What is Digg?84 Comments
- alapoet, on 06/09/2008, -8/+33So much for transparency, indeed.
Covering their tracks, and covering their asses (and, of course, those of their "superior" officers)...
It's really a huge problem. And culpability reaches right to the top, in the White House. - chemrat, on 06/09/2008, -8/+27How much evidence has now been destroyed? the notes, the interrogation tapes,... not exactly the actions of people with nothing to hide.
- InfamousAtheist, on 06/09/2008, -2/+16Typical response from a moron "I can't argue with you, so I'll insult you and imply you're a homosexual."
VonJigger, you support traitors to our country and are happily trading away your freedom for a false sense of security. As Ben Franklin said, you deserve neither.
Spit out that kool aid and wake the ***** up. - Suricou, on 06/09/2008, -5/+18Is that the US constitution I see sitting beside your toilet?
- Macrophage, on 06/09/2008, -9/+21As Commander in Chief..the "Buck Stops right in the oval office.
He should receive the same treatment Sadam did IMHO
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/145255/2358 ...
.....GOP=WAR....WAR=DRAFT.....GOP=DRAFT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/145255/2358 ...
Peace
John....Grassroots..OBAMA...08 and 2012 - johnhummel, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7I'd go for that. I found it interesting that just a "few bad apples" from Abu Gharab got sentenced - when there was clear evidence of "oh, this is standard operating procedure, don't worry", mistraining, and "just get results" mentality that *lead* to that debacle.
I have no trouble offering immunity to the big fish in exchange for getting the people who *told* them to destroy notes and cover their asses. - Verchiel77, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7What's a little institutionalized obstruction of justice between friends?
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Well, just let them all go then.....
- MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Some people prefer safety to freedom. I think the technical term for them is Fascists.
- InfamousAtheist, on 06/09/2008, -5/+10What country are you from?
Just because material is classified, the government does not have a license to destroy it. One day someone could (& should) declassify that stuff so we can find out what's really going on (I think most of us already know). - syowr, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4It's certainly not in the United States vocabulary...
- InfamousAtheist, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6He's a politician, guilty of adjusting his message to get votes.
I don't believe he's going to pursue war with Iran under the current circumstances.
I've been wrong before though. - johnhummel, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5Yeah - because "I will protect the country and prevent nations known to support terrorism from getting nuclear weapons" is the same thing as "cover up evidence of torture in violation of the US constitution."
Glad you pointed that out for us. Oh, wait - you were serious? Holy ***** - then you've said the dumbest thing I've seen today! I thought that was sarcasm talking. - phoenixshard, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4"The case against Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15, is on track to be one of the first to trial. He faces war-crimes charges including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces soldier during a 2002 firefight."
Thats a part I like a lot. I don't normally think that bad of our govt on some things, but how do you charge someone with a war crime for throwing a grenade in a fire fight? How can you murder someone that you're at war with? That is pushing things a little bit too far IMO. I could understand POW status and hold them for that, but charging someone you're at war with (per our own President), how is that even possible when they are the enemy? - jon30041, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4China invades the US. Your fifteen year old son throws a grenade at a group of them while they're having a firefight with our insurgency. Chinese forces capture him and ship him off to a secret prison and charge him with war crimes for fighting in the war.
Doc Savage, blow it out your ass. He's a prisoner of war, not a war criminal. - inactive, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5OMG you think that Obama will actually stop the war.
Once the excuses start flowing will you ... will you think twice about much you believed in Obama without looking at who his foreign policy advisors are? - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Destroying documentation != not destroying documentation.
Worst comeback ever. - MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4"You pussy liberala complain about their treatment, but never a peep from you about the same terrorist cutting innocent civilians throat's"
I'm pretty sure the liberals are for keeping that illegal as well as keeping torture illegal and due process mandatory. - Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4Problem
Reaction
Solution
Take care for what you wish for - you just might get it.
I hope Obama is better than I think, but can you explain his sudden flip flop in front of AIPAC? Why doesn't that worry you? - MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3"So basically you are choosing the least damaging of candidates when you vote."
You're still choosing a damaging candidate.
"Now, I ask you, who is the least damaging candidate from the viable choices we have this time? I put it to you that it is Obama."
Now I ask you why do you let the media decide for you which candidates are viable? I put to you that it's because you don't deserve freedom. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3"Contrary to popular opinion, government employees take these regs seriously"
Except for Sandy Burgler. - SilverBlade2k, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5Maybe this should be a considered an automatic 'guilty' confession...
- GRTWHT, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Don't feed the troll!
- MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4"I don't believe he's going to pursue war with Iran under the current circumstances."
Based on what? His message, and his actions have both indicated otherwise. - bbqsalad, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2You are also an idiot.
- bbqsalad, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2OH NICE! I love knitwears! Do you think spamming on Digg works at all? I would think that would be a waste of time...
- jgzman, on 06/09/2008, -2/+4Yea, are you aware that there are options besides war? Options that the Republican Administration refuses to even consider, least bit carry out?
Try NEGOTIATION for a change. Let's talk to people. Find out why they are unhappy, and try to fix it. No, you can't make everyone happy, but reasonable people will always be able to find a compromise. - arkaycee, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2You're conflating two issues here -- the people you're talking about are terrorists. The Afghani kid fighting against an invasion of Afghanistan is fighting in a war. Against soldiers, not civilians. If he's up for cutting innocent civilians' throats, hell yeah charge him for that and give him the death penalty.
- 140Suffolk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2alapoet said "So much for transparency, indeed."
What? Transparency? It's a ***** war! They want to kill you and your kids! Geez, if you girls had been in charge during WW II we'd all be speaking German! Interrogations are secret! The names of the interrogators are secret!
What gets asked, what gets told is all secret. And rightfully so. - arcticblue, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2So are you talking about nuclear energy? What's wrong with that?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -10/+12Hand written notes of an interrogation would be considered classified material. There's no reason to keep them. This is not new.
- 140Suffolk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2It's a war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The people they are questioning would gladly push the button on you and all your family. The people you are questioning would gladly burn you alive and all your family.
Why would you even begin to consider giving away ANY advantage we have?
Everything they're asked is secret. Everything we've managed to learn is secret. And rightfully so. - MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3And the Bush Whitehouse IT staff.
- Zintos, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Who cares about the terrorists? Did they care about us or show us any mercy on 9/11? Nope. Of course any time someone will try to show people a different viewing point opposed there there far left agenda they just get silenced that is why this comment will be digged down. Shows what liberals really think of freedom of speech
- bbqsalad, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Oh Scott, I wanted to let you know I checked out yourpage.. Your email
wonbest@wonbest-knit.com
I went ahead and helped you out BIG TIME! I submitted your email to several free porn sites that way you can get a lot of free porn all through the day. ENJOY :-)
ps: any diggers who have a free second should help this guy out also!
wonbest@wonbest-knit.com
wonbest@wonbest-knit.com
wonbest@wonbest-knit.com
wonbest@wonbest-knit.com - inactive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Pick a year, any year since the development of nuclear technology.
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3What if covering up evidence of torture was one of the ways he plans to protect the country and prevent nations known to support terrorism from getting nuclear weapons?
It's happened before, ya know. - buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2The Geneva convention recognizes spontaneous rising up of a civilian population against invaders. The irregular un-uniformed civilians that fight in that case are to be considered prisoners of war, if captured.
And the Geneva convention limits what signatories to it can do, it applies to the United States as the law of the land according to the constitution. See Senate ratification of treaties.
It doesn't matter if Afghanistan was a "country" or not, in other words. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Heh, I used to...
- MadN, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2So, they were just "following orders"?
You know who else was following orders.... - buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2In a democracy the government is accountable to the people.
Only in a fascist state do government practices reflect business practices that are designed to obstruct justice. - MadN, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1"He's a prisoner of war, not a war criminal."
Hence the reason for destruction of the notes on how he was tortured to make him confess..
There will be guilty verdicts and a bullet to the brain for all of these POWs; they cannot afford for the real story to get out or the real guilty would see the Hague one day.
Following orders is not an alibi. - buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2All 16 intelligence agencies of the USA disagree with you.
The NIE report, which the white house delayed the release of for over a year, says that Iran is not seeking to build nukes. It further states that they had a small ineffective program until 2003 which was ended because it was a waste of money.
Or are you better informed than the unanimous conclusions of the entire United States intelligence community? - buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Oh please, that was the CIA and Haliburton killing contractors over in Afghanistan and Iraq. The contractors were trying to blow the whistle on all the corruption and the selling of weapons to the insurgents on the black market.
- armyabn1, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3Umm yes....the government has the license to destroy whatever classified it wants - especially notes. If there are notes, there are reports. Once the reports are written, the notes are useless babble only coherent to the person that wrote them.
The government doesn't have to keep everything. In fact, there are many laws in place that if the classified material collected is not being used for any legal purpose (ie - investigation) it has to be destroyed if it involves US persons. Try looking up Intelligence Oversight regulations.
Contrary to popular opinion, government employees take these regs seriously - because our careers depend on keeping within the law. You can spout off any BS you want, but my guess is that you haven't served your country (in or out of uniform) a day of your life - so only "know" what other unknowledgeable people tell you. - malex, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2When?
- samcrut, on 06/09/2008, -5/+6As much as I hate to say it, I think they need to offer immunity to some of the interrogators if they'll testify before congress against the administration ordering them to break the Geneva Conventions.
- inactive, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Then we can compensate them with say $1million a piece for their troubles. As well as immunity from any form of future prosecution.
It's a small price to pay for the inconvenience we've dished out to the poor innocent people that have been detained, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. - arkaycee, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I've wondered about these cases too. If someone is invading my country, even if they say it's for righteous reasons, and they are shooting at me, I can't see as how I don't have the right to fight back.
- MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2"What country are you from?"
My guess is he's from the US, New York City specifically, somewhere around Madison Ave. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is