Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Bush vetoes bill banning waterboarding
cnn.com — President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.
jrcarscadden- 3058 diggs
- digg it
- pdeco, on 03/08/2008, -28/+429I hope Congress can reach 2/3 vote and overrule this traitor of the Constitution.
- didiman, on 03/08/2008, -111/+16They won't, and good for Bush. Waterboarding is NOT torture. It does not cause any permanent physical damage. You pansy liberals need to wake up and join the real world.
- DinX, on 03/08/2008, -7/+77Can I try it on you then ?
- Xopl, on 03/08/2008, -7/+5If only we had a "Stop the Illegal Spying" or "Stop the Illegal Torture" march organized instead of a "Stop the War" march. You've picked the wrong fight.
- Charlotte_Web, on 03/09/2008, -2/+18"Can I try it on you then ?"
Full body cavity searches are also legal, and I'm going to guess that nobody is going to volunteer for that, either. - ThndrShk2k, on 03/09/2008, -2/+7"Full body cavity searches are also legal, and I'm going to guess that nobody is going to volunteer for that, either."
But thats to examine the suspect for any hidden items
Waterboarding is to simulate drowning so a suspect would confess. Although such dire situations, a suspect would confess to almost anything if they would get some peace (aka stop being fake drowned).
Drowning isn't pleasant, neither is being searched in every cavity. but a real search wouldn't kill you, a real drowning would.
I'd rather be strip searched than drown, that is for sure.- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1so just to make sure i got your point.
"but a real search wouldn't kill you, a real drowning would."
"Waterboarding is to simulate drowning"
whats the problem. key word here is simulate.
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1so just to make sure i got your point.
- tehpwnerofn00bs, on 03/08/2008, -6/+66Torture does not have to cause any physical damage at all. But that doesn't make it wrong. Psychological damage is almost always permanent and just as immoral as physical damage.
- Gonz037, on 03/08/2008, -26/+7I consider myself more liberal than not and I agree with you...
- NightVortez, on 03/08/2008, -4/+67We've executed several Japanese people for performing Waterboarding on us during WWII, was it torture then?
- chase001, on 03/08/2008, -6/+28Unfortunately for too many people when we do it, it's not torture. If brown people or people of a different faith do it to one of us they want to blow them up.
- ThndrShk2k, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4"Unfortunately for too many people when we do it, it's not torture. If brown people or people of a different faith do it to one of us they want to blow them up."
When america does it, it's patriotism.
When not-america does it, it's an affront to human liberties and facism/communism/terrorism/current media devil - Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Complete misinformation. we convicted A Japanese soldier for a WIDE RANGE of torture he committed. water-boarding was one, but it was a minor point. please don't lie and act like we convicted someone specifically for water-boarding.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -6/+33You are a sick human being. Amazing how much you are willing to give away to satisfy your fear of people half a world away.
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -31/+7I'm definitely not liberal, and I have no problem with waterboarding, assuming they do have a reasonable cause for using it. However, it is most definitely torture.
- chase001, on 03/08/2008, -4/+23What is the reasonable cause for torture? If you are being tortured at some point you will say anything your captors want to hear to make it stop. Information gathered during torture is not reliable not to mention we executed Nazis for torture. Why is it OK when we do it?
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -17/+5A reasonable cause would be that the person being tortured has information that could save peoples lives. Obviously something that doesn't happen very often, unless you're Jack bauer, but if it was to happen, torturing one person that could save other people is very exceptable in my book.
We killed more than just Nazis for torturing us. The Nazis were trying to take over the world, and torturing people to get info on how to hurt us. If we are torturing somebody today (assuming it's for a reasonable cause), it's to save people. - Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -4/+16Blaze - how do you know they have that information? I think you know the location of the secret base on Jupiter - but under torture you tell me everything about that base too won't you? The size, the Jupiterian's, the sex lives of them and the weapons....Of course it isn't real - but I am sure you'll flush out the most minute of details....
That is why torture doesn't work. You'll say anything to get it to stop - so all information is questionable.
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -17/+5A reasonable cause would be that the person being tortured has information that could save peoples lives. Obviously something that doesn't happen very often, unless you're Jack bauer, but if it was to happen, torturing one person that could save other people is very exceptable in my book.
- ThugThrasher, on 03/09/2008, -9/+4I dug you up because even though I don't agree that torture is acceptable in any circumstance, you are at least standing by what you believe in. If you're going to say waterboarding (and other forms of torture) is okay, you at least need the balls to admit it's torture.
- keeganspeck, on 03/09/2008, -1/+9Under the Geneva Convention, torture cannot be used, period. If waterboarding's torture, it's not to be used whether or not it works.
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1good thing they don't wear uniforms or anything else that would qualify them being under the Geneva convention.
- Shaman760, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5So is waterboarding going to be the preferred form of disciplining the conservative child? Why don't you waterboard your kids?
- blazes816, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Because my kids aren't terrorists.
- rficwizard, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2@blazes816: Who gets to decide that? Have those who the government is waterboarding been found guilty in a fair court? Have your children been found guilty in a fair court? What is the difference?
- chase001, on 03/08/2008, -4/+23What is the reasonable cause for torture? If you are being tortured at some point you will say anything your captors want to hear to make it stop. Information gathered during torture is not reliable not to mention we executed Nazis for torture. Why is it OK when we do it?
- an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -6/+25It is drowning. Let me drown you some and I will be able to get you to say anything, anything at all, to make me stop.
Hey how about giving us some examples where it has stopped an attack?
Okay- one. One example.
How about it?- xcheats, on 03/08/2008, -22/+6It is not drowning. Look it up. It provides an experience in which one might think you were drowning.
- an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -4/+34Waterboarding causes the filling of the lungs with water so that gas exchange becomes impossible.
Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
It is drowning that is usually arrested before death occurs.
You are suffocating a bound man with water. How the ***** is that not drowning?
Seriously. You do understand that that's what's happening, right? He is not being allowed to breathe. - an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -4/+24Still waiting for that example where it saved the Union, by the way.
- lostmyleggins, on 03/09/2008, -4/+4an0nymous - Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - cmackattack, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3failure; a single quote from someone in an organization that is know to lie
- an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -4/+34Waterboarding causes the filling of the lungs with water so that gas exchange becomes impossible.
- rz8472, on 03/08/2008, -1/+7I would also add that examples from the TV show "24" do not count.
- Brian7581, on 03/09/2008, -3/+3I was just reading the comments in this thread to see what people are saying. In regards to the actual topic itself I have no comment as of now. When I came across an0nonymous's response and those that agree, I must say I am appalled by your logic (or lack there of).
If an attack was stopped, then it didn't happen. Pray tell if it didn't happen, then how would we be able to give you an example of a "stopped attack"? Please don't tell me that the media would be the ones that display it and the internet sites that do, many bash as incredible immediately, so this sort of information is unfortunately not widely disseminated.
Things happen (and don't happen) for that matter in the world all the time. Don't be so naive and quick to judge.
- xcheats, on 03/08/2008, -22/+6It is not drowning. Look it up. It provides an experience in which one might think you were drowning.
- wootup, on 03/08/2008, -2/+37"When everything was ready, he said to me: 'When you want to talk, all you have to do is move your fingers.' And he turned on the tap. The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me.
...
This time I clenched my fists, forcing the nails into my palm. I had decided I was not going to move my fingers again. It was better to die of asphyxiation right away. I feared to undergo again that terrible moment where I felt myself losing consciousness, while at the same time fighting with all my power not to die. I did not move my hands, but three times I knew again this insupportable agony. In extremis, they let me get my breath back while I threw up the water.
The last time, I lost consciousness."
- Henri Alleg, on being waterboarded by French soldiers during the Algerian War of Independence
Sounds like torture to me. - dt3k, on 03/08/2008, -25/+6omg poor terrorist are getting water poured on there faces.
tis' a sad day.- an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -3/+18By losing our moral credibility on this issue we have assured the torture of our captured soldiers.
Don't make less of it is that what it is. That's a bitches way out.
If you approve of our torturing captives, at least be man enough to say so. - Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -2/+6a) A good chunk of these prisoners have gone on to walk free because they were found innocent.
b) Some of those in gitmo getting this AREN'T EVEN US CITIZENS. Keep your ***** out of my country, kthnks?
- an0nymous, on 03/08/2008, -3/+18By losing our moral credibility on this issue we have assured the torture of our captured soldiers.
- kuantan97, on 03/09/2008, -0/+18"You pansy liberals need to wake up and join the real world." Liberals, yes. You also forgot to mention libertarians, anarchists, folk of the "Old Right" persuasion, and just about anybody else with a modicum of sanity and a sense of humanity.
- cornswalled, on 03/09/2008, -8/+4Waterboarding: Verb: A forced shower. Traumatizes people for whom bathing is a foreign or "evil" concept.
- IIAmusedII, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1We'd all be much better off without people like you, didiman. Please take robinohio's advice.
- CryRightardCry, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1So that's our definition of "WRONG" now? Whether or not it leaves lasting marks?
I'll give you a few seconds to think about that and realize what a dumb ***** thing that was to say.
Man, you rightards have no ethics or morals.
Yet I can't help noticing most of the rightards are too cowardly to enlist, too. Winners.
- DinX, on 03/08/2008, -7/+77Can I try it on you then ?
- riverrunner, on 03/08/2008, -2/+47go to senate.gov and house.gov, find your senators, reps and contact them. the bill is called S.1943. it takes about 5 minutes. please be specific as to what you want and why without ranting and raving. thank you.
- RoboJesus, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4Are you sure? It looks like S.1943 was last active in August, and is not the current bill, but I can't find any information about what the current bill is actually called.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110 ... - gak001, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4"Hi, my name is_________ and I'm a registered voter in Senator/Congressman __________'s district. I would like to register my support for S. 1943, the bill banning waterboarding and other forms of torture. Thank you for your time."
The whole thing takes a minute or two tops - yes, it's that easy. - RockLobstah, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2As far as I can gather, Bush actually vetoed H.R. 2082.
"I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2082, the 'Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.'"
The bill includes:
"Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR020 ...
Basically, it encompasses S.1943.
- RoboJesus, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4Are you sure? It looks like S.1943 was last active in August, and is not the current bill, but I can't find any information about what the current bill is actually called.
- chase001, on 03/08/2008, -2/+18They won't because too many on both side value party politics over the Constitution.
- jimmyb3, on 03/08/2008, -23/+2Amen brother. I hate these double standard liberal pieces of crap. They'd bitch if we got attacked because he didn't get the info, and also bitch because we have the info due to waterboarding. Kiss my tail you America hating liberal pansies.
- mikelieman, on 03/08/2008, -1/+12It's not the "ticking bomb" hypothesis I disagree with...
It's all you "Soft-On-Crime" Pussies...
The *Torturers* are felons, who *INTENTIONALLY* chose to disobey the Law.
The *Torturers* can explain to the Judge and Jury why they chose to torture prisoners in their custody.
The *Torturers* can serve prison sentences if the Jury disagrees with their reasoning.
Why do you hate America and it's Laws?
Why are *you* committing the crime of Conspiracy by publicly advocating for the commission of Felonies? - bagelmaster, on 03/09/2008, -3/+3Yes, obviously if we hadn't tortured information out of some people we would have had more attacks in America by now. And you have proof of this where?
- lostmyleggins, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks
- mikelieman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1What planned attacks?
Where where they planned for?
When were they scheduled?
Who was doing the planning?
Who was involved in the operational details?
When were they arrested and arraigned on the appropriate Conspiracy
charges?
Where are they detained?
When is their trial?
What are the facts supporting your allegation?
AND
When is the trial for the TORTURERS?
If they HAVE HONOR, they would welcome the opportunity to be judged by a Jury for their choice to torture a prisoner in their custody...
- mikelieman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1What planned attacks?
- lostmyleggins, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks
- mikelieman, on 03/08/2008, -1/+12It's not the "ticking bomb" hypothesis I disagree with...
- fhornplayer, on 03/08/2008, -1/+6How many times has Bush vetoed a bill?
- someone173406, on 03/09/2008, -3/+11Over 9000.
- Dylson, on 03/09/2008, -3/+19327489237490623981230742307243112340712341234612347432764321762134763416124343123443216312743122764732438234234823872349291234897432794236723416239416941982341
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1until the last year or so. absolutely zero.
- Vodka2389, on 03/08/2008, -23/+10I'm about to get an avalanche of buries but...
Is a few seconds of simulated drowning with no lasting bodily damage really the most terrible thing in the world? In some parts of the world they would laugh at our outrage of waterboarding. It's one thing if we're talking about cutting off body parts, chemicals, or something of the sort, but a few seconds of simulating drowning? That's really what all the hoopla is about?
Now, if you wanna talk about potentially abusing the right to waterboard someone, that's another discussion. But if they absolutely had to get information out of someone for the good of our country, getting waterboarded is a pretty good way to go.- nycmac247, on 03/08/2008, -12/+4Are you PROUD to be an American?
'Cause I think you're a monster.
and P.S. honey attracts more bees than ***** - nationalist, on 03/09/2008, -6/+4PREPARE FOR -1000 DIGS!!!!
- GreyICE, on 03/09/2008, -3/+5What would be one of these situations where you have to torture someone for information? All 24-esque situations which involve incredibly intricate plans and retarded movie logic will be mocked.
- fangorious, on 03/09/2008, -2/+11You run the risk of bursting the victim's lung capillaries and drowning them in their own blood. Combine that with the fact that we prosecuted, and convicted, Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding in WWI and our own soldiers for waterboarding in Vietnam. It's also widely accepted that when put under such circumstances (remember death is possible here) people will just say what they think you want to hear to make it stop. The FBI already stated that information gained by the CIA waterboarding terror suspects was useless crap.
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1prosecuted, and convicted, Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding in WWI.
way to cherry pick your info there champ. the man you speak of was convicted of a host of different torture methods, it wasnt specifically waterboarding. and the other methods he used were far more brutal than waterboarding. i dont blame you for being against it, just be honest with your information.
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1prosecuted, and convicted, Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding in WWI.
- highstriker, on 03/09/2008, -2/+7It's a foolish thing to say that we can (or should) do something simply because it's okay in another country. If that's the case then it's okay to hang people who speak out against our government, because that happens in Iran. It's okay to commit genocide, because it happens in places like Sudan, where it's essentially considered okay (at least by the government). Do you see where that line of thinking can go? Just because someone else does something, doesn't mean it's acceptable and we should do it as well.
And waterboarding is much worse than you'd care to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding Please research these things, it's a definite problem, and is most certainly a form of torture.- yaddayaddayoda, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3We're talking about a technique that, if the interviewee lasts more than 14 seconds, the result is above average. Wikipedia says that one of them gained the admiration of the interrogators because he lasted two minutes. But he was waterboarded and interrogated, over and over and over and over, for months on end. In the end he would crack and start talking when the waterboarding apparatus was just shown to him. There is talk around the water cooler that some of these subjects have severe PTSD and cannot ever go to trial... they can't even dress themselves, they are so messed up. Are we human beings? And for those of us who do not like Clinton, can you IMAGINE what she would do with this power?
- stinger666, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8America: saving the world from dictators who torture their population. Oh wait..
- nycmac247, on 03/08/2008, -12/+4Are you PROUD to be an American?
- EatingPie, on 03/09/2008, -10/+10Both Obama and Hillary did not even vote on this bill. They weren't present for the vote.
For the veto, Bush is named traitor, but Digg's most popular candidate Obama didn't even cast a vote in the first place. Does that make Obama a traitor too?
-Pie- Bananas21ca, on 03/09/2008, -8/+2Their both running for president dumbass. How are they supposed to be present for a vote when their out campaigning?
- diothar, on 03/09/2008, -1/+7Stop signing your comments, Pie. We know who you are!
- diggingdownpie, on 03/09/2008, -2/+6I digg down all of Pie's comments because I'm sick of him signing every single one.
-Pie- diothar, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1That's a good idea. I'm going to start doing that too!
- aimhelix, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1It's not his fault. When he heard they were trying to ban waterboarding, he ***** his pants and voted against it - thinking waterboarding was the same as boogie boarding. What you gonna do.. its Bush. Look at the thumbnail, he's fascinated by and is wondering why there are 2 mics.
- digitronix, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3So far, it looks like it's only Dennis Kucinich. Nobody else in congress has the balls to show support for an impeachment (except for maybe Ron Paul).
- Monk22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1kucinich himself said that was more for show and didnt expect it to go anywhere. hence the being embarassed when the republicans voted to open it for debate.
- theuber1337, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Anyone who wants to make a claim like he should voluntarily be waterboarded, and allow their children to be waterboarded. In a "war" on an idea, waterboarding makes the US as low as the lowest of terrorists.
- Thex1138, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Bush love's his waterboarding...
- didiman, on 03/08/2008, -111/+16They won't, and good for Bush. Waterboarding is NOT torture. It does not cause any permanent physical damage. You pansy liberals need to wake up and join the real world.
- JuanBSU, on 03/08/2008, -10/+122FTA:
"Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them.
They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation."
The bill would also ban gas chambers, death squads, and concentration camps. Bush was overheard saying "It would be silly to remove these methods of torture. They have been extremely effective in the past and will protect us from those baddies!"- macweirdo42, on 03/08/2008, -2/+30I gotta admit - I'm a little baffled about why we stop at waterboarding. If we're gonna say that torture is okay, why not just go hog wild? But hey, I don't expect to get an answer out of this administration, not with all this doubletalk *****.
"We need to be able to torture people to get information! Besides, waterboarding doesn't count as torture!"- mistafreeze, on 03/08/2008, -2/+14heh heh, we need to stop them over there, heh heh
they hate us for our freedom, heh, heh, stopping torture is wrong heh heh
I got a big ***** and flew a airplane heh heh 911 - fluffyturtle, on 03/08/2008, -1/+6Because most of the worlds atrocities start with start with someone trying to do what they believe is good. Also, one terrible act by someone doesn't automatically mean they are capable of another; they still have their own set of morals which they will try to follow. However, and this is the really the key here and to most other issues, when we allow one atrocity the public and the officials are one step closer to another atrocity like above. Sooner or later that gap becomes a step instead of a leap.
- nycmac247, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3The institutionalization of this level means the next generation can go even farther down the road - if there is a next generation...
- lhbaker, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2The Nazis were very effective at bringing the worst out in people.
- mistafreeze, on 03/08/2008, -2/+14heh heh, we need to stop them over there, heh heh
- PantsTm, on 03/08/2008, -6/+0don't go taking the Nazi route on this one, while yes many of the tactics the would ban should be banned, it would have also banned good cop bad cop
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -3/+1and separating prisoners.
- MusicalGenius, on 03/09/2008, -0/+8TO PRESIDENT BUSH:
I suggest as an act of good will that you demonstrate your faith in this 'good' practice and allow yourself be water boarded by the U.S. Military in front of the nation so that we might better understand your actions as President. If it is humane, then there is no problem correct? After all, you have VITAL information as to the real reason we are in Iraq right? If we need the vital information to protect ourselves from the world that now hates us more than ever.... It is only within the legal and moral grounds of the Constitution isn't it?
If you can't take it, don't dish it.
- macweirdo42, on 03/08/2008, -2/+30I gotta admit - I'm a little baffled about why we stop at waterboarding. If we're gonna say that torture is okay, why not just go hog wild? But hey, I don't expect to get an answer out of this administration, not with all this doubletalk *****.
- ...---..., on 03/08/2008, -9/+178What have we become - certainly we're far from the ideals that our country used to represent? What's next - and to what ends do the means justify? Should we blow up civilians in mosques - should we kill of the family members of suspected terrorists - should we kidnap and behead people that we suspect of associating with terrorists? Sure these methods might have some effect - but is that who we are? And if so... are we morally superior to the terrorists? The lines have been blurred.
- joestump, on 03/08/2008, -5/+12I wish I could Digg your comment twice. Very well put.
- Mutton, on 03/08/2008, -17/+4I wish I could shoot rainbow colored lasers from my hands. Very well put.
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -4/+9"certainly we're far from the ideals that our country used to represent?"
i dunno man...i think we are actually returning to the ideals our country used to represent after a someone quick break from them. Lets see, the ideals this country was founded on and represented throughout history: genocide, slavery, segregation, imperialism, exploitation of the third world for profit...This country has never been the nice happy little progressive fantasy land so many of you believe it once was. Simply put this country has pretty much always sucked.- ...---..., on 03/08/2008, -0/+15That's not the ideals that this country was founded upon, written into the constitution - and the ideals that we like to show to the world as the face of morality. Yes - we've sucked in all sorts of ways - and we should be against that.
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -4/+4actually yes they pretty much are. The constitution was written by slave-owners who didnt believe blacks were humans, therefore the constitution did not apply them. This mentality was carried up to half a century ago and even lingers around today. Furthermore this country was founded by puritans, people who thought england wasnt strict enough and didnt properly follow religious laws closely enough so they moved here. The ideals that we want to show the world (i.e. the propaganda that we are the best, a nation to be followed, the most moral, etc.) are much different than how we act, simply saying you want to be a good and moral nation but having an entire history of doing anything but makes this not only a horribly immoral country, but a hypocritical one as well.
- philipl411, on 03/08/2008, -0/+7You do know that England end slavery only 40 or 50 years before the US and ended in their colonies after us?
- blate, on 03/08/2008, -3/+1What's that got to do with anything? Anyway, 40 or 50 years is a hell of a long time, especially if you're a slave
- deadcrickets, on 03/08/2008, -0/+6Not quite. The Puritans, and other religious groups, fled here due to religious persecution. It would behoove you to study the history of Europe from that time frame a little closer. The reason behind the line "Freedom of Religion" and Jefferon's, Madison's and Washington's clarification in letters about the separation of church and state is that they did not deem that it would be a good idea to allow any one theology to trounce another. This very thing was very common not just in England but across Europe. In England you would often have one ruler who was Protestant and another right after who was Catholic. Often with forced conversions and executions occurring due to the differences.
Too many modern Americans misunderstand it to mean that the country is meant to be godless. That is incorrect. It's meant to ensure one religion is not coercing everyone into it making this country a theologian paradise as they have in the middle east within Muslim countries. - GreyICE, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Too many idiots ignore the fact that no matter how you cut it, the Puritans didn't found America. Wake up, idiots! They were here 20 years after the first successful colonies! America wasn't founded on religious tolerance, it was founded on people who were looking to make money - a much more honest American legacy.
- deadcrickets, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1GreyICE
You are nearly almost correct. Money has been a big reason for much of the exploration that occurred to the Americas if you excluse the movements of the natives to her, the Vikings chasing the Picts and other various small groups. Europeans, or if you wish to be more specific the Spanish, had two main reasons for coming here. Economics in order to fund their wars and religion. A religious reason that also fueled the march west by Americans in the 1800s. The Manifest Dynasty is well known to most school children. What is less known is the way religion shaped Europe from the 1300s onto the 1800s and how the actions of the various kings and monarchs effected the exodus into the new world.
- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -4/+5quaxon, do you know what the world was like 200 years ago? Slaves were the norm all around the world, why would you expect America to be any different. Maybe you should be bashing the countries who still have slaves TODAY. Ohh, but this isn't about slaves because you love and support nations who have slaves right now. This is about hating America, shocker.
- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -3/+4First of all, name a country we don't give aid to. Question, are we giving aid to feed people or to keep people chained up?
If the US 'happily allows it's women to be kidnapped, then I'm sure there is some sort of evidence you're basing this on that you could post...
- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -3/+4First of all, name a country we don't give aid to. Question, are we giving aid to feed people or to keep people chained up?
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -4/+4actually yes they pretty much are. The constitution was written by slave-owners who didnt believe blacks were humans, therefore the constitution did not apply them. This mentality was carried up to half a century ago and even lingers around today. Furthermore this country was founded by puritans, people who thought england wasnt strict enough and didnt properly follow religious laws closely enough so they moved here. The ideals that we want to show the world (i.e. the propaganda that we are the best, a nation to be followed, the most moral, etc.) are much different than how we act, simply saying you want to be a good and moral nation but having an entire history of doing anything but makes this not only a horribly immoral country, but a hypocritical one as well.
- philipl411, on 03/08/2008, -9/+5Western civilization is the greatest ever to exists and the US is the greatest example of that civilization. Please, in your great wisdon, name one better?
- Skubadooba, on 03/08/2008, -4/+3on what merits are you basing your judgment of greatest civilization??? honestly, a basic look at history shows you what west civ has done in its path to the "top". just be honest with yourself and accept the means by which we got to where we are now.
and west civ isn't the only great civilization of all time by any means...there were and still are plenty from the east...Egypt, China, India, Mesopotamia (ie. Iraq) i mean if you wanna get down to it in a historical fashion...we are all from the east to begin with...cradle of civilization anyone???
- Skubadooba, on 03/08/2008, -4/+3on what merits are you basing your judgment of greatest civilization??? honestly, a basic look at history shows you what west civ has done in its path to the "top". just be honest with yourself and accept the means by which we got to where we are now.
- RandomGorilla, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2We're not exactly the greatest civilization, we're just better at killing than anyone else. After all, history is only recorded by the survivors.
- durdydevil, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I think we all too quickly fall for the illusion that we have created for ourselves of the U.S. being the nice "Big Brother" that just wants to look out for everybody . Of course we're the "greatest" western civilization because we've killed for it, and will continue to try and snuff out whomever tries to take the title from US.
- ...---..., on 03/08/2008, -0/+15That's not the ideals that this country was founded upon, written into the constitution - and the ideals that we like to show to the world as the face of morality. Yes - we've sucked in all sorts of ways - and we should be against that.
- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -6/+4Ok, you say the lines have been blurred, but you clearly see the moral differences.
"Should we blow up civilians in mosques - should we kill of the family members of suspected terrorists - should we kidnap and behead people that we suspect of associating with terrorists?"- lamech, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3That was connected to "What's next - and to what ends do the means justify?" It was simply stating that if you are willing to take the question "Do the ends justify the means?", and use it to harm others in a blatant disregard for human rights, what is to stop you from disregarding other human rights to prevent even greater tragedy. What if the potential gain from killing those people was extremely high? This stance would mean that you would do it for 'the greater good.' But torture and murder are not what our government stands for, we are supposed to defend freedom in our country...
This is unacceptable - this is not what our country was created for.
- lamech, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3That was connected to "What's next - and to what ends do the means justify?" It was simply stating that if you are willing to take the question "Do the ends justify the means?", and use it to harm others in a blatant disregard for human rights, what is to stop you from disregarding other human rights to prevent even greater tragedy. What if the potential gain from killing those people was extremely high? This stance would mean that you would do it for 'the greater good.' But torture and murder are not what our government stands for, we are supposed to defend freedom in our country...
- xerigen, on 03/08/2008, -2/+7Sounds to me like this terrorist mumbo jumbo is 21st century McCarthyism.
- drkroman9, on 03/08/2008, -3/+5Wasn't one of the main reasons we took the tyrannt of Saddam Hussein out due to the way he treated and ultiimately tortured people?
Isn't it a bit ironic we are doing the same thing?- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -8/+4If you equate water boarding three terrorists to save innocent lives with the genocide of a million innocent lives, yes.
- Stevanoski, on 03/08/2008, -4/+4Ooooohhhhh Snap
- lacronicus, on 03/08/2008, -4/+3Given that other bills allow the government to label *anyone* a terrorist, there becomes much less of a difference. Don't forget, Hitler blamed the jews for everything that had happened to germany for the 50 years before he came to power. Their loss of WW1 was because of the jews, their failing economy was because of the jews, were such statements true, they would have had plenty of reason to hate them. The thing is, they were blaming people who didn't deserve it, and those people were being tortured and killed because of it. How is that any different than torturing and killing "terrorists," who under current legislation could mean anyone from you to George Bush himself!
Tell me, how many innocent lives has this war on terror saved? How many families rest easy knowing they're safe from harm? I can assure you, not many. We have had over 3000 soldiers killed in one operation alone, with many more soldiers killed in others. Not to mention the countless civilian lives "lost* due to this war. Yet you sit here and try to tell me that we've learned from the mistakes of our past? You try to tell me that we as a country are so much better than the third reich, just because the people we've killed were lives not worth saving?- Stevanoski, on 03/09/2008, -3/+3Me and mine rest easier, thank you God for the good old USA, greatest country on God's Green Earth.
- masterm1nd, on 03/08/2008, -8/+4If you equate water boarding three terrorists to save innocent lives with the genocide of a million innocent lives, yes.
- leffunov, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4The right to bear arms is our third amendment, it is fully assumed that we can kill any attacker who is motivated to kill us with those arms. We should be willing and able to do whatever means necessary to save our own lives. Isn't torture humane in comparison with death when we perceive a mortal threat? Don't forget what our four fathers would have done with these people. Death by hanging or firing squad.
- pcghost, on 03/09/2008, -1/+32nd Amendment. And this is 2008. We are supposed to be more civilized as time passes, or at least that should be the goal.
- deadcrickets, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is the entire amendment. Keep it in context. Don't throw out the first part. It's one entire thought and statement. Not two seperate ones.
- ...---..., on 03/09/2008, -3/+3And let's not forget that these "terrorists" that we are referring to - the ones that are being waterboarded - are actually iraqi insurgent fighting against what they view as illegal occupation of their country. We are NOT talking about terrorists that are harming us in our homes. We are NOT torturing iraqis to "protect" American civilians from attack. Would we be ok if these tactics were being used against American soldiers? I don't think so - rightfully so. We signed the Geneva convention for a reason - and we should abide by it - because we are BETTER that the type of people that WOULD do these things to our civilians and soldiers.
- Stevanoski, on 03/09/2008, -5/+2Yes, let us not. Democrats, so brave at killing the unborn, so inept at killing terrorist.
- ...---..., on 03/09/2008, -3/+3A typical religious right uneducated broad brush statement that entirely avoids the subject at all. You forgot to use the term "tinfoil hat wearing" and "libtard". And don't forget - there were no "terrorists" in iraq before Bush put that term to them. They are insurgents - in the same light as the AMericans were insurgents that fought against the British in the revolutionary war. Were they "terrorists" too? Nope - they fought what they thought was a moral war - as are the insurgents. I don't agree with the insurgents but we are handling everything wrong. And - so many people blindly accept the notion that we are fighting the same "terrorists" in iraq that were responsible for 9-11 and that we are protecting American civilians in doing so. ok - right... keep drinking the kool-aid buddy...
- Stevanoski, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1You are wrong on nearly every account. Find one time I have ever used "libtard" and then I will discuss the other wrong headed arguments you present.
- ...---..., on 03/09/2008, -3/+3A typical religious right uneducated broad brush statement that entirely avoids the subject at all. You forgot to use the term "tinfoil hat wearing" and "libtard". And don't forget - there were no "terrorists" in iraq before Bush put that term to them. They are insurgents - in the same light as the AMericans were insurgents that fought against the British in the revolutionary war. Were they "terrorists" too? Nope - they fought what they thought was a moral war - as are the insurgents. I don't agree with the insurgents but we are handling everything wrong. And - so many people blindly accept the notion that we are fighting the same "terrorists" in iraq that were responsible for 9-11 and that we are protecting American civilians in doing so. ok - right... keep drinking the kool-aid buddy...
- Stevanoski, on 03/09/2008, -5/+2Yes, let us not. Democrats, so brave at killing the unborn, so inept at killing terrorist.
- joestump, on 03/08/2008, -5/+12I wish I could Digg your comment twice. Very well put.
- Nidy1, on 03/08/2008, -3/+84""The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said."
He really does sound like an excited school child.- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -5/+6If you have ever seen the show little bush it is so spot on it's scary.
- NightVortez, on 03/08/2008, -1/+9It's also so ridiculously unfunny that it's scary.
- bryceman111, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Oh, that show is so bad! Didn't you know?
- SoxSweepAgain, on 03/08/2008, -1/+12He's intellectually equivalent to a sixth grader, that's for certain. What an incredible moron; I so loathe him. His voice even raises my blood pressure. A truly despicable little child, backed by Machiavellian/Orwellian felons.
- tas08, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Well, he scored higher on his SAT than Kerry did.
- Eskapismus, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4you know.. if I was a religious dude, I'd probably say he's somehow sent by the devil... but since I'm not I say he's just an *****
- TripcodeMel, on 03/08/2008, -1/+1"I'm feelin' as giddy as a schoolgirl right now, Dick!"
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -5/+6If you have ever seen the show little bush it is so spot on it's scary.
- MBX1, on 03/08/2008, -13/+77Neo-Con-New-World-Order-Puppet-Scumbag
- Rambeezle, on 03/09/2008, -7/+1-illuminati-freemason-jews did 9/11-chemtrails... go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself
- MusicalGenius, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2He is only embarrasing himself infront of the 60+ people that have dugg him.... *cough*
I'm Conservative myself. I'm Paleo honestly but I think Neo's ruin it for the rest of the world that just wants a peaceful life.
- cdoughty77, on 03/08/2008, -6/+88How can this country not unite against Bush(Congress included) when he makes such poor decisions?
- Drkgodess, on 03/08/2008, -15/+11Vote more Democrats into office so they can override this ***** =)!
- coyoteblue, on 03/08/2008, -6/+20right, since the ones in office are doing such a good job already....
- pintomp3, on 03/08/2008, -0/+11they may have a majority, but they don't have the numbers to override a veto.
- highstriker, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3At least they managed to pass this the first time around- that shows that they're at least trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately they don't have the two-thirds majority to over-ride a veto.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -3/+5Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, they just don't have the balls to admit it
http://digg-inc.com/politics/Coward_Democrat_Senat ...
- coyoteblue, on 03/08/2008, -6/+20right, since the ones in office are doing such a good job already....
- Mutton, on 03/08/2008, -0/+15Partisanship.
- Dumbledorito, on 03/08/2008, -2/+21Educate Fox viewers that both "24" and "The O'Reilly Factor" are fantasy.
- philipl411, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2So is "Star Trek" and "Sex in the city" except that Sara Jessica Parker is ***** ugly
- NightVortez, on 03/08/2008, -0/+12To be fair 24 is a little more accurate than the O'Railly Factor, in fact, I don't think you can compare the two.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3While I agree that bush is a ***** idiot...Not everyone sees the world the same way the population of digg users see it.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, but not everyone agrees with you. - toosinbeymen, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1How? It's the goddamned rethugnicans and bushdog democrates in congress. This should be another litmus test as to who gets reelected for another term. Throw the dishonorable bums out!
- L4WL3RS34L, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Because instead of us actually doing anything, we just sit around on Digg making comments about how we should do something.
- Drkgodess, on 03/08/2008, -15/+11Vote more Democrats into office so they can override this ***** =)!
- infinity777, on 03/08/2008, -9/+149What a complete tool.
***** YOU BUSH- tracywood, on 03/08/2008, -11/+0Ha, and you think Obama is going to be better. He'll be different, but no better. O will say anything to get the power. Once that happens, good night. Though McCain would be a lot worse.
- dmva83, on 03/08/2008, -6/+3Now I see what all the fuss on Digg is about.. people vote up someone just because he bashes a political figurehead, instead of lending something useful to the topic..
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Comments such as ***** THE RIAA, ***** SCIENTOLOGY, and ***** BUSH always get absurd amounts of diggs. You don't need to have anything to say to get attention here.
- diggingaround, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3The should put him in illustrated dictionary as a "tool"=GWB (picture)
- tektalk, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1He should also be the definition for moron as well.
- tektalk, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I second that opinion.
- doxx, on 03/08/2008, -7/+63All I can say is "What the *****?!"
I live in the country of California now, I don't to be part of this *****.- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -14/+5I think california would be better off to be given back to mexico at this time. Although mexico has its own problems they are not running an empire, killing, raping, torturing innocent people and stealing the resources of other nations so their businessmen can make billions.
- philipl411, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2Yes, Mexico is a cess pool of poverty and is a third world country
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2If Mexico is so great, why not just immigrate there now?
- tadhgisaledgend, on 03/08/2008, -1/+7Don't forget throwing a puppy of a cliff!!
- ru1dt, on 03/08/2008, -0/+9see you down in Arizona Bay...
- MindTrigger, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2Dugg for Tool reference.
- DTJunkie07, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2It was actually a Bill Hicks reference before Aenima
- mrhedges, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0It's a reference of another reference. Whoa.
- MindTrigger, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2Dugg for Tool reference.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4isn't this how the civil war started?
- doxx, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Maybe it's time there is one
- Darksoul, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah because I mean we have jets, tanks, submarines, battleships, helli's, carriers, fully automatic weapons, satellites, nukes and all the other ***** that the armed forces have at their command what are you both ***** stupid...........
- Railz, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, California does have all that.
- likwidfuzion, on 03/09/2008, -7/+1California is a state.
- accn112, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1the sarcasm is completely lost on you
- diothar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1wow, didn't get the joke, did we?
- ubergeek09, on 03/09/2008, -5/+1Commiefornia? Oh you mean that one communist country where everything is illegal oh yeah.
- j0313971, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1your comment has no basis on fact
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -14/+5I think california would be better off to be given back to mexico at this time. Although mexico has its own problems they are not running an empire, killing, raping, torturing innocent people and stealing the resources of other nations so their businessmen can make billions.
- mddawso, on 03/08/2008, -8/+237I think Bush needs to get waterboarded.
- Picaroon, on 03/08/2008, -15/+6So basically, it's not okay for actual terrorists to get waterboarded, but it is okay for him?
I'm against ANYBODY in US custody being waterboarded.
Sometimes I wonder if people don't hate Bush more than, say, Osama. It kind of scares me.- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -16/+3Of course people hate him more than Osama. Hating Osama isn't the cool thing to do, so why would liberals do it?
- sfacets, on 03/08/2008, -3/+13Many Americans hate Osama, more people in the world hate Bush.
- beankitty, on 03/08/2008, -8/+4Yeah. It is okay for Hitler to be waterboarded too. You don't agree? Mister bleeding heart liberal?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -4/+9 Not sure that is the case, but, why wouldn't Americans hate Bush more? Both attacked America - one killed 3000, the other 4000. One took trillions of your dollars, and turned your children into indentured servants. Your dollar has collapsed, your trade deficit is huge, your reputation shot - and all of that inside of 7 years? It wasn't Osama that did that to every American.
Misdirection FTW.
Just saying. - Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -6/+3Osama was put up by the CIA dumbass. It's a puppet so these Neo-Con Military Industrial Complex people can scare ignorant sheeps like you into bogus war on terror and that it will be a thousand years war.
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -5/+2Cool! Now try to come up with one that shows how the government is controlling the floral industry as a tool to reinstate slavery.
- fhornplayer, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Well, it isn't torture...
- Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3But Bush just said it isn't torture!
- sfacets, on 03/08/2008, -10/+6He should be waterboarded with HOT OIL.
- nero28, on 03/08/2008, -5/+1Bravo!
- creationism, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4This would be fair since he himself does not think it is torture.
- likwidfuzion, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4He probably thinks waterboarding is a type of surface water sport.
- digitallysick, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Yes we should demand that he try it in public, after all he doesn't think its torture so he shouldn't have a problem giving a demonstration right?
- Rambeezle, on 03/09/2008, -2/+0I don't think any of you understand how many terrorist plot have been foiled using advanced interrogation techniques. You would rather have innocents die than allow suspected terrorists be uncomfortable. You are pro-civilian death.
- TheControversy, on 03/09/2008, -3/+0That is one of the most hypocritical statements that I have heard on digg. That you all think that waterboarding is torture, yet you would want to do it to someone else. Typical diggers. And his comment got 186+ diggs. If you were in another country they would have never had this debate they would just do it and not care what you think. Grow up people, please. It's not as bad as the MSM puts it.
- mddawso, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Before a cop is given a pepper spray, they get pepper sprayed.
Before you authorize the use of a torture technique, you should have to experience the torture technique.
- Picaroon, on 03/08/2008, -15/+6So basically, it's not okay for actual terrorists to get waterboarded, but it is okay for him?
- leadcrow, on 03/08/2008, -5/+82The headline could just as well have been "Bush says '***** you' to 8th amendment"
- tarbaby10022, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2You could simplify it further by saying "Bush says '***** you' to everyone, again"
- funkywood, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Exactly. If the 8th amendment doesn't mean anything then what good is another bill?
If you can't even obey your own laws why should the terrorists? - tas08, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Darn it. I had no idea P.O.W's were protected by the same constitutional rights as American citizens.
- PeterODactyl, on 03/08/2008, -0/+56Nothing he does surprises me any more.
- TeCuervo, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3I'd be surprised if her followed the law...
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2He isn't going to do that, don't worry.
- mcm020, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1So it's a torture that simulates drowning but causes no physical harm? Who gives a *****, you guys are just looking for *****. Down down down I go.
- TeCuervo, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3I'd be surprised if her followed the law...
- echolyean, on 03/08/2008, -1/+47Here's the problem with this. Well one. In war, both sides think they're correct. And while war really determines who's left, not who's right, the US Government sanctioning such acts to prisoners of war provides little in defensive arguments against the same acts happening to our people when they are captured. You can't condone an act when it benefits you and condemn it when it hurts you.
- metalkills, on 03/08/2008, -1/+5finally! a sensible comment about the topic instead of the "bush sucks! he should die!! lets hang him for war crimes" ***** that flys around here regularly. its about time.
- jakefloyd, on 03/08/2008, -0/+8Waterboarding potential terrorists or whoever the government thinks are potential terrorists neither benefits nor hurts me but I'm still against it.
- Gemfinder, on 03/08/2008, -0/+10Dugg, but would like to point out: It does hurt you, because you're potentially on the list. Remember Hoover? "You're a Commie if I say you're a Commie." Remember last year, when Bush declared he held the sole and overriding authority to declare whether or not any individual was a terrorist?
- Rambeezle, on 03/09/2008, -3/+0I don't think any of you understand how many terrorist plots have been foiled using advanced interrogation techniques. You would rather have innocents die than allow suspected terrorists be uncomfortable. If you are against water boarding you are are pro-civilian death.
- echolyean, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2If you are for water boarding you are for being water boarded.
- alappat1, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3And ofcourse you know exactly how many terrorist plots have been foiled by these methods. You also have proof that these 'plots' were not just the delusional screams of a man willing to say anything to stop the torture,... so please show us this evidence
- Rambeezle, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted.
- erics287, on 03/08/2008, -5/+30This is an outrage!
- robocop1, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/buttboy111/ ...
- theghoul, on 03/08/2008, -6/+96This ***** is unbelievable.
Welcome to the human rights violators list America. How are we different from Iran again?- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -1/+19Lessee...we don't hang folks for being homosexual. So there's one difference for you.
- CaviMike, on 03/08/2008, -2/+14Iran doesn't have gay people.
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -0/+5Well, technically, I'd say that's true after they kill them.
- pintomp3, on 03/08/2008, -3/+13but we do execute innocent people. aren't we supposed to be a beacon of justice and freedom? not simply "less evil"?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -2/+7True - what is your population under arrest? Irans? How about as a percentage of population? What is the number inside that are there for cannabis possession?
Different - but not necessarily better. - unmarked, on 03/09/2008, -2/+6Well, don't treat gays equally either, especially compared with most European countries. We may not hang homosexuals, but they are 2nd class citizens here. Hell, we are still trying to get a handle on treating blacks equally.
- CaviMike, on 03/08/2008, -2/+14Iran doesn't have gay people.
- metalkills, on 03/08/2008, -5/+0we have better TV
- bxblox, on 03/08/2008, -3/+2There are no homosexuals in Iran.
- Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2You have nukes.
You're occupying foreign countries.
You have far more in prison.- Rambeezle, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2And you don't have many in prisons because you excel at government-sponsored murder. Iranians are not Arabs but they are ruled by them; and with tragic consequences.
- Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I'm English you idiot.
- Rambeezle, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0Ok, then everything you listed in your first post applies to England as well.
- Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I'm English you idiot.
- Rambeezle, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2And you don't have many in prisons because you excel at government-sponsored murder. Iranians are not Arabs but they are ruled by them; and with tragic consequences.
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -1/+19Lessee...we don't hang folks for being homosexual. So there's one difference for you.
- kkeith02, on 03/08/2008, -3/+45Didn't people get hanged for this?
- pintomp3, on 03/08/2008, -0/+16they looked different than us and spoke a different language, so it's ok.
- exronin, on 03/08/2008, -3/+26From the article:
# Bush: Wrong to ban "practices that have a proven ... record of keeping America safe"
# Bill would also ban beating, electrocuting, burning, using dogs
# Also would ban stripping detainees, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts- Sandurz, on 03/08/2008, -2/+8Do you know how many terrorist attacks would've happened had we not been able to force prisoners to suck our dicks?
Too many. Sometimes, you've got to take a mouth on the dick for freedom.
- Sandurz, on 03/08/2008, -2/+8Do you know how many terrorist attacks would've happened had we not been able to force prisoners to suck our dicks?
- rolii, on 03/08/2008, -4/+29The nightmare that this man's presidency has become will soon be over.
- quaxon, on 03/08/2008, -0/+9the sad thing is we need a change in direction, not director. By the way things are looking we have no chance of any policy change.
- AriaStar, on 03/08/2008, -0/+7Not soon enough.
- pintomp3, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2but we still have a couple war mongers running. some candidates won't change our foreign policy direction:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
mccain is a war monger who believes the us should dominate the world. hillary voted for the kyle/lieberman bill giving bush the authority to take action against iran. she also voted against banning the us of cluster bombs:
http://www.forward.com/articles/back-bill-to-ban-c ...
obama appears to be at least slightly better than the other two. - hmmdar, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1so you think
- MBHockey, on 03/08/2008, -4/+20Can he just resign already?
- sjmueller, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2So that Cheney, the devil incarnate can take over? No thanks... unless he takes that whole got-damn administration with him.
- MBHockey, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3I'll take option B ;)
- Gemfinder, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Hillary would cede the race and endorse Barack Obama first.
- blackjack75, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1He hasn't reached 0% approval rating. Then he'll consider quitting. I think he can make it before the elections.
- sjmueller, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2So that Cheney, the devil incarnate can take over? No thanks... unless he takes that whole got-damn administration with him.
- Ell3, on 03/08/2008, -50/+7As well he should. Ever notice how America's liberal cultural Marxists are always on the same side of issues as America's enemies? Learn from that!
- nblsavage, on 03/08/2008, -2/+29Um...like human rights? How terrible!
- ...---..., on 03/08/2008, -3/+24yeah - ok - like the liberals that believe in the constitution - and the rule of law - and checks and balance - and oversight of government power - and DEMOCRACY - which means by the people for the people. Right, we liberals are so weird...
- eir574, on 03/08/2008, -2/+20Do you seriously believe that liberals are on the side of the enemy? (Or, maybe you meant only those liberals who are also cultural Marxists?) I know conservatives who despise the idea of torture and are embarrassed that so many people in the Republican party are supporting it. Does that mean that they're on the side of the enemy, too?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -3/+24DO you even know who American's enemies are?
I'll give you a hint, they aren't across the ocean. - Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Ah, exhibit a: The Conservatives v Liberal political mentality that the world laughs at.
PS: http://eeggs.com/items/47951.html
PS2: Do you even know what a Marxist is? I doubt there are but a handful in the US. - pimpofpixels, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1What you don’t understand is…
Wait..
What the hell does this have to do with communism? - bowens44, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3You and bush are Americas enimies you freaking moron
- swrostmore, on 03/08/2008, -4/+78McCain voted against the bill and supports the veto.
- SQLserver, on 03/08/2008, -0/+8What about Hillary?
- NightVortez, on 03/08/2008, -8/+4No he doesn't....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...- Magicmasta, on 03/08/2008, -1/+8That article says he urges the president to veto :/
- TheSeptimHeir, on 03/08/2008, -13/+2McCain was also tortured in a POW camp. Sorry, but if I was tortured for five years in a POW camp, I'd be reluctant to support this bill too.
- fhornplayer, on 03/08/2008, -1/+10The bill is banning torture, in case you missed that.
- TheSeptimHeir, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1And torture helps keep our country safe, in case you're not a Foreign Intelligence Officer serving the country abroad.
- noodle469, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4so he was tortured in Vietnam so he should support torture here???
- fhornplayer, on 03/08/2008, -1/+10The bill is banning torture, in case you missed that.
- ubergeek09, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Sorry I buried you I mean to digg you :(
- BabyDaddy1972, on 03/08/2008, -5/+301-20-09. 'Nuff said.
- beankitty, on 03/08/2008, -2/+6A lot of lives will be a lost - and a lot of people will suffer - until that day. Do we wait around and deal with it? I just don't know.
- Gemfinder, on 03/08/2008, -2/+4[continuing to touch wood]
- Treason, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3End of an error
- siszam, on 03/08/2008, -6/+15In the past he also vetoed banning mercury in vaccines. He doesn't try to hide his intent to harm people. I don't understand why anyone still trusts the government on any level.
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Trust it or not the government is still what provides hundreds of services and keeps you safe. I may not trust Bush but the government around here provides plenty of services that I've never had issues with.
- Coven, on 03/08/2008, -3/+26Look at that ***** eating grin in the photo. Makes you want to bash his face in with a bowling ball. I hope when he is rotting in prison for war crimes they waterboard his ass so he knows exactly what he made "legal".
Please Congress, come to your senses and override this *****!- diggingaround, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3That's a picture of a complete retard with ***** of money made by killing people around the world.
- AriaStar, on 03/08/2008, -20/+24Let's waterboard his kids.
- tadhgisaledgend, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3Too far man :(
- metalkills, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3grow the ***** up cool guy
- Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Well if it's not torture it must be...a new water park attraction!
- AriaStar, on 03/08/2008, -8/+28We all know how effective torture during the Salem Witch Trials was, how many witches it prevented from harming others. *rolls eyes*
- nero28, on 03/08/2008, -0/+5Actually, the one test to see if you were a witch was to tie your hands and feet together, and throw you into a tub of water. If you floated, then God's water had rejected you and you were a witch. If you sank, then the water had accepted you and you were innocent-however, you were still dead because you sank and drowned.
- BedPost, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Indiana Jones would've sunk... and escaped.
- Thing2, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Ouch! I do believe that's check and mate for Aria.
- nero28, on 03/08/2008, -0/+5Actually, the one test to see if you were a witch was to tie your hands and feet together, and throw you into a tub of water. If you floated, then God's water had rejected you and you were a witch. If you sank, then the water had accepted you and you were innocent-however, you were still dead because you sank and drowned.
- Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -8/+12Absolutely disgusting.
These corrupt Neo-Con bastards need to be tortured and put in prison camps. But first declare them war criminals and traitors against humanity.- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3I thought torture was wrong and human rights are all that? I'm for human rights, but you can't say "We can't torture people! Let's torture people!" without sounding like a hypocritical jackass.
- Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -2/+1Not them.
They brought so much bad to this world, killed hundred-thousands of iraqis and thousands of americans. They tortured innocent people at abu-ghraib and want to continue to detain people without giving them any civil rights.- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -3/+1And? The people we're trying to waterboard have also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans. They torture innocent people. They do it to hurt people, we do it to save people.
- Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -2/+3"we do it to save people"
Where did you learn that, on Fox' "24"?
Grow up please.
It's like Bush burning every aspect of the constitution to implement faux security for ignorant brainwashed people like you. - blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -2/+2I'm ignorant and brainwashed because I disagree with you? I think you're ignorant as to the meaning of 'ignorant'.
- theuber1337, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I don't really agree with blazes stance, but you do sound like a hypocritical jackass. Those in our government responsible for these actions should be given a fair trial for their accusations and sentenced as the law sees fit. Torture is never right.
- Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -2/+3"we do it to save people"
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -3/+1And? The people we're trying to waterboard have also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans. They torture innocent people. They do it to hurt people, we do it to save people.
- Betrayal, on 03/08/2008, -2/+1Not them.
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3I thought torture was wrong and human rights are all that? I'm for human rights, but you can't say "We can't torture people! Let's torture people!" without sounding like a hypocritical jackass.
- Dumbledorito, on 03/08/2008, -1/+6So I wonder if he just fantasizes about doing this kind of thing and doesn't want to ban it for that reason, or if he's trying to keep him and his cronies from going to jail for authorizing this stuff.
- sinisterbob, on 03/08/2008, -3/+12Holy ***** *****.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -5/+19Yepper - Are you proud yet America? Remember Saddam? Remember those lies? Remember all the warnings people gave you guys? Saddam wasn't the bad guy, they guy most Americans were tricked into thinking you couldn't question was.
- Picaroon, on 03/08/2008, -4/+11Wasn't the bad guy? Yes he was. No rational person disagrees that Saddam was a bad guy. Perhaps you disagree with our methods of removing him with power, but no person in their right mind would think he wasn't a bad guy.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -7/+3In a global sense he wasn't. He was an annoyance, unable to do much beyond his boarders. If he was a medical condition, he would have been a pimple.
What has happened, in a sense, is getting rid of the pimple, by way of cancer. Was Saddam the bad guy? Maybe to those directly under him - to the 4000 American service men that died because of the lies Bush and his elk? Not a chance - but you know who was an enemy to those servicemen ? ?
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -2/+5So it's fine to kills and torture people in your own country? I get it now.
- GreyICE, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Well lets see, we've killed more people in his country than he did over a similar time frame, so relatively, yes, Saddam was a huge improvement on the alternative.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3Not at all - but it isn't an outside's force to effect that change. Change must come from within the country - not from an outside force. To do that - it is inevitable that the local population sees you as also an invader.
Any change from a country has to come from within. So was it right? Not at all - but it wasn't anyones responsibility to do anything about it, until the local population had enough and stood up - then, maybe covertly help them, but any obvious assistance effectively means you are invading a country. Which generally pisses off the country.
This really isn't rocket science.- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -3/+2How would they stand against him? Why shouldn't we help them? I'd rather the entire world hates us, and save one person, than to let that person die because we were too worried about our reputation. People like you need to look past social standings, and instead of going on and on about how important human rights are, start showing that you care about them.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -2/+3Blaze - you are making an emotional decision that ends in hurting yourself, and those you are trying to help. How has the US's envolvement in Iraq helped those that were under Saddam's thumb? Are they free? Nope - they are just under a different thumb. You haven't done anything other than hurt people - because the assuption going in was that they would want this - because we would want this - but they aren't like us - they are different and look at the world differently.
Everyone - including those that pushed this damned thing - knew how this would end up. What did Cheney say about it back in the 90's? Why didn't Bush Sr. push into Iraq after the Gulf War? Because they knew - just as everyone warning the US in 2003 - that you can not effect change as an invading army under any long term situation.
NOw, how would they stand against him? How are they standing against the US today? Agreed, it was harder then because they viewed Saddam, as bad as he was, as one of their own and he helped a portion of them. The US - isn't one of them - and so all factions can agree to go after the US. Which is why I have said what I said...
It isn't nice - but what have the 4000 American lives bought? What about the countless Iraqi lives? All because you think you know better and can save people that don't know they need to be saved? Sounds sorta like what the Islamic fundamentalists want.
- blazes816, on 03/08/2008, -2/+5So it's fine to kills and torture people in your own country? I get it now.
- Yatata, on 03/08/2008, -4/+5do some foreign policy research and it will help you to understand the truth about the US government. If the american people would make the effort to educate themselves they wouldn't be lumped into the same pot as their rape and pillage government. they could go back to wearing their OWN flag on their backpacks and start rebuilding the constitutional nation the US was meant to be.
Waiting2awake is right. if you do some homework - the US government comes out as the clear winner for the Dr. Evil award - wayyyy ahead of the petty dictators. But your media will never let you learn this.... if you can answer the big WHY on that one that's one toe out the door toward a personal awakening.
"spreading democracy" is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the american people and the world.- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -2/+2so get the ***** out and stop bitching?
Yeah our government has made some ***** moves, but we have also done a lot of good for the world, i hate it when people try and make the US look like Nazi Germany. - Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Monkey,
It is true you guys have done a lot of good *****. You are correct with that - that is why on Sept 12th, 2001 the entire world stood side by side with America. Iran, Russia, China, your normal Allies, small nations - heck everyone. It truly was a day that changed the world, in so much as at that moment we were closer to world peace than we ever were.
But then the lies, and more lies, and the defending of the lies. The shouts from Americans about "with us or against us", and "might makes right". We put up with freedom fries, and insults about the UN and anyone that attempted to point out the problems. After 7 years of that crap - can you really expect anything else?
How many innocent people have died in the last 7 years? And you are pissed because someone points out how similar history has happened in the past?
If you are that pissed, why not stop it?- Monkeywithacold, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Right, I agree, I am pissed about that. How many have died in the last 7 years? Way too many, I totally agree.
But how many lives have americans saved in the last 7 years, as a result of our donating, medicine...etc.
How many people have clean water because of organizations started within the US?
No this doesn't excuse it, but I don't think we are the absolute scum of human life. - Yatata, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1happy birthday
part 1: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=j33TSxTMVJ8
part 2: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vE871EIk2Vo&feature= ...
part 3: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AymCw7RyIT0&feature= ...
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Right, I agree, I am pissed about that. How many have died in the last 7 years? Way too many, I totally agree.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -2/+2so get the ***** out and stop bitching?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/08/2008, -7/+3In a global sense he wasn't. He was an annoyance, unable to do much beyond his boarders. If he was a medical condition, he would have been a pimple.
- Picaroon, on 03/08/2008, -4/+11Wasn't the bad guy? Yes he was. No rational person disagrees that Saddam was a bad guy. Perhaps you disagree with our methods of removing him with power, but no person in their right mind would think he wasn't a bad guy.
- jubilee123, on 03/08/2008, -2/+71will someone just give him a blowjob already so america can have a valid excuse to impeach him?
- MindTrigger, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3Absolutely brilliant!
- JedicodeWarrior, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Here here! I second that!!
- mhuggins, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Maybe he'll blow someone else...
- GreyICE, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Or just give him some blow...
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5I will do it.
- danthemanhan, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3way to take one for team earth
- diggingaround, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Can you please blow a Dick or that troll karl Rove, so we can impeach your stupid ass?
- dansvan, on 03/08/2008, -2/+11***** maniac.
- UnknownHero, on 03/08/2008, -28/+7I'm tired of these "Bush is a tyrant LOL" articles spamming up Digg.
I'm vetoing this article.- JedicodeWarrior, on 03/08/2008, -0/+4Keep kissing Bush's ass!! It will serve you well in prison.
- budgeysmuggler, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3wonder what would work better, water boarding or a good hard high pressure wash at your local detailer?
- roadtripguy, on 03/08/2008, -4/+30Spineless and corrupt are the only two words that are appropriate to describe ANY member of Congress who does NOT vote to override this veto.
- Yatata, on 03/08/2008, -0/+5not really their fault - they don't have enough people to avoid being filibustered by the republicans. they're completely blocked at every turn.
- uziko, on 03/08/2008, -2/+14How did it become legal in the first place? Without a specific law implemented to legalize waterboarding it is aggravated assault which is a felony.
- FairDinkumMate, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2It never got legalized! The last time the world had a trial regarding waterboarding the US was the prosecutor & 7 Japanese soldiers were found guilty & EXECUTED for it! The US is showing itself to be ridiculously hypocritical - only in 20 years when the Chinese invade the US to "ensure human rights for the people of the United States" will you guys begin to understand what Bush & his mates have done to your once(recently) great country.
- uziko, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1That means it's still illegal. They don't need to implement a law banning waterboarding, because there is already a law in place making it illegal. It's called assault and battery. The fact that this entire page of comments focuses on people thinking that waterboarding is still legal, and their "outrage" at bush just shows that this country along with it's people are just one big joke that can be manipulated with ease.
- FairDinkumMate, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2It never got legalized! The last time the world had a trial regarding waterboarding the US was the prosecutor & 7 Japanese soldiers were found guilty & EXECUTED for it! The US is showing itself to be ridiculously hypocritical - only in 20 years when the Chinese invade the US to "ensure human rights for the people of the United States" will you guys begin to understand what Bush & his mates have done to your once(recently) great country.
- forgiste, on 03/08/2008, -2/+5I guess Bush thinks that he has the right to determine who can be tortured and who can't. If it was one of his daughters you can bet he'd be against it. Bush Almighty. The only thing keeping us from being attacked by terrorists is a lack of orders from our own president.
- SoxSweepAgain, on 03/08/2008, -10/+9I would LOVE to see Bush on a waterboard. I'd eat popcorn and chuckle.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2and how does that make you any better?
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The man just enjoys torturing his enemies, can't you just leave him alone?
- danthemanhan, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1do you even know what waterboarding is?
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2and how does that make you any better?
- demonicume, on 03/08/2008, -6/+27i feel really ***** for reenlisting in the reserves now. my uniform used to be a badge of honor.
- richporter, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4I can empathize. You took an oath to protect this country from enemies foreign and domestic. Organize a military coup and rid us of our enemy.
No I kid, it's romantic at best.
- richporter, on 03/08/2008, -1/+4I can empathize. You took an oath to protect this country from enemies foreign and domestic. Organize a military coup and rid us of our enemy.
- ghostpawrunner, on 03/08/2008, -2/+9It's pretty sad that this isn't even surprising in the least.
Bush truly was born in the wrong country. His despotism would have probably gone over better in some backwater. - xerigen, on 03/08/2008, -6/+11*****.
- facelessmanchs, on 03/08/2008, -1/+10It is amazing that we even have to try to pass this bill considering the constitution explicitly bans the use of torture. I don't give a damn who the next president is as long as they know that our country is based upon this piece of paper called the constitution and we have to follow it.
- TheSeptimHeir, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights to American citizens and nationals. For better or worse, it does not afford a single right to the people born, raised and residing in the middle east, or anywhere else.
A better argument would be that conventions - namely the Geneva and Vienna Conventions - prohibit torture, but even their scopes seem to be limited to POWs in times of war.
To be fair, there's no document that prohibits the torture of foreign nationals and terrorist combatants, excepting of course moral authorities such as the Bible, etc. And even those might be debatable.- facelessmanchs, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The Bill of Rights does say that everyone has a right to trail and it also bans the use of cruel and unusual punishment. It may not say specifically that this applies to foreign nationals, but it does not specifically exclude them either. I agree that the Geneva and Vienna conventions are the best argument, but regardless of the argument that you make about the law, I believe human instinct itself says torture is wrong. We should not accept or condone this behavior from our country.
- GreyICE, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Miss the part where they were discussing all men having rights? They didn't say all Americans, did they?
- TheSeptimHeir, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights to American citizens and nationals. For better or worse, it does not afford a single right to the people born, raised and residing in the middle east, or anywhere else.
- Yatata, on 03/08/2008, -4/+12Naiomi Wolf talks about this in her book and in her lectures about the shift of a democratic state to a fascist one - the rule of law is subverted, and the lawmakers continue to do "the dance of democracy" long after all power has been taken away from them. Give yourselves a slap america, you are not in a democracy anymore, you are in a Kleptocracy.
if you don't know what Kleptocracy means here is a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy - pharekyz, on 03/08/2008, -3/+43Bush DOES know waterboarding isn't the same as surfing right? Did anybody check?
- beankitty, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3HAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD POINT
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Whenever I think of waterboarding, surfing is the first thing I think of.
I actually didn't even know what waterboarding was until I read this article and wiki'ed it.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Whenever I think of waterboarding, surfing is the first thing I think of.
- beankitty, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3HAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD POINT
- Kr4t05, on 03/08/2008, -4/+20And, thus King George gives a massive middle finger to human rights. January is too far away.
- ryleyleckie, on 04/10/2008, -7/+7i want to kill him
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -3/+4Woo...big talk up in Canada, eh?
- ryleyleckie, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1you're funny...?
- metalkills, on 03/08/2008, -3/+0yeah ***** like that can get you in a whole lot of trouble... no joke.
- DigitAl56K, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3At least if this bill passed it wouldn't get you waterboarded...
- Higgles, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3or would you?
- accn112, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3you probably still would
- ryleyleckie, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1fear fear terrorism fear, they're gonna get you, fear
- DigitAl56K, on 03/08/2008, -0/+3At least if this bill passed it wouldn't get you waterboarded...
- sragland, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3Please do.
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -3/+4Woo...big talk up in Canada, eh?
- ToMZiLLA, on 03/08/2008, -0/+15"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror,"
terror itself!- soccerman90, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2qft
- Me1000, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1You didnt quote anything!
- umstbkddng, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2The "Tool" in the war on terror is Bush.
- soccerman90, on 03/08/2008, -1/+2qft
- SQLserver, on 03/08/2008, -5/+5Did Billary vote for it?
- unmarked, on 03/09/2008, -0/+7McCain voted against the bill. Apparently he's pro-torture now.
- sfacets, on 03/08/2008, -5/+17One question: Why is Bush still in office if nobody in the country (apart from a few sleazy politicians) likes him?
- madfrogurt, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1430% of the country supports him, half of congress voted for his worst offenses, and the the other half is weary of impeachment.
- tracywood, on 03/08/2008, -1/+11Because Americans are either too afraid to stand up, or their more interested in discussing the last episode of Lost to give a damn.
- metalkills, on 03/08/2008, -1/+9yeah, noone will care until Bush vetos a season of Lost
- tracywood, on 03/08/2008, -1/+11Because Americans are either too afraid to stand up, or their more interested in discussing the last episode of Lost to give a damn.
- JuanBSU, on 03/08/2008, -1/+16Because Bush is a "Christian" and talks about God, therefore there are enough idiots in this country that will believe and follow every single thing that he says.
- badqat, on 03/08/2008, -4/+7Uh, because his term isn't up?
- beankitty, on 03/08/2008, -1/+13It should be noted here if Bush was a democrat, he would be dead already. Republicans are more prone to do something about a bad president than peace-loving Democrats. That is my theory.
- unmarked, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2only if the bad president is in the other party. the Republicans gave him ZERO oversight while they were in control (first six years). In fact, they helped him created the largest gov't, the most secretive gov't and most intrusive. In a sad, ironic twist, the Republican party has been the most successful at moving us towards BIG GOVERNMENT.
- jimbo92107, on 03/08/2008, -1/+6"a few sleazy politicians"??? WTF?? Doood, we got a lot more than a few sleazy pols in this country. Every single Republican and about 80 percent of the "Democrats" (including the entire leadership) need to be kicked out before we have any chance of recovering what little is left of our democracy. Added to that we need to impeach and remove all five reichwingers on the Supreme Clowns, and we need to completely break apart all the media monopolies. We also need to prosecute and imprison hundreds of conspirators in the media establishment, as well as the corporate executives of all the corporations in BushCo. The problems America faces are a bit more serious than a few sleazy politicians.
- TedLW30101, on 03/08/2008, -3/+0You fail. We are not a democracy and were never intended to be. Learn some history.
- madfrogurt, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1430% of the country supports him, half of congress voted for his worst offenses, and the the other half is weary of impeachment.
- madfrogurt, on 03/08/2008, -0/+10The most surprising thing for me is the amount of people who think waterboarding and torture are fine. It's depressing to see so many people throw away our ideals of basic human rights just because of some vague possibility that we will get useful intel instead of just a stream of lies and admissions of past guilt.
I grew up being told that America was the best country in the world because we didn't invade countries and we didn't do all the horrific things everyone else did. But now it feels like we're being told that we only need to be a little better than the lowest dregs of humanity. We can torture people and hold them without trial so long as somewhere an American was decapitated.- FairDinkumMate, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2What makes you think you are BETTER than ANY other country? Burma(for example) doesn't use this technique but is constantly in the media as a Human Rights violator & oppressor of its people - If the media wasn't so controlled by US companies you guys would currently be even bigger pariahs internationally than you are already
- WinMacLin, on 03/08/2008, -0/+4I'm sure if he was in another country and was accused of being a terrorist just because of the way he looks and was subjected to water boarding for information (Information he doesn't have) he would reconsider its usage as torture in the US.
It's so barbaric. If I was tortured for information I would make up stuff, anything to make the torture stop. If they put me in a sensory deprivation room I would be thinking up the most elaborate true-sounding terrorist lies just so they believe they got something worth while out of me to stop the torture.
And I don't think I'm alone in my thinking here, I bet many innocent people who are subjected to such harsh tortures will make up anything just to stop the torture. And for that reason torture should not be used in an interrogation it is unreliable, pointless and evil. -
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancemen