digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at timesonline.co.uk

President Musharraf to be impeached

timesonline.co.uk — Pakistan's embattled President Pervez Musharraf is to be impeached and forced to step down, it has been confirmed.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChronicColonic, on 08/07/2008, -3/+98Looks like the Dalmatian is upset by the decision of impeachment.
    • sanman, on 08/07/2008, -4/+6General Musharraf has been portraying himself as Washington's indispensible man to wage the War on Terror. But when Washington asked Pakistan's elected civilian govt to bring Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI, under civilian oversight, then Musharraf stepped in to block this. He quietly threatened to dissolve the govt if the civilian politicians tried to rein in ISI. That showed the man's true colors -- he's a double agent, simultaneously protecting the shadowy spy agency, which has been arming and assisting the Taliban and AlQaeda through backchannels. That was a big wakeup call to Washington. They realize that this guy is on the one hand trying to get all kinds of aid and financial support from the US for his army the War on Terror, but at the same time he'll block any move to make the ISI accountable to elected civilian politicians. Until ISI is brought under civilian oversight and accountability, then it's going to keep arming the Taliban and AlQaeda, which is a main reason why they're able to wage such a ferocious war against the US/NATO troops.
      • groo68, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2It doesn't sound like you've ever heard a conspiracy theory, such as because these actions were made public, Washington is now dissolving the operation, though they may have known about it already as 'Washington has funded the alqaeda before'
      • RAGEdemon, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3Shut your mouth, you don't know what you are talking about.

        Pakistan is in tatters BECAUSE of corrupted "civillian governments" who raped the country for anything it was once worth.

        Bhutto leeched fortunes and then fled to the UK to escape prosecution yet everyone cheered her name when she came back to do it all over again.

        Musharraf on the other hand pulled in money from richer nations and invested it in the country's economy, it's infrastructure... he opened up many schools where children could be properly educated.

        I'm glad I got the ***** out of that ***** hole that the corrupted "civilian governments" have turned it into when I had the chance.

        Qaida Azam would be turning in his grave if he knew what a ***** country sheeple like you have turned it into.
      • sanman, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Don't be an idiot. The US is backing this move by the civilian politicians to oust the unelected Musharraf. And this is because Musharraf moved to protect the ISI, by quietly threatening to use his Presidential powers to dissolve parliament and the civilian govt. You see, the ISI is increasingly regarded as a threat by the US and NATO forces, who are increasingly aware of ISI's help to the Taliban and AlQaeda, which is increasing the death toll among US/NATO troops. The US wants ISI to be reined in, and brought under civilian control. Musharraf balked at this, and is now obstructing the US agenda. He is trying to play both sides of the game, like a double agent. He's on the one hand trying to milk the US for support by calling himself their loyal man to stop the terrorists. But on the other hand, he's still loyal to the hardline Pakistani military, who are reluctant partners in the War on Terror, and who don't want their traditional jihadist allies defeated by the West.

        This is why the US is now backing the elected civilian govt in taking out Musharraf thru the impeachment motion. The US wants this double-game/runaround by Musharraf ended.
      • RAGEdemon, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Wow, your stupidity astounds me. You can't be THAT stupid.

        The only reason the government wants the ISI in their power is because the ISI are the ones who find out about corruption in the government itself. Of course they don't want the ISI to know anything about that.

        Everything else is just propaganda.

        That's the problem with you people... any time some ***** comes along and pretends to be a messiah, you all follow along. Wake up call. The politicians are in it for the money and power, NOT to make the country better. After the ISI is gone, they can then find it easier to get away with anything.
    • sanman, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BdOsint/message/5399

      http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008 ...

      "It always seemed odd to me that the Taliban usually began their important battles against their Afghan opponents with primitive tactics that incurred heavy losses, then recovered brilliantly as if leaders trained in sophisticated military tactics had suddenly appeared on the scene."
      • hobbler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Simple, because the charismatic, yet idiotic leaders who lead those glorious attacks died rather gloriously, leaving the survivors to wonder what the hell happened and how to not die the next time.
      • sanman, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2No, the Taliban and AlQaeda are getting expert help from the ISI (Pakistan's military intelligence agency), which is composed of hardliners sympathetic to the jihadi fundamentalists.
    • sockpuppets, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Peaches give him gas.
  • clickfire, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3I can't say I'm surprised.
  • kemp34, on 08/07/2008, -10/+106Can we learn from the Pakistanis?
    • inyearstocome, on 08/07/2008, -4/+16Agreed!

      However, we both have wayyy too much involvement of religion in the government.
      • norman619, on 08/07/2008, -11/+1We have religion mixed in with government? Have any proof?
      • mizatt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+14Quit being retarded... anyone can see that religion influences our government
    • norman619, on 08/07/2008, -14/+7You fail to understand what this really means. All you see is "WE SHOULD IMPEACH BUSH!"
      • kemp34, on 08/07/2008, -5/+16I am an American. I care about getting my house right. For the sake of our Republic, we, the people, must find the strength to do what it takes to get Bush impeached. The sake of our freedom depends on setting this precedent so future executives do not continue to assault the Constitution.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4What should we see - "Wow, Here's another chance for the US to prop up another dictator & screw over another middle-east country so they'll hate us & breed more terrorists"
    • bhavinp, on 08/07/2008, -6/+1We'll roll him up in a carpet and throw em' of a bridge, heehee.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -6/+5No
    • lebaige, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Well that took all of three comments, bravo
    • valleyman86, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2Can we get Bush on this list?

      bhfpf (captcha)
    • k3rfuffl3, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I bet the OP's post exploded quite a few GOP heads.
  • HumanCattle, on 08/07/2008, -7/+20Expect another violent "event" in the next few days ...
  • koldmilk, on 08/07/2008, -2/+19He's not going down easy...
    • diggmaddy, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5Exactly my thoughts. What's preventing him from repeating the same tactics he used to become the President in the first place? It's not like he was elected president, he took that position by force.
  • Berkana, on 08/07/2008, -8/+27Pakistan has nukes and lots of angry Muslim militants. Let's hope this turns out for the best, 'cause a lot of things could go wrong if a militant group takes power.

    (Imagine covert US intervention, followed by the failure of that intervention and even more anger from the militants, who then consolidate their power and actually try to nuke us.)
    • alexomid, on 08/07/2008, -8/+10We should focus more on the US not intervening, for some reason we always tend to...
    • kingmanic, on 08/07/2008, -2/+25"(Imagine covert US intervention, followed by the failure of that intervention and even more anger from the militants, who then consolidate their power and actually try to nuke somebody affiliated with us or one of our military bases.)"


      Fixed that for you. ICBM's take a lot of resources above and beyond what a nuke requires. They don't have the technology to make a rocket powerful enough and guide it accurately enough to hit the US. An ICBM take a lot of advanced electronics and rocketry. Most nations with them have a space program to hide the expenditure. It's not something they have yet.
      • norman619, on 08/07/2008, -16/+1Let's deal with reality shall we?
      • Izult, on 08/08/2008, -3/+7like the reality that you're head is buried so far up your ass you could see out your belly button if it had a window norman619?
    • tomarocco, on 08/07/2008, -4/+16America has nukes and lots of angry Christian militants. Let's hope this turns out for the best, 'cause a lot of things could go wrong if a militant group takes power.

      Opps....too late!!!
    • rowjimmy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4i really thing the greatest risk of nuclear holocaust comes from fundamentalist governments gaining more control in India and Pakistan. Get the BJP in India and the Muslim equivalent in Pakistan and all you need is one itchy "big red button" finger to create a big ass crater.
      • psrinivas, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2In 2001, when the attack on the Indian Parliament happened, BJP was in power in India. Even though military was mobilized on a large scale, nothing happened.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1oh, don't get me wrong - i'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen or anything like that. i just think that if a - pretty much accidental - nuclear attack/counter-attack were to take place, it would be between india and pakistan (and with more fundamentalist govts in each case)
    • Wakkyweed, on 08/08/2008, -4/+6I'm not that scared of extreme Islamists gaining control of Pakistan. The Pakistan military does not like Al Queda and the Taliban, and would almost certainly not allow a radical Muslim government. They would just overthrow it and install another military dictator.
    • toshibu, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4"angry Muslim militants"
      Do you know why they're angry? Because Musharaff is a DICTATOR.
      • Berkana, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Yes. That too, but they are also angry with us, understandably.
  • optimusprime01, on 08/07/2008, -2/+8From leading Pakistani newspapers:

    http://thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=51370

    http://dawn.com/2008/08/07/top2.htm
  • sportsstar67, on 08/07/2008, -9/+6Great news
    • norman619, on 08/07/2008, -5/+6Great news? I'm betting you haven't clue why this is in reality very bad news.
      • zeebo, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3You really shouldn't be dugg down, somebody offed his obvious liberal secular successor and disrupted the electoral process there. I know most people think that it was Musharaff that did it, but there were others who had as much to gain There is a lot of support in Pakistan for extremist islamic candidates. If this goes through, it could very well result in Bush getting us into yet another war pretty quickly, since the US military has been complaining about Pakistani border regions being used as safe havens for years now.
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 08/08/2008, -5/+1zeebo, said, "If this goes through, it could very well result in Bush getting us into yet another war pretty quickly..."

        Actually if Obama gets into office expect him to immediately go into Pakistan. So get ready liberals. Pack your little bags....get your rucksacks ready and you can now go directly to the front lines in Afghanistan/Pakistan to defend America.

        I am going to love seeing hundreds if not thousands of liberals marching off to die in Pakistan to defend Obama's wet dream.
  • bcuban, on 08/07/2008, -2/+11Look for him to start wearing his uniform around town again
  • bosssmiley, on 08/07/2008, -14/+36Way to go Pakistan. Try and impeach the one guy who's actually stopping the country from tearing itself apart. Musharraf is no power mad lunatic, he's a dictator in the classical (Cincinnatus, Fabius, Caesar) sense; a hard man doing the dirty job no-one else has the clout or influence to handle.

    I wonder how much of this 'impeach Musharraf' move is backed by forces *outside* Pakistan. Is he no longer a useful 'our bastard'?
    • sanman, on 08/07/2008, -6/+10that's crap -- you're quite the ignorant gringo tourist. Washington privately approached the elected civilian govt, demanding that they put a leash on Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI. This is because the US is increasingly finding that parts of the ISI are arming AlQaeda and Taliban, and won't break ties with them. US and NATO troops are being killed as a result. But Musharraf quickly moved to block the elected politicians from putting a leash on the ISI. He's not trying to win the War on Terror, he's trying to stretch it out for as long as possible, so that he can milk it to the max.
    • krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -4/+19A dictator is a dictator and the Pakistanis don't want one.
    • Meekus, on 08/08/2008, -4/+12A dictator who overthrew an elected government.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8So if a majority of Americans thought that the elected Bush administration was corrupted by big money & had lyed to the American public repeatedly you'd support a military overthrow of said government?

      Better still, you'd then want immunity for the General that installed themself as 'President' of the USA from any future pesky 'democratic' prosecution or impeachment?

      Get the hell off of your high horse! If this happened in America, you'd be up in arms. But because it has happened in a predominantly Muslim middle-east/Asian nation you automatically make the assumption that their democracy was too corrupt to be able to keep itself functioning through normal election processes.
      • hobbler, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4Spoken by people who have never met your average Joe Pakistani. The ones you see in the West don't count, as by the simple fact of them managing to scrape enough money to get out of there, they're richer than 75% of the population.

        Western style democracy assumes a certain degree of education and literacy amongst the population. If there were going to be true democracy in Pakistan, I don't think you'd like the outcome.
      • allan17, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3True democracy = mob rule where 51% of people can tell the other 49% to go ***** themselves.

        And yet, try to name a better alternative.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4Spoken like a typical right-wing, self-centred, arrogant American. Your assumption that the majority of Pakistanis are not educated enough to effectively participate in a democracy is ridiculous. If there was an IQ test for democratic participation, the current President of the US probably wouldn't even be allowed to vote!

        "Western style democracy" as you call it, functions quite well(if not better than in the US) in a lot of poorer nations - India, Brazil, Turkey, Chile, South Africa. Don't make the mistake of thinking that any inefficiency or corruption at a government level is indicative of a problem with 'democracy'. The US itself has one of the least pure & most corrupted 'democratic systems' in place anywhere in the world - refer to diebold, Florida & the influence of special interest groups for details.

        The claim that my initial comment was responding to is the typical fearmongering practised by the right-wing in the US, which is that a 'democratic' Pakistan will mean a fundamentalist Muslim state. There is no evidence to support this view & ample evidence to disprove it. Fundamentalist muslim parties in Pakistan have never in the history of the state received any significant popular support. in the last election their vote was less than 10%.

        So basically, I would suggest you get of your arrogant arse, turn off Fox & do some research before you sprout your unsubstantiated right-wing crap!
    • ZenMojo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Just what the Pakistanis need. A benevolent dictator....
  • trumpcard, on 08/07/2008, -14/+4Pakistan is a fail either they impeach or don't.
  • OohChit, on 08/07/2008, -15/+2Oh boy!
    Another soon to be available country to invade and occupy.
    • SugarCoatedSalt, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1what about their nuclear weapons?
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Luckily, our military is already stressed, worn out and over spent by the optional Iraq war. :-/
  • mempko, on 08/07/2008, -11/+29Wow, the Pakistanis are doing something the United States cannot do. They impeach their president while we cannot impeach our own.

    And we are number one?
    • rationalbeats, on 08/07/2008, -3/+11But Musharraf took over in a military coup.
      • sigg14, on 08/08/2008, -6/+1a military coup can be justified given the circumstances, rigging and stealing an election can never be justified
    • starmanfalls, on 08/07/2008, -7/+1No we are number two. Poo
    • lebaige, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3Your ignorance is startling
  • chetanthaker, on 08/07/2008, -15/+40Bush, you are next
    • Wargalas, on 08/07/2008, -5/+19Ha! That's a good one! Have you heard the one about the two Jews who walk into a bar? I love that joke! Please, like Congress has any backbone to begin with. I mean, Democrats have a majority, and they've got a well earned reputation of talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
    • madfrogurt, on 08/07/2008, -4/+6Yes because we all know that the impeachment process is both universally supported by Congress and the entire process it quick and painless.

      Just wait out the next 4 months and get over it.
      • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1You know I kind of agree with you but I'm getting really sick of all the "get over it" banter for the last nearly 8 years as if people should just role over and let democracy die.
    • Aaronontheweb, on 08/07/2008, -4/+3This is for you:

      http://tinyurl.com/63gxgt
    • norman619, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3Excuse me. You dropped your brain back there. Thought you should know.
    • PopcornDave, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4Both parties are too busy trying to keep their stories straight in an election cycle. What makes you think they've got any time to do anything with impeachment.
    • ancientshoes, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1sorry, you can't impeach a president for being unpopular
  • Leadman584, on 08/07/2008, -5/+6If the US government doesn't approve of his replacement, things could really get out of hand quick. We don't "think" they have nukes, we know it. Whose finger will be on the trigger?
  • chesscat, on 08/07/2008, -5/+4Uh oh, who's going to guard the nukes?
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1OBL. Well you didn't want to end up oozing every kind of body fluid in a nursing home did you?
    • abdulkha, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0what it has to do with army, its a government issue, DLKLU, even your and our cheif of army staff wouldn't know where the nukes are, they just have codes to launch them.
  • borez, on 08/07/2008, -7/+12How about impeachment where it counts

    /you know who I'm on about
  • djoobacca, on 08/07/2008, -7/+6another us-backed dictator ousted
  • seraph582, on 08/07/2008, -5/+8Dugg for the doggy!!! :)
  • StevesJobs, on 08/07/2008, -4/+24I for one welcome our new Dalmatian overlords...
  • dildoolielly, on 08/07/2008, -11/+5I wish Amerika was more like Pakistan
  • nwoantibody, on 08/07/2008, -7/+34The Pakis we make jokes about have bigger cojones than us.
  • Meekus, on 08/07/2008, -4/+20Musharraf: Can we have our 10 Billion dollars back?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI
  • rationalbeats, on 08/07/2008, -6/+4Nice timing, right as the Bush admin is loosing any sort of influence, our puppet is being removed.
    • zoom1928, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2What is the difference between loose and tight influence. I've never heard that slang before.
  • lalalalamppost, on 08/07/2008, -7/+2Oh, the irony.
  • xeenat, on 08/07/2008, -4/+8It's not confirmed yet. Plus, it won't happen. This is Pakistan we're talking about.
  • inverted7001, on 08/07/2008, -8/+8The American People NEED to mirror this act.
    • Aaronontheweb, on 08/07/2008, -4/+6.... The President needs to impeach the people?
    • thatsmyaibo, on 08/07/2008, -4/+3By time the process is done Bush will be out of office anyways. You can't even compare the US to Pakistan in this situation. This can be a very dangerous thing for the rest of the world. They have nuclear warheads and the wrong government could put them in the wrong hands and we can have a nuclear war on our hands. You think Islamic militants care who they bring down with them?
      • abdulkha, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1For your information, Pakistan military controls the nukes, not the government by itself? and there are so many Islamic soldiers(militant) in army at higher places. so by your theory you would have been nuked by now.
  • Witchdoktor, on 08/07/2008, -3/+1When the dalmatian is just a thumbnail it looks like an incredible scary human face.
  • UtahApocalyse, on 08/07/2008, -1/+14Buried for the dalmatian. Seriously asshats if there is not a fitting icon pick none.
  • evan3168, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2now its our turn
  • drewniverse, on 08/07/2008, -4/+2Wish it was that easy with Bush. Blah.
  • chesscat, on 08/07/2008, -5/+7I bet he ends up getting a job for DELL tech support.
    • FlaG8r, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1...and when he answers the phone he'll say his name is Kevin.
  • narupo, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1So how long until pakistan again goes back to dictatorship 1...2...3.... years.Goddamit clowns look at their history its a lie.
  • zoom1928, on 08/07/2008, -9/+3Nice work using the black dog because the guy isn't white. That's the most blatent racist thing I've seen on Digg in a while.
  • stix213, on 08/07/2008, -9/+2buried as inaccurate... As any Clinton supporter knows, impeachment != forced to step down.

    Pakistani law requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of their legislature in support of removing Musharrif before he would have to step down. His opposition controls the lower house, but not the upper house. As anyone who is actually paying attention can tell you, this will end with the upper house not getting the 2/3 vote necessary to remove him, and then the party is over.

    Although all you morons saying things like "another us-backed dictator ousted" can continue your left wing circle jerk all you want, but please sober up and get back to reality at some point will ya?
  • whiteguysamurai, on 08/07/2008, -6/+6Next up, Bush and his fellowship in crime.
  • chrgrose, on 08/07/2008, -6/+9Crossing my fingers for Bush to be next.
  • JesseJ, on 08/07/2008, -5/+10So the Pakistani people have BALLS TO IMPEACH their lousy president. I wish you Americans had balls to do it too!
  • krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4A military dictatorship is shut down by the people of Pakistan and you still have Americans whining "I can't!" in USA regarding president Bush. Its a joke. If it got any worse you'd all commit suicide rather than get your congressmen on the phone. WTF is wrong with you?
    • Izult, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3I've sent so many letters to my congressmen that they want me to sign up for their news letter. The sick thing is is that every letter is I send gets me the same "let the grown ups talk" type answer.
      • krnldmp, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Hell some of them send you their newsletters automatically. Just tell them you don't need any help figuring out how ***** up they are.
      • Izult, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3LOL I do daily. Thanks to downsizedc the volume of stuff they get from me has gone up quite a bit.
    • krnldmp, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3If you're too shy to face the two bit poltical theater experts on the phone, you can always write a letter or send an email. Don't be afraid that you know less about what's going on than they do, because that's probably *****. Tell them that if they do not join the call and vote for impeachment, you're going to help out in every legal way to make sure they don't work in government for the rest of their lives, and that you never miss an opportunity to vote. Write your senators, your representatives, and last but not least, the worst House Speaker this country has had in quite a long time.
  • tomarocco, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1Dugg for having to bawls to appear on the Daily Show.
  • psYcon, on 08/08/2008, -4/+5Pakistan Zindabad!
  • MacintoshSauce, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Oh how I wish the title of the story would say, "President Bush to be Impeached."
  • HelluvaRedHead, on 08/08/2008, -2/+0My predictions- Either impeachment that goes nowhere; he steps down & some US government backed nimrod gets 'hand picked' by Dubya & his evil minions;Civil war ensues & the US 'has' to send troops to keep the peace. Everyone get ready for the Draft to make a comeback! :(
  • DeathToAmerica, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2Time to write in Osama Bin Laden.
  • shipwreck58, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Musharif down, only Bush left to impeach than all will be right with the world :)
  • ciaran036, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Why the hell is it so hard to get Bush impeached then?
    • acroyear2, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Because our democracy is clearly better than the Pakistanis...
    • MJHDigg, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0The United States of America has a strong government that requires a prolonged amount of time for changes to be made. There are no immediate changes.
      • acroyear2, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3In other words, we'll impeach Bush when's he's dead and for the time being, let's continue burning the constitution.
      • MJHDigg, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0With our economy's current state, I doubt the US Government would impeach Bush and send the market down the drain.

        I'm not a politician (nor do I intend to become one) but I just want to voice my opinion on the subject.
  • MJHDigg, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Thanks for digging this news story.

    It's unfortunate that the Pakistani crisis escalated to this degree.

    Interesting Quote: “I will defeat those who try to push me to the wall. If they use their right to oust me, I have the right to defend myself.”

    It sounds as if he may put together a rebellious force to keep him in office. But, I doubt he would take such measures to ensure his reign.
  • PolishLogic, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Well, maybe they replace him with somebody who dislikes the US considerably.
    • FlaG8r, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Not maybe, probably. Once again we are going to pay for supporting a non-democratic regime.
  • okazakifudosan, on 08/08/2008, -5/+0頑張って下さい。
    http://www.tokugawa1.com/goods/vibration.html
    http://www.tokugawa1.com/goods/lotion.html
    http://www.tokugawa1.com/goods/rotor.html
    http://www.tokugawa1.com/goods/onahole.html
    http://www.tokugawa1.com/goods/orgastar.html
  • denser, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Well it was either this or getting blown up
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.