What Happened, Martha Stewart Wasn't Available?
Leon Panetta for head of the CIA? Leon Panetta? His main qualification seems to be that he isn't John Brennan, which is about all that seems to matter to the leftosphere. Meanwhile, beyond his lack of experience in the spook business, the guy looks like you could chase him off with a good shake of flea powder.
Laura Rozen writes at Foreign Policy:
A former senior CIA manager said the message of the Panetta appointment was clear: "The message is, 'I don't want to hear anything out of the CIA. Make it go away. No scandals. Keep it quiet,'" the former officer told me. "They put over there a guy who is a political loyalist, who will keep everything nice and quiet, but who won't know a good piece of intelligence from a shitty piece of intelligence, and wouldn't know a good intelligence officer" from a bad one.But former intelligence analyst Greg Treverton, now with the Rand Corporation, said Panetta's experience as a former White House chief of staff might give him a unique understanding of the presidency and its needs for intelligence. "One of my experiences with people like Panetta who have been chief of staff is that they have a clear sense of what is helpful to the president that most senior officials don't," Treverton told me. "They get it. What he could do and couldn't do. And that's an interesting advantage Panetta brings. Knowledge of what the presidential stakes are like, how issues arise, and what they need to be protected from, for better or worse."
Retired CIA deputy director for the East Europe division Milt Bearden said Panetta is a "brilliant" choice. "It is not problematic that Panetta lacks experience in intelligence," Bearden e-mailed. "Intel experience is overrated. Good judgement, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance. Why not DNI?"
The Panetta choice also makes sense to him, said Philip Zelikow, a former counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (and Foreign Policy writer). "The issues of presidential trust and clean hands are, at this moment in history, most important," Zelikow said by e-mail. "And even an 'intelligence professional' would have to rely on others in many ways. ... So Obama and his team have made a certain kind of tradeoff."
Initial Hill reaction was one of puzzlement, and consternation by at least one key senator that she had not been consulted on the choice. "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was cited by the Los Angeles Times. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time." Confirmation prep teams, take note.
Meh. Why the hell not? Hillary has no experience in foreign affairs, Caroline Kennedy has no experience with...anything, and Barak Obama knows how to cast his vote 'present'.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 6, 2009 5:15 AM
So begins the Obama administration. Leftists have always wanted to gut the CIA. I guess they win this one.
doombuggy at January 6, 2009 5:34 AM
> A former senior CIA manager said the
> message of the Panetta appointment was
> clear: "The message is, 'I don't want
> to hear anything out of the CIA. Make
> it go away.
I've been waiting for this for a very long time.
> Leftists have always wanted
> to gut the CIA.
Others, too.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 5:46 AM
Seriously, what is it about the CIA that makes people suddenly think it's OK to do secret, murderous things with an unpublished budget? If the Department of the Interior or your local Parks Department tried to pull any of that shit, you'd be enraged, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you?
Please say yes.
It's OK to believe in the CIA, even to be believe in them with operational responsibilities.
But you must never whine about Guantanamo, Bagram, secret prisons or waterboarding.
Because you asked for that shit when you asked for a strong, effective Central Intelligence Agency.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 6:25 AM
The problem is that the 1% that gets reported poisons the 99% that is really going on.
The majority of the CIA function is to collect and analyze data from/against foreign sources. Look at John Wilson and Valerie Plame. Do they seem like cold blooded, evil, blood sucking demons that would engage in torture?
The thing that most people don't realize is that yes, I can take a satellite, plane or some other platform and use photos, radar and other collection methods. But that still doesn't tell me what is happening in the head of the Hamas leader, or the Iranian president. Let alone the people on the street.
Add to it that Clinton and the lefties essentially fired half the collecting agents and the remaining ones had their hands tied by laws and executive orders that destroyed the intel nets that took years to build.
I lay the true responsibility for allowing 9/11 to happen at Billy Boy's feet. If we would have been watching, the info would have been fed to FBI and it would have been a footnote in the news on page 15.
Jim P. at January 6, 2009 7:06 AM
"...you must never whine about Guantanamo, Bagram, secret prisons or waterboarding."
You'll hear me whine when BO releases all those filthy Islamic fascists to civilian courts, which will then grant them political asylum & a welfare check.
I'll take waterboarding and secret prisons over that shit anyday.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 6, 2009 7:11 AM
the remaining ones had their hands tied by laws and executive orders that destroyed the intel nets that took years to build.
-Laws and EO that started before the Carter administration and continued into Bush2s administration
I lay the true responsibility for allowing 9/11 to happen at Billy Boy's feet. If we would have been watching, the info would have been fed to FBI and it would have been a footnote in the news on page 15.
-If the problem in communication between agencies was such a huge problem why did the bush admin continue with the program?
And didnt some of the intel come FROM the FBI?
Its funny how republicans blame everything on clinton and democrate blame everthing on bush. There is enough blame to go around for every president, congrassman and department administratoe since nixon
lujlp at January 6, 2009 7:20 AM
> The problem is that the 1% that
> gets reported poisons the 99%
> that is really going on.
Oh, how the fuck do you know what's "really" go on"?
I am so tired of this bullshit....
Paraphrase
'It's cruel world out there, a bitter landscape of treachery and deceit... We don't want to be lying, murderous thugs.. we have no choice!'
It's so hokey. How can you type those things without flushing in shame?
> The majority of the CIA function
> is to collect and analyze data
> from/against foreign sources.
Given the minority functions, it's not worth it. Fire them. ALL of them.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 7:28 AM
Hey Crid,
Take a fucking breath and calm down.
Oh, how the fuck do you know what's "really" go on"?
I was in intelligence way back when I was the military. I saw the results of what was collected against the Soviets and others.
The data wasn't/isn't gained by going out and randomly picking someone off the street and torturing them. It was gained by slowly working somebody who is disaffected by the gov't/group/system they are in.
Given the minority functions, it's not worth it. Fire them. ALL of them.
Most of the times that the minority blows up it has a political component to it. It isn't the professional spooks who screw things up, but the REMFs who only know how to fly a desk.
Jim P. at January 6, 2009 8:15 AM
> I saw the results of what was
> collected against the Soviets
> and others.
Ah! You have secret expertise.
> but the REMFs
And like a truck driver on the CB radio, you have a secret language with precious jargon.
And you want us to trust you.
Faaaaaaabulous.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 8:24 AM
When I learned that Obama's choice for Atty. General Holden, it became clear that we will be heading back to a Sept. 10, 2001 mindset. Holden
was one of the strongest voices against going into Zakarias Moussoui's
computer (it would have required going through legal red tape).
If they opened his computer they would have found the entire 9/11 plot laid out before them - the cash transfers, names of all the other 19 hijackers - etc.
Leon Panetta as CIA director, IMHO, is a farce and a not very funny joke. No matter how much you may hate Bush, it was no accident that we have not been hit again. It was his techniques that foiled many serious plots which would have killed far more than 9/11.
With a Soros backed Obama - I wouldn't be surprised if they give the
Gitmo throat cutters a parade.
Ruby at January 6, 2009 8:31 AM
Crid, I've never spent a day in intel or the military, and I know what a "Rear Echelon Mother Fucker" is.
In my line of work, we call them PHBs (Pointy Haired Bosses). These are people who have risen to positions of power without merit, and they make life for those of us with a clue nearly impossible. And, as an added benefit, when they fuck up, WE GET BLAMED.
lujlp - you're half-right. The beginnings of the FBI/CIA wall (which wouldn't have been breached no matter how much Jim wishes it could have been) started after Nixon. Yes, Jamie Gorelick issued the now-famous memo fortifying said wall during the Clinton administration. But existing law and practice forbade FBI and CIA from collaborating on, say, Moussaui's laptop, which is why the FBI figured it was a waste of time.
I read somewhere else that the Panetta pick was Obama's way of saying to CIA (which has been at war with the Office of the President since JFK's time, possibly earlier) "You won't sabotage this administration".
It won't work, of course. CIA needs to be disbanded, and the competent agents and their knowledge and expertise need to be folded into DIA under Defense. Because that kind of shit doesn't belong under Treasury.
brian at January 6, 2009 8:33 AM
"I wouldn't be surprised if they give the
Gitmo throat cutters a parade."
...and a green card, a pension, free healthcare, and low-rent housing for life.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 6, 2009 8:34 AM
Ruby - exactly right. The Democrats have been wishing from 9/12/01 onward that we could just return to a more innocent time when the World Trade Center hadn't been hit, and there wasn't anyone planning to do such a thing to us.
And in their mind, the only thing that changed about us that could have caused such a thing was the election of Bush. Now that he's gone, we can go back to the way we were, and everything will be fine, right?
brian at January 6, 2009 8:35 AM
> and I know what a "Rear Echelon
> Mother Fucker" is
Riiiiiight. If the taxpayers would just keep quiet (in your seventh-grad parlance of government service, "STF") and submit to authority, everything would be hunky-dory, and the spooks could protect the shit out of us.
Like they did on 9/11. Really came through, didin' they? Crystal-clear, undeniable warnings. Great.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 8:50 AM
> No matter how much you may hate Bush, it was no accident that we have not been hit again.
Why do right-wingers always say this, as if that whole anthrax scare didn't count as terrorism, somehow?
franko at January 6, 2009 9:30 AM
No, Crid.
If the REMFs weren't spending their time padding their nest eggs while thwarting real intelligence gathering maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
But because we instituted all kinds of "reforms" in the intel world, our human intelligence capabilities were all but abandoned. As a result, here's a short list of things we didn't know about until they were a done deal:
The nuclearization of India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
The return of Khomeini to Iran.
Just about every act of Islamist terrorism against the United States from 1979 onward.
The fall of the Soviet Union.
And probably hundreds more.
Franko - the "anthrax scare" was purely domestic, and likely done by someone hoping to provoke massive retaliation. It would not surprise me one like to find it was from some nitwit who thought Bush would unleash nuclear fury on the middle east if he could be convinced we'd been attacked by Al Qaeda again.
brian at January 6, 2009 9:40 AM
Bush I was a spook. But I agree that HumInt was abandoned to "technical" intelligence. The reforms that strangled our system haven't been put in place in other countries. An example that hits off the top of my head was the liquid explosive bombers in England. That was a matter of working humans gathering data.
The other part of it is that intel has to be right and lucky 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to have 1 good day.
Jim P. at January 6, 2009 9:53 AM
"I lay the true responsibility for allowing 9/11 to happen at Billy Boy's feet."
That's a little strong, but I would certainly agree that Clinton largely failed to respond to the Cole and African embassy attacks.
snakeman99 at January 6, 2009 9:57 AM
Clinton's lack of response to "Black Hawk Down" and the USS Cole was to Al Qaeda, the same as Reagan's lack of response to the bombing of the Marines in Beirut was to Hezbollah.
Failure to respond forcefully to such atrocities is a tacit approval of the method, and invites further escalation.
brian at January 6, 2009 10:36 AM
"Why do right-wingers always say this, as if that whole anthrax scare didn't count as terrorism, somehow?"
Boy is that weak! The anthrax was done by a lunatic American (we still have plenty of those). And I'm a right-winger because I think Bush has done a good job stopping major attacks? wow.
This morning Michael Schuer (former CIA head of the Bin Laden unit under Clinton) was on the radio. He is no fan of Bush, but said with Panetta as head of the CIA and the relaxation of the Privacy Act laws,
he is CERTAIN there will be an attack. I pray he is wrong, but Obama is making it easier for them to carry it off.
Ruby at January 6, 2009 10:36 AM
Ruby -
I said in 2001 that Bush had until he was out of office to wrap up Al Qaeda or we would be attacked in the year of the new president (be that 2005 or 2009).
Bush didn't wrap up Al Qaeda, partly because of the distributed nature of the threat, partly because he was unwilling to risk the bad PR that being ruthless enough would have created.
Regardless anything Obama does (even if he were to leave everyone else in place), we are virtually guaranteed an attack in 2009 simply because we have a new leader. This would be true if McCain had won as well.
Keep in mind that the mindset behind Islamism considers the orderly transfer of power to be a sign of weakness. Once you understand this, many things become clear.
brian at January 6, 2009 11:20 AM
> our human intelligence capabilities
> were all but abandoned.
So close.... So close we could taste it.
> As a result, here's a short list of
> things we didn't know about until
> they were a done deal
A steaming bucket of horseshit. You're so enamored with Connery's luscious thicket of chest hair that you've collected the entire set of spook fantasy presumptions...
• That these agency types aren't careerist assholes
• That this information can be gleaned by analysis at reasonable prices (I was going to say competitive prices, but see next item)
• That black budgets are morally acceptable in tax-funded republic
• That if only the spooks had been given whatever they asked, any number of nightmares would have been avoided (My little nephew wouldn't have skinned his knees on the playground! Coca-cola wouldn't have issued New Coke! Britney wouldn't have cut her hair off!) (I saw this same silliness applied in the newspaper business last week, when someone implied that if times weren't so tough for print, by gum, the Chicago Tribube would have gotten the goods on Blogojovich, and not the US Attorney's office)
• That public servants (and others) can only glean or accept truths that are delivered in an Office Depot®-brand report binder (This same presumption causes blog commenters to demand "studies" proving that children need mothers and/or fathers)
• That a decent society can ever demand excellence from other nations when it pursues its own interests with secrecy, deception, torture and murder
I wonder if this patience with violent, surreptious, sunsupervised statecraft would be so entrenched in the popular imagination if Barry weren't such a fucking genius... A generation presumably inclined to straightforward integrity in international affairs seems to have been serenaded into evil by his majestic melodies.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 12:03 PM
Tribune, not Tribube.
And unsupervised, not sunsupervised.
I'm in a hurry over here
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 12:05 PM
Regardless anything Obama does (even if he were to leave everyone else in place), we are virtually guaranteed an attack in 2009 simply because we have a new leader. This would be true if McCain had won as well.
Agreed, brian. Because, bottom line, shit is gonna hit the fan, sooner rather than later. (You read it here first.) Do any of you think the USA is really prepared for it? Better prepared than we were for 9/11/01? Because if you do, I hope you're right. Unfortunately, though, I think you're fooling yourselves. There's still people out there who think a sit-down with a cuppa tea is gonna work with Al Qaeda. And it ain't. o.O
Flynne at January 6, 2009 12:36 PM
Right, because the USSR would have just told us about their plans if we'd only asked.
Crid, am I correct in assuming that you find the entire premise of spycraft to be unsavory? What do you propose we do in lieu of that to keep tabs on those who mean us harm?
brian at January 6, 2009 2:43 PM
Circulus in demonstrando.
> Right, because the USSR would
> have just told us about their
> plans if we'd only asked.
Well, again, sugar, again... Did we ever learn about their plans anyway? Didn't the entirety of professional expertise, including most public and private Bosnywash affiliates, completely misjudge Soviet growth, strengths, weakness and expiration?
(Here's a favorite example from my youth by the guy from the NY Times. Note that your price for a copy is the lowest unit of tender currently in circulation. It's worth it! Nowadays the laughs come easily from this volume, as its ideological clumsiness has been so grandly exposed.)
> am I correct in assuming that
You don't have to assume. Even with typos, I'm really clear with people about this.
> you find the entire premise of
> spycraft to be unsavory?
I find it immoral. Your use of the word "unsavory" suggests a mild distaste, like finding yellow wildflowers in a vase over a lavender doily, or red wine with fish.
It's wrong to murder and torture;
It's wrong to murder and torture using money you've taken from people by force;
It's wrong to murder and torture using money you've taken from people by force and not tell them about it;
It's wrong to murder and torture using money you've taken from people by force and not tell them about it on their behalf;
And it's wrong to murder and torture using money you've taken from people by force and not tell them about it on their behalf and then pretend that you can offer moral leadership to less-developed nations.
(Besides, they won't listen.)
Could you imagine anything wronger?
> What do you propose we do
> in lieu of that to keep
> tabs on those who mean
> us harm?
Again, again, again, again... Tabs aren't "being kept" now. All the virtue you ascribe to these organizations is imaginary. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of employees typing reports that nobody reads... And in language so mild or clouded by ass-coverage as to be useless to an executive who might rely on them, and too private to be offered to the broader citizenry that paid for then.
Consider Afghanistan. When it came time to go in, we had essentially no professional resources in place. We knew there were warlords that had to be paid off, but we didn't know their names or interests. The first soldiers had to carry in briefcases of cash and start dealin'.
Americans scour most of the globe pretty freely. The response of our private citizens to what they find is worth infinitely more than what we get from Langley and Fort Meade.
Fire them. We need the money for better things. Let go of your Connery fantasies. The world is risky, dynamic and uncertain.
And if you don't fire them, never whine on here about others being "irrational", because faith in the spooks makes lottery tickets look like thoughtful investment.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 5:10 PM
Yes, what is Crid's alternative? Reaction when it happens? Like the CIA or not, we need some sort of spying.
Sometimes I think Obama's been paid to leave us open. Like he's got some grand retirement as a king in the caribbean planned, for a year or so from now.
momof3 at January 6, 2009 5:13 PM
I went looking on Youtube for a good instrumental version of YOLT and found nothing. But it doesn't matter, the tune is nearly indestructible.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 5:15 PM
"Sometimes I think Obama's been paid to leave us open. Like he's got some grand retirement as a king in the caribbean planned, for a year or so from now."
I wasn't a fan of either major candidate, but over-the-top shit like this makes legitimate complaints less believable.
Kimberly at January 6, 2009 6:27 PM
When it came time to go in, we had essentially no professional resources in place.
Crid,
Why were there no resources in place? -- Because eight years of Clinton had gutted the CIA's and the DOD's budget.
I sat at a Commander's Call and our unit commander, a full bird colonel (O-6) with a promotion to Brigadier General probable in his near future, say to the whole unit: "We are at the point that we no longer can do more with less. All we can do is do less with less. Our budget has been cut by 10% and we need to restrict purchases on everything." By the end of the budget year we couldn't afford to buy paper and ribbons for our printers.
No matter how much you don't like it the organizations exist. And just as you get up on the your moral high horse -- I want you to look up a few other letter sets: KGB, GRU, CSIS, MI5, SB.
You keep accusing us of thinking of CIA as the James Bond/Mr Phelps flash. The typical agent never carries a gun (or at least no more than the locals), and plays it as quiet and cool as possible.
Jim P. at January 6, 2009 7:36 PM
Amy:
This is the important bit:
"It is not problematic that Panetta lacks experience in intelligence," Bearden e-mailed. "Intel experience is overrated. Good judgement, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix ...
As it happens, I spent 13 years as a fighter pilot, then got sent to the Pentagon.
Whereupon I became The Guy for a $2 billion radar system that was subject to a SecState level agreement between us and Canada. Now, not a darn thing in my background set me up for that, but someone (or people) felt that I could handle the job.
Past a certain level of abstraction, subject matter expertise becomes less important than good judgment, common sense, et al. Panetta is well beyond that level.
I was in intelligence way back when I was the military. I saw the results of what was collected against the Soviets and others.
The data wasn't/isn't gained by going out and randomly picking someone off the street and torturing them. It was gained by slowly working somebody who is disaffected by the gov't/group/system they are in.
Yes, I am sure that plays a role. However the CIA (and all other intel agencies I am familiar with) simply fails to take advantage of open source intel.
Example: in the late 80s/early 90s, the USSR was fielding the SA-10 and -12 SAMs. The only visuals available to pilots were cartoonish artist conceptions labeled Top Secret.
In 1991, I visited Czechoslovakia. While there, I stopped into a Prague 7-11ski to get a Coke (go, Capitalism!). Inside, I noticed a soldier wannabe magazine with actual photos of both the SA-10 and -12 on the cover, and articles I couldn't read inside.
I bought the magazine, and gave it to base intel when I got back.
A year later, we were still getting briefings with cartoon images of the TEL and missiles.
The CIA is no different.
As a result, the various agencies compartmentalize information WAY too much because of their "sources and methods".
And, far too often, what comes out of intel is crap. Remember the pilotless Mig-23 that crashed in France in the late 80s? Not two weeks beforehand, we pilots got a lengthy briefing about how incredible the Warsaw Pact air defense systems were.
Turns out they couldn't track one of their own planes taking off as planned from their own airfield, and first heard about it approaching the Inner German Border from NATO.
I am sure the CIA does valuable stuff. Whether it outweighs whatever the heck we spend on it is something else altogether.
crid:
It's wrong to murder and torture;
With respect to what alternative?
Hey Skipper at January 6, 2009 7:39 PM
Oh, Jesus Christ on a stick....
> Why were there no resources
> in place?
Because all the money in the world can't make gifted linguists and sociologists interested in studying a culture as mundane as Afghanistan's, a way of living that produces nothing but illiteracy and poverty.
> Because eight years of Clinton
> had gutted the CIA's and the
> DOD's budget.
It makes me horny to think so, but you have absolutely no evidence to offer. The budget is secret. It was secret before 9/11; it was secret on 9/11, an it's secret now. No matter what happens, the CIA will be asking for more money, and blaming things on budgets when it doesn't work out.
The best evidence we have for a bugget, and it's a half-heard whisper, was $44 billion. Do you know what we could do to treat malaria for that kind of money? For AIDS in Africa? For our libraries? These agencies are pulling a Bill Gates' worth of wealth out of the economy (and probable a Warren Buffett on the side) each and every year.
And what are we getting for this money?
They can't tell us.
I think your "unit commander, a full bird colonel (O-6) with a promotion to Brigadier General probable in his near future" is probably a big part of the problem.
> No matter how much you don't
> like it the organizations
> exist.
I don't think you quite get this. I'm saying they shouldn't exist. Period.
> The typical agent never carries
> a gun (or at least no more
> than the locals), and plays it
> as quiet and cool as possible.
If I had an unlimited budget and the inexplicable, unearned support of a vast army of blog visitors, I'd play it cool too. You have no idea how cool.
Of course, I'd be betraying the ideals that made my nation admirable, but....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 8:21 PM
> With respect to what alternative?
Poorly phrased. I think you're asking me what I want.
I want for anyone who takes one of my tax dollars to tell me what they did with it. That includes all agencies without exception. I want open, competitive bidding on every service my government consumes. I want all of those agencies to approach their duties in adherence with our standards of integrity. And so forth... This comment is already dull as shit. Why are you bothering me with a poorly phrased question?
Can you really not imagine a world where the United States plays fair? (And saves money?) (And doesn't listen in to your private phone calls?)
Yes, yes, you're a very wise and cynical world traveler who knows the dark truth about the world, that there are some things that American's just aren't ready to know about.
Well, I wanna know it all.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 8:29 PM
> With respect to what alternative?
Poorly phrased. I think you're asking me what I want.
No, not poorly phrased; it says precisely what I meant.
When you say [it's] wrong to murder and torture;, and nothing else, you are comparing "murder and torture" to a null -- which absolutely begs the question I asked.
Can you really not imagine a world where the United States plays fair?
Well, now that you ask, no, I can't.
Until there is such a thing as an external agency applying the rules defining fair to all the players, there is no such thing as "playing fair."
Imagine an NFL game without the refs, and no rules.
Hey Skipper at January 6, 2009 10:18 PM
> you are comparing "murder and
> torture" to a null -- which
> absolutely begs the question
> I asked
Quit being goofy! What's a null? Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The question that you asked was weird: "With respect to what alternative?"
This 'alternative': The United States shouldn't murder and torture.
You apparently disagree.
Good luck out there!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 10:38 PM
It's amazing how many people, at least in our comfortable anonymity of the blog, are glib about this.
ARE you that glib? For example, those of you with kids... Do you tell them the United States has to murder and torture, in just that many words?
How about those of you with gentle friends?
("it's like the NFL!")
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 11:23 PM
Hi Amy,
I stumbled on your site by accident. As I was looking for resolutions for the new year. (http://www.radosh.net/archive/002570.html)
Anyway, I find your blog very interesting. I read through some articles. I'm not sure how alive the discussions are from your older posts. But I wanted to react on "Apostasy in Islam".
I am a convert (by choice) and what was explained to me is that if you leave the religion, you are "dead" to the muslim community.
Which means in my opinion that you are very much alive but the community does not see you as such.
I guess opinions are very much divided. "Some groups within Islam such as the Shi'a Ismaili reject death for apostasy altogether." taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
Anyway, looking forward to your posts and hope to be part of some discussion that hopefully will give us both more insight.
Cheers,
Che
Che at January 6, 2009 11:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/06/what_happened_m.html#comment-1619062">comment from CheDaniel Radosh is a friend of a friend -- have to link to him, and thanks for reminding me.
And sorry, but you're wrong about apostasy from Islam not meaning a death sentence. Here's a link.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6116BAF5-BEBE-43FF-8033-DB57FE7E9093
And here are a few tidbits from the Wikipedia page you found:
Whatever possessed you to convert to Islam? And you're not black are you? There's a great deal of prejudice amongst Arab Muslims for black people, and black people who are Muslims. While the Israelis took in Muslim refugees from Darfur, Egyptian soldiers slayed them in cold blood.
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2009 12:58 AM
Crid - There's a huge problem with your "I wanna know it all" position. Whether or not it suits your worldview, we do have enemies that wish us harm. Everything we publish IS read by those enemies. And they have people who are trying to get everything we DON'T publish.
If we were to simply announce everything we do, then sure, we wouldn't have had to kill the Rosenbergs, because the Soviets would have just lifted the documentation on how to build a nuke right from the evening news.
You can argue, perhaps, that the ineffectiveness of the CIA is a reason to get rid of it. You cannot, however, argue that we don't need espionage.
Oh, and what the fuck is with this line about torture and murder? Is that what you call warfare from the comfort of your living room? Or are you repeating the lies of the Michael Moore crowd as justification for dismantling the United States' intelligence apparatus? Names. I want names.
brian at January 7, 2009 5:44 AM
This 'alternative': The United States shouldn't murder and torture.
Okay, then, how 'bout this, Crid: when other countries (and Islamofacist militants, and all others of various terrorist ilk), STOP murdering and torturing, then we stop. Because, you know, it's not enough, just setting an example. You have to set consequences, and then follow through. It's kind of like parenting: First, you tell them "don't do this, it's WRONG." You tell them why, give them a consequence. Then, if they're still doing it, you FOLLOW THROUGH with the consequence. And sometimes, a good swift kick in the ass will suffice. But when it doesn't, you have to give them a dose of the same damn thing. And even then, sometimes they DON'T GET IT. Kind of like how you're not getting it right now, about how it's imperitive that we know what our enemies want to do to us, and how to, oh I dunno, circumvent that? Self-preservation, maybe? You like your way of life, yes? Thank those who are there to see to it that nothing changes for the most part. o.O
Flynne at January 7, 2009 7:28 AM
Perhaps Crid has finally embraced the doctrine of excessive force?
You know, you blow up one of our ships, we nuke one of your cities kind of thing? It worked in Japan.
brian at January 7, 2009 7:37 AM
> You cannot, however, argue that we
> don't need espionage.
Yes I can, and go easy with commas.
This is about the fifth time I've run this past you, but you mind is absolutely closed. You are absolutely certain that productive "espionage" is happening now. You have zero reason to think so, except that all that money's being spent. You don't know how much, but even so....
Meanwhile, the fact that you've conceded the morality of the point while maintaining enthusiam for the imaginary practicalities speaks volumes.
> Is that what you call warfare
> from the comfort of your
> living room?
Don't be a dickless wonderchild, Brian. You're in love with a movie, and your opinion on this demonstrates no more courage than you bring to other issues... (Insuring your health comes to mind for some reason.)
A slight majority of our security comes from our economic strength: No one wants to fuck with their best marketplace. Almost all the rest comes from having the strongest military, the envy of human history.
So a lot of us live in comfortable rooms. But people know --or are at least troubled by the suspicion-- that typical life is dangerous. White kids in shopping mall cinemas like slasher movies because their lives are mundane, and it's good to be reminded that one has blood in one's veins.
So silly bachelors and sullen-married and other goofs like to pretend that while our flag and the constitution and the rule of law are all fun and admirable things, there's this one corner of civilization where the rubber meets the road, and a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and --what was Skip's phrase?-- "There are no rules!" And they're on board with it!
A pathetic pretense of machismo. Pathetic. Laughable, if the consequences weren't so real.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 7:40 AM
I agree with Crid's last paragraph.
The consequences I refer to would be people deciding to jump from the WTC or burn, because pathetic know-it-alls like her don't want their feelings hurt because people who try to kill us are treated badly.
Sleep well. Rough men stand ready to do violence on your ungrateful behalf.
MarkD at January 7, 2009 8:33 AM
They have no authority to do so.
Don't do me any favors.
etc.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 8:54 AM
Crid - quite frankly, I don't lose any sleep over muslims being tortured. I could give a fuck.
In fact, everything you claim keeps us from being attacked is the motivation for attacks by these islamocreeps.
If you think that espionage is ineffective, great. You got any ideas on how to stop attacks? Or are you content to wait for the next hit to come and then reply to it?
The latter is certainly an intellectually defensible position, but I happen to disagree with it.
You're troubled by the moral issues of beating the shit out of a camel-fucking lowlife. I'm troubled by the moral issues of missing the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 when we ought to have the capacity to infiltrate and neutralize these things.
And frankly, I'm tired of erecting memorials to the dead when those deaths could have been prevented by inconveniencing a few scumbags half a planet away.
brian at January 7, 2009 9:09 AM
Well, I wanna know it all.
Too damned bad. There are a lot of things that go on that we not only don't, but shouldn't know.
They have no authority to do so.
Actually they do.
Don't do me any favors.
Don't like it, leave. Find a country that doesn't use espionage. Immigrate. I sleep more comfortably knowing that there are people who are trying to find out about the next attack, the countries trying to develop nuclear weaopns, etc.
I am with you on the whole disband the CIA though. Get rid of the chaff and roll the rest into the DOD. But for fucks sake, don't pretend we don't need these people. As long as we don't live in a perfectly peaceful Utopian paradise, we need them.
And ultimately it's you who needs to step away from the movies. The spy game is not James Bond, or even Jack Ryan (though the latter is certainly closer to reality). It is mostly satellites and electronic intercepts. Geeks sitting in large rooms analyzing data.
I am also for more oversight, but not the kind that includes you or me. I don't approve of torture, any more than you do. But we don't need to be the ones ensuring it doesn't happen. There are and probably always will be things going on that we just can't know about, because we don't want our enemies to know.
DuWayne at January 7, 2009 9:53 AM
I have kids. And hell yeah, torture if needed, and I really don't think killing those who mean you harm is murder. The bible doesn't define it that way, neither do rules of war. The CIA does not-repeat does not-yank random citizens off the streets of their own country and torture them to see if they might know something. If any torture happens (and I'm talking actulal torture, not waterboarding and sleep deprivation) then it's against someone who does have intel. Someone willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up will not scare or give up info easily. Pain can work.
I'm related to may of the rough men willing to do the dirty work of keeping us safe, and I bask in my ignorance of what the work entails quite happily. Never think for a second, though, that I would not skin an enemy alive if it meant safety for my kids and other's kids.
momof3 at January 7, 2009 10:33 AM
> I could give a fuck.
> Too damned bad.
Riiigghht. So, like, you agree that in moral and practical terms, spooks do nothing worthwhile. But you're pissy and tough and you wanna let people know that your hurt feelings are the center of the universe.
I think that same button's being pushed in better men then you... They just do quiet assent to evil, rather than faux-aggressive commentary on the excellence of their bloodthirst.
Quoting again a favorite passage from 2008 media:
| "Outrage is not a policy," said Strobe
| Talbott, who was deputy secretary of
| state under President Clinton and is
| now the president of the Brookings
| Institution. "Worry is not a policy.
| Indignation is not a policy. Even
| though outrage, worry and indignation
| are all appropriate in this situation,
| they shouldn't be mistaken for policy
| and they shouldn't be mistaken for
| strategy."
A couple of months ago someone pulled that "You won't like me when I'm angry!" thing at work, too. She had to be reminded that she was already off the list of favorites. It comes to mind not only because of your theatrics, but this post by Kaus.
Besides --
> Immigrate.
You mean emigrate.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 10:48 AM
PS- Martha Stewart's younger than Panetta, and might well have been a better hire.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 10:48 AM
Well for once i must agree with something Brian says: "Regardless anything Obama does (even if he were to leave everyone else in place), we are virtually guaranteed an attack in 2009 simply because we have a new leader. This would be true if McCain had won as well."
If these guaranteed attackers were rational then US military muscle would be a deterrent. Unfortunately, as Amy would be happy to explain, they are whackaloons.
What is also guaranteed is that all the bucks spent by the CIA will not stop this attack. The only way it will resemble previous assults is something will blow up.
I almost agree with all of what Crid says but i think we must gather information and, if we still have anyone actually on the ground doing this, we must protect their identity to protect their life.
I bet almost all other efforts at government secrecy relates to protecting the bureaucrat or politician invovled and not the nation.
Why else is Dicky trying to keep all his papers private?
Jim at January 7, 2009 12:01 PM
I have kids. And hell yeah, torture if needed, and I really don't think killing those who mean you harm is murder - Momof3
And what happens if some government offical accidentally decides your son is the one they need to torture?
lujlp at January 7, 2009 12:13 PM
I have not read the 52 above comments, but the pick of Pannetta says only one thing: I want the CIA under my thumb. Might as well annex it under sole control of the President b/c that's exactly what is going to happen.
But that he's a Clinton pick makes things much more curiouser: which master will he serve?
farker at January 7, 2009 12:39 PM
> I almost agree with all of...
Dood! Now is the time to go that extra mile!
> If these guaranteed attackers
Everybody see that? No... Really. Go back and read it in context in the recent comment, just above.
Try and understand the magnitude of your presumption. You're absolutely certain the Sun is orbiting the Earth, because.....
Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing. If you had a collection of bad guys, and you had “guarantees” that they were bad guys, there'd be no need for intel ops, or maybe even intel itself. Every person in America, and most people across the globe, would then be happy to see the Army march into the designated village --Hell, march into the Vatican if necessary-- to take them out. (And our Armed Services are plenty twitchy enough without using torture.)
Saying that it's “guaranteed” that there are people who mean us harm tells us nothing. It doesn't tell us that the Spooks know who they are, or where they are, or how serious their threat is. It doesn't promise that Spooks have told the people who need to know. It certainly doesn't promise that the Spooks could handle the problem on their own, and it metaphysically, trans-cosmically doesn't mean the Spooks identified them at a reasonable cost.
> If these guaranteed attackers
> were rational
No thoughtful consequences can follow that appraisal. If we were only concerned about acting responsibly towards people we regard as rational, we could close a lot of insane asylums... After, y'know, dealing with their residents.
(PS- For a mousey good time, try looking up the plural of “asylum”.)
> we must protect their identity
> to protect their life.
So, like, are you saying you're not cool with black budgets?
Cridcrid@gee mail at January 7, 2009 12:47 PM
Crid:
Quit being goofy! What's a null? Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The question that you asked was weird: "With respect to what alternative?"
A null is the complete absence of anything. Because your statement is without any conditions whatsoever, it is relative to absolutely nothing.
When you say "murder and torture" are wrong, without any further stipulation, you are saying those things are wrong under all circumstances, at all times: there is no set of circumstances where murder and torture are less wrong than some alternative.
Really? If you have a suspect in custody that you know has kidnapped a three-yr old girl, and said girl will starve to death unless the suspect coughs up the location, what are you willing to do to get that information?
That is what I meant when I said "with respect to what alternative?"
And that is even before getting to deciding precisely what constitutes torture.
BTW, "begging the question" as a term of art is a logical fallacy.
Saying that your statement absolutely begs a follow-on question has nothing to do with logic, but rather your leaving a gaping hole at the end of your statement. It absolutely begged someone to ask the question "with respect to what?"
This 'alternative': The United States shouldn't murder and torture. does not qualify as an alternative, it is merely a qualified restatement, without taking the effort to define "shouldn't".
... those of you with kids... Do you tell them the United States has to murder and torture, in just that many words?
I do, two in high school. And it has come up. And I ask them this: instead of what?
As Brian said, Crid - There's a huge problem with your "I wanna know it all", a serious one.
When I was playing my bit part in the Cold War, should we have broadcast all my airplane's capabilities and limitations? Our tactics and targets? Refueling orbit locations? Safe return procedures (to avoid blue-on-blue mishaps)?
Did we need to tell the Russians what we knew about them? Did we need to tell them that some of the things we said we didn't know we actually did?
To wind the clock back a little further, did we need to tell the Japanese or Germans we had broken their codes?
Because, when you say "I want to know it all", all has a specific meaning, which includes everything I listed, plus much more.
In other words, your statement begged a whole bunch of additional questions.
Back in the 1980s, Britains MI5 discovered the USSR was trying to turn one of the Concorde engineers, hoping to get information helpful to the Tu-144 "Concordski". MI5 took the plans the engineer was to give the USSR, and doctored them just a little in ways those who hadn't done their homework would notice, but would compromise the airplanes structural integrity.
During a Paris airshow, the Concordski broke in half, and crashed into an apartment building.
Had that been us instead of MI5, should we have told the USSR we were on them? After the crash?
Just what the heck do you mean by "all"?
Hey Skipper at January 7, 2009 12:58 PM
So, like, you agree that in moral and practical terms, spooks do nothing worthwhile.
I don't see anyone agreeing with that at all. Quite to the contrary, most of us seem to think that they have absolute value in terms of our security. Some of us also believe that they need more oversight, with me going to the extent of wanting to see intelligence gathering folded into the auspices of the military.
You are the one trying to argue that our government shouldn't do any secretive intelligence gathering. That there is no value to be had from what they are doing. That our government shouldn't keep anything secret from the taxpayers.
So lets take this beyond intelligence gathering. Where are the absolutes here? At what point does the government have a right not to inform the citizenry of actions it's taking on our behalf? Can they at least keep strategies of war under wraps? How about specific troop movements?
There are things that our enemies should not know. Things that they could use to compromise out security, the safety of our troops or strategies that are being implemented.
I am all for peace in our time, but until those who wish us harm are willing to sit around the campfire and sing kum ba ya, we need people to find out what they are doing. We shouldn't give such people completely free reign, nor should we accept them engaging in torture. But neither should we pretend we don't need them at all. Because we do. And as immature as you seem to think it is, your case would be greatly enhanced by evidence for your assertions.
Like Amy recently mentioned on another thread, I'm not a fundamentalist. Show me the evidence, make a compelling argument and I'll be on your side in a heartbeat. In this particular instance, I really want to agree with you. The problem with agreeing, is that there are plenty of solid arguments and evidence that you're wrong.
DuWayne at January 7, 2009 1:42 PM
> you are saying those things are
> wrong under all circumstances
Exactly! We understand each other perfectly! Murder is by definition unnecessary killing. Torture is so close to that boundary as to not be worth specifying any further. No decent society has use for it.
> If you have a suspect in custody
> that you know has kidnapped a
> three-yr old girl, and said girl
> will starve to death
Wow. Your imagination is vivid. And freaky. (Take a minute to go back to the part about coddled teenagers who go to the movies to peer into the abyss. This is like that.) Can you tell me where that scenario came from? I'm not just asking for a story that goes “A nasty man did a nasty thing once!”
Tell you what... When you have that suspect in custody, give me a call, and I'll issue instructions on the spot. We'll work something out. But I won't hold my breath, because I think daydreams have the best of you. Ever watch TV's Mash? There was this army doctor, a nebbish little guy called Frank Burns. And when the hypermacho intelligence officers came around, he'd always try to chat them up about interrogation techniques, especially for “enemy women who won't talk....”
> And that is even before getting
> to deciding precisely what
> constitutes torture.
The topic makes you horny, we can tell!
Turns out the internet knows everything. If you want to see the story described above, it looks like episode #37. I bet you could get it on DVD from Ebay, cheap. Maybe VHS!
> should we have broadcast all my
> airplane's capabilities and
> limitations?
If you weren't in a spook service, the question doesn't apply.
> "begging the question" as
> a term of art
Right. You used it weirdly. Lots of ex-military guys write goofy. Anybody remember Pelto? He's still out there, pissing people off. Retirement make some guys bitter!
> Just what the heck do
> you mean by "all"?
When taxpaying citizens pay for information to be collected, whether by a freshman in a university lab or a spook wearing headphones, they should have free and easy access to it.
There shall be no exceptions.
Thanks for your attention to these matters, Skip.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 1:46 PM
Crid - have you been following the case of Casey Anthony and her missing daughter at all?
If the police had just beat the shit out of her after her story of the "babysitter took off with my baby" turned out to be false in literally every detail, she'd have told them that she killed the kid and buried her in the back yard, saving much money, time, and emotional investment.
I'm more than certain that there are kidnap cases that were resolved "unoffically" in exactly the way that the pilot for "The Shield" was. But since that happened on a TV show, it could never happen in reality. Right?
That's some industrial-strength arrogance there pal. The taxpayers paid for Enigma to be broken. Should they have published that on the front page of the New York Times? Because that's what you're arguing here. And had that been done, there is a very good chance that the Germans would have won WWII.
brian at January 7, 2009 2:14 PM
Crid:
Wow. Your imagination is vivid.
Actually, IIRC, that came about from an actual case where the offender was trying to get his confession thrown out because it was obtained under duress.
But never mind. You distinguish murder from killing, but without out qualification. You use the word torture as if it has a concrete meaning, which it does not.
You make blanket assertions as if there are no moral tradeoffs to be had, but except in trivial cases, there are always tradeoffs.
What if we were to catch Sheikh Khalid, who is way up the al Qaeda hierarchy. What are we allowed to do to him?
I'm sorry. Make that "were" because we already caught him, thanks to, SFAIK, information obtained by the CIA. Should the US loudly proclaim to anyone who cares to hear it what we managed to learn, and how we managed to learn it?
So, you assertions still continue to beg questions in return.
If you weren't in a spook service, the question doesn't apply.
Of course it applies. Our spook service knows about our capabilities and limitations. So, answer that question, along with the rest:
"Did we need to tell the Russians what we knew about them? Did we need to tell them that some of the things we said we didn't know we actually did?
To wind the clock back a little further, did we need to tell the Japanese or Germans we had broken their codes?"
> "begging the question" as
> a term of art
Right. You used it weirdly.
Just to bring you up to speed, this is an example phrase from the New Oxford American dictionary that came with my computer:
beg the question 1 (of a fact or action) raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question.
NB, it is the very first example.
So, don't blame me if you can't understand perfectly grammatical English using words so completely within their accepted meaning that they nearly perfectly quote the dictionary.
So, the ball remains in your court. What distinguishes murder from killing? What constitutes torture? Are their any circumstances in which torture is justified?
Absent that, you are posing nothing but nullities, which don't even constitute a good rant.
Hey Skipper at January 7, 2009 2:30 PM
Really? If you have a suspect in custody that you know has kidnapped a three-yr old girl, and said girl will starve to death unless the suspect coughs up the location, what are you willing to do to get that information?
And what if you got the wrong guy?
lujlp at January 7, 2009 5:06 PM
What distinguishes murder from killing?
-Murder is by design, or a byproduct of a criminal enterprise. Killing is an accident or self defense
What constitutes torture?
-Depends
Are their any circumstances in which torture is justified?
-Sex
lujlp at January 7, 2009 5:20 PM
"what happens if some government official accidently decides your son is the one they need to torture"
Define accidently? Never going to be a concern here in the US, as I"ll not raise a kid to associate with terrorists. As has been pointed out before, you have to do something (associate with known terrorists, perhaps?) to be a target of any intel gathering. And you must go far, far past that to be of "special interest" intel-wise.
Should my kid, for some reason, decide to move to the middle east or parts of central/south america, that very real possibility will be discussed with him, don't you worry.
momof3 at January 7, 2009 5:22 PM
And what if you got the wrong guy?
Good question -- but people have to deal with that kind of uncertainty all the time.
But that doesn't let you, or Crid, off the nullity hook.
What if you do not have the wrong guy?
At what level of certainty are you willing to perform what actions to get the desired information?
Hey Skipper at January 7, 2009 5:31 PM
You gentlemen have given a lot of energy to thinking about this, more than I or most others would ever bother to. I shoulda let go much earlier. I think it's notable that you're the guys who so often infuse comments with the aroma of fresh grievance and newly-violated boundaries. (While Marion, Tressider, Purp et al seem to to have let this topic roll away... Isn't that something?) But you guys have apparently spent a lot of your lives dreaming up trip wires where all the sudden there are "no rules", and the most horrible behaviors described by language are permissible... Almost with anticipation.
Good luck out there.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 5:41 PM
You gentlemen have given a lot of energy to thinking about this, more than I or most others would ever bother to.
You have made abundantly clear that you have given this precisely no thought at all.
When pushed, all you could manage was to reiterate your refutation that nature abhors a vacuum.
Hey Skipper at January 7, 2009 8:51 PM
I really feel bad. I meant to give up silly blog pissparties for 2009, but couldn't even last a week. (Other resolutions are holding steadily!)
> you have given this precisely
> no thought at all
Well, it doesn't require much thought.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 11:20 PM
To Crid:
Is there any case were torture might be justified?
[crickets]
Is there any information we have gained we should not make public?
[crickets]
Hey Skipper at January 8, 2009 7:27 AM
No, torture is never justified: As as noted above, military security doesn't apply.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 8, 2009 7:53 AM
You should know better than to assert a negative.
Hypothetical: the FBI acts on information they developed, and catches a hijacking conspirator. Having done so, they realize that will likely trigger some kind of hijacking soon, but they know little else.
Is torture allowed in an attempt to get the details?
What constitutes torture?
military security doesn't apply.
Then please provide the bright dividing line between military security and the others.
After all, the threat in the hypothetical above is not military. Is the FBI or the CIA required to divulge the information it has, and how it got it?
You, and others here, are essentially making the pacifist argument, only in a different outfit.
Unfortunately, it is an amoral failure:
denbeste.nu/essays/pacifism.shtml
Hey Skipper at January 8, 2009 9:56 AM
I might add one other point.
Above you implicitly allowed situations where killing is justified -- while leaving what distinguishes that from murder unmentioned.
In what moral universe does it make sense to say killing is sometime justified, but torture never?
Speaking of begged questions.
Hey Skipper at January 8, 2009 9:58 AM
> leaving what distinguishes
> that from murder unmentioned.
You're a GROWN MAN, right? Do you really need to take the components of morality from thr ground up? What would be the point?
Look, we passed "pathetic" several rounds ago. You're really eager to torture people, or at least pornographically recount torture scenarios. (Spare us the part where you, the put-upon commenter, wearily say "Well, I don't WANT to, but it's a cruel planet and...")
We're THERE, ok? You want people to know that you're into it.
We know.
Crid at January 8, 2009 10:21 AM
Hey Skipper I answed your question, dont I rate a response?
lujlp at January 8, 2009 11:13 AM
Are their any circumstances in which torture is justified?
If, after spending half an hour in line, the idiot in front of me still cannot articulate an order to the coffee barista....
-------------------
The only moral response is that it is never justified. The only realistic response is that it is sometimes necessary. Claiming it is justified is a fiction that allows us to sleep at night.
Conan the Grammarian at January 8, 2009 6:00 PM
lujip:
Murder is by design, or a byproduct of a criminal enterprise. Killing is an accident or self defense
As concise definitions go, serviceable enough for now. Of course, your definition holes Crid below the water line. Well, that is, if he was to do anything other than snark and blanket assertions.
What constitutes torture?
-Depends
On what?
You're a GROWN MAN, right? Do you really need to take the components of morality from thr ground up? What would be the point?
The point would be an attempt to see if you have even a glimmer of one. So far, you do not. Murder is never acceptable, nor is torture. Yet you still have yet to say what price you would have others pay in their place.
Most children learn not to use "never" and "always" by the time they are 10. What happened -- are you single handedly giving lie to the phrase "no child left behind"?
Look, we passed "pathetic" several rounds ago. You're really eager to torture people, or at least pornographically recount torture scenarios.
You haven't even gotten to pathetic -- your entire contribution up to now has been vacuous posturing.
You have Moussaui (the guy the FBI almost got in Minneapolis; the correct spelling almost certainly escaped me). What are you willing to do to him?
Unless you can say something more substantive -- both my hypotheticals gave you chance to defend "never"; equally you have left completely unstated what constitutes torture (it is possible to define it without any scenarios, but that is probably beyond you) -- then don't bother with a reply. You have made this more pointless than discussing logarithms with a dog.
Conan:
The only moral response is that it is never justified. The only realistic response is that it is sometimes necessary.
Distinguish between justified and necessary. How is it that something is both necessary and immoral?
Hey Skipper at January 8, 2009 11:03 PM
Hi Amy,
I can't seem to reply to a specific post. But anyway..
I have been brought up as a "free thinker" no particular religion in my upbringing. My parents however are Chinese and I have lots of influences from different cultures. You may say I'm not black.. I'm yellow. :)
I am also NOT a Scholar of Islam, so I cannot explain why in certain countries people get arrested and executed for apostasy.
I hopefully see everything in perspective.
Sura 4 89:90 referring to apostasy (I think)
Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. Have no unbelieving friends (Christians, Jews, atheist, etc):
Sura (4:89) - "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
Source: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Violence-Quran-2.htm
Compare it with this translation:
[4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.
Source: http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm
I agree with the last one.
We forget that this surah was revealed in time of war. And we the terrorists use this to justify their actions.
Most of us forget that the Quran is a source of guidance and submission to the one God.
For me there is only one God. And in my opinion (If you believe in God) that is the same one.
We can have a lot of discussion about that.. but in the end it is all about choices.
And the choices we make, we someday have to answer them to God why we made those choices.
It is YOU who makes a choice but only God knows if that was the right one.
I really don't get it why we cannot live in peace. Islam teaches also not to kill. If I kill someone, I have to bare that persons sins.
My own sins are more than enough to bare. Know what I mean?
The reason why I converted are both reasons. I did not have a religion. But I do believe something bigger is out there than us.
I met my wife who is a Muslim and I did not have any objections converting to Islam. (Although it was / is in a very very bad daylight at the moment) (Which religion has not been) anyway one of my personal reasons is to show people around me, friends, family that I am still the same / better person because of Islam and not violent as most of the people see it now.
I will raise my children in the way of Islam but they WILL have a choice when they are ready to choose. And I pray to God that they will stay in my religion. (Basically following my way of life)
Cheers,
Che
Che at January 8, 2009 11:24 PM
How is it that something is both necessary and immoral?
In the words of Master Po: "Where is the evil? In the rat who steals the grain? Or in the cat who kills the rat?"
Conan the Grammarian at January 9, 2009 9:01 AM
Leave a comment