digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk —

John Bolton thinks Citizen's arrest attempt was funny

telegraph.co.uk — No sin withers the soul more quickly than laughter - Ben Franklin

show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 05/30/2008, -43/+26Will Bolton still laugh when he is swinging from the gallows?
    • cawpin, on 05/30/2008, -16/+28Well, considering he hasn't committed any crimes, I think he'll be fine. Apparently you are with George Monbiot in the idiot bin.
      • 2bsbc, on 05/30/2008, -9/+7It really doesn't matter what you think capwin. History has a way of running over short sightedness.

        Choo-Choo
    • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -5/+18If his crime is arguing for regime change I hope you have plans to lynch Clinton, you know, the architect of the regime change plan.

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.465 ...
      • MWeather, on 05/30/2008, -5/+7Good point. Is inciting an international crime still a crime if the incitement does not work? Let's send the lot of them to the Hague and find out!
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -10/+9I really hope yellowcakewalk is not as delusional as he sounds. I try to think that he is just making hay and having a good time with his crazy posts. I really hope...
    • HeavyWaters, on 05/30/2008, -9/+11No, yellowcakewalk IS as delusional as he sounds. And is an embarassingly ignorant person as well.
    • RRJackson, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5Heh...when you decide to stop living in that fantasy world and join us out here in reality you just drop us a line.
      • card51short, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1What was so delusional about what he said?
  • Nanite, on 05/30/2008, -33/+59I can only hope to see him doing a perp-walk after November, along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rove, and anyone else associated with this criminal administration.
    • BeefBaron, on 05/30/2008, -8/+6It is pretty sad but unsurprising that they will all walk away from this richer and untouched. Probably all live happily to a ripe old age too.

      Sucks to be normal folk who cannot do anything about it, although I am sure someone will reply that "we can do something about it, *insert useless exertion of effort idea here*!"

      Pity fighting against the rich doesn't work in the real world.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -10/+8You are what the left calls a "useful idiot"
      • Nanite, on 05/30/2008, -7/+3Hmmm... funny. I've only heard brainwashed righties like Mona Charen use that term.

        http://www.amazon.com/Useful-Idiots-Liberals-Wrong ...
        Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First

        Are you referring to this piece of sensationalist nonsense?
        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Did a little research

          "The term is attributed to Vladimir Lenin, sometimes in the form "useful idiots of the West", to describe those Western reporters and travellers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West." - Wikipedia

          “Lenin put it another way, often saying that capitalist dupes "will
          sell us the rope with which to hang them." He called them "the useful
          idiots."”

          Some claim Lenin (patron saint of the left) never said it
      • feckineejit, on 05/30/2008, -6/+5The 'left' as you call them only uses the term to describe religious nutjobs who were taken advantage of by politicians who use their ideals to bring them to power. It's more a neocon term than a liberal term. but you don't care, you're conservative you'll just come in and call people names and then skidaddle.
        • bluto36, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4hey Feckineejit,
          you mean like the guy below you Ebonsteel?
      • Ebonsteel, on 05/30/2008, -7/+2And you are what I call an ignorant Repuke sheep.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3No - I don't like the Republicans either

          I choose to not drink anybodies Kool-aid

          Try it
    • Apocrypha, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4Keep dreaming. Nothing short of solitary confinement for eternity would be acceptable anyway.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/30/2008, -4/+8"I can only hope to see him doing a perp-walk after November...."

      And when it doesn't happen you can go cry yourself to sleep in your gingerbread house in the gumdrop forest, you loon.
    • RRJackson, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4Yeah, that's gonna happen. Heh...I love all these, "Oh, heads are gonna roll in November!" posts. Nothing is going to happen to any of these people. Well, other than a comfortable retirement. This is so reminiscent of all the people who thought Nixon was going to prison.
    • JaNkz, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2You are ***** retarded.
  • Smurph0404, on 05/30/2008, -31/+12Jon Bolton is a brave man. Whether you agree with his views or not, he always stood up for them and never tried to cover his own ass at the expense of others like the other people in this administration.
    • nycmac247, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6That's what his bitch in prison will most likely say
    • jabberwolf, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Nice try, but these diggers dont have a brain among the lot of them.

      Most of Jon Bolton's comments on the UN and IRAQ have been correct but for some reason most here are tards that wish to ignore the last 30 years of history and think that wanting to get Saddam out of power is a new thing.

      Please go back and research the 1st gulf war, and why we left, Schwartzkopf's want to remain, the kurds being gassed for revenge and our lack to act, many Iraq military killed in revenge for giving up to the USA and EU forces, the sanctions that left wingers wanted that resulted in 100,000s of innocent deaths but did nothing to stop Saddam, the no fly zone violations etc...

      It's like anything before 2000 never existed to these tards, what were you born yesterday? Then again maybe you were.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Getting Saddam out of power is a new thing. It is a lot newer than when we put him in power in 1954.
  • burketo, on 05/30/2008, -13/+60"When individuals took actions outside the law, in their eyes to bring those responsible for the war to justice, “that is the point you move towards lawlessness and fascism,” he said. "

    that is actually almost the opposite of fascism. idiot. fascism is a totalitarian "the government knows best so don't ask questions" ideoligy.
    • bkemper, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5That's right. From wikipedia:

      Fascism is a... philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition... placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race...

      Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism (i.e., opposition to political and economic liberalism).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

      It is fairly typical of members of the Bush administration to accuse others of characteristics that much more accurately apply to themselves.
      • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -7/+3It is fairly typical of critics of the Bush administration to accuse others of characteristics that much more accurately apply to themselves.

        There. Fixed that for you. You're welcome.
        • bkemper, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3That doesn't even make sense in this context.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2You didn't fix anything. You only proved you are a fascist apologist.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Fascist? Me?
          I've never voted democrat.
    • spacepope68, on 05/31/2008, -0/+0I agree with burketto. When I first read the words
      “I think there’s a larger issue here. You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper.” When individuals took actions outside the law, in their eyes to bring those responsible for the war to justice, “that is the point you move towards lawlessness and fascism,” he said. And when one’s views do match those of the democratically elected government, “you have to accept that”, he added.
      I thought here is a totalitarian, who believes that the citizens of a country should automatically accept what it's democratically elected representatives tell them, which is the exact opposite of democracy. I thought that when the people spoke, their representatives were supposed to listen, not tell them to shut up. I elected my representative to represent me, not resent me.
  • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -25/+16That moonbat would have been more effective had he not broadcasted his intentions before he tried it. But then Bolton would have kicked his ass as soon as he touched him.
  • moxley, on 05/30/2008, -20/+29Seriously. Let's see how funny he thinks it is when he is REALLY arrested if we ever get a legitimate rule of law established in the US again - and if that doesn't happen his next encounter with citizen justice may be of the sort Mussolini faced.

    He should as Il Duce and his wife about how fair they thought their speedy citizen's trial and sentence was.... I think they enjoyed it - after all, they hung around afterward in the town square for quite some time!
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Dugg for bad pun:)
    • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -6/+7Again, I have to ask, what law did Bolton break?
      • bkemper, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3What law did Mussolini break?
        • Wonderama, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1That's not what he asked.
        • bkemper, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2No kidding. It's what I asked, and it is an equally valid question.
        • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Musollini orchestrated the murder of several men who went against him at the Fascist Grand Council. He was never brought to trial for that but he was executed later by people who, like you, felt their emotions were above the law.

          "No kidding. It's what I asked, and it is an equally valid question"
          No, it's not, it is a sidestep because you know Bolton hasn't actually committed any crimes.
      • meinhookah, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Impersonation of a walrus
    • nycmac247, on 05/30/2008, -5/+3Interesting comment but this gang in office are more like the german socialist party; don't forget Papa Bush Sr. Sr. financed Hitler but only time will tell if they end the same way.
      My vote is the US goes the way of the Soviet Union - a stroke of a pen at night and you wake up to a world where States are the only real entities.
      • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -6/+3I would actually prefer that solution. The united States is too big to be under one government, there is too much overhead.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Haha, hung around in the town square... I see what you did there.
    • CarbonAndroid, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Mistress, not wife. Still funny.
  • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -16/+25Other than being a douche (which is, unfortunately, not a crime), can anyone tell me what law Bolton broke?

    This may actually be the first time he's right, just because you don't agree with the war it doesn't make it illegal.
    • papipablo, on 05/30/2008, -11/+8He deserves to die for his terrible version of "When A Man Loves A Woman"
      • Izult, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4Wrong Bolton but I just had to digg you up.
    • pintomp3, on 05/30/2008, -10/+8exactly. other than being a douche, what law did goebbels break?
    • MrErr, on 05/30/2008, -9/+4The war was illegal because congress did not declare war. The war was unjust because we attacked them when they did not attack us. Also for your techicality, just because something is not illegal, it does not make it morally justified. Bolton pushed for something that was illegal and morally unjust. he needs to be punished for it.
      • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -2/+9The war in Iraq is legal on three accounts.

        1. Only a ceasefire was signed ending hostilities of the Gulf War....not a peace treaty. This ceasefire depended on Hussein complying with the articles of the ceasefire. He didnt in a big way.

        2. UN Resolution 260, passed on Dec 12, 1948 and the UN Conference of 2000 on Genocide also make this war legal.

        3. UN Resolution 1441 also stated that "extreme measures" would be taken if Hussein did not comply with UN Sanctions and Resolutions. Guess what..he didnt again comply with measures such as sanctions that were considered extreme. So...what do we do? We apply the next step of extreme measures...the use of military force.
      • markgl, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Nice try MrErr. Hehe.
      • JohnReb, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6Congress declared war against Iraq.

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES ...

        H.J.Res 114

        Sec 3 (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

        (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

        (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

        That is a declaration of war.
        • enri, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1That is not a declaration of war, it is authorization to use military force. If Congress wants to declare war they will explicitly state so. Please look up prior declarations of war.
          The "war" in Iraq is not illegal as keymanjim2 pointed out. However some actions that have been taken could qualify as war crimes and I think that deserves investigation.
          In my opinion all acts of war require intense scrutiny. War is hell and bad ***** happens, but we should try with all our might not to become monsters.
        • JohnReb, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Where in the Constitution is there a specific script for declaring war?

          The use of military force against another nation is war. Therefore to authorize the use of military force against another nation is to declare war.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/30/2008, -5/+3I would say that this war is illegal but I wouldn't say that Bolton has done anything that he could be charged with. Nothing serious anyways.
    • digghasnoethics, on 05/30/2008, -6/+2He was part of an administration that took part in torture, and showed acceptance and common cause with them. That makes him as guilty as the individual that tortured.

      There are a large number of politicians in the current administration that need to be very worry what the future holds. At some point a future administration is likely to want to demonstrate their repudiation of the current lot by making them answer internationally. Not for nothing do many have bolt holes in Uruguay.
      • noahhoward, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4No, actually, in a court of law, it doesn't.
        • digghasnoethics, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1Yes actually, it does.

          Well tested, and (at the risk of Godwinising this) Nuremberg is one example. "I was just following orders", or "We redefined torture" doesn't cut any ice.
    • jpurdy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0Hitler was legally elected, and his actions had legal justification under the laws his government enacted. Just like Dubya's "signing statements".
  • Nezacant, on 05/30/2008, -12/+0Who the hell is John Bolton?
    • datarefuge, on 05/30/2008, -8/+9He was the US ambassador to the UN. One of the best. He kept calling the UN on their ***** and ruffled a bunch of feathers.
      • Nezacant, on 05/30/2008, -4/+0Thanks!
      • nickymouse, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2John Bolton is my hero. I can't wait until we evicted the UN out their building.
        • MrErr, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1In case you do not know, there are a lot of countries which would like the UN to be somewhere else so that it is not so unduly influenced by us. But it is our government that in the end holds on to the UN.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1They can have them.
          I've always felt that the un should be housed in the poorest member country. Then every 5 years or so, reevaluate and move it if need be.
    • nycmac247, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2google? yahoo? ...webcrawler??? ask? Wikipedia? call your mom? ask a person in the street?
      or are you making an ayn rand reference!??!?!?!?!
      • Nezacant, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2I could have looked it up but I love the snarky, grammarless, angry responses you get when you ask a question on digg.
  • 0Zeitgeist0, on 05/30/2008, -19/+14This is the behavior of a fascist...
    • HeavyWaters, on 05/30/2008, -7/+6Are you serious? Bolton is a fascist for speaking? I always feel very sorry for ignorant people like you. I don't know how you make it through life.
      • Wonderama, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2To a liberal, free speech for conservatives doesn't apply.
  • xeroblaze, on 05/30/2008, -15/+20John Bolton = Chickenhawk.
    • dk911, on 05/30/2008, -9/+4You can call ANYONE a "chickenhawk" if they've never been to war. For every democrat who holds some military training on high, as if they can never be called a chickenhawk, think again. To be labelled a chickenhawk you need to support a war, and not have ever been in a war. That accounts for almost ALL politicians, even the ones who have military training.
      Just having military training alone isn't enough to guarantee freedom from being called a chickenhawk. Clinton, in his call for regime change, was essentially a chickenhawk. A few politicians that I can see being free from being a chickenhawk, are Kerry, Murtha, and McCain. All three having been in service for our country during a time of war. Chickenhawk is not a term solely reserved for republicans.
  • WCL23, on 05/30/2008, -18/+20This "citizens arrest" was a stupid publicity seeking idea to start with, and the reporter that tried it is a d-bag.
  • terajoule, on 05/30/2008, -4/+23Who wants a mustache ride?
    • moxley, on 05/30/2008, -5/+3Funny - but I always thought "Mustache Ride" connotates eating pussy, and these people are all gay (not that there is anything wrong with that, the problem is that they preach family values and hate while they secretly have their own rent boys).



    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2"Who wants a mustache ride?"

      yo mama's getting one right now!
  • oldhick, on 05/30/2008, -10/+23So we dislike Bolton's ideas and speeches. We think he's a chickenhawk. But what crime can anyone link him to? I have yet to see what Bolton's being charged with. He has a right to support the war. I haven't seen any claims that he falsified documents or intelligence.
    Nail the people that are really responsible.
    • niczar, on 05/30/2008, -12/+6What crime? The supreme international crime, crime against peace; supreme in that it comprises all the other crimes. War is murder, war is rape, war is theft and arson.
      • oldhick, on 05/30/2008, -5/+7When did Bolton declare war? When did Bolton kill? He hasn't done any of those things. He's TALKED about those things.
        Second, everything is situational. Did Poland and France not have a right to TRY and defend themselves against Hitler? Was China supposed to sit by and watch as Japan brutally raped and murdered its people?
        Yes, war is awful. But there are situations where there are no alternatives. I think your argument can be well made if you frame it as "preemptive war" should be illegal. Wars of aggression should be illegal.
        But I will always defend myself and my rights. I will take the life of an aggressor who tries to hurt my friends and family without a second thought.
        • darkcooger, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I would guess that Bolton can only be guilty of a crime if (a) he presented false information to the UN to drum up support for the war *AND* (b) knew the information was false at the time. Otherwise he's just doing the job he's paid for - relaying information from one set of people to another.
        • johnnyboy239, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1"Did poland and france not have a right to TRY and defend......" etc

          This is a poor analogy, of course they did. They were attacked, we were not. The better analogy would be

          "did hitler not have a right to attack poland because he didn't like their government"

        • oldhick, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@johnnyboy239... I don't know how I could make it any clearer. I was responding to a comment that war is a crime. I gave several scenarios where war could be justified. I wasn't trying to say that OUR war was justified. Thats why I followed my comment up with saying "preemptive war should be illegal. Wars of aggression should be illegal."
          I believe what we did was illegal and immoral.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5Your ignorance is a crime
      • apackofmonkeys, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5And yet all I've seen so far in this thread is people advocating charging and killing this man for his opinions and nothing else. I almost feel nauseated that you all think you're the "peace" crowd.
        • roflbrothel, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Dude, there's been like 1 (poorly thought out) thread so far speculating that Bolton might end up like Mussolini that was only dugg because it used a spectacularly bad pun.
        • apackofmonkeys, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1@roflbrothel: "Dude", do you have eyes? Can you read? Can you at least look at the other posts before you start claiming things about them?
        • niczar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1And where did I do that, monkey? Liar.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Felony douchebaggery and the unlawful possession of a massive mustache.
  • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -16/+13Bolton's only crime is telling the truth about the corrupt fiasco we know as the UN. ***** the UN.
    • rthakidn, on 05/30/2008, -7/+7I'll second that.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/30/2008, -4/+1The UN has done more for the world than the US in recent decades. The US' latest escapades have been total *****. The UN isn't perfect by any means, but we'd rather have them running the show than the incompetents at the helm of the US government.
      • rthakidn, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Name one.
      • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4I can't believe someone actually said that. Just amazing to see it in the printed word. Do you really think like that?
  • screamingjoker, on 05/30/2008, -12/+18Bolton uses the black art of obscurantism and sophism to version the truth to fit his political agenda. There are alot of things that are "legally" ordered, that are later deemed illegal. Why are the soldiers who tortured iraqi's in jail, while the man (Jon Woo) who wrote the "legal" order for them to do it is not in jail? Because justice is a function of political will.

    McCellan said this week the Iraq war was unnecessary and everybody in the admin, knew it! I think the only way we can go after these guys is to get the Military sufficiently pissed off about the fact that they were used like pawns to further business interests. The Military, their families and vets are the only ones that still have enough clout to get charges brought against them.

    Bush and Co. are abusers of power, Soldiers died, money was squandered. In Rome they would bury abusers of power upside down and set their feet on fire.
    • walkeraj, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Maybe in the 8th circle of Dante's Hell, they are, but I'm pretty sure in Rome they were either killed outright or praised.
    • bkemper, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3"I think the only way we can go after these guys is to get the Military sufficiently pissed off about the fact that they were used like pawns"

      A pawn, in the way that you use it, is defined as "a person used by others for their own purposes". Which is exactly what soldiers always are. In fact the word "pawn" comes from the Latin word for foot soldier.
    • johnnyboy239, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Indeed... of course rome was not a democracy, and it was often the abusers of power who triumphed. I don't think that you really want to advocate changing our society to be more like rome.
  • walkeraj, on 05/30/2008, -9/+4"Citizen's arrest" attempts like this are pointless and irritating. Think about it for a moment. What would Monbiot have done had he somehow succeeded in "arresting" Mr. Bolton? Spirited him off somewhere and kept him in a cell? That's called "kidnapping". Put him on trial and executed him? "Murder". What "justice" was he seeking to bring him to? Did he seriously think he could find a criminal court in his country that would, purely based on his actions, try a US official for war crimes?

    When the citizens of a country bond together to arrest a political figure for perceived crimes, it's a coup or a revolution. When one man gets it into his head to do it at a public speech it's at best a political stunt and at worst it's assault.

    I'm not being an apologist one way or the other here, but if people want to make real change there are much better ways to do it.
  • Nodaki, on 05/30/2008, -9/+9As much as I would like to spit in his eye for his views, in America you are gifted with the ability to be a complete ***** and get away with it. Bolton committed no crime, he was not the secratary of defense who authorized torture of detainees or director of the CIA who falsified evidence to bring us to war. He is simply a blowhard mouthpiece of the Bush Administration.

    No crime here, the only thing a normal citizen can do to Bolton is to protest his views in a debate. Stop with the 60s era anti-war slogans and start electing people who are not Zionists in disguise as warhawk Americans. http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html

    Bolton is a Zionist. Bolton's true allegiance is to Israel and not to the United States.

    Do not support your U.S. Senator or Congressman if they take money from members of AIPAC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
  • HubbertWins, on 05/30/2008, -8/+4There are some paranoid, delusional drama queens in this thread. We will be rid of Bush in something like 8 months. Be thankful and stop pretending that the sky is falling. Good grief.
  • papipablo, on 05/30/2008, -9/+12Don't arrest him, just hang him.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -14/+10Hey Lefty Loonies - Bill Clinton was one of the strongest supporters of regime change in Iraq

    "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - Bill Clinton
    "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal[WMD]." - BIll Clinton

    In 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change official US policy, nit wits
    Read that again loonies - it was Bill Clinton that made regime change in Iraq the offcial US policy.
    When will the lefty loonies try a "citizens arrest" on Bill Clinton?

    When are you lefty loonies going to stop being sock-pocket parrots for your left wing handlers?


    The Left has pretty much no crediblity.
    • nick111, on 05/30/2008, -5/+8Only if your so wince-inducingly weak-minded that you think the Clintons are "left"

      Jesus. Are you even allowed to vote?
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Within the US political system - Clinton is not left ?

        Wow - Clinton was from the right - who knew?

        nit wit
    • sodade, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5Bill Clinton was certainly not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination.
      • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -3/+2WHAT?!?!?!? Either you are very young or mentally disabled in some way. Clinton was certainly a leftist.
        • sodade, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3A real leftist wouldn't have been owned by corporations, wouldn't bomb civilians, and wouldn't have pandered to the right by attacking welfare. America knows nothing about leftists.
        • SuperVepr308, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2"America knows nothing about leftists". I hope I don't get to learn any more about it if Bill counts as a Centrist in your book. Damn.
        • Ebonsteel, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2You're so far to the right, you can't comprehend what a "Leftist" is.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Hey Lefty Loonies - I never claimed Bill Clinton was from the left (although he was) - I just pointed out he created the US policy of regime change in Iraq (read the article nit wits)

      Within the US political system - Bill Clinton was from the left...unless you lefty loonies are planning on breaking the earth-shaking news that Bill Clinton came from the right.

      Left and Right only have meaning within the context of the system being cited - Bill Clinton is to the right of socialist/communists.

      How much you want to bet the bozo's relying to this comment are currently wearing Che t-shirts - rage against the machine baby!
  • nickymouse, on 05/30/2008, -14/+11I like John Bolton. You should really look into the things he did at the UN to try to curb apathy, laziness, corruption, and really try to get some semblance of order.

    When you look for info about John Bolton try not to focus your attention on some Obamaboner radical blog. If you have a single conservative few your slandered and deafen by them.
    • nick111, on 05/30/2008, -5/+6Pity then that he's a representative of an adminstration and an ideology that's even more apathetic, lazy and corrupt than the UN. Remember Katrina? Conservative policy in motion.

      The only people that matter are the rich, and someone else shoulders all the costs. That's you.
    • defwheezer, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Yeh, he did REAL well with that whole nuclear non proliferation thing he was in charge of. (NOT). The guy is an incompetent blowhard asshat of the highest order.
  • lozzobear, on 05/30/2008, -8/+9George Monbiot is an excellent researcher and writer. Captive State is a must-read if you're interested in UK business/government relations and what you're in for when private industry partnerships for major infrastructure start coming to your part of the world.

    /Sorry Americans, it's too late for you.
  • NelsonR, on 05/30/2008, -5/+7Haven't checked Bolton's past personal history but I would be willing to wager he emulates Cheney, Hannity, Limbaugh, Lieberman and most other Conservative Nationalist, all cowards sending others to wars they start and promote while they themselves avoided service.
    • herbertstrasse, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2pretty much.
    • Ebonsteel, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3That pretty much sums him up, but just for added spice he has horrible anger management problems (throwing things at underlings in fits of rage, beating down doors), and like Antonin Scalia, is a real fan of swingers clubs and orgies.

      Another moral pillar of the Reicht Wing in action.
  • PosedMagnet, on 05/30/2008, -2/+8Citizens arrest doesn't actually work, just FYI.
  • HeavyWaters, on 05/30/2008, -14/+7You leftists are embarassing yourselves again. It never ceases to amaze me how liberal arguments are always based in pure emotionalism and exaggeration. Never grounded in any knowledge of history, and never containing any facts. And consequently there's nothing more weak and effeminate than a man who is a liberal.
    • Jlaugh, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1"And consequently there's nothing more weak and effeminate than a man who is a liberal."

      Spoken like a true fascist, have you pressed your white sheets for your klan meeting?
      • HeavyWaters, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Ha! Perhaps you should look up the definition of "fascism". Maybe that's the problem. Liberals don't even know what the word means, yet they apply it to every person they disagree with. Seriously, you guys should sing a new tune. It seems every liberal digger incorporates "fascist" into their posts.

        I'm sorry your weak mind was susceptible to the propaganda taught to you in the schools and through your "objective" news sources. Although I doubt you've spent much time in school or reading the news, because then you'd surely know what the definition of fascism is.

        See, we conservatives aren't afraid of words like you liberals. We aren't afraid of letting fools like you make your banal uninformed coments because it boosts our argument, and we can then point out the fallacy of the liberal mind. But, I make a comment about how weak and effeminate male liberals are, and you call me a fascist. Hilarious.
        • Jlaugh, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Ah more brainwashed neocon BS. Thanks for playing. I grew up around neo-nazis dude, I know exactly what that cult of steroid induced masculinity is all about. Real men defend the weak, and help the poor, and have compassion.
        • HeavyWaters, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1"Ah more brainwashed neocon BS"

          "I guess with that you've won the argument. It's really sad that your disordered mind is unable to come up with anything resembling a defense of your absurd statement. You weren't able to address your misuse of the term fascism, and you weren't able to address your self-admitted fear of free speech. By your silence and meaningless deflection ("more brainwashed neocon BS") you admit your ignorance to anyone reading this with half a brain.

          And saying you grew up around neo-nazis is so off-point that you must be smoking some really good weed or something. My statement (again, words) in no way resembles the actions of neo-nazis. I don't know where you get "steroid induced masculinity". I'm just saying you're more like a woman because your arguments are based solely on emotion. In fact I know plenty of real feminine women who are tougher and far more intelligent than you. They don't rely on only emotion, but on logic. Conservatives tend to be realists, while liberals are idealists ("I just love John Lennon's "Imagine", that's the best song ever!)

          And assuming I am against defending the weak and the poor and devoid of compassion is utterly absurd and again evidences your inability to think rationally. Here's a hint why that is: it's because you're a liberal. The conservatives (real men AND women) I know do more to help people in need than any liberal I have ever met, and I've known WAY more liberals than conservatives. This is primarily because conservatives tend to believe in God and dedicate their lives to helping truly disadvantaged people (not illegal immigrants as I'm sure was first on your mind) according to religious instruction, whereas liberals tend toward atheism which invariably leads back to one thing - themselves. Which explains why liberals are more self-centered, shallow, and as you've shown us, inarticulate and uninformed.
        • Jlaugh, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Wow, your really full of your opinion, aren't you? I'm not a liberal see, because I'm not tolerant of other peoples beliefs. I believe some people are just plain wrong.

          I'm not thinking with my emotions, for instance I haven't taken anything you've wrote personally. You should consider not labeling half the country on your preconceived notions of what liberals are like.

          By fascist I mean belligerent, nationalistic, arrogant, and rude. Which is what you are. In other words you seem to suffer from the intellectual equivalent of short mans complex. So you retreat into false social constructs based on your self perceived superiority over people who are in touch with there feelings.
        • HeavyWaters, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Wow, I guess I am! That must make me a fascist. "Preconceived notions of what liberals are like"? Like I said before, most of my friends (and most everyone I know) are liberal. And I actually like these people! What a shock. A conservative tolerant of other people's beliefs!

          Many liberals are good people, but they have an unrealistic view of the world and their arguments are not based on any facts - just idealistic emotionalism.

          And "belligerent, nationalistic, arrogant, and rude" is in no way the definition of fascist. So thanks for proving my point.

          The last part of your post just cracked me up. You must have been a Sociology major...

          And I'm glad you're "in touch with your feelings" Jlaugh.
  • wolfenraider, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3CONSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS
    Published By Citizens' Justice Programs

    Post Office Box 90, Hull, Massachusetts 02045

    http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Citizens' Arrest
    By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney
    Common Law Copyright © 1994
    All Rights Reserved

    Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.

    First, what is an arrest?

    We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

    Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.

    A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

    In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:

    (b) A private person may arrest another -

    (1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -

    (A) a felony, or

    (B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or

    (2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.

    (c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)

    In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

    Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))

    Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

    Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

    Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

    Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.

    Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.

    As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.

  • Apocrypha, on 05/30/2008, -3/+9"You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper."

    Perfectly logical if you also assume that the government in question does not have some hidden agenda, which, in this case, it did. Being democratically elected does not mean they don't make mistakes or aren't beyond corruption. They use the same argument for why the american gov't allowed the war. It's a perfectly good argument.....as long as the gov't in question is not corrupt and lieing to everyone. Then it completely falls apart. The voracity of the argument is only ensured by the trustworthiness of the gov't in question. In this case the American gov't cannot be trusted to do anything right or to give the truth unspun. They are simply incapable of it. Therefore, like everything John Bolton says, his argument is complete *****.
  • BXRWXR, on 05/30/2008, -5/+2Is he any relation to Michael Bolton?
    • nydwarf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1The guy from Office Space? He's a fictional character dude! :D
  • CaptinCrunch, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5Perhaps if the guy hadn't bragged about it for days beforehand he'd have had a better chance of pulling it off. What a dumbass.
  • Juicediggs, on 05/30/2008, -7/+7Really? You people are digging this? Some hack trying to citizen's arrest Bolton who had nothing to do with the decision to go into Iraq.

    Bolton may be an ass, but he actually tried to clean up the UN, which is probably the most inept and corrupt entity in all of the world.

    I'm truly starting to believe some of the dumbest people on the internet spend their days on Digg.
  • irishjays, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5First of all, we didn't tell iraq not let the inspectors in for 12 years. Second, (as for if we should have went to war) it was eventually approved by a vote in congress, people we elected to represent us. Third, if it helps you sleep at night by spending the day blaming everyone but yourself then digg is cheaper than pharmaceuticals for your problems.

    P.S. It's still not technically a war.
  • Volaitle86, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3double douche alert
  • 55mph, on 05/30/2008, -5/+4Elitists like Bolton think accountability is only suitable for their enemies.

    Arrest the mutherfuker!!
  • bshock, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4Criminals always laugh at justice. That's why they're criminals.
  • reugeneg, on 05/30/2008, -5/+3What I would pay to hear John Bolton scream, "don't tase me bro!!!"
  • dupswapdrop, on 05/30/2008, -6/+3Just think if this ass and the rest of bush's buddy's wouldn't have started the war with Iraq gas would be selling for 40 cents a gallon right now.
  • herbertstrasse, on 05/30/2008, -7/+2Jon Stewart made Bolton look like such an ass.

    And yeah, that citizen's arrest attempt crap is pretty dumb. These things are useful when it's something like a pickpocket or shoplifter, not a diplomat whom one opposes (rightly or wrongly) for what amounts to political and ideological reasons.
  • kam1008, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4“I would be delighted to go to Bristol and face the fruitcakes down”

    So let me get this straight, the guy with the two-toned hair is calling other people fruitcakes?
  • orxor, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5"You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper."

    Well Hitlers government was elected democratically. I guess that makes everything they did legal and proper.
    • ramiro, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Hitler was a leftist.
      • Ramble, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1No he wasn't. He was authoritarian but fairly central.
        The UK government by contrast is not really libertarian or authoritarian but is slighty right wing.
      • ramiro, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Are you out of your mind? Hitler was no "central" and the UK government is not right wing (unless you meant Margareth Tatcher).

        Hitler was a national-socialist. Socialism means "left". PERIOD.
        The only difference between him and the rest of the socialists is that he was nationalist (as opposed to our ordinary patriot-hating leftists), believed in a mix of conflict of races plus classes and he chose to control the corporations and limit private property instead of plainly confiscating them.
    • ImperialRome, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Hitler's government wasn't elected democratically, Hitler used his parties number of delegates to demand concessions from the Chancellor. Hitler used his leverage since his party won a plurality in the Reichstag, and became Chancellor after Hindenburg died. After becoming chancellor, Hitler outlawed the opposition parties, arrested the communists, murdered his rivals in the party and the SA, and began passing decrees. He seized power, and then ratified it with mock elections afterward. Comparing Nazi Germany then and its rubber stamp for the Fuher with the Congress of 2002 and the AUMF is apples to oranges.
  • camelot2302, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2“I would be delighted to go to Bristol and face the fruitcakes down”

    All I have to say to that is it takes a fruitcake to recognize one.
  • ramiro, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6Why the heck are the Lefties always whining about every patriot? John Bolton is a champion of America and tried to put the corrupt UN in its deserved place.

    If you don't like America, go live in Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Iran and other places where you can find like-minded individuals.
  • tom500k, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1For a practical DIY on citizen arrest go to
    www.afterdowningstreet.org/citizenarrest

    If you think Bolton is innocent then you don't know much about international war which makes the planning and aiding and abetting of aggressive wars, the master crime. We'll get at the truth when Bolton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Yoo, et al. are put on trial for enabling war and torture. Since the present AG is no better than Gonzo, it's up to us to use citizen arrests to bring this gang to justice.
  • winston80, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Bolton for President. He has some balls. I admire him a lot...
  • LoneRanger85, on 05/31/2008, -1/+2When John Bolton was ambassador to the UN, he should have been given a license to kill. Seriously, when he saw a thug from a thug country walking down the halls of the UN, he should have been able to pull his Walther P38 (favored by U.N.C.L.E) and put a bullet in the thug's thug head.
    • HiCaP, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1and some people thought Thrush just made mufflers
      The Man From U.N.C.L.E., man,, a blast from the past.
      If only I still had all those toys from the show, the Napoleon Solo gun set was great.
      of course ya had to have the Agent Zero M camera for back up.
      Thanks for the Flash Back kemo sabe, and only you know what to yell when you hear the William Tell Overture.

  • thereisnostate, on 05/31/2008, -2/+2Bolton is just a mentally ill tool used by the zionists.
  • JLSN, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1Everyone knows that the Bush Crime Family and all their crime bosses have regularly broken the law, that is what criminals do.

    The sad part is that we have tolerated it. This democracy is in real trouble, and nobody seems to care.

    I fault the congress. Not only were they elected to stop the illegal war in Iraq, but they should have arrested the entire crime family.
  • pjr12345, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Did anyone else have a flashback to the "Andy Griffith Show" episode where Gomer ran around yelling "Citizen's Arrest, citizen's arrest!"?

  • scooby007, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I think the Bushies should absolutely be tried for war crimes. Maybe we can get to that in Jan '09... There's a harsher tone being taken regarding these matters lately - the media more likely to say 'lied', willfully mislead, etc. - these are very positive developments.
  • ImperialRome, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1You cannot try the President for war crimes. War crimes committed by our soldiers are the responsibility of those soldiers. The President didn't order them to rape or murder or force them to wear Lyndie Englund's panties on their head.

    Second, the War itself is not a crime. AUMF 2002 gives the President the authority to order the troops into combat, and allows the Congress to review the President's actions every 90 days. The war is legal, and Congress keeps on reauthorizing it through supplemental spending.
  •  

    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.