Pleasant thought of the day: fatherland security

[STAGE 2]

Oleg, I'm curious what you mean by trend.

 

[4v50 Gary]

How about:

Fatherland Security.

All those in favor raise your hands.

 

[Oleg Volk]

And now for the joke of the day: my comments on the Democratic Underground discussion of this thread got me banned there. I feel so honored. Serves me right for wasting my time like that.

 

[vynx]

Liked the poster buy, then I linked over to the democraticunderground

Whoa...talk about scary....

 

[GunnyBob]

The angry left is forever worried that the government will treat our enemies too harshly. The angry right is forever worried that the government will treat it's law abiding citizens too harshly. As a former government employee I can say with all honesty that we tried our best to determine friend from enemy. Perfection is only possible from the chairborne, and such is life.

The poster itself? Didn't like it one bit. Surprised at first to see such included here when topics must be gun-specific but some animals are more equal than others. Then worry that the government might be employing the same tactics.

Gotta love the net.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It’s true that no US citizen has been hauled off into some secret prison (as far as we know)

Not exactly true. Now, that US citizen may indeed be a very scummy scumbag, but until he has had his day in court, he is *innocent*. Until proven guilty. In court.
(I now note that he'd been formally charged last year. What was that, three and a half years in the clink without charge?)

I'm with Oleg.

 

[NineseveN]

Didn't like it one bit. Surprised at first to see such included here when topics must be gun-specific but some animals are more equal than others.

Not to nitpick, but, from the THR Rules Link

There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.

 

[USSR]

...my comments on the Democratic Underground discussion of this thread got me banned there.

Oleg,

As a pro-RKBA liberal Democrat, you must feel as welcome as a Log Cabin republican does.

Don

 

[roo_ster]

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

Uh, no, that is not the case I made. The argument is that the interrogations of captured unlawful enemy combatants use techniques similar to those that persuade callow youths to become responsible fighting men. Our boys in the service are not tortured by training cadre. If that were to happen and detected, I would expect the perpetrator to be punished as has happened in the past.

9-7, you are stealing several logical bases here, one being that the currently passed bill allows for rather than restricts torture and that we are torturing any folks as a matter of policy or that those in positions of responsibility are looking the other way when their underlings torture. I'd like to see some proof of your accusations.

Another stolen base on your part is the defining of torture down, especially if you think our servicemen are tortured during training. If I were charitable, I might attribute this one to ignorance rather than logical base-stealing.

As I said, volition does not apply. The lawful enemy combatant doesn't want to be shot, but will be if he does not surrender in a timely manner. The unlawful combatant doesn't want to be interrogated, but if he is captured, it is going to happen. The time for volition & free will was before either got into a fight with our boys or our allies.

 

[NineseveN]

Uh, no, that is not the case I made. The argument is that the interrogations of captured unlawful enemy combatants use techniques similar to those that persuade callow youths to become responsible fighting men. Our boys in the service are not tortured by training cadre. If that were to happen and detected, I would expect the perpetrator to be punished as has happened in the past.

Um, no, this is what you said:
“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.”

You made the argument that what we do to terrorists is not torture unless what we do to our soldiers is also torture (i.e. it’s not torture in situation A because it’s not torture in situation B). If you meant something else, then retract that and say it, don’t twist your way out of it.

Now, specifically:

The argument is that the interrogations of captured unlawful enemy combatants use techniques similar to those that persuade callow youths to become responsible fighting men.

What techniques are those? First of all, not many ‘callow youths’ go through the advance portions of SERE (level C) that involve an emphasis on surviving torture and capture. The majority of the other SERE training is evasion and survival using things like scavenged garbage and unconventional materials to sustain life. We are not, in any way, shape or form, teaching suspected terrorists how to make fishing lures out of coke cans, hair and twigs or any other such survival technique. We are not molding groups of suspected terrorists into cohesive units through hardship and overcoming obstacles as a team, not in any way, shape or form. So tell me, exactly what techniques are you talking about other than things like sleep deprivation, waterboarding, starvation or noise stress?

Another stolen base on your part is the defining of torture down, especially if you think our servicemen are tortured during training.

I guess you did mean it after all.

As I said, volition does not apply. The lawful enemy combatant doesn't want to be shot, but will be if he does not surrender in a timely manner. The unlawful combatant doesn't want to be interrogated, but if he is captured, it is going to happen. The time for volition & free will was before either got into a fight with our boys or our allies.

Irrelevant.

 

[SkyDaver]

Banned, or locked?

Oleg, were you actually banned, or is it just that the thread got locked?

Just curious. I won't make any comment on the moderation policies over at DU.

 

[roo_ster]

9-7:

On this subject and in this particular thread, it is my opinion that you are confused, or arguing in bad faith. I see little to be gained by exchanging more posts.

But, in interests of fairness and with care toward the possibility that you are confused rather than arguing in bad faith, I will make one, last venture.

jfruser in post #114 responding to DZ:

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.

9-7 in post #118 responding to the above:

That's a fallacious argument, our soldiers are subjected to such measures in programs such as SERE on a voluntary basis...

And yes, it is torture when our soldiers are being subjected to it...

Here 9-7 is:
1. Interjecting the concept of volition into the argument
2. Defining torture down

jfruser in post #120 responding to 9-7:

Volition is immaterial.

9-7 in post #122 responding to jfruser:

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.

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

Here you are again:
1. Defining torture down
2. Trying to insert volition into the argument


9-7 in post #135 responding to jfruser's post #134, whci has not been reproduced due to quite enough of it in 9-7's response:

Uh, no, that is not the case I made. The argument is that the interrogations of captured unlawful enemy combatants use techniques similar to those that persuade callow youths to become responsible fighting men. Our boys in the service are not tortured by training cadre. If that were to happen and detected, I would expect the perpetrator to be punished as has happened in the past.

Um, no, this is what you said:
“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.”

The English language is a many and varied thing, with many ways to convey similar concepts. IMO, both my statments, the first in BBCode quote & the second in grammatical quote convey the roughly same concept using different words. 9-7, your use of "Um, no, this is what you said," implies that you do not grasp that.

You made the argument that what we do to terrorists is not torture unless what we do to our soldiers is also torture...

No "unless" about it. Neither is torture, period. No caveats, modifiers, alibis, weasel-words, or conditions necessary.

The argument is that the interrogations of captured unlawful enemy combatants use techniques similar to those that persuade callow youths to become responsible fighting men.

What techniques are those?...So tell me, exactly what techniques are you talking about other than things like sleep deprivation, waterboarding, starvation or noise stress?

First off, why "other than?" Any list of interrogation techniques would not be complete without them, properly described**. You want a list of the ways our NCOs use to train our boys? Join up for a hitch as an enlisted man & take notes. Of those you listed, the only one that I did not experience at Basic & AIT was waterboarding. I also managed to soldier on through several other techniques favored by training cadre with my soul and dignity intact. I also used them on others when I thought necessary to drive home a point without endagering my soul.

As I said, volition does not apply...

Irrelevant.

I keep writing that...

Insisting that our servicemen are tortured in Basic, AIT, RIP is an expression of ignorance. Even SERE's emphasis on resisting interrogation, does not use torture.

Truly, I am not impressed with your knowledge of the treatment of our boys in the more rigorous, non-"Gentleman" service training schools and the documentation pertaining to what techniques have been used by our boys to extract information from illegal enemy combatants.*

After the Korean War our armed services came to the conclusion that we needed training programs designed to increase our boys' ability to withstand interrogation. They also decriminalized giving information to the enemy while undergoing interrogation, understanding that even non-tortuous techniques can eventually break down most given time.

* Once again, I try to be charitable and assume ignorance rather than bad faith.

** "Starvation" is an hysterical descriptive term. Disrupting meal times & content is a good way to ratchet up stress. Unfortunately, our prisoners at Guantanimo Bay show an average weight gain of several pounds.

 

[NineseveN]

Insisting that our servicemen are tortured in Basic, AIT, RIP is an expression of ignorance.

1. What does this have to do with what suspected terrorists are subjected to?

2. What techniques, experiences or stimuli encountered by US soldiers is similar or the same as what suspected terrorists encounter? Be specific.


Can you manage the simple task of answering those two questions directly?

 

[Gewehr98]

Interesting.

Oleg reaches across the divide to offer Liberal Democratic gun owners (yes, they exist, I have many in my own family) an olive branch, and the moderator shuts down the thread with his own interpretation of how it works:

The concerns of Mr. Volk are not the concerns of DU.

Nice. And it's not what others in that DU thread stated...

 

[NineseveN]

I think the leadership of places like the DU (and even the Democratic party) are bit out of touch with their member base. Of course, I think leadership tends to be that way, adhering to the extremes while the majority of the common folk gravitate towards somewhere in the middle.

 

[NineseveN]

So, I wonder if this guy classifies as a US citizen or not?



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2628673&page=2

U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect

U.S.: Detainee Shouldn't Be Allowed to Tell Attorney About CIA's Interrogation Techniques


By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON Nov 4, 2006 (AP)— A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh but undefined interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al-Qaida operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.

 

[Oleg Volk]

"David, you are out of prison camp! How was it?"

"It was great: we got fed well, had plenty of exercise, and movies in the evening. Was like a vacation."

"Strange...Gunter said it was horrible, with beatings and almost no food."

"Ah, but that's exactly why he's back there now while I am free!"