to being a constitutional republic.
- GordonClass, on 03/27/2009, -3/+20Well when these Republicans come up for re-election it's time to send them a message again.
- smurfjoe, on 03/27/2009, -0/+17I like this one the best out of the three.
- freedomjoe, on 03/27/2009, -7/+23the GOP must know that Obama won't abuse his powers, or they would WANT to have someone like her in office. That or they weighed his likelihood to do that (nil) against the likelihood that Bush et al could be/should be prosecuted...and decided they are much worse. This is an admission of guilt in my mind, same as the Holder holdup and attempt to coerce a promise not to prosecute.
in the end, they know Obama won't abuse his powers and they know that Bush covered his track with memos that "expired" or were repealed days before he left office.
meanwhile, we have minions like the above accusing the POTUS of being exactly what Bush was...except they have no evidence, except t the contrary given his appointments and cleaning up of Bush's signing statements. . Talk about projection. - homercles337, on 03/27/2009, -3/+19What the hell are you talking about? Oh wait, i forgot that the right utilizes projection in their "discussions" quite a bit. Although i have to admit that it is used a lot more than "quite a bit."
- gread, on 03/27/2009, -2/+17Americans can sure be rabid dog-eating cannibals when it comes to your politics. Besides once being the proudest nation on the planet, what do you have to show for 230+ years of existence? Why not make the debate between good vs. bad public policy and leave it at that? If previous politicians or their agents committed crimes (under your constitution) then prosecute them in court. The legal system requires evidence and proof. Try to be as quiet as possible, so the rest of the world barley notices. If they are innocent they will be freed. To continue to flame each other with partisan rhetoric is futile. Otherwise, the rest of the world will view you as juvenile contestants in an "unreal" reality contest. Just saying from a"ridiculous little country".
- kwasmosis, on 03/27/2009, -1/+15Yeah, I've been noticing many people have apparently not dugg a single article if you look at their profile stats, although their recent activity show they have clearly been digging.
Also for the record, I would like to make it perfectly clear on behalf of all the diggtards out there, I find your comment to be very offensive. We prefer the term cognitively diggabled. - Jerryrad, on 03/27/2009, -1/+14I can't believe I'm even bothering to post this... I'm so sick of retards posting about Obama being a communist. If you wanted to sound remotely intelligent you would at the very least call him a Socialist. Learn to think for yourself and quit quoting the other idiots.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 03/27/2009, -0/+12We have Cheney admitting to his support of Torture on TV.
We don't need proof -- we need a functioning judicial system.
The Bush Crime Family is being pursued in the courts all around the world. But money and power have influence, and they visited every country and strong-armed the courts in England, Canada, Germany, Chile, Columbia and more to get charges dropped.
There hardly isn't anyone IN the Bush administration, who doesn't have a well deserved court case with their name on it. - mikelieman, on 03/27/2009, -1/+13"A US president will never be put on trial, whether Republican or Democrat."
If they aren't for say, clear violations of 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 2340 and 18 USC 371, off the top of my head -- than isn't the entire foundation of the United States, The Rule of Law, even the sacred Oath of Office completely void and baseless?
Do I tell my children, "It's ok to Lie as long as you're powerful enough to not actually suffer any consequences"?
Do I tell my children, "It's ok to Torture other people as long as you're powerful enough to not actually suffer any consequences"?
That sure doesn't sound like any America *I* want to live in.
If the United States of America is not a "Nation of Laws" than it is NOTHING. Indeed, Plymouth Rock has landed on *all of us*. ( There's a very non-PC way of expressing that thought, but I don't work Blue in Family Venues. ) - philosophyzombi, on 03/27/2009, -0/+12I can understand your criticism of Obama's administration concerning state secrets. The positions that have been presented in court seem disconnected from the POTUS's rhetoric. That having been said I think that Dawn Johnsen has demonstrated her commitment to the responsibilities of the OLC: to tell the President what is and is not legal, as opposed to cooking up lame arguments to justify untenable legal positions. Her appointment is a necessary step to restoring credibility to the OLC.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 03/27/2009, -1/+13@atomheartmother, love your alias, but you are a complete imbecile if you think there is "no real evidence that Bush committed any crimes." For one, about a million innocent Iraqi corpses and over 4,000 American soldiers would beg to disagree with you...if they could speak that is. And that's just the start...
For a primer, just read any summary of the Bush presidency. - Firstdaughter, on 03/27/2009, -1/+12@Caff :-) I don't see anything wrong with people who take the stance that all government is bad (there are a few days when I think so as well) - Trust me, I feel weird even writing the words, "I love our president" bc I have always been a critic of all government and all religion (side topic).
However, I just don't believe in sweeping generalizations and making assumptions based upon a null model. Every person is an individual and as such so are our presidents. They are each unique and we cannot assume that they are interchangeable especially in the case of Obama. Likewise, no two situations are the same.
Thing is I am a huge pessimist but from what I've seen so far, I'm pretty damn optimistic about America's future for the first time in my life. If this is unrealistic, then it is my fantasy that will come crashing down...put please don't piss on my hopes and dreams by calling him an imperialist. - copypastry, on 03/27/2009, -0/+11In before unlikely plane crash, incongruent suicide, "home invasion gone wrong", freak car accident, carbon monoxide leak, tragic drug overdose, etc.
- thejimmyo, on 03/27/2009, -0/+11Will you Birthers ever let go of this conspiracy theory?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_th ...
Also, torture is illegal and the President does not have king-like authority to ignore the law (contrary to what John Yoo might say). - thejimmyo, on 03/27/2009, -1/+11He admitted to authorizing waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal.
He admitted to authorizing the domestic surveillance program. This was also illegal.
We could have a long discussion of the other techniques and practices that were authorized, including the extraordinary rendition program whereby we shipped people off to other countries where they were tortured (which is illegal under the Convention Against Torture), but we have him directly owning up to these things, based on some bogus memos by John Yoo saying that the President is above the law.
Nixon tried to use the same rationale. If we keep on letting these people get away with it, then that just guarantees that future Presidents will keep on breaking the law. - kwasmosis, on 03/27/2009, -0/+10Something about these stories of her just warrants a,
YOU GO GIRL!! - DougChristian, on 03/27/2009, -2/+12@5urr3al5am
No, he never supported legalization or even decriminalization. He did support letting the states decide. He was supposed to be open to dialog though, so his statements yesterday were a huge disappointment. - voyetra8, on 03/27/2009, -1/+11"sheeple" = instabury
- ferrell, on 03/27/2009, -5/+14I wonder how long it will be until she "commits suicide."
- JenniferInMO, on 03/28/2009, -1/+10@atomheart: I am really surprised at your defense of the Bush Administrations war crimes. I know you take whatever position is in opposition to our current president, but I did not think you were a Bush apologist. Bush admitted authorizing torture: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38895
Torture is wrong. As a country which starts wars to enforce our values on others it is not just hypocritical, but highly dangerous to engage in behavior we find to be morally repugnant.
There were no WMD in Iraq, there was no Al Qaeda connection to Saddam so why did we go to war? Supposedly because Saddam was a bad dictator who tortured his people. So we waged war on a country on the other side of the globe, deposed it's evil dictator and then treated the Iraqi and Afghan people with the same lack of values that we accused Saddam.
We claim to be a civilized country and we pride ourselves on that. It is difficult to face the fact that we allowed our leaders the authority to throw our values away, but we can only face that fact with full investigations and prosecutions.
This should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue as to who we are as a country. Are we a nation of fearful people who use violence in response to any and every perceived threat or are we a nation of laws?
AHM, you should read some of the memos and reports about this issue. If you value your country more than your political party you will look at these stories as they emerge with an open mind: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52F0 http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004576 http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/791-how-torture-b ... http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/791-how-torture-b - aduzik, on 03/27/2009, -0/+9There'd be revolt, alright, but mostly from people who are pissed that Lost or Dancing With The Stars isn't on.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 03/27/2009, -0/+9Shame on you for having a memory long enough to remember political rhetoric. /s
- AvangionQ, on 03/27/2009, -0/+9From the page: "The real reason for their vehement opposition is that Johnsen is committed to overturning the Bush administration's policies on torture and warrantless surveillance that would clip the wings of the imperial presidency." ... here's to high hopeful anticipation, and the restoration of Constitutional rights and the checks and balances on the balance of power between the three branches of our federal government -- for what its worth, you have my full support and I look forward to updates and developments on this story ...
- thejimmyo, on 03/27/2009, -1/+9>>"A US president will never be put on trial, whether Republican or Democrat. I don't think that our own government will make the presidency more of a mockery than W did."
Isn't it odd that we throw so many ordinary people in jail every day, often for minor offenses such as drug possession, yet we apply different rules to people in high office (out of fear that we will make a "mockery" of the position) even when the President illegally orders something as extreme as torture? - thejimmyo, on 03/28/2009, -0/+8Under the laws of the United States, torture "means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
That seems pretty clear and comprehensive. Of course they're not going to enumerate every single last technique that constitutes torture, because that's impossible. I think that it is 100% blindingly clear that waterboarding amounts to severe physical and psychological suffering intentionally inflicted on a person in order to obtain a confession or information. To say that it does not is irrational.
>>"Since 2003, only three terrorists have been subjected to waterboarding, and the technique has not been employed since."
Whether you torture three people through waterboarding or thirty people, you're still torturing them.
>>"the law was indeed ambiguous"
Not really. It's plain as day. The fact that the Senate singled this out and labeled it as "torture" does not mean that it didn't fit the definition before. However, it did put an end to the phony argument that waterboarding could continue in the future by taking that disingenuous argument away from its proponents.
>>"Additionally, waterboarding wasn't started under Bush, and has been practiced on and off since WWII- including under Bill Clinton"
Could you please provide a link or a source to back up the claim that Bill Clinton used the waterboarding technique on prisoners held by the United States?
>>"the Clinton administration transported suspected terrorists into the custody of third party governments widely known to routinely torture their political and military opponents, such as Saudi Arabia and Algeria. So if we're going to haul Bush in for it, better bring Bill in too."
That's a fair argument, and a lot of people gloss over this. I'm aware that Clinton did use extraordinary rendition to ship people off to countries known to employ torture, and that should not be condoned or forgotten (although I'm not sure if the statute of limitations has run). However, there are two major difference that I think are also significant: (1) the people abducted through Clinton's extraordinary rendition program were at least tried and convicted in a foreign country (even if it was done in absentia), and were not simply picked up without trial for interrogation purposes; and (2) there were only a handful subjected to the process under Clinton, in contrast with the scope of the Bush administration's program (which was huge).
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214 ...
None of this excuses Clinton's use of the program, though.
>>"That's just not true."
I'm afraid that it is. The fact that they went back and changed the rules later does not mean that they didn't break it the first time around. In fact, using your own logic from the first paragraph, the fact that they changed the rules positively indicates that the NSA program was illegal between the years of 2001 and 2006. (Also, I think that you're mixing up a few of the FISA provisions here)
>>"the talk of prosecution of Bush Administration officials is purely politically motivated"
I used to be a very non-partisan, largely libertarian fellow. I thought that whatever administration was in charge of the executive branch, they'd at least play within the boundaries of the law (or at least stay very close), and that overheated rhetoric about "prosecutions" and "war crimes" and "treason" and blah blah blah was just a lot of hot air by super-charged partisans. However, this stuff over the past few years has really shocked me. In the words of Gen. Taguba (the guy who investigated the Abu Ghraib abuses, but was not permitted to investigate anyone higher up the chain of command than himself), "There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/i ... - EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+8How about the poor kids in Pennsylvania who were getting thrown in jail for really minor (as in trivial) offenses, against the recommendation of the prosecution I might add, by judges who were receiving kickbacks from cronies running a for profit prison?
See: http://digg.com/world_news/Pennsylvania_Judges_Acc ...
What good is a nation of laws if its privileged class is above the law and the disadvantaged class is beneath the law? In order to prevent a certain class of citizens from becoming victims of miscarriages of justice NO ONE can be above the law. Holding Bush accountable for crimes and abuses of power while President does not make a mockery of the presidency. Rather it strengthens our nation because the world will see that no one is exempt from the rule of law in this nation. - aduzik, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8"***** him over" implies that he doesn't deserve it. Like when the cable company ***** you over by making you wait all day at home and never showing up. Bush is a criminal and deserves to spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison for what he's done.
- gread, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8I am not knocking America, just a few of it's noisy inhabitants. The United States of America should be proud of it's overall great history. I believe the world would have kicked the crap out of fascists, with or without help. My dead ancestors lying in graves in Europe are testimony to that determination. Many thanks for America's sacrifices during those wars. Were we not in it together? Some NATO countries are also in Afghanistan right now. Technology? Hmmmm, maybe.
- DDRSkata, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8The "most secretive administration in history" is a bit of a stretch, no?
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+9Here here!!!!
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+7@Caff,
While I agree with Firstdaughter's optimism and not wanting it to get pissed on. I dugg up your comment immediately above my comment for civil discourse. It is refreshing to have civil exchanges in threads. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -3/+10Please excuse anything 5urr3al5am says. He's a freeptroll idiot (check his history).
Do not feed the trolls. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7who'd want to have sex with Bush?
- billyfalconer, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7Impressive combination of ignorance and irrationality there, Lukas.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 167 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