House Conservatives Demand Napolitano Resign

[INRanger]

Oh and by the way serial killers don't recieve the level of psychoanalysis that SOF personnel do.

 

[cosermann]

Folks should read the report if they haven't already. It's fairly short.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

 

[antsi]

It is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that some elements of the far right may engage in acts of domestic terrorism.

I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.

If you're not concerned when the ruling party singles out its political opposition as a security risk, you obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the history of the 20th century.

 

[dburkhead]

I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.

If you're not concerned when the ruling party singles out its political opposition as a security risk, you obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the history of the 20th century.

Well the DHS does look at "leftwing terrorism" but does so by listing specific groups that have a history of engaging in violent acts. It doesn't paint with a broad brush such as "disgruntled veterans," folk who are concerned about the possibility of new gun control laws, and "antigovernment groups" (which could include anybody who has any disagreement with the current administration).

 

[cosermann]

I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.

Right, the point is that this assessment is clearly politically biased.

 

[finity]

I'm talking about someone who is in allegiance with a group of people who have already attacked and killed thousands of citizens and not only boasts about it, but it is their well known objective to cause us much death and suffering to us because we are Americans.

You mean like a lot of the people in this country do (even here) about the death & suffering of others we have caused just because they are muslim, violent or not?

You see, that's why it's a problem. If "O" hasn't thought about this, you can be bloody sure that someone in his Administration has.

The "solution" is simple: "O", or at least the Democrats, can never leave office.

Help! We need another layer of Heavy-Duty Reynolds wrap over here, asap!

I disagree. I can kill someone who intends me harm but I'm a monster if I hurt someone who intends you harm. That simply makes no sense. When you kill someone a line has been crossed, you cannot take it back - no fixies. Life is ended, families destroyed. How is it somehow morally superior to destroy life but not make it uncomfortable? I am a graduate of SERE( I suspect you'll need to look that up) so I feel qualified to say the techniques out lined in the released CIA memo are just that, uncomfortable. It sucks unbelievably when it happens but you are no worse for wear when it's over. No permanent damage is done unless you count ego. These techniqes have been used for a very long time on all special operations personel and pilots. Do you have any moral quandry with our SOF personel undergoing this sort of training? If you do you should read In the company of heros by Mike Durant it may change your mind. He credits the training he recieved at SERE with his survival. So its OK to subject those who stand-to to protect you, but it's morally reprehisible to subject those who wish to kill you. You need to wake up and rub some of the fairy dust out of your eyes.

SOF forces who go through that training are volunteers. They know exactly what will happen to them. They know they will not be killed or seriously injured. They know they are in friendly hands.

I bet they wouldn't fare so well if those same things were done to them as POW's in the hands of enemies who probably don't care about their well-being. That's the whole point of the training, so that they have at least experienced it under favorable conditions so that when it happens under exctreme conditions they won't be as traumatized by it. Even by the fact that the military trains their people on how to resist shows that they feel it is effective & could rise to the level of 'torture'.

You even state as an example a person who says that without the training in exactly the same techniques being used that he wouldn't have survived. That sounds pretty serious to me. I think that might even lead to a determination of a permanent injury (lack of survival is pretty permanent).

Another problem is you have just removed any moral authority to expect the other side in future conflicts to not use the same techniques or worse. They could say "We didn't consider it torture just 'motivation'.

I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.

If you're not concerned when the ruling party singles out its political opposition as a security risk, you obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the history of the 20th century.

There is another seperate report on 'left-wing' extremists. They were both started under the Bush administration. One was completed & released in late January the other just recently.

Well the DHS does look at "leftwing terrorism" but does so by listing specific groups that have a history of engaging in violent acts. It doesn't paint with a broad brush such as "disgruntled veterans," folk who are concerned about the possibility of new gun control laws, and "antigovernment groups" (which could include anybody who has any disagreement with the current administration).

Oh you mean like:

(U) Proliferation of Cyber Attack Tools and Expertise​

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A believes that the availability of cyber technologies and expertise such as online hacking tools and hackers-for-hire provides leftwing extremists with resources to augment their own homegrown cyber attack capabilities.​

​

​

​

​

​

Resources and capabilities for successful cyber attacks are becoming more accessible to the public as evidenced by online advertisements for hacking services and software. A simple online search provides users with numerous links to discussion forums and websites that offer hacking tutorials and information regarding exploitable system vulnerabilities. In addition, illegal file-sharing sites allow pirated copies of hacking software to be freely exchanged.​

...

​

(U//FOUO) The following highlight a range of signposts that may expose leftwing extremists’ intent—either domestically or abroad—to develop more robust cyber attack strategies:

— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of statements by leftwing extremists advocating the use of cyber attack techniques.
— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of communiques published on leftwing extremist websites claiming credit for cyber attacks.
— (U//FOUO) Suspicious cyber attack activity or increased frequency, creativity, or severity against traditional primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of leftwing extremists.
— (U//FOUO) Evidence that leftwing extremist groups or activists are recruiting or attempting to acquire the services of individuals with cyber capabilities.

...​

(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.

— (U//LES)​

​

​

​

Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times, violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.
​

— (U//FOUO)​

​

​

​

Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical
philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social,
political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER.​

Seems to me those are pretty broad brush descriptions of left-wing extremist catagories & the groups most likely to be recruited by left-wing extremist organizations, which could include anybody who has had any disagreement with the previous administration.​

 

[finity]

Right, the point is that this assessment is clearly politically biased.

This report is supposed to be directed at right-wing extremists. Just like the other one is supposed to be directed at left-wing extremists.

 

[antsi]

This report is supposed to be directed at right-wing extremists. Just like the other one is supposed to be directed at left-wing extremists.

Can you please provide a link to the previous report that identified people with left-wing political beliefs as a terrorist risk?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

This report is supposed to be directed at right-wing extremists. Just like the other one is supposed to be directed at left-wing extremists.

That tells me one of two things: 1) They don't know what is in the reports because they don't look at them or 2) They don't care what is in the reports.

I want to know if I'm being targeted and I want to know what is in the report. If those people on the left are not going to get upset with the government targeting them, I'm not going to be mad for them, nor will I try to protect them if/when the government decides to do more than put together intelligence reports about the different segments of our population.

Also, your reply to Dburkhead about SERE training was wrong, IMO, because we know that some of the people that we are fighting against publicly execute civilian and military POWs and make a point of saying why they are executing them where the U.S. does not do such. While the SERE volunteer knows his training will be over in a matter of days and not end in death, IMO, so do the enemy combatants who are in our custody. Not that it will be over in days, but that it will end and it won't end with their death. I don't think our men and women overseas have that same security.

 

[Windwalker]

I wish Congress could muster enough support to force Napolitano's resignation but I am afraid that they will not be able to.

 

[finity]

Can you please provide a link to the previous report that identified people with left-wing political beliefs as a terrorist risk?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf

 

[finity]

That tells me one of two things: 1) They don't know what is in the reports because they don't look at them or 2) They don't care what is in the reports.

Or maybe 3) they realize that what is in the report could actually be true & that there are left-wing extremist terrorist organizations. They realize that the report doesn't call every left-leaning person a terrorist.

I want to know if I'm being targeted and I want to know what is in the report. If those people on the left are not going to get upset with the government targeting them, I'm not going to be mad for them, nor will I try to protect them if/when the government decides to do more than put together intelligence reports about the different segments of our population.

The government is not targeting you unless you are a member of a right-wing extremist group. Are you? If not then stop being so paranoid.

[/quote]Also, your reply to Dburkhead about SERE training was wrong, IMO, because we know that some of the people that we are fighting against publicly execute civilian and military POWs and make a point of saying why they are executing them where the U.S. does not do such. While the SERE volunteer knows his training will be over in a matter of days and not end in death, IMO, so do the enemy combatants who are in our custody. Not that it will be over in days, but that it will end and it won't end with their death. I don't think our men and women overseas have that same security.[/quote]

So how do you know that they know they won't be killed. How many of their countrymen have died in the war? How many of them have died in our prisons under our care? How many have died in our prisons while being interrogated? If you say none, you are being dishonest. They have no way of knowing that they won't be one of the ones to be killed, even by accident.

So you would be OK with the same techniques being used on American citizens in police interrogations? On you? You never know when you might be a victim of mistaken Identity.

 

[antsi]

The government is not targeting you unless you are a member of a right-wing extremist group. Are you? If not then stop being so paranoid.

The thing that disturbs me about these reports is the failure to distinguish between "extreme" viewpoints and groups that actually commit violent acts.

Some people might consider the Libertarian Party to have an "extreme" political philosophy. One of these reports identified supporters of Congressman Ron Paul as suspect.

It's not "paranoid" to be concerned about government excesses and abuses. In most countries throughout most of history, political oppression has been the norm. We have enjoyed an unusual degree of liberties here in this country, but this is a fragile condition that requires constant vigilance to maintain, along with the willingness to protect and support the rights of dissenting groups.

This belief that "if you're not listed, you have no cause to complain" is pernicious. If anyone's freedoms are threatened, everyone's freedoms are threatened.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Or maybe 3) they realize that what is in the report could actually be true & that there are left-wing extremist terrorist organizations. They realize that the report doesn't call every left-leaning person a terrorist.

Personally, I do realize that there ARE extremist right- and left-wing extremists in this country. The right-wing extremist report didn't say that ALL returning war vets are extremists either, but to me, the implicit implication is that the returning vets are ALL suspect until... until... it is never stipulated what criteria they must meet before they are no longer suspect.

The government is not targeting you unless you are a member of a right-wing extremist group. Are you? If not then stop being so paranoid.

No, I am not paranoid. If the report said that everyone with the first name BLUE and the last name of SPOOK might have extremist tendencies, then the government has targeted me for further investigation of whatever depth the government deems necessary. The DHS listed veterans, I am a veteran, so how have they not targeted me for further investigation at some point?

So how do you know that they know they won't be killed. How many of their countrymen have died in the war? How many of them have died in our prisons under our care? How many have died in our prisons while being interrogated? If you say none, you are being dishonest. They have no way of knowing that they won't be one of the ones to be killed, even by accident.

I can draw that conclusion because we aren't on the internet or news (whatever venue you choose, I'm not listing them all here) beheading them, standing them before a firing squad, hanging them, etc. and saying that we are killing them for their religion like they have done with their captives.

The U.S. is not leaving bodies beside the road or in villages as a warning to the rest of the population there to co-operate with us in whatever we ask of them.

It is reasonable to conclude that they know that the U.S. has a history of not killing those that we remove from the battlefield unlike other countries that have fought in the same AO in the past, or since we are being completely honest here, their own countrymen.

I, personally, don't know of any person that has died under interrogation conditions or in our prisons for them from the first Gulf War until the present. I have not seen anything saying that it has happened. The only deaths that I have read about have been where the prisoner has taken their own life through suicide.

And dying by accident? I have as much chance of dying by accident during being pulled over by a LEO for a traffic ticket as a prisoner does dying by accident.

So you would be OK with the same techniques being used on American citizens in police interrogations? On you? You never know when you might be a victim of mistaken Identity.

Once again you muddle civil, criminal and military legal systems with no distinction between the three. I can't explain the differences between the three any plainer that it has been explained to you by various members here in the past.

 

[dburkhead]

The thing about the "left wing" reports is that they name specific organizations associated with terrorist activities. They don't, for instance, list "returning vets" or just folk who have strong beliefs in opposition to the current rampant expansion of government power (code word "anti-government"), or believe in federalism, or are opposed to the far-left agenda of the Obama administration.

These reports are actually beautifully written pieces of propaganda. They allow people like finity deniability (how "plausible" is left up to the listener), while allowing them to tar everyone who disagrees with them with an exceptionally broad brush. By using, without defining, terms like "extremist" they allow people like finity to say "you're not an extremist are you?" when actually, by looking at who and what they apply the term to (like, for instance, the folk who attended the tea parties), you get to see that "extremist" would appear to mean "anyone to the right of Lenin."

It's an old tactic, and one the left has used with great effect over the years. Consider, for instance, the use of the term "appropriate technology" back in the 70's. Sounds good. After all, who would want to use inappriate techology? However, "appropriate technology" was actually a "term of art" for primitive, labor intensive, low-yield technologies (the predecessor to "green") which most people would consider anything but "appropriate."

So, yeah, "extremist" is simply the new catchword for "anyone who doesn't agree with the current Democratic platform" much like "racist" now means "anyone who objects to anything about the current President or his policies."

 

[INRanger]

[/font][/color]
SOF forces who go through that training are volunteers. They know exactly what will happen to them. They know they will not be killed or seriously injured. They know they are in friendly hands.

I bet they wouldn't fare so well if those same things were done to them as POW's in the hands of enemies who probably don't care about their well-being. That's the whole point of the training, so that they have at least experienced it under favorable conditions so that when it happens under exctreme conditions they won't be as traumatized by it. Even by the fact that the military trains their people on how to resist shows that they feel it is effective & could rise to the level of 'torture'.

You even state as an example a person who says that without the training in exactly the same techniques being used that he wouldn't have survived. That sounds pretty serious to me. I think that might even lead to a determination of a permanent injury (lack of survival is pretty permanent).

Another problem is you have just removed any moral authority to expect the other side in future conflicts to not use the same techniques or worse. They could say "We didn't consider it torture just 'motivation'.
[/left]

Where do I start? Yes we are volunteers, but guess what chuckles? SO ARE THEY! Oh and those hands aren't so "friendly". More people suffer serious career ending injury than quit. Before you score yourself a point, not from water boarding. No one would fare as well under enemy care. That statement is just moronic. The point of SERE is not to expose you to all the various interrogation/torture techniques so they no longer work on you. That just isn't possible. The point is to teach you survival techniques and most importantly mindset. For most people the big lesson taken away is simply "don't get caught". If you read Mike Durant's book you'll learn A. he wasn't water boarded and B. it was the afore mentioned techniques and mindset that allowed him to prevail. If you want to learn a few things from a real hero read it.

As for the removal of moral authority. I do believe unequivocally in the humane and respectful treatment of any uniformed combatant acting in accordance with his nations declaration of war. Even if said nation is not a signatory of the Geneva convention. Terrorist do not meet that criteria. Their policy of civilian targeting removes all moral authority for me.

 

[dburkhead]

As for the removal of moral authority. I do believe unequivocally in the humane and respectful treatment of any uniformed combatant acting in accordance with his nations declaration of war. Even if said nation is not a signatory of the Geneva convention. Terrorist do not meet that criteria. Their policy of civilian targeting removes all moral authority for me.

Oh, on this "Moral authority" issue. If our using Waterboarding removes any "moral authority" to stop others from using the same or worse techniques against us in the future, then wouldn't the use of things like sawing off Daniel Pearl's head with a dull knife remove their "moral authority" to stop us from doing things like, say, waterboarding in return?

The standard. It is double.

This is very much like the people who "excuse" Middle Easter aggression and terrorism as a "response" to the Crusades. The last Crusade to the Middle East (the Ninth) ended 737 years ago. Now, the first Crusade started in 1095, which could be described as a response to the Muslim conquests of that area in 632-661. So if Muslim aggression is "justified" in response to something that happened 737 years ago or more, then would not the Crusades themselves have been justified (by the same logic) by something that had happened a mere 434 years before then?

The standard. It is double.

 

[INRanger]

Him. I like.

 

[finity]

The thing that disturbs me about these reports is the failure to distinguish between "extreme" viewpoints and groups that actually commit violent acts.

Excellent point. Kind of like the reaction from a lot of people who would fail to distinguish between actual violent Muslims & others who just "support" them. Or even the ones who hold extreme political/religious views that do not fully support the violent ones.

There are even a lot of (mostly right-wingers) who do not even differentiate between totally non-violent/violence supporting Muslims but now have a problem with this report that just says "look out, there are bad guys out there. The right-wing ones might look like this & the left-wing ones might look like this".

It's not "paranoid" to be concerned about government excesses and abuses. In most countries throughout most of history, political oppression has been the norm. We have enjoyed an unusual degree of liberties here in this country, but this is a fragile condition that requires constant vigilance to maintain, along with the willingness to protect and support the rights of dissenting groups.

Absolutely. I completely agree. The First Amendment doesn't just protect the speech that you agree with (the generic 'you', not you specifically).

This belief that "if you're not listed, you have no cause to complain" is pernicious. If anyone's freedoms are threatened, everyone's freedoms are threatened.

I also agree with that...to a point...

I don't think anyone here would argue that there are not some permissible police powers & that includes watching known violent groups (note I said 'known') for increases in recruiting or illegal activities. How do you know if those activities are increasing if you don't know what to look for.

If you knew your neighbor was a little bit 'anti-social' & suddenly you see a bunch more people who also seemed 'anti-social' coming around bringing bags of fertilizer into their garage then a Ryder truck shows up, I think a reasonable person would be a little concerned. It's not illegal to be anti-social or to have fertilizer or to rent a Ryder truck but the combination could cause a raised eyebrow.

I'm not advocating in any way infringing on peoples right to privacy or to protest against our government. PC & warrants are absolutely required, no 'fishing' allowed. I just wish others would extend those rules to other groups as well.

 

[finity]

Where do I start? Yes we are volunteers, but guess what chuckles? SO ARE THEY!

I never said they weren't.

Oh and those hands aren't so "friendly". More people suffer serious career ending injury than quit. Before you score yourself a point, not from water boarding.

That may be but they are a lot more 'friendly' than the 'enemy'. I think that's the point. Nobody said anybody was being handled with kid-gloves. Wouldn't be much good for training if that was the case.

No one would fare as well under enemy care. That statement is just moronic.

I didn't say that. As a matter of fact i said just the opposite, that the enemy doesn't care if you live or die. Thats why they are the enemy. To state otherwise is just moronic.

The point of SERE is not to expose you to all the various interrogation/torture techniques so they no longer work on you. That just isn't possible.

I didn't say that either. I said 'so they wouldn't be as traumatized by it' as in they would have been at least a little bit psychologically prepared for it.

The point is to teach you survival techniques and most importantly mindset. For most people the big lesson taken away is simply "don't get caught". If you read Mike Durant's book you'll learn A. he wasn't water boarded and B. it was the afore mentioned techniques and mindset that allowed him to prevail.

Exactly. He was prepared for it so it did not traumatize him as much so that he was able to survive it. He was able to resist the psychological impact that the torture was supposed to have. Just like I said.

As for the removal of moral authority. I do believe unequivocally in the humane and respectful treatment of any uniformed combatant acting in accordance with his nations declaration of war. Even if said nation is not a signatory of the Geneva convention. Terrorist do not meet that criteria. Their policy of civilian targeting removes all moral authority for me.

So you become just. like. them. Congratulations. They win.

Just the same as when we give up our freedoms because we're scared of them. They win.

Bush was fond of saying "they hate our freedoms". So what did he do? He took some those freedoms. Nobody can deny that we are less free than we were before 9/11. Why? Because we're afraid of the terrorists. They didn't have to invade us or even win a battle let alone a war. They were able to curtail our freedoms & bring us down to their moral level anyway.

I never said they had any moral authority. Of course terrorists (or any other criminal) don't have any moral authority. Where the hell do you get this stuff that you state or imply that I said?

I said "WE" needed to be better than they are so that "WE" can maintain our moral authority to be outraged when the same things are done to us. Its hard to tell others to not torture our guys when we're doing it to them (at least if you expect anyone else to listen).