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.
288 Comments
- adwarereport, on 07/08/2008, -25/+205Not only should he be, but we should also thoroughly investigate any member of the House or Senate who opposes this.
- qdkk, on 07/08/2008, -21/+128Fascism has taken hold. Unless the citizenry act now, the continued dismantling of the Constitution will accelerate.
- snotrokit, on 07/08/2008, -14/+111Absolutely, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all of those associated.
- Shigglyboo, on 07/08/2008, -13/+105let me rephrase that: Should someone who commits a crime be punished for it?
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -21/+91Obviously.
A poster on the linked comments said it best; if these American war criminals aren't brought to justice, the Nuremberg tribunals meant nothing. - flavioribeiro, on 07/09/2008, -17/+51He should be tried for treason in the US and for war crimes at the International Criminal Court (which the US government vehemently opposes).
Life in prison would be ideal, as I don't support the death penalty.
If for some reason the ICC turns out to be unfeasible, just ship him to a free Iraq and I'm sure they'll figure something out. - ericdano, on 07/09/2008, -2/+36If you think this, you should also charge all the members of the House and the Senate who voted in favor of this. It was their job to research the "facts". Most of them didn't. They failed as much as the President.
- samthurston, on 07/09/2008, -5/+28.Wow... believing that your elected officials ought to be held accountable for their actions is now tantamount to communist witch-hunts?
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -11/+27Are they really asking this ***** question?
- bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -11/+26Gee I just don't know.... humm. It's such a hard question. ***** YES ALREADY!! IMPEACH HIM! Do you want a telegram? Perhaps a gold engraved, calligraphed, embossed, and waxed request on a silver platter via pony express? WHAT THE HELL ARE WE LIVING IN? It used to be that if you failed to uphold the constitution YOU GOT YOUR ASS IMPEACHED. Perhaps I missed the BJ amendment?
- paganmonkeyboy, on 07/09/2008, -10/+25So - are we ready to take to the streets in protest yet ?
How about a march on DC ? - mikecx, on 07/09/2008, -12/+27Clinton lied under oath. Now, it might have just been about a bj with some fugly pig-demon, but it was still a lie, under oath. That there is hard evidence of perjury, a crime no matter how you slice it. Was it valid enough reason to kick him out of office, in theory yes, in practice no.
Now, if you can point out the war crimes that Bush either committed himself or authorized (with sources and the heavily biased impeach Bush sites don't count, we're talking actual neutral sources) then yes, by all means try him. If on the other hand you just want to try him because you don't like him, hate the war, and always thought it was a bad idea, then no.
Think hard about your motives and your evidence because in the end it comes down to either hard evidence or nothing.
Digg me down for free thought and wanting substantiated facts before getting my pitchfork and torch. - inactive, on 07/09/2008, -11/+25Yes for the ***** thousandth time!
- Malacandra95, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16Warrantless wiretaps, detaining prisoners without habeas corpus, torture in defiance of Geneva conventions, which we are a signatory to... these are all acts the administration admits to. They're criminal.
- fuzzybeard, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15COOL! It's a mob! I'll bring the torches and pitchforks!
- AdmiralHalsey, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13The members of the executive branch are responsible for policies set forth by themselves. Their policies are corrupt with improper intention, so they misused power entrusted to them by us. It's our job to maintain the integrity of said positions (our government). These truths are self evident, making us all look like a bunch of ***** clowns. We need change, and it's not the kind obama is spewing
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10No, it's capitalism. You must have meant socialism. Oh wait we have that in Sweden. It must suck to be stupid. You have my condolences.
Fascism does not = economic system. Communism does. Fascists have highly capitalist economies. - Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14Protests don't solve a goddamn thing. We had the largest protest in our country's history in 2003 (over a million) and it was completely ignored.
Buy a rifle instead. You're going to need it. - FrenchAnarchy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12I'm tired of people linking to that stupid Jonah Goldberg book and pretending it means anything. It's the same thing as an Ann Coulter book, really. Anyways, fascism is independent of idealism and the opposite of socialism. Obama can't be a 'leftist socialist' and a fascist, unless you lack understanding of what the word means.
- fuzzybeard, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10In the grand scheme of history, they probably won't. As a people, we have become increasingly short-sighted and forgetful. As a nation, I fear that we are at the same point in history that Rome was during the height of Bread and Circuses. From Wiki:
"Bread and Circuses" (panem et circenses) is an ancient Roman metaphor for people choosing food and fun over freedom. It often appears in commentary that accuses people of giving up their civic duty and following whichever political leader offers to satisfy their decadent desires.
This is all starting to sound and feel uncomfortably familiar, at least to me. - pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10jonah goldberg is a ***** idiot:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ... - ordig, on 07/09/2008, -3/+12Can we at least vote all these ***** out of office?
- Malacandra95, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Well, if we need LESS government in our lives, then the Republicans holding the White House has been a complete and utter failure in moving in that direction. We've got more government power and less oversight.
And more debt.
Every conservative argument for supporting the Republicans has been demolished by this administration. - nickymouse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Most people think they are the same person.
- SIRBERUS, on 07/09/2008, -8/+16I mean this completely and honestly... Can anyone give a reason that he *should not* be tried for war crimes? Or at least some sort of crimes?
Maybe I'm naive, or maybe I just only associate myself with "thinkers"... but I haven't heard a valid, legitimate argument as to why Bush is not a criminal. - ferrell, on 07/09/2008, -17/+25***** YES!
- Bartboy919, on 07/09/2008, -5/+13Well, look at the bright side, at least its not communism!
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -15/+22I do know one thing. When I'm old and gray another 60 years from now.......I'm gonna piss on all of these old guy's graves.
- Ansible, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10Impeach both of the *****! Cheney's as good as in charge anyway, who cares if it replaces the pres. I want someone to take the fall for this disastrous administration.
- fuzzybeard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7It wouldn't take very long for that to happen. Between the plainclothes and uniformed members of the Secret Service, DC Police, Capitol Police, Park Service Police, & the Marine Barracks at Eighth & I; it would be a matter of seconds before bloodshed would begin.
- nickymouse, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Yes... because the Gitmo decision on the SC was really what he wanted.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Selective points...
---------------------------------------------
impeaching a president and nearly relieving him of office because of a lie in a civil deposition about blowjobs.
Yet
Attempted to impeach Bush over torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses, Kucinich's embarrassed fellow Democrats couldn't kill the measure quickly enough.
Why? Top Democrats are so complicit in what has happened since 9/11 that my guess is they dare not travel down that road. (Hello Obama, yes you voted for all of this didn't you!)
Bugliosi, a celebrity lawyer-author with a decent reputation, argues that because Bush misled the country into the war in Iraq, he should be held criminally responsible for the deaths of American soldiers.
Obama and John McCain should commit themselves to forming such a commission. For that to make sense, though, you'd have to ignore such inconvenient facts as McCain's own ambiguous stands on torture and his demagoguery over the supreme court's recent decision upholding the habeas corpus rights of those being held at Guantánamo.
But if Bush shouldn't be hanged by the neck until dead, as the ancient pronouncement would have it, he - and we - nevertheless must be called to account for what we have allowed to happen to our country. If we don't, then we are all responsible - if not for what happened, then for what is yet to come.
Emphasis...for what is yet to come.
-------------------------------------------
The US is screwed from internal and external political meddling. The Zionist brigade, The oil Brigade, The medical Brigade. Have fun sorting this out America. I doubt you can. You are governed by ferals, despots, leeches and thugs. Its so obvious and so bad the left hand......
Anyway, an opportunity presented is abused and milked to death. There you have the current white house. No one was watching, you loose! - emarkp, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Can't you people even get your history right? It was perjury and suborning perjury. Yes it was about sex, in a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case.
- LenBaird, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Torture=war crime. Even if you call it "enhanced interrogation techniques."
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -17/+22Only if we truly consider this a nation of law. Last I checked, it's not.
- superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9You don't actually know what "impeached" means, do you.
Hint - Clinton was impeached... - Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5And all the people they're connected to and work for. David Rockefeller, at the very least.
- minox, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5You mean you'd like to see Armitage tried, since he was the leak?
- filmbandit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5it's always and never with you, is it?
- mrsteveman1, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8No one is talking about illegal wars, the conversation is about violating the constitution, dumbass.
- bosssmiley, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Tar and feathers at the ready, oh mighty ringleader
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Not really, Nuremberg, and indeed all war crimes hearings, are only to create public spectacle and put closure to a traumatic event. Why else would only the losers be convicted?
- askantik, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Kucinich has produced 35 articles just for Bush, in addition to the ones he brought forward for Cheney. Of anyone in our government today who might have alterior motives, I can honestly say that it wouldn't be Kucinich. He cares about the nation enough to risk his re-election by something that may be politically unpopular.
- Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6This thread is being gamed hard.
- Lugano, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Save your breath, digg is not an open forum for discussion. It is one minded and if you have an opinion that differs from the mob you get death threats and insults.
- Zarchon, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Bravo, bravo! Thank you...
- ATLien74, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Why is that question even being asked?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no WMD's. Iraq did not attack the United States. - LenBaird, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Cognitive dissonance. You say the torture was legal because they weren't soldiers...except when they did it to those soldiers. And they scapegoated some lackeys for that, so all is well now.
And on the "let's start arresting all the presidents for war crimes" part. I am all for that. If they commit war crimes, arrest them and try them. I am betting we just need to get one, and the next one shapes up and realizes he/she isn't the king. -
Show 51 - 100 of 296 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is