Uncle Sam has his own gulag

[assoholic]

"The 20th century has shown repeatedly that when security forces use torture abroad, they soon begin using it at home, first on suspected "terrorists," then dissidents, then on ordinary suspects."



http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/12/04/765847.html

[langeweile]

The comparisson of the Gulag with Guantanamo is ludacris at best. The author of that article has no idea what he is talking about.
In any of the Gulags there was no chance to any trial at all, and if you died nobody gave a crap. Slave labour was the order of the day.

i don't agree that people should be tortured at all. However some coersion is necessary. To what degree? I don't know.
Let's don't forget who we are dealing with. Most of those guys will blow up any of us, including your wife and kids, without breaking a sweat, if given the chance.
Torture is a dirty business, but so is terrorism.

[Ranger68]

"Ludacris"? .....
Isn't that a rapper?
;)

It's *ludicrous* why? What kinds of trials are going on at Guantanamo? The gulags weren't about slave labour, for god's sake - they were about exile and imprisonment.

"Some coercion is necessary" does not agree with "i don't agree that people should be tortured at all". Clearly, you should think about this some more.

Your final argument is a terrible one - that we should lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist. It's arguments like this that have engendered the scandal at Abu Ghraib - which has done more to further endanger US security than anything imaginable - short of invading Iraq in the first place.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
"Ludacris"? .....
Isn't that a rapper?
;)

It's *ludicrous* why? What kinds of trials are going on at Guantanamo? The gulags weren't about slave labour, for god's sake - they were about exile and imprisonment.

"Some coercion is necessary" does not agree with "i don't agree that people should be tortured at all". Clearly, you should think about this some more.

Your final argument is a terrible one - that we should lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist. It's arguments like this that have engendered the scandal at Abu Ghraib - which has done more to further endanger US security than anything imaginable - short of invading Iraq in the first place.

Military trial have been going on in Guantanamo for the 9 month or so, maybe longer.
They are a bunch of motions in front of the US courts as to the legitimize of those trials.

Do you really believe that we can "politely ask" some of those boys for info?? Now you are dreaming.

Sorry about the rapper...damn english language.

[langeweile]

http://search.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?cleanQuery=guantanamo&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&SortSpec=Date+Desc+Score+Desc&ViewTemplate=docview.hts&collection=ALL02&Action=FilterSearch&filter=topic_filter.NEW.hts&QueryText=

here are some links about the trials in Guantanamo

[Ranger68]

Do you think anyone else in the world thinks these trials are fair?

Anyway, I wasn't clarifying *my* position on torture, I was asking you for yours, since your two statements were contradictory. I think it's fair to say we know where you stand, though, and that your statement "i don't think people should be tortured at all" was a lie.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Do you think anyone else in the world thinks these trials are fair?

Anyway, I wasn't clarifying *my* position on torture, I was asking you for yours, since your two statements were contradictory. I think it's fair to say we know where you stand, though, and that your statement "i don't think people should be tortured at all" was a lie.

This is a difficult question to clarify my position on. Mainly because there is no "humane torture". Torture is a terrible means to extract information with, but what other choice is there? Especially if it can save yours or somebody elses life.

Here it goes( I know I am going to catch hell for this):
The answer is not black and white, since there are different definitions of torture out there.
i would say that some of those i find acceptable as a means of extracting information of known suspects.
Sleep deprevations, physchological torture and certain drugs I find necessary and acceptable.
Beatings, electrical shock treatments and rape etc... not acceptable.
Hope i make any sense at all.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
i don't agree that people should be tortured at all. However some coersion is necessary. To what degree? I don't know.


Reminds me about the old joke about the women who would sleep with me for 1 million.....

[assoholic]

..thanks for the responses. The only thing I would add is this.
Torture does not work as a means of getting information. Becuase the person being tortured will say anything to make it stop.
So torture, of the kind any Occuppying army engages in after awhile. Northern Ireland , Kashmir , Iraq exct. Serves one real purpose, as a means of population control & revenge.
Dont mess around or else you may end up....
Even if you wanted to, you can't stop Individual soldiers for exacting revenge after one of their buddies gets his legs blown off.
As long as the US is there, this will continue. The question is, is it worth it ?
Our Society will change if we are there too long.
As DQ has said, I think we have passed the Rubicon.
Unfortunately few have seemed to have noticed.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
"Ludacris"? .....
Isn't that a rapper?
;)

It's *ludicrous* why? What kinds of trials are going on at Guantanamo? The gulags weren't about slave labour, for god's sake - they were about exile and imprisonment.


Say what now? Under Stalin, the gulags were all about slave labor. Inmates were used as forced labor in a variety of work projects often under brutal conditions, the White Sea/Baltic canal and the Baikal-Amur railroad to name a couple. Also they were used extensively in the lumber, oil and mining industries, many of them in the far north. Stalin himself considered the camps essential to economic growth, and were continued to be used as a source of slave labor until his death.

[assoholic]

..it was both, as well take a look at the Texas penal system, while not to the extent of the Gulags. It too has become big business.

[Ranger68]

Stalin had lots of strange views. The work done at the gulags was NOT essential to economic growth. I can refer you to lots of works on the subject, if you wish further reading.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Stalin had lots of strange views. The work done at the gulags was NOT essential to economic growth. I can refer you to lots of works on the subject, if you wish further reading.

Of course Stalin had many strange views, too many to mention. I didn't say the work done at the gulags was essential, simply that Stalin believed it to be. His successors realized it was not working, and began to dismantle it almost immediately after his death. I was mainly challenging your statement that the gulags were not about slave labor, when clearly under Stalin, they were.

[Peeping Tom]

A few things:

Torture, barring its application in exceptional cases, by extremely skilled agents, indeed does little. However, it is a poor means of population control, due to its inherent methodology and utter inefficiency. Brute force displays are much more realistic, especially as they are usually done in public, for all to see. One gets a better impression by seeing an execution for littering rather than hearing surrealistic tales of dark dungeons - more so given the mental state of those who might emerge.

As for actual torture, I don't recall seeing just where in the UCMJ it is allowed. To the contrary, consider those who recieved brutal setences for some practical jokes at Ahbu Grahib (sp).

The cases of individual troops going renegade have no effect on society, as those actions are already proscribed by the UCMJ and offenders will get a heavy hand on sentence day. It probably can't be stopped entirely but it is at insignificant levels compared to past abuses. Consider the forced march of German troops from Stalingrad, or its counterpart in the retaliatory enslavement / medical experimentation / mass murder of captured commie troops by Germany.


Originally posted by assoholic
..thanks for the responses. The only thing I would add is this.
Torture does not work as a means of getting information. Becuase the person being tortured will say anything to make it stop.
So torture, of the kind any Occuppying army engages in after awhile. Northern Ireland , Kashmir , Iraq exct. Serves one real purpose, as a means of population control & revenge.
Dont mess around or else you may end up....
Even if you wanted to, you can't stop Individual soldiers for exacting revenge after one of their buddies gets his legs blown off.
As long as the US is there, this will continue. The question is, is it worth it ?
Our Society will change if we are there too long.
As DQ has said, I think we have passed the Rubicon.
Unfortunately few have seemed to have noticed.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by assoholic
..it was both, as well take a look at the Texas penal system, while not to the extent of the Gulags. It too has become big business.

I suggest you read up on the Gulag issue, once you have done that, point out one, remember just one, prison within the USA with the same conditions.
Thanks

[langeweile]

I don't believe that torture doesn't work.
I also believe that one should suffer in the place of many.If torture means that we can get some infromation to save many innocent lives so be it. Sorry, but this is how I feel.
It showed not however be used as a form of entertainment and it should be targeted to a very few "high value targets".
Ask the families of 9-11 and other crimes, how they feel about that.
All to often we are worried about the purpetrators and not the victims.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Asterix
Of course Stalin had many strange views, too many to mention. I didn't say the work done at the gulags was essential, simply that Stalin believed it to be. His successors realized it was not working, and began to dismantle it almost immediately after his death. I was mainly challenging your statement that the gulags were not about slave labor, when clearly under Stalin, they were.

I think even that statement is debatable. Stalin *said* a lot of things.
I think the interpretation that the gulags were primarily about herding dissidents away from the rest of society is perfectly valid. Surely you believe that Stalin was interested in getting rid of "political undesirables", no?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
I don't believe that torture doesn't work.
I also believe that one should suffer in the place of many.If torture means that we can get some infromation to save many innocent lives so be it. Sorry, but this is how I feel.
It showed not however be used as a form of entertainment and it should be targeted to a very few "high value targets".
Ask the families of 9-11 and other crimes, how they feel about that.
All to often we are worried about the purpetrators and not the victims.

Where's your evidence that torture works?

I think you may be surprised what the families of 9/11 victims say regarding the use of torture.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
I suggest you read up on the Gulag issue, once you have done that, point out one, remember just one, prison within the USA with the same conditions.
Thanks

What books have you read on the Gulags? What did they have to say about the differences between the Gulags and modern prisons? Or Guantanamo?

[happygrump]

A couple of things:
[list=1]
One of the reasons that the West does not (generally, anyway) torture prisoners for information is because, in doing so, that invites other countries to use torture on the West's soldiers, and maybe even civilians, should they be captured;

Misinformation strategies are part and parcel of training by all forces across the world, be they legitimate armies or terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda (sp?). Torturing a prisoner only to get tainted information is rather pointless, isn't it?;

Prisoners will often say anything to get the torture to stop. This has been shown again and again. All you have to do is look at, for instance, the Salem Witch Trials where people admitted to consorting with demons, to find relief from a device known at the "boot";

The "eye for an eye" argument also falls flat. That's why, in modern Western democracies, the decision about the punishment of criminals is not left up to the victims of their crimes.
[/list=1]

There's more reading here (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=FOCUS&oid=51153). It seems, to me, a pretty balanced article.

BTW... the gulags were about the incarceration of political enemies of Stalin, based on his own whims.

[Ranger68]

Powerful nations should hold themselves to higher standards.

[langeweile]

If torture wouldn't work why is it being used? Even if it just works on a phsycological level it does has it's impact.

If anyone believes that the actions at Abu Gharib were the actions of a few, also believes in Santa Claus.
This was a systematic attempt to get information from prisoners. The "contractors" are a front set up by the agency in charge to extract information.
Like it or not, almost every nation has this kind of "outsourced operation".
A few month ago there was a guy ( can't remember his name) from the middle eas,t that claimed Canada has sold him out to Syria, so they can torture him, to get needed information.

[BiggieE]

...we also had to use Internment Camps during WW II, and we dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Fighting for ones survival is a dirty job. If we take the "high road" too often, we'll end up......dead...

[Ranger68]

The US certainly didn't have to use Internment Camps during WWII. This is NO way contributed to victory. It's just another sad tale of inhumanity.
As for dropping two atomic bombs, I don't think this act was any worse than the deliberate targeting of civilians for mass murder during the "strategic bombing" campaign, and as this act ended the war prematurely, one might argue that this act was defensible on moral and humanitarian grounds.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I think even that statement is debatable. Stalin *said* a lot of things.
I think the interpretation that the gulags were primarily about herding dissidents away from the rest of society is perfectly valid. Surely you believe that Stalin was interested in getting rid of "political undesirables", no?

That Stalin targeted a great many political dissidents for the gulags, expecially in the early 1930's is obvious, but these camps housed many others as well. In addition to a great number of common criminals, thieves, and murderers, the camps also had a number of people whose only crime was that Stalin thought they were "ethnically undesirable". After WWII Stalin also sent many thousands of returning Red Army pow's to the gulags because he considered them traitors for having surrendered in the first place. The camps were mainly and essentially slave labor camps, in a tradition that ran back to the Czars of earlier centuries. The link is to the introduction of Anne Applebaum's book "The Gulag: A History", in which she documents how interwoven the camps were into the Soviet economy, and the importance Stalin attached to them. By the way, the book also won her the Pulitzer Prize.

http://www.anneapplebaum.com/gulag/intro.html

[islandboy]

Agreed. Huberous and indefference tend to result in failure. .

[Ranger68]

I haven't read Applebaum's work, though I've seen it.

I think this quote of her's summarizes what I was trying to say best:
"Although he had believed all of his life that the Gulag was critical to Soviet economic growth, his political heirs knew well that the camps were, in fact, a source of backwardness and distorted investment. ... Nevertheless, the camps did not disappear altogether. Instead, they evolved. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, a few of them were redesigned and put to use as prisons for a new generation of democratic activists, anti-Soviet nationalists—and criminals."

Excellent reading is also provided by Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps, by Conquest, and of course, the Gulag Archipeligo, which won Solzhenitsyn the Nobel Prize. Solzhenitsyn's focus is on the political usage of the camps.

[Asterix]

Well, at least you now seem to recognize that Stalin saw the camps as an integral part of the economy and specifically tried to exploit them as such. That he was horribly misguided, I don't dispute, but can you acknowledge that your original comment that the gulags were not about slave labor was more than a little inaccurate?

[assoholic]

..I am not suggesting the Texas penal system is the same as the Gulag system, yet. However in Texas, as in alot of the States ,it has become a big business as some of them are now Private facilities that operate on a profit basis. Paying Prisoners pennies a day to manufacture License plates and all other kinds of goods.
More importantly, the main thrust of the article was this.
If we are going to let our soldiers over there turn into torturers, dont forget, sooner or later they are coming home.
Not just the guys who do it but the ones who thought it was o'k to do in the first place and authorized it.
Maybe we have no choice, maybe the world is just too dam evil.
Up to this point we have been the light that said that there was a different way.
Thats kind of what I thought we were all about.
I am not Anti-Amnerican, but very wary of some " Big American
Interest's.
Industrial Military Complex, Oil Industry , Banks, only because they are the most powerful, add of course the European ones and Japanese and soon the Chinese exct, exct.
Corporations have no soul. It is I think a very very dangerous new trend in World History.
War by the bottom line.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Winston
While fighting monsters, great care must be taken, as to not become a monster yourself.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the "moral" difference between torture and terrorism. What's the point of standing for something if you are willing to play the game of "justification".

A hypocrite seems to be your ideological role model.

No wonder you have the respect of very few people on this board.

With all due repect Winston I don't give a shit about what people think about me, nor due I care if anybody respects me or not.

I am not participating here to earn respect. I don't know anybody on this board personally, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will.

My reasons for being here are very selfish.
a) for entertainment and
b) to hear other peoples opinions.
c) in hopes to learn something new.

Most of what I heard was very valuable some of it was just straight BS.

Thanks to everybody that puts up with me especially BBK, Ranger and DQ.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by assoholic
..I am not suggesting the Texas penal system is the same as the Gulag system, yet. However in Texas, as in alot of the States ,it has become a big business as some of them are now Private facilities that operate on a profit basis. Paying Prisoners pennies a day to manufacture License plates and all other kinds of goods.
More importantly, the main thrust of the article was this.
If we are going to let our soldiers over there turn into torturers, dont forget, sooner or later they are coming home.
Not just the guys who do it but the ones who thought it was o'k to do in the first place and authorized it.
Maybe we have no choice, maybe the world is just too dam evil.
Up to this point we have been the light that said that there was a different way.
Thats kind of what I thought we were all about.
I am not Anti-Amnerican, but very wary of some " Big American
Interest's.
Industrial Military Complex, Oil Industry , Banks, only because they are the most powerful, add of course the European ones and Japanese and soon the Chinese exct, exct.
Corporations have no soul. It is I think a very very dangerous new trend in World History.
War by the bottom line.

I am not sure what's wrong with making prisoners work? IMHO they are not working enough and should not be payed at all.
If you chooses to turn your back on society by commiting crimes against it. Why should we care?
Maybe I should direcct your attention towards Singapore. While some of it might be over the top. A lot of it did a who;e ;ot of good.
A custiomer of mine, that happens to work there told me, that some of the laws are tough, but "I can send my 12 year ols daughter across town by herself and don't have to worry about it". There is something to be said about that.


If you replace the word "Big American interest" with "Big worldwide companies interest" I could somewhat agree with you. Large powerful corporations are not unique to the USA.

[assoholic]

..it is the combination that is dangerous. You see we Canadians grew up in an Empire. At least the end of one, maybe thats why our perspective is a little different. During the British Empire ascendancy it was often Business leading the way. Once they got in trouble, i.e once the natives got pissed off at being ripped off, usually of their liberty. Who had to come in and protect them ?, the Government.
Now Corporations are even bigger, logic would seem to dictate their influence on Government as well is greater.
Oh and it might suprise you when I say I agree about Singapore, to a certain extent. However I also worked with someone from Sigapore and she hated it. She said the Government was constatntly over your shoulder. Thats why she left. Just to use the Subway you had to use a card that had all your information on it.
However in an age where a pissed off 17 year old Chemistry wiz
can creat a batch of whatever and release it on the subway. Who knows , maybe thats where we are headed ?

[Peeping Tom]

It doesn't work and isn't being used. I must note however, if it did work its use would be essential and mandatory in the military practice of a just and moral State.


Originally posted by langeweile
If torture wouldn't work why is it being used? Even if it just works on a phsycological level it does has it's impact.

Care to back this up? Just where in the UCMJ does it authorize torture? By the way, the incidents there were practical jokes. One would get far worse treatment as an American citizen at home in a local precinct, on arrest for greatly insignificant charges.

The reality at Abu Gharib:

MP:

"Just why were you running away from the scene of an explosion, and why did we find RPG's in your home, along with a dozen AK's?"

Terrorist:

"Infidel pig. Die all Americans"

MP:

"I'm going to make you wear a leash and take pictures for my retirement party, if you don't play ball ... "


If anyone believes that the actions at Abu Gharib were the actions of a few, also believes in Santa Claus.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Asterix
Well, at least you now seem to recognize that Stalin saw the camps as an integral part of the economy and specifically tried to exploit them as such. That he was horribly misguided, I don't dispute, but can you acknowledge that your original comment that the gulags were not about slave labor was more than a little inaccurate?

Yes, but it was, and still is, my understanding that it was pretty much *Stalin*, and Stalin alone, who saw some economic usage for the camps, and that everyone else, before and after, saw them for what they really were.
I think I stand by my original statement, with the qualification that Stalin used them for more.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Yes, but it was, and still is, my understanding that it was pretty much *Stalin*, and Stalin alone, who saw some economic usage for the camps, and that everyone else, before and after, saw them for what they really were.
I think I stand by my original statement, with the qualification that Stalin used them for more.

One last post on this and then I'll let it go.

No, Stalin didn't see just 'some economic usage" for the camps, but by the quote you yourself provided, considered them critical. It doesn't matter if others disagreed, he alone set the policy. For close to thirty years he expanded and ruled over the gulag system at it's height. Several million people were sent into this, and millions of those died providing the slave labor he thought crucial for the soviet economy. Stalin took the gulag system far beyond simply imprisoning dissidents, and tried to make it into an industrial machine. If this is what you mean by a "qualification" to your original statement, it's a hell of a big one.

[Ranger68]

No, my qualification was that the gulags *under Stalin* were about economic factors - under everyone else, they were as I described. I wasn't talking about the gulags solely under one man, but their usage and importance through history. I think it's a hell of a big stretch to say that the way Stalin used them is the way they generally functioned.
Anyway, I think we've beaten this horse.

[assoholic]

...I read a book writrten by a guy who had been in a Gulag in Siberia. Maybe they were used in a couple of big jobs but that was about it. They were barely kept alive, Soup there only meal. They were half dead, living in a Frozen Hell, not much of a work force. I encourage all to read at least one book written by a Holacuast or Gulag survivor.
Its absoulutely amazing the evil ordinary men can do.