What is Digg?531 Comments
- booksnmore4you, on 10/15/2008, -14/+419History will not be kind to these last eight years.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 10/15/2008, -11/+184...or is it because Bush thought that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
...was in actuality...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfing
...or is it because he doesn't care about
the simple things, like basic human rights,
so long as he feels his actions justified by
the "greater good" that comes from 'bending'
some of the rules, most of the time?
Incidently, that's how dictators are made. - bitfreak, on 10/15/2008, -14/+159Guys, don't get too focused on waterboarding; this is but one method, and more importantly, start asking questions about the D wing at Guantanamo. Ask about restoring habeus corpus. Ask about accountability (this leaked memo helps with that part for sure). Ask about the detainees....how long will they be there, when will they have trials, and where will they go if/when released?
Guantanamo is a huge, huge problem, and will end up doing more for promoting and recruiting people towards the more radical strains of islam than anything Al Queda (or similar networks) could have ever done on their own.
Another swell gift from the Bush administration that will keep on giving. - Rotzooi, on 10/15/2008, -20/+149Sickening. The neocon Republicans have betrayed America and should be tried for treason.
- d2002, on 10/15/2008, -12/+139FTA:
The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.
The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.
The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval." - sheasie, on 10/15/2008, -7/+98smoking gun.
- lordbeaker, on 10/15/2008, -6/+75I'm sure most of the "History" has already been destroyed or being re-written.
- mickstephenson, on 10/15/2008, -8/+70What you mean is you would torture someone you thought might be a terrorist to get him to admit he is a terrorist, if you perceived your family could be possibly be the victim of some kind of future terrorist attack. Yeah that's definitively moral...
How about "I would blow up 2000 Americans, to save my families lives from the American aerial bombardment" - PrismoFillusion, on 10/15/2008, -3/+56When we waterboard, we ARE the terrorists.
- iamnotcreative, on 10/15/2008, -6/+51You do understand that the world is not like 24 and that 'ticking time bomb' scenarios are exceedingly rare, right?
- SteaminTmann, on 10/15/2008, -3/+41You really think so? I doubt my kid is going to look in his history book, and see "President George W. Bush started two wars, created a ton of debt and screwed up the American economy". I'll tell you what it's going to say... a blurb about 9/11, then about Afghanistan, then Iraq.(If they're not still current events at that time) Waterboarding? Pssh. Just as any other history book I read when I was a kid talks about the great depression, the gas crisis or any other terrible ***** that happened. W knows this, and he's right, they will vindicate him, because there's not going to be any seething rhetoric. All we as Americans care about is moving on to the next president, and putting him in the past. Just as it was with all the other terrible presidents, like Carter. The ***** the president, the shorter the blurb. The only people who will know, are the people who lived through it, like you and I, and all it will be is a story.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -5/+38I wonder if any hard evidence that actually prevented another 9/11 style attack resulted from torturing prisoners? My guess is that the answer is no, otherwise this information would have been leaked in order to justify the use of torture.
The "isn't torture justified to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack?" argument is a favorite of the Neocons. Especially the criminally insane Alan Dershowitz. He even takes it a step farther in his book "Is There a Right to Remain Silent?: Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11 (Inalienable Rights)". He argues that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not up to the task in a post 9/11 world. Dershowitz is a sadistic Fascist. I'm sure he gets perverted pleasure out of the thought of torturing people. - swr1ght, on 10/15/2008, -1/+33It was illegal when the Japanese used water torture on American soldiers in WWII. Those responsible were found guilty in American courts and the Tokyo War Crimes tribunals. It is still illegal today. And those Americans who have chosen to break the law in this fashion (from those actually committing the torture all the way to the top where it was approved) should be held accountable. Honor, integrity, accountability...these are good things...remember?
- PJ1967, on 10/15/2008, -2/+34Correction: the Bush Administration tortures people.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -2/+33what the hell are you talking about? "these people are killers". says who? did they have a trial where evidence was brought against them and they were given a chance to defend themselves? no.
"...these prisoners are lucky we have them and they're not in some arab prison.". why would they be in an arab prison? did they break a law? maybe we ought to have a trial where evidence is brought against them and they are given the chance to defend themselves. - aimhelix, on 10/15/2008, -5/+36Someone should be in the process of going to jail.. right now. What the hell is going on with that?
- wallyhartshorn, on 10/15/2008, -5/+35Yes, but would you torture someone who might NOT be a terrorist when doing so might ENDANGER your family's lives?
- owenblacker, on 10/15/2008, -0/+30But there's the thing. When you torture someone, you *don't* get "valuable information" from them. You get whatever they think you want to hear just so you'll stop.
There's a reason why evidence acquired under torture isn't admissible in our justice systems — it's because we realised, in the late Middle Ages and early Modern Age, that it just isn't useful. It's just a shame your Commander in Chief is too bloody stupid to realise that. - mickstephenson, on 10/15/2008, -10/+38Oh wow, like everyone didn't know this happened already.
- soomprimal, on 10/15/2008, -4/+28So what? Is Congress going to impeach? There's more than enough evil stuff that the Bush administration has done to convict, but Pelosi doesn't care much.
- DonKarnage25, on 10/15/2008, -4/+25Breaking News! The United States tortures people.
No *****. - inactive, on 10/15/2008, -0/+20And this just the only waterboarding case to go public, there must be a heck of a lot more made by the CIA. This presidency has been a disaster, I can't think of a worst administration, seriously, can you? I mean, I would've said Nixon's but with Bush's we just need the tapes.
- obliviousfool, on 10/15/2008, -3/+23Here's an idea. If you're doing something that you're afraid of getting blamed for, don't do it!
- MWeather, on 10/15/2008, -1/+21He opposed it before he supported it.
- pintomp3, on 10/15/2008, -5/+24"If it takes drowning some terrorist ***** to get the needed info, then I hope they do it!!!"
except it has been proven that torture doesn't yield reliable intel.
"As we've all seen, they have no problem torturing or cutting someone's head off in a split second to make their point."
so we become like them?
life is not an episode of 24. most of the people you are advocating be tortured have never been charged with any crimes:
MYTH: The detainees at Guantanamo are the “worst of the worst."
Fact: Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ... - SFBWork, on 10/15/2008, -13/+32Hey, if waterboarding is legal. Why not try it on Dubya?
- blackcloud333, on 10/15/2008, -2/+21Good use of past tense there.
- gopher043, on 10/15/2008, -1/+20so in other words, it's ok to do it to them but if they do it to us then they are sacks of *****?
- PhantomRogue, on 10/15/2008, -3/+22Hey Dirk, Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Torture has been proven to be useless, someone under duress will say ANYTHING to get it to stop.
It takes a bigger man to Apologize than it does to intimidate. I would love it if our next President goes on record to apologize for the short-comings of his predecessor. Its the first step into repairing the American way of life.
The only "epic failure" is that of our Governments ability to protect and sanctify the Constitution. - WoollyMittens, on 10/15/2008, -0/+18Torture gives you confessions to anything you want, just not truthful ones.
- Elranzer, on 10/15/2008, -1/+19There's already plenty of revisionist history. Look at all the books saying Reagan was a good president...
- wopbobaloobop, on 10/15/2008, -8/+26Disgusting.
- Dundasbro, on 10/15/2008, -1/+18There will be revisionist historians to come through and find out all this, there always is. Look at all the JFK books that are out nowadays.
- jmorato, on 10/15/2008, -2/+19You're missing the point.
They (al-Qaeda) never said they didn't cut people's heads off and then did it behind their "supporters" backs. Animals will always be animals.
It's about the extreme level of deception our leaders have been displaying that bothers me. - brjohnson789, on 10/15/2008, -10/+27B-b-but, we don't torture!
- IphtashuFitz, on 10/15/2008, -0/+17So you're implying that the US government should stoop to the level of terrorists and condone torture because of what the terrorists do? That would make us no better than them.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/15/2008, -1/+18You'll have to excuse the neo-con... the "its bills fault" is just a reflexive instinct...
Think Pavlov's dogs, just not as bright. - zip000, on 10/15/2008, -0/+16Well, children's history books might not call Bush out, but those written for adults likely will.
- jarjarwang, on 10/15/2008, -4/+20That isn't a news article, its an ad/excerpt from that stupid "Obama-nation" book.
- Vocklery, on 10/15/2008, -1/+17And after the public becomes aware of the situation, what happened, then? Our valiant Commander-in-Chief, White House Staff, and CIA allows PFC. Lynndie England and SPC. Charles Graner to be thrown under the bus for following the orders given to them, knowing that they were truly following orders as "good soldiers" must.
As a former enlisted man in the U.S. military, I despise those up the chain of command who will allow their subordinates to take the fall for the orders issued.
Now I have the proof to fully justify my feelings that the Bush Administration and CIA areas evil as they possibly can get.
And all those who would defend them, would you order a person to do your dirty work and hang them for doing it in order to save your own skin? If you wouldn't, I can't see why you would defend them. If you would allow such, you're just another rotten log in the cord as they are.
I am livid. - IphtashuFitz, on 10/15/2008, -1/+17Torture (including waterboarding, whether you believe it's torture or not) has been shown time and again over decades to be a lousy way to obtain information. The victim will simply say whatever the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the abuse.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -2/+17@PJ1967
The CIA has done this for years in Central America.
Look up "School of the Americas." - gthrank, on 10/15/2008, -0/+15Bush said clearly: "The United States does not torture".
Impeach him for LYING. This is a much more important lie than Clinton lying about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky - and he was impeached for that. - stinkymonkey, on 10/15/2008, -3/+17The problem is, when someone tortures your kid, your mom or your wife because they think and act exactly like you.
But you probably live in a "safe" corner of the world so you feel it will never happen. So its hard for you to truly understand the consequences of using torture against other people kids, moms, and wifes.
But I bet there is another issue lurking deep inside you. You don't care. And that is when humanity ends, when everyone thinks and acts just like you. - Zenham, on 10/15/2008, -2/+16If you don't have a problem with torture being carried out in your name, you, sir, are unfit for inclusion in society.
We should strive to be better than the people we call terrorists. - SirFragsMore, on 10/15/2008, -5/+19So? The US government gives billions to shady ass people.
- spamthecatcher, on 10/15/2008, -3/+16Yeah, al-Qaeda's evil. Gotcha. Totally with you on that point.
I'm not evil. I don't want my country to be evil. Torture is evil. - darkfate, on 10/15/2008, -1/+14Actually, I believe the primary job of the government is represent its populace. I'm not an idiot; I know there is plenty of people out there that want to kill me even though they don't know who I am. The point is that we need to show some humanity for the people being interrogated. We've become a civilized nation and techniques such as waterboarding bring us down to brutes.
- IphtashuFitz, on 10/15/2008, -41/+54BREAKING: Another Digg submitter who doesn't know the appropriate use of the term "BREAKING" and uses it to sensationalize an article in hopes of getting it dugg. A news story is breaking when details surrounding the story are likely to change. An earthquake can be considered breaking because damage/injury/death reports change as the scope of the quake is realized. The current wildfires in California are breaking because the situation can change on a moments notice. The fact that memos show the CIA & Whitehouse endorsed waterboarding is NOT breaking. What's likely to change significantly in this story over the next few hours/days?
Here's a not so subtle hint: If the mainstream media (like the Washington Post) doesn't use the word "Breaking" in their title then you probably shouldn't be using it yourself. - stinkymonkey, on 10/15/2008, -2/+15To all the supporters of torture.
You fail to grasp this concept because of the area of the world you live. Its most likely safe and you feel torture can never happen to you or your family. It’s for other types of people, in other parts of the world that you can't see or hear. It’s not for your local community, rounding up people because they are suspected of setting fires. That concept is laughable to you. Imagine your son or daughter in the wrong place at the wrong time. But don’t worry, that can’t happen…you are safe.
You fail to understand that mistakes are made and other people’s sons and daughters are picked up and tortured because of knee-jerk reactions and "carry a big stick" mentalities. But you don’t care because it doesn’t affect you. You won’t see or hear these people. You are safe.
You also fail to understand that torture is not effective and has never been proven to yield anything valuable, except what the torturer wants. Someone could torture you and make you sign a confession that you shot JFK when you were 8 years old. You can’t see that torture is used to justify a means, a war, a political point of view. But that won’t happen, you are safe.
You fail to see that your comfort level is based on the word "terrorist". A magic word that invokes visions of evil, fear, and mass destruction. You bought into that word and all its connotations. But there are many of levels of evil, and you don’t see the slippery slope. One could argue that a serial killer should be tortured into a confession. But don’t worry, you are safe.
You fail to see that you have the ultimate trust in all governments around the world. That what you can’t see or hear is fine. Your nationalistic view prevents you from seeing the global community and how it views your country. It doesn’t matter to you, because you are safe.
But worst of all, you fail to understand that torture justifies itself. It spreads. It lives. It gets used against our sons and daughters in wars when they are captured. You fail to see how this can spread into the mainstream, for the worst criminals we have, somehow sliding down into other lesser crimes as we get used to it and develop different techniques and justifications of its use as it becomes more commonplace. In effect, you have blessed its use. You gave it a seal of approval. And this time, you are not safe. -
Show 51 - 100 of 535 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is