What is Digg?152 Comments
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+94One part of being the "Good Guys" is that we're supposed to be BETTER than the "Bad Guys."
If the US had rounded up the Japanese Americans and put them in gas chambers, there wouldn't have been much difference left between us and the opposition, now would there? The fact that we put them in internment camps is already an ugly stain on our nation's history.
If we treat human life the same way the extremists do, then we're no better. We lose the moral imperative and it becomes not a battle of Good Vs Evil, but a battle us Us vs Them.
I'd prefer to be the Good Guy, not just "The Other Guy in the Fight." - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+66you are an ignorant fool
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -12/+54Perhaps you're not familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right." It's an oversimplification of things, but in this case I think it holds up.
- velocipenguin, on 10/12/2007, -22/+62This should have happened five years ago. ***** this administration.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Actually according to a study of the government released documents about the detainees:
# Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
# Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Mrkamikaze:
>Like it has been stated time and time again these people are not uniformed soldiers of a nation state. How they can have geneva protections is beyond me.
Well if we're at war, and they're prisoners, you have to call them prisoners of war. Or, if you like you can consult the Geneva Conventions themselves and read what how we agreed to treat prisoners, who qualifies, and why our international reputation is in tatters. The following is who qualifies for coverage under the GC:
>6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
>B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
>1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
That's directly from the GC. - Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Terrorists, enemies of the state, political dissidents or not. This is a great day for the underlying principles that founded the United States of America - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27I'm personally glad that the current administration finally decided to take a stand on one side of the issue...although I don't agree with that stance. It was ridiculous that they kept saying "we're at WAR", but then didn't give Geneva Convention protections. You can't have one without the other.
Personally, I'd rather have A) the administration stop calling this armed conflict a "war", B) no Geneva Convention coverage for the terrorists, and C) the terrorists treated like any other organized criminal syndicate (ie: gangs, mafia, yakuza, drug syndicates, et al) which is what they are. Give then jury trials, convict them and send them to Federal PMITA prison for life. Let the inmates deal with them in their own "special" way.
We give them too much power by treating them as something bigger than they are. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17how do you treat animals?
- phreel0aderr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Guantanamo, as a prison facility was shut down in 1996. It was reopened in January of 2002, only 4 years ago.
- Midas7g, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Today just seems like a "Breaking News" day, doesn't it?
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@p0s3r:
What they're doing over there in Iraq dosen't follow Islam. It's kind of interesting seeing the differences between extremists.
On one hand, you have the extremists in Iraq who as "according to the Qur'an" 'slaughter' the soldiers.
On the other hand, you have the guys in Palestine who say that they will not kill the captured Israeli soldier because the Qur'an "strictly" tells them to treat prisoners of war well.
Bizarre.
....And it doesn't help that you're a fanatic, either... - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15For the last time: Sarcasm doesn't translate!
Unless you're clever and can word your text in some way as to illustrate your intended sarcasm, don't.
While we're at it, simply saying something that's not true in a silly voice in real life isn't sarcasm either. It belongs on Seasame St's opposite day, and thats where you should leave it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Mrkamikaze,
what is also obvious is that you havent got a clue what geneva article three says. IT DOESNT MATTER IF THEY ARE POW"s, illegal combatants, or crazy terrorists. You have to treat them all as POWs until a competant tribunal(not how Bush uses the word but more like the international reconised court martial) determines their status.
I highly suggest you start getting your information from a more reliable source.
And before you complain a court martial can be done in total secrecy and these peole are alledged terrorists, a majority of them were NOT picked up by us troops.
And as for evi people they deserve a fair trial more than anyone else.
maloshavic got a trial
jeffery dalmer ate people and he got a fair trial.
Timothy mcviegh gt a fair trail
Gacy got a fir trial
bundy got a fair trial
Thats how we do stuff in america.. or how we used to. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Dear Thrasher:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14This is long overdue. the problem with Guantanamo is that we (the US) has spent the last 3 years in Iraq with the purpose of "spreading democracy". We claim that all people should be treated fair and equal and that we are a champion for civil liberties. "we're bringing freedom to iraq", yet at home we are doing the exact opposite. We oppress civil liberties, invade honest citizens' privacy with no justification (wiretaps, bank taps, etc.) and yet we still claim that we are the "land of the free" while we detain people in Cuba without giving them even the most basic rights that we grant our convicted criminals. Statistically speaking, there HAS to be at least one person in Guantanamo who doesn't deserve to be there. These people deserve trials, they deserve to be treated with a bit of respect until proved otherwise. Isn't that what our legal system is based on, "innocent till proved guilty"... until now I guess that was only for "everybody we don't think is a terrorist". At least some of the problems of this country are being corrected....
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Oh, it will take a lot more than that to wash away the stain Bush has left on the nation and on the world.
Trials for the prisoners and for the people who’ve violated the Geneva Convention would only change it's shade a bit. - wwm13, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Non uniformed combatants do not, under the Geneva Convention, recieve any protections. I am a US Marine. If I take off my uniform and continue to fight I am no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
- jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ex Post Facto dosn't apply in this case. No new laws have been passed, they have simply decided to obay the laws that already exist. If I were found guilty seven years after my crime, I couldn't claim ex post facto for the same reason.
In any case, I doubt punishments will be given to anyone. Also, I'll bet that within a week, the goverment will claim that they ALWAYS treated detainiees as POWs. Or else quietly ignore the ruling. - dootisterhans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8maybe we can just flip over the cushion
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I think people consider them relevant because they reflect an underlying method of government.
The DRM issue is a miniature ecosystem, but reflects the power hunger, and methods of control we've seen from guantanimo through to phone tapping and every other restrictive measure put in place by this particular administration. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Thats what we said about the Japanese during WWII, and it still sickens me to see that that's how many older people, my grandmother included, act.
The Japanese are far kinder than us Americans are, and I'm willing to bet that in 20 years it will be the same in Iraq. And yet people like you will never change and still think of them as animals... - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine - p00p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't think any of us who oppose the Guntanamo Bay prison turn a blind eye to domestic prisons. Most domestic prisoners did indeed have a trial, however unfair it may have been, so it makes it easier to discount domestic occurrences on a case-by-case basis and instead focus on this grave and large-scale violation of accepted human rights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Since so many of these "Breaking News" articles made it to the front page, expect their submission rates to tripple in the coming days. It's the beginning of something terrible.
- Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"First of all, from what I know USA never recognize the Geneva Convention, the only country in the world that has not actually."
That would be incorrect. The US absolutely recognizes the Geneva Convention and follows it when it's required. As the poster above said, these combatants aren't covered by the Geneva convention.
Secondly, all other countries in the world recognize the GC? You're telling me countries like Congo, Somalia, Iran, etc follow it letter for letter? You're just expounding your ignorance. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They don't only sue they kill http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/
- gabeN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wait... It's not April 1st... What's going on here?!
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6By treating them as poorly as they treat us, we become no better than them. I agree with you fully that it is disgusting the way these people treat Americans that they capture, but if we start treating them any worse than we would treat a German captured in WWII, or a crackhead arrested in Boston, then we might as well be cutting off their heads and making their friends watch. You call them savages because they don't give their prisoners any rights and do inhumane things to them, yet you suggest that we do the same things to our prisoners. And if we did that, we would be patriots?
"The words I speak are the truth and cannot be denied."
That attitude needs to be done away with. This "I'm right and anyone who disagrees is evil and I refuse to listen" ***** is how the terrorists operate. It should not be how the United States of America operates. This is how fanatical cults operate. Militant Radical Islam, the Fundamentalist Christians, PETA...
Most of the people we are "holding indefinitely" have not committed any crime, or attacked anyone. They have no chance to argue that fact, they are simply locked away. If they are guilty and there is proper evidence proving that, then of course they should be punished. "We think he might not like America" is not proper evidence of anything. That is is like if someone in your neighborhood shot at a cop. Obviously the cops don't like that, but they can't find out who did it. So they decide to take away every single person in the neighborhood to a prison on an island somewhere where they torture them for 5 years trying to get them to confess. When you are sitting on this island being tortured for 5 years, are you going to be glad that they let you keep your head, or are you going to be demanding to be given a chance to prove that you had nothing to do with any crimes?
Some people in the Middle East have done terrible things to Americans, but most of them have not. To do things properly we need to deal with the people who have actually committed crimes and not just blindly run around wishing everyone with one of those cloth things on their head died a horrible death.
"It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail" - Thomas Jefferson - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Dear Righties:
What ever happened to winning hearts and minds? - malorkus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, I was disgusted with the Bush administration when the DMCA was passed..... in 1998. Under Clinton. Face it, DRM has NOTHING to do with Bush. The Democrats are far closer to the entertainment industry than the Republicans anyway. You can't blame everything you don't like on Bush, only the big important things. Like I said, grow up.
- liquidizer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know none of these people have been given a fair trial and found guilty of any crimes - war, purse-related or otherwise. If they're terrorists, give them a fair trial, prove it in court and send them down. Otherwise, set them free. The justice system is there to protect everybody from abuses of power by the state. Guantanamo is a disgusting abuse of power by a state that ought to know better.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The terrorists won when you lost the willpower, balls and consciousness to defend your liberties AND your enemies liberties.
If you deny basic human rights to a person because he doesn't fit the profile of someone you deem "human" (or deserving of basic human rights), you already sold your country and the principles it used to stand for. Your whole country is going faster and faster down a slippery slope, and you can't even realize that.
You are responsible for all future misuses of those powers. - wyrdness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Concentration Camp: 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. 2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions."
Fact - The US has invaded a foreign country and has incarcerated citizens of that country in a concentration camp, without charge or trial.
From the sound of it, they have done this in contravention of both the Geneva convention and US law.
Is it any suprise that the US has lost credibility with the rest of the world? - Carnil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Breaking news: Digg invaded by a horde of Breaking news articles!! (sorry, couldn't resist)
- p00p, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Certainly terrorism is merely an invented justification for the expansion of US imperial control over oil for a coming world conflict.
- elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"the Japanese are far kinder"?! WTF, maybe you should tell that to the people that lived through the rape of Nanjing.
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You should have added /sarcasm there. People didn't get it.
- jonashwing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it's not over yet.
this ruling can still be made null by congress. - DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wait... I thought the sumpreme court already ordered this? I do remember a story about bush not being able to consider the gitmo prisoners "enemy combatants"...
- LukeD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The wole "no nazi reference on the internet" thing will probably get you dugg down, but you make a very good point.
- fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You mean to say that just because President Bush implies the people in Guantanamo are terrorists doesn't actually mean they are terrorists? And since when did the Supreme Court get to tell the president what to do? Next you'll probably be trying to tell me that the War on terror is not a good enough reason for the NSA to be spying on all of us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Tell that to the 100+ dead in India. That they were blown up by a bunch of fictional bombs created by the U.S. in an oil-grab scheme.
- Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This is good news. It's important for our (US) credibility that we abide by the rules we agreed to (Geneva Convention).
The "War on Terrorism" is differnet from other "classic" wars, and we should come up with rules for how to process/treat extra-national groups that engage in terrorism. In the meantime, the detainees are still citizens of sovereign countries -- they have rights. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...
- caudron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5right75 said, "Shame on the courts who decided to give these savages any right whatsoever. They deserve to be bombed to smithereens; we have had the common courtesy to simply hold them indefinitely. Our troops have no such courtesy."
Rights aren't granted by the courts. They are unalienable. They are natural and preexistent to any government..or at least that's the position of the writers of the U.S. Constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
The courts job is to correctly interpret that Constitution. Had they done differently would you have accused them of being Activist Judges?
And for the record I am not a liberal...or a conservative.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com - ewagnerjr2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6if they committed a crime against the US they should be tried, if not they should be sent home to their families.
- alrahman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5About time they did this!
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A Man for All Seasons:
Roper So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is a soldier's burden.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000873.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 