Pleasant thought of the day: fatherland security

[Ryder]

They'll only torture suspects? Good one. Everyone is a suspect.

The criminal charge of "making a terrorist threat" is already being used against people in local courts here. These charges are based on speech causing fear in someone. It has NOTHING to do with any war, real or imagined.

I'm not worried. Authorities in this country can only use torture at their own peril.

 

[STAGE 2]

It’s true that no US citizen has been hauled off into some secret prison (as far as we know), but how close must we become before people start heeding the words of the Founders like I quoted earlier in this thread?

This is what kills me. The standard has already been established. We can go as far as the constitution allows and no further. As much as some people here who are waiting for the black helicopters would like it, the military comissions act is well within the confines of the constitution.

In fact, its a perfect example to how the government is supposed to work. In response to SCOTUS, the executive went through congress and got legislation passed to put him in compliance with the judiciary's interpretation of the law.

And yet somehow somewhere there is someone muttering to himself "I ain't no enemy combatant.. I ain't no ene...."


Should we always be vigilant, yes. Are vigilance and paranoia/kneejerk reactions the same thing... not by a long shot.

 

[USSR]

NineseveN,

LOL, you rail at being tagged the "loony left", and then you confirm the accuracy of that statement with your pedantic rambling. Oleg doesn't seem to be bothered by some criticism of his poster/statement, so why are your panties all in a knot?

Don

 

[strambo]

I am not sure that torturing enemy combatants is legal yet.

Not even close, the pendulum is swinging further and further away too...not geting closer to allowed torture.

Oleg's work is meant to be thought provoking, this one certainly is, though I don't personally agree with the gist of it. Implying the government is currently torturing people is 1. false and 2. only gives ammo to those who wish to see us destroyed. I agree we need to be vigilant so this doesn't occur, I don't see it happening now.

If you are a foreign terrorist, I could care less what happens to you, I care about US citizens, valid visa holders and resident aliens. I care about government powers in regards to those groups.

Factual refutations of the assumptions behind my poster would be welcome.

A factual basis for it would be nice. The actions of the stupid low lifes at Abu Gharaib don't count...not government sanctioned and they were held accountable (well, some...point is govt. prosecuted them).

As far as refuting a poster, no one here has to refute anything. Why? Well first of all, you can't prove a negative.

Well said Stage 2.

Keep up the good work Oleg, keep 'em coming. If we all agreed this would be a boring place.

Speaking of terrorists, there was a funny quote written on a dry erase board in our TOC yesterday: "They enjoy blowing themselves up. We enjoy blowing them up. You would think we would get along better."

 

[Manedwolf]

Implying the government is currently torturing people is 1. false

Are you able to cite top-secret records that show this to be the case? If not, how can you say this with certainty? Answer: You can't.

and 2. only gives ammo to those who wish to see us destroyed.

And that's frighteningly propaganda-like blind jingoistic talking points. That crap is RIGHT out of the damned fascist playbook. God I hate hearing that.

 

[Khornet]

From this discussion

it's clear that the Bushies aren't the only ones guilty of 'scaremongering'. It cuts both ways.

 

[strambo]

Are you able to cite top-secret records that show this to be the case?

Top secret records that say we aren't torturing anyone? Um, the public record says we are not. Top secret records saying we are? 1. If there was torture it would be illegal and unlikely to be on record. 2. How can you assume/imply we (US Govt.) are torturing people simply because I (or any poster) cannot supply info Top Secret or otherwise that we aren't?

I can't say it with certainty...I can say it would be 100% illegal and I see no evidence of it. I certainly wouldn't imply we are, lacking evidence. How can I say with certainty you aren't a criminal? Even if I do a background check and you have no record? You could be, should I spread the rumor so people can be vigilant just in case?

Again, how can a negative be proven (that we are not torturing anyone? It's possible someone somewhere could be?) Public records and the laws of land warfare say we are not torturing anyone...you prove we are (prove the positive, prove the allegation). Any implication that we are torturing people without proof is providing propaganda to the enemy. As a soldier in a war zone the notion that I could be involved in anything like that (as a representative of this government, though not speaking as such officially), in contrast to my oath and obligations, is crap right out of the anti-war socialist playbook.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN,

LOL, you rail at being tagged the "loony left", and then you confirm the accuracy of that statement with your pedantic rambling. Oleg doesn't seem to be bothered by some criticism of his poster/statement, so why are your panties all in a knot?

Don

In the absence of an argument, you again resort to an ad hominem...why am I not surprised? What I am surprised at is that you're allowed to continue on with your BS. The thing is, I'm trying not to be insulting towards you, but you sure don't make that something desirable to continue.

If you're too damn dense to formulate a counter argument, perhaps you should go find a 4th grade schoolyard where you can engage your mental peers with such dazzling arguments as "you're a poopy pants, neener neener".

Do us both a favor and quit soiling the discussion with the garbage you post, I'm sure you're capable of hurling more than petty insults, care to take a stab at making a point?


I really thought ad hominems were outlawed here, there are ways to disagree without being an idiot about it.


Perhaps I'll try the ignore feature of the board. I hate doing that, and I've never done it, I'm afraid you'll actually make a useful point and I'll miss it. It's doubtful, I know, but I'm trying to be an optimist here.

 

[roo_ster]

Factual refutations of the assumptions behind my poster would be welcome.

strambo repeatedly whacked the premesis of the poster in his posts, one of whic is http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2805852&postcount=107

Factual assertions of the assumptions behind your poster would be welcome, too.

Poster Assumptions
1. The US Govt is being equated to Nazi Germany.

2. US Govt is torturing terroroists as a matter of policy.

3. US Govt is torturing disidents as a matter of policy.

4. US Govt is insists we trust them.

 

[strambo]

Since the govt. does not torture terrorists as a matter of policy and it is expressly illegal under our laws...the message is completely lost.

I think if it took a couple steps back...talked about abuse of civil rights in regards to Patriot Act (or any other current happenings) and then drew parallels to USSR/Nazi Germany... it would be much more effective.

Yes, the imagery and statement is powerful in the abstract...just not based in current facts. Keep 'em coming though.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

OK, Quickie response to this:

1. The US Govt is being equated to Nazi Germany.

2. US Govt is torturing terroroists as a matter of policy.

3. US Govt is torturing disidents as a matter of policy.

4. US Govt is insists we trust them.

1. If he used the word "homeland" it takes away the "warning" part of the message and makes it take place more in the "now." I don't believe that's his goal. Motherland seems out, and Fatherland has the issues you just mentioned. Since we don't have a historical reference ("homeland" is a reasonably new term in the American vocabulary) what's a better alternative?
2. Before we get into source cites and all the detail work that requires (prepping the house for a Halloween party and don't want the interruption), do you disagree that there's a strong likelihood that the following have happened: torture (and deaths during torture) has happened in interrogations related to the war on terror? That the bush administration has made efforts to redefine "torture" so that things like waterboarding and the like are allowed, whereas in the past these were clearly defined as torture? That the Administration is pushing to redefine torture so an act is not turture unless is it "capable of causing major organ failure or death?" (Note that 12V wires attached to testicles isn't in this category - nor is pulling out someone's fingernails, or sticking bamboo skewers under someone's fingers, and you can throw in as many Vietnam-era horror stories that didn't cause "organ failure or death" as you like here)? That legislation was recently passed, at the urging of the president, that made it impossible to prosecute feds and military folks for torture that's already happened (this was most interesting in that the dates listed went back into the Clinton administration)? Do none of things rise to the level of "matter of policy?"
3. It could be argued that this is a logical next step, if we're going to use history as a guide.
4. I guess you don't get the general "we're the good guys, and if you disagree then you're a terrorist sympathizer" vibe that's out there right now....

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Poster Assumptions
1. The US Govt is being equated to Nazi Germany.

2. US Govt is torturing terroroists as a matter of policy.

3. US Govt is torturing disidents as a matter of policy.

4. US Govt is insists we trust them.

1. Wrong, it needs to be interpreted as an invitation to compare and contrast, not to equate (which would be dumb).
Homeland Security/ Fatherland Security... not a whole lot of difference in the name. Goals were probably similar too.

2. No way. By law, nothing in that poster would be called torture. If you think it is torture, you are a terrorist who hates mom and apple pie. See extended text at the bottom.

3. See item 2. We don't torture people, because we have defined torture so that what we do is not torture...

4. According to Reuters, "Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses."

Rumsfield said today that anyone demanding deadlines for progress in
Iraq should just back off.

Begin Bill

``(11) TORTURE.--
5 ``(A) OFFENSE.--Any person subject to
6 this chapter who commits an act specifically in-
7 tended to inflict severe physical or mental pain
8 or suffering (other than pain or suffering inci-
9 dental to lawful sanctions) upon another person
10 within his custody or physical control for the
11 purpose of obtaining information or a confes-
12 sion, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any
13 reason based on discrimination of any kind,
14 shall be punished, if death results to one or
15 more of the victims, by death or such other
16 punishment as a military commission under this
17 chapter may direct, and, if death does not re-
18 sult to any of the victims, by such punishment,
19 other than death, as a military commission
20 under this chapter may direct.

16 ``(i) The term `serious physical pain
17 or suffering' means bodily injury that in-
18 volves--
19 ``(I) a substantial risk of death;
20 ``(II) extreme physical pain;
21 ``(III) a burn or physical dis-
22 figurement of a serious nature (other
23 than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or




HR 6166 EH 72
1 ``(IV) significant loss or impair-
2 ment of the function of a bodily mem-
3 ber, organ, or mental faculty.
4 ``(ii) The term `severe mental pain or
5 suffering' has the meaning given that term
6 in section 2340(2) of title 18.
7 ``(iii) The term `serious mental pain
8 or suffering' has the meaning given the
9 term `severe mental pain or suffering' in
10 section 2340(2) of title 18, except that--
11 ``(I) the term `serious' shall re-
12 place the term `severe' where it ap-
13 pears; and
14 ``(II) as to conduct occurring
15 after the date of the enactment of the
16 Military Commissions Act of 2006,
17 the term `serious and non-transitory
18 mental harm (which need not be pro-
19 longed)' shall replace the term `pro-
20 longed mental harm' where it appears.

 

[GEM]

I wonder if those who don't agree with Oleg's presentation of a threat to human rights and the need to protect them in the absolute - also don't view the RKBA with similar rigidity? Thus, if waterboarding is ok as it doesn't do permanent damage might a new AWB be ok - after all the average DGU takes only 3 rounds? Why have an AW type gun?

A moral principal is a moral principal and expediency is expediency. Are you selective in your applications? Torture (if waterboarding seems as such) is ok as long as one can have a gun as there is a disconnect between different human rights?

 

[roo_ster]

Derek:

1. Folks use Nazi allusions for a reason. In this case it was a conflation of "Fatherland" and "Homeland Securtiy." We're all sharp enough to get the allusion & I suspect OV is sharp enough to have written what he meant to write. No alternatives are necessary when you say what you mean from the get-go. The highest probability is that this is propaganda directed at the US and not some nebulous facsists out in the world.

Refuting the USA=Nazi Germany point is not worth my time, it is so patently ridiculous. Cindy Sheehan's ramblings on the Huffington Post are no Diary of Ann Frank.

2.

...do you disagree that there's a strong likelihood that the following have happened: torture (and deaths during torture) has happened in interrogations related to the war on terror?

Nope. Lots of folks and lots countries are involved in WoT. I am morally certain that someone, at some time, by citizens of some country, since 2001-09-11, has been tortured to flush out terrorists.

The problem is, your question is so broad and inclusive, it is pretty much useless for a discussion pertaining to US policy & action in the WoT.

The implication is that torture is a matter of US policy or (to have a lesser standard) routine. Documentation, legislative statutes, and executive orders refute the assertion, as does the action of our executive branch. For example, before the first reporter released a peep about Abu Grahib, our green-suiters were in the process of investigating & prosecuting the perpetrators. AG abuses were not policy and those who violated policy were punished accordingly.

I also reject the defining of torture down. This is a tactic used when accusations of "torture policy" founder on the rocks of fact and reality. The methods used on the worst terrorists (such as KSM) we have captured are not torture, unless our boys are tortured as a matter of policy at Basic, AIT, RIP, & whatnot.

3. Only a next logical step if #2 is reality...which it ain't. Otherwise, it is fever-swamp material like my neighbor the conspiracy theorist. Also, the fact that all the major "dissidents" are walking about free to "dissent" is positive proof that they have not been rounded up.

4. I don't deny that US gov't wants us to trust them. Public relations is not necessarily a tool of facsism or necessarily a bad thing. FWIW, I view most gov't pronouncements with a gimlet eye, though I leave the tinfoil in the cupboard.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

We're going to have to disagree then. The actions of the Bush Administration look to me like there's a solid push to get a bit meaner with people suspected of wrongdoing. I'll point you again at the 12V testicles trick, plus Fun With Fingernails (TM) -- both perfectly OK methods of questioning folks, if we think the folks ain't good people. This is based on the "organ failure or death" measure, which seems to be the one the president likes.

On this:

Basic, AIT, RIP, & whatnot

I can speak for all of those but the whatnot (unless jump school = whatnot), but we weren't tortured. Unless PT is torture. SERE school is different, of course, and I never went to Ranger School, so can't address those.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Oh - as far as the Nazi connection -- I never saw it. My interpretation is listed above (and I'm not sure how to rework it to flow better either -- don't think "homeland" works quite as well as it could...)

 

[DigitalWarrior]

jfruser
Please answer a couple of questions:

1. Do you understand the purpose of using an example to invite the participant to compare and contrast?

2. Do you understand that no one is saying that the US is Nazi Germany?

3. Do you understand that when I say that the US is becoming more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, I am not saying that we are shipping people to Work Camps (yet)?

4. Do you agree that a person being locked in a room and forced to listen to "This is the song that never ends" for 60 days is not torture?

5. Do you agree that giving a person syrup of ipecac with every meal is not torture.

6. Do you agree that given 4 hours, I could come up with 40 different ideas that would make you feel like you are in hell, while still not torturing you?

 

[NineseveN]

The methods used on the worst terrorists (such as KSM) we have captured are not torture, unless our boys are tortured as a matter of policy at Basic, AIT, RIP, & whatnot.

That's a fallacious argument, our soldiers are subjected to such measures in programs such as SERE on a voluntary basis, where they're getting paid to do it and potentially improving their career path aside from just doing the honorable thing in serving to the very best of their abilities.

When suspects (people like to use the term "terrorists" to describe people that haven't been proven to be anything) can voluntarily opt in or out of waterboarding and other such methods without further retribution, I'll concede your point. Until then, this specific aspect of your argument is simply not relevant.

And yes, it is torture when our soldiers are being subjected to it, what do you think they're being prepared for, weekends at Camp David? No, the utilization of such methods is to prepare our soldiers and elite operatives both physically and mentally for what they may face out in the field in a worse-case scenario, that has no direct comparison to someone being involuntarily submitted to such methods for purposes other than their own.

Besides, I don't recall suspects in the WoT being taught how to read maps and navigate land, how to tie knots or how to fast rope such as we see in the RIP program, nor do I see any correlation between what a suspect may go through and what happens during any facet of AIT (except maybe the Military Intelligence or Chemical specialties, and even then I'm doubtful).

 

[DigitalWarrior]

There is also intent.

When I was in USMC bootcamp, we were made to do very unpleasant things that would increase unit cohesion, or make us stronger, or make us more formidable warriors. We knew it.

If captured by an enemy, I would be made to do what may appear to be superficially similar things, but for a different intent.

I might be told to hold a stick straight out, and if it drops, they beat my fellow captive. Done often enough, and without changing roles (I am always the stick holder) he would grow to hate me. You can beat a man pretty bad without doing permanent damage or disfiguring him.

Maybe they do a good cop bad cop deal where I am put in an uncomfortable position (standing in a box just a bit too small) and then a friendly guard takes pity on me and lets me sit. He gets yelled at when the bad cop returns, but does me favors whenever he can. In a few weeks I might believe that he is my friend, and not the interrogator. I might even try to save him when he says "look, they found out I am helping you, and I am going to be jailed if you don't give somebody up." I would believe that if I do not help, I lose a friend, and lose the relief of pain he represented.

 

[roo_ster]

9-7:
Rapists don't voluntarily do five years in prison, either. Volition is immaterial.

DW:
Intent? Y'all are hilarious. Yep, unless we intend to make Joe Tango a better man, we can't use techniques that have persuaded many a recruit to toe the line and jump when ordered to.

-----------

Yet more evidence that when W Civ dies, it will die by suicide.

 

[Manedwolf]

I still wonder at the term "homeland". It seems like a term only useful to a culture that holds or intends to hold colonies in foreign lands that are not the "homeland". It's an imperialist designation, to me, and that makes me uncomfortable.

 

[NineseveN]

Sorry jfruser, you're not making the argument. You tried to make the case that since some people voluntarily submit themselves to torture, it must be okay to do to others involuntarily because if we do it to others when they consent to it, it's not really torture when we do it to someone else.

Some people pay money to be bound, confined and beaten by big women in PVC latex, try using that as justification for abducting a person off the street that you think just committed a crime when you consequently handcuff him to a light post and beat him senseless with a riding crop.

Consensual sex is okay, rape is not.

Boxing is okay, assault is a crime.


Voluntary consent has everything to do with the hole in your argument, wishing it away doesn't change that.

 

[USSR]

The "Fatherland Security" is abviously an attempt to link this U.S. program with the Nazi regime. The type of "torture" depicted, electrical shock, is obscene and is quite a stretch from the methods that have been discussed, such as playing loud music, sleep deprivation, and cold rooms. But, the most obnoxious part of Oleg's poster, is the implication that dissidents would be targets. But, as I tried to say in a previous post, when you come from a country where this type of behavior is routinely done by the security forces, you believe that it can be instituted here. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are perfect examples that this is not the case.

Don

 

[Oleg Volk]

During 1920s, plenty of anarchists and other dissidents were deported or jailed. Right now, we have less censortship than during most period of our history, but the overall civil liberties trend isn't very healthy. I am focusing on the trend, not on the current position on the slippery slope.

 

[USSR]

Oleg,

I will grant you that there has been a slight reduction in the amount of civil liberties as a result of the war, but nowhere's near what there has been in past wars. I think what irks me is, not so much the criticism of the homeland security act, but the lack of the promotion of a viable alternative to it. Unless, of course, the critics believe no additional security measures are warranted? I thank you for your levelheaded discussion of this, and you certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.

Don