What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
178 Comments
- uncajoe, on 11/15/2008, -3/+58Presidential pardons are public record. This would expose government covert operatives and Bush 43 would never do that..... Oh, except for that one time!
- motters, on 11/15/2008, -7/+39George Bush may be able to pardon torturers, but who will pardon George Bush ?
- harrisbradley, on 11/15/2008, -3/+33This shouldn't shock anyone. Every single president does this on the way out. It's ***** ridiculous. I'm sure it's a by-law of the secret presidents club and they promise to pardon their predecessor kinda thing.
- duggdowncatisad, on 11/16/2008, -1/+19Bush, assuming he's smart enough to remember to do it before resigning.
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/16/2008, -1/+19Jack Bauer again gets left out in the cold.
- algaeturd, on 11/16/2008, -1/+17Could? *COULD?*
You guys really haven't figured this whole thing out yet, have you? - alricsca, on 11/16/2008, -0/+14I believe in the right to pardon but I think there should be one simple caveat added to the Constitution. It should read, "A President may issue a pardon for any crime to which the President was not involved directly or indirectly."
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -2/+15Dick Cheney.
Wouldn't it be wild if Bush resigned before getting out of office, then Dick pardons him for every crime he's committed? - swrostmore, on 11/16/2008, -2/+13None of your examples are valid, or even close to relevant.
GENERAL Washington wasn't President at the time of your example. And the US laws prohibiting torture did not exist at the time.
Lincoln did not ORDER Sherman to do what he did, regardless of his responsibility.
Roosevelt did not ORDER Germans to be executed in the field, and your idle speculation of what may or may not have happened hardly constitutes evidence of anything.
Bush is the ONLY US PRESIDENT to EVER order torture. I know it's inconvenient for your apologia, but it is a FACT. - DarkLaughingMan, on 11/16/2008, -0/+11Then who would pardon Dick Cheney?
- ghostoftomjoad, on 11/16/2008, -0/+11exactly. heads should roll on the policy maker's side of things, not the people just doing what they were told
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -3/+14man, even the rednecks no longer defend bush.
- sgerwel1985, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12Dear President Bush,
Please pardon me of my debt. - Scottievm, on 11/16/2008, -2/+12Oh come on...
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -1/+11The US hung plenty of German and Japanese officers after World War 2 who used that as a defense. It wasn't a valid defense then and it shouldn't be now.
- Bith8654, on 11/16/2008, -0/+10It's more than just a concern over the well being of Iraqis, in fact I would argue I'm more concerned over the troops welfare than you are. Torture doesn't lead to reliable information since people will just say whatever they need to say to stop getting tortured. Pursuing these bad leads costs money and potentially lives. It saddens me that you just seem to believe whatever the rabid-right pundits tell you.
This isn't just about whether or not torture is ethical, though I will admit that is the point most commonly brought up, it's also about whether or not torture even works. Study the history of America's interrogation methods and you'll find they aren't based on success or science, but based on speculation and desperation. - affiliatebroker, on 11/16/2008, -0/+9Bush should be prosecuted.
Why? If he needs to pardon these puppets, then who gave them the order in the first place? Who is in command? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE???
Yep. George nuklear W Bush
20 January... Bush will make the Guinness book of records. He will be the first person on earth who is the cause of billions of people thinking at the same time:"Thank God that ***** idiot is gone"
I say, smoke em out, and bring him on... To use some of his more popular words.
Wasn't there an Italian Judge seeking for possibilities o bring him for justice?
"President thing" or not, he, the one in charge, the one responsible should be trialled. as simple as that.
Raise your hands who would like to see that happening.
Justice! - j3ff86, on 11/16/2008, -0/+9The Watchmen.
- fsweep, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9A presidential pardon won't help them much if they are kidnapped and tried in a warehouse in Iran or Pakistan.
- mykotron, on 11/16/2008, -3/+11It seems the greatest fear of any republican is that Obama just might DO THE RIGHT THING! OH NOES!
- swrostmore, on 11/16/2008, -2/+9What country do you live in that people doing "the bidding" of government are exempt from the law? Communist China?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/16/2008, -0/+7How about a pardon in exchange for an admission of guilt -- and that they can only pardon acts that the pardonee puts down in writing. That way, these guys can't come back and claim to be honest and decent folks, and that the pardon was "just in case" -- but I have nothing to hide, even though everything I've done is still top secret.
- TheRedNewt, on 11/16/2008, -0/+7I am still SHOCKED at how many of these "conservatives" on the right no longer believe in principle. They no longer believe that a justification is necessary for war.
Let me know when this so-called party of "values" decides to take a stand against lying, unjust war, and torture. Until then, they will remain nothing more than a withering joke. - duckley, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8But, even if pardoned, that would NOT excuse any of them from testifying about Cheney, Bush, et al.
Investigate. Prosecute. Convict. IMPRISON. - swrostmore, on 11/16/2008, -0/+7Right, thank Jesus Bush ordered the torture of Bin Laden's half-retarded taxi driver, otherwise I have no idea how the United States would have survived.
- swrostmore, on 11/16/2008, -0/+6don't feed the troll
- gnixon70, on 11/16/2008, -1/+7He should do the right thing for once and pardon those border patrol agents in Texas that got convicted for essentially doing their job
- DrDustbunny, on 11/16/2008, -1/+6Bush already pardon himself in another bill.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5* after several minutes of unsubsiding rage, BlacklabelSAR decided that maybe right now was not the best time to comment.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5You sound like the type of person the does as he is told.
- credential101, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5I'll put everything I own on the line to say that he will pardon Scooter Libby.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/16/2008, -1/+6Another reason this scumbag needs to be impeached.
The Dems are trying to heal the nation -- but that is the wrong thing. They need to investigate and prosecute these crimes, so people cannot go around and "wonder" what happened. They will know. If people knew the truth of Bush's crimes, and how they created the emergency on Wall Street to loot more money -- then they wouldn't have so much support for just being hateful. All the crackers who like them will realize, that while they were pretending to be racists -- they were also ripping off the racists. - FountainDew, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5pretty sure most people didn't "invade" with gun's ablazin'.
- Ursapater, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5How about filling someones lungs with water until they almost (or do) drown?
- scabbers, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5***** those guys. Did they not think ahead for when Bush wouldn't be in power anymore?
- edzilla, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4From the article: "we started the idea of human right"... Yeah, right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration ... - Dumbledorito, on 11/16/2008, -1/+5Well, where else do you expect talk radio to get its next crop of G. Gordon Liddys?
- Enasni1212, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4Seriously? Iraqis enjoy their freedom, huh? I like freedom, too, but not at the expense of getting American bombs dropped on my head. Also, if Iraqis were so happy with us, we wouldn't be having all these problems. The only argument I can see here is whether their country was more or less screwed up after the American invasion.
- david76, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4Yeah, you know, ***** like believing in human rights makes us liberals a bunch of pussies.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -4/+8Yeah just crossing the border doesn't give them the right to shoot you.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -2/+6Let me guess, you would do it right after you abolished Congress and the court system so you wouldn't have to worry about them getting in your way.
- david76, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4Why would you pardon someone you don't consider to be guilty?
- odweeds, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3The person the 2 border agents shot was a drug dealer from mexico bringing drugs into the country!
- nullcodes, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3The United States needs to ratify OPCAT. Will the Obama administration do it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCAT
All it means is that the US will not torture prisoners, and that all prisoners held by the US will receive occasional visits by an independent international national organization (such as red cross). No more holding prisoners in secret for indefinite times and subjecting them to torture.
Come on secret prisoners .. no trials .. heresay evidence? Didn't America fight wars against people who practised that? Under current law the CIA is allowed to do it (and admitted doing it). (Although the constitution forbids the government from ever applying cruel or unusal punishments).
Somebody needs to ask Obama when he's going to pass the legislation that truly ends torture and holding prisoners in secret for indefinite or extended times. - trevor98, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4You sir, have a short memory. You do realize that impeachment takes months and really just pisses of the public? Meanwhile one Senator can filibuster until Jan 20. Good luck with impeachment- why don't you try holding your breath until it happens please.
- Atsumori, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3Maybe he'll pardon Sen Stevens?
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -3/+6I was halfway through laughing at a particularly funny Sinfest comic, when this came up on Digg.
I stopped laughing instantly. - kcapxis, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3You make some valid points. My examples aren't significantly relevant to Guantanimo, but the point I'm trying to make is that every President, particularly those in a time a war, has loosened the rules and condoned some things which might otherwise have been unacceptable. My examples were merely to put forth names you've heard before, but I'm willing to produce similar and likely more relevant examples for lesser-known Presidents if the point entirely escapes understanding. Granted, Bush is the first that we know of to set up an offshore prison specifically dedicated to torture, but he's far from the first to push the torture line, and even then you'd have to work pretty hard to suggest that he's pushed it further than some who have preceded him.
I'm not trying to apologize for Bush, and as a historian wholeheartedly believe that much of the things Bush has done while in office go beyond any acceptable standard set by any rational person and must be punished accordingly to ensure the continued and peaceful existence of our nation. I just think that when people attribute such foolishness as Bush being the "first" or "only" President to condone torture or foment war for profit it only serves to frame otherwise valid arguments against him as ignorant due to the lack of historical knowledge which should precede them. Making an ignorant argument in a time and place when even an apt argument is barely being heard is a detriment to the cause, as it drowns out and obfuscates otherwise useful reality-based voices. Unless and until you're 100% positive that Bush is as bad as you say, it's probably best to be quiet and let cooler heads work the issue. Reality has a much more significant chance of producing results than fantasy.
Furthermore, I'd like to mention that my "idle speculation" of what "may or may not have happened" in Normandy actually comes from a long relationship with an American hero of the 82nd who recently passed away after a lifetime of service. He didn't mince words about what happened in the years he spent in Europe. You just don't drop into a war zone with no supply lines and play nice. Roosevelt wasn't a moron - he knew this. Moreover, Eisenhower didn't make a habit of keeping the gritty details off the table. The difference, of course, is one of degrees. Roosevelt didn't set up an offshore facility to "extract" information, but only because he couldn't at the time. Undermanned and late to the party, he just had to make do with what could be gathered on the ground. As it turns out, men with crude tools in the field can produce the same type of information that the CIA drums up with water and loud music, but with the same minimal level of reliability. - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4Put this under the title; "Sympathy for the Devil."
If someone takes these people out -- I wouldn't rule to convict if I were on the jury.
What would happen if we didn't protect agents that tortured? Um, then in the future, agents and military troops wouldn't torture and follow their damn constitutional oath, and their oath to the military code of conduct not to follow illegal orders. Wow, what a concept -- America upholding values and honor. I know it's a stretch for cowards who like to beat their chest -- but unlike on TV, Bush only got the bad intelligence they were looking for with these methods. Everyone forgets that they wanted and manufactured reasons for ware with Iraq -- and almost with Iran. And now their friends in the fed are bailing out the Robber barons and looting America's wealth.
I predict that GM and GE will declare bankruptcy, after they've gotten their bailout and concessions from Unions. Of course, Greespan will once again be shocked by greed and opportunism, when the only consequence is lots of money in someone's pocket vs. a warm and cozy feeling in their empty hearts. - zmower, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3As a Brit, it's a known fact here that there were orders not to take prisoners in the days following D-Day. It was just too inconvenient to treat prisoners under Geneva. Where do you keep them? How do you provision them? All the while Rommel is well aware that if the Allies aren't swept back into the sea then the war is lost.
Remember history is written by the victors. Maybe these facts are less visible in the States because Eisenhower became President? -
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is