CIA kidnapping and torture

SLUSK

CIA is a criminal organization I would say and probably most of you will agree with me, everyone probably remebers scandals like the Iran Contras thing where the CIA smuggled drugs.

Now in Italy a whole bunch of CIA agents have been found guilty for kidnapping a muslim cleric.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8343123.stm

This people will of course never spend a day in jail. In this day and age I guess it is ok to kidnap and torture people who happen to be muslims.

How will the USA fanboys defend this kind of behavior?

Nick_oliveri

Freedom, Al Queda, 9/11...etc

Its all about the boogeyman, the elusive and ever present threat to the nation. It gives people something else to defer their attentions to rather than question what is going on at home.

A point I seen another use make was the Indian Tsunami, Katrina, the Pakistan earthquake, the dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these do not equate to 3k Americans who lost lives on live TV. I dont think I need to point out the discrepancy there.

I really think that the past and maybe present/future acts of rendition, Guantanamo, Patriot act 1&2 etc. were exercises by people to see how far they could go and how much they could get away with. The Iraq war was also an exercise in this IMO. Most people buy into it and forget the real reasons they went there and done that. And it was all successful. Once again the Military industrial complex was is in full swing and their power and sway over the world was out in the open.

Rendition and the removal of Habeas corpus are just one chink in a long bloody chain. While Urban America spirals out of control with crime, everyone worries about the economy, their sons and daughters abroad and the terror alert on Faux news. Its only a way to divert attention to a mostly invisible and statistically benign threat.

This case has only been amplified because the Italian authorities have chosen to press it. There are a lot of cases we will not hear about and the methods and the madness that go along with them.

The problem now, far away from the discrepancies I have pointed out about empathy/previous disasters and how they equate, is that now they know how far they can go and how much they can get away with. Hell, as you say,they will get away with pretty much anything. Where does it go from here? What are the priorities now?

jank

Didn't I read that they advocated raping people with broken bottles. Nice guys eh?

As organisations go like the Nazi's, KKK, etc the CIA is right up there for being total evil dicks who don't care about anything so long as their "objectives" are met. Reminds a lot of Al Qaeda...Oh....!!

Kama

The Nietzsche quote seems apposite:

'Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one. For when you stand and look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you'

This, btw, is in no way unique to the United States, as a behavior. In war, or conditions which are deemed to be a war, the normal, polite rules are seen not to apply. Allied commandos behind German lines, for example, were there to spread 'terror', by any means necessary. The Collins-era 'murder gang', which provided a transferable template for other resistance movements engaged in guerrilla or asymmetric warfare. If you regard an end as justified, you use whatever means is most effective. The United States considers itself at war, a war it must win, which liberates all sorts of behaviors as 'necessary', and ditto insurgents etc.

Saint-Just said that it is impossible to rule innocently. Something similar holds for waging a war. Its not a realm for 'nice guys'; a Realist would claim that your ability to be a 'nice guy' is ultimately dependent on someone else being a 'nasty guy' somewhere, to secure and earn you the comfortable freedom to consider yourself a 'nice guy', much as its terribly easy to be a high-minded neutral state, so long as you are under the security umbrella of a hegemon. The innocent get to remain so, because they never have to taint their precious hands with the actualities of power and security, or so the argument might go

Arguably these behaviors are strategically counterproductive; in a psyops sense, use of 'human network disruption' (one of the euphemisms for targeted assasination) or torture both delegitimates the actor as a moral entity and reinforces the views of their opponents. Something similar happens with the predator drones: what the US sees as a whiz-bang technological victory, the insurgents can view as evidence of the cowardice of the US and their fear of actual combat. The letter reads differently for the different audiences.

SLUSK

How is the US making the world safer by kidnapping and torturing random muslim priests?

Kama wrote: »

The Nietzsche quote seems apposite:

'Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one. For when you stand and look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you'

This, btw, is in no way unique to the United States, as a behavior. In war, or conditions which are deemed to be a war, the normal, polite rules are seen not to apply. Allied commandos behind German lines, for example, were there to spread 'terror', by any means necessary. The Collins-era 'murder gang', which provided a transferable template for other resistance movements engaged in guerrilla or asymmetric warfare. If you regard an end as justified, you use whatever means is most effective. The United States considers itself at war, a war it must win, which liberates all sorts of behaviors as 'necessary', and ditto insurgents etc.

Saint-Just said that it is impossible to rule innocently. Something similar holds for waging a war. Its not a realm for 'nice guys'; a Realist would claim that your ability to be a 'nice guy' is ultimately dependent on someone else being a 'nasty guy' somewhere, to secure and earn you the comfortable freedom to consider yourself a 'nice guy', much as its terribly easy to be a high-minded neutral state, so long as you are under the security umbrella of a hegemon. The innocent get to remain so, because they never have to taint their precious hands with the actualities of power and security, or so the argument might go

Arguably these behaviors are strategically counterproductive; in a psyops sense, use of 'human network disruption' (one of the euphemisms for targeted assasination) or torture both delegitimates the actor as a moral entity and reinforces the views of their opponents. Something similar happens with the predator drones: what the US sees as a whiz-bang technological victory, the insurgents can view as evidence of the cowardice of the US and their fear of actual combat. The letter reads differently for the different audiences.

Kama

I don't think it is, which was why I said it was strategically a dumb move, but then there isn't yet an agreement on whats a 'smart' way to fight a non-state enemy like this.

However, I do think that there are a sizable number of people who do think that this makes them safer, that it increases their security, and that holier-than-thou pacifist-liberal 'isn't that awful' arguments are the bleating of sheep, only possible because well-trained but vicious dogs patrol the perimeter, to keep the wolves away.

Kneejerk Anti-Ameri is easy stuff, but as I said, moral purity is a luxury of the powerless, by and large.

SLUSK

Kama wrote: »

I don't think it is, which was why I said it was strategically a dumb move, but then there isn't yet an agreement on whats a 'smart' way to fight a non-state enemy like this.

However, I do think that there are a sizable number of people who do think that this makes them safer, that it increases their security, and that holier-than-thou pacifist-liberal 'isn't that awful' arguments are the bleating of sheep, only possible because well-trained but vicious dogs patrol the perimeter, to keep the wolves away.

Kneejerk Anti-Ameri is easy stuff, but as I said, moral purity is a luxury of the powerless, by and large.

Well logically you are quite likely to get people who willing to kill US troops and civilians if they see their friends and family getting tortured and abducted by CIA or other US forces.

No one answered my question, how do you keep the world safe by kidnapping and torturing muslims?

Moriarty

SLUSK wrote: »

No one answered my question, how do you keep the world safe by kidnapping and torturing muslims?

That's as disingenuous as posing the rhetorical question of how do you heal someone by cutting in to them.

Overheal

Off Topic: Anybody see the movie Traitor?

I dont know what to say about the CIA, except they are just wrong, in so many ways. But I think the biggest problem was not that they were taking people in and questioning them (not that it wasnt a bad idea, for many reasons) - the biggest problem was Now what do we do? Classic out of the frying pan and into the fire kinda stuff. Im sure they gleaned some intelligence, but theyve burned themselves and the country so badly in the process of getting that intelligence (however much they got - I sure Hope it was worth it!) We're now stuck with unofficial but commonplace accusations of Human Rights abuses (which, face it, are warranted) and all other sorts of political shyte.

Ive given up thinking about it for the most part - only because there is no easy solution, and I doubt we will see a resolution of this anytime soon.

Nick_oliveri

Overheal wrote: »

Ive given up thinking about it for the most part - only because there is no easy solution, and I doubt we will see a resolution of this anytime soon.

Yes there is an easy solution, stop torturing people. The information gathered from these torture methods can hardly be considered reliable. I'd sing about anything they wanted just as long as they stopped zapping me with electricity or waterboarding me or whatever the cool CIA kids are doing these days.

Any tard in a suit or a uniform can surmise that torturing people for what you want to hear isn't very effective and only serves the purpose of drumming up support for official policy, basically it tells your superiors what they want to hear, just so the pain will stop.

But no, now they done gone ****ed it up. I'd be pretty pissed if they done it to me and hell, it cant be any worse the second time around right? The issue is larger than any human rights violations, which if you are honest you will admit no one will ever be held accountable for. It might be that with all this torturing and deprivation and confinement that the torturers are the architects of their own, or other peoples destruction. More than likely the latter eh?

No amount of money, property, pepsi, coke or hookers can ever quench the anger and hatred towards the west that some of them must feel right now. The funny thing is, some of them were completely innocent, or rather all of them according to American law.

Overheal

Im not sure if they are still tortuing people: im talking about cleaning up the mess - Guantanamo.

I just wanted it to be closed, but theres been so much political resistance to it.... Im going to bed.

FlutterinBantam

Speaking of Guantanamo, appears around 50% of the current population there are of Yemeni origin.(source BBCR4)

Also appears that there is a link between those sent back to Yemen with the bombing of the US Embassy there and the recent plane bombing attempt on the AMS-DTW flight.

Source for that is a report on BBC4 this morning.

So maybe closing it might be more problematic than envisaged.

FlutterinBantam

Kama wrote: »

I don't think it is, which was why I said it was strategically a dumb move, but then there isn't yet an agreement on whats a 'smart' way to fight a non-state enemy like this.

However, I do think that there are a sizable number of people who do think that this makes them safer, that it increases their security, and that holier-than-thou pacifist-liberal 'isn't that awful' arguments are the bleating of sheep, only possible because well-trained but vicious dogs patrol the perimeter, to keep the wolves away.

Kneejerk Anti-Ameri is easy stuff, but as I said, moral purity is a luxury of the powerless, by and large.

Exactly, and those most vociferous also gain the benefit of their freedom without having to worry about making any sacrifice for it.

World is full of them Kama, don't understand that for them to be able to sleep peacefully at night, others don't;)

SLUSK

So you make the world safer by torturing muslims?

FlutterinBantam

Son, in the war on terror, where the enemy stop at nothing to achieve their evil aims, and we are fighting a 360 degree war, we need the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us.

I'm afraid there are no "Mom and Apple Pie" solutions, much as we'd all wish there was.

SLUSK

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Son, in the war on terror, where the enemy stop at nothing to achieve their evil aims, and we are fighting a 360 degree war, we need the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us.

I'm afraid there are no "Mom and Apple Pie" solutions, much as we'd all wish there was.

Are you volunteering yourself to the frontline then?

FlutterinBantam

In the war on terror my friend we are all on the front line.

SLUSK

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

In the war on terror my friend we are all on the front line.

You have got to be joking.

FlutterinBantam

Eh......

Less than 50 miles from where I am located the PSNI defused/made safe a 1000lb bomb under a Motorway bridge.

More than twice the power of the Omagh bomb which killed 29!!!


Now am I joking??

SLUSK

Must be those awful muslims again...

Lab_Mouse

SLUSK wrote: »

Must be those awful muslims again...

Nah its those crazy christian fundamentalists....

jank

I think people need to take a peep from under their blankets now and again. The world isnt as dangerous as its made out to be.

FlutterinBantam

Agreed, but to ignore the threats which are all around us,and which can not be combated by fresh faced schoolboys is a tad innocent.

we do not need to be afarid, we need to be aware.


Common sense.

Nick_oliveri

Actually we are aware with our statistics system, where an American death is insurgency, terrorism and Al Queda - and a Arab civilians life is collateral damage, the latter not being Martyrs on western media.

The average American is more likely to die from causes related to obesity and heart disease, but you don't see a war against grease or cholesterol overseas or nationally. Wheres our war against "climate change", famine and starvation, fear-mongering, human rights violations, cancer, Aids or species extinction? No our problems lie with minuscule statistics of global terrorism. Billions flow into defense and military contracts, thousands more are sent overseas to battle an enemy that retreats over non occupied borders. While "feed the world" plays on radio stations coming near Christmas.

The important thing is not to just believe that Guantanamo or killing insurgents is the answer. The question of why they are doing it is more important. The hypocrisy is undeniable, an illegal war kills thousands of innocent people in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". Who's the terrorists now?

The results of Guantanamo and the innocent civilians killed will be devastating for years to come. Anyone who could possibly believe otherwise is foolish and naive. The Americans and all who support them overseas have inadvertently(?) become another gear in the machine that churns out these people, these angry people with nothing left to lose but their lives for their cause. Never ask why they are doing it, no, thats not logical at all is it? Oh "they hate western values and culture". The hate our "freedoms". Yeah our freedom to invade and decimate an entire nation. While millions die of starvation and poverty. But those people aren't white, aren't middle/upper or even lower class and they aren't on live TV anymore.

In the war on terror my friend we are all on the front line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/world/americas/15iht-military.4.20199128.html
Have fun.

simplistic

Terrorism the response to imperialism. To put it into perspective if the Ira blew up a building in America does that justify the invasion of Ireland?

Overheal

simplistic wrote: »

Terrorism the response to imperialism. To put it into perspective if the Ira blew up a building in America does that justify the invasion of Ireland?

Would Ireland harbor these terrorists and refuse to help detain them?

simplistic

Overheal wrote: »

Would Ireland harbor these terrorists and refuse to help detain them?

Does the government get aid if terrorists are harbored there?

US military aid to Yemen has been inconsistent in recent years, with Sana'a receiving $4.3m in 2006, up to $26m in 2007, down to nothing in 2008, and back up still higher, to $67m in 2009.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201013571882689.html

Talk about incentivising terrorism .

Overheal

simplistic wrote: »

Does the government get aid if terrorists are harbored there?

US military aid to Yemen has been inconsistent in recent years, with Sana'a receiving $4.3m in 2006, up to $26m in 2007, down to nothing in 2008, and back up still higher, to $67m in 2009.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201013571882689.html

Talk about incentivising terrorism .

your post is grossly misleading. Your Implication is the US is funding Yemen because it willingly harbors terrorists? No, the article clearly indicates Yemen is receiving funding to help defeat Terrorism within the state, not harbor it.

simplistic

Overheal wrote: »

your post is grossly misleading. Your Implication is the US is funding Yemen because it willingly harbors terrorists? No, the article clearly indicates Yemen is receiving funding to help defeat Terrorism within the state, not harbor it.

People respond to incentives inviting a few humans with AK-47s and a hate for imperialism onto your soil in exchange for millions seems like a good deal.

Overheal

simplistic wrote: »

People respond to incentives inviting a few humans with AK-47s and a hate for imperialism onto your soil in exchange for millions seems like a good deal.

what the hell are you trying to say? We are paying Yemen to harbor terrorists?

Youd want to validate your point and fast.

simplistic

Overheal wrote: »

what the hell are you trying to say? We are paying Yemen to harbor terrorists?

Youd want to validate your point and fast.

Is that some kind of a threat?

Does Yemen get funding if their is no terrorists in Yemen?

Does Yemen get funding if there is terrorists in Yemen?