Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#121

Post by grey-area »

rayiner wrote: post #119
swalkergibson wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. We send them to Gitmo, or the Salt Pit, or Abu Ghraib. Does held indefinitely without trial or charges qualify as a political prisoner? It certainly fits my definition.

Poor treatment of prisoners of war is not equivalent to imprisonment of political dissenters. The only American citizen ever held in Guantanamo was captured in Afghanistan fighting against the U.S. and was transferred out.

Poor treatment of prisoners of war is not equivalent to imprisonment of political dissenters.

Many people at Guantanamo Bay were not captured on any battlefield. Unless of course you define the whole world as a battlefield (as the White House does). That has the unfortunate consequence of transforming citizens into terrorists suspects too and suspending their rights.

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#122

Post by swalkergibson »

rayiner wrote: post #119
swalkergibson wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. We send them to Gitmo, or the Salt Pit, or Abu Ghraib. Does held indefinitely without trial or charges qualify as a political prisoner? It certainly fits my definition.

Poor treatment of prisoners of war is not equivalent to imprisonment of political dissenters. The only American citizen ever held in Guantanamo was captured in Afghanistan fighting against the U.S. and was transferred out.

> Poor treatment of prisoners of war

They are not prisoners of war. Treatment of POWs is covered by all sorts of international treaties. Guess what? Waterboarding is not exactly sanctioned by any of those.

Nope, our government has defined them as "unlawful enemy combatants," whatever the fuck those are. Basically, it means that we can hold them without trial until the "Global War on Terror" is over. I will ask again, how are these not political prisoners?

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#123

Post by rayiner »

swalkergibson wrote: post #122
rayiner wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor treatment of prisoners of war is not equivalent to imprisonment of political dissenters. The only American citizen ever held in Guantanamo was captured in Afghanistan fighting against the U.S. and was transferred out.

> Poor treatment of prisoners of war They are not prisoners of war. Treatment of POWs is covered by all sorts of international treaties. Guess what? Waterboarding is not exactly sanctioned by any of those. Nope, our government has defined them as "unlawful enemy combatants," whatever the fuck those are. Basically, it means that we can hold them without trial until the "Global War on Terror" is over. I will ask again,…

No, we say they aren't prisoners of war and are thus exempt from the protections given to prisoners of war, but they are. That's part of the mistreatment of POWs. But the fact hat we're trying to get around the treaties protecting POWs doesn't make these people "political prisoners." They're not being held because they're political dissenters. They're held because they were captured in theaters of war.

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#124

Post by swalkergibson »

rayiner wrote: post #123
swalkergibson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poor treatment of prisoners of war They are not prisoners of war. Treatment of POWs is covered by all sorts of international treaties. Guess what? Waterboarding is not exactly sanctioned by any of those. Nope, our government has defined them as "unlawful enemy combatants," whatever the fuck those are. Basically, it means that we can hold them without trial until the "Global War on Terror" is over. I will ask again,…

No, we say they aren't prisoners of war and are thus exempt from the protections given to prisoners of war, but they are. That's part of the mistreatment of POWs. But the fact hat we're trying to get around the treaties protecting POWs doesn't make these people "political prisoners." They're not being held because they're political dissenters. They're held because they were captured in theaters of war.

Whether or not somebody is a terrorist is largely a matter of perception. Consider the case of Shaker Aamer.

"The Northern Alliance took him into custody in Jalalabad on 24 November 2001, and passed him to the Americans. The US routinely paid ransom for Arabs handed over to them."

"Status: Cleared for release in 2007. Still held at Guantanamo."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer

I will grant you, if you want to narrowly define political prisoner to someone who is exclusively a political dissident, you are right. How do you classify people held for over a decade without charges? The political prisoner label is expedient because it implies that the reasons for holding that person are that they are simply undesirable, and that they should not be allowed to be a part of a society; not because they are guilty of some specific act. Hell, even political prisoners get their day in kangaroo court. We have not even put up show trials for these men.

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

swalkergibson wrote: post #124
rayiner wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we say they aren't prisoners of war and are thus exempt from the protections given to prisoners of war, but they are. That's part of the mistreatment of POWs. But the fact hat we're trying to get around the treaties protecting POWs doesn't make these people "political prisoners." They're not being held because they're political dissenters. They're held because they were captured in theaters of war.

Whether or not somebody is a terrorist is largely a matter of perception. Consider the case of Shaker Aamer. "The Northern Alliance took him into custody in Jalalabad on 24 November 2001, and passed him to the Americans. The US routinely paid ransom for Arabs handed over to them." "Status: Cleared for release in 2007. Still held at Guantanamo." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer I will grant you, if you want t…

> Hell, even political prisoners get their day in kangaroo court. We have not even put up show trials for these men.

That understates the case. "Cleared for release" means that the process has already determined that they do not need to be held. Its, arguably, worse than not giving him a chance to prove that he shouldn't be held -- we've already determined that he shouldn't be held and are holding him anyway.

(And Aamer's case is particularly bad, even among Guatanamo cases, because, unlike the cases of detainees where no country is willing to accept them on release, Aamer has legal status as a non-citizen resident of the UK and the UK has repeatedly requested his release by the US.)

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#126

Post by dm2 »

ry0ohki wrote: post #24

The military/spy agencies are not concerned about being politically correct. This is sort of a tradition, if you look at missile projects they all have logos like these and are called things like "reapers" etc... If we start seeing this on the White House seal I'll be concerned.

It is a little weird to have devils and such strongly worded messages in mission badges, but it's come to be expected.

There is a huge psychological factor in the DoD about making people believe you have the biggest stick and can see everything. Kind of like putting an alarm company sign outside of your door to prevent theives.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/top-10-most-sinist...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Mission_Pa...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1033/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1033/2

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#127

Post by rayiner »

swalkergibson wrote: post #124
rayiner wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we say they aren't prisoners of war and are thus exempt from the protections given to prisoners of war, but they are. That's part of the mistreatment of POWs. But the fact hat we're trying to get around the treaties protecting POWs doesn't make these people "political prisoners." They're not being held because they're political dissenters. They're held because they were captured in theaters of war.

Whether or not somebody is a terrorist is largely a matter of perception. Consider the case of Shaker Aamer. "The Northern Alliance took him into custody in Jalalabad on 24 November 2001, and passed him to the Americans. The US routinely paid ransom for Arabs handed over to them." "Status: Cleared for release in 2007. Still held at Guantanamo." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer I will grant you, if you want t…

Here's the thing. I don't even disagree that the U.S. has badly handled the situation with the Guantanamo detainees. It's valid to detain prisoners during a war, but they should be repatriated after hostilities cease. You have to acknowledge that the U.S. is in a rough spot, because 30% of detainees returned to Afghanistan started fighting again against the U.S., and for many of the detainees, the home countries didn't want them back. And the U.S. states were totally unwilling to even host trials for the detainees on their soil, particularly Virginia where many of those trials would have been held. But there were probably better ways to handle the detainees.

However, this has nothing to do with the comparison between the U.S. and Stalinist Russia. The latter detained Russian citizens because of their political opposition to the regime. Those are political prisoners. Or, for other examples, people like Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned for political opposition to the South African government.

There is an enormous difference between a country's internal political institutions and its shortcomings in the conduct of war on foreign soil with respect to foreigners. You can't just pretend these are the same thing. This is a distinction that American law takes very seriously: John Walker Lindh was recognized as an American, despite being captured with Afghan fighters in Afghanistan, was never held in Guantanamo, and was given a criminal trial in the U.S.

Trials and due process are protections that Americans are entitled to when they are accused of crimes. Foreigners suspected of making war against the U.S. and captured on foreign soil are simply not entitled to these things. It's not a "crime" to wage war against the U.S., it's not something that falls within the jurisdiction of criminal courts. It's something that falls within the sovereign right of a nation to defend itself against foreign attackers. The rules and standards of conduct are totally different.

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#128

Post by swalkergibson »

rayiner wrote: post #127
swalkergibson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not somebody is a terrorist is largely a matter of perception. Consider the case of Shaker Aamer. "The Northern Alliance took him into custody in Jalalabad on 24 November 2001, and passed him to the Americans. The US routinely paid ransom for Arabs handed over to them." "Status: Cleared for release in 2007. Still held at Guantanamo." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer I will grant you, if you want t…

Here's the thing. I don't even disagree that the U.S. has badly handled the situation with the Guantanamo detainees. It's valid to detain prisoners during a war, but they should be repatriated after hostilities cease. You have to acknowledge that the U.S. is in a rough spot, because 30% of detainees returned to Afghanistan started fighting again against the U.S., and for many of the detainees, the home countries didn…

> Trials and due process are protections that Americans are entitled to when they are accused of crimes.

Trials and due process are protections that everyone, regardless of citizenship status, are afforded in this country. If you disagree, check out how many illegal immigrants are currently incarcerated.

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment. Terrorism is in fact a crime, with plenty of statutes covering exactly what it is. Declaring a war on terror is like declaring a war on communism, when does it end? Where do the battles take place?

I am honestly trying to wrap my mind around your position here. Are you saying that you think we should be able to lock people up -- potentially forever -- on the word of people who were compensated financially for turning over "terrorists?" How can you reconcile that with anything the US supposedly stands for?

Re: New US spy satellite logo features world-devouring octopus

#129

Post by PavlovsCat »

rayiner wrote: post #120
PavlovsCat wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, what it implies is that those who intend to do evil against America cannot hide anywhere in the world. Define "evil" and "America"? Seeing how war profiteers sending off your young into wars, and making everyone else pay for toys that are just as mind boggingly expensive as they are mind boggingly useless for anything but murder and control, doesn't seem to either count as "evil" or as perpetrating it against "…

> Oh yeah. "Hope And Change! Now That I Got This Fuck You". Rinse, repeat. Those liberals who opposed the war in Iraq and voted for Obama turned right around and cheered for intervention in Syria. It's not some failure of democracy when people get what they want. > No, you send them to Gitmo or black sites. Snowden is stuck in Russia. Manning got tortured right at home. One U.S. citizen was ever held in Guantanamo, a…

Being manipulated into wars for profit is a functioning democracy for you? Guess what, democracy doesn't just mean "citizens making decisions, period", it means "citizens making informed decisions" at the very least. I wonder if any country in the whole world is a "real" democracy in that sense, but the US sure as fuck isn't. It's not even running.

> It's not really a compelling argument to point to a random list of bad things about America then say "it's just like Stalinist Russia."

Then point to where someone said that? Let me quote it:

The kicker is a comment that juxtaposes the logo with a warning illustration saying "Know your communist enemy" with a nearly-identical logo, presumably implying an evil enemy from the Cold War, which we have become.

An enemy. Not "just like Stalinist Russia". Nobody was even talking of Stalin... Yes, the Soviets were also an enemy to their own people, but I read the above as the US slowly but surely becoming an evil enemy to others. That your population even is for letting people rot in Gitmo (not because there is even a shred of evidence against them, but because they might "turn terrorist"), or don't terribly mind extrajudicial killings, by drone or otherwise, or aggressive wars doesn't even matter. That it's (in your eyes) a functioning democracy isn't relevant either: it's like the Nazis aren't excused by everybody voting for Hitler or screaming for total war. If murder of foreigners is somehow less wrong to some, then that doesn't make it less of murder, it makes it worse in my books. And while you could quibble about scale, I would respond that if a friend of yours killed 1 person, you would probably not want to be their friend anymore, at all - instead of saying "at least it wasn't 10, 100 or 1000". Also, the US is not stingy when it comes to scale or brutality, either.

Post reply on HN