Say Anything Blog

Shameful?

I’m not ashamed of it.  I don’t think we need the terrorists knowing what they’ll face if we capture and interrogate them.

And these guys were already going to have most of their cases “litigated in secret.” Most of the information regarding their cases is national security data.

I think you need to be a little less knee-jerk, Mike.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeA

Did you say Mr. Khan ? For real?
Mr. Fucking Khan?
....alternative” interrogation tactics—the administration’s chilling phrase for methods most people regard as torture....

Here’s a photo reminder for the Canadian Bitch that posted this-

Nice unrelated propaganda Joel - you brain-bitch-slapped little propaganda monkey. I can smell how much of a scardey pussycat you are from here. We’re talking about making it illegal for people to talk about our interrogation techniques. Its not because we don’t want operatives knowing what they’ll face as Rob would have us believe… (nice try though Rob… straight out of the sheeple handbook...) If you’re going to get tortured it’ll suck. Knowing what kind of pain hardly gives the enemy an advantage.
Its so our people who break international law won’t get in trouble for it and its something I would expect from former East Germany. Narc on me now like good little East German bitches!

Sparkie Arbuckle

Joel - I can smell how much of a scardey pussycat you are from here.
Sparkie Arbuckle on November 21, 2006 at 11:01 am

Hmm....Too bad we can’t talk...yea that’s it...talk… face to face...perhaps we could decide then who’s really the scardey pussycat..

Make whatever inferences you want about who I am over the internet. Bottom line = if you threatened me in real life in any real way I would not hesitate to ‘put you down’ like the sick little pussycat you are. Keep talking shit though....

I would not hesitate to ‘put you down’ like the sick little pussycat you are
sparkie

If you say so Bitch! Easier said then done though, I can assure you of that..

It’s very enjoyable to see you squirm after all the vicious bullshit you’ve dished out to most of the commentors on this site.

I assure you I’m not squirming. Thanks for your concern though.

Even if there is nothing manifestly wrong with the interrogation tactics, it still makes perfect sense to classify the techniques.  The idea being that you are preventing your enemy from preparing for the tactics used against him.

Officers in the United States military are routinely trained on what they will likely encounter if captured by an enemy combatant (interestingly, the US has never fought an opponent since the writing of the Geneva Conventions that has ever adhered to these GCs).  So it looks to me like our military doctrine is training for what you will encounter works.

Personally, I have little regret if a prisoner gets treated a bit rough...no worse than they would get treated in almost any prison around the world, including Canada.  So why the crocodile tears? 

Exactly what part of our humanity are we giving up when we sleep deprive a terrorist or play loud music?  And how do you know exactly that what they are claiming state security has anything to do with rough interrogation practices?

That sounds rather like a strawman argument to me.

Sparkie:

If you’re going to get tortured it’ll suck. Knowing what kind of pain hardly gives the enemy an advantage.

Once again you have simply demonstrated that you have no f’ing idea what you are talking about.

Ever hear of desensitization?

Bullshit Carrick.
You are setting up a strawman by framing your argument with interrogation tactics we all know we use. I.E. sleep deprivation, loud music et all… Who cares if al Qaeda prepares by listening to AC/DC and forgoing naps? This post/article is referring to tactics that have, to date, not been disclosed. Nice try.
Furthermore it is blatant that non-disclosure, in this case, is protecting us from violating international law, not preventing our enemy from preparing for torture. Good job lapping up the sheeple milk. I see your daily brain download from Bush is complete. ‘Firmware update complete’.

Joel, my favorite part is where our resident pacifist is going to “put you down”, and yet it refuses to defend itself against Islamic terrorists who continue to scream their intent to murder all who will not convert to their pigworship religion. Just priceless.

Mike, why are you so determined to bring American military members to trial, and yet you refuse to do the same to known terrorists? Care to elucidate.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Hotel
You might not have noticed but I never support any type of gun control (although I did suggest that Gene’s reccomendation to arm all of Chicago might be a little off track). I like guns. I have also said I would defend myself. I am not about to sit around and let a little pretty boy named Joel (every homo I know is named Joel) threaten me. Its simple. Some dink threatens my life or safety and I WILL ‘put him down’. I think most people would do the same. Where would I be if I let every ‘Joel’ in the world molest me? Nowhere.

2H9...not only will I elucidate but I will elaborate as well. I am all for bring anyone suspected of crimes to trial be they American military members or suspected terrorists. Hope that helps.

Carrick said

Personally, I have little regret if a prisoner gets treated a bit rough...no worse than they would get treated in almost any prison around the world, including Canada.  So why the crocodile tears?

I don’t think it is the regular roughing up that is classified but the alternative methods. I happen to believe that an accused should be allowed to describe the interrogation techniques used and I don’t think my belief is particularly outlandish or unusual.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

Mike:

I don’t think it is the regular roughing up that is classified but the alternative methods. I happen to believe that an accused should be allowed to describe the interrogation techniques used and I don’t think my belief is particularly outlandish or unusual.

Which details?  That’s the rub.

If it’s generic issues like “used waterboard/didn’t use waterboard” then I agree. 

But you don’t know exactly what is being classified because you aren’t privy to it.  It is merely your inference that what they are trying to prevent leaking out is excessive force in the interrogation, rather than the system they use to break a prisoner down.

Sparkie:

If you’re going to get tortured it’ll suck. Knowing what kind of pain hardly gives the enemy an advantage.

Me:

Once again you have simply demonstrated that you have no f’ing idea what you are talking about.

Sparkie:

You are setting up a strawman by framing your argument with interrogation tactics we all know we use.

Thanks for the lesson in logic, Sparkie.  Now I know that when I respond to what you actually said, that it’s a “strawman argument”.

Dumb ass.

Carrick
You’re wrong. We know why they are trying to classify it. Its like Ollie North getting off on the Iran contra thing because the details couldn’t be discussed in court. We aren’t stupid. They are covering their ass.

Nice cherry pick Carrick.

That’s not a cherry pick.  It was the thesis statement in your argument, that you now appear to be disowning.

Sparkie:

We know why they are trying to classify it.And I’m glad that you’re psychic.  Sure saves on having to actually think doesn’t it

Carrick

But you don’t know exactly what is being classified because you aren’t privy to it.

True enough although I know you’re not naive.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

Mike, I’m not naive.  Which is why I’m distrustful of the WaPo characterizations.

You disbelieve anything the government has to say, while ignoring the fact that the media has its own agenda in this matter, and that their characterizations are naturally colored by their own agenda.

This makes...which of us naive, exactly?

You assume that the only purpose of classification in a case like this is ass-covering.  However, there are perfectly valid reasons for classifying details of an interrogation, even when the rule of law has been followed to a tee.  If you want to play, start by working out for yourself what those reasons might be.