Is the CIA a necessary evil?

[DaGip]

Even the President is scared of them:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/ob ... -john-yoo/

Torture is wrong, but is it necessary?

[mrswdk]

Clearly not, seeing as the CIA's torture program apparently yielded 0 useful Intel.

[Metsfanmax]

We can have the CIA without torture.

[Dukasaur]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

http://truth11.com/2013/01/22/many-u-s-my-lai-type-massacres-in-vietnam-covered-up-by-pentagon/

Some veterans told Turse of operation Speedy Express where civilians from Dec., 1968, through May, 1969, were systematically slaughtered in huge numbers by U.S. 9th Division troops in the Mekong Delta, “month after month, hamlet after hamlet.” As one veteran told Turse, “A Cobra (helicopter) gunship spitting out 600 rounds a minute doesn’t discern between chickens, kids, and VC.”

“Trigger-happy Americans hovering in their gunships weren’t the only threat to Vietnamese civilians during Speedy Express,” Turse writes. The military ordered almost 6,500 tactical air strikes, dropping at least 5,078 tons of bombs and 1,784 tons of napalm. “It was the epitome of immorality,” said Air Force Captain Brian Willson, who made bomb-damage assessments in so-called “free-fire” zones in the region. “One of the times I counted bodies after an air strike—which always ended with two napalm bombs which would just fry everything that was left—I counted 62 bodies…women between 15 and 25 and so many children—usually in their mothers’ arms or very close to them—and so many old people.” When Willson later read the official report of the dead, he said it listed them as 130 VC killed.”

Turse says, “The jellied incendiary napalm, (used in Vietnam) engineered to stick to clothes and skin, had been modified to blaze hotter and longer than its World War II-era variant. An estimated 400,000 tons of it were dropped in Southeast Asia, killing most of those unfortunate enough to be splashed with it. Thirty-five percent of the victims died within 15 to 20 minutes, according to one study. Another found that 62 percent died before their wounds healed. For those not asphyxiated or consumed by fire, the result could be a living death.”

Gang rapes, quite apart from the rapes reported at My Lai, also “were a horrifyingly common occurrence,” Turse continued. One army report detailed the allegations of a Vietnamese woman who said she was detained by troops from the 173rd Airborne brigade and then raped by 10 soldiers. In another incident, 11 members of the 23rd Infantry division raped a Vietnamese girl, and in another incident, an Americal GI recalled seeing a Vietnamese woman hardly able to walk after being gang-raped by 13 soldiers. These assaults were anything but isolated. One 198th Light Infantry brigade testified he knew of 10 to 15 incidents within a 7-month span in which soldiers from his unit raped young girls. Another GI told of his buddies raping women every couple of days.

Turse writes that he found atrocities were committed by members of “every infantry, cavalry, and airborne division…by every major army unit in Vietnam.” In Chapter Four of his book, Turse lists “A Litany of Atrocities,” some on a scale comparable to My Lai, some of them involving fewer civilians, but all of them war crimes. Selected here are just few the villages Turse cited that were subjected to U.S. attack:

Chan Son: Attacked Aug. 2, 1965, with 1,000 shells, followed by invasion of U.S. Marines, one of whom shouted, “Kill them. I don’t want anyone moving.” U.S. sources said 25 civilians were killed; the National Liberation Front reported more than 100

Phu Nhuan: On June 4, 1967, American troops killed scores of civilians, including one woman roped to an armored vehicle and dragged around the hamlet.

Thy Thi Ly: U.S. troops opened fire on the villagers in their homes, killing 52, wounding 13, most of the dead were children, elderly men, and women.

Phi Phu: In 1967, U.S. troops killed 32 women and children, including the massacre of 20 non-combatants who were forced into a trench and blown up.

Dien Nien: On Oct. 19, 1966, U.S. and Korean troops massacred 112 civilians, some of the wounded drowned in nearby rice paddies by the boots of pursuing soldiers pressing their faces into the water.

Nhon Hoa: U.S. troops and their Korean allies on March 22, 1967, herded together, and killed, 86 villagers, plus 18 more at a nearby site.

My Khe: At a hamlet near My Lai and about the same time, 155 civilians were killed by men from Bravo company, 4th Battalion, 3rd infantry, which one soldier described “was like being in a shooting gallery.

Accounts of the torture of Vietnamese civilians and military captured by the U.S. are too numerous to cite in this essay, except to note that in 1971 an Army investigation concluded that violations of the Geneva Convention were “widespread” and that torture by U.S. troops was “standard practice,” Turse reports. A Pentagon task force, however, called war crimes allegations against General William Wesmoreland “unfounded,” explaining that while isolated criminal acts may have occurred “they were neither widespread nor extensive enough to render him criminally responsible for their commission.”

http://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/6902-briefing-war-crimes-and-accountability-a-historical-analysis

The much-celebrated Nuremburg judgment of 1945 in which Nazi leaders were convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace, was supposed to usher in a new era in which leaders would be held accountable for the crimes of their subordinates. Offences, such as those committed by the Nazis, were so heinous that even those who knew of the atrocities were to be held accountable, despite not being directly involved in them. The war crimes recently committed by US occupation forces in Iraq, notably the massacres of civilians in Falluja and the torture of detainees held in Abu Ghraib prison, has once again raised the question of military accountability. Ultimately, who is to be held responsible? Does accountability end with the direct perpetrators of the acts, their immediate superiors or does it terminate with the commander in chief in the White House?

A brief review of similar in recent history indicates three things: firstly, that war crimes and crimes against humanity are frequently committed by invading occupying forces. Secondly, prosecutions for such atrocities are rare and sentences very lenient. Thirdly, accountability is restricted to those individuals directly involved in the atrocities. Those higher up the chain of command are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. If anything, their deeds raise them even higher up the chain.

[BigBallinStalin]

We can have the CIA without torture.

That's extremely unlikely--unless we posit a unicorn state. A polity is an evolutionary process (or really an emergent order). Order isn't really imposed from one sub-unit in the political process. Order is the result from the numerous interactions among politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups, and voters. Sure, the Executive might be able to end the torture programs, but that doesn't mean much given that pretty much every executive branch has supported the CIA and their counter-terror programs since the 60s. Given very little "oversight" and the numerous voters, who believe in unicorn states while falling victim to rubbish rationalizations ("national security"), don't expect good outcomes to follow.

This is what happens when government is granted the power to ignore its own constitutional rules. That idea of the constitution being a living document is partly responsible for such outcomes.

Was the CIA's budget cut in the cromnibus vote? Who, if anybody, was actually punished? Is it reasonable to expect the federal courts to indict federal agents and politicians?

[_sabotage_]

They punished the guy who blew the whistle BBS you cynic.

[BigBallinStalin]

They punished the guy who blew the whistle BBS you cynic.

Bingo! Justice has been served.

Let's hear what the uninformed voter would say: "Oh, but there's laws for protecting whisteblowers!!"

Hahaha! Isn't that thought grand? "Let's pass a law that'll stop X. Don't confuse me with the facts! We just need more regulation/oversight (by government). Politicians of Group Z suck! Politicians of Group Y will save the day!"

Oh boy. When will that faith in government end? When people stop gorging themselves on their rationally irrational beliefs about markets and politics. One stumbling block is their faith in the mythical technocracy of government. "They make policies with experts!" Sure, within an institutional environment that faces very little competition, requires violent means to attain its goals, hardly ever goes bankrupt, and becomes increasingly entrenched with interest groups. That environment is the wet dream of any unscrupulous business.

But the fundamental problem of democracy is voters. Mass stupidity is consumed at very low cost. Consistently applied critical thinking about complex, social phenomena is very costly. Under the guise of policy issues like national security and financial government regulation, voters are actually arguing about claims of faith. Voters are perhaps the most irresponsible citizens of the world.

In the words of H. L. Mencken,

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Fenwicks of the world! Bend over and prepare to get reamed!

[Metsfanmax]

We can have the CIA without torture.

That's extremely unlikely--unless we posit a unicorn state. A polity is an evolutionary process (or really an emergent order). Order isn't really imposed from one sub-unit in the political process. Order is the result from the numerous interactions among politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups, and voters. Sure, the Executive might be able to end the torture programs, but that doesn't mean much given that pretty much every executive branch has supported the CIA and their counter-terror programs since the 60s. Given very little "oversight" and the numerous voters, who believe in unicorn states while falling victim to rubbish rationalizations ("national security"), don't expect good outcomes to follow.

This is what happens when government is granted the power to ignore its own constitutional rules. That idea of the constitution being a living document is partly responsible for such outcomes.

Was the CIA's budget cut in the cromnibus vote? Who, if anybody, was actually punished? Is it reasonable to expect the federal courts to indict federal agents and politicians?

Hey, I'm not saying we won't have torture, just that we can probably move it out of CIA if we tried.