- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses — the so-called “family jewels” documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs."Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102434.htmlIs it just me, or is there quite an anti-American slant to this article? Maybe we could get the Washington Post to protect our country from invasion. >:(
I didn't view this as “unAmerican” or “anti-American” because the CIA is a clandestine organization charged with the duty of doing dark things to protect our nation. I don't want to know all the things they do just so long as it hurts America's enemies and keeps us safe. 😉
I realize that the CIA is supposed to be a clandestine organization, even as some people might want it to be nothing more than a U.N. like force wearing baby blue armbands wherever they go so people know who they are. However, there's something to be questioned here – at what point does the CIA go beyond its authority into immoral actions? Is it permissible to engage in torture of people abroad (even aside from the current Gitmo detainee issue) in order to extract security information? Is it permissible to assassinate foreign leaders who may become friendly to communist powers? These are questions we must face, because although such actions may benefit the interests of the United States (and the security of peace-loving nations in the long term), they could very well fall under the umbrella of the dangerous "ends justifying the means" rationalizing argument. Is this what it is? Or do you see some distinction?
I realize that the CIA is supposed to be a clandestine organization, even as some people might want it to be nothing more than a U.N. like force wearing baby blue armbands wherever they go so people know who they are. However, there's something to be questioned here - at what point does the CIA go beyond its authority into immoral actions? Is it permissible to engage in torture of people abroad (even aside from the current Gitmo detainee issue) in order to extract security information? Is it permissible to assassinate foreign leaders who may become friendly to communist powers? These are questions we must face, because although such actions may benefit the interests of the United States (and the security of peace-loving nations in the long term), they could very well fall under the umbrella of the dangerous "ends justifying the means" rationalizing argument. Is this what it is? Or do you see some distinction?
I have no problems with torture, assassinations, intrigue, sabotage, subterfuge, and provocateuring against those who would do us harm. The world is governed by the use of force, and if this is the case, it is better that our nation be the ones dictating the measure of force being used and on whom. Is it moral? No. Is it Christian? No. But then again, I see no other way for the CIA to do their jobs effectively unless they can take the gloves off and be brutal in their methods. Like I said, I don't want to know how they get their job done so long as they are successful. :-
Is it permissible....
Phid, I understand what you're saying, but 'morality issues' aren't the job of the CIA. Their only reponsibility is to protect the country.
I think that morality must be part of all our governance – including our foreign operations. We can't be a nation that claims freedom, justice, and democratic ideals on one hand while while acting like a work tyrant to our neighbors. I therefore must strongly disagree. If the ends do justify the means here - preserving the power of a nation using any means necessary - then I would be troubled to find anything evil with any terrorist acts who are merely trying to promote their own political ends through evil means. This line of thinking would also justify a whole slew of immoral behavior which is done in order to accomplish a series of ultimate goals. I think this is extremely dangerous. Now I do think that some actions which might ordinarily be considered "wrong" are justified as being "moral" given certain circumstances, but not everything can be. Certain absoluted need to be obeyed, the most fundamental one of which prohibits murder. However, when considering any CIA actions, Nietzsche's thoughts come to mind and seem terribly appropriate:"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
It may be dangerous, but one also has to think of the consequences for not carrying out something that is borderline or perhaps downright immoral. It's immoral to assasinate a leader, but is it immoral to assasinate a leader if it prevents a war? Same thing goes for interrorgation methods.So true about not turning into the monsters you fight. (that's probably one of the reasons why there's a lot of psychological evaluation involved with jobs like that)
The moral component does not apply to the CIA. They are given a black budget and a very long leash to accomplish the things our foreign policy makers desire. Those who our operatives torture or kill are enemies who ardently seek to damage our way of life. The only thing our enemies understand is brutal force since we cannot negotiate with them. The less I know about what the CIA does in the background the better, but if it comes to light, then prosecute the ones responsible as an example. Is this a double standard? Yes it is, but c'est la vie.
