CIA Has Become “One Hell of a Killing Machine”

[rambone]

These discussions are frustrating. The argument is clearly in the premeses, not the conclusions, but the initiators of these arguments always resist defining their premeses. This allows them to shift their argument around on the surface, often with an air of their superior righteousness in their adherence to whatever principles they are adhering to, without ever really defining those principles except by implication in the negative.

Its a bit frustrating for me too. I would like to know where the CIA gets off believing that the constitution does not constrain their activities.

Where does the constitution stop restricting the U.S. Government? Overseas? In regards to non-citizens? When a loosely-defined "Global War of Terror" is taking place? When the target is labeled an enemy combatant?

These aren't easy questions with simple answers, I admit. But lets try to talk through some premises and draw a conclusion.

P1. The U.S. constitution is not the source of human rights.
P2. Maintaining U.S. citizenship is not the source of human rights.
P3. Living on U.S. soil is not the source of human rights.
P4. Suspicion of a crime does not invalidate human rights.
P5. The U.S. government has a responsibility to observe human rights.
P6. It is within the purview of the U.S. government to seek justice.
P7. The initiation of force is always wrong.

C1: The U.S. government has a responsibility to apprehend suspects and place them on trial. Force should only be used if the suspect resists lawful apprehension.

P8. Suspect is hiding in a foreign country.
P9. The U.S. government has the duty to respect the sovereignty of other countries.
P10. Violating another country's sovereignty is in and of itself wrong.

C2: The U.S. government should either obtain permission to operate within the sovereign country, or get the country to act as a proxy of the U.S.

Are ya with me so far? Now the fun part.

P11. Global War on Terror.

C3. The U.S. government may operate in countries without permission, kill nonviolent suspects (in their homes) without trial, torture people for information, and hold suspects indefinitely without a trial. Additionally, U.S. civilian agencies may become paramilitary "killing machines." As far as anyone can tell, all semblances of the constitution are irrelevant. And that's ignoring what is happening domestically.


My malfunction lies in the jump from P11. to C3.

The real truth of Rambone and several other is they don't recognize the legitimacy of ANYTHING the U.S. does.

I think trials are quite legitimate.

 

[jeremy]

You do realize that all Your rants against the CIA are pretty meaningless...

If you really want the CIA to Disappear from the Anus of the Federal Government, then you need to find Politicians that will repeal the National Security Act of 1947...

 

[phylodog]

Gosh. If only those pesky terrorists would adhere to our civilized plan. Maybe the list they were given didn't have P7 on it?

Where does flying highjacked aircraft into buildings on foreign soil fall on your list? Did the people on the airplanes on Sep 11th sign a waiver giving up their rights before they were vaporized? The people in the buildings also? Is this a big coverup? Is the government withholding those signed waivers from us?

 

[rambone]

You do realize that all Your rants against the CIA are pretty meaningless...

If you really want the CIA to Disappear from the Anus of the Federal Government, then you need to find Politicians that will repeal the National Security Act of 1947...

I can think of one presidential candidate who would like to see that happen.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEBQ-rKb5c[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM[/ame]

 

[jeremy]

I can think of one presidential candidate who would like to see that happen.

Really?!

He had 30 Years on the Hill to do it, what makes you think he can in the 4 Years as POTUS?!

 

[steveh_131]

Really?!

He had 30 Years on the Hill to do it, what makes you think he can in the 4 Years as POTUS?!

Nobody thinks he will. I just like the way he thinks.

Note: I'm not convinced that the CIA should be abolished. I'd like to hear more discussion on the subject, but I always considered it to be a valid part of national defense. Its abuses are a different subject.

 

[rambone]

Gosh. If only those pesky terrorists would adhere to our civilized plan. Maybe the list they were given didn't have P7 on it?

Where does flying highjacked aircraft into buildings on foreign soil fall on your list? Did the people on the airplanes on Sep 11th sign a waiver giving up their rights before they were vaporized? The people in the buildings also? Is this a big coverup? Is the government withholding those signed waivers from us?

My favorite strawman: Criminals don't follow a constitution so why should the government? Well played sir!

It doesn't matter what plan the criminal hijackers adhere to. If the passengers on the 9/11 planes were not disarmed by the Federal gun control laws, then would have stood a chance. I'm here to discuss our government following its own constitution.

Self-defense is not initiation of force. If you are tasked with apprehending a murder suspect (guilty or innocent), it not justified to simply bust down their door and put a bullet in their head. If they resist a lawful arrest, then absolutely defend yourself. But the avoidable, extra-judicial murder of suspects who don't even resist, is wrong, and incompatible with the constitution. That's how gangsters and terrorists deal out justice.

 

[phylodog]

Well I'll most definitely agree with you there. If there had been one armed American on each of those planes that day would have likely ended much differently, and should have.

How many Americans should die trying to apprehend these terrorists in hopes that they'll go peacefully? I'm guessing, based on your thread history here, that you aren't prepared to volunteer for that duty. At least our guys would die righteously, correct? Screw that.

I expect the Government to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of US citizens on US soil. I do believe that if we were to call home every US citizen currently engaged in the war on terror and put them to work protecting our borders and sniffing out the terrorists already among us, we would be better off. Unfortunately I don't get to make that call. So if we are going to have assets in the middle east tasked with preventing further violence against our nation, I want them operating with as few restrictions as possible. Afghanistan ain't Iowa, the rules here aren't the rules there. I expect our team to play to win and sitting on your hands isn't going to get the job done. Insurgents aren't citizens, they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And we're not killing civilians in job-lots like we ended up doing in WWII because all we had was Area Bombing (even Precision Bombing was Area Bombing). Instead of flattening a village to kill a terrorist target, we can use a Hellfire missile to take out a townhouse. Do "innocents" get killed? Yep. Their tough luck to be in a war zone and usually their tough luck to be supporting the terrorists. And if the civilians lived in a country where they had a tradition of personal freedom and the right to keep and bear arms, maybe they wouldn't have let themselves be put in the position where they are now. If lives are going to be lost, innocent or not, I much prefer they happen to someone else rather than to us here.

By the way, the CIA's predecessor, the OSS was tasked with gathering intelligence in enemy territory and carrying out assassinations of enemy personnel behind enemy lines. The CIA maintains that tradition today; they're just using modern means to do so - partially because various Democratic Administrations and Democrat-controlled Congresses have repeatedly gutted the human intelligence assets of the CIA which would allow us to get close enough to kill terrorists one-on-one, thus reducing even further the "innocents" who would otherwise be killed.

Oh, and if you want some more anxiety in your life, the Indiana Guard has UAVs down at CP Atterbury now. I know the Operations Officer (used to be one of my Crew Chiefs). Want me to have him get one flown over your house?

 

[Destro]

It doesn't matter what plan the criminal hijackers adhere to. If the passengers on the 9/11 planes were not disarmed by the Federal gun control laws, then would have stood a chance..

I am willing to bet, that if some hijackers tried to take over a plane with boxcutters today, the outcome would be far different, no firearms needed

 

[jeremy]

Note: I'm not convinced that the CIA should be abolished. I'd like to hear more discussion on the subject, but I always considered it to be a valid part of national defense. Its abuses are a different subject.

I am not only for disbanding the CIA, but for also putting several of their Members (Official and Unofficial) before the Justice System...

 

[npi350]

Their main assassination group, the Special Activities Division, is composed of men from Seal Team 6 and Delta Force. The CIA is basically military intelligence on steroids.

 

[rambone]

I am not only for disbanding the CIA, but for also putting several of their Members (Official and Unofficial) before the Justice System...

When did you start supporting total anarchy?

 

[jeremy]

When did you start supporting total anarchy?

LOL!

Not Anarchy. I do truly believe in a Smaller Federal Government though...

 

[rambone]

LOL!

Not Anarchy. I do truly believe in a Smaller Federal Government though...

You should move to Somalia if you want that!

 

[jeremy]

You should move to Somalia if you want that!

Been there already, that is how I know I do not want to try Anarchy...

 

[rambone]

Been there already, that is how I know I do not want to try Anarchy...

Agreed! I do not support anarchy.

(Did everybody finally catch me saying that??)

 

[CarmelHP]

Agreed! I do not support anarchy.

(Did everybody finally catch me saying that??)

But what does that mean when, by all evidence, you believe that government has absolutely no legitimate function. War, not road building, is one of the few genuinely legitimate functions of a national government.

 

[steveh_131]

But what does that mean when, by all evidence, you believe that government has absolutely no legitimate function. War, not road building, is one of the few genuinely legitimate functions of a national government.

The road building thing was a joke.

He points out areas where the government oversteps its bounds. He may think that it happens more often than you think it does. This is not evidence that he supports anarchy.

I honestly wouldn't have expected such an irrational argument from you.

 

[CarmelHP]

The road building thing was a joke.

He points out areas where the government oversteps its bounds. He may think that it happens more often than you think it does. This is not evidence that he supports anarchy.

I honestly wouldn't have expected such an irrational argument from you.

Can't the little boy speak for himself? If one denies all functions of government to be legitimate, then it is quite reasonable to believe that one believes that all government functions should cease, thus anarchy. Let's hear what he thinks are legitimate functions. It should be a short list.