In reply to GameboyRMH:
I can think of several.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
I can think of several.
1988RedT2 wrote: I'm inclined to believe that if the U.S. is to prevail against terrorist regimes that do not "play nice," we are going to have to find a way to stomach "enhanced interrogation" and worse. I don't have a problem with it. Period. Say what you will about my morals.
I'd say stooping to that level will only help the terrorists generate more hate and terrorist acts against us.
If we act in a manner true to our values as a nation, which includes treating people fairly and humanely, as opposed to acting like the great satan they portray us to be we would be able to put a damper on the hate machine they're building against us.
Example: Our soldiers go over and give the kids that come up to them candy bars. Most have never had chocolate in war zone. A small kindness. That goes counter to the propaganda they're taught that our soldiers will eat them on sight. This is the way to build good will. What do you think happens if we torture or kill via drone their favorite uncle who didn't have any ties to terrorists? We create another terrorist.
I'm not saying we shouldn't fight or use means to protect ourselves. I'm saying that we need to stay true to our morals and principles while we protect ourselves. That will draw goodwill and honorable people and nations to us instead of committing these demonic acts and then being surprised that we're still hated and derided.
Xceler8x wrote: I completely agree with you. The fact that people who have never seen the inside of a court room are being executed is horrific as well. I feel the same way about the kidnappings so cutely named "renditions."
Some of those people haven't seen the inside of a courtroom for a number of reasons, chief among them that they do not RATE a courtroom (they are non-citizens conducting war, do you expect a soldier to wait for a trial when he sees a guy planting an IED? This is different but along the same lines). Another issue is, like the FISC, the information gathered cannot be publicly disclosed because the nature of the information would expose our methods, which would render them ineffective for future information gathering. Now, for situations where the bad guy is a US Person, I agree that there needs to be more transparency, but it's difficult to do, again, because of the nature of the information dealt with. Now, that's not saying someone like Al-Awlaki didn't deserved to be blown the berkeley up, because he did without question, but if you think the procedure should be more open because it was a US Person, I agree with you. But it's not as easy as you think it is. Believe me, anything involving a US Person is taken very, very seriously.
Xceler8x wrote:jsquared wrote: We should never pay bad men to do bad things. We do have some very hard men that do things that wouldn't fit in polite conversation, but those men should be even *more* robust in their ethics to ensure they don't cross the line. That line is what separates us from the bad guys. If we compromise our foundation in the fight for our way of life, then it is no longer the way of life we are fighting for.Isn't that what we're talking about? How we should have oversight i.e. transparency into what people do so we don't compromise our foundation beliefs? I'd say that torturing people is against what the USA stands for. It's also non-productive in gaining information. That's not my opinion...that's accepted fact backed up by study after study as well as practical experience from various interrogators. Let's not even discuss how torturing innocent folks only creates more enemies of the USA as opposed to stopping them. I could say the same about the NSA's listening actions. We're seeing an explosion in communications security. VPN usage by citizens has never been higher as on example.
It is what we are talking about, it was investigated five or six years ago, and corrective actions were taken. The fact that it is getting dragged back into the spotlight well after it was dealt with is political. The fact that the wrong thing was done is not something I am debating, I am debating the timing and manner in which it was handled. And no, you can't say the same thing about the NSA's "listening actions" because it is a completely different scenario, you have LITERALLY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT because everything you "know" has been fed to you selectively by a lying traitor with an agenda. Personally, I think it's a good thing that individual citizens are using better security, the problem is that illegal disclosures also let the bad guys know to change their procedures, which makes it harder for people like me to find the E36 M3heads that want to cut your throat open or kill one of our ambassadors.
Xceler8x wrote: Example: Our soldiers go over and give the kids that come up to them candy bars. Most have never had chocolate in war zone. A small kindness. That goes counter to the propaganda they're taught that our soldiers will eat them on sight. This is the way to build good will. What do you think happens if we torture or kill via drone their favorite uncle who didn't have any ties to terrorists? We create another terrorist.
COIN in a nutshell.
GameboyRMH wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: "enhanced interrogation" and worse.It's debatable if there's anything worse you can do to an individual...
Nick_Comstock said: In reply to GameboyRMH: I can think of several.
Same here, it would be much cheaper to just inflict severe bodily harm and then kill them than it would be to severely screw with their minds and detain them for a decade while providing 3 squares, a cot, and conveniently, a water board. 
Holy E36 M3, man, talk about missing the point. The point is that we have to separate the uninvolved from the involved. Bombing willy-nilly and performing shoot-anything-that-moves sweeps in urban areas is the kind of thing that gets people who are on the fence to jump off the fence and join the bad guys. Showing that we are there to protect the ordinary civilian and doing things that counter the propaganda that the enemy spreads about us is the most effective way to make the bad guys lose their local support and have the locals support us instead. I assume you haven't heard of the Sunni Awakening or how "the Surge" was conducted in Anbar.
I don't think I've explicitly mentioned this yet because I was trying to talk around some things, but since we're getting a little more detailed:
The views expressed in these posts are my own and do not reflect the view of any organization, community, foundation, cadre, Illuminati lizard people, committee, agency, or department 
(Please don't get me fired)
Datsun1500 wrote: I had not idea we can fight terror with candy. Why are we dropping bombs? Lets drop gummy bears.
Halliburton doesn't make gummy bears...
We should drop sugar-free gummy bears on them. Or would that become biologic warfare?
rotard wrote: That said, this all is just bait to take people's minds off of the ACA stuff.
I assure you I have enough vitriol for both of these things, with enough left over for slow drivers in the left lane and people that say/write "for sell."
Xceler8x wrote:oldsaw wrote: Seems like you're occupying some selective moral high ground with that stance. Can we expect the same response when the morality and legality of state-sanctioned drone assassinations are put under the microscope? It's not political to note that we have murdered over two thousand people without giving them the benefit of a legal defense so they can proclaim their innocence. That's not to mention the hundreds of poor souls who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and then glibly written off as collateral damage.I completely agree with you. The fact that people who have never seen the inside of a court room are being executed is horrific as well. I feel the same way about the kidnappings so cutely named "renditions." The names these people use to describe their actions. They're too cowardly to even call their chosen action by it's honest name. Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of us but he couldn't harm our Constitution. We did that ourselves.
There are some major points being ignored here:
Enhanced interrogations were performed within the context of the country reeling from a horrific attack and still stricken by fear. The tactics were used on a limited basis (and halted within four years) with the knowledge and approval of those who now 1) have exposed themselves as hypocrites or 2) were so cowardly they waited eight years to open their bottle of whine.
There was a deliberate attempt to review the Constitution and determine how far we could go with interrogation tactics and still be considered "legal". You may not like the result but you should consider the same process was used when the current POTUS took executive action on immigration. And pulling the morality card isn't a good argument when we have a catalog of current laws that can be argued as "immoral".
Regardless, the SSCI-Democrat reports comes across as a pathetic hissy fit thrown by vengeful, soon-to-be-irrelevant moral relativists. It is a bitch-fest about something that was officially curtailed three years before the current POTUS inked-up his own official seal of disapproval - five years ago.
War makes people do or accept some terrible things but I'd argue that even with "perceived" mistakes we are still the best at what we do and who we are 99% of the time. If you or the like-minded feel compelled to focus on that 1%, have at it.
I certainly share your worries about Constitutional harm but I don't see enhanced interrogation as anything near the major concern some people want it to be.
Some interesting opinions in this thread.
Well said Oldsaw. Well said indeed.
jsquared wrote: Holy E36 M3, man, talk about missing the point. The point is that we have to separate the uninvolved from the involved. Bombing willy-nilly and performing shoot-anything-that-moves sweeps in urban areas is the kind of thing that gets people who are on the fence to jump off the fence and join the bad guys. Showing that we are there to *protect* the ordinary civilian and doing things that counter the propaganda that the enemy spreads about us is the most effective way to make the bad guys lose their local support and have the locals support *us* instead. I assume you haven't heard of the Sunni Awakening or how "the Surge" was conducted in Anbar. I don't think I've explicitly mentioned this yet because I was trying to talk around some things, but since we're getting a little more detailed: The views expressed in these posts are my own and do not reflect the view of any organization, community, foundation, cadre, Illuminati lizard people, committee, agency, or department
I have spent quite a bit of time in the home of some guy who was in part responsible for hatching the whole Sunni Awakening plan...
I like this method, I like this line of thinking... I wish it would work.
The more and more time goes on... I just have to wonder what Douglas MacArthur would say.. or if the German reconstruction had gone so well if we had played around like this instead of just getting E36 M3 done.
People would blow a gasket if they had any idea what really went on putting Japan and Germany back together.. But guess what, it worked, and it built respect.
Next time you see him, give him a big THANKS from me Anbar was a much calmer place when I went in '08/'09 compared to how it was in ~'06 when a number of my buddies were there.
I'm drunk so I am not sure we are making sense.
Bush knew and signed off on torture. Cheney threw Bush under the bus on this one is how we knew. Google it.
Obama just lost election major, so he needs leverage and a swing against GOP, this is good political fodder.
Wine is good, torture bad.
jsquared wrote: you have LITERALLY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT because everything you "know" has been fed to you selectively by a lying traitor with an agenda.
I should know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a citizen. There really isn't anything I shouldn't know about what the government made up of my duly elected representatives is doing.
I disagree that security means I should have no expectation of privacy. That seems to be the paternalistic attitude of these agencies.
The scariest part of all this is knowing that I'm probably now on a list for even saying these things. I was taught that only happened on the USSR or East Germany. Remember when you could openly criticize your government without worrying about being allowed to fly the next day?
The Humane Interrogation Technique That Works Much Better Than Torture
Here's the research on how torture doesn't work and is counter productive to our security as a nation.
Xceler8x wrote:jsquared wrote: you have LITERALLY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT because everything you "know" has been fed to you selectively by a lying traitor with an agenda.I should know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a citizen. There really isn't anything I shouldn't know about what the government made up of my duly elected representatives is doing.
Oh, you know should know exactly what we're talking about? Tell me again about all those tactical Signals Intelligence missions you're going on that you need to be prepared for. The information that the public needs is already out there, but most people don't believe it because it is coming from "the gubmint" and they decide to believe a guy living under Putin's protection who admitted he got the job for sole purpose of stealing classified information. The details of these things aren't public for what should be obvious goddamned reasons. If Joe terrorist could go on the internet or watch the news and find out how the SEALs/Rangers/Marines/Mk82 found out in which house his cronies were planning the next embassy attack, he'd change his freaking procedures and we'd lose the ability to gather crucial information. And FYI, your elected officials are mostly clueless and rarely pay attention to their briefings, anyway.
Xceler8x wrote: I disagree that security means I should have no expectation of privacy. That seems to be the paternalistic attitude of these agencies.
I also disagree that security means sacrificing privacy. But the general public really has no clue because they are only paying attention to the horseE36 M3 they are being fed by an agenda-driven traitor and the media hype machine that is eating out of his hands. The NSA does not monitor the content of your communications without a warrant. Metadata is not content. I don't have time to lecture you about something that takes weeks of 12-hour days in a secure facility to learn about. I wish I could make some of you just take the OVSC1800 class we have to take every year, that'd correct all of your inaccurate misconceptions after you tear your hair out taking the end-of-course test.
Xceler8x wrote: The scariest part of all this is knowing that I'm probably now on a list for even saying these things. I was taught that only happened on the USSR or East Germany. Remember when you could openly criticize your government without worrying about being allowed to fly the next day?
The only amusing part of all of this mess is how much of a big deal everyone on the internet thinks they are. We (people in the DoD and civilian side of the intelligence community) are literally spending all day trying to find out who wants to murder you. Nobody gives two E36 M3s about people complaining about the government on the internet. Hell, people on secure government networks complain about the government!
Easy Jsquared. I, for one, agree with you. People who think they "need to know" everything are like the amateur meteorologists who pop up every year to tell you all about what hurricane behavior will be in the gulf this season. Really dude? If that's all it takes to be an "expert" why do the real professionals spend a lifetime in school and commit their entire working lives to getting the best information to you, but you watched a special on Discovery and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so yeah, you must know better.
Thanks for talking about this. While we cuss and such during the conversation I have respect for you and your opinions and I get the impression you feel the same. Now...
jsquared wrote: Oh, you know *should* know exactly what we're talking about? Tell me again about all those tactical Signals Intelligence missions you're going on that you need to be prepared for. The information that the public needs is already out there, but most people don't believe it because it is coming from "the gubmint" and they decide to believe a guy living under Putin's protection who admitted he got the job for sole purpose of stealing classified information. The details of these things aren't public for what should be obvious goddamned reasons. If Joe terrorist could go on the internet or watch the news and find out how the SEALs/Rangers/Marines/Mk82 found out in which house his cronies were planning the next embassy attack, *he'd change his freaking procedures and we'd lose the ability to gather crucial information*. And FYI, your elected officials are mostly clueless and rarely pay attention to their briefings, anyway.
Two points:
jsquared wrote: I also disagree that security means sacrificing privacy. But the general public really has no clue because they are only paying attention to the horseE36 M3 they are being fed by an agenda-driven traitor and the media hype machine that is eating out of his hands. The NSA *does not monitor the content of your communications without a warrant*. Metadata is not content. I don't have time to lecture you about something that takes weeks of 12-hour days in a secure facility to learn about. I wish I could make some of you just take the OVSC1800 class we have to take every year, that'd correct all of your inaccurate misconceptions after you tear your hair out taking the end-of-course test.
I'm detecting a tone with you now. :) Something along the lines of since I don't do your job I can't possibly understand it. What if I told you I'm in tech. I get metadata. I work with it daily. I also work with other forms of data in various forms. I know how to data mine your internet usage.. It's no joke. In fact, data mining is so accurate Target can predict if a woman in your house is pregnant by her shopping habits.
While metadata isn't content it is most definitely useful. I know the patterns it can be used to draw. Have you heard about the podcast Serial? A guy went to jail for murder on a case that used metadata in part to convict him. Still think that metadata is "no big deal"? You can serve hard time for what your metadata says about you.
Btw - Snowden didn't teach me this. I'm not some Snowden dick rider who thinks he farts perfume clouds and pisses glitter. I used my own brain and research to get my smert on. Snowden just gave the U.S. citizens the proof they needed to prove what we all already knew.
jsquared wrote: The only amusing part of all of this mess is how much of a big deal everyone on the internet thinks they are. We (people in the DoD and civilian side of the intelligence community) are *literally* spending all day trying to find out who wants to murder you. Nobody gives two E36 M3s about people complaining about the government on the internet. Hell, people *on secure government networks* complain about the government!
That's cool. I'd still like you guys to stop monitoring my communications please. In the meantime I'll use a VPN, the RedPhone app, and Tails. I'm not a terrorist. I just don't care for the gov't using my communications and such against me in the future. Like this article talking about how the NSA planned to use a citizens internet history to discredit them.
I'll stop on this thread jack here though. This is a bit far a field from the initial post.
On topic. It's great how some people think the gov't should be trusted to torture anyone they want but shouldn't be trusted to regulate business or set appropriate tax rates. Torture? "All good!" Taxes and bank regulations? "Those guys don't know sh!t."
Xceler8x wrote: On topic. It's great how some people think the gov't should be trusted to torture anyone they want but shouldn't be trusted to regulate business or set appropriate tax rates. Torture? "All good!" Taxes and bank regulations? "Those guys don't know sh!t."
Is that anything at all like wondering why people who are really concerned about our gummit torturing a couple people also think the same gummit should be given more control over business, and often complete control of the health care system?
I am not trying to make this personal. I don't hold your opinions against you because you are speaking from a position of ignorance and you don't realize just how uninformed you are. That is not your fault, that is the nature of some of this stuff, and a large part of the frustration in being unable to fully explain it, because dropping it all on you in one big knowledge bomb would likely result in the end of my career, and possibly jail time If it gets heated, just imagine the rest of this post in Comic Sans font to take some of the edge off
Xceler8x wrote: Most of us are listening to Snowden because he only confirmed what we all suspected and were not being told by our own spy agencies. If the NSA, CIA, FBI had at least notified the people they are beholden to and serve none of this E36 M3 would've been a big deal. Right? Oh wait. We might've gotten upset because it's wrong to spy on U.S. citizens. Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned.
No, you're listening to Snowden because you're skeptical (good) and gullible (bad). He is feeding you an agenda and you're buying into the hype like a sucker. What do you mean by the agencies "notifying the people they are beholden to"? The things he "leaked" about NSA were legal, based on policy promulgated by the Executive Branch (EO12333, USSID SP0018), legislation enacted by the Legislative Branch (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, etc.), and enforced by the Judiciary Branch (FISA Court). All three branches of government signed off on the various things people are pissed about. All of the people the agencies are "beholden to" have been informed about what is going on (at least on the SIGINT side), if they didn't understand it that is their own damn fault for never paying close attention to their briefings. I will say this AGAIN since you glazed over it the first time: Nobody is "spying" on US citizens without a warrant. Just because you are of the opinion that metadata is "spying" doesn't make it true, decades of legislation and legal opinion say you're wrong.
Xceler8x wrote: Something along the lines of since I don't do your job I can't possibly understand it. What if I told you I'm in tech. I get metadata. I work with it daily.[...] Still think that metadata is "no big deal"? You can serve hard time for what your metadata says about you.
I never said metadata wasn't a big deal, and you don't understand my job. My job isn't tech or IT. Your job doesn't result in dead friends if you screw up. Metadata is not communications. The address and postmark on the outside of an envelope are not Constitutionally protected the way the contents of said letter are protected. This E36 M3 has been hashed out in the legislature and the legal system before (probably) you were born. I'd post more dates and laws but at the moment I can't access some stuff I need to in order to make sure I only mention Unclass stuff
Xceler8x wrote: Snowden just gave the U.S. citizens the proof they needed to prove what we all already knew.
FALSE. He has been lying from the get-go, and people are buying into it because of a combination of natural dislike/distrust of the government -- good when it's skepticism coupled with rational though, bad when coupled with tinfoilhatism -- and the media's need to hype something in inflammatory language without actually researching the facts (e.g. Ferguson, Dan Rather's W-Bush "Nat'l Guard documents", Toyota's phantom gas pedals, Audi "unintended acceleration", etc). He admitted he got the job initially for the sole purpose of stealing and leaking information. He never brought his concerns up the chain of command, he never contacted OGC or the IG, he never went to a Congressperson who sits on the committees and has a clearance. Mainly because none of those options would have gotten him his 15 minutes of (in)fame. The overwhelming majority of the statements he has made in the interviews are flat-out FALSE and I have a hard time telling if he is purposely trying to mislead people or if he really doesn't understand how some of that works. The latter is not implausible, since he's not actually an analyst and never actually DID any SIGINT. He was a sysadmin, the guy you call when your Outlook Exchange E36 M3s itself or the database you're querying isn't working. He has never actually conducted any kind of mission or collection because it wasn't his job.
Xceler8x wrote: That's cool. I'd still like you guys to stop monitoring my communications please. In the meantime I'll use a VPN, the RedPhone app, and Tails. I'm not a terrorist. I just don't care for the gov't using my communications and such against me in the future. Like this article talking about how the NSA planned to use a citizens internet history to discredit them.
Nobody is monitoring your communications unless there's been a FISC warrant put out for you, and regardless of the nonsense you hear in the press, getting one of those is actually fairly difficult and there is a robust process in place before a request is even allowed to be sent up. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
And you need to re-read that article again, and the linked HuffPost article from which that BBC article was written. Five of those six WERE NOT "CITIZENS" and the sixth was acknowledged and minimized, which means there was a FISA warrant against him (or the info came from opensource info... like most people, even bad guys put way too much crap on Facebook). The reason they looked into ways to discredit them? Because they were radicalizers who encouraged Muslims to adhere to the extremist view and to go fight in other countries, and discrediting them by showing them as religious hypocrites is a very effective way to hamper their recruiting, so that there are, for example, less Westerners going to Syria and cutting journalists' heads off.
You'll need to log in to post.
