I gather you do actually "get" that there is a big difference between "voluntarily" undergoing something you know will not kill you, and not volunteering to go through something you think will do you in.
>>> Re: McCain, he called it a "horrible torture technique", a "terrible practice" that should never be condoned in the U.S. because you are "a better nation than that." Was he wrong?
>>> I left a link in another post that will partially answer your questions about SERE training. Not all the trainees are captured. They have the responsibility to try to survive, evade, resist or escape. Part of resistence should they be tortured would involve providing intel that misleads the captors, so should he be tortured (which I doubt), he will have learned some techniques to mislead the torturers. There are many types of torture, waterboarding is just one of the many techniques used by torturers.
As I mentioned, I'd read that part of the resistance training was to provide some first-hand education to trainees on what they may experience at the hands of captors, and also to test their ability to "resist." Allowing some trainees to avoid this training/experience simply because they were lucky enough to evade capture on a particular occasion seems as though the military were depriving these men of some rather important training.
I do, however, appreciate you finally answering the question as to whether or not you feel the POW training of SERE is, in fact, torture. If your son is not lucky enough to evade capture and is waterboarded, or subjected to other techniques you deem torture, will you encourage him to sue the military for committing these illegal acts on his person?
>>> To clarify for you. When a Marine is ordered to evade capture as part of a training scenario, it is not considered going AWOL. When the student is "stranded" in the SERE scenario (on a training range), they will have skills to survive and evade capture. Being stranded on the range is not akin to being AWOL since it is part of a training program (AWOL stands for "absent without official leave"). Suggesting my son is fearful of attending training, is insulting whether you intended it to be or not. I am confident based upon his past behavior, that he will rise to the necessary level of achievement required to "graduate" SERE training despite any fears he may (or may not) have.
My query was based on my (perhaps erroneous) presumption that all trainees were subjected to aggressive interrogation techniques as a part of the "acclimation/testing" program. When you suggested, with a level of certainty, that he might avoid experiencing these techniques...perhaps you were simply trying to avoid answering the questions...I naturally wondered how he would accomplish this.
>>> I gather you do actually "get" that there is a big difference between "voluntarily" undergoing something you know will not kill you, and not volunteering to go through something you think will do you in.
And again, we're faced with your allegations supported by...your allegations. You've provided no evidence that interrogations are staged as "mock executions" or any evidence that the prisoner believes that he will be killed. I believe that the implication of the interrogator/interrogation is just the opposite...not that the prisoner will be killed, but rather that the discomfort will continue unless the prisoner is cooperative.
The other salient point you choose to ignore is that very few people would "volunteer" to be tortured using techniques universally understood to be torture...nor would we use those techniques as "training" for our soldiers. However, many people have "volunteered" to be waterboarded...some twice...with no lasting ill effect.
>>> Why would my son sue the military for conducting a training course which he volunteers to take? That makes no sense.
According to you, he is taking the course to learn Survival and Evasion, and does not desire to be captured. If he is captured against his will, and then subjected to "torture" against his will, why would he not sue the military for torturing him?
There also seems to be a pretty good case for suing the government for torturing a trainee simply because they used illegal techniques, whether he volunteered or not.
>>> I think that when our government tortures to extract information from presumed enemies, the presumed enemies don't volunteer to participate.
One could argue that, by assuming the role of terrorist, they are voluntarily accepting the possibility that they might be captured and interrogated.
Pages
I gather you do actually "get" that there is a big difference between "voluntarily" undergoing something you know will not kill you, and not volunteering to go through something you think will do you in.
If not, good luck with that.
Kate
>>> Re: McCain, he called it a "horrible torture technique", a "terrible practice" that should never be condoned in the U.S. because you are "a better nation than that." Was he wrong?
~In my opinion, yes...~
I see.
Kate
I left a link in another post that will partially answer your questions about SERE training.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
>>> I left a link in another post that will partially answer your questions about SERE training. Not all the trainees are captured. They have the responsibility to try to survive, evade, resist or escape. Part of resistence should they be tortured would involve providing intel that misleads the captors, so should he be tortured (which I doubt), he will have learned some techniques to mislead the torturers. There are many types of torture, waterboarding is just one of the many techniques used by torturers.
As I mentioned, I'd read that part of the resistance training was to provide some first-hand education to trainees on what they may experience at the hands of captors, and also to test their ability to "resist." Allowing some trainees to avoid this training/experience simply because they were lucky enough to evade capture on a particular occasion seems as though the military were depriving these men of some rather important training.
I do, however, appreciate you finally answering the question as to whether or not you feel the POW training of SERE is, in fact, torture. If your son is not lucky enough to evade capture and is waterboarded, or subjected to other techniques you deem torture, will you encourage him to sue the military for committing these illegal acts on his person?
>>> To clarify for you. When a Marine is ordered to evade capture as part of a training scenario, it is not considered going AWOL. When the student is "stranded" in the SERE scenario (on a training range), they will have skills to survive and evade capture. Being stranded on the range is not akin to being AWOL since it is part of a training program (AWOL stands for "absent without official leave"). Suggesting my son is fearful of attending training, is insulting whether you intended it to be or not. I am confident based upon his past behavior, that he will rise to the necessary level of achievement required to "graduate" SERE training despite any fears he may (or may not) have.
My query was based on my (perhaps erroneous) presumption that all trainees were subjected to aggressive interrogation techniques as a part of the "acclimation/testing" program. When you suggested, with a level of certainty, that he might avoid experiencing these techniques...perhaps you were simply trying to avoid answering the questions...I naturally wondered how he would accomplish this.
Why would my son sue the military for conducting a training course which he volunteers to take?
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
>>> I gather you do actually "get" that there is a big difference between "voluntarily" undergoing something you know will not kill you, and not volunteering to go through something you think will do you in.
And again, we're faced with your allegations supported by...your allegations. You've provided no evidence that interrogations are staged as "mock executions" or any evidence that the prisoner believes that he will be killed. I believe that the implication of the interrogator/interrogation is just the opposite...not that the prisoner will be killed, but rather that the discomfort will continue unless the prisoner is cooperative.
The other salient point you choose to ignore is that very few people would "volunteer" to be tortured using techniques universally understood to be torture...nor would we use those techniques as "training" for our soldiers. However, many people have "volunteered" to be waterboarded...some twice...with no lasting ill effect.
>>> Why would my son sue the military for conducting a training course which he volunteers to take? That makes no sense.
According to you, he is taking the course to learn Survival and Evasion, and does not desire to be captured. If he is captured against his will, and then subjected to "torture" against his will, why would he not sue the military for torturing him?
There also seems to be a pretty good case for suing the government for torturing a trainee simply because they used illegal techniques, whether he volunteered or not.
>>> I think that when our government tortures to extract information from presumed enemies, the presumed enemies don't volunteer to participate.
One could argue that, by assuming the role of terrorist, they are voluntarily accepting the possibility that they might be captured and interrogated.
Your unique logic escapes me on this.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Here's a salient point for you -
Kate
Ho, ho, ho :)
Kate
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kate
Pages