"Civil Discourse" per Larken Rose

[Cobalt Shiva]

In Steve's defense, I think he made a very good point. Sure, using a reference to Nazi Germany may not be the best example to draw to, but the point still stands. Our government clearly does not have wide open access, and much of what the government does is not known to the population.

A better example would be the torture vs enhanced interogation controversy.

I'm good with that. btw, you hear about the German Citizen being refused a trial by the SC against the U.S. government over torture because of the potential to expose state secrets? Awful slippery slope we're on.

Stevie, me boy . . . al-Qaeda's operations manual has a section on what a jihadist is supposed to do if captured.

One of the important things to do: allege that one is being tortured, even if the allegation is false.

Given that, any claim of torture from a captured jihadist cannot be taken at face value.

[SteveSy]

In Steve's defense, I think he made a very good point. Sure, using a reference to Nazi Germany may not be the best example to draw to, but the point still stands. Our government clearly does not have wide open access, and much of what the government does is not known to the population.

A better example would be the torture vs enhanced interogation controversy.

I'm good with that. btw, you hear about the German Citizen being refused a trial by the SC against the U.S. government over torture because of the potential to expose state secrets? Awful slippery slope we're on.

Stevie, me boy . . . al-Qaeda's operations manual has a section on what a jihadist is supposed to do if captured.

One of the important things to do: allege that one is being tortured, even if the allegation is false.

Given that, any claim of torture from a captured jihadist cannot be taken at face value.

Oh I agree....so that means no trials and we should take the government's allegation of "State secrets" at face value?

Exactly what qualifies these days as a "State secret" anyway, or terrorist for that matter?

Here's "Domestic terrorism", which allows the full force of the patriot act on you.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

That's pretty damn broad. People holding up traffic rallying could be engaged in "domestic terrorism".

[webhick]

Exactly what qualifies these days as a "State secret" anyway, or terrorist for that matter?

Wearing ugly brides-maid dresses while prancing around like frogs on acid and singing NSync at the top of your lungs.

::RIBBIT::

It's both a "state secret" and an act of terrorism.

[silversopp]

One of the important things to do: allege that one is being tortured, even if the allegation is false.

Given that, any claim of torture from a captured jihadist cannot be taken at face value.

For clarification, I was referring to the government documents that detail what they defined as torture, which left many actions we would normally consider torture out.

I think that one is just as much in error when you assume the worst about government than when you assume the best. Assuming the best leads to government abuse because there is no check. Assuming the worst leads to government abuse because of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect. Even if the "assume the worst" side is correct on an issue, no one is going to believe them because of all the times they were wrong in the past.

Accurate assessment of government is what is needed to keep it in check. And that requires a significant investment in time in the real world that most of us don't have.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Oh I agree....so that means no trials and we should take the government's allegation of "State secrets" at face value?

Absent very convincing evidence (i.e., medical examinations that identify specific bodily injury, testimony "against interest" by persons alleged to have performed the acts in question and who were actually in a position to have engaged in such actions, etc.) presented by the person claiming "torture," yes.

Exactly what qualifies these days as a "State secret" anyway

Classified information is identified in three grades:

CONFIDENTIAL--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States. Information of this nature includes tactical call signs for units forward deployed, airlift mission plans in theater, etc.

SECRET--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States. This includes information such as the material condition of specific elements of military forces--shipboard CASREPs, operational readiness scores of identified military units, for example.

TOP SECRET--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Examples of this include intelligence information that contains data identifying sources and methods (which would be the specific things that would be adjudicated in this case), information detailing vulnerabilities and methods of attack against operational cryptographic systems, detailed data contained in major & unified command OPLANS, etc.

[Cobalt Shiva]

I was referring to the government documents that detail what they defined as torture, which left many actions we would normally consider torture out.

Such as?

I've seen some of these lists, and endured far worse than the listed activities just by being deployed aboard a 42-year-old aircraft carrier.

[Cobalt Shiva]

That's pretty damn broad. People holding up traffic rallying could be engaged in "domestic terrorism".

Only if everyone is as big an idiot as you are, Stevie--and if you were any further to the left on the Bell Curve, you'd be routinely outwitted by turnips. (You're already routinely outwitted by rutabagas.)

[SteveSy]

One of the important things to do: allege that one is being tortured, even if the allegation is false.

Given that, any claim of torture from a captured jihadist cannot be taken at face value.

For clarification, I was referring to the government documents that detail what they defined as torture, which left many actions we would normally consider torture out.

I think that one is just as much in error when you assume the worst about government than when you assume the best. Assuming the best leads to government abuse because there is no check. Assuming the worst leads to government abuse because of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect. Even if the "assume the worst" side is correct on an issue, no one is going to believe them because of all the times they were wrong in the past.

Accurate assessment of government is what is needed to keep it in check. And that requires a significant investment in time in the real world that most of us don't have.

What I meant by assuming the worst is validating text against potential abuse prior to being laws or acts by government that can be hidden from public scrutiny. We have to assume that if government can do something where they can remain unaccountable then we should assume they're going to do something bad with it. They’re people just like everyone else.

For instance the patriot act. You would have to be pretty oblivious to any potential abuses to accept that act. It's rife with potential non-public view or accountability abuse.

The appropriations process where ear marks can land in a bill without a vote, discussion or even knowing who stuck it in there. Things like that should never have been allowed to happen. We should have assumed the worst and concluded congress would abuse that type of power and forbid it from the word go.

[grixit]

I'm so glad we have you to assume the worst on our behalf, Steve. We need people like you to counteract the optimism that pervades this country and causes the rest of us to blindly support our leaders. Everywhere you look today, people are saying, "Hooray for the President! Hooray for Congress!" Clearly, the rest of us MUST be deceived.

Golly gee, I wonder why congress has somewhere around a 23% approval rating if everyone, or most, are saying "Hooray for Congress!". The president's approval rating is around 33%.

Whoooosh!

[SteveSy]

I'm so glad we have you to assume the worst on our behalf, Steve. We need people like you to counteract the optimism that pervades this country and causes the rest of us to blindly support our leaders. Everywhere you look today, people are saying, "Hooray for the President! Hooray for Congress!" Clearly, the rest of us MUST be deceived.

Golly gee, I wonder why congress has somewhere around a 23% approval rating if everyone, or most, are saying "Hooray for Congress!". The president's approval rating is around 33%.

Whoooosh!

That might actually mean something if it were posted anywhere but this forum considering some of the absurdities that are posted here. I don't doubt for a second some on here truly believe that the majority of Americans think the government is doing a great job.

[Agent Observer]

That's pretty damn broad. People holding up traffic rallying could be engaged in "domestic terrorism".

Yea, there've been hundreds of people all over the country have been charged with domestic terrorism because they attended a rally which held up traffic...

Or not.

Yet another example of your silly drama-queen-isms. How do manage to function in the real world? It must be a scary existence to have such an overactive imagination that you envision a boogey man behind every tree.

[SteveSy]

Oh I agree....so that means no trials and we should take the government's allegation of "State secrets" at face value?

Absent very convincing evidence (i.e., medical examinations that identify specific bodily injury, testimony "against interest" by persons alleged to have performed the acts in question and who were actually in a position to have engaged in such actions, etc.) presented by the person claiming "torture," yes.

The government as far as I know has not made any claims to the contrary, they've only claimed state secrets would be divulged so therefore he should be forbidden, regardless if he was tortured or not.

Maybe he is making it up, he probably is, but what about someone else?

Exactly what qualifies these days as a "State secret" anyway

Classified information is identified in three grades:

CONFIDENTIAL--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States. Information of this nature includes tactical call signs for units forward deployed, airlift mission plans in theater, etc.

Come on thats purely subjective....who makes that determination if it will cause "identifiable damage to the national security". What exactly does that mean? What is damage? the executive branch has already claimed that exposing corruption in the Iraqi government is a matter of national security and have refused to answer questions in a public forum.

SECRET--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States. This includes information such as the material condition of specific elements of military forces--shipboard CASREPs, operational readiness scores of identified military units, for example.

Same as above....what we would normally consider a "secret" may or might not be what they consider secret.

TOP SECRET--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Examples of this include intelligence information that contains data identifying sources and methods (which would be the specific things that would be adjudicated in this case), information detailing vulnerabilities and methods of attack against operational cryptographic systems, detailed data contained in major & unified command OPLANS, etc.

Same as above.

Maybe someone knows the names of CIA agents or where their secret base is because they were tortured there. Having you on trial might expose this even though they brutally tortured you and violated many of your constitutional rights (not referring to the German citizen, this is a purely hypothetical). That would qualify as possible damage to national security via exposing operatives. It’s a slippery slope denying people trials.

In fact I would argue any international person could be tortured by the U.S. government this way without it ever making it to trial, ever, regardless if they are a terrorist or not.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Oh I agree....so that means no trials and we should take the government's allegation of "State secrets" at face value?

Absent very convincing evidence (i.e., medical examinations that identify specific bodily injury, testimony "against interest" by persons alleged to have performed the acts in question and who were actually in a position to have engaged in such actions, etc.) presented by the person claiming "torture," yes.

The government as far as I know has not made any claims to the contrary, they've only claimed state secrets would be divulged so therefore he should be forbidden, regardless if he was tortured or not.

Stevie, whoever asserts must provide evidence to support the assertion. The non-asserting party (in this case, the government) need not make any claims at all, which is why they didn't.

Maybe he is making it up, he probably is, but what about someone else?

That "someone else" may seek judicial relief and present evidence to support his case. Policy cannot be made on the basis of hypothetical cases not filed.

Exactly what qualifies these days as a "State secret" anyway

Classified information is identified in three grades:

CONFIDENTIAL--material that, if disclosed to unauthorized parties, would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States. Information of this nature includes tactical call signs for units forward deployed, airlift mission plans in theater, etc.

Come on thats purely subjective....who makes that determination if it will cause "identifiable damage to the national security". What exactly does that mean? What is damage?

All that is laid out in mind-numbing detail in a bunch of laws, regulations, and military instructions & orders--who has the authority to classify information, what information may be classified, what information gets classified at what level, when it may be declassified, and who may authorize declassification. Just because they don't consult you, Stevie, doesn't mean that it is to be presumed illegitimate.

the executive branch has already claimed that exposing corruption in the Iraqi government is a matter of national security and have refused to answer questions in a public forum.

Because it's the Iraqi government in question, not the US government. You see, what information we have on Iraqi government corruption is the product of intelligence gathering efforts. (Yes, we spy on allied nations, always have, always will. It's called "international relations" because it usually involves nations attempting to screw each other.)

If the source of the information is technical collection (i.e., intercepted Iraqi government communications), then disclosure of what we know in a public forum will end up shutting off access to that information. If the source is a person, disclosure could very well get that person executed for espionage (the Iraqis are far less squeamish about these things than we are).

Maybe someone knows the names of CIA agents or where their secret base is because they were tortured there. Having you on trial might expose this even though they brutally tortured you and violated many of your constitutional rights (not referring to the German citizen, this is a purely hypothetical).

Stevie, you have this amazing preference for the utterly unobserved hypothetical case over the observed actual case.

Generally, that sort of obsession is an insight into how the obsessor will treat those whom he dislikes.

[ArthurRubin]

I've always (for a long time, anyway) been skeptical of the "legality" of prosecuting someone, primarily based on secret evidence. In general, if some evidence, which all parties agree exist, cannot be presented in court, it should be presumed to be favorable to the party who doesn't have access to it.

Either that, or everyone who is illegally wiretapped under the PATRIOT act should be exempt from Federal prosecution.

[SteveSy]

Absent very convincing evidence (i.e., medical examinations that identify specific bodily injury, testimony "against interest" by persons alleged to have performed the acts in question and who were actually in a position to have engaged in such actions, etc.) presented by the person claiming "torture," yes.

The government as far as I know has not made any claims to the contrary, they've only claimed state secrets would be divulged so therefore he should be forbidden, regardless if he was tortured or not.

Stevie, whoever asserts must provide evidence to support the assertion. The non-asserting party (in this case, the government) need not make any claims at all, which is why they didn't.

Huh?

The case was dismissed because the government claimed state secrets would be divulged....not because there was no evidence of torture.

Maybe he is making it up, he probably is, but what about someone else?

That "someone else" may seek judicial relief and present evidence to support his case. Policy cannot be made on the basis of hypothetical cases not filed.

You don't even know what we're talking about...this is senseless. You're taking the government's side without knowing fact one about the case. Blindly following.....thank you so much for proving my point.

Without comment, the justices let stand an appeals court ruling that the state secrets privilege, a judicially created doctrine that the Bush administration has invoked to win dismissal of lawsuits that touch on issues of national security, protected the government’s actions from court review

- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washi ... ?ref=world

We're done....no sense in discussing something you haven't clue one about. All I can say man is I really feel sorry for people like you. At the same time however I think you and all people like you in deserve everything you reap for being such a tard.

[Cobalt Shiva]

I've always (for a long time, anyway) been skeptical of the "legality" of prosecuting someone, primarily based on secret evidence. In general, if some evidence, which all parties agree exist, cannot be presented in court, it should be presumed to be favorable to the party who doesn't have access to it.

Either that, or everyone who is illegally wiretapped under the PATRIOT act should be exempt from Federal prosecution.

Well, if this were a conventional crime, I'd agree.

However, the jihadists view themselves as being at war with the United States. The rules for handling criminals and for handling enemy combatants are very different; it would have been utterly ridiculous to require "due process" before a German soldier captured in battle could be incarcerated in a POW camp, for example.

The law enforcement mentality does not work here.

[ArthurRubin]

I've always (for a long time, anyway) been skeptical of the "legality" of prosecuting someone, primarily based on secret evidence. In general, if some evidence, which all parties agree exist, cannot be presented in court, it should be presumed to be favorable to the party who doesn't have access to it.

Either that, or everyone who is illegally wiretapped under the PATRIOT act should be exempt from Federal prosecution.

Well, if this were a conventional crime, I'd agree.

However, the jihadists view themselves as being at war with the United States. The rules for handling criminals and for handling enemy combatants are very different; it would have been utterly ridiculous to require "due process" before a German soldier captured in battle could be incarcerated in a POW camp, for example.

The law enforcement mentality does not work here.

Quite. That still means that an American citizen who is wiretapped under provisions of the PATRIOT act should not be prosecutable for any Federal crime other than treason.

[Cobalt Shiva]

At the same time however I think you and all people like you in deserve everything you reap for being such a tard.

And there we have Stevie's psychoses on display for all to see.

It clearly shows what he would seek to do to people like me if his capabilities ever matched his intentions.

However, because he suffers from delusions of adequacy, I am utterly unworried for my safety.

G'day.

[Cobalt Shiva]

I've always (for a long time, anyway) been skeptical of the "legality" of prosecuting someone, primarily based on secret evidence. In general, if some evidence, which all parties agree exist, cannot be presented in court, it should be presumed to be favorable to the party who doesn't have access to it.

Either that, or everyone who is illegally wiretapped under the PATRIOT act should be exempt from Federal prosecution.

Well, if this were a conventional crime, I'd agree.

However, the jihadists view themselves as being at war with the United States. The rules for handling criminals and for handling enemy combatants are very different; it would have been utterly ridiculous to require "due process" before a German soldier captured in battle could be incarcerated in a POW camp, for example.

The law enforcement mentality does not work here.

Quite. That still means that an American citizen who is wiretapped under provisions of the PATRIOT act should not be prosecutable for any Federal crime other than treason.

That said . . . if an American citizen is routinely conversing with known terrorist scumbags overseas, I think the "treason" part will be amazingly easy to prove relative to other cases.

[SteveSy]

I've always (for a long time, anyway) been skeptical of the "legality" of prosecuting someone, primarily based on secret evidence. In general, if some evidence, which all parties agree exist, cannot be presented in court, it should be presumed to be favorable to the party who doesn't have access to it.

Either that, or everyone who is illegally wiretapped under the PATRIOT act should be exempt from Federal prosecution.

Well, if this were a conventional crime, I'd agree.

I would like to show you what you were to lazy to read.


For one this person was not a terrorist...at least the government has not made that claim. In fact on its face it appears he was picked up by mistake.

Mr. Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, says he was detained while on vacation in Macedonia in late 2003, transported by the United States to Afghanistan and held there for five months in a secret prison before being taken to Albania and set free, evidently having been mistaken for a terrorism suspect with a similar name.

The German courts found that the agents did indeed torture this German citizen. Remember he wasn't even a terrorist, at least the government is not currently contending he is.

After investigating the case, German prosecutors earlier this year issued arrest warrants for 13 agents of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He wasn't even allowed to start to present evidence to support his claim.

Shortly after he filed the lawsuit in December 2005, the government intervened to seek its dismissal under the state secrets privilege, asserting that to have to provide evidence in the case would compromise national security. That argument succeeded in the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., which dismissed the case without permitting Mr. Masri’s lawyers to take discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the dismissal earlier this year.

Were there State Secrets or where they reasonable.....no one knows at least at the court level.

In this case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement offered to let the justices see, “under appropriate security measures,” the classified declaration the government filed in the lower courts to support its claim of privilege. The court evidently did not think that step was necessary.

So here we have what might be just some innocent guy on vacation picked up by mistake by our CIA, tortured and then when they realized they f-ed up they released him. The guy tries to sue our government for totally screwing him over and the courts allow our government to claim "state secrets" so a trial never sees the light of day.

You don't have a problem this? What kind of government do you support anyway, certainly not free democracy based on liberty and justice for all.