Join the CIA and torture innocent people without consequence!

[Gorgon]

"You may not have heard, but I've got a lung infection at present, so I'd be grateful if you would refrain from making me laugh so much. Dissent in the intelligence community is like bitchiness in the movie industry. Intel is the art of drawing conclusions from imperfect data."

 

The formulation of a report which categorically states that the probability is extremely high that Sadam has WMD AND an active neculear weapons programme all the while there are a significan portion within the organisation who vehemently disagree, who's

position is never brough to the attemtion of the administration, that is misinterpretation of the facts, mr. interlligence analyst.

 

The intelligence to back up these claims, defectors trained by aforementioned Achmed Chalaby to bolster his chances of becoming president of Iraq, mind you this was all before the corruption scandal and his complete isolation from Iraqi politics.

 

And recently, a senate comitee on Iraq settle the issue by stating unequivocally that Sadam did not have WMD in the leadup to invasion, and therefore, that the premise of the war was false, at best a mistake, at worst ...

A CIA report concludes the same http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to say your callous dismissal would be much more believable if you actually knew facts surrounding it.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Gorgon, you're more than welcome to think that a presidential report which excludes information expressed by some or even a majority of officials is a conspiracy. In fact it may even be described as such. However, it is entirely the norm. The Bay of Pigs, Granada, the attempted rescue of the US Embassy hostages under Carter. The President and the NSC always deal with partial reports. They're not an academic forum that gets to moot things round and around. They get told the Agency, or State Department, or Navy, or Army line and have to run with it. Not a straw poll. Nor is it misinterpretation of the facts. It is the layering of interpretation superceding that of individuals prejudged by appointment to have inferior views.

 

If you have a better process in mind you coudl amke a fortune selling in in Washington as a consultant.

[Gorgon]

Do you have any proff to back up the contention that intelligence analysis eats up the dissenting views in order to come up with a conclusion ?, I would imagine it would work more like academic writing where the opposing view is always adequately represented especially if the conclusion runs contrary to it.

 

At a minimum Bush and Rice should have been presented with this view in some other form, not doing so ammounts to creating policy, directly influencing the decisionmaking process by controling information, not exactly what the CIA was intended for.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Do you have any proff to back up the contention that intelligence analysis eats up the dissenting views in order to come up with a conclusion ?, I would imagine it would work more like academic writing where the opposing view is always adequately represented.

 

I accept that is the norm in academic circles, but time after time, as seen in the congresional reviews of the above incidents, and certainly in the professional historical military reviews, you can see how intelligence is always skewed to reflect a specific line. This is a particular feature of the US system, but not unique to it. You can see it in British intel leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Personally I believe it reflects the natural tendency of any large bureaucracy. The people who rise to the top are those who sugar everything they pass upwards.

 

A good introduction to an aspect of this - but by no means the whole story in my opinion - is here:

 

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

 

But you should also look at the memoirs of Miles Copeland, former station chief of the CIA.

[taks]

given that the CIA has become an organization outside the normal channels of checks and balances, it is not a surprise to see that it acts on its own interests. not at all, actually. this is the fundamental problem i have with such outfits. they're beyond the law, figuratively and literally. unfortunately, i don't have a better idea for the spy world.

 

taks

[Sand]

well, one idea is to rein them in and make them accountable to federal and international law.

[Gorgon]

That would be the first den of government spies anywhere subject to international law.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

Then it should follow through with other countries as well. Each country's spy network needs to be held accountable for their actions according to the laws set forth by the international community. No one should be above the law.

[Guard Dog]

Internation law. I laugh everytime I hear that. Just what exactly is that? And who the heck enforces it? There is NO law higher in ANY nation than the law of that sovreign nation. I bitterly opposed the Hauge and I'm glad the US did not join or recognize that absurdity. The UN may serve some international purpose (I can't imagine what it would be other than to make it's administrators filthy rich through rampant corruption), but the have NO authority to compel any one to do anything.

[Sand]

True. Maybe that should change as well. There needs to be some level of accountability for organizations like the CIA so that these sorts of abuses do not happen, and if they do those who commit such acts are duly punished.

[Gorgon]

There is nothing to support that the tribunal should be either corrupt or incompetent, but for some people the mere fact that it was a european idea from its inception is enough.

 

There is an obvious problem with international juristiction, Neurenburg was clearly victor's justice, appart from also providing justice to the victims of Nazism, which is why the notion can only really work if it is supported by everyone.

 

Nevertheless, where else would you try the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. Are we to just accept that whatever atrocities are perpetrated on a nation state level are free from justice. The US for obvious reasons didn't want to have another authority decide what it should do with its 'enemy combatants'. This has nothing to do with either Henry Kissinger or american GIs.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Internation law. I laugh everytime I hear that. Just what exactly is that? And who the heck enforces it? There is NO law higher in ANY nation than the law of that sovreign nation. I bitterly opposed the Hauge and I'm glad the US did not join or recognize that absurdity. The UN may serve some international purpose (I can't imagine what it would be other than to make it's administrators filthy rich through rampant corruption), but the have NO authority to compel any one to do anything.

 

While I too find the concept laughable in general terms, the Hague is (so I understand) for crimes against humanity. The eradication of a 'race' or nation is surely a crime against all men.

 

Gorgon is quite right when he says that the notion that one could officially subordinate a secret service to international law is patently insane. "I'm sorry, we cannot divulge the activity of agents TRICYCLE and GARBO because the Spanish are present and they are highly placed spies in Spain".

 

Need I point out that not one thread has lambasted the Russians for assassinating in the most disgusting ways the personal political opponents of Vladimir Putin on foreign soil? Or do we only indulge in Yankee-bashing these days?

[taks]

given that the UN is not elected, nor have i heard of any plans to make it so, it probably will never (nor should it) trump individual nations' own sovereignty.

 

taks

[taks]

Need I point out that not one thread has lambasted the Russians for assassinating in the most disgusting ways the personal political opponents of Vladimir Putin on foreign soil? Or do we only indulge in Yankee-bashing these days?

that's the only politically correct thing to do, of course.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Need I point out that not one thread has lambasted the Russians for assassinating in the most disgusting ways the personal political opponents of Vladimir Putin on foreign soil? Or do we only indulge in Yankee-bashing these days?

that's the only politically correct thing to do, of course.

 

taks

 

But of course. Thank the Lord for the US of A. Uncle Sam is the only fellah I can abuse by race and nation without being thrown from the dinner party.

[Sand]

I did say all nations need to be held accountable. That does include Russia.

[Stewdawg24]

True. Maybe that should change as well. There needs to be some level of accountability for organizations like the CIA so that these sorts of abuses do not happen, and if they do those who commit such acts are duly punished.

 

The idea that the US, or any country, should surrender any parts of it's sovereignty to an interantional body is preposterous. In doing so we would open ourselves to a littany of problems. Attempts are already being made to impose international taxes on the US tax payers to pay for the problems of the world. I think GD summed it up best by saying that we need to re-visit the Monroe Doctirne and concentrate on issues here.

[Walsingham]

True. Maybe that should change as well. There needs to be some level of accountability for organizations like the CIA so that these sorts of abuses do not happen, and if they do those who commit such acts are duly punished.

 

The idea that the US, or any country, should surrender any parts of it's sovereignty to an interantional body is preposterous. In doing so we would open ourselves to a littany of problems. Attempts are already being made to impose international taxes on the US tax payers to pay for the problems of the world. I think GD summed it up best by saying that we need to re-visit the Monroe Doctirne and concentrate on issues here.

 

Because isolationism has always worked SO well in the past?

 

By this token would you say the Nuremberg trials were preposterous?

[Gorgon]

"given that the UN is not elected, nor have i heard of any plans to make it so, it probably will never (nor should it) trump individual nations' own sovereignty."

 

Thats not what the tribunal is about though, its asking countries to accept international juristicton of war crimes perpetrators. Its not the 'UN tribunal'

[taks]

the problem we're getting at is that no tribunal has authority over US citizens. what they (accused) have done is immaterial. an unelected body cannot overrule US sovereignty. that's what our little ole constitution guarantees.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

All you have to do to avoid that is not to perpetrate any crimes agains humanity

[Guard Dog]

There is nothing to support that the tribunal should be either corrupt or incompetent, but for some people the mere fact that it was a european idea from its inception is enough.

 

I did not say the Hague was corrupt, I said the UN was corrupt. And it is. If you like I can fill out this page with linked articles detailing it. Most prevalent would be the billions in bribes taken by Kofi Annan's son and his ilk during the Oil for Food scam. I have never hid my disdain for the UN and would as soon as see the US wash it's hand of it.

 

 

There is an obvious problem with international jurisdiction, Nuremberg was clearly victor's justice, appart from also providing justice to the victim's of Nazism, which is why the notion can only really work if it is supported by everyone.

 

The disposal of the vanquished is the right of the conqueror. That is just how the world works. It sucks sometimes but the whining and hand wringing of old men in Belgium will not change that.

 

Nevertheless, where else would you try the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. Are we to just accept that whatever atrocities are perpetrated on a nation state level are free from justice. The US for obvious reasons didn't want to have another authority decide what it should do with its 'enemy combatants'. This has nothing to do with either Henry Kissinger or American GIs.

 

It seems to me the world is usually perfectly happy to accept or turn a blind eye to whatever atrocities come so long as they are done to someone else. If any nations is moved to act and bring justice, then let them do so. It will need to be done at gunpoint. If they are successful the perpetrators can have the same trial as Saddam and get the same justice at the end of a rope. The only thing is, if a country wants to bring them to justice they need to go in and get them. When the US had had enough of Noriega's drug smuggling we did not humbly ask the UN to go down there and talk to him, or arrest and try him. Reagan sent in the Marines and overthrew his government and hauled him back in chains to stand trial.

[Stewdawg24]

True. Maybe that should change as well. There needs to be some level of accountability for organizations like the CIA so that these sorts of abuses do not happen, and if they do those who commit such acts are duly punished.

 

The idea that the US, or any country, should surrender any parts of it's sovereignty to an interantional body is preposterous. In doing so we would open ourselves to a littany of problems. Attempts are already being made to impose international taxes on the US tax payers to pay for the problems of the world. I think GD summed it up best by saying that we need to re-visit the Monroe Doctirne and concentrate on issues here.

 

Because isolationism has always worked SO well in the past?

 

By this token would you say the Nuremberg trials were preposterous?

 

Although it's impossible for the US to adpot an isolanist stance in the world, I do believe that that are pressing issues that must be addressed here at home. In addition, the scope and authority of the Nuremberg courts were agreed to by the three major powers and was created to address specific issues. However, establishing an international court whose boundries would continue to expand as more precedent is created is scary.

[Gorgon]

"

The disposal of the vanquished is the right of the conqueror. That is just how the world works. It sucks sometimes but the whining and hand wringing of old men in Belgium will not change that."

 

 

Would it not be a step forward to pretend that justice was the right of everyone then. ?

[Guard Dog]

"

The disposal of the vanquished is the right of the conqueror. That is just how the world works. It sucks sometimes but the whining and hand wringing of old men in Belgium will not change that."

 

 

Would it not be a step forward to pretend that justice was the right of everyone then. ?

 

Certainly. But you also have to recognize the world for what it is. You are a smart guy Gorgon, but you see the world through a prisim of idealisim. I am not saying that you are an idealist but it would not suprise me to find out that is the case. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I am a pragamtist. I see things for how they are and do not give much thought to how they could be better.