U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA

[Czcibor]

Fish in a barrel, sometimes. Honestly, fish in a barrel. Must resist temptation...

Of course. Mind you, almost none of those entities deliberately overthrow entire governments. Our own CSIS has some unsavoury history, but they don't routinely run around murdering and torturing innocent people. Part of South America might be run by drug cartels, but most of the world isn't.

I think that either I asked my question in unclear way or you dodged it quite effectively. Should the US effectively unilaterally stop using intelligence, while the other players would do not?

Do you really think it would make the world a better place?

Do you have luxury of making this discussion from a place which is safe anyway, so now you can play having morally high ground? Cool, I'm somewhat jealous. For example I have at the border Russians, who fight their hybrid war against Ukraine. Potential end of Pax Americana, would just mean that a few local powers and non state actors would fight aggressively to take the empty niche.

 

[Danger]

You could also answer the question. Just a thought.

Sorry, but I had already answered it repeatedly. I was just tired of having it brought up.

I think that either I asked my question in unclear way or you dodged it quite effectively. Should the US effectively unilaterally stop using intelligence, while the other players would do not?

Sorry, that might be a "language gap" matter. In English, "intelligence" can refer to either spy-stuff which you meant, or "intellect" to which I referred as a "pun" because that's not the first thing that comes to mind when dealing with the US government.

Do you have luxury of making this discussion from a place which is safe anyway,

That depends upon what actions are taken. We are currently on terrorist alert status after the ISIL-based murders of 2 soldiers and the attempted murder of several top politicians including our Prime Minister (if he had been present at the time.) Even worse, as is possible now with new technology widely available, we have the same threat looming that we did in the Cold War with the USSR; any ballistic missile attack on the US is likely to take a polar route, which means that most interceptions would take place right over my head with the resultant rain of chemicals, anthrax, radiation, or whatever else is in the warheads.

I have at the border Russians, who fight their hybrid war against Ukraine.

And do you know of anyone other than Russians who doesn't detest and deplore the Putin for what he's doing?

 

[Astronuc]

[note: this post is almost entirely opinion.]
So, first, it is good to compartmentalize on a discussion like this (while acknowledging links) because the subject matter is so emotionally charged it is easy to lose sight of the topic or let an opinion on one piece influence another. So:

I agree with point 1, but how to address/prevent such activities (such as kidnapping, torture and murder) by individuals acting under the auspices of the government? Such matters are classified for a reason, so as not to damage the national reputation or inflame others to want to harm the natural interests or persons. Secrecy should not be misused to conceal illegal/illicit activities.

As for point 2, perhaps politics or incompetence of some, but it was depraved indifference or belligerence on the part of others.

On point 3, I think it should be clear the nature of torture. Clearly incarcerating a person in horrible conditions, and then restraining said person and inflicting bodily injury is quite clearly torture. However, some folks acting on behalf of the nation find such practices acceptable.

The irony of this - ISIS leader: "If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS"
http://news.yahoo.com/isis-leader-no-american-prison-191002620.html

Abu Ahmed was imprisoned in a US-run detention center in southern Iraq called Camp Bucca in 2004. That's where he met al-Baghdadi, among others who would later form ISIS. According to Ahmed, Baghdadi managed to trick the US Army into thinking he was a peacemaker, all the while building what would become ISIS right under their noses:

I'm sure Sen John McCain can inform us about torture, as could Louis Zamperini. Fortunately, both men survived their captivity and torture.

The film Unbroken tells the remarkable true story of Louis Zamperini, a former Olympian who survived 47 days at sea — and four years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp — after his bomber goes down over the Pacific Ocean. The torture he endured at the hands of a young Japanese officer known as The Bird was brutal; it included regular canings, extreme starvation, and, at one point, being punched in the face 200 times by fellow POWs forced to take part in the beating.

Zamperini was quite a person who forgave his captors and torturers.

“I think the hardest thing in life is to forgive. Hate is self destructive. If you hate somebody, you're not hurting the person you hate, you're hurting yourself. It's a healing, actually, it's a real healing...forgiveness.”
― Louis Zamperini

 

[Borg]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

 

[Evo]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

Everyone I have spoken to believes that any association with terrorists should be handled as severely as possible. No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

Anyone that associates with terrorists in any form, they are the same as terrorists. It's not just guilt by association, they have chosen to be part of the terrorism.

 

[Bystander]

Everyone I have spoken to believes that any association with terrorists should be handled as severely as possible. No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

"Upset?" I'm thoroughly upset. It's nothing with which anyone should be comfortable or of which to be proud. Failures of governments and the UN to recognize the activities of terrorist "groups/organizations" as international criminal conspiracies to commit piracy, brigandage, and general "mopery" have handcuffed and hamstrung legal systems and admiralty/common/international law that have traditionally handled such problems. Ad hoc methods will be developed and applied in such a gutless global situation.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't think anybody in the Muslim world is upset about this report. As long as Islam is not insulted the powers that control mass protest just don't care about people that would be treated much harsher in their respective countries for the same acts. I'm only upset about the incompetence of the CIA letting a couple of former quacks from SERE tar the image of agents who risked their lives to capture some of these people and used effective methods of interrogation. Making detainees blithering idiots doesn't work.



I don't agree with their political/moral point of view about torture because it can be effective in extreme circumstance but a lot of what I see in this report reads like SERE gone crazy.

 

[Danger]

No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

I certainly am. And as mentioned above, the reason is because of the innocent victims. That's also why I oppose capital punishment. If I personally witnessed someone doing something heinous, I'd drop the hammer on him myself, but I sure don't trust anyone else's say-so.

 

[Czcibor]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

So media tell you to be outraged, while over 50% don't get the message? ;)

I think that:
-there is a small group of vocal outraged minority.
-the "immoral majority", that honestly speaking don't mind much, while is not so strong in their convictions to express that. (it would mean publicly condemning official ideology)

Anyway, I don't mind saying not believing in official ideology.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Am I reading this right? Some of you, together with a majority of Americans think it's ok to torture people as long as they are dangerous/evil enough?

 

[Bystander]

Am I reading this right?

More a matter of "If you find yourself in the position of having to do so, you have to do so."

 

[Bandersnatch]

More a matter of "If you find yourself in the position of having to do so, you have to do so."

And how do you ever find yourself in such a position?

 

[Bystander]

"How?" Living on planet earth. If you've been so fortunate as to never have found yourself in the situation, please consider the possibility that others have, and that their handling of such situations may have contributed to your good fortune.

 

[Bandersnatch]

No, I don't think so. I know of no such case where torture was the necessary course of action, and the report this thread is about supports this statement.

 

[Bystander]

... necessary course of action ...

No action is ever "necessary." People select actions to avoid/facilitate consequences/benefits.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Since I wouldn't think it's a pointless semantic argument, perhaps there is a language barrier issue on my part that I'm unaware of. I thought the phrase "have to do" implies necessity of action.

In any case the majority of US public has voiced its support for torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives, right in the wake of a report showing that torture has never been effective in extracting such information. So it's either that people didn't read the report, or it's not about protecting yourself but vengeance.

Personally, I would rather live among people who think that sinking to the level of barbarism of your antagonists is unacceptable regardless of circumstances. I'm more afraid of the damage to the society the acceptance for such practices brings, than by the physical damage a terrorist plot may cause.

 

[Bystander]

"have to do" implies necessity of action.

My bad: you've always got a choice, and you always have to make a choice --- choosing to do nothing (abdication of responsibility) is a choice; acting against your own interests in the favor of others is a choice; acting in your own interests is a choice; acting against your own inclinations and instincts in the interests of yourself and/or others is a choice. Sticking with a dirty job without guidance and acting ad hoc in lieu of guidance knowing full well you're going to be second guessed regardless of success or failure is a choice.

in the wake of a report

A partisan report by members of the U.S. congress.

people didn't read the report,

Or, people don't really hold congress in high enough regard to waste the time reading it. Or, we've been hearing/seeing/reading leaks for the last five years from the people putting the report together to the effect that they were never briefed (or were too busy flying about in "Broomstick One" or enjoying other perks to attend briefings). Pontius Pilate washed his hands in public. Lady Macbeth washed her hands every chance she got. These people were supposed to be on top of this from day one, and nothing's going to change that.

 

[Borg]

A further breakdown of the poll - CIA Interrogations. It seems that the more liberal and educated a person is, the less they feel it is justified.

 

[russ_watters]

A further breakdown of the poll - CIA Interrogations. It seems that the more liberal and educated a person is, the less they feel it is justified.

Since "post graduate education" falls between "high school education" and "college graduate", I'd say the relationship with education status is pretty weak.

 

[Borg]

Since "post graduate education" falls between "high school education" and "college graduate", I'd say the relationship with education status is pretty weak.

Ah. Missed that. I did see Some College Education near the top but the Post Graduate definitely weakens it.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, the political afiliation connection is very strong. But given how hard some media outlets - CNN in particular - have been hammering this issue this past week, I'm a bit surprised the overall numbers lean toward "justified".

 

[nsaspook]

In any case the majority of US public has voiced its support for torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives, right in the wake of a report showing that torture has never been effective in extracting such information. So it's either that people didn't read the report, or it's not about protecting yourself but vengeance.

Support is the wrong word. Acceptance of the need to try torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives seems a more accurate description IMO.
We have accepted the need to use nuclear weapons in response to some wrongs so it's not supprising that people support barbaric but sometimes effective lesser measures in response to outrages.

"torture has never been effective in extracting such information"
A badly wronged person might torture for pure vengeance but in general intelligence services do things because they have a history of working along a sliding scale from most to least effective. Most people will eventually talk, the trick is keeping them coherent at that point.

 

[Danger]

Since everyone but Bandersnatch, Borg and I apparently like it, why is it still legally a "war crime"? The Nazis at Auschwitz were executed for the same thing.

Excerpts from Explanation of Jury Decisions
Torturing of prisoners [of Auschwitz] already tormented to the extreme [by extrajudicial means], is the evidence of inhuman savagery perpetrated by those defendants who as a result of the trial were sentenced to death.

 

[Bystander]

apparently like it,

"Appearances can be deceiving." How many ways do you wish the differences to be explained?

 

[Danger]

"Appearances can be deceiving." How many ways do you wish the differences to be explained?

Hey, I'm just going by what Evo said:

Everyone I have spoken to believes that any association with terrorists should be handled as severely as possible. No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

The overwhelming majority of people that I've heard from are sickened by it.

 

[Bystander]

Have you ever changed a diaper? Mucked out a stable? Cleaned a cesspool? Picked up after an auto accident? Done any of the rest of Mike Roe's "Dirty Jobs?" Everyone is "sickened." Some see the argument for the necessity. Some don't.

 

[nsaspook]

It looks like we are at that point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[lisab]

As others said, "like" is the wrong word. In addition, your comparison to the Nazis is absurdly, insultingly, DESPICABLY wrong.

The Nazi comparison is over the top, I agree.

But so is equating what we did with changing a diaper, mucking out a stable, cleaning a cesspool, picking up after an auto accident, etc. It's appalling that so many Americans are unfazed by this, IMO.

 

[Bystander]

equating what we did with changing a diaper, mucking out a stable, cleaning a cesspool

This was not "equating," it was an attempt to get another participant of the thread to recognize the inevitability of being faced with unpleasant chores in this world.

unfazed

Have you read any of the responses?

 

[russ_watters]

It's appalling that so many Americans are unfazed by this, IMO.

If by "unfazed" you mean, 'not so overcome by the emotion of a knee jerk reaction that they become incapable of rational thought', I would agree with the word choice, but I suspect that is not what you meant. Please don't mistake a strongly worded rebuttal of an off-the-rails attack as unconditional, much less enthusiastic support. I gave my full position earlier, but we can't discuss it with all the crap getting in the way (but I'd much prefer a discussion of my opinion - agree or disagree - to a discussion of Danger's!). Others haven't been giving the details of their opinions, but when they are so far away from the point they are arguing against it is tough to know exactly where they are.

 

[Evo]

Danger, your arguments are off topic and make no sense, they have been deleted, please do not continue with it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Fareed Zakaria had an interesting article on the event:

Why releasing the CIA torture report will make America stronger
...
Open systems have the great advantage of getting feedback — criticism, commentary, audits, reports.
...

 

[lisab]

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA

 

[russ_watters]

Fareed Zakaria had an interesting article on the event:

Ehh... he's a great writer, which makes it look like he makes more sense than I think he does. In particular:

All these flaws [in the USSR] were a product of a closed system with no checks and balances.

Er, really? That's the key driver? Not the communism itself? I strongly disagree with that.

This debate will make the CIA better, not worse.

If by that he means "make better decisions", I certainly agree. But I wonder where the line is for him on openness vs security. Most of what the CIA does is classified and IMO, exposing all of it - while including some plusses - would be a net detriment. To remove emotion from the issue, consider the example of the B-2 (the main thing at stake was money). Development began in 1979 and $23 billion (1989 $ I think) was spent before the public's first view in 1989 - it became operational in 1993. Each bomber ended up costing over $2 Billion in 1997$, which would be about $4 Billion today and we only got half as many as originally planned because it came in so over budget. As a combat system, it is a spectacular success, but as a procurement exercise it was a disaster. I fully expect that an open procurement process (supposedly, there were some shenanigans that led to Northrop getting the project instead of Lockheed) would have made the project go "better". But that would have meant exposing the project to the world 10 years earlier and more fully than it is today, which would have damaged our national security.

So "better" isn't always better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

 

[russ_watters]

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA

Due to the false equivalency fallacy many people have regarding the definition of "torture" and the extent of its use, I feel that it is important here to analyze the issue in the context of the specifics of the methods and applications. For example, just saying "I feel torture is justified" would be vaguely correct for me, but woefully oversimplified and misleading.

For example, I feel that waterboarding, while it is fair to call it torture, is in a different class from, for example, physical beating, because if done properly it doesn't cause injury. What is your opinion on that?