What is Digg?82 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+76Powell is absolutely right. What was wrong with the US justice system? It has worked for more than 200 years.
Olbermann and guest agree: Suspending habeas corpus has made us less safe
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_guest_Suspending_habeas_corpus_has_made_us_less_safe
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_hopeful_on_restoration_of_Habeas_0608.html - hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -4/+74Too bad he wasn't this outspoken when he was in the Administration. I totally agree with what he's saying here but it's way too little and way too late.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44@Jason, I totally agree. There's no going back after he made a mockery of international law and common sense. If he didn't have the good sense to say no, or just quit, he's unfit to lead the nation in the top post.
But if he wants to do some good now, he'll go testify about when and how the decision was made to invade Iraq. - aschocobo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+42agreed. it's good to hear Powell speak out about this, but this kind of nerve would have been much more useful to have when he was busy pointing out those useless satellite photos.
- Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -2/+37Y'know, we've been saying this all along, but I'm glad he's finally spoken up about it. If nothing else, at least I can show this video clip to my staunch, far right-wing family. They won't listen to "crazy liberals", but my dad idolizes this guy. He could seriously make some Republicans think twice...
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34attempted redemption, now that it's safe to go against Bush.
- iDragonFly, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25You know the wheels are about to fall off when Colin Powell strays this far from BushCo's script.
I'm curious as to what compelled him to speak out. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+39im a democrat, but i still wish this guy would run for president. its nice to see reasonable, logical candidates that know what they're talking about. the republican party has no credibility right now, but powell always has.
- SmokedL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24I suggest that anyone that thinks these statements by Colin is proof of his character see the interview again and actually listen to WHY he would close Guantanamo. He would close it because it is politically inconvenient. Because it is costly to the way that the US is viewed around the world. He is not concerned that it might be wrong, just that it is detrimental to the reputation of the US. I'd hardly call that a great moral stance on the matter. About the only thing he said that I agree with is that the prisoners at Guantanamo should be handled by the criminal justice system, not some modern day torture camp.
- EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16When you spend your entire life in the military, you learn to follow orders. I think speaking out against the President while he was working for him would have gone against every fiber of Powell's existence. He did show great leadership skills in the military, however. You must simultaneously lead and follow to be a good soldier, and I think if Powell had been put in the ultimate leadership position (the Presidency) he might have done extremely well.
Like many others, however, I feel too betrayed now to vote for him as President. I'm happy to see him seeking to atone for some of his past mistakes. I think he is a deeply honorable man who was put in a situation he wasn't prepared to handle. - SmokedL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@cGt2099
"Isn't that reason one of many as to why it would be a good idea? Countries across the world have lost a lot of faith in the United States, and the foreign viewpoint is very negative.
I come from Australia. We're your allies, and the Australian viewpoint (as well as the UK viewpoint) is the most negative towards the USA its ever been!"
Almost unanimous global condemnation certainly is an indication that you should reconsider whatever practice is being condemned. You'll get no disagreement from me on that.
What I am saying is this: If the first thing that makes you question the practices at Guantanamo is global condemnation, rather than your personal ethics and morals, just what do your ethics and morals consist of? Certainly not the stuff that I would like any representative of mine to use for their decisions.
If you need years of global condemnation to realize that throwing away the Geneva Convention and torturing people held in violation of international law is wrong; I do not want you in any sort of influential position anywhere.
By the way; I'm not an American, I'm a swede. Not that that should make any difference to the discussion at hand. - EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Did you ever watch Colin Powell while he was Secretary of State? He looked tortured the entire time. I fault him for not having the courage of his convictions, but I think saying he wasn't concerned is unfair.
- EtherGnat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I'm going to retract my use of the word tortured, because in this day in age it seems less than appropriate. When I watched his UN speech and other propaganda speeches, it always seemed to me as if he did so with a heavy heart. You could see the conflict on his face, unlike Condoleeza Rice who routinely lies with a smile on her face and a song in her heart.
- talkenglish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Too late my friend, should of stood up a long time ago if he really cared about the insidious manner Guantanamo bay and other such "terror fighting" mechanisms have slowly slaughtered individual rights.
- kidd3ckz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@cGt2099
I ***** live here and I hate it more and more each day. - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Not only close the prison, blow up all the buildings there and abandon the place. We don't need it.
Also , leave the base in Saudi Arabia. It causes more problems than it solves. - xenoploid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Powell's current message is just and true. However, it is important to remember that Powell and former CIA director George Tenet were both TOOLS of the Bush administration. Their credibility is destroyed, and they are attempting to save face. They are the ones who went to the UN and made claims about WMDs to justify the Iraq War without credible and significant evidence about an imminent threat to the US. Bush gave them orders to build a case for war, and they carried them out while leaving their morals behind.
- faskill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@entropyman - well said.
- WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"so disappointing he didn't speak out at the beginning of this disaster"
The fact that he didn't speak out at the beginning, but went along with the criminal actions of the Bush-Cheney mis-administration, speaks volumes more than ANYTHING he can say NOW, as the election season is approaching.
Although he is last on my list, he is still ON the list of those who need to be tried and convicted, etc., for their high crimes against the Constitution.
(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Rove, Gonzales, Snow, Powell. ) Did I miss any of the traitors? - ptsd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8seems like everyone has forgotten that colin powell is the same man who tried to cover up the My Lai massacre...
- WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Excellent point. The claim "I was just doing my job" is NEVER adequate justification for all kinds of horrors people inflict on one another, while 'following the orders' of others. Having no backbone, and having a willingness to blindly follow orders, is true cowardice.
That same principle can be seen as applying to soldiers, police, or anyone in any business hierarchy -- who so easily puts their morals aside, when convenient.
If you take another human being's life, for example, it is ultimately YOUR responsibility, regardless of who else told you to do it.
It is about growing up, and learning to accept self-responsibility.
And if you cause or order another to take a life, you get double the karma, having defiled both yourself and your 'tool' who blindly followed your order.
The 'tool' gets, also, the karma of having inappropriately empowered another, who was 'less than enlightened', of having facilitated another's lowest desires, by carrying them out.
Any way you look at it, it's baaaad. M'kay? - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6hes not a loyal Bushie.
- WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That sounds like a Rove strategy. Since Bush can't legitimately have a third term, it makes the other criminal republi-pigs look better, to the shortsighted public, if they appear to oppose Bush.
Unfortunately, neither of Bush's terms were 'legitimate'.
While people argue over politics and elections, and who said what, and what it really means, those criminals continue to build their internment camps, and plan their next false-flag attack, so they can try to declare martial law.
And the only thing that makes that possible to perpetrate, is the hordes of armed and trained young men, in the military , State national guard, and police forces, who would just follow orders, without thinking, and without truly understanding anything of the Constitution they are supposed to be defending.
But they sure know about all the latest i-pod products and bands!
Corporato-cratic Fascism marches on!
Buy more, kill when you are told to, and don't think or ask questions! - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2this is lip service and excuse to get attention away from the many other camps all over the world. you close gitmo and all of a sudden people think the usa is doing something about it. they're building more IN the usa right now, are they going to close them down before they even open up for business?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2'He would close it because it is politically inconvenient. Because it is costly to the way that the US is viewed around the world. He is not concerned that it might be wrong, just that it is detrimental to the reputation of the US.'
That's not true.
He said he'd close it because we can deal with these people in the standard legal way, with then having access to lawyers and such. He points out we managed to put 2M people in jail even though they had access to lawyers.
He says he'd close it because it shows we are ignoring basic rights laid out in our Constitution. And it shows that on the world stage.
That's the right stand, and he's taking it.
It's too bad you are twisting his words to try to say he's only worried about bad press and not what is right. If he were worried about the press, I don't think he'd have gotten on Meet the Press today and ate crow all over the place. - rkb2948, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Alot of people harp on powell for his role in the iraq war, but I really believe he was kept in the dark more than people realize. He at one point in time refered to a rumsfeld select few other people in the cabinent, as "***** crazies" if anything validifies in my opinion his stand on issues with the neocons. The iraq war goes against everything powell has ever said. Look at the powell doctrine, emphasizes everything he stands for, and look at this war, its been botched all over; especially in comparison to the gulf war in which powell was in chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. And now you complain that he hasn't spoken up about the disaray in Guantanamo earlier, but the only reason you hear it now is because he was on TV; the man doesn't live in the spotlight anymore. And note he has been voicing his disapproval for quite some time, remember he was one of the first (especially republicans) to term the crisis over there as a civil war.
- sureuhhuh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4When Colin Powell gave his U.N. speech, although the "facts" he spoke of were questionable to say the least, the public trusted him they and bought it. I agree wholeheartedly that Guantanamo should be closed and I also question who is telling him to say so now.
- PsychoticClown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Isn't this is the same ***** that served as Bush's bitch and tried to sell the Iraqi invasion to the world? So now he discovered his conscience? Hypocritical *****. Where was this conscience when he was in power?
- ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2its 'unfortunately'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErO_Wf4njoo - Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And he's a big friend of heroin dealer Richard Armitage. Google "Richard Armitage heroin" to see what I mean.
Nevertheless, his statements about Guantanamo are right on... - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The thing you have to remember about any military man: they follow orders. If the president says, 'Go and make the dumbest speech of your life to the UN', he doesn't even ask 'what's the content'. He makes the damned speech.
The fact that he's speaking out now means that he simply wasn't ordered not to. - dn11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1so disappointing he didn't speak out at the beginning of this disaster
- LucidOne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That story is complete bunk, it NEVER happened!
- DiggeralToolz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Colon Powell is BLACK!
- DokGonzo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Tortured? I guess he was tortured when he lied in the U.N. as well? Please. He's as guilty as the rest of them. If there was justice he and the rest of the Bush administration would be charged with conspiracy and treason.
- PatriotOne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Duly noted. I had the same thought.
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@tomplansmedia, "im a democrat, but i still wish this guy would run for president. its nice to see reasonable, logical candidates that know what they're talking about. the republican party has no credibility right now, but powell always has."
He's a rational guy. His entire political career was derailed by signing off on that one statement in the State of the Union address and beating the war drums at the UN a few weeks later. I could forgive him for the SotU thing, but I don't know if I can look past his speech to the UN. Part of me thinks he was heavily manipulated, but I don't know. It's a shame. He could have been a great politician. Great politician ...heh ...I just thought up a new oxymoron! - VtmnR, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5You know, he did say:
"My preferred way of fighting wars is to never let anybody think that they could win one against us. I want to be the bully on the block."
"I believe in the bully's way of going to war. 'I'm on a street corner, I got my gun, I got my blade, I'ma kick yo' ass."
from Imperial Designs, Garry Dorrien (2004)
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Designs-Neoconservatism-New-Americana/dp/0415949807 - WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1...and don't forget all the internment camps being built throughout the US, for US citizens. loyal to the Constitution, who don't comply with their 'Plan'.
- Viriathus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Who gives a ***** what this obsequious toady says now? The time he could have really made a difference he utterly failed. Why do the criminals who put their mark on the latest imperial enterprise still get respect? They deserve our contempt and ridicule. The fact that some of them are contrite now and trying to restore their legacy should not change this. There should be a price for such utter moral cowardice.
- immrlizard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Where were all of these thoughts 6 years ago. He lost all respect that i had for him by signing on with dubbya. Before then, I would have considered voting for him for president. Just because he left at half time doesn't mean that he deserves any of it back.
- jlhoben, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, save Habeas. Send him home to his wife and kids.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2speaking of generals, check out this wicked wicked BURN: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/This_is_by_far_the_best_comeback_line_in_the_history_of_one_liners
I just can't get over it! - bigturns, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Jasonquinn, "Instead he acted like a lackey and gave that humiliating speech to the UN even when you could clearly see he didn't believe it himself."
True - However, I believe Powell, somewhat complacent of the machine as it pushed towards an inevitable war, took the appropriate steps to clear his name by leaving W's administration at the end of W's first term. If you remember the events, Powell's departure was seen as a serious blow to W's credibility.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=249049
I believe the only man who truly understood, at the point in time when Powell gave his famous speech to the UN, what intel was good and what intel was false was the man who has, to date, made the most of the war in Iraq (Dick 'Vader' Cheney).
Such a statement doesn't clear Powell's name. It does, however, attempt to paint Powell into a circle separate from those who have sullied our name. - HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2For those who didn't watch the whole interview, near the end, Russert asks Powell if he would be endorsing any political candidates. Powell said it is too soon to say that. He pushes him to ask if he would endorse candidates from other parties (than his own Republican party), and he refuses to say.
Additionally, Russert asks if Powell is interested in a political future and Powell says he isn't "interested in any elected office". Powell volunteered the "elected" line himself.
If you ask me (and you didn't), it sounds like Powell is likely to endorse Barack Obama if he is the Democratic candidate and he he leaving the door open to be appointed to a position in Obama's administration if he wins.
Could be a big coup. - HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1My understanding is we are not currently using the Saudi bases. They are still there for our use in case we need to defend Saudi Arabia, as intended, but we are currently moved out to other places.
- badarabdad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2he has tons of evidence to show you they've got WMDs there too.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know how he could have stood all that crap he was forced to say and "think" publicly if this is how he really feels.
- DokGonzo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Powell is full of it. He wasn't the least bit concerned 6 years ago, so why should he be concerned now?
- AdvancedSoul, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4If you are your own enemy who can oppose you? They are not going to close Guantanamo or restore Habeas Corpus, and this is just a distraction so that no one really does anything to stop them.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is