What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
177 Comments
- TheXboxReview, on 02/17/2009, -10/+136Good, there needs to be a consequence for ordering prisoners to be tortured & breaking the Geneva Convention.
- inactive, on 02/17/2009, -7/+122Yeah, George, I've got a legal opinion too:
You approved torture and you and your administration need to be prosecuted for it. - m3arvk, on 02/18/2009, -3/+40FTA:
"Everything we did was -- you know, it had legal -- legal opinions behind it. Look, you're sitting there, you've captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He's the guy that ordered the September the 11th attacks. And we want to know what he knows in order to protect the United States of America. And I got legal opinions that said whatever we're going to do is legal. And my job is to protect you, Larry. And I've given it my all. I've given it my all."
Two things:
1) He probably thinks giving it his all and failing miserably is enough. He probably sleeps like a baby.
2) "And I got legal opinions that said whatever we're going to do is legal."
Did anyone else read that the way I did? Is he admitting to producing, out of whole cloth, legal opinions to justify "whatever we're going to do"? - duke, on 02/18/2009, -2/+32"Probe may pose 'enormous consequences' for bush"
That's what she said. - principle, on 02/17/2009, -4/+31If they can find an email that indicate collusion between the White House, Jay Bybee, or John Yoo, then the immunity granted by Congress to Bush may be unsustainable, since that would show that they did not act in good faith.
- draculthemad, on 02/18/2009, -1/+26Your lawyers advise isn't the law.
The law is the law.
If your lawyer advises you something is legal and it turns out isnt, you are still on the hook for it.
It doesn't matter what justification your attorney came up with. If it doesn't fly in front of a judge/jury you still go to jail. - Triptastic, on 02/18/2009, -3/+26 Are you implying that Bush et al. did not torture detainees, or that the detainees were not protected by the Geneva Convention? The former position is false. The later position is tenuous at best. If they were not covered by the Geneva Convention, then they are not POW's, but civilians. Torturing civilians is a heinous act, and whether it was denounced explicitly or not, it is a criminal act nonetheless and one that needs to be addressed.
We know the Bush admin. authorized torture. Cheney admitted as much and I don't think you are about to deny Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay existed. - MaxxusFlamus, on 02/18/2009, -5/+25how about that? Government might actually be attempting to police itself.....
- Nerys, on 02/18/2009, -3/+22I would say you are either a plain simple moron or have no clue what the geneva convention is.
Let me help you with that. FIRST application of the convention
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
That makes it clear it APPLIES with these prisoners especially considering most of them are straight up NON combatants who never fired a shot at us.
Second the part they violated.
It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.
SO how exactly did you come up with them NOT violating the geneva convention?
this took me all of what 90 seconds of google-fu hell it was not even any fu it was just a plain punch geneva convention into google and click the first damned link. - specialK16, on 02/18/2009, -0/+18To think that 8 years ago I had some respect for that man. But 8 years ago I was 11.
- JekJob, on 02/18/2009, -0/+17I sort of meant it figuratively... but Bush and Dick caused the deaths of 4000+ US soldiers and close to 100,000 Iraqis, most of them innocent. And still no WMD's, no bin Laden. So they should pay for their actions.
- Kohaxx, on 02/18/2009, -0/+17Nothing important since he's not involved in this administration, stupid.
- elliotys, on 02/18/2009, -2/+17You mean, you really believe all that neo-con *****.
- eramos, on 02/18/2009, -10/+25I'd love to see the rod of justice get rammed far up Bush
- yggdrasil255, on 02/18/2009, -1/+16"And it probably does not change the calculation for say, CIA officers who were relying on these memos."
because "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it" only applies to us peasants. - Nerys, on 02/18/2009, -0/+14I only want TWO things.
#1 Put Bush and party in PRISON
#2 UNDO the last 8 years as much as humanly possible.
Start with disbanding DHS and the TSA next immediately REPEAL the patriot acts fisa mill comm act and all "signing letters" etc.. etc.. - Demand911Truth, on 02/18/2009, -0/+14If they had nothing to hide, they'd welcome the opportunity to clear their names.
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -3/+17i wish bush could be tried for his war crimes in ANOTHER country. they'd not slap his wrist...
- JekJob, on 02/18/2009, -13/+27Hang em. Show the world we won't tolerate this.
- mrsteveman1, on 02/18/2009, -0/+13There are multiple Geneva conventions.
3 covers POWs. 4 covers civilians. There is language in one of them, and legal decisions going back quite some years (decades) supporting the idea that people can be found to be excluded from the protections of one or both of those conventions. It is complete *****, but that is the argument. - Kohaxx, on 02/18/2009, -1/+14So in other words you are totally ok with scooping up whoever the locals say could be a terrorist, throwing them in a secret off-shore prison with real terrorists and not verified terrorists alike and having a doctor anally probe them as a means of torture so you can sleep a little sounder until the ones we haven't caught bomb you?
- freakFlag, on 02/18/2009, -3/+15So has anybody else noticed that Congress may be spending its investigation time poorly? Which is more important, steroids in baseball OR investigating the memos authorizing prisoner torture? Wow.
- tuseau, on 02/18/2009, -0/+12LMAO!! Yeah, the Geneva Convention only matters when you want it to matter.
- minimitable, on 02/18/2009, -0/+12I caught that too.
- Drahkar, on 02/18/2009, -0/+12Actually the Iraqi Deaths due to this whole mess has been upwards of over a million.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
That site has some fairly accurate numbers. I wish I could have found a less biased site. But frankly, normal media outlets are still not broadcasting things like that which is saddening in it's own right. - Nerys, on 02/18/2009, -0/+11No not innocent. PRESUMED innocent. Your guilty the moment you commit the crime. Your "presumed" innocent until we prove it or not.
- buckrogers1965, on 02/18/2009, -0/+11Even if there were no laws against torture it would still be wrong and evil.
The rules against torturing prisoners of war were violated under the geneva convention. Unless you would rather they had tortured civilians... because the genenva convention only has two categories... combatants and non combatants. - elipabst, on 02/18/2009, -1/+11"And if, in fact, it's shown essentially senior officials in the Bush administration at the White House and others were dictating and in collusion with the lawyers with the Justice Department to sort-of predetermine what the outcome was,"
Christ, we saw how well that self-reinforcing, cherry-picking of facts worked out for that whole Iraq thing.
/Seriously, worst ever. - elliotys, on 02/18/2009, -2/+12We need to bring back firing squads.
- biotch, on 02/18/2009, -0/+10originallucid1 ...
where is your source...
answer: nowhere - AmazingSteve, on 02/18/2009, -0/+10Kinda sounds like Iraq doesn't it? You FAIL!
- bluesman3535, on 02/18/2009, -0/+10A dead horse in the woods takes a while to smell bad enough to spark inquiry.
- acroyear2, on 02/18/2009, -0/+9"You hear me hillbilly boy! I ain’t through with you by a damn sight. Imma get medieval on your ass.”
- tuseau, on 02/18/2009, -1/+10...and if someone like Bush is voted in again and allowed to squander all the nation's wealth on imperialistic wars and useless economic policies, your children will worry about the same thing in 30 years. It needs to stop now - and it needs to be set in stone that this never happens again. An example must be made of Bush & co.
- tuseau, on 02/18/2009, -0/+9Yeah, and after WW2, the Allies should have just let it go and moved on, and left Germany and Japan alone instead of making the people responsible answer for what they did.
- bluesman3535, on 02/18/2009, -1/+10If we are going to have an executive branch that rides roughshod over all the other branches' powers of checks and balances, or like the current one signs unread bills into law we should just change the office title to "King" or "Queen" to make it easier.
- principle, on 02/18/2009, -0/+8Congress gave Bush immunity for authorizing torture of prisoners in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This legislation gave government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse, a retroactive immunity for their crimes, and granted the president power to define what is, and what is not, torture and abuse, even though the Geneva Conventions already provide us with a guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_ ... - inactive, on 02/18/2009, -4/+12Bush is going
D
O
W
N - spudly, on 02/18/2009, -2/+10Haven't we seen this story before?
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -1/+8Bush administrations terror war. Yes, that sounds much better.
- elliotys, on 02/18/2009, -3/+10So the Taliban is innocent people now?
- buckrogers1965, on 02/18/2009, -0/+7If they are not guilty of any crimes, they have no need to fear the truth.
- elliotys, on 02/18/2009, -2/+8The pakistan government has also ignored the growing taliban presence in the region. There are some reports that even suggest pakistani ingelligence is helping the taliban.
- treehugger87, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6If you're afraid of Obama you should be all for investigating Bush. After all, President Obama now occupies the office that Bush used to claim unchallenged powers. Investigating Bush could limit President Obama's powers, too.
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -1/+7Personally I think they had to do a little "whatever we're going to do" to get Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to say he ordered those attacks in the first place.
- buckrogers1965, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6But if you sold the nooses on ebay afterwards you could probably pay off a good chunk of our national debt.
- ugopozo, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Where have I heard that before?... - BotchaMcCoola, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6Guillotine would be more appropriate. Louis 16 wasted France's wealth on wars and left the people to learn how to eat snails. I'd like Bush to trip the blade himself though
- Groovydoo, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6Your delusional! Torturing people did not prevent another 9/11 nor did waging war with Iraq or removing our civil liberties. to wit: How many terrorists have been caught since we lost our civil liberties? How many tons of weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? What terrorist acts were prevented by torture? The answer to all of the above is a big, fat, ZERO!
- ChloeMS, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6The so called "immunity" conferred by the Military Commissions Act has yet to be tested in court. Since the Act attempts to modify the understanding of the language of a treaty that is in force, I think Congress might find that the Act is illegal, along with the following change it made to 18 USC 2441 §SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS;
"(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; "
The change to add "grave breach" is an attempt to confuse the matter, just like the attempt to use the label "unlawful combatant" to preclude protections to prisoners of war. -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is