CIA Blogger Fired for Criticizing Torture Policy

PetManimal writes "A contract software developer for the CIA who had a blog on the CIA intranet was fired after criticizing torture in an entry. The title of the post: something along the lines of 'Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong.' The Washington Post reports Christine Axsmith is not the only CIA blogger -- the spy agency uses blogs to let agents and other workers share information and ideas." From the article: "Hundreds of blog posts appear on Intelink. The CIA says blogs and other electronic tools are used by people working on the same issue to exchange information and ideas. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on Axsmith's case but said the policy on blogs is that 'postings should relate directly to the official business of the author and readers of the site, and that managers should be informed of online projects that use government resources. CIA expects contractors to do the work they are paid to do.'"

Comments

Two things:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

1) Blog derives from 'weblog.' She's an ilogger (intranet), not a blogger :-)

2) For those wondering - waterboarding

The modern practice of waterboarding involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners. Waterboarding may be used by captors who wish to impose anguish without leaving marks on their victims as evidence.

Charming thing for a civilized country to be practicing & defending.

Re:Two things:

[rainman_bc]

Charming thing for a civilized country to be practicing & defending.

Who claimed the US was a civilized country??? That's pretty subjective, and the perception about the US from within her walls are a lot different than the perception outside her walls.

Re:Two things:

[joe 155]

as far as I know this is often called the Spanish water torture, I've heard that it is one of the worst things that you can do to someone because it cause the cloth to go into the throat and when it is removed it causes imense pain, not only that but you also get the feeling of drowning and suffocation. I wonder how (if this happened... I can't say either way) anyone in the CIA can claim to be civilised people at all. I would expect this behavious from the worst punishment in the Middle-Ages, not in a Western "Liberal" "democracy"

Re:Two things:

[JDAustin]

Charming thing for a civilized country to be practicing & defending.

I guess we should just say please and thank you instead to get the info we need?

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that it is one of the worst things that you can do to someone

Is it worse than burning alive and suffocating in your office building just because you had the audacity to go to work that day?

No?

Shut the fuck up, then.

Re:Two things:

[dlrow olleh]

Yeah that's right, US is *not* a civilized country. It's the country where the faggots of the world live. Fuck you and I say complete bullshit ...

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. Don't let his talk give comfort to the terrorists!

Re:Two things:

[Volante3192]

I took it as sarcasm, myself. I'm in those walls and I couldn't say this is a civilized country without laughing or giving it a very snide tone.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that information gained from torture is valid? Why?

Re:Two things:

[ArmyOfFun]

I guess we should just say please and thank you instead to get the info we need?

I guess if we torture someone (maybe to death) who actually doesn't have any info we need and/or isn't actually an enemy we just say "oops"?

Re:Two things:

[JDevers]

I sure hope the local police don't take to these new techniques, otherwise anyone in your neighborhood is suspected of burglary they just might round everyone up and waterboard them all to see who knows something. After all, I guess the police just say please and thank you to people now.

There is a long divide between courtesy and torture. There are many ways to get someone to confess to their crimes or knowledge without torture. It is against everything we stand for to torture someone, even if it meant that a terrorist suspect would go free. After all, not all murderers are convicted because of confession. I figure under your system of goverment they probably would.

Re:Two things:

[truthsearch]

Right, because we've NEVER gotten information by any other means. Spying never works. Bribery never works. Negotiation never works.

In fact, name a single piece of valuable correct information the US has ever gotten by means of torture. Didn't we supposedly overthrow Saddam because he was a vicious dictator who tortured his own people (that's the line these days)? Then how is the US government any different if they torture people?

Re:Two things:

[joe 155]

"Is it worse than burning alive and suffocating in your office building just because you had the audacity to go to work that day?"

No it isn't, although I never said it was. I hope that this is just a troll and that you don't honestly think that it can ever be ok to do this to someone who *might* have done something wrong. I'm for harsh punishment for crimes as much as the next guy, especially murder, but I would only ever accept that any punishment could be ok if it had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury of their peers - without that they'd as good be dragging people off the street and beating the living hell out of them; it's about as wrong.

Further if you really care about people who have been killed by terrorists then you wouldn't let their names be discraced by these actions. Not only that but do you really think you could trust the information? I'd tell you I was Bin Laden to stop something like this, but I'm not, I know nothing of interest to anyone about terrorism (and if I did I'd report it myself).

Finally if someone took me away from my family for years and tortured me for crimes I have not committed, nor been tried for, I'd be pissed off - really pissed off. I'm a Christian and would try to forgive even the people who did that (even if I couldn't there's "thou shalt not kill")... but what if someone thought that maybe getting even could be ok in their ethics? more terrorism, and you can bet your arse that more people would want to get even than those who would forgive it.

Re:Two things:

[RobotRunAmok]

I'm in those walls and I couldn't say this is a civilized country without laughing or giving it a very snide tone.

All you're really telling us is that you have not travelled much. Before you can tell whether your glass is half full or half empty you need to know the size of your glass, and, no, you can't find that out by looking something up in "wikipedia."

Re:Two things:

[buswolley]

Look, from a social psychology perspective, this is just an example how is being punished for voicing opposition to the party-line. The CIA is shocked by this opposing voice, since they have not heard within-group opposition lately. This is because they have a culture of cohesive groupthink.

Re:Two things:

[jackbird]

I suggest you read up on Ali Soufan's work in investigating the Cole bombing and the networks that make up Al-Quaeda. As the author of a recent article on Soufan related in an interview:

Q: In your article, you describe Soufan's interrogation techniques. He engaged the suspects; he won their respect; he debated them on theological issues. In interrogations he carried out just after 9/11, these techniques worked very well; he got crucial information about the hijackers and their connections. His methods were very different from the "extreme measures" that we've been hearing about--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation--and that are being justified on the grounds that they're the only way to get this kind of information. Have we been given a false choice between abusing prisoners or letting something terrible happen?

A: Ali Soufan has shown that intelligent and careful interrogation can achieve real results. And it helps immensely, obviously, to have the language and cultural skills that he does. There are very few people in the American intelligence community that have his set of talents. The U.S. is known to have used these sorts of tactics. You mention the C.I.A.'s impulse has been to deliver Al Qaeda suspects to foreign intelligence agencies that could torture them and extract information the C.I.A. thought it couldn't otherwise obtain. However, what this abuse has yielded from the top Al Qaeda lieutenants is questionable. And I think that's because it's untrustworthy information obtained under torture.

Q: So the problem with torture isn't just that it's torture-- that it compromises America ethically, morally--but that torture doesn't always work.

A: It doesn't work. It often is misleading, as in the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, an Al Qaeda lieutenant who was tortured into saying that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction. That was the information that the U.S. was trying to get out of him, and he gave it to the interrogators under torture, and that became part of the rationale for the U.S. going to war with Iraq--a disastrous consequence of choosing an unethical approach to gaining information.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you whom believe torture, spying, bombing terrorist hide-outs, and so on are unnecessary are neurotic. You have a severe break with reality.

Please, check yourself into a mental health facility. We will release you when a) We reach the Utopia you seem to think we are already in, b) blow ourselves to kingdom come.

I would rather risk (b) than sit back and take it in the ass like you.

The founders of this country were happier with risking (b) than taking it in the ass as well.

Please, check into that facility or move to the European "We Love it in the Ass" Union.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I knew this one as a kid, my little brother would have been in trouble.

No blood, no pain, no foul. Mental anguish? pleh. "You hurt my inner self, but I still want to cut off your head."

ha

Re:Two things:

[Ender Ryan]

You deserve to die a painful death.

Re:Two things:

[ArmyOfFun]

Our upper limit on torture is burning someone alive? That's where we're going to draw the line now?

Holy shit.

Re:Two things:

[twaitsfan]

Oh, please; don't play semantics. Being 'civilized' is not an absolute. Instead we should look at it as the degree of civilization. I would say that while the US is not at the edge closest to 'Civilized', there are many (most) more countries closer to 'Barbaric' than the US. Don't indict an entire country's populace because of it's administration that most of the country disagrees with.

Re:Two things:

[Arker]

Eh? Think you've got that about backwards. And yes, I've travelled a fair bit.

Re:Two things:

[Arker]

Actually, that's part of it, but don't forget the thorough purge there recently. They probably thought that, after firing the bulk of their senior analysts a couple years ago and radically politicising the office, the point had been made. Obviously this girl didn't get the memo somehow...

Re:Two things:

[8ball629]

Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice by U.S. personnel (including CIA officials) pending the release of a revised manual on interrogation procedures.

Although I don't have much to say about this quote, other than its good to know that this horrible practice is being banned; I can not argue with the fact that she should have been doing the job they paid her to do and not be expressing her opinion on a system that was developed for business use only. A question I have is, can contractors even be "fired" or does the employer just have to stop giving them work to do?

Re:Two things:

[Burlap]

maybe my dictionary is a little dusty.... but last i checked democracy is directly appointed by the people, so you ARE responcible for the actions of your administration.... unless you became a monarchy or a dictatorship while i was in the bathroom. If you really dont like what they are doing, quit posting on /. and go out there and do something about it... or else how is anyone else to know that you are against what they are doing?

Re:Two things:

[dubbreak]

This is because they have a culture of cohesive groupthink.

Groupthink is a dangerous thing. It is good to have people within an organization that think differently so you have a balance. The challenger disaster was at least partially due to groupthink. When people believe it is better to conform than pose an alternative point of view then you often end up with poorly made decisions.

A quick google gave me an article that touches on how groupthink affected the challenger.

Re:Two things:

[ndansmith]

When John McCain was being held in VietCong POW camps he was frequently tortured. When asked for the names of members of his flight squadron, John McCain gave five names: The offensive line of his favorite NFL team. No wonder he is also against torture for the reason that it produces faulty intel.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

To be an ally you must have something to trade, when a true believer (of nearly any cause) is detained and questioned quid pro quo doesn't always work. In fact, if the believer is indoctrinated in the concept of self-sacrificing suicide enough, even the threat of death is insignificant (they plan on it as part of their belief) so torture is the only thing left as a tool.

Say what you will, I'll probably be labled a tool (read: troll) but it's the way most military doctrine teaches so an important perspective to at least acknowledge as ever-present. Sure, It'd be nice if nobody wanted to kill anybody else, but torture has sure worked for organized crime for centuries. This band of international criminals is no more than a global mafia trying to exact protection from every nation they can, the only price: your freedom.

We need to heed the signs, or the torture will reach our doorstep either by the secret police, or raving lunatics. Torture as the Geneva convention defines it is all well and good, but if we follow the geneva convention, there's a little clause regarding the definition of a person accorded Geneva Convention rights that goes:

Third Geneva Convention:
4.1.2: ...that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...that of carrying arms openly...that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Which is a double edged sword. Since as soon as terror tactics are used against terrorists, our military is no longer technically accorded any convention rights either. But it also guarantees no rights to transnational mass murderers.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

It [torture]is against everything we stand for

Maybe you haven't been living on the same planet as I have for the past five years. America invaded a nation on false pretenses, overthrew its government and started a massive civil war. How exactly does torture not fit into that sort of behavior?

Re:Two things:

[infaustus]

Wrong entry.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ok, if they system was designed for work, she should have been notified earlier when posting about other misculanious junk... it kinda sickens me that the US tortures people, wich is evident from the actions and statements comming out.

Sure, it's not the right forum, but it shouln't be a change in the manual, the person who allowed it in the first place should be on trial, awaiting a possible life in prison. Personally I'd fucking lock up everyone who's ever used torture in an interigation, and if someone had a gun at my head ordering me to torture a guy, sorry sir, I can't do that.

I find it amazing I'm almost alone in my outrage.

Re:Two things:

[Mister Whirly]

Technically the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. If we were a direct democracy, there would be less limits on governmental power and majority would rule...

Re:Two things:

[lbrandy]

but last i checked democracy is directly appointed by the people, so you ARE responcible for the actions of your administration.... unless you became a monarchy or a dictatorship while i was in the bathroom.

This is one of the most all-time bizarre concepts in human existence. That somehow populations in democratic countries are more "guilty" for the crimes of their government than other opressed peoples. Like, American civilians are somehow legit targets because we elected our leaders, therefore anything they do is our fault.

Last time I checked, I didn't get a slip in the mail asking if I approved of any particular policy. That wasn't really on the ballot. I had two choices... a rich dumb idiot from a boring white family in Texas that has gotten everything he has ever wanted... or a rich boring idiot from a boring white family in the Northeast that has gotten everything he has ever wanted. Either of them were going to do shit that I don't like... it's not my fucking fault.

Re:Two things:

[Thorsten Timberlake]

"There are many ways to get someone to confess to their crimes or knowledge without torture."

And many ways to torture someone into confessing someone elses crimes. Forcing people to talk does not guarantee any level of truth, which is why, aside from those pesky human rights, torture really shouldn't even be considered by anyone civilized.

Re:Two things:

[Bookswinters]

Waterboarding has been controversial for some time. (From New York Times 2004)
http://www.president-bush.com/torture-waterboardin g.html

The Government didn't do anything about it until the UN specifically asked them to stop.
http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1851.ht m

Now, according to Wikipedia, "Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice by U.S. personnel (including CIA officials) pending the release of a revised manual on interrogation procedures." It really upsets me that the Administration is willing to torture its prisoners if the UN turns a blind eye.

Re:Two things:

[toetagger1]

That's the point: They don't torture "THEIR" people, but any one else is fair game...
Obsiously, torturing others makes this country much more superior than those who torture their own...

Re:Two things:

[Instine]

I can not argue with the fact that she should have been doing the job they paid her to do and not be expressing her opinion on a system that was developed for business use only

And the Nazi prison guards should have kept shtum, and busied themselves with what they were being paid to do as well? No, I think she deserves a medal! And so does anyone else who is willing to risk their job (or more)to stand up for what is clearly a barbaric and strategically idiotic practise. May she live a long, healthy and wealthy life, knowing SHE'S done the right thing. And may those who condone this madness see the error of their ways, before the US's name is irreparably damaged for generations.

I remember how not too long ago (80s - early 90s) the world did look up to the US. Or at the very least respect its achievements. Soon, it won't matter what 'great' achievements the US manages to succeed in. The rest of the world will sneer at them all, in the same manner that a cheat who wins is despised by all who see their foul. Even by those on the same team.

Re:Two things:

[Instine]

Your not alone. You are far from alone.

Re:Two things:

[Biff Stu]

I agree, groupthink is a dangerous thing. I'll bet all of your co-workers argee with you too. Let's all stomp out groupthink!

Re:Two things:

[sfjoe]

It is against everything we stand for to torture someone...

It used to be. But Republicans are in charge now. Now, it is only against what 49% of the population stands for.

Re:Two things:

[budgenator]

Oh yes and the UI of photoshop is so much better than Gimp too bad it only runs on Evil(tm) MS operating systems as I would use it to plot today's atmospheric CO2 levels, they must be temporarily down today because it's only 85 instead of 90.
I think we all know about group-think arround here, I guess an agency that uses augmented interigation techniques, should have a rather harsh mderation system.

Re:Two things:

[AppyPappy]

It's practiced in the UK as well. For example:

Caretaker Argus Filch: A pity they let the old punishment die... Was a time detention found you hanging by your thumbs in the dungeons... God, I miss the screaming.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

I also agree wholeheartedly.

Re:Two things:

[demachina]

"The CIA is shocked by this opposing voice, since they have not heard within-group opposition lately."

Actually the CIA has historically been populated by a large number of well educated independent thinkers. People currently and formerly at the CIA have been mounting some of the most vocal opposition to the lies and outrageous excesses of the DOD and the White House. Something very hard to do when you have a security clearance hanging over your head that is designed to prevent you from getting truth out. In spite of that people in the CIA have been active leakers as they try to do just that. I get the impression Tenent was about the only person at the CIA who believed, or was willing to lie, that Saddam had WMD's. CIA had/has rogue elements in its operations areas who were/are really scary people but the analysts are a great national resource being destroyed by the Republicans. They strive hard to give correct answers with the available information, while the Bush administration wants the answers they want to hear.

The problem at the CIA is the same problem you have everywhere else in the Bush executive branch, ... DOD, State, Homeland security etc. Its the political appointees at the top who are incompetent, pushing torture, propagating false information and propaganda to support political objectives of the Bush administration. Porter Goss was sent in to the CIA specifically to break some heads, stop the leaks coming out of the CIA which was embarrassing the Bush administration. It was his job to force the people at the CIA in to the Bush party line or fire them. He however didn't submit to his new master Negroponte, Director of Intelligence, so he was pushed out to and they have a good robot to replace him in Hayden. I wager Hayden will do whatever his master tell him to do and one of his masters is the DOD further destroying CIA's independence. I could be wrong but I suspect one of the most dangerous people in America today is Negroponte. He is a sinister actor, who ran the illegal wars in Central America under the Reagan administration. He has no reservations about defying Congress or breaking the law. He is also a Yale graduate, went there with George W's unclue. Yale turns out more dangerous elitists than any institution around included George W and Dick Cheney though Cheney flunked out.

Re:Two things:

[bky1701]

Well, I'm with Oz (I'm in the US but everyone I know is in Oz...); I suck.

Re:Two things:

[seriesrover]

Depends on who you ask - just because the vocal minority speak the loudest doesnt mean most people dont like the US or that the its different from the varying views from with the US. By the way, I'm British.

Re:Two things:

[thomas.craig]

The horrible irony is that torture really doesn't work all that well. The information extracted via torture is notoriously unreliable. The victim ends up telling the torturer what he/she thinks the torturer wants to hear, rather than the truth - often exagerating, falsely implicating others, etc.

Re:Two things:

[budgenator]

It's not even close to the worst thing, we even do it to ourselves for training. A while back I got burned and having my skin peeled like a banana was pretty intense, I'd still rather go through that than being hung, drawn and quartered, that's where your

1. Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution.
2. Hanged[1] by the neck, but removed before death (hanged).
3. Disembowelled, and the genitalia and entrails burned before the victim's eyes.
4. Beheaded and the body divided into four parts (quartered).Wikipedia

Now that's intense but seriously even being racked or strappadoed would be a lot worse that being waterboarded.

As an aside most of the torture techniques that Dracula learned, he learned at the hands of the Islamic Ottomans that held him hostage durring his youth.

Re:Two things:

[pete6677]

That's the perfect kind of torture: scares the crap out of the victim without leaving any lasting injuries. Spare me the psychobabble about mental anguish. These guys were killing Americans. If we can waterboard them for some information that saves lives, its well worth it. Amnesty International can suck it, since they have no practical solutions anyway.

Re:Two things:

[budgenator]

I got the impression that BAE Systems was the contractor and Christine Axsmith worked for them not the CIA proper; and probably accessing document she had little or no "Need to Know" and was advertising the fact on the government's secret network.

Re:Two things:

[dbIII]

Waterboarding can also be used to make your country look incredibly stupid.

Allies:"OK we believed you. Now can you finally tell us what evidence do you have that Saddam is linked to Bin Laden?"

Uncontrolled Spooks:"We only have one thing - we drowned this guy until he said so to make us stop. No, you can't talk to him."

I'll give you one guess as to how much US intelligence in trusted overseas now.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

>No wonder he is also against torture for the reason that it produces faulty intel. Whoa, there. Who said anything about getting information. Regards, CIA

Re:Two things:

[nathanh]

Oh, please; don't play semantics. Being 'civilized' is not an absolute. Instead we should look at it as the degree of civilization. I would say that while the US is not at the edge closest to 'Civilized', there are many (most) more countries closer to 'Barbaric' than the US. Don't indict an entire country's populace because of it's administration that most of the country disagrees with.

The grandparent was talking about perception within the walls versus perception outside the walls. In that respect he is entirely correct. The perception from outside the wall is that the USA is barbaric. That perception didn't begin with the war on Afghanistan (remember; that was the country you dicks bombed before invading Iraq on false pretences). The slow decline of the US has been going on since the 50s.

After WWII the USA were the heroes. The entire world loved you guys. Since then you've done everything possible to make the rest of the world hate you and right now - considering torture, illegal detainment, unjustified wars, ignoring the United Nations, wiretaps on your own citizens, destruction of civil liberties - you're honestly looking not much better than one of those tinpot dictatorships in South Africa.

If you disagree with your current adminstration then do the honorable thing: rise up, overthrow them, and hold them accountable for their crimes. But don't you dare get all holier than thou while allowing the current administration to get away (literally) with murder.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to get technical about it, no country having a government can possibly be civilized. The essence of and first prerequisite of any government is the existence of a unique "right" to employ coercion as a means to an end, which is immoral and unjust by human nature.

Until that "right" is completely and permanently abolished -- meaning that government is completely and permanently abolished -- there is no such thing as a civilized society. Under government, there will always be inequality of rights, by the definition of government (the organization posessing that unique "right" to employ coercion over a given territory). If that inequality didn't exist, government could not exist. That is the only universal, unambiguous way to define government.

The sad reason why people living under the rule of government believe they are living in a "civilized" society is that they have never known any different, and never will for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the bigger the government ruling over the people, they more effort government can put into conditioning the people to believe in government as "the solution".

Re:Two things:

[Das Modell]

Since then you've done everything possible to make the rest of the world hate you and right now - considering torture, illegal detainment, unjustified wars, ignoring the United Nations, wiretaps on your own citizens, destruction of civil liberties - you're honestly looking not much better than one of those tinpot dictatorships in South Africa.

That's what happens when you're practising counter-terrorism. Maybe you should wonder why these measures are taken (*cough* Islamic terrorism *cough*) instead of assuming that they simply appeared from thin air for no apparent reason.

Oh, and why should anyone care what the UN thinks? It's the most useless organization ever invented.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bullshit. I'm not going to pull any punches, you're a fucking idiot and probably just gay for fucking arab men in the ass.

Torture has been disproven for centuries. Even in the fucking middle ages people pointed out that people will tell you whatever they think will get you to stop hurting them, and the vast majority of it is simply bullshit. Remember the days of those randomly changing alerts? Those were serious threats, dammit, we had credible evidence that they were going to bomb the easter bunny! But hey, you have those sick fucks out there who enjoy their jobs and like raping arab men in the ass, and they gotta get a job doing something right?

Of course, getting the witch trials all over again is par for the course when we're led by a band of freaks who thinks some magic fairy talks to them and tells them its ok to fuck arabs in the ass and leave people millions of dollars in debt when their horribly crippled infant dies days after being born but it's not ok to abort unviable fetuses or have an American man marry another American man. The utter hypocrisy of the Republicans has revealed their rotten core of lies and filth. If God was personally talking to them, the only thing He would be doing is begging them to quit making asses of themselves and tarnishing His religion.

Re:Two things:

[nathanh]

Oh, and why should anyone care what the UN thinks? It's the most useless organization ever invented.

You sound like you get your "eduction" from talkback radio.

For you to label the World Health Organisation, World Food Programme, UNICEF and UNESCO as "useless organisations" simply reinforces what I'm saying. The USA is out of touch with the rest of the world. You have no idea of the perception of the USA (or the UN for that matter) outside of your walls.

Re:Two things:

[8ball629]

Okay, first of all I didn't say she did something wrong as far as beliefs - yes she did the right thing but they have the right to discontinue her being employed. I'm not saying she should be thrown in jail for the rest of her life, I'm just agreeing that the CIA had good reason to do what they did.

Secondly, I agree - the US has taken a turn for the worse but starting this November, the American people will be doing something about the previous 6 years.

Re:Two things:

[Penguinoflight]

Waterboarding, as sick as it may be still seems like a reasonable practice given the cases that the CIA deals with.

I think the question we should ask the ilogger is if torture is truely wrong. Consider the following situation: someone kidnaps your wife (a form of torture), and holds her randsom. You could pertend that paying the randsom would work, but that's just stupid. If you found this person you are basically left with torture if you want to get your wife back. Bringing law enforcement into the situation is counter-productive, because if the kidnapper reveals the location of his hostage, he has just verified that he is a kidnapper which will not be good for his situation.

I'm sure I wouldn't like to be a victim of waterboarding, but it's not going to leave injuries behind or cause problems over an extended period of time. I've suffered worse injuries from bus drivers and their consistant attempts to run by bicycle off the road.

Re:Two things:

[maxpublic]

The perception from outside the wall is that the USA is barbaric.

As someone who's actually traveled outside the country (and is in Korea as I post this), I call bullshit. Views of the U.S. vary from place to place, just as the views on anything else do. And no country is in any way united behind any one extremist position (e.g., "the U.S. is barbaric").

The slow decline of the US has been going on since the 50s.

The slow decline in what? Whether or not a bunch of has-been European powers approve of how we do things? Cry me a fucking river. I'm far more interested in what up-and-coming powers think of us - y'know, the people who'll actually matter during the 21st century. Like Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. About the only European nation worth listening to these days is Germany.

Ironic, in an Alanis Morrisette sort of way.

Since then you've done everything possible to make the rest of the world hate you

If by "rest of the world" you mean "Europeans pining after their former place in the sun", perhaps you're right. If you mean certain Islamic countries in the Middle East, I can't really get worked up about that, either. But neither of these regions are remotely close to comprising "the rest of the world".

ignoring the United Nations

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I'm not interested in anything remotely close to a one-world government, nor in having foreign nations dictate the affairs of my country. I'm quite fortunate to live in a country that can say "fuck you" to the UN and make it stick.

you're honestly looking not much better than one of those tinpot dictatorships in South Africa.

What an ignoramus. Why don't you haul your pasty, fat ass off to one of those "tinpot dictatorships", live a few months there, and then get back to us how how closely the U.S. compares to it. Assuming you get back alive at all, of course.

The only thing this statement tells us is just how bloody ignorant you are when it comes to the rest of the world.

But don't you dare get all holier than thou while allowing the current administration to get away (literally) with murder.

We'll dare anything we like, thanks. Not much you can do about it other than whine here on Slashdot. If you're expecting some outpouring of "American Guilt" you can forget it - most of us have had enough of that, and we're done now.

Max

Re:Two things:

[Brandybuck]

The closer to the fringe one is, the louder the cries of anguish.

During the Clinton era, a few fringoids to the far right kept predicting dire events. But they didn't happen. We got throught it just fine. We'll get through the Bush years just fine as well. Despite claims that we have lost our civil rights, our freedoms of speech and press are fully intact.

I graduated from university in the middle of the Reagan years. My commencement speaker was a famous 60's radical. He told us (in a ninety minute speech that put most people to sleep), that we would all die because of Reagan. Literally. Aids, racism, the draft, pollution, nuclear war, poverty, etc, etc. Guess what? The world didn't end!

Re:Two things:

[prurientknave]

HOW THE FUCK IS S.KOREA OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES?

It's at most a puppet govt of the U.S. and at the least a giant US military base. Going to various nations that are US military bases != leaving the united states. You are a moron.

Re:Two things:

[dcam]

Waterboarding, as sick as it may be still seems like a reasonable practice given the cases that the CIA deals with.

I think the question we should ask the ilogger is if torture is truely wrong...

I (as a christian) find it hard to understand how someone can reconcile being a christian with asking this question. How can you consider that torture is justified.

Regardless, just considering physical damage is a pretty shallow way to look at torture. You are likely to do psychological damage.

I've read about waterboarding. I read about it before it became popular, in the account of a prisoner in the Korean war. There was no doubt in his mind that this was torture. I've read comments by those who survived through being captured by the japanese during WWII. They experienced, among other things, fake executions. Their comment on this was that they would have preferred a beating (resulting in physical damage) to a mock execution (resuting in no physical damage).

Either change your sig or change your behaviour.

Re:Two things:

[smettler]

As someone who's actually traveled outside the country (and is in Korea as I post this), I call bullshit. Views of the U.S. vary from place to place, just as the views on anything else do. And no country is in any way united behind any one extremist position (e.g., "the U.S. is barbaric").

of course korean views might be _slightly_ biased considering the massive economic and military support by the us gov.

The slow decline in what? Whether or not a bunch of has-been European powers approve of how we do things? Cry me a fucking river. I'm far more interested in what up-and-coming powers think of us - y'know, the people who'll actually matter during the 21st century. Like Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. About the only European nation worth listening to these days is Germany.

you obviously missed to realize, that the happy bbq with angela the other week was a well orchestrated pr spectacle with selected locals. several major german newspapers and tv stations ran polls and each one clearly showed, that bush and his politics are strongly disliked by the germans. I'd say its mostly the same for any other country in western europe. Who's left in your coalition of the willing besides nations getting tons of money and support or supporting us military bases? I never experienced a more common attitude between colleagues and friends with views from the right to the left than that the us behaviour is disgusting (ignoring human rights/geneva convention, lying about wmd and other stuff, torture, killing civilians, swift wiretapping etc). You really think that Indonesia, Malaysia (two mostly muslim countries) and the whole south and middle america (remember brazil treating only us immigrants the same way your immigration handles guests) think better of the us? you should consider to read some news-sites outside your perfect fox/cnn world....

my 2ct

Alex

Re:Two things:

[Knuckles]

several major german newspapers and tv stations ran polls and each one clearly showed, that bush and his politics are strongly disliked by the germans

Poll results 2004: Kerry - Bush
Norway: 74% - 7%
Germany: 74% - 10%
France: 64% - 5%
Italy: 58% - 14%
Spain: 45% - 7%
UK: 47% - 16%
Canada: 61% - 16%
Mexico: 38% - 18%
Brazil: 57% - 14%
China: 52% - 12%
Japan: 43% - 32%
Indonesia:57% - 34%
India: 34% - 33%
Philippines: 32% - 57%
Nigeria: 33% - 27%
Poland: 26% - 31%
Thailand:30% - 33%

Seems not only in the Philippines Bush managed a meaningful lead. And I can guarantee you that 2006's numbers would look even more damning.

Sorry for the formatting, I didn't manage to create a table layout that the lameness filter would accept

Re:Two things:

[Knuckles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm

Re:Two things:

[Das Modell]

I don't even live in the US. The UN is a corrupt and inefficient organization, regardless of WHO.

Re:Two things:

[Alsee]

I can't find the link, but I'm pretty sure Steven Colbert addressed this in defense of this administration's policies on Guantanamo. That this is exactly why there are no innocent people in Guantanamo and we can never release any of them. Anyone who wasn't a terrorist and didn't want to kill us before they went in, well they certainly do want to kill us after we get done torturing them.

Bush is just doing his job and protecting us against terrorists - even if that means he has to create the terrorists for him to protect us from.

-

Re:Two things:

[Penguinoflight]

You should understand that the torture methods used by the CIA are employed to save lives. It would be a different matter if CIA operatives were only interested in finding people's candy stashes, but that preschool world just isn't the one we live in. I beleive the truth requires no explanation, so I will keep my signature the way it is, thank you very much.

Re:Two things:

[dcam]

You should understand that the torture methods used by the CIA are employed to save lives.

And when Nazi scientists experimented with freezing treatments on Jewish concentration camp inmates it was also to save lives (in this case the lives of Luftwaffe pilots falling into the North Sea). Equally if you follow the arguments of Steven Levitt oon abortion saving lives (in this case of people not being murdered), you could take the same view. However in both cases the cost of saving those lives is too high.

There are too many problems with torture to go into but lets begin with a copule:

1. It does not produce the truth, it produces confessions. If that is the aim then, moral considerations aside, it is effective. But for the "war on terror" we are torturing poeple to gain the truth. People under torture will say what they think the torturer wants to hear, not necessarily the truth, just so that the torture can stop. Hence the use of torture was very useful for Stalin in retrieving confessions for show trials

2. The other issue is what you do with innocent people who were tortured. There certainly will be some.

3. Historically torture has been abused when it has been applied. ...that preschool world just isn't the one we live in

I'm sorry you seem to inhabit a preschool world, when the CIA are white knights protecting us. The evidence of the last couple of years would seem to suggest that they are not entirely benevolent and that they not entirely competant (which also leads to innocent people being detained).

I think you need to consider the implications of your position. You are effectively saying that you could see Jesus pouring the water on the cloth over somone's face, knowing that they think that they are drowning.

BTW your resume link on your homepage (http://www.afn.org/~afn31208/resume.html) 404s.

Re:Two things:

[daremonai]

Seems [] only in the Philippines Bush managed a meaningful lead.

You forgot Poland!

(That's a joke.)

Re:Two things:

[Bush Pig]

Not quite. This (dictionary.reference.com/browse/kleptocracy) is a bit closer.

Re:Two things:

[Knuckles]

But it's only 5% difference there, and I'm sure he'd lose that if he was on TV all the time ...

Re:Two things:

[Lars T.]

You should understand that the torture methods used by the CIA are employed to save lives.

Well, good thing that not only everybody they interrogate is guilty but also not trained to withstand torture long enough for any information they may have to become worthless.

Re:Two things:

[Lars T.]

1) Blog derives from 'weblog.' She's an ilogger (intranet), not a blogger :-)

So web apps and web browsers only work on the internet.

Re:Two things:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

1) Blog derives from 'weblog.' She's an ilogger (intranet), not a blogger :-)

So web apps and web browsers only work on the internet.

I just knew there was going to be someone more pedantic than me out there :-)

Re:Two things:

[Eivind Eklund]

I guess we should just say please and thank you instead to get the info we need?

I guess you should go read some books on interrogation before having an opinion. I can recommend David Lieberman's "Never be lied to again" as a start . It is easy to read and will also be useful in your day to day life.

Eivind.

I clicked on the story link ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and saw "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." Wow, they work fast.

Snark

[Doc Ruby]

I don't get it... the CIA doesn't torture people. The USA doesn't torture people. Why should the CIA care if a contractor says torture is wrong? They must have fired her for goofing off on company time/equipment.

Re:Snark

[rainman_bc]

The USA doesn't torture people.

Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

Didn't the President go to Congress asking for the right to torture? Aren't there strict torture guidelines?

If you think the USA doesn't torture you are on crack.

Re:Snark

[gronofer]

Apparently she described "waterboarding" at torture. Presumably the CIA practices waterbording and says it's not torture. Speaking out against the corporate line on a sensitive topic is an invitation to be sacked, or worse, e.g., waterboarded!

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking subject-line, Rainman. Parent was being sarcastic.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone moderate parent -1 Really Goddamn Retarded.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded you up needs to have their pecker sawed off. You are not insightful because he was not being serious.

And why is everyone against torture? It is appropriate under some circumstances.

Re:Snark

[Andrewkov]

Someone in H/R thought Waterboarding was similar to surfing. Talking about water sports on company time is a no-no.

Re:Snark

[dougman]

Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

via Global Security

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street, burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge. Do I need to go on?

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

Re:Snark

[gronofer]

I'd have more sympathy for the waterboarding victims if I wasn't caught in the middle of a heatwave.

Re:Snark

[Khaed]

Thank you for making this post. I realize there are mistakes everywhere and that we're not perfect, but a lot of people are seriously stretching how bad the United States is.

It's a breath of fresh air on slashdot to see someone else of a like mind. So many posts are just "Abu Ghraib! Torture! Bush is taking our rights!" (while the last has merit, a lot of misunderstanding goes on, and exaggerating)

Re:Snark

[KingMotley]

If I had points, I'd mod your post up. Very informative. In addition, I can't more agree with what you've said. Unlike most posters, it appears you've actually done some research before you speak.

Re:Snark

[mcmonkey]

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street, burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge. Do I need to go on?

No, please don't go on. Your ignorance is painful. About those bodies hanging from a bridge...

As the date to transfer governing power from the U.S.-led coalition to the Iraqis gets closer, U.S. officials said they expect more attacks like the one that killed four American civilian contractors Wednesday in Fallujah.

U.S. officials said the civilians were killed in a grenade attack by suspected insurgents.

Oh, so those weren't soldiers, not part of the a regular uniformed force. Well, according to our president they couldn't be prisoners of war and not covered by the Geneva Convention. And besides, there are a few morons in every bunch, right?

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

If that were true we'd be invading Washington D.C. instead of Iraq. Education policy decided on personal religious beliefs, science and research policy decided on personal religious beliefs, health and medical policy, who you can consider part of your family, all policies on the federal level being directed by the president's personal religious beliefs.

George W. Bush represents the real threat to the American way of life.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

What annoys me about Abu Gharib is not so much that it happens. My uncle was a prison guard, in a relatively new, well-designed, well-staffed prison filled with people he could talk to, most of the time. Bad shit still happened, and if guards were involved, they were disciplined, or fired, or on a few occasions, charged with crimes.

So I can certainly understand, in a prison in a war zone, things would only be worse. The same bad apples that might not stop a fight would instead get involved. For the most part, they'll get plenty of time in a military brig. The commanding officer of the installation was relieved of command, and her career (in uniform, or public service, at least) is pretty much done. This is pretty normal for the military, the idea being that either the CO didn't know what was going on, and is therefore unfit for command, or they knew what was going on and didn't stop it... and is therefore unfit.

No, what pissed me off was the reaction of the administration and certain segments of the media. The "oh, don't publicize this, because it makes the US look bad, and makes more terrorists" type of arguements. And while the talk of a CIA agent present at some of the tortues was only brought up by a few of those charged, it seems still odd that little further was said about it.

Re:Snark

[nuzak]

Golly, what a fucking vacation.

They also can't leave, and they are never going to be even charged. Oh yeah and they get "interrogated".

> We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

Jesus fucking christ, do you have any sense of objective right and wrong, or is it all about relativism to yo I thought you folks in power were all about that.

Re:Snark

[x_codingmonkey_x]

I'm confused, is it now OK to decapitate bodies and hang them off a bridge if they are civilian contractors. That wasn't the only incident to ever happen. Did you forget about the beheadings of other US soldiers?

And a few morons in every bunch? Hmm I remember seeing pictures of hundreds of cheering people as they stung up the bodies on the bridge. tens of even hundreds of thousands of jihadists and most of the Middle-East supporting them is not a few morons.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

what scares me more then anything, is that you believe everthing you just typed. you are the very real reason American can be defeated/destroyed.

Re:Snark

[Valdrax]

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes.

Okay, you know the good event -- the press release events. Do you know the bad? Do you know about Sean Baker, an MP that was beaten until permanent brain injury in a training exercise where the guards thought he was an actual inmate? Do you know about the repeated attempts at suicide by detainees that have lost hope? Do you know that the Red Cross has said that treatment of prisoners there is "tantamount to torture?"

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street, burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge. Do I need to go on?

Yes. Please do. Please explain exactly how just being better than the terrorists is the only moral end goal we should strive for.

Joseph Stalin killed about 10 million of his people, while Pol Pot killed only 2 million of his. Does that mean since Pol Pot didn't kill as many people that he's a decent and civilized fellow? Of course not.

Similarly, we've tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Bagram. Our administration has fought tooth and nail for the "right" to continue torturing suspects and people "of material importance." Sure, we haven't beheaded any of our prisoners (though we have beaten to death a few). We haven't been rounding up people and executing them like the Sunnis and Shia have been doing with each other, but is being better than freaking terrorists the best that we can do or should strive to do?

I disagree. I think it takes a sick level of moral sloth to advance the idea that we shouldn't care as long as our enemies are worse.

Re:Snark

[mcmonkey]

is it now OK to decapitate bodies and hang them off a bridge if they are civilian contractors

No, I do not think it is OK. I also do not think torture is OK. Nor using sexual harassment as an interrogation technique.

It's Bush and Cheney saying these things are acceptable. They're the ones splitting hairs over who gets Geneva Convection protection and who doesn't.

It takes two to tango. You can't support an Attorney General who says the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners are "quaint" and then complain when our enemies take the same position.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) [wikipedia.org] are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.

Like you are taking care of Iraq? Sorry, but you are asking us to go on faith here. The US federal government has seen fit to lie to the entire world about Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, WMDs and of course $(cat /usr/share/dict/words). To say that there's not a whole lot of credibility left is a bit of an understatement.

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world.

The best doctors in the world work in Guantanamo Bay? What on God's green earth have you been smoking? You don't find the best doctors in the world in concentration camps that are in blatent violation of the Geneva Convention. Maybe by "the best" you mean "the best at keeping their mouths shut".

They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe.

I wonder what the SS were saying when they first started rounding up Jews. I would imagine they said whatever the hell they fucking wanted because there was no one to say otherwise. When international observers are allowed unimpeded access to Guantanamo (when hell freezes over) and THEY tell me that prisoners there are allowed to send a post card to their families then I'll believe it.

They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask.

Don't forget food and water. Lots of water!

The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran.

Maybe you should give them something a little more solid to keep their Korans in. You know, so nothing bad happens to them.

There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads.

"Comfort items." I'm glad they are so comfortable over there.

There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there is and I'm sure I do.

via Global Security [globalsecurity.org]

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street [mypetjawa.mu.nu], burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge [cnn.com]. Do I need to go on?

Really?! It's shocking that they would engauge in such sick acts when they have such a wonderful role model in the US Federal Government.

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

This asshole seems to just want the US to quit killing his countrymen. He's probably not representative of those you are fighting though, is he? Have you ever actually listened to what he has to say? He is an asshole because he answered violence with violence. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Re:Snark

[x_codingmonkey_x]

No, I do not think it is OK. I also do not think torture is OK. Nor using sexual harassment as an interrogation technique.

It's Bush and Cheney saying these things are acceptable. They're the ones splitting hairs over who gets Geneva Convection protection and who doesn't.

It takes two to tango. You can't support an Attorney General who says the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners are "quaint" and then complain when our enemies take the same position.

Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago. Way before this happened. Second, I would like to mention that no one was being interrogated in Abu Ghraib. It was just a _few_ American soldiers breaking the law and were punished for it. Furthermore, the way that those Iraqis were treated is _significantly_ better then how they are treated in their regular prisons.

While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo, and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing.

Re:Snark

[mcmonkey]

These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them.

On what basis do you make that statement? If anyone in Guantanamo is really such a threat, I say string 'em up.

Problem is, just saying so doesn't make it true. Some evidence might be nice. Perhaps a process that had some passing resemblance to due process.

The president said Iraq had WMDs--we even had pictures. Only now, no WMDs. The president said he saw into Putin's heart, that he was a good guy. Only now Putin has spent the last 4 years dismantling democratic institutions and using the justice system to nationalize industries. The president said he stood by Rafael Palmeiro as someone who wouldn't cheat and lie. And we know how that turned out.

So...if any of the prisoners in Guantanamo really tried to attack the US, I'll flip the switch, pull the trigger, whatever, myself. But not just because I've been told there's a threat. Especially considering the source.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law [wikipedia.org].

So your high-minded goal for our country is to only be better than terrorists? You are utter scum. It's people like you who are destroying this country.
For the record. I expect MUCH better than that from this great country. I expect us to be a beacon of civilized behavior to the rest of the world. And I expect boobs like you and our President to be in charge of nothing more crucial than cleaning sewers.

Re:Snark

[wfberg]

The US tortures people. They rationalize it by saying it's legal. It's still torture.

The people in gitmo are being held without any charges. How is that right? Without access to lawyers, impartial tribunals etc. Well, they're finally getting those, because - get this - turns out it's not legal to treat prisoners that way, not even in gitmo, and if they're not citizens. Why? Because it's immoral and inhumane.

"They're worse than us". Great, so what, you now have to be 1 degree less bad?

The US are pretending that non-citizens are non-humans. That what the US does on foreign soil can be as bad as they like, as long as you can rationalize it being "legal" or "less bad than the other guy".

That simply doesn't fly. It never has, and it never will. It's bullshit. And it's evil. No matter how indignant you may be about terrorists, or how much you may like to rationalize it, if you don't hold yourself up to standards that make you treat human beings as humans, then you've lost your humanity.

See how you'd like it if the roles were reversed. And oh, say the guy being 'waterboarded' is your son. Not quite as fun anymore, when the biggest military in the world is torturing your kid, who was probably only sold to them by some guys making a buck turning in supposed terrorists? Well, tough luck.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have to be a signatory of the Geneva Convention to be held accountable under it?

Re:Snark

[Weirsbaski]

> Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch.
...

> And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

You forgot the part where they're detained indefinately, without a chance of ever going before a judge. And the torture. And the living in a 5' x 8' cage. And the shackels. And the distinct possiblility of never seeing said family again (in normal prisons even convicted murderers get visitiation rights). And to be surveiled by the "few morons in every bunch" military personel. And to be chewing toys every time some moron with a pit bull needs to prove he's a big man.

Are they terrorists? Who the hell knows, certainly not you or I.
Do they have valuable information to share? Maybe four years ago, but probably not now.

If Gitmo prisoners were shown in court of planning mass-murder terror activities, I'd be the first to say "bullet to the head". But their whole situation right now is to prove, I don't know, you tell me. Why are we holding them like this and so afraid to put them under trial?

Re:Snark

[Valdrax]

To be held legally accountable, you have to sign it. The terrorists haven't. As for us, we're not just signatories -- we helped write the Geneva Convention, and large parts of it were a reaction to how our soldiers were treated in war.

That's the legal perspective.

However, much like the Constitution, I believe that the Geneva Convention is in many ways partially an expression of moral values that demands decency and just behavior.

The terrorists may not have signed it, but they didn't sign any statements agreeing to not kidnap and behead people or to not treat women like property, but we expect them not to and don't use their behavior as justification to do the same things ourselves "in this new kind of war." Similarly, I think we can and should try to hold them to the commitments to deceny in the Geneva Convention that we ourselves agreed to be bound by.

Re:Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now. It's only torture if the bad guys do it.

Overreacting

[linvir]

On Monday, Axsmith was terminated by her employer, BAE Systems, which was helping the CIA test software.

Wow, they really don't take this stuff lying down. Many bloggers died to bring us this information!

So does anything go in YRO now??

[BBlinkk]

Im I the only one wondering what the hell this has to do with our online rights?? It was on a private INTRANET for god sakes...

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, way to miss the point dude!

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[iminplaya]

It was on a private INTRANET for god sakes...

No, it's a government intranet. Paid for by US taxpayers and in blood by others.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, shut the hell up.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[crmartin]

A private classified network to which you only get access if you agree to a set of rules that distinctly limit your freedoms with information under those rules.

It's on YRO because there are a bunch of goddamn children around who think "TOP SECRET" means "I won't talk about it unless I'm of a mind to."

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[Anonymous Coward]

It was on a private INTRANET...

Back in the day, people living in geographical proximity to each other figured they needed to organize and work together to accomplish certain things so they formed governments. Naturally, these governments needed leaders but, in the beginning, they had this bizarre notion that these governments should just do whatever was in the leaders best interest - the whole "Divine Right of Kings" notion. Eventually, they figured out that it's better to require that the leaders act in the best interest of everyone and not just themselves. These requirements are things like freedom and deomocracy and basic human rights.

It turns out, that it's not just people in geographical proximity that need to organize and work together. One guy on his own can't go off and make a Mercedes or a cell phone - it takes an organized group of people working together. These organizations have been formed and they're called corporations. The interesting thing here, though, is that most people believe that corporations should just do whatever is in the best interest of the corporations leader (the CEO's). They haven't yet figured out that corporations should be required to act in everyone's best interest.

Getting back to the "private intranet" business, if by "private" you meant "owned by a private individual" then I would agree that the private individual owning the intranet should control what gets posted. On the other hand, if by "private" you mean that the intranet was owned by a corporation (perhaps on behalf of the government), then we have to look at not just what the corporation's leaders want but also what is best for everyone in the corporate organization and also what is best for society.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[vertinox]

Im I the only one wondering what the hell this has to do with our online rights??

I'm sure the people being waterboarded were thinking the same thing.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[rahrens]

Nice try at utopian ethics.

Fact is, an intranet that belongs to, and is controlled by, either a corporation or a government, IS a "private" intranet. "Private" in this case refers to a meaning of "NOT public". the corporation or government, by virtue of owning the equipment upon which the intranet operates, has the right to control the content of that intranet.

Anybody that has any experience at working in a bureaucracy like the CIA would (or should) KNOW not to critisize the upper management about such a sensitive subject. Cafeteria food is one thing - even gov't managers realize that such things are harmless, and let employees blow off steam and gives them a feeling of some "empowerment" (to use a politically correct term in use today) over their work environment. But being empowered over your work environment is NOT the same thing as POLICY.

The brass, and only the brass, have a say in that. Employees can get in trouble, and get moved to non-critical or even boring, umimportant jobs, over such things. CONTRACTORS, on the other hand, are expendable, and WILL get fired - do not pass go, do not collect $200. Don't even pack yer things, we'll send 'em to ya!

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[scaryjohn]

Because, when you're employed by the government, they're not allowed the same latitude to fire you for expressing opposition to policy, as if they were a private sector employer. Even at the workplace. The First Amendment rights of the employee vs. the needs of the government-as-employer has been the stuff of scrupulous balancing.

And the question of what a government employee's First Amendment rights are, when using an internal online message board, is to the best of my knowledge an open question. The only remaining issue, then, is if there are enough government employees on slashdot to qualify as "your".

Not every YRO story has to be about Pr0n. But if we take her claims at face value, this every bit as much about censorship online.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[crabpeople]

Because it has to do with my and your right to do a particular thing online?

you know you can read it as "your rights, online" and also as "your online rights" right? Why do people complain so much about yro. Is it just a reading comprehension problem?

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[Anonymous Coward]

...only the brass, have a say in that.

I agree that's how things are but I don't agree that's how they should be. In particular, I don't agree that the best policy is whatever the brass decide is in their personal best interest.

I would actually, like to see a situation where CIA employees are openly discussing the CIA torture polices. It is well known that people will do horrible things as long as it is approved by an authority figure. If the CIA employees were talking among themselves, "Hey, this torture thing really isn't right.", then when maybe they got the order to torture someone or facilitate such torture they would have the integrity to refuse.

It's not just that preventing people from questioning authority will cause bad things happen to suspected terrorists either. If everyone goes along with the groupthink then no one will question whether the information obtained from the torture is valid and you'll get things like the invasion of Iraq.

Basically, bad things happen when people blindly accept authority - and that's what the original post seems to be advocating: people should blindly accept authority when that authority is somehow "private".

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[grcumb]

'It's on YRO because there are a bunch of goddamn children around who think "TOP SECRET" means "I won't talk about it unless I'm of a mind to."'

Hey, mister, can you enlighten this poor, benighted child? He's trying to understand how the magic incantation 'TOP SECRET' suddenly requires that we forget we ever had a conscience, a sense of common decency and a constitution that upholds human rights.

Anyone who is unable to see that Justice can - and should - trump secrecy is living in a moral vacuum.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>It's on YRO because there are a bunch of goddamn children around who think "TOP SECRET" means "I won't talk about it unless I'm of a mind to."

Actually the article was about someone fired for *writing* something which went onto and stayed on the classified network. It's not even clear that the blog entry contained any classified information. Nor is there any implication in the article that she talked about the blog entry anywhere else before she got fired.

Taking unclassified information and putting it on a classified network is different from taking classified information and putting it on an unclassified network.

Normally I wouldn't belabor the point this much, but you and several moderators have missed it so it can't be quite as obvious as it seemed.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[rahrens]

"In particular, I don't agree that the best policy is whatever the brass decide is in their personal best interest."

What universe do you live in? In mine, government managers are doing a JOB. You know, for a paycheck? I don't know what you mean by that statement. The CIA is a small part of the US government, and managers there are professionals, trained to manage intelligence personnel in collecting information in the interests of the United States. Period. A manager's personal interest, whatever you mean by that, does not enter into it.

What I meant by my statement is that, in a beauracracy, the managers develop and set organizational policy. That is what they are hired and paid to do. There are employees that, as subject matter experts, advise managers on what issues affect the policy-making process, but generally, IT programmers, and contractors, at that, are NOT part of that process. As a matter of fact, I am certain that CIA employees have discussions about this kind of thing on a regular basis. After all, it is their job to worry about these things, especially the people that debate and set policy. However, the place for that debate is NOT in a CIA blog authored by a contractor whose job it is to program CIA computers. That is why they pulled her clearance. She was showing an interest, and one at odds with the official policy, in matters of agancy procedures that were none of her business. In the intelligence field, that is a red flag indicating that someone is not comfortable with the organization he/she is working with. That means he/she may be tempted/invited to betray secret material to an enemy. So the simple thing to do in order to keep that from happening is to remove them from temptation.

Yes, the CIA has been accused, and rightly so, in my opinion, of being too monolithic in their thinking. A number of top managers have been appointed by a succession of Presidents to try to change that. Eventually, that effort may pay off. But believe me, the last way you are going to see that is through CIA field employees refusing to take orders in field operations. Those folk ARE, after all career gov't employees, and have pensions to worry about. But take heart, there HAVE been the occasional brave souls that have taken stands before... and they usually make a difference.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[crmartin]

Hey, mister, can you enlighten this poor, benighted child?

Probably not. I'm not a miracle worker.

Re:So does anything go in YRO now??

[crmartin]

Actually the article was about someone fired for *writing* something which went onto and stayed on the classified network. It's not even clear that the blog entry contained any classified information. Nor is there any implication in the article that she talked about the blog entry anywhere else before she got fired.

No, go back and look. She at least asserted that she had read transcripts of an interrogation; those would be pretty highly classified. She then talked about them, or her opinion of the practices she claimed to have read about them, on her internal blog, which wasn't limited only to people in that "compartment."

Watch This Thread

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for the readers to start their anti-US and Bush bashing.

Watch the +5 posts in this story. How much you wanna bet it's all about Bush and the CIA is evil, when the story is about blogging? It's funny how no offtopic mods hit those posts.

Re:Watch This Thread

[tomhudson]

Watch the +5 posts in this story. How much you wanna bet it's all about Bush and the CIA is evil, when the story is about blogging? It's funny how no offtopic mods hit those posts.

The story is in YRO - Your Rights Online. It's not about blogging per se, but about losing your job while exercising your right to speak out about government-sponsored torture.

If you're all that upset, why don't you blog about all the GOOD things torture provides:

1. a new job opening at BEA, as long as you don't go around saying "torture is a Bad Thing"
2. _____
3. _____
4. _____

Gee, I guess when it comes to the good things about torture, I'm pretty much drawing blanks ... but I'm sure that if you give the CIA a few days, they'll find someone who's gone through it who is willing to say (under threat of more torture) that waterboarding isn't "really" torture.

Torture is just stupid. It gets you inaccurate information, and provides rationalization for your enemies to go that much further. There IS no up side.

Re:Watch This Thread

[Anonymous Coward]

it is BAE you jackass. People always confuse the two. BAE is MUCH bigger.

When you're a contractor

[ReidMaynard]

Keep a low profile.

Re:When you're a contractor

[Zanthor]

My first day out of training as a contractor for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ... I was hunched over my computer in a cube "row" that I later refered to as the Cubical Ghetto... and an e-mail came out announcing that lunch was here for all Full Time Permanent employees...

It of course was sent to the entire group, because it would be too much work to maintain a seperate list of full time employees and contract employees...

Anyhow, a veteran contractor sitting behind me fired off an e-mail using the worst button ever... "reply to all"... it read "And for anyone who would like to donate to the 'Feed a Contractor Fund' please see me."

Within 10 minutes he was terminated and escorted out of the building...

The first thing you have to know when doing contract work - you are disposable.

Re:When you're a contractor

[tehcyder]

Within 10 minutes he was terminated

With extreme prejudice? Wow, I didn't know mortgage companies were so ruthless.

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gestapo wouldn't take that shizzil.

as expected

[Chris Chiasson]

If an employee does something you don't like, as an employer you can easily fire them for some other infraction... just dust off your unused copy of the employee handbook.

Re:as expected

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA is based in Langley, Virginia. Virginia is a "Right to Work" state, which means an employer can fire you at any time and they don't need a reason.

Re:as expected

[eln]

Technically, you're right. But practically, in order to avoid the prospect of costly litigation, you still need a reason. If you don't have a good reason in mind, an employee will often perceive that you fired him or her for a reason prohibited by law (race, for example), and file suit. At that point, you'd better have some kind of evidence that you fired him or her for a non-prohibited reason, or you could be in trouble. Even if you win the case, you're still going to be out a lot of money in legal fees that you will probably never be able to recover.

I've managed employees in right to work states, and even in small companies the requirements for proof of wrongdoing before you can fire an employee can be surprisingly cumbersome, because companies don't like to be sued.

Re:as expected

[rahrens]

Not applicable in this case. The woman TFA was about is a CIA CONTRACTOR. That means she works for a company that holds a contract with the CIA for certain work, in this case, programming.

So she WASN'T a gov't employee. The terms of her employment would have included a clause that in order to remain employed, she would have to be able to hold a certain level clearance. As soon as the CIA pulled her clearance, she was no longer able to perform her job - so she lost it. Plenty of legal precidence on this in the courts, too! She could have been working in a non right to work state and it would still be legal.

Re:as expected

[JustinKSU]

You could argue that this had very little to do with torture and more to do with the effect the post had. When I was in high school I was lucky enough to get an internship with a very large aerospace company. A few months after I started I sent out an e-mail asking everyone to vote for a new science center they were building in Kansas City. Very soon after, my manager pulled me aside. He explained how inappropriate the e-mail was even though he himself agreed with building of the science center. I know it's a big stretch, but the same principles apply here. Whether or not her opinion is correct, the turmoil and conflict that a post like that can cause is disruptive to the workplace. She has every right to express her opinion in the public, but there are a lot of things you should keep to yourself at work. Did she deserve to get fired? Probably not. But as a contractor, thresholds of counterproductive behavior are a lot less.

Re:as expected

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So she WASN'T a gov't employee.

It doesn't matter. The law doesn't say the government can't fire people for exercising their free speech. It says the government can't do anything to stop people from exercising their free speech. The FBI can't monitor who checks out what at the library because it has a chilling effect on the free speech of authors. I'd say getting someone fired for what they say is even more likely to cause such a chilling effect, how about you?

Re:as expected

[rahrens]

In this case, it IS intended to have a chilling affect, and rightly so. (By the way the gov't didn't fire her - her employer did. All the CIA did was pull her clearance.)

This woman was working for a CIA contractor as a programmer. Her job was programming CIA computers. Her job had nothing to do with setting, debating, advising on, nor reviewing, agency policy on field techniques. Yet, she took advantage of an official blog to make comments about that policy in a way that revealed her dissatisfaction with established policy.

Ok so far? Yes, she has a right to her opinion, nobody is disputing that. But she revealed, in a very public way (within that community) a dissatisfaction with that policy - that revealed, in turn, a possible discomfort with working for the CIA.

In the intelligence world, that is a red flag. It means that person may be unhappy, or bothered enough by something, to possibly reveal secret information to an adversary. Doesn't mean SHE will, but you don't take chances with national security information that could mean lives lost. So they did what the rules say they are supposed to do. They pulled her clearance.

Since the terms of her employment most likely stated that she had to be able to hold such a clearance to hold her job, when she lost the clearance, she lost her job. Simple, clear, legal... and something that she KNEW was possible.

She did not loose her job because of her opinion, she lost her job because she had become a security risk. and THAT was a lesson that was intended to send a message to all other contract employees: Keep your mind on your own business, do your job. "Loose lips sink ships." Remember that?

The CIA does.

The CIA has bloggers...

[__aaclcg7560]

It won't be long before bloggers are put on the same list as communists, terrorists and bad James Bond films.

Where do I find my "rights"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I find my online bill of rights? I'm sure I've got rights that have been violated. I've been trolled. I've been insulted and corrected, publicly without an inquiry or hearing. Who enforces these rights? To whom do I bring my grievances?

Re:Where do I find my "rights"?

[stupidfoo]

And how does a contracter working for a private company have the right to post on the CIA intranet anything that doesn't relate to their job?

Torture Saves Lives

[Buzz_Litebeer]

This guy is un-American. We need to torture people to find out information important to the war on terror. This guy should have taken the following poster

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=4 3

And put it on his cubicle, because in the end we are trying to save the children
http://www.libertypark.org/images/children%20pics. ..awana%20004.jpg

we wouldnt want these children to be harmed by terrorists just because we didnt have the fortitude to torture them.

These terrorists were caught on the battlefield, even as close as the United States, and they should be tortured until they break and tell us all they know!

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[nanospook]

What happens when you are the one on the board because... *gasp* a mistake!

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[Jhan]

[after all] we are trying to save the children. We wouldnt want these children to be harmed by terrorists just because we didnt have the fortitude to torture them.

Your ideas intrigue me. Please tell me more about how torturing children will keep them safe from terrorists. Also, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[Anonymous Coward]

I am amazed that the parent has been misunderstood and moderated as such. The above post should at the very least be "interesting". Folks, you need to leave your political and social baggage at the door, especially when given mod points. /. is definitly going down hill in a hurry!

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[himurabattousai]

Anyone who considers torture to be a viable method of obtaining correct and useful information need only look to the Chicago Police Department of the 1970's. Check out http://chicagoreader.com/policetorture and keep in mind that these are suspected to be, but often innocent, low-life criminal thugs. If torture doesn't work on them, why on earth would one think that it works on terrorists that are trained not to be broken?

I can't tell if Sir Buzz is being fecetious or actually believes what he wrote. Whichever it is, his statement needs to be countered, lest someone actually buy into that line of nonsense.

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

It's not hard at all - take a look at his links.

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[freeze128]

Sounds like the "Terrible secret of space".

Re:Torture Saves Lives

[terrahertz]

This parent might be Redundant, but I don't see how the statement fits any definition of flamebaiting. Is the expressed idea (mistakes may be made, persons misidentified as having information worth torturing for are in fact tortured) so far removed from the plausible?

Well at least

[kensai]

she was only fired and not tortured for her views on torture.

Re:Well at least

[Jhan]

What proof do you have for that statement?

Re:Well at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Best. Sig. Ever.

Had something similar happen to me

[toupsie]

I was working for a huge meat packing company and we had internal company blogs so we could share ideas and generally make the company run better. You know, totally Web 2.0. I am a committed vegan so I posted a blog entry called "Meat is Murder and Murder is Wrong" and guess what happened to me? I was fired! Can you believe that!?!?!? Freaking fascists.

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[ctishman]

Well, if eating meat were illegal in every civilized country around the world, and said to be illegal in ours, your comparison would have some merit.

P.S. yes, I know it's satire :)

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[Anonymous Coward]

we had internal company blogs so we could share ideas and generally make the company run better.

huh... just wondering... how does your blog "Meat is Murder and Murder is Wrong" help your meat packing company run better... seems like you are sending -ve message against meat industry and employment it is generating...e.g. your earlier employment...

may be you should promote veganism

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[Goat of Death]

You know if you take out meat packing and put torture back in it paints probably a disturbingly accurate picture of the CIA as a "torture" company.

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[91degrees]

Why would they fire you for that? Shouldn't they simply ask you to stop promoting your personal political views on your company blog? Assuming the rest of your work was of a decent standard, it seems rather heavy handed.

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[ScooterBill]

A committed vegan working for a meat packing company? Now that's funny!

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[LnxAddct]

You've got to be shtting me if you think the U.S. is the only civilized country that has these types of practices. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean the government doesn't do it, it just means they need to cover it up better. At least the U.S. is pretty open about these policies. Try getting the Chinese, Russians, or British to discuss this kind of stuff. There is plenty of historical evidence showing that they participate in similar practices, but everyone tries to cover up it. It's all just a big game of hide-n-seek. I'm not saying whether it is wrong or right, just saying this is the norm for governments.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[Valdrax]

I think the difference is that a lot of people signed up for the CIA back when they thought they were dedicating their lives to protecting American freedoms and American values whereas meatpacking plants have always been about chopping up animals for eating.

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[toupsie]

Wow! I should of thought of that. Next time that happens to me, I will totally do it. Thanks, dude...

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[curious.corn]

If you did your job appropriately, termination is the most utterly stupid thing to do. What is with these Corporations, they're as jealous about your soul as a bitchy chick! I trade my labour and skill, not my soul... get real, idiot!

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[b4stard]

Then organize, ffs!
Where I'm currently employed, we've got about 60% of the workers organized together in a union. If they fuck with one of us because of some petty bullshit like that, they're in trouble and they know it. Though I doubt it'll do you any good if you work for the CIA.

Re:Had something similar happen to me

[91degrees]

Erm.. you are aware that your employer was actually just a hypothetical situation aren't you?

I'd hate to think of you getting up every day and going to a meat packing plant that only exists for the sake of argument. I hear imaginary companies don't pay all that well.

To determine if this was appropriate.

[khasim]

Have any of the posters expressed approval of the government or CIA in a non-work related fashion and not been fired?

If they fire contractors who "waste" time, that's okay.

If they only fire contractors who "waste" time criticizing the government, that's not okay.

Re:To determine if this was appropriate.

[MadRocketScientist]

Well, from TFA, she also blogging on the cafeteria food (not something directly related to the job functions of a software tester). Her managers happily provided statistics on the visits to that particular blog, so it's obviously the content, not the relevance, that is the issue.

This wasn't the peoper place for her to complain

[elrous0]

Jeez, she had no right to use the CIA intranet to complain like this. She should have used the proper CIA procedure with regards to such complaints--take them to the New York Times.

-Eric

Why Is This News?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash: If you piss off your boss by publically whining about their policies and practices, you can be probably be fired at any company in the world.

This isn't really news. It happens a lot in the working world.

Re:Why Is This News?!!

[CXI]

Yeah, but this is slashdot, not the real world. See, here it's important because.... well... um.... I get back to you on that.

Re:Why Is This News?!!

[truthsearch]

But it shouldn't happen in the government. I think the problem here is he used the intranet. If he posted to his own public website he might not have been fired. And if he had only posted to his own site then he definitely should not have been fired.

Re:Why Is This News?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

More people on Slashdot work for the CIA than I first suspected.

Re:Why Is This News?!!

[vertinox]

Newsflash: If you piss off your judge by publically whining about their policies and practices, you can be probably be hanged until dead at any war crimes trial in the world.

Moral of the story: If your company is practicing illegal, immoral, and activities that violate international treaties and conventions you'd better cover your ass because "They told me to do it or they'd fire me" won't be a good exscuse.

That and if believe its ok for your employer to fire you because you stated opposition to their illegal activities than you've got another thing coming.

Re:Why Is This News?!!

[Firehed]

That and if believe its ok for your employer to fire you because you stated opposition to their illegal activities than you've got another thing coming.

Just because it's wrong for them to do doesn't they won't do it. Look at the toturing. I'd rather be fired than hung at a war crimes trial, but if you'd care to remeber, the Nazi party didn't fire the people that opposed them. Of course, the smart thing to do back then was to shut up and leave the country, because while the party shot their opposition, very few if any at all were actually forced to join them.

Morale equals food?

[Kuroji]

Writing as Covert Communications, CC for short, she opined in her online journal on such national security conundrums as stagflation, the war of ideas in the Middle East and -- in her most popular post -- bad food in the CIA cafeteria.

This is what happens when you tick off the CIA lunchlady. Next thing you know she'll have a mysterious heart attack, all because the world now knows the food tastes like cardboard.

Re:Morale equals food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. You've been modded up funny, but you (intentionally or not) bring up a very important point: JUST BECAUSE ONE THING HAPPENED AFTER ANOTHER, DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS CAUSED BY THE OTHER. Or, in more formal terms, this is the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" falacy (in English, "after this therefore caused by this").

She was fired after criticising the CIA for valid reasons. HOWEVER, we have no way of knowing if that was why she was fired, or if it was instead because she is evidently willing to leak information about Top Secret programs. (According to the article, her blog was only accessible by those with Top Secret clearances. Talking about it in the press therefore violates the oaths she agreed to when she received that clearance.)

We have no idea why she was actually fired. It may be because of the article, or it may have been because she offended someone by making fun of the cafeteria. We have no way of knowing, and assuming the worst without proof is a logical fallacy.

I expect that this is coincidence. Based on that article, I expect she was fired for something else - apparently she has rather loose lips and doesn't mind disclosing classified information.

It's also worth noting that, according to the article, is sounds like her blog post on the torture violates US security laws anyway. You're not allowed to disclose classified material to people who don't have a need to know it, even if they have the appropriate clearance. Now, while I'm sure someone will point out that in the case of torture, there's arguably a moral responsibility to reveal it, and I'll accept that. Even so we have evidence that she is willing to violate clearly written security proceedures, at least in this case. There quite likely are other cases of violation of security protocols.

As tempting as it may be to assume the worst, it isn't necessarily the truth.

Fired for blogging?

[Archangel Michael]

Or is that what the contractor / software person is reporting?

There are hundreds of reasons people get fired, everyday. Even if it was over "blogging", it might not have been for criticizing "torture", but other reasons (secrecy, national defense etc). The problem is, it doesn't look good as it is reported, which is probably the whole point of this article anyway.

Bush bad
Democrats good
Amerika evil
terrorism is freedom fighting (tell that to the burka wearing clitoris missing women)
Israel bad
peace at any cost.... .... crowd.

Just as bad as the "other side", IMHO. Evil comes in many forms, which form will you take?

Re:Fired for blogging?

[iceperson]

Sounds like the contractor was being paid to do one thing but was instead "blogging" about this. Title should read "contractor fired for improper use of company time."

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Anonymous Coward]

> (tell that to the burka wearing clitoris missing women)

I call bullshit. Do you think the situation for women has gotten much better now that Afganistan is free from the Taliban? How about the situation for women in Saudi Arabia or other "friendly" Islamic countries?

Implying that we have invaded other countries for the good of women worldwide is complete bullshit. We invaded Iraq because Bush wanted a Middle East country to bitch-slap and Iraq looked like the easiest target. Boy, how wrong that turned out to be. Ironically, Iraq was probably the most progressive in the treatment of women... although that still doesn't say much.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[ScentCone]

I call bullshit. Do you think the situation for women has gotten much better now that Afganistan is free from the Taliban?

If by "better" you mean "women are no longer dragged out into what used to be a soccer field in front of a crowd at lunchtime and shot in the head for daring to teach their daughters to read," then... yes, better.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[sbrown123]

"If by "better" you mean "women are no longer dragged out into what used to be a soccer field"

Oh, that still happens, just not in the major cities. Town/Village centers suffice if there is a lack of a soccer field. Also they don't send out invitations or make public announcements. Smaller crowds but the end result is pretty much the same.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

I was about to call bullshit too, but since you came by yourself...

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Jhan]

Bush bad Nah. A moron and a tool, though. Democrats good Not at all, but maybe slightly more capable of making sane decisions if you did some kind of statistical analysis. Amerika evil Amerika confused and acting erratically. Need help. Terrorism is freedom fighting (tell that to the burka wearing clitoris missing women) Freedom-fighting is often mislabled terrorism by opposite party. Don't get me wrong, blowing up civilians randomly is terrorism. Israel and Hizbolla are both doing just that right now. Capturing (or even killing) enemy soldiers is not terrorism, it's simply war.
I also find it very interesting that you infer terrorism == islam == ancient african custom that happens to be in force in an area that is mostly muslim. Israel bad Israel strange construction. Settle occupied land long time. Aboriginals hate good. peace at any cost Yep. Equitable peace at any cost. Do you mean you prefer this forever war?

...and as a final thought

Evil comes in many forms, which form will you take?

I put it to you that Evil does not exist. It's a figment of your religious mind. In reality, people do bad things for reasons that seem good at the time.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[m874t232]

Evil comes in many forms, which form will you take?

Well, we don't have to guess for you: you are evil, and you have just shown us what form you take: that of a cynical war monger. You want to see evil? Look in the mirror.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[ScentCone]

Oh, that still happens, just not in the major cities. Town/Village centers suffice if there is a lack of a soccer field. Also they don't send out invitations or make public announcements. Smaller crowds but the end result is pretty much the same.

No, it's not the same. Yes, Afghanistan has long been a fractured place with a wide range of local cultural pockets ranging from Cool to Insane. But the Taliban moved in and said, "Now there's a central authority here, and a dominant theocratic culture that we will enforce at the point of a gun, and one feature of that culture, country-wide, is: women who try to get a job (even if we've killed her husband), or who teach daughters to read will be put to death."

Of course it's horrid that there are spots in that country where that same attitude still exists. But the difference is that now there is no longer a "government" that directly embraces and celebrates that medieval nonsense by actually having government employees who run around and do that evil crap. It will be at least a generation before it becomes culturally embarassing, for more like a majority of Afghanis, to have that stuff happening in their more rural areas. But the difference is crucial: before, it was the law of land, and now it's not.

Just like it took a while before some people in the deep south of the US stopped openly lynching blacks (and getting a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from the local law enforcement). Now, such a think is loudly, and instantly condemned from every meaningful corner of the culture, and perpetrators of such crimes get what they deserve. The Taliban was still running the courts and what passes for law enforcement in Afghanistan just five years ago. This stuff takes a little while - but to suggest that there's no difference between the two conditions is absurd. Both in philosophical and practical terms.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Archangel Michael]

"Israel and Hizbolla are both doing just that right now."

Ah, lets make no distinction between TRYING to hit civilian targets and trying to limit civilian targets by leafleting and bullhorning warnings.

Hezballah is hiding in civilian populations, hiding munitions in houses, mosques, schools and hospitals because it is IMPOSSIBLE to bomb them without civilian casualties. They USE civilians as sheild and the willing appologists love to trot out the corpses of little children and women, "innocent" deaths as if Israel is actively targeting them.

Meanwhile not a condemnation of bombers walking into a market and blowing themselves up, almost on a daily basis. Rockets fired indiscriminately into civilian populations. Marching little boys down the street with fully armed with rifles in hand.

You see, by equating civilian deaths, you have lined up with Hezballah.

"Yep. Equitable peace at any cost. Do you mean you prefer this forever war?"

How do you define "equitable". Israel has given 98% of what Palistine has asked. Gaza was forsaken, Golan was vacated. Only to have the terrorists move in, and start lobbing bombs into civilian cities. World outcry over a fence to keep them on the other side. Personally, I think Israel has bent over backwards trying to live in peace with its neighbors. Meanwhile, the surrounding countries have people sworn to the destruction of all Jews. So, please define "equitable" in terms that don't allow more bombs to be lobbed into a soverign state from its neighbors.

The only solution acceptable to some is Genocide. And until people realize that, and change it, there will be no peace, it is impossible.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Archangel Michael]

War monger? I hate war. But I hate Hitlers of the world MORE.

There is a choice, Chamberlain or Churchill. People called Churchill a war monger. Chamberlain came back with a piece of paper and it NEARLY cost Britain its soverignty.

I guess it is so much easier to call people names.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[eln]

The real irony here is that if we had committed as many troops to Afghanistan as we have to Iraq, we might actually have been able to create a true democratic state there with actual security in more places than the capital city, and Bush might have had his shining beacon of democracy in the Muslim world, which is what he was trying to get Iraq to be.

Afghanistan was the right war at the right time. Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, and used up and continues to use up resources that should have been used to finish the job we started in Afghanistan, where now the Taliban can continue to survive and raid small towns because there are not enough troops to guard them or train Afghanis to guard them.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[kabocox]

If by "better" you mean "women are no longer dragged out into what used to be a soccer field in front of a crowd at lunchtime and shot in the head for daring to teach their daughters to read," then... yes, better.

Nah, now they are forced to suicide like Turkey makes its females that violate honor.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Bush might have had his shining beacon of democracy in the Muslim world, which is what he was trying to get Iraq to be.

I don't think you're correct. I think he wanted a shiny beacon of capitalism, but capitalism got in the way of itself.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[m874t232]

War monger? I hate war. But I hate Hitlers of the world MORE.

Ah, the Hitler card: just define any group, nation, or political leader you don't like as a Nazi or Hitler, and all of a sudden, you think your position is justified. The irony is that that kind of simplistic us-vs-them thinking is pretty much what defines Nazis and Hitlers. People like you exist in all nations and all peoples, you mistake your self-righteous convictions for morality, and, in the end, you are just evil.

I guess it is so much easier to call people names.

You should know; you do it so often.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Archangel Michael]

"Ah, the Hitler card:"

Yes, the "Hitler card" as in the "all jews must die" mentality coming from Iran's Hitler, or did you not hear that from the Iranian President?

Re:Fired for blogging?

[Valdrax]

How do you define "equitable". Israel has given 98% of what Palistine has asked.

That's a farsical assertion. Israel still wants to permanently keep some of the best land in the West Bank and to deny the Palestinians the use of East Jerusalem as a capital. They've built a wall through the West Bank that cuts off portions of the land belonging to Palestine to make a de facto land grab. The abandonment of Gaza was explicitly done around the idea of consolidating the hold over the West Bank.

Israel's version of peace and a Palestinian state leaves them with complete control over the airspace over Palestinian territory, the waters, and the borders, leaving them imprisoned. It takes away the best land and the capital that they have their hearts set on. It provides no sharing of access to the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock. They don't care to set up the travel corridors between the two segments provided for in the Oslo peace accord.

It also does nothing for the "right of return" that the Palestinians grudingly gave up in that peace accord. That isn't "98% of what they asked for" in the peace accords, much less 98% of what they actually want (and probably shouldn't get; I don't like the idea of right of return at this late of a date).

Personally, I think Israel has bent over backwards trying to live in peace with its neighbors. Meanwhile, the surrounding countries have people sworn to the destruction of all Jews.

Israeli settlers are also religious fanatics dedicated to the idea of displacing all the Arabs from the area they claim for Greater Israel. Some believe that the statements made by God in the Pentateuch and later books like Joshua and Judges are still in effect and that Israel must conquer all the lands given to them in those passages. Most Israelis are more reasonable than that, though.

So, please define "equitable" in terms that don't allow more bombs to be lobbed into a soverign state from its neighbors.

How 'bout a definition that doesn't allow either side to lob bombs into their neighbors.

Re:Fired for blogging?

[m874t232]

Yes, the "Hitler card" as in the "all jews must die" mentality coming from Iran's Hitler, or did you not hear that from the Iranian President?

Iran's president denies the Holocaust, he wants to eliminate Israel, and he institutes discrimination against Jews in Iran. He may also sponsor terrorism against Jews elsewhere in the world. That makes him an evil man, a demagogue, and and opportunist, but none of that puts him in the same league as Hitler.

In any case, the problem of people like you is that you escalate rather than deescalate. People like you think because Iran's government is evil (which it is) and because other people who happen to share your religion have been badly mistreated in the past (which they have), you have some sort of special license to do whatever it takes to reduce your risk and survive. That stance is not only ethically unjustifiable, racist, and plain evil (in a banal sort of way), it also simply doesn't work.

Israel isn't being destroyed by Iran or the Palestinians, it's being destroyed by people like you, on both sides of the conflict.

She has an outside blog here...

[mcknation]

http://econo-girl.blogspot.com/

from the BoingBoing story a day or two ago..

Re:She has an outside blog here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, I would have fired her solely on the basis of her writing everything in the 3rd person.

In other news...

[gasmonso]

A contract software developer for the CIA was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA. Details to follow.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

A contract software developer for the CIA was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA. Details to follow.

Here, let me fix that for you:

A (contract software developer for) terr'ist identified by the CIA was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA. Details to follow.

Just doesn't have the right news-y feel without the T-word, ya know.

When you're a human being

[truthsearch]

Make as much noise about torture as possible.

Why was this greenlighted?

[dougman]

I fail to see how this even begins to fit the "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" moniker.

Oh, it was on a BLOG on an INTRANET - guess that must make it newsworthy. Feh - this is partisan posting and nothing else.

Here we have a contractor who did something the employer didn't like. Employer fires contractor. End of story.

Having consulted for 10 years, I can tell you that generally contracts are written to allow either party to terminate their agreement for almost any reason with almost no notice. If you're lucky you'll get legal to make it two weeks in cases where you violate the terms, but I'm guessing legal at the CIA can dictate very tight terms.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

as a nerd it matters more to me than final fantasy turns 15 years old or doki doki panic whatever

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tag line should be more like "(Wrong) Headlines that bring in people for getting us money"

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Oh, it was on a BLOG on an INTRANET...Here we have a contractor who did something the employer didn't like. Employer fires contractor. End of story.

I take it you don't understand the difference between private companies and government actions? A private company can fire you for saying something. If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law.

I can tell you that generally contracts are written...

Who cares. It doesn't matter what the contract you signed says, it does not mean the government can break the law. If you have a contract that says you can be fired for any reason, fine, but if a government agent payed for with my tax dollars went to your workplace and tried to convince your boss to fire you because you are jewish, or black, or for something you said, or because you own a firearm, they have just broken the law.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[geekoid]

A, It involves an agency that us Taxpayer pay for.
B, It involved a statement against torture.
C, There in no context, so it could have been in response to someone suggesting torture.
D, If someone can't express an opinion in a forum designed to generate many ideas and thoughts, why are the wasting money even having said forum*?
E, If an agency is advocating torture, the people have a right to know.
F, This is the 'Stuff that matters' portion. If you don't want to read things that apear in the 'your rights' postings, turn it off.

G, Torture is bad mmm,kay.

*Forum in the wider audience.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[MrCopilot]

I fail to see how this even begins to fit the "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" moniker.

Well you see, there are people in and around government who think torture is justified. It matters to me that not only are there still real americans in and around government but they are standing up and saying what they believe.

Maybe 'blog' is the word that is bothering you.

Here we have a contractor who did something the employer didn't like. Employer fires contractor. End of story.

Something her employer's employer (Uncle Sam) did not like. End of story is, If you stand up and speak your mind, 'we' will terminate your livelyhood, even if what you say is the truth (especially if it is the truth).

I guess all this is irrelevant to you, and you'd like another Ipod-killer/DS-killer/History of Luigi's Mustache story.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[Khaed]

If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law.

Um. You're going to have to back that up, because there are many things you are not allowed to say if you work for the government. Knowledge you have is not just allowed to be freely shared.

The First Amendment is designed to prevent government abuse. It does not guarantee the right to work for the government regardless of what you say.

It doesn't matter what the contract you signed says, it does not mean the government can break the law.

You're kidding, right? Following the terms of a legally binding contract -- signed by both parties -- as a condition of employment is breaking the law? I am guessing YANAL, or a government employee.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh - this is partisan posting and nothing else.

Partisan? WTF? It's been a while since WWII, I highly doubt partisans from eastern europe are writing slashdot articles, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[deanj]

"If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law."

This person would have been fired for posting *anything* on an internal blog. Contractors are hired to do a specific job, not spend their time blogging.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Knowledge you have is not just allowed to be freely shared.

There are some restrictions on the first amendment as it is enacted in current law. For example, yelling fire in a crowded theater (classic example). It must, however, be proved that your exercising your free speech violates the rights of others. For example, government monitoring of library checkouts was deemed unconstitutional because it had a chilling effect upon a person's right to read the free speech of others, thus violating the first amendment. The government interfering to get you fired certainly has at least as much chilling effect, unless they can demonstrate why this particular free speech prevented them from doing their work.

The First Amendment is designed to prevent government abuse. It does not guarantee the right to work for the government regardless of what you say.

The first amendment guarantees a right. Unless the government can demonstrate why this speech made it so the person could not do their job, then they have broken the law.

Following the terms of a legally binding contract -- signed by both parties -- as a condition of employment is breaking the law?

That is not at all what I wrote. I said your contract with your employer(contract company) cannot grant the government the right to break the law and certainly not the constitution which trumps all other laws including the legal basis for contracts in the first place. For that matter, even if you sign a contract with the government themselves agreeing not to speak about certain topics it won't hold up in court because it is illegal for the government to impose that restriction in the contract unless required by the job. For example, a contract that says you will not say anything good about the democratic party or candidate while you are employed at the post office, is blatantly illegal.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This person would have been fired for posting *anything* on an internal blog...

That remains unclear. Were other contractors who posted anything on the blog immediately let go and their contract company asked to fire them?

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[JBHarris]

I take it you don't understand the difference between private companies and government actions? A private company can fire you for saying something. If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law.

I take it you didn't RTFA. She was working as an employee of a subcontractor that was doing something for the CIA. She didn't work for the CIA anymore than AT&T engineers work for the NSA. She was fired by BAE Systems (who incidentally has an office right down the hall from mine, and they most certainly are a private company). A subcontractor couldn't be let go because of something one of their employee's wrote on an external blog, but they sure could be overlooked when time came to renew that contract. BAE Systems was protecting what they felt was their best interest. Case closed. Fairly simple in my mind.

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

A subcontractor couldn't be let go because of something one of their employee's wrote on an external blog, but they sure could be overlooked when time came to renew that contract. BAE Systems was protecting what they felt was their best interest. Case closed.

Now go reread the part of my post you quoted. "If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law."

It doesn't matter who fired her, what matters is the government took action to get her fired. What BAE did was legal, but what the government did was most probably not.

The couple's pose in article's picture...

[Anonymous Coward]

... looks like a cover to a rap album.

I can see both sides here

[Coryoth]

Certainly I can understand the issues involved with firing someone who posts an anti-torture blog. It just has "bad idea" written all over it. On the other hand this was an internal blog that she would have had to have written at work. I strongly suspect that rather than a "blog" these things are meant to just be an internal work diary recording what projects you've been working on, progress you've made and ideas relating to those projects, so that others that may have tangential interest in those projects can stay updated. The sort of thing where person A says "I really need something like X", they can do a quick search of the internal system and find that person B has is working on a project similar to X, and that in fact it will also do Y and Z which, now that they think about it, person A would also be interested in. Person A can then get in touch with person B and save themselves much duplication of effort. If that's the case then you have to admit that spending work time long writing Op-Ed pieces in your work diary instead of whatever you are supposed to be doing might be a good reason for someone to terminate your work contract.

This is also the sort of thing where, despite needing to really know a bit more to be able to make any reasonable judgement, we are simply never going to hear anymore due to secrecy constraints. I guess that means I'll just flag it as "mildly dubious" and keep an eye out for any more of this sort of shenanigans.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

One Question:

[tomhudson]

and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners.

Who'd they practice on before they became so skilled?

Gov't Torturer: I only lost 3 this week.
Superior: Good enough. Here's your "Skilled in Waterboarding" cert. And no, I don't want to know what you did with the bodies.
Gov't Torturer: Thanks. BTW, you might want to avoid the "mystery meat" at the cafeteria.

Re:One Question:

[eonblu]

Gov't Torturer: Thanks. BTW, you might want to avoid the "mystery meat" at the cafeteria.

Didn't the article say something about the food in the cafeteria being bad? Hmm...

Re:One Question:

[tomhudson]

Must have been those "long pork" ribs or the "hairless goat" souvlaki. Or maybe it was the hot dogs made from "choice cuts".

For those who don't get it, google for "long pig", "long pork", "hairless goat"

Re:One Question:

[hubritc]

That is funny, but there is a real answer. People like those in the special forces and pilots and such get as part of their training treated to worse things than anyone at Gitmo suffers.

Re:One Question:

[bjohnson]

Really? They're snatched away to be interrogated for YEARS without outside contact? Held in solitary for months?

Re:One Question:

[aled]

and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners.

Who'd they practice on before they became so skilled?

They may have studied in the School of Americas, as many other Latinamerica's dictators, assassins and torturers.

Thanks for bringing this "civilization" thing to our dictatorships!

Re:One Question:

[Apocros]

supposing that's true, one might also suppose that said soldiers and pilots volunteered for that training. interesting distinction, i think.

Re:One Question:

[tehcyder]

Really? They're snatched away to be interrogated for YEARS without outside contact? Held in solitary for months?

Of course, and if they still don't break down and confess to something, they're shot. It's really, really really difficult to get into the SAS nowadays.

One thing

[yincrash]

An intraweb is still a web.

Assuming it was still on a website, I think the word `blog` still holds.

Re:One thing

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Blog is not appropriate because it implies that she was expressing her opinion to the general public. The story is more interesting because she got into trouble for expressing her opinion in-house. It would be one thing if she was in trouble for bad mouthing the CIA to the general public, but if you can't even raise questions within the confines of the organization, then there are some serious problems that need to be addressed.

Chilling Effect

[MrNonchalant]

This isn't really a moral or rights issue, it was an internal company blog that was supposed to pertain to the contractor's work. What it is, however, is draconian and foolish. Draconian because it would have been much more effective to discuss this with the employee before pulling out the pink slips. Foolish because of the very real stifling effect it will have on what others say and the kind of culture that will promote. A culture in which open discussion of ideas and up-from-the-bottom thinking are discouraged is dangerous for any organization, but especially for an intelligence organization. It also misses the point of blogs. It appears Jack Ryan would have been fired in this CIA.

So?

[CXI]

So, let us review. A software developer had access to a blog set up specifically for collaborating on software issues. She instead uses it as an opinion journal, and even go so far as to reveal classified information that she has seen in the course of her previous job. Regardless of the clearance required to access the site, she shouldn't have been using the resource the way she was and she certainly shouldn't have been discussing interogation transcripts in her roll as a software developer!

Being fired seems like the logical concequence.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

But she didn't get fired for talking about stagflation in the middle east or the lunch room. She should have been fired about that, then.

Are you browsing slashdot from work, by chance?

As a human being, she should be concerned about torture.

Someone put it this way: You know you are living in a messed up time when "pro-torture" or "anti-torture" is some kind of plank in a party-platform. It's the kind of subtle hint a sci-fi author drops you to let you know you are reading about a dystopic future.

Re:So?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Suppose you were a contractor working for a bank, and you put up a blog with complaints about their lending policys.

Fired Again!

Re:So?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Cannot agree with your assessment that writing "let's just say, European lives were not saved" and "Torture is wrong" amounts to "revealing classified information". Can't even stretch to the point that "let's just say, European lives were not saved" amounts to "discussing interrogation transcripts".

>A software developer had access to a blog set up specifically for collaborating on software issues. She instead uses it as an opinion journal
Grounds for disciplinary action as long as there's a clear policy about it. Does anyone here think that topic drift is the real reason she was interrogated, fired, and implicitly threatened with prosecution? A post entitled "Torture is right and we're right to do it" would have been equally off-topic: anyone here believe she would have gotten in trouble for that?

Re:So?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Being fired seems like the logical concequence.

Possibly. But it's a good thing that not all human beings only act out of a desire to avoid the logical consequences, but rather do the decent and human thing.

Re:So?

[The Cydonian]

Was the blog for discussing collaboration on developing software? To wit,

Axsmith, 42, said in an interview this week that she thinks of herself as the Erma Bombeck of the intel world, a "generalist" writing about lunch meat one day, the war on terrorism the next. She said she first posted her classified blog in May and no one said a thing. When she asked, managers even agreed to give her the statistics on how many people were entering the site. Her column on food pulled in 890 readers, and people sent her reviews from other intelligence agency canteens. (from the article)

She simply had a blog in a classified intranet, that's all. Now, I really can't form an opinion on whether she outed classified information without reading her entire post, but from the quote in the article ("CC had the sad occasion to read interrogation transcripts in an assignment that should not be made public. And, let's just say, European lives were not saved."), I doubt you can make such a conclusion. She did vaguely claim to have read some information, but if she hadn't been fired, I doubt anyone would pay too much attention to that name-dropping.

In short, I think the CIA and her employer have confused between 'opinion' and 'information'. Wouldn't have blinked if this was some other authoritarian workplace, free-minded people are better off not working in such a workplace anyway, but heck, the CIA is supposed to be in the business of analysing data.

Criticize and be prepared

[statemachine]

Criticize your employer and be prepared for the consequences, including job termination, even if you are 100% correct. No one should be surprised. Hopefully the woman in the article has another job lined up.

Re:Criticize and be prepared

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one should be surprised."

This is absolutely true. However, it's also truly sad.

Why can't people just grow up and accept the fact that different people actually have different opinions? I mean, if I ran a company, and an employee of mine was expressing an opinion contrary to mine, even using company resources to do so, I would likely debate the issue with the employee, but beyond that, as long as they're still doing their job, I wouldn't do a damn thing about it.

What's so freaking wrong with disagreeing with someone? Is that so hard? Why are people in positions of power so completely insecure that even the slightest peep of dissent from those below them must be dealt with in the harshest manner allowed? Why can't people just grow the fuck up?

Re:Criticize and be prepared

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't people just grow up and accept the fact that different people actually have different opinions? I mean, if I ran a company, and an employee of mine was expressing an opinion contrary to mine, even using company resources to do so, I would likely debate the issue with the employee, but beyond that, as long as they're still doing their job, I wouldn't do a damn thing about it.

Well, you're entitled to your point of view of course.

What's so freaking wrong with disagreeing with someone? Is that so hard? Why are people in positions of power so completely insecure that even the slightest peep of dissent from those below them must be dealt with in the harshest manner allowed? Why can't people just grow the fuck up?

Grow the fuck up? Give me a break. It's not about insecurity; it's about power. If were BAE and/or the CIA and I had the power to make her shut up I'd have used it. She pissed in BAE's (and the US govt's) breakfast cereal so they let her go. You'd better wake the hell up: people are firing asses, eroding workers rights, using SLAPP suits, and every other damned thing under the sun to inflict their will.

Theo De Raadt makes awesome software and he ran his mouth one day.. *blammo* no more DARPA grants. And hell, he wasn't encumbered by a US security clearance nor was he "on the clock" of a contractor. The NAACP made a few nasties about Bush and he's shirked meeting with them for five years. It's all about playing the meanest hardball you can nowadays.

You have freedom of speech, not freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Re:Criticize and be prepared

[nathanh]

Criticize your employer and be prepared for the consequences, including job termination, even if you are 100% correct. No one should be surprised. Hopefully the woman in the article has another job lined up.

Except the CIA is a government department. She is a citizen of the US and so she is the employer and the CIA works for her. I'm surprised that such a simple civic lesson - that the government works for the citizens, not the other way around - was not in your education.

You guys have slipped from a representative democracy into a fascist autocracy so smoothly that you didn't even notice.

Why people haven't figured this out.....

[mikesd81]

....is beyond me. People are writing things about their companies on blogs and getting fired for it. Why is that such a suprise? If belittle your company in a public place and hurt their image, why shouldn't you be fired.

Now, this was an internal blog that was actually used BY the CIA employees to discuss information that may be needed...this type of post was uncalled for and deserved a punishment, though maybe a suspension would do. Blogs are nothing but a way to get in trouble.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut

[OrangeTide]

Maybe if you want to keep your job you should keep your mouth shut and not criticize your employeer. There are plenty of people who can fight the fight for you, we are all well aware that the CIA practices waterboarding on foreign nationals on a regular basis. And occationally it is practiced in government institutions against American citizens (prisons and mental hospitals).

It has shown many times that torture often produces falses confessions, so I'm skeptical of its effectiveness for gathering information. I will not deny its effectiveness for punishment though. Punishment that leaves no scars is a step up from the usual beatings that take place.

Re:Maybe you should keep your mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it make any difference if it is effective or not? How does that change the morality of it?

If torture were the only effective means of interrogation and was proved to produce accurate information 100% of the time, would it suddenly become moral?

The issue isn't whether or not torture can be a useful tool for us. The issue is whether or not it is right to torture someone.

Wrong all around

[crmartin]

Go read the actual article: she was fired for writing about the contents of a transcript of an interrogation she read.

This was undoubtedly at least SECRET codeword information, and she posted it on a network where, with certainty, not everyone on the network had been "read into" the compartment. In other words, she violated "need to know."

So they pulled her clearance, and since clearance was required for her job, they fired her.

She's lucky they didn't arrest her. Dammit, "I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.

Re:Wrong all around

[abmhmd]

My understanding is that the site she posted it on was a secure site. Everyone with access to the site had sufficient classification to read said article. I guess when your government is doing something illegal then it's illegal for you to let others know even if you don't break any laws by doing so.

Re:Wrong all around

[cinnamoninja]

Dammit, "I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.

Err, yes it is.

Should she have been fired for breaking security? Yes.

Should she have done it anyway? Yes.

This is a classic case for civil disobedience. There come times when following the law violates your own integrity as a person, and the dual virtues of loyalty and compassion conflict. At that point, you must showcase you humanity and be willing to take the punishment for it.

Might I have the strength to choose as wisely.

Re:Wrong all around

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to her blog and read her version:

I had a blog called Covert Communications on a kind of classified Internet. I wrote a version of the above post and classified it so that only Americans with clearances could read it. You couldn't even get to the blog if you had less than a Top Secret and above clearance anyway.

Re:Wrong all around

[Gat0r30y]

IMHO When a government agency is torturing people without just cause, maybe that is something that the public has a right to know about... Just a thought. Sometimes leaks are good.

Re:Wrong all around

[Vellmont]

Dammit, "I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.


Well, I'd agree that the standard shouldn't be "I don't like this". But it sounds like there's much deeper ethical and possible criminal issues here. Was Mark Felt (Deep Throat) justified in revealing classified information to Woodward and Bernstein? I think so. This case is a bit different of course as there were no specifics revealed, and the information was only revealed to others in the intelligence field. I don't know if the scope of wrongdoing here is in the same league as Watergate, but I think that's a question worth asking.

Re:Wrong all around

[_xeno_]

That's not how clearances work. There are two aspects that must be satisified to allow access to classified material:

1. Clearance. You must have a sufficient clearance level to view the material.

2. Need to Know. You must need to know the information in order to properly carry out your job.

She clearly violated the second part: the need to know. Personally, while I agree that torture is wrong (and useless as an information gathering technique), she didn't need to reveal that she knew about instances of it from secured information. If all she had said was "I think waterboarding is bad" she probably wouldn't have gotten into any trouble. However, she clearly violated the need to know, clearly demonstrating herself to be a potential security risk.

There are rules about how security is handled, and when the US government desides to trust you to follow them, you'd damned better follow them! In this case, American lives may not have been at stake, but make no mistake: there are instances when information is classified because revealing it will endanger Americans and allies, and I'd much rather she follow the rules and disagree with the CIA than decide she can determine when it's OK to break them.

Security in the armed forces and the CIA is not a laughing matter. There are arguably times when it's time to break the rules and reveal terrible things. One of the side effects you must be prepared for, though, is losing your clearance and potentially being arrested and jailed for it. Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of your actions.

Re:Wrong all around

[Meccanica]

The impression I got - from reading the article, and from her public blog, which someone linked, - was that ahe did not reveal anything classified or secret, but revealed that she had seen it. That may still be a major no-no, and (I'm no expert) maybe still gets a body fired. This deserves attention because it is an example of the idea that if information gets leaked, the person who did so is the problem, not the information leaked. Example: There's this issue of "our government is X", which conveniently becomes converted into "employee/journalist Y was not supposed to know/say Z", a problem which is easily and concisly dealt with. In this case X is "torturing people", Y is "Christine Axsmith", and Z is "that she read something confidential which happens to be an example of X".

Re:Wrong all around

[Anonymous Coward]

So they pulled her clearance, and since clearance was required for her job, they fired her

You hit the nail on the head, her clearance getting pulled was what caused her to get fired.

While in general employees have some rights as far as what they can and can't be fired for, there are no such rights when it comes to security clearances. A security clearance can be pulled for anything that could be perceived as a security risk, whether it's just being sloppy about following security protocols, having a Chinese girlfriend, or maybe questionable political views. Security officers have notoriously low thresholds for what they consider a risk, and I'm certain the ones at CIA are probably among the most conservative of all.

Many criticize this as being unfair (many times they won't even tell you why your clearance was pulled/denied, and there are no appeals) but that's the way it is and has been for decades.

This is generally made abundantly clear to anyone holding a clearance or working in that world. Avoiding politics when it could endanger your clearance is generally a good idea if you need it to keep your job and put food on the table.

This woman exercised extremely poor judgement discussing anything in a classified area that wasn't directly related to her job (which was testing software, not policy or analysis). No "need to know". In the eyes of many security officers (either CIA or her employers), I'm sure it was regarded as an abuse of her clearance. So they pulled it.

Re:Wrong all around

[crabpeople]

Yeah keep your mouth shut, thats the way a good little sheep behaves. But lets look at what exactly this practice entails. From wikipedia:

""The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess. 'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch." "

So honestly.. you knew that was going on and you wouldnt speak out even if it means your job?
If the only reaction you have to something like that is "i dont like this" then you dont deserve any respect as a civilized human being. Do you want this happening to you? if you answered no, then its torture and anyone who doesnt speak out as loudly and as oftenly as possible untill the practice has stopped, is in my view, a fucking coward.

Re:Wrong all around

[SpeedBump0619]

"I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.

I have never held a security clearance. While I agree that "I don't like that" is not OK, what we are talking about here goes *way* beyond that. I believe that the *vast* majority of the US population would condemn torture if asked. Most of those people aren't just vaguely opposed -- They find the concept to be morally reprehensible.

So my question is this: What *is* sufficient justification for violating the terms of your security clearance? You cannot expect me to believe that the answer is none. I can't think of a whole lot that exceeds evidence of torture.

Re:Wrong all around

[Tim C]

As another poster said, that's not how clearance works. For a concrete example, here in the UK every British citizen automatically has clearance to see material marked as RESTRICTED.

However, were I to distribute any of the RESTRICTED material that I have access to, I would lose my clearance and potentially be prosecuted under the various Offical Secrets Acts. I would also no doubt be fired in short order.

The bottom line is that if someone doesn't need to know some information, whether they have sufficient clearance or not they don't get to know it, full stop.

Re:Wrong all around

[Anonymous Coward]

So my question is this: What *is* sufficient justification for violating the terms of your security clearance? You cannot expect me to believe that the answer is none. I can't think of a whole lot that exceeds evidence of torture.

Repeat after me: there is no justification. When I had a clearance it was plainly worded that they could own your ass up to 70 years after the fact for divulging classified info to inappropriate entities. Period.

There are no officials "outs". If you take it upon yourself to violate the clearance then you face the consequences. She had no authority to determine what information is appropriate for a given audience... i.e. she's obviously not empowered to reclassify material to a lower level

She's damned lucky she's not going to jail.

And no, I don't agree with torture, but that's just the way things are in the world of the "cleared". That's why I no longer work in that environment: I just could no longer hack being a part of the big machine.

Re:Wrong all around

[TheGratefulNet]

There come times when following the law violates your own integrity as a person, and the dual virtues of loyalty and compassion conflict. At that point, you must showcase you humanity and be willing to take the punishment for it.

when the US was still young, slavery was legal.

should you always follow all laws?

of course not.

also, google around for 'jury nullification'. VERY enlightening and even though its a basic idea of the US legal system, most judges and laywers go to great lengths to hide this from you, even to the point of holding you in contempt (!) if you dare tell other jurors about their right to nullify 'bad laws'.

this was a basic check/balance designed into the system to give the PEOPLE the ability to also judge the law. this is NOT just reserved for judges, even though they'll tell you that (lying) with a straight face all the while.

Re:Wrong all around

[jafac]

Dammit, "I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.

Why not? That was sufficient for Karl Rove and I Lewis Libby.

Re:Wrong all around

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Her opinion, Axsmith added, was based on newspaper reports of torture and waterboarding as an interrogation method used to induce prisoners to cooperate.

Re:Wrong all around

[_xeno_]

And it continued, she added, with something like this: "CC had the sad occasion to read interrogation transcripts in an assignment that should not be made public. And, let's just say, European lives were not saved."

That's the violation of "need to know" - she released information about classified interrogation transcripts to people without the need to know - a clear violation of security protocols.

Giving her opinion on waterboarding is one thing, talking about classified information without following proper proceedures is another.

Re:Wrong all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Security in the armed forces and the CIA is not a laughing matter.

Sure it is! Karl Rove was grinning from ear to ear after being told that he wasn't going to be charged for leaking the name of a CIA operative. Cheney hasn't even been charged. National security with regards to the U.S. is a three ring circus, a barrel of laughs with zero credibility now, twisted and modified by those in power to suit the circumstances.

Re:Wrong all around

[Anonymous Coward]

bingo!

Re:Wrong all around

[zalle]

I'm fairly sure that's the rationale given by the Nazis too. Oh, and endanger Americans and allies? So now American lives are worth more than other people? I guess we non-americans will just start torturing you then, since that's the accepted policy.

Re:Wrong all around

[crmartin]

Exactly right.

Re:Wrong all around

[crmartin]

Bullshit. She wasn't publishing outside the intel network; she didn't go to the Inspector General. Should could have quit. And since when did "civil disobedience" mean "I can' do anything I want and suffer no consequences"? The title of MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" isn't "Letter from Birminham Holiday Inn".

Re:Wrong all around

[SuiteSisterMary]

I'm curious; what are you thoughts on what should be done instead?

You capture a terrorist who you know has information that you need. What do you do with said captive?

Re:Wrong all around

[crmartin]

Complaining to other CIA people on a classified net is leaking?

Re:Wrong all around

[crmartin]

See above. This wasn't leaking to the press --- at least, not until Dana got the story --- it was on an internal network.

Re:Wrong all around

[crmartin]

Nope, sorry. Doesn't work that way.

Re:Wrong all around

[The Cydonian]

Is this SOP for handling classified information? I'm genuinely curious about this, coz, to me, that quote amounted to a little less than hand-waving; I mean, it's not as if she referred to any specific document or any event. At best, scare her or warn her or something; now the entire world knows what she was alluding to.

is it any wonder why intelligence fails?

[v3xt0r]

obviously, if they are using blogs for information management, then we really do need a new 'intelligence' agency, or at least they need a better IT dept.

Re:is it any wonder why intelligence fails?

[crmartin]

Nah. Blogs are a marvelous mechanism for informal info management. Don't imagine they're the only mechanism CIA uses --- I was helping with big info management systems for CIA 30 years ago.

A little paranoid, but still...

[ErichTheRed]

I'm actually surprised to see one of these "company blogs" being used by someone not in the marketing or PR department. The poster should have been a little more cognizant of where she was posting this information. I thought that most people realized that internal blogs were strictly there for marketing/progaganda purposes.

I'm also kind of curious about why the poster didn't follow Rule #1 of contracting...do your job, stay invisible, and collect your paychecks. This has been true in every place I've worked where contractors were used. Any mistakes by a contractor meant they were instantly out the door, which explains why a lot of sysadmin jobs are contracted. Mail server went down for an hour? New sysadmin from the agency tomorrow.

Even with that though, I can't believe they'd go to the trouble of firing her. They're within their rights to delete the posting, since it's their blog on their intranet. It shows a little paranoia on their part about not letting unofficial opinions get out. Which is wierd, because that was what company blogging was supposed to be all about; "open, spontaneous communication" among the employees.

Re:A little paranoid, but still...

[The Cydonian]

Any mistakes by a contractor meant they were instantly out the door, which explains why a lot of sysadmin jobs are contracted. Mail server went down for an hour? New sysadmin from the agency tomorrow.

That how it works in your part of the world? Scary; I suppose technically I'm a contractor myself for this big American consulting company I won't name, but I get a one month's notice before being shown the door. There's some weasel-clause in my contract about letting me go immediately if I don't have the skills I claimed in the recruitment process, but I figured they can use that for a month, at the maximum.

The US is absolutely civilized.

[NDPTAL85]

Its not subjective at all. The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration. Our entire code of laws and ethics is based around a civil society. We even have a "Bill of Rights" and an Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. The current quibble is whether this ammendment applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens. Now compare that to many other countries, even other Western countries such as the UK, German...etc which don't even garuntee freedom of speech and you can see how it is quite correct to call the US, civilized.

Then you can compare the US to those great honor killing muslim societies, or those asian countries (India, China) where there are looming massive imbalances in sex ratios because for various cultural reasons parents do not want female children....

But hey, the US is a free country so if you want to be snarky to the point of being petulant AND WRONG, then go right ahead.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

The current quibble is whether this ammendment applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens.

It's pretty sad that the only thing apparently keeping the government from torturing us is that some people have a right not to be tortured.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

I can't speak for those "other countries", but the Canadian constitutional applies to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, just like the rest of the laws.

It's also why we're reluctant to extradite death-penalty cases unless we get assurances that the death penalty won't apply. Once they're here, they have the same right not to be put to death for a crime as anyone else.

It must work - our murder rate is 1/3 the US rate.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Aardpig]

I'm striving to underdstand your logic. You claim that the USA is civilized because it has laws banning torture. Yet, in spite of the fact that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, there is uncertainty over whether the illegality of torture applies to non-citizens. This would suggest that non-citizens are not all men, but something else. Indeed, this wholly undermines any claims that the outlawing of torture are based on moral considerations. How can it be moral not to torture me, but to torture my neighbour?

The USA may guarantee freedom of speech. But it doesn't gaurantee freedom from execution from the state -- and many other things. Furthermore, when you think about recent concepts such as 'free speech zones', you see that the utility of freedom of speech extends only as far as the 'right' can be excercised -- which in the current US political climae is not very far at all.

Finally, if you use countries that practice infanticide or honor killing as your yardstick, then something is wrong. After Abu Ghraib, I heard people like yourself pointing out that 'at least we aren't as bad as Saddam was'. This sort of reasoning strikes me as very worrying.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

It must work - our murder rate is 1/3 the US rate.

I know someone will point out correlation isn't causation, but I think this does lend some support to my theory that everyone putting all of thier statements in the form of a question would help people get along better, eh?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[mcmonkey]

The current quibble is whether this ammendment[sic] applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens.

What quibble are you talking about? The current administration has asserted that even US citizens apprehended on US soil can be classified as enemy combatants and held outside of the usual (criminal, military) prison systems.

The quibble I'm concerned with is whether the laws of the nation apply to everyone, or if the president and his cronies are exempt.

But hey, it's a free country, so if you want to be ignorant and WRONG, go right ahead.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Burlap]

i find it a little uncivilized that there is question as to weither the Bill of Rights applys to non-citizens, but im pritty damn sure that your speeding laws apply no matter what country you were born in

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Arker]

By the plain text of the language, the same holds true of the US Constitution. It doesn't use the word 'citizen' at all - it speaks of the rights of 'people' instead. But the Constitution has always been seen as nothing but an inconvenience to the rulers, and they mostly don't even bother to pretend to follow it anymore.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[koreth]

The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration. Our entire code of laws and ethics is based around a civil society.

And if only we could get the current administration to pay attention to our entire code of laws and ethics, we'd be in good shape!

Maybe I'm just a pinko leftie traitor who should be waterboarded until I see the light, but it seems to me that administrations that pay attention to the laws of the land generally don't have their initiatives declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and are rarely handed opinions that include justices writing on the record that the administration may be guilty of war crimes. Just a thought.

Then again, there are still people who are convinced McCarthy was a hero, so I guess there will be people who think it's a fine, moral, upstanding thing to split legal hairs over exactly who is exempt from cruel and unusual punishment.

And yes, it's splitting hairs. Please imagine the Founding Fathers, sitting around drafting the Bill of Rights. "Hey, Benjamin, you think all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, or is it just U.S. citizens?" "Are you kidding, Thomas? Foreigners aren't real people. Fuck due process. Whip 'em till their backs bleed, fine by me!"

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your moral relevance stance, which is essentially "we're not as bad as the worst", is pathetic. And the sucking sound of that giant information vacuum operating around your head must drive you crazy.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Da_Weasel]

Here are some statistics for you. Not exactly a "looming massive imbalances in sex ratios"... That info was pretty easy to find. Maybe next time you should search for it before you post. Thanks!

India -
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.02 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

China -
at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.13 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.91 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

United States -
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.72 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

Worldwide -
at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

You're right - correlation isn't causation.

Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar.

Guns don't kill - stupid people with guns kill.

Per capita, Canada has more firearms, but WAY less hand guns, than the US. There's the causative difference - pretty much unregulated hand gun ownership.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[glas_gow]

Now compare that to many other countries, even other Western countries such as the UK, German...etc which don't even garuntee freedom of speech and you can see how it is quite correct to call the US, civilized.

The UK and Germany are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and have both integrated the chapters into their respective legislatures. See Article Ten of the ECHR, which concerns itself with, and is entitled, the right to freedom of expression, and Article Three, which prohibits torture regardless of nationality.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[rainman_bc]

I can't speak for those "other countries", but the Canadian constitutional applies to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, just like the rest of the laws.

Only on Canadian Soil. The government is free to act as it pleases outside our country, same as the US. Our Supreme court has yet to rule (AFAIK) that the Canadian government needs to act within our constitutional limits on an international level.

That's the same escape the US government is using in Guantanamo. They are not in violation of the US constitution if we torture in Cuba.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Moofie]

"The current quibble is whether this ammendment applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens."

Nonsense. The amendment clearly restricts the authority of Government. It does NOT confer a Right on a Citizen: The Right already exists by virtue of the fact that they are a Person. (You remember that whole "We hold these truths to be self evident, blah blah, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

The Government has no authority to perform cruel and unusual punishment on any person. They are explicitly forbidden to do so by the Constitution. You are absolutely wrong, as is everybody who agrees with you, up to and including the President.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[rainman_bc]

We even have a "Bill of Rights" and an Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.

FWIW, I respect the Bill of Rights and the US constitution, and I think your forefathers were on the right track. However these documents should not bind the government to these rules only within the borders of the US.

But hey, the US is a free country so if you want to be snarky to the point of being petulant AND WRONG, then go right ahead.

Really? Free? Recall the McCarthy era, where books were banned. Is Mary Shelly's Frankenstein such a threat to the US security? Free my ass. Frankenstein was a banned book during that era.

And ask the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay what they think of US freedoms.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

The USA may guarantee freedom of speech. But it doesn't gaurantee freedom from execution from the state -- and many other things. Furthermore, when you think about recent concepts such as 'free speech zones', you see that the utility of freedom of speech extends only as far as the 'right' can be excercised -- which in the current US political climae is not very far at all.

It must be awesome to be able to completely and utterly lack perspective. How can you, in the same post, say that using "honor killing countries" as a yardstick is "wrong", and yet you can say things like the political climate is "not very fall at all". The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective. Don't say the US political climate on free speach "isn't very far at all". That's ignorant. It's incredibly far. Where are the "free speech" zones in Germany that let me deny the Holocaust? Or is Germany an unfair yardstick too? Maybe you should try wearing a facist symbol in Italy.

What you really mean to say is the US doesn't do a very good job letting the people I agree with do whatever they want (like block traffic and disturb events.. the reason for "free speech zones"). You should try getting some "perspective". Then you want make incredibly stupid statements like "not very far at all"... Rational people just roll their eyes.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the plain text of the language, the same holds true of the US Constitution. It doesn't use the word 'citizen' at all - it speaks of the rights of 'people' instead.

Want to bet on that?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution of the US extends protections to all persons, not just citizens. This is quite obvious in the wording, albeit not explicit, as it always refers to citizens as a separate class from simply person where citizens are granted additional benefits (e.g. the vote). This has also held up numerous times in courts.

As for slaves, they were not counted as persons. Apparently neither are "enemy combatants".

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Mister Whirly]

Or maybe it just means Canadians are horrible shots...

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Riverman1]

I think this has more to do with a mole hunt than anything else. Someone so eager to share their personal opinions may share it with the public. To be a CIA employee, you have to go through psychological screening which looks for attributes like this. You don't hire a new york times journalist to run phone taps.

Another aspect here is that she is forming alliances with people who also disagree with the leadership, and that's bad. Now that others know how she feels, they may be inclined to share secrets with her, knowing that her sense of ethics may conflict with the leadership.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Professor_UNIX]

The current administration has asserted that even US citizens apprehended on US soil can be classified as enemy combatants and held outside of the usual (criminal, military) prison systems.

Can you provide a single example of an American citizen being dragged from US soil to be held as an enemy combatant without due process? A link to a reputable news source would be sufficient.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[mickwd]

"The US is absolutely civilized."

"We even have a "Bill of Rights" and an Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. The current quibble is whether this ammendment applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens."

The law is designed to be an expression of the values of the society it applies to - determining what it does, and does not, deem acceptable. You seem to be missing the point over whether torture is, or is not, right. If something is fundementally not right, a country should not do it, regardless of whether it happens to have a law which makes that particular practise explicitly illegal.

Interesting that you choose the word "quibble" to describe the debate over whether non-USA human beings deserve the same human rights as USA human beings. Are non-USA citizens somehow less human?

This seems to split the world into two sorts of people - "us" and "them", with "them" (from your point of view) being the rest of the world. And you describe it as a "quibble" over whether "they" are equal to "us" as human beings.

If you really think this way, is it any wonder that "they" could possible dislike "us" ?

(I've used "them" and "us" from a USA perspective here. Remember that 95% of the world's population (including myself) thinks of it the other way round).

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Arker]

And just where does that say that non-citizens have no rights?

I was referring to the Bill of Rights, where the bulk of our protections are found. Look at amendment 4, for instance. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There's no distinction there between citizen and noncitizen. Nor in amendment 6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[jahudabudy]

Can you provide a single example of an American citizen being dragged from US soil to be held as an enemy combatant without due process? A link to a reputable news source would be sufficient.

How about the BBC?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

Its not subjective at all. The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration

I appreciate what you are saying, but you must consider what is going on here.

There is no possible way a rational person given any reasonable definition of "civilized" can catagorized the United States as "uncivilized". Anyone who does is either using hyperbole, is ignorant, is lying, or has a complete and utter lack of perspective. Period. On slashdot, some moron claiming America isn't "civilized" is either using hyperbole, or just anti-American take any chance they can to take a whack. Welcome to Slashdot politics.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective.

I reject this argument entirely. Looking to the lowest common denominator and striving to be "a little better than they are" is sickening. We should strive to be the best at everything and look to the best at any given thing for our ideals. Anything else results in not reason, but rationalization of wrongdoing. "Someone else is still worse," is no excuse for wrongdoing.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[CodeBuster]

The Government has no authority to perform cruel and unusual punishment on any person. They are explicitly forbidden to do so by the Constitution.

This is true, but neither are these documents meant to be suicide pacts and there are cases where extraordinary circumstances, such as high probability that a captured suspect has specific knowledge of an eminent attack that will kill thousands, dictate that such methods might be justified as the lesser of two evils once all other measures that can be practically applied to uncover the plot before it reaches fruition, with time remaining to thwart it, have been exhausted.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar.

Why would you do that? Both countries allow ownership of handguns and both countries have plenty of murders by handguns.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

I reject this argument entirely. Looking to the lowest common denominator and striving to be "a little better than they are" is sickening.

Wow, did you think of that strawman up all by yourself? Definitely not, since it's used 100 times in every slashdot discussion. I am NOT using that logic nor am I striving for what you claim. I am not saying America is beyond criticism because it is "better than most". I am saying that people are forced to use that argument ("We are better than 90%...") in reponse to equally stupid arguments like "America is terrible in regards to free speech..."... and then someone (you) comes barging in with the classic strawman. The same three posts happen in every discussion... If the original statement wasn't so completely ill-worded, it wouldn't require the statement that you can so easily turn into your strawman.

Next time you reject my argument, try to understand it first.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

Like a lot of things ... it depends.

The problem is that we recognize that our governments' sovereignty over its own citizens stop once they're outside the territory. The US, on the other hand, expects its citizens to obey American authority worldwide.

This is a mixed blessing. For example, it allows the US to charge pedopholes for having sex with kids in Thailand.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, I would agree with you. However, our Bill of Rights hasn't prevented recent and current administrations from enforcing "free speech zones," which is a clear violation of our First Amendment. The Second Amendment says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," yet we have laws against certain types of weapons and no Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second. The IRS may demand your personal or otherwise financial records be handed over for review by an auditor under penalty of imprisonment; however, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Where does it say this applies only to American citizens? How can there even be an argument over whether "person" refers to all humans subjected to prosecution (under American control) or just humans with American citizenship?

The Eighth Amendment doesn't even specify that only humans are to be protected by it. That must be implied, but I believe it would be a stretch to say it only applies to Americans.

When was the last time the Ninth Amendment had any teeth in court?

Almost as weak as the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment is constantly ignored by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. Amazing!

So, what where you saying about our "Bill of Rights?" Where are the punishments for officials and governments (state, local, federal) that blatantly disregard them?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Wow, did you think of that strawman up all by yourself?

I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.

I am saying that people are forced to use that argument ("We are better than 90%...") in reponse to equally stupid arguments like "America is terrible in regards to free speech..."

You can't judge the relative quality of human rights until you actual look at how it is applied. The US is nowhere near "better than 90%." We're mediocre. You're the one who defended that it is acceptable to compare us to those worst as justification for wrongdoing.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Moofie]

I totally disagree.

I don't believe that there is high enough probability to justify torture. Nor do I believe that any such determination is made by a competent authority on the persons who are being abused. Nor does any such "ticking time bomb" factor exist for people who have been detained for four years.

So, no. The black letter law of the Constitution says "No torture." It does not say "No torture, unless you can't come up with any better ideas."

It is absolutely appalling to me that there is any discussion whatsoever on this topic. Torture is always, always, the greater of two evils.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[jridley]

Canadian constitutional applies to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, just like the rest of the laws.

Good. The US was founded, after all, on the concept that "all men are created equal." Not "all citizens of this country."

IMO when Bush condones doing anything to a non-citizen that he wouldn't do to a citizen, he's breaking his pledge to uphold the constitution. But then again, maybe he would do any of this stuff to a citizen, too.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, if you will recall, was to ensure that blacks were given equal rights to citizenship and equal access to protection under the law.

The 14th Amendment was a response to various Jim Crow laws in the South that essentially treated blacks as lesser humans, and thus gave the authorities in those states 'legal basis' to treat them like shit - and deny them the vote.

The 14th Amendment was intended to clarify who could be citizens, and prohibit the kind of discrimination that the Southern states were enacting.

In short: it defines who is a citizen, and what protections they have under the law.

It is not intended to limit or restrict in any way, provisions in previous Amendments - it is intended to add clarity to the word 'citizen' in a legal context.

The word 'citizen' does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights - because the founders believed these were inalienable rights of all men - not just of citizens. (men, women, white, black or otherwise, not relevant to the issue at hand). If they had meant citizens, they would have used the word citizens.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[forgetmenot]

So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning?
I don't get how someone else saying something "stupid" (which is subjective) forces anyone else to say something stupid.
Maybe I'm just stupid though.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar."

I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.

I think you also have to take into the culture of the US vs other places like CA or Europe. There still is a bit of the, and I hate to use the cliche, 'cowboy' mentality...our country was born with this self sufficient, independent mentality. And, tho is has faded a bit, it is still there. People tend to take things into their own hands, whether for bad or good. In the old west, if someone did you wrong, you got them back. I think often that is the case here, a good example is the gang wars. One gang hits another's gang member, the other gang immediatly retaliates.

Again...I don't have much knowledge on where the stats hit on the high # of murders in the US, but, I gotta believe the majority of them are gang and/or drug related. I mean, even in New Orleans (pre-K)..sure, we had a high murder rate, but, chances are, you were pretty safe from it, as long as you weren't in the projects trying to buy crack. If you looked at the murder stats...they were clearly drawn almost exclusively in very dense proportions...around the drug dealing areas of the projects.

And to tell the truth...I almost think like others...let the criminals shoot each other...just don't let innocent citizens get caught in the crossfire.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

As I understand this...the wording and much of the purpose for this was to ensure that former slaves were indeed incorporated as full US citizens, which I do wholly applaude.

However, I think it is time we change this wording...where at least ONE of the parents themselves is a full US citizen. We've got to stop this shit of people running into the US with broken water dripping....so they can drop their kid on US soil, and have it be automatically a full citizen.

From what I understand...that is more how other countries do things...but, that might help some with the current 'invasion' problems we in the US are experiencing. We need to take away the incentive for illegal border crossings, and make the legal way a more attractive option.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Dun Malg]

You can't judge the relative quality of human rights until you actual look at how it is applied. The US is nowhere near "better than 90%.

Actually, out of the 200-plus nations on the planet, I think you'd have a hard time finding any ranking system that puts more than 20 of them above the US. I think there's an argument to be made that only making the 90th percentile is not good enough for a nation like the US, but I think the actual figure is accurate.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.

You are arguing with a position I do not hold. You have created a strawman argument and are now beating up on it. I am not misusing the word. It is a _very_ accurate portrayl of what has occured... I tried to point this out to you, and instead taking a moment to realize you misinterpreted my argument, you presumed that I don't know what the word 'strawman' means. Then you proceed to continue beating up on him. You don't need me in the conversation if you want to argue with phatoms.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"Finally, if you use countries that practice infanticide or honor killing as your yardstick, then something is wrong. After Abu Ghraib, I heard people like yourself pointing out that 'at least we aren't as bad as Saddam was'."

While I abhor what the US did in Abu, and think those responsible should be punished, I still gotta think when you make statements like above comparing it with what Saddam, and other countries do, I gotta say "Come On...it ain't even in the same ball park"!!

Stacking some people naked, or making them wear panties on their heads is in no way comparable to having electodes hooked to your testicles or having your tongue cut out. Hell, there people in the world that would pay good money for the stacking and panty treatment....

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[BlueStraggler]

Only on Canadian Soil. The government is free to act as it pleases outside our country, same as the US.

I take it you've never heard of the Somalia Affair. This led to murder charges, a major public inquiry, the resignation of top military brass, and the wholesale disbanding of an entire military regiment. All for the torture/killing of one thief.

Some countries do hold their soldiers and governments to higher standards.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

Just my tuppence....

I agree with the substance of your post

et, in spite of the fact that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, there is uncertainty over whether the illegality of torture applies to non-citizens. This would suggest that non-citizens are not all men, but something else. Indeed, this wholly undermines any claims that the outlawing of torture are based on moral considerations. How can it be moral not to torture me, but to torture my neighbour?

There is a problem with the "all men are created equal" part. The Founding Fathers of the USA did not actually mean that all human beings are equal. They meant that all white, male, christians of a certain seniority, income and social standing are created equal. The 'equality' part has been gradually extended over the years to include young, poor white males, women (sheesh!) and non-whites. If one wants to be picky, the line should read "all men are created equal except..."

This culture of exception to the rule is still prevalent. The US is obliged to adhere to the Geneva Convention except, says the administration, in Guantanamo. The administration is obliged to adhere to the US Constitution except, says the administration, when that makes things awkward. The US prizes Free Speech except, says the American People, where that speech is used to criticise the US (case in point the firing of the blogger for criticising the administration's torture policy

I find it odd that in a nation that was born in a struggle for self-determination and to hold its rulers accountable, people are so ready to abrogate that responsibility. The citizens of the US have a constitutional obligation to hold their government to account and to make that government justify its actions.

Lastly I agree with your comment about comparison. My wife does the same. Whenever she has been caught doing something wrong, her response is to find something that can make the accuser 'even wronger' thus forcing THEM to apologise so she doesn't have to. This also seems to work on a global scale - "If it wasn't for whiny, liberal people like you we wouldn't need to break the Constitution - you made us do it"

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning?

No. The reason is NOT stupid. If someone says "The USA is barbaric"... and your goal is give them examples of true barbarism you might say "The US doesn't kill Christian converts nor execute adultresses in public execution in soccer stadiums". Their goal is to show that the original post lacked perspective, and attempt to actually clarify the use the word 'barbarism'. The person who then jumps in and says "Oh ok, so as long as you better then the worst, than everyhting is ok!" has created a strawman. The middle person never said it was OK... he just was trying to show the original statement was poor.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[S.P.B.Wylie]

"Let the criminals shoot each other", hu? Have you forgoten that they are people, too? What if it was your brother that was involved in drugs, or you son, or ever your parent? Because the people you talk about have brothers and mothers and children, and people care about them.

You also forget that these people are redeemable. O Henrey, a renound and classic writer, wrote some of his best stuff in prison. Many have gotten out of a life of crime, and added something great to society.

But in the end, the best arguement is that many of these people were conditioned by there enviornment to be criminals from children. These people weren't even given much of a chance to avoid crime; they were born into it. And it is unfair to condem people to death because of where they were born.

Before you condem them to death, try to understand there plight. You can't know a person untill you walk a mile in thier shoes, as the saying goes.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think you'd have a hard time finding any ranking system that puts more than 20 of them above the US.

Really? Try a Google search for "human rights report." The US usually ranks behind most of Western Europe for human rights in general.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[QRDeNameland]

"Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar."

I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.

The phrase murder rates generally refers to the number of murders per capita, usually expressed as number of murders per 100,000 population. In other words, it should have been obvious that the GP was taking population into account.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[QRDeNameland]

Maybe this will clarify for the GP...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"The phrase murder rates generally refers to the number of murders per capita...it should have been obvious that the GP was taking population into account..."

Not necessarily....for instance, I often hear on the local news for the city where they say we have the murder rate for X city has increased dramatically, from 56 to 120 murders.

In that case, they are using murder rate, in a context to where you assume from one year to another under normal condiditons, population is rather stable, and per capita would not play into it.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You are arguing with a position I do not hold. You have created a strawman argument and are now beating up on it.

I responded only to direct quotes from your post. If you do not hold the position you said you did, it is your error not mine. You defended taking the lowest common denominator as an appropriate comparison because you claimed "people like you" needed it for a proper perspective.

My opinion is that the proper perspective is looking up at ideals.

Now had I claimed that you think we should not compare ourselves to the worst when you did not write that, and then attacked that, it would be a strawman argument. But you did say, " The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective." If that is not defending doing so, then you've badly misrepresented yourself.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"Have you forgoten that they are people, too?...You also forget that these people are redeemable....many of these people were conditioned by there enviornment to be criminals..."

Well, no, I know they are people too, but, there ARE bad people in the world...and we could do with fewer of them. If someone is redeemable, then hopefully they themselves or their family with interdict and get them out before they get killed or kill someone.

And as for being "born" into a life of crime, I dunno. Life is tough, and life is not fair, but, that does not give you the right or reason to be a criminal and deprive others innocent people of their life or property. I've read that many criminals out there...have genetic problems, like maybe XYY chromosomes, mutations. If some of them are raised that way and 'don't know better'...well, letting them take all themselves out is possibly like Darwin's survival of the fittest playing itself out, by taking out those with bad genes, or bad natures from perpetuating the cycle.

Sometimes I fear saving people from themselves, is messing with nature trying to let themselves take themselves OUT of the reproduction cycle.

I think occasionally, the gene pool NEEDS a little chlorine.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's a model US citizen.

*rolls eyes*

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone ate his Troll Wheaties this morning.

This discussion stopped being relevant three posts ago. To recap:
1. This is America, where you're supposed to be able to say anything (within reason) and get away with it.
2. Someone disagreed with the tactics approved by certain political leaders.
3. Someone got fired.

To quote Metallica...

"You can have it your own way, if it's done just how I say."

I don't think America is 'terrible in regards to free speech', but I see room for improvement and evidence of a decline in personal freedoms. This is just another example.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

Really? Try a Google search for "human rights report." The US usually ranks behind most of Western Europe for human rights in general.

Do you even try this nonsense before you suggest it? The only "report" I see anywhere near that google search is from Human Rights Watch. It has no rankings.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yet, in spite of the fact that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> there is uncertainty over whether the illegality of torture applies to non-citizens.

All men are created equal, but if later in life they decide to become terrorists they've separated themselves from civilized society by their own actions.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[QRDeNameland]

Not necessarily....for instance, I often hear on the local news for the city where they say we have the murder rate for X city has increased dramatically, from 56 to 120 murders.

In that case, they are using murder rate, in a context to where you assume from one year to another under normal condiditons, population is rather stable, and per capita would not play into it.

No, wrong. When you can assume stable population and you are comparing for the same place, then you can extrapolate an increase in the number of murders as an increase in the murder rate. That doesn't make the absolute number of murders the same as the murder rate, no matter what you often hear from your local newscaster.

But when comparing two differently sized populations (i.e., the US vs. Canada) in terms of murder rate, it would be universally assumed that you are talking per capita numbers.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too cold in Canada for all those cold blooded killers. They're all hibernating. Just wait until global warming kicks in, they'll be out in droves!

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[S.P.B.Wylie]

Okay, the Declaration of Independence argument is common, and though it is true, it is usually a little out of context. I wanted to set the record straight.

One- The argument is usually used how it was first intended: emotional appeal. If you think about it, it isn't a very supportable argument. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are not exactly attainable goals, because someone can't really have absolute rights. Your freedom stop at the other persons rights. So it isn't as much a logical argument as an appeal to basic ideals, which brings me to my next point--

Two- The "rich white man" argument isn't really relevant, because the important part is what that means to people today that is important. Almost every child in the US sat in a classroom and was read the words of this document, and many of us are touched by them, tying them to our basic values. When people say "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," they are trying to call upon those values that are considered universal in our nation, to bring us back to our base. We make those words ours, and they are then important because they speak to us, not because they were said by a person 200 years ago.

I personally feel that most people read the words as they are written, and just sometimes forget about them because of all the mess. If I am wrong, I am not living in the nation I thought I was.

I agree with most of what you said, but I just had to point out that little flaw. It has been used a lot and I feel it takes away from the meaning of the words.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[fj40dan]

One more to ponder... History is only as long as last nights CNN headlines. http://www.usspueblo.org/

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Do you even try this

Nope. I read some reports a while back, but have not done any research recently. You could try Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. If they don't have rankings now, most of them have at least within the recent past and the US sure hasn't been moving up the list.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[orim]

The fact that he is not a "model citizen," of course, means that his testicles are subject to 220V treatment.

I don't care if he's purple, and has tree heads - if he's a US citizen, then god dammit, he has certain protections under the constitution. Period. End of discussion.

Anybody who violates those rights should go to jail.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[lbrandy]

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch have no rankings in regards to human rights that I can find, at all. The only rankings I can find on the entire anti-slavery issue is issued in a tiered format by the US government.. and I'm sure those won't mean much to you. IFEX helps with "freedom of the press" and some other rankings from FreedomHouse, and the one I found has the US in the low-teens for both (which is exactly what the GP said, and you told him to check his facts).

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[jonfelder]

I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.

The key here is murder RATES. Not just murders. Typically murder rates are per capita...you know like x number of murders for every y number people.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Psyonic]

"If someone is redeemable, then hopefully they themselves or their family with interdict and get them out before they get killed or kill someone." Did you mean to say "will intervene"? because as it stands that sentence made no sense at all. I'm not trying to be a grammar or spelling nazi, I just honestly am not sure where you were going with that. Aside from that, I can only partially agree with what you are saying. There certainly are BAD people, but it's not necessarily the crack-smuggling kids on the street that are the worst. What about the white -collar criminals that are stealing from the people and causing much of the poor conditions these kids live in? I'm all for shooting them; what about you?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Which raises an interesting question: why do canadians prefer rifles, and why does the US prefer handguns? I would suggest that rather than "stupid people with guns kill", it is perhaps more a matter of "violent people prefer handguns and are more likely to kill". It would appear that my country is the most violent, per capita, on the face of the planet. Except during the Clinton administration, when the FBI's list tracking violent crimes showed a decline, the level of violence has increased every year since my birth. And this is the true, central, core question: why?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[durdur]

A good part of the rest of the world has considerable doubts about how civilized we are. For example, our insistence on capital punishment offends many people in the numerous countries that have abolished it.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[jahudabudy]

Wow, I had never heard of that or the USS Liberty incident. Very informative link. Thanks!!

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"I dunno. Life is tough, and life is not fair, but..."

You speak of rights in the same sentence that you stipulate that life is unjust. Life is unjust, but don't move against the (unfair) system. Victim's of injustice must remain a victim, because that's just the way it is...life is unfair. But is it *supposed* to be unfair?

I suspect invoking genetics as a cause is likewise an attempt to believe that "that's just the way it is." Social systems evolve at far faster rates than genetic systems. We can, and do, modify our institutions over time. We should. Rule of Law is one of the greatest (and worst) of human achievements, depending of the system of law implemented. At the very heart of this, my rant, is a belief that when discretionary powers come to mean whim, when "you are either for me or against me", when it is "my country, right or wrong", then evil has taken control.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Millenniumman]

You aren't supposed to be able to say anything and not be affected. You are supposed to be able to say anything. The government can't arrest you for saying something, but you are still accountable for what you say.

It is in no way an infringement of rights if an employer fires someone for saying something they don't agree with. Unfortunately, in this case the employer was the government, which brings up all sorts of political issues.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[seriesrover]

The parent was trying to point out that there are typically different types of people who get killed, not that life is more or less important between the groups. I know someone who said they wouldn't move to the US because of the gun crime and made out people were being murdered all over the place, which obviously its not.

From my experience life is much the same (crime wise) between suburbia in the US and UK. Unless you're a crack addict or a street thug, you really have to remove gun related crime from gangs or similar types of people to get some sort of gun crime equivalency.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

So you are both right. It does use the word "citizen", and then it specificly switches to "person" when it states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So apparently our US law applies to people and not just citizens.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, hand guns have little to do with it as some of the most violent areas in the US have the strictest gun laws (unless you're rich or have political pull but that is another topic). On the other hand the Midwest which is most similar to Canada in culture and so on has comparable homicide rates despite decently lax gun laws.

And of course than there is Britain where after hand guns got effectively banned people found out that knives are almost as effective for killing people.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Castar]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rights that we have are not ours because we're citizens of the US, they are unalienable rights of all human beings.

It's sad that we've forgotten that. It's sadder still that this used to be considered not only true, but "self-evident". I guess it wasn't as clear as all that.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

"Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar."

I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada?

The stats for both countries are based on murder rates per capita, so the difference in population is irrelevent.

As for "being safe from it", check out these stats from the Centers for Disease Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5003a1. htm

Problem/Condition: A substantial percentage of all homicides in the United States are committed by intimate partners of the victims. Among females, approximately 1 in 3 homicides are intimate partner homicides (IPHs).

Or this ...
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant. html

Homicide was found to be the leading cause of death for pregnant women in Maryland, according to a March 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Using death records and coroner reports, state health department researchers found 247 pregnancy-associated deaths between 1993 and 1998. Among those deaths, 50 were murders. By comparison, homicide was the fifth-leading cause of death among Maryland women. And, nationwide, the maternal mortality rate was just 9.9 percent in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Nationally, homicide is a leading killer of young women--pregnant or not. In 1999, homicide was the second-leading cause of death among women ages 20 to 24. It was fifth among women ages 25-34. Accidents are the top cause of death in both age groups.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're hardly one to talk. The news article about you would include quotes like these:

It is believed that Anonymous Coward thought about killing a police officer who
ticketed him for going 78 miles per hour when he knew he was doing only 73.

His neighbors said that he "seemed to be a nice guy, but kept mostly to himself",
raising questions among some about the likelihood of sexual deviancy and the
safety of neighborhood children. An elderly interviewee who requested anonymity,
fearing for her life, stated that strange sounds were often heard coming from his
house in the evening hours, and feared connections to gang-related violence, perhaps
stemming from drug use.

I'd say that you need to be strapped head-down to a board with a cloth held
tightly over your face and to have water poured over it until you confess.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

Well ...

1. guns are easy to hide on your person
2. guns are easier to use close-in
3. guns are phallic extensions, whereas a rifle, being skinny, is more along the lines of "pencil-dick" - which is why you'll see rifles in games, etc., that are over-bulked (mini-cannon gatling guns, for example)
4. you can get a gun dirt cheap

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Eunuchswear]

Actually, out of the 200-plus nations on the planet, I think you'd have a hard time finding any ranking system that puts more than 20 of them above the US.

Duh, there are how many countries in the EU?

And if we add the old (white) commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand)?

(Not that I necessarily agree that an EU country is automaticaly better than the US on human rights grounds, but it's an arguable case - death penalties, inhuman prison system, imprisonment rates comparable to china...)

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Well, *yeah* there's *him*, but he's a brown-skinned muslim terrorist! He certainly doesn't qualify as a citizen, and barely as a human. No we really meant a *real* American citizen... you know, an All-American boy with a good background. I mean, *jeez*... that one used to be a gang member. Those people kill each other in the streets like filthy animals, you know!

No, we really only need people here who Think Like We Do, embody Family Values and Defend Our American Way of Life. All the rest aren't Patriots, they Hate America and should go back to wherever they came from. Michael Savage had the right of it... wouldn't you rather sacrifice (murder) 100 million foreign muslims than THOUSANDS of innocent Americans!!

And besides, that's the BBC, and they're European anyway... how about something Fair and Balanced?

[ I'll be here 'till next week ;) ]

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Eunuchswear]

Barbarians don't speak Greek. Most Americans don't speak Greek. Most Americans are barbarians.

Civilised people live in cities. Most Americans don't live in cities. Most Americans are uncivilised.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Eunuchswear]

Duh, we're talking about drowning people to make them talk (waterboarding), not "stacking some people naked, or making them wear panties on their heads".

And if you didn't notice that some people were beaten to death in Abu Ghraib maybe you need get an ear and eye test.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Eunuchswear]

I find it odd that in a nation that was born in a struggle for self-determination and to hold its rulers accountable, people are so ready to abrogate that responsibility.

But in a nation born from the struggle to fight wars and refuse to pay the taxes necessary to pay for them?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice out. Unfortunately it's not legal.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

no way comparable to having electodes hooked to your testicles

Errr, wasn't that what we were doing? :P

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[AHuxley]

In Socialist Canada you talk to your doctor about the voices in your head.
In Capitalist America your gun talks to you.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[sorak]

The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration. Our entire code of laws and ethics is based around a civil society. We even have a "Bill of Rights" and an Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.

Heck yeah! We're not an uncivilized country. It's the cretins who wish to go against every principal this country stands for. We are a civilized country being controlled by uncivilized people

The current quibble is whether this ammendment applies to non-citizens as it does to citizens.

WTF? So, we are civilized to our own people, but not to "fur-inners"?

Now compare that to many other countries, even other Western countries such as the UK, German...etc which don't even garuntee freedom of speech and you can see how it is quite correct to call the US, civilized.

You may have a point in that Western Europe should have freedom of speech laws, but they do have something we don't. They have a law saying you have the right to a fair trial, and they enforce it.

Then you can compare the US to those great honor killing muslim societies, or those asian countries (India, China) where there are looming massive imbalances in sex ratios because for various cultural reasons parents do not want female children....

Be careful with this point. The scariest thing I've seen lately is the idea that we can justify ourselves by saying we are better than some evil dictator. Saying "i'm better than Hitler" doesn't say much, but if that is our country's only ambition, to be slightly better, then we will never have any morale authority as a nation.

But hey, the US is a free country so if you want to be snarky to the point of being petulant AND WRONG, then go right ahead.

Thank you. I think I will

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[maxpublic]

Per capita, Canada has more firearms, but WAY less hand guns, than the US. There's the causative difference - pretty much unregulated hand gun ownership.

If you think that your unsupported conclusion is somehow causative, you need to go back to school and learn a bit about the scientific method. Especially that part about "empiricism".

According to the FBI, in 2004 16,137 were murdered in the United States. That's a murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 people. Note that these are actual murders, which do not include manslaughter, suicides, accidents, or justifiable homocide (e.g., killing someone that's trying to kill you). More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', which means whatever blunt or sharp object happens to be available at the time.

In Canada during that same time their were 548 homocides, for a murder rate of around 1.67 per 100,000 people.

Taking just these two bits of data in hand, it's rather clear that even if you removed every single hand gun from every single citizen in the United States, and assumed that deprived of a handgun the people who committed murder by firearm would suddenly decide NOT to commit murder (a ridiculous notion at best), the murder rate in the U.S. would still be far higher than it is in Canada. Realistically we'd have to assume that many of the murders that took place via handgun will still be committed by 'weapons of opportunity', or by other kinds of firearms, since my countrymen seem to be far more fond of killing each other than the citizens of other First World nations are. We're the paragons of domestic peace in comparison to just about any Third World nation on the planet, but rather violent by, say, Dutch standards.

Handguns aren't causative here. Handguns don't incite folks to start killing each other any more than hunting rifles or steak knives or baseball bats do.

Handguns do, however, even the score. Without handguns the larger, heavier, stronger person can do pretty much anything they please to smaller, lighter, weaker people. Arm both parties and the odds suddenly shift; strength, size, and the ability to take physical punishment no longer matter for shit. A bullet kills Arnie just as easily as it kills your 80-year-old Grandmother. To paraphrase someone rather famous: "God created Man, Smith and Wesson made them equal".

Which could explain why more than 60% of all handgun sales are made to women in the United States. Perhaps they're well aware of this fact, and don't care to leave their personal safety up to the whims of men, or of society, or of law enforcement. It might also explain the quickly climbing upward trend of single women in Canada purchasing and carrying illegal handguns; perhaps they, too, realize just how much at the mercy of others they are, and are no longer interested in playing victim just to appease their easily-frightened neighbors.

Max

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[maxpublic]

It would appear that my country is the most violent, per capita, on the face of the planet.

No, it's the most violent First World nation on the planet. Most Third World nations have us beat hands-down when it comes to any sort of violent crime.

Except during the Clinton administration, when the FBI's list tracking violent crimes showed a decline, the level of violence has increased every year since my birth.

According to the FBI, violent crimes have been declining in the U.S. since the '80's (google is your friend here). The Clinton administration years are not atypical. The press, however, is far more likely to play it up these days since their primary goal now seesm to be fear-mongering in any form.

Max

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[maxpublic]

the right to freedom of expression

Yeah, just so long as it doesn't upset or offend anyone. Just try talking about the Nazis in a positive light in Germany, or engaging in any of the various "hate speech" topics in Britain - you'll see the inside of a jail right quick. For these two countries it's "the right of freedom of expression except for anything on the appended list, subject to change at the whim of the government...."

Max

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide a single example of an American citizen being dragged from US soil to be held as an enemy combatant without due process? A link to a reputable news source would be sufficient.

How about Slashdot?

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

you need to go back to school and learn a bit about the scientific method. Especially that part about "empiricism".

And you need to go back to school and learn how to count higher than your toes. The FBI stats say a different story than what you claim.

Your "More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', implying that these weren't people who were shot to deathm is a total load of crap, according to the very first link I downloaded from the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

Go grab the spreadsheet - get "an edumication": http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03 /xl/03tbl2-10.xls

Total murder victims: 14,408
FIREARMS: 9,638 THE # 1 CAUSE - 66.89% OF ALL MURDERS
Knives and cutting instruments: 1,816
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 651
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 946
Poison: 9
Explosives:4
Fire: 163
Narcotics:41
Stangulation: 184
Asphyxiation: 128
Other or not stated: 828

In other words, your #1 "weapon of opportunity" is ... no surprise here ... a gun.

It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills", as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

About the U.S. Constitution: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/do_mess_wi th_texas/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/do_mess_wi th_texas/page2.html
[...]
Denying trials is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note the key phrase "no person," as opposed to "no citizen." The right to trial is not something that the Constitution grants in a conditional manner. It is not conditional upon anything, including citizenship. It is, rather, a hard restriction on government authority. Denying due process is something that the government simply cannot do legitimately. Period.

Torture is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The restriction is unconditional. Torture is something else that the government simply cannot do legitimately. Period.
[...]

-
Also the Treaty Against Torture binds United States: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm

Any claims that torture is legal is pure bull. The U.S. President would have been hanged for what he has done in Nüremberg.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[maxpublic]

Forget the link; here's a direct quote from the 2004 crime reports I cited (rather than the 2003 report you used):

"The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses. (Based on Tables 2.9 and 19.)"

You'll note that NON-FIREARM weapons were used in 73.6% of all violent crimes.

It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills"

Oh, what fucking twaddle. You have no proof of that claim whatsoever other than your dubious assertion that somehow removing guns from the hands of every single citizen in the United States would magically make those who want to commit murder less inclined to do so. None. Nada. Zip. People kill just fine with blunt and sharp objects. Those who want to kill, can and will do so. And it's far easier to protect yourself from them if YOU are armed.

as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.

No, it'll make it incredibly easy to kill anyone who's smaller and weaker than you are. Which covers just about every woman in the U.S., compared to the average man. And as for evidence, I present the ENTIRE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE for your perusal. Guns level the playing field. Good for women, bad for fucking twats who think that owning a pair of balls gives them the right to do as they please to anyone who isn't as large as they are.

In any event, you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that handguns promote violence. Not one.

Max

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[TheSpoom]

Who has the right to determine who gets "chlorinated", as it were? You? The State? President Bush? Who should have the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies?

Here's a hint: There's no adequate answer to that question other than nobody.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[mr100percent]

Muslim societies don't do honor killings. It's like saying American societies practice murder; it's a heinous act that's illegal and condemned by the vast majority of the population.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[EiZei]

Actually, under the equal protection clause EVERYBODY (including non-citizens) that resides on US soil is entitled to constitutional protections. The supreme court ruled on this literally over a hundred years ago.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm striving to underdstand your logic. You claim that the USA is civilized because it has laws banning torture. Yet, in spite of the fact that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, there is uncertainty over whether the illegality of torture applies to non-citizens. This would suggest that non-citizens are not all men, but something else.

If you are talking about illegality, then your quote isn't relevant--it's not a quote from any legal document of the United States.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Using this data, I summed the categories and plotted the totals. I see noise around a constant value from 1979 thru 1982 with a modest decrease for one year in 1983 that doesn't look like noise, followed by a *large* increase starting in 1984 and which peaks in 1994. The Clinton violent crime decline is significant through 2000, but then the slope flattens (but still declines.) The radical decrease during the Clinton administration is pretty amazing. It was during the time when the slope had begun to flatten that this trend came up in class. Without doubt the Clinton years where atypical, and to suggest that the crime rate has been declining since the 1980s is contrary to fact.

I am willing to qualify my statement this far, though: It would appear that my country is the most violent, per capita, of any industrialized nation on earth.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[kumanopuusan]

Without taking either side on the issue of whether the government should torture people, I think it's interesting that the constitution disallows cruel and unusual punishment. Torturing suspected terrorists to obtain information is certainly cruel and unusual, but arguably it isn't punishment.

This instance of torture doesn't fulfill the purposes of punishment. It doesn't serve as a deterent to other would-be terrorists and it's difficult to believe that it would have a rehabilitative effect. If waterboarding were a form of punishment, wouldn't it be more widely publicized to fulfill the public's desire for retribution?

Ostensibly, the purpose of waterboarding is to find information that could prevent further terrorist activities, which isn't punitive.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Knuckles]

You may have a point in that Western Europe should have freedom of speech laws

Germany, "Grundgesetz" ("Basic Law" = constitution),

Article 5 (Freedom of expression).
(1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.

France, "La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen" ("Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen", an older law that is acknowledged by the constituion),

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Austria, "Staatsgrundgesetz über die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger für die im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder" (approx. "Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals", an older law explicitly included by the original constitution, now superceded by the UN Declaration of human rights which also is explicitly part of the constitution),

Article 13 [Expression, Censorship]
(1) Everyone has the right, within the limits of the law, to freely express his opinion by word of mouth and in writing, print, or pictorial representation.
(2) The Press may be neither subjected to censorship nor restricted by the licensing system. Administrative postal distribution vetoes do not apply to inland publication.

Article 14 [Freedom of Belief]
(1) Everyone is guaranteed complete freedom of conscience and creed.
(2) The enjoyment of civic and political rights is independent of religious belief. Nevertheless duties incumbent on nationals may not be prejudiced by religious beliefs.
(3) No one can be forced to observe a ritual act or to participate in an ecclesiastical ceremony in so far as he is not subordinate to another who is by law invested with such authority.

Looking up Sweden's, Finlands, Spain's, Portugal's, The Netherland's, Norway's, etc., constitutions is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Alsee]

You expect us to believe you when you try to use the BBC as a source? The BBC has a well-known liberal bias.

For those who didn't get the joke.

-

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[tomhudson]

Again, you purposefully misread: murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses.

You've thrown in robber and aggravated assault - two crimes where nobody is murdered.

"murder" != "murder + robbery + assault"

So, since you can't even tell the difference between a murder and a robbery, WTF should anyone give any credence to ANY of your other retarded pseudo-rationalizations?

Also, the 2003 report was the first one from google - I didn't "cherry-pick", and I resent the implication.

Link to comparable stats for 2004: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a .xls

Murder - 2004
Total: 14,141
Firearms: 9,326, AGAIN, the #1 MURDER WEAPON, 2/3 OF ALL VICTIMS.
... everything else pales into insignificance ...

Even more interesting, of the 9,326 murders committed with firearms, 1,044 were with "firearm type not stated". Removing them from the stats, of the remaining 8282 murders:
393 were with rifles
507 with shotguns
7,265 with hand guns - almost 90%

Hand guns - the #1 choice of 9 out of 10 people who commit murder with firearms.

Instead of bloviating, read the stats. Your claim that most murders were committed with "weapons of convenience" as opposed to firearms in general, and hand guns in particular, is so full of shit it its not funny.

Hand guns ARE causitive, because they make it too easy to kill. Point and shoot. Deprive people of hand guns, and the people who use hand guns to get "justice" or revenge would have to go to the cops instead of taking the law into their own hands. The current murder rate would be unsustainable.

Most of the people who resort to guns have self-image issues to begin with. That's why guns are also "penis extenders", and we call them "gun nuts" for a reason.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Moofie]

You're splitting hairs. By what authority does the government even detain these people? They are not criminals. They are not enemy soldiers (which, since we've made this a War on Naughty Ideas, doesn't make much sense to me...). We've made up this notion of "enemy combatants", that until two weeks ago meant "We can do whatever we want to these assholes".

If it's not punishment, the Government doesn't have the authority to do ANYTHING. If it IS punishment, it may not be cruel and unusual. So, yeah, I still disagree with you.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Anonymous Coward]

O Henry? You're going to use HIM as an example?

Millions of schoolchildren would be better off if he had been killed in the street, and they never had to read his garbage.

I'm sorry, that was some of the WORST writing of all time.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Dun Malg]

Duh, there are how many countries in the EU? And if we add the old (white) commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand)? (Not that I necessarily agree that an EU country is automaticaly better than the US on human rights grounds, but it's an arguable case - death penalties, inhuman prison system, imprisonment rates comparable to china...)

There are 25 EU member states. EU membership or no, are you aware of the abyssmal prison conditions in the former eastern bloc countries? They're working on it, but they're definitely worse than US prisons. Right there you have fairly solid reason to drop 8 or 9 EU states below the US on human rights, and that's just what I know off the top of my head. Add back Australia, New Zealand, Canada, maybe a couple others... and you're right about at 20. Like I said, 90th percentile is not a bad estimate.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Dun Malg]

Do you even try this

Nope. I read some reports a while back, but have not done any research recently. You could try Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. If they don't have rankings now, most of them have at least within the recent past and the US sure hasn't been moving up the list.

Actually, I did google all that before replying-- googled extensively-- and there are very few comparative rankings available. What little I did find supported the "90th percentile" assertion.

Really, if you're going to disagree and suggest a way to find sources supporting your argument, you really ought to check that those sources exist, rather than just assuming you're right.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[sorak]

yes, but many of those countries, such as Germany, have laws against hate-speech in certain mediums, and laws against denying the holocaust. Then, there are also laws similar to the U.S.'s fairness doctrine, which was repealed in the 80's, and which dictated that if one view is stated, an opposing viewpoint must be given equal time.

I'm not trying to defend hate speech, lies, or biased journalism, but, (in America, if nowhere else) we will gladly sacrifice our civil rights to see the scum of the earth imprisoned, claiming "oh, but they'll only use it on terrorists", or "they'll only use it to catch child molestors". Of course, we could preface those laws with phrases such as "in cases of suspected terrorism..." or "in cases of suspected child molestation...", but we don't put that much thought into the law (partly because the guy who opposes the most overzealous version is perceived as being pro-terror or pro-child-molestation), and such laws end up giving up all claim to whatever right is being infringed upon.

Also, maybe i will defend biased journalism, a little. As for the fairness doctrine, Fox news has shown us that any metric used to measure fairness can be manipulated to produce a biased show. Sure, a "fairness czar" could arbitrarily decide what is and isn't fair, but such a person is likely to be a political appointee who will do his best to enforce his own bias on the media. then, there is the bias of which issues are important. For example, when Sean Hannity argues "democrats are the evil sons of satan" and Alan Colmes uses his equal time to argue "we're not that bad", you end up with a biased broadcast. You will also end up with biased broadcasts if you have a debate of "universal public health-care vs. leave granny out in the snow" or "universal public health care vs privatized universal health care". Each argument is biased in the it leaves out a third option.

But I suppose I'm rambling. My point is that European nations do have laws against certain typs of speech, so their speech is not always 100% "free"

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Knuckles]

My point is that European nations do have laws against certain typs of speech, so their speech is not always 100% "free"

So does the US, and neither is all speech in the US free. In some cases (e.g., Holocaust denial in Germany) the limits might be tighter than in the US, but for those having no direct experience I might have to explain that of course the secret police does not pick you up as soon as you deny the Holocaust, or utter antisemitism over a few beers. If it did, the jails would be much fuller.

To get in conflict with the denial laws, you have to deny in some publication or big public assembly, and very clearly. Yes, this still limits free speech, and I do see it ambivalently. But you have to take into account that after the end of WW2, Germany was full of Nazis (surprise, surprise), and this remained the case for many years or even decades.
You just couldn't have those people go around denying their horrid crimes in the media and in big public displays. It would have been dangerous, as the lure of this ideology might have still been there, and it would have been insufferable for the victims/survivors. It also was simply not possible to argue with each and every one of the nazi assholes, and one point you just had to say, "you shut up now." There might come to time to changes these laws.

And as a side note, we have plenty biased journalism and there are now laws against it. There are however laws for the state-owned TV stations (in Germany there are two, to prevent them from becoming 0wn3d), who have to follow certain guidelines and, not surprisingly, produce much better program than the privately-owned ones.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Lars T.]

Again, you purposefully misread: murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses.

You've thrown in robber and aggravated assault - two crimes where nobody is murdered.

And that after he dismissed all violent deaths (including manslaughter) but murders in his previous post.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What little I did find supported the "90th percentile" assertion.

Citation please.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[cayenne8]

"Who has the right to determine who gets "chlorinated", as it were?"

The implication was "nature" does...and we seem to be thwarting natures work in many ways by going out of our way to save people from their own stupidity...that would often prove them to be taking themselves out of the gene pool.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[Dun Malg]

What little I did find supported the "90th percentile" assertion.

Citation please.

(eye roll)
You're kidding, right? First you tell me I'm wrong and I should find out how wrong by using Google, and then when I say what little is available on Google says I'm right, you demand citations? Well fine, here you go, ya' lazy bum:

Index of Economic Fredom (WSJ/Heritage Foundation): 9th out of 157

Freedom in the World 2006 (Freedomhouse): one of 49 countries scoring 1-1 (Political Rights-Civil Liberties) out of 192 total. Not proof of 90th opercentile, but consistent with it nonetheless.

This combined index shows the US falling one notch short of the highest possible score with 1-1-2 (only 19 countries out of 196 scored highest, 1-1-1), but the one "ding" bringing the US down out of the top is from the Reporters Without Borders ranking, where they're still pissed that the US Army doewsn't want to schlep bonehead reporters around through a war giving away sensitive operational info to al jazeera over satcom video phones.

Re:The US is absolutely civilized.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

irst you tell me I'm wrong and I should find out how wrong by using Google, and then when I say what little is available on Google says I'm right, you demand citations? Well fine, here you go, ya' lazy bum...

The first is economic freedom, which I'm not sure qualifies as a human right and certainly does not correspond to human rights in general. You second citation places the US in the top 25% or so, but is not specific as to where (as you mention). The last shows the US as barely in the top 90%. I'll have to see if I can dig up the research I did back in the day. There were a lot more resources with "grades" easily available when last I looked. Perhaps the US has changed rankings or perhaps it is no longer kosher to be so statistical about abstracts.

When you have issues with torture

[NDPTAL85]

Don't work for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Re:When you have issues with torture

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Because the best thing a person who has issues with torture can do is to make sure one of the few groups that does it has no dissenting voices.

Hold on a minute, pardner.

[boyfaceddog]

Is this issue really about torture, or about breaking company policy? Although I wouldn't put it past the CIA to fire someone who crticises their policies, this looks like a simple case of workplace internet misuse.

And, you gottat be thinking "Would you want to piss off an organization that is sanctioned to perform 'waterboarding'?

Re:This wasn't the peoper place for her to complai

[crmartin]

I wish I hadn't commented so I could mod this funny.

Punishment is effective?

[AmazingRuss]

Are you saying that some bomb-chucking Arab is going to behave himself if we torture him and let him go? Or are we just torturing him to make ourselves feel better? Torture is an entry point for evil into our world. I can think of situations where it might prevent more evil from coming into the world, and maybe it's justified in those cases. Being able to say "We showed HIM what happens if he messes with us" is not one of those cases.

Re:Punishment is effective?

[OrangeTide]

Well a bomb chucking Arab that is waterboarded is likely to go home and cry from being broken. Do not underestimate the effectiveness this type of torture has psychologically. It is quite cruel because no one comes away from the experience the same person, even when they voluntarily submit to the torture (part of training for certain military and CIA personel).

I absolutely agree that torture is unacceptable. I would go as far to say that it is unacceptable in all circumstances. But I find it difficult for myself to judge others when I have never been placed in a life-or-death situation, or worse. When my decisions could prevent the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

As for waterboarding as punishment, it has proven effective in many institutions. waterboarding (especially repeatedly) psychologically breaks a person to make them more compliant (root word here is "pliant"). If you have people who murder and rape and they are in prisons constantly plotting (and often successfully killing) COs, and you start waterboarding them it can change a prison around. It certainly makes the prison more peaceful, but I think it just adds fear and instability to a prison so I would not recommend it even as a last resort. Of course it is perhaps better than curb stomping the people you don't like, at least waterboarding doesn't require reconstructive surgery.

As for punishing non-uniformed combatants in times of war the solution is very simple and is in compliance with the Geneva convention -- Execution. the third geneva convention requires that non-uniformed combatants be treated as lawful combatants but only if they carry arms openly. otherwise they are unlawful and are outside of the jurisdiction of the geneva convention. if you do not follow the rules of war then the rules cannot protect you.

UNAUTHORISED USE

[Stoutlimb]

Unauthorised use of a government computer system. The way they are using that law, the government can make anything an employee does that the government doesn't like "unauthorised". Go straight to jail. How soon before people are arrested for similar postings from a government library computer? Just wait till the US nationalises the internet, in the interest of homeland security. In the old USSR, any action that wasn't specifically allowed in writing was unauthorised, and a punishable crime. Wheras in a free country, anything not explicitly prohibited by law is NOT a crime. Now the USA is heading in that direction, starting with government employees.

Wake up. You're next.

Every time I see a wake up call that the USA is becoming a totalitarian state, and expect to see Americans rise up by the millions, all that really happens is some people whine on a blog, and the rest don't even notice. You folk don't deserve one hundredth of the few freedoms that you still have (for the time being).

God help the earth.

Misleading Contribution

[toddhisattva]

She was fired for criticizing what some people call "torture."

That scaring people with water should be considered torture is completely debateable. Personally, I'm curious -- could I keep my cool with people scaring me that way?

The entire debate has become pussified. Is scaring people torture? Breaking and rebreaking bones is torture. But giving people a violent bath? What, are the prisoners cats?

I'm going to see if the idiots at ACLU and/or EFF (the same kinds of scum in both orgs) will take my case that country music is torture, that living in Austin constitutes a prison because it's a thousand miles to any country-free zone, and the Evil McChimpyBurton Administration, by licensing country music radio stations, is violating my Geneva Convention rights.

I mean, the radio stations permeate my body with EM carrying country music. They put it in my bones and blood. It upsets me! Whaaaaaa!

Re:Misleading Contribution

[Valdrax]

That scaring people with water should be considered torture is completely debateable. Personally, I'm curious -- could I keep my cool with people scaring me that way?

Dude. That's pretty messed up. Read up more on the subject.

Salient points to consider:

• People think they're drowning to death. The terror response to this is wired into the most primitive parts of our brain. It's the mental equivalent of hitting below the belt.
  
• The average person lasts 14 seconds before caving in.
  
• The toughest prisoner they had lasted two minutes before begging them to stop.
  People subjected to this can be traumatized for life afterwords and may develop phobias of water from it.
  
• This isn't "getting a swirly" in a high school locker room. This is being convinced that people who hate you are in the process of trying to kill you.

You have to be completely lacking in the human trait known as empathy to consider this "sissified." I'd love to see how well you hold up to this kind of treatment, especially if no one's taught you that it's unlikely that you'll actually die from the water you're inhaling while struggling to breathe.

(Note, once again, that even people taught what the procedure is rarely last more than a few seconds under it.)

Re:Misleading Contribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Controversial. Waterboarding is a safer method of torture. Medically, brain cells die when near asphixiation occurs, optic nerves can be damaged, and a weakened heart, and blood clots can dislodge, and kill the subject.

We don't know what the torture deathcount is. When somebody is tortured to death, it is, perhaps put down to heart attack. People ill, beaten, or sleep deprived are foreseeably, and increasingly vulnerable to each next dose of 'treatment'.

Mouthing the 'T' word, is highy sensitive, especially since the courts ruled on tribunals, heck some of the 'non tortured' people might sue.

Re:Misleading Contribution

[toddhisattva]

The average person lasts 14 seconds before caving in.

So, this scaring is not only simple, but effective.

As a Buddhist, I try to be as compassionate as possible. The mlecchas have caused more human harm over a millenium than even the Socialists of the 20th Century.

If one way to reduce human suffering is to scare the terrorists, then I am very, very much in favor of it.

You want to know what torture is? Check out what the Socialists did to Tibet!

No wonder the Leftards are whining about waterboarding: because it works, it must be torture.

BTW, if waterboarding is torture, and since waterboarding works, then the truism "torture produces bad intel" is proved false.

Here, we have a technique that seems every bit as effective as torture, if not moreso.

All it leaves is some bad memories and perhaps a phobia.

My exposure to country music has left me with an aversion to steel guitar. I am scarred and cannot enjoy the brilliance of Robert Randolph -- I hear him, recognize the amazing talent, and then the pounding headache sets in as I am re-traumatized, all that AM, all that country music, no escape, oh I hope I am not an antenna....

You should not assume hearing country music is the most life-threatening situation I have been in. The gangs were not as organized as they are now, but they were armed, and there was in fact a killing at one of the schools I attended. Oh, and school violence is not the only time people have tried to kill me. I think for myself, and people hate that.

Re:Misleading Contribution

[Valdrax]

As a Buddhist, I try to be as compassionate as possible. The mlecchas have caused more human harm over a millenium than even the Socialists of the 20th Century.

Try harder. Your post has been pretty much a refutation of the very principle of compassion. You're apparently not above racial epithets much less above thinking that it's okay to torture people. Maybe you should ask those people from Tibet what they think of torture. It might be easier to understand if people you consider to be actual people told you they didn't like it.

If one way to reduce human suffering is to scare the terrorists, then I am very, very much in favor of it.

This is essentially the essence of any argument in favor of torture. If hurting people saves more people, then it's okay. That's known in philosophy as utilitarianism.

By that logic any act of horror is justifiable as long as it (a) causes suffering to less than the majority of people (or to some acceptable minority and (b) somehow benefits those that it is not inflicted upon. Consider that oppressing Tibet for the benefit of China meets this measure.

The central flaw in even a utilitarian view of torture lies in whether or not (b) is true. Does torturing people rounded up in Afghanistan prevent terrorism, or does it only drive more people to terrorism? I point you to this excellent post for a suggestion on the answer.

Or does your tossing about of epithets like 'mlecchas,' your willingness to let potentially innocent people be tarred with the same brush as terrorists because of their religion and to suffer torture, and your belief that you being forced to listen to music you don't like is the same as 'mlecchas' being tortured just simply reveal that you're a racist who doesn't consider people who aren't like you to be actual people worthy of the same rights as you?

BTW, if waterboarding is torture, and since waterboarding works, then the truism "torture produces bad intel" is proved false.

No. Waterboarding is just effective at breaking people. In no way does it ensure that they won't make up stories or just tearfully agree to anything that you say that they did just to make it all stop.

The problem with torture's utility is not that it's ineffective at getting the truth out of people who know the truth but that it's extremely effective at getting nonsense out of people who don't know what you're looking for or who know that what you're asking about isn't true but just want the pain to stop.

You can get anything out of a guy being tortured. Anything you want. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it might even be the truth.

My exposure to country music has left me with an aversion to steel guitar. I am scarred and cannot enjoy the brilliance of Robert Randolph -- I hear him, recognize the amazing talent, and then the pounding headache sets in as I am re-traumatized, all that AM, all that country music, no escape, oh I hope I am not an antenna....

You really show, once again, your complete lack of empathy as well as sense of proportion if you think that listening to country music is the same as being imprisoned without hope of release by people who hate you and mock-drowned for information you may or may not have.

All it leaves is some bad memories and perhaps a phobia.

Having your genitals shocked repeatedly only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being beaten with a rubber hose could only leave "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being raped only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia" as long as you aren't be made pregnant from it.

But, hey, what's crippling madness and heart forged in fear and hate as long as it doesn't leave a mark, right?

Good luck on your next incarnation. You'll need it.

Re:Snark - NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be sarcastic, but you were actually dead-on. The US and CIA do not torture. It's the evildoers who torture. It's the Iranians and North Koreans who torture. The Taliban and Saddam tortured. The Palestinians and Lebanese torture - that's what they're doing to the captured Israeli soldiers as we speak. The whole idea about American torture was made up by the French to keep the international community from finding out about their own torture programs. This is why we need to stand by our president and Israel and stop this axis of evil.

The CIA blogger was spreading false information. I think firing a liar is the least they had the right to do.

Calculated risk

[Thiarna]

Interesting to see the latest blog entry of the econo-girl. She claims she went public to make it harder for her former employees to take any further action against her. I'm sure the original (internal) blog was not meant to cause harm, but I'd say at this stage she should stop digging a deeper hole for herself, find a good lawyer, and maybe take a trip out of the country for a while.

Re:Calculated risk

[purple_cobra]

Like Richard Tomlinson? He's been hounded by MI6 lackeys despite moving to France, and recently had a bunch of equipment taken by police investigating a somewhat-dodgy allegation.

Did they really have to fire him?

[Rorian]

Couldn't they just demonstrate to him how nice their torture policy really is?

A couple of electrodes expertly placed will have him singing praise for the CIA in his blogs in no time :)

Re:Did they really have to fire him?

[Thorsten Timberlake]

I don't know... Force her to undergo sex change surgery and then fire him? Sounds a bit harsh to me.

I love US office rats!

[Anonymous Coward]

Choice quotes:

She said BAE officials told her that the blog implied a specific knowledge of interrogations and that it worried "the seventh floor" at CIA, where the offices of the director and his management team are.

"That's how I feel," Axsmith said, recalling what Swift said. "I love the CIA. I love the mission. I love the people. It's such a great place to work."

Priceless. Simply priceless.

Fired for blogging? .... Prolly not.

[Archangel Michael]

I was not "Trolling". The fact is I don't trust "reports", they tend to be "one sided". People have it in for GWB, and most of the time I might agree. But the problems at the CIA and the contractor are probably have little to do with "policy" of "torture", and more than likely fall somewhere else.

But just because she happened to "blog" about "torture", that MUST be the reason for the firing. uh huh right.

Why is this on the front page of slashdot anyways?

Re:Fired for blogging? .... Prolly not.

[genmax]

Why is this on the front page of slashdot anyways?

Well for one, because stories on Slashdot are sorted by when they're posted, and not by their apparent importance ? If you wait a while, it'll no longer be on the front page.

He's lucky...

[Anonymous Coward]

the CIA didn't just quietly kill him.

They're good at that kind of thing, you know. They're the US espionage and assasination department; they specialize in killing people, and hiding the details on how it was done, and denying that they were ever involved. That's their job; along with secretly destabilizing foreign countries from within, and generally advancing US interests overseas.

The CIA is the real threat from the USA; the one that acts against leader, diplomats, and policy makers; not jjust the big, clumsy, noisy guys blowing up angry peasants in their little desert huts. They're the ones that decide how articles of surrender get written; and how wars get decided even when there never actually was a war in the first place. They're the ones who silently put the guns to the heads of the "bad guys" children, and bring them into line; they're the ones who quietly control the world, moreso than governments or diplomats even could.

Don't fuck with the CIA. If you do, your luck can turn sour really, really fast. Your house might burn down; your kids might die; your "drug habit" might mysteriously land you in jail (even if you've never touched drugs in your life), etc. These people are the guys who took on the KGB, and WON. They're not to be trifled with.

Re:He's lucky...

[CamelTrader]

It was a her you jackass.

Re:He's lucky...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to comment on the meat of your post. I just want to make an irrelevant and snarky side comment.

These people are the guys who took on the KGB, and WON. They're not to be trifled with.

This reminds me of an issue of Dork Tower where the group is going to play a Lord of the Rings game. The GM allows a player to play Gandalf. The group is ecstatic at the prospect of having such a powerful wizard under their control only to find out that all Gandalf has on his stat sheet is some good con-artistry skills, fireworks skills, history, geography, and the ability to talk to animals. They're, of course, torqued-off at the prospect that Gandalf is nothing but a charlatain.

"How do we know Gandalf was so tough?"
"He fought the Balrog!"
"So, how do we know the Balrog was tough?"
"Erm...he fought Gandalf?"

I just wanted to point out:
"How do we know the CIA is so tough?"
"They fought the KGB!"
"So, how do we know the KGB was tough?"
"Erm...they fought the CIA?"

Re:He's lucky...

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of an issue of Dork Tower where the group is going to play a Lord of the Rings game. The GM allows a player to play Gandalf. The group is ecstatic at the prospect of having such a powerful wizard under their control only to find out that all Gandalf has on his stat sheet is some good con-artistry skills, fireworks skills, history, geography, and the ability to talk to animals. They're, of course, torqued-off at the prospect that Gandalf is nothing but a charlatain.

"How do we know Gandalf was so tough?"
"He fought the Balrog!"
"So, how do we know the Balrog was tough?"
"Erm...he fought Gandalf?"

There was the "survive a thousand foot drop into a chasm while fighting off a creature made of living flames" thing, too. And in the scene where his friends tried to kill him, Gandalf melted Legolas's arrow, made Aragorn's sword too hot to handle, and Gimli's axe to heavy to move. He also shattered Saruman's staff with a single sentence. He's not a charlatan, because evidence in the text suggests otherwise.

I just wanted to point out:
"How do we know the CIA is so tough?"
"They fought the KGB!"
"So, how do we know the KGB was tough?"
"Erm...they fought the CIA


Again, look for evidence. Ask someone who lived in the former Soviet Russia what the KGB were like. I have. They didn't have much good to say about them. Track down some of the things that the KGB used to do. They were like the Orwellian Ministry of Truth come to life.

There were cases where they would attempt to erase all entire records of a person's existance: where once there was a photo of three people, there would be a photo of two people: and a potted plant. They were literally willing to rewrite history to change people's perceptions of the past: but the reason we know about all this is because the KGB lost.

Now, do you really think the CIA won by being sweetness and light in face of those bastards? I don't. I think they won because they were even tougher sons of bitches than the ones who they defeated; hardline, cruel, and effective as hell at what they set their minds to. I also don't think much has changed in the last 20 years; I think they're just as dangerous as ever, but now they don't have an enemy to unite against, so I think they've created one to justify their continued military existance.

Feel free to disagree. That's your right, and who knows: maybe CIA really is just a bunch of kinder, gentler, "not bad just misunderstood" style spies and assasins. I don't think so: I find it suspicious that an ex-CIA director, and a few years later, his son, both became commander in chief of the US army for a prolonged period of time. I think they do meddle in internal politics; they have the power, and they're people used to having power.

For me, there's an eerie co-incidence about the whole thing: when I was still in high school in the late 1980s, someone pointed out that the Cold War was ending. I said I thought the US military would scale back it's troops, but he claimed that that would never happen: that they'ld already planned the next big scare, that it was all planned and was going to develop over a course of years. I thought he was a conspiracy theory loon.

I asked who this "next big threat was" -- he said "terrorists". I nearly laughed in his face; terrorists were no threat in the 1980s. They were at most a nuisance that couldn't possibly cause trouble; the fact they resorted to terror tactics proved that they would never be a threat to more than a handful to people.

He might have been a conspiracy theory loon, but he was right about one thing: the US military never did de-escalate its troops (like it was then muttering about doing), or give up it's nuclear arsenal; you know, those nukes it said it needed to defend against the USSR. And he was right that the "next big threat" that led to war was... wimpy little terrorism. Maybe he was a nut, maybe he knew something, maybe both. I still haven't figured that one out.

I do kn

You missed one

[sbrown123]

You forgot to add this to your list:

"Torture is wrong"

Toture hurts our efforts in the war on terrorism, gets U.S. soldiers killed, and should not be the practice of any race that calls itself civilized. Do you want to argue that torture is not bad? Please feel free. You will have has much luck at that as trying to say molesting children is good or beating the head of a baby in with a baseball bat is acceptable. And nice try putting politics into this since most Republicans with morals know torture is wrong too. Only evil people think torture is good.

Re:You missed one

[Archangel Michael]

"Torture is wrong"

Yup, torture is wrong. Defining it is harder than just saying it. Is waterboarding torture? Two opinions on this, which one is right, and who gets to decide? Why do they get to decide? Not so clear anymore, is it?

Re:You missed one

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is waterboarding torture? Two opinions on this, which one is right, and who gets to decide?

Yes, it obviously is and the person who is going to subjected to it should have the say. Or we could subject you to it and then you could give us an informed opinion.

Why do they get to decide?

No one who hasn't been through it knows and it is better to not do something that might be torture than to torture people while saying, maybe it isn't really torture.

Not so clear anymore, is it?

Yeah, actually it is.

Re:You missed one

[Archangel Michael]

"Yes, it obviously is and the person who is going to subjected to it should have the say."

AHHHH, Torture!!!! Your posts torture me. So much pain AGGGHHHH. You support torture!!!!!!

See, all of a sudden your overly simplistic statement is proven wrong. What is torture depends on who is defining it. To me, your overly simplistic statements are torture, and according to you, I get to decide what is, and what isn't torture, so you are committing torture. :-D I bet now, you are gonna say "that's rediculous" or something like that, saying it isn't really torture. How do you know, did you ask me????

"No one who hasn't been through it knows and it is better to not do something that might be torture than to torture people while saying, maybe it isn't really torture."

Huh? Again, go back to my example in this post. I claim "torture" you claim it is not, who gets to decide. In this case, according to you, I would get to decide. What is "torture" to me, may not be "torture" to you. This is the same arguement you are using, just twisted enough to make it truly rediculous to show the fallacy of your whole point.

"Yeah, actually it is."

You support torture! Okay got it. ;-)

Re:You missed one

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

AHHHH, Torture!!!! Your posts torture me. So much pain AGGGHHHH. You support torture!!!!!!

No you do, since you voluntarily read it, unless of course someone is forcing you, in which case they are.

See, all of a sudden your overly simplistic statement is proven wrong.

Nope.

I bet now, you are gonna say "that's rediculous[sic]"

Nope.

In this case, according to you, I would get to decide. What is "torture" to me, may not be "torture" to you. This is the same arguement[sic] you are using, just twisted enough to make it truly rediculous[sic] to show the fallacy of your whole point.

Not at all. It is not ridiculous, it is the only way to prevent torture.

You support torture!

No. If this is torture and you're still reading, you support torture, not I.

Re:You missed one

[Knuckles]

Hm, dunno, what about thinking up a definition beforehand and then sticking to it?

• anguish: extreme mental distress
  
• unbearable physical pain
  
• agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
  
• torment: torment emotionally or mentally
  
• the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"

Re:You missed one

[Archangel Michael]

"anguish: extreme mental distress"

Now Define Extreme and Distress

"unbearable physical pain"

Now, define Unbearable and pain .....

The point being, is that defining things concretely enough to establish what they are, isn't as easy as it might seem. Is playing rock music at 95 db, torture? How about Britney? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it. How about being "tickled"? Is that counted as "pain"? How about being tickeled till it hurts? When does mear discomfort cross the line into torture? Deliberate discomfort = torture? My parents and half my teachers in school would be guilty under that logic.

Re:Mod Informative At Least

[mpapet]

Every government has a couple/few spooky agencies that will do things that go miles beyond ethical boundaries of the vast majority of people. Like paying and training humans for an army to kill, it must be done.

A very unplesant fact of life.

Let's think about this for a second...

[EndlessNameless]

It's a place of employment, not a public forum for discussing social policy. Posting personal opinions on a company network is asking for trouble.

Also... people... read the article. It indicates her "security badge was revoked". If the government yanked or suspended her security clearance, she would no longer be able to access classified material or work on classified projects. If this is indeed what happened (the wording is a bit vague), then her employer had no choice but to fire her, as she was no longer able to perform her duties. BAE Systems is mostly a government defense contractor, so all of their programming positions may have required security clearance.

She made a dumb move by flagrantly criticizing the organization that contracted her employer. I know there are more than a few places where I would have gotten into severe trouble for doing exactly what she did. I'm not saying I'm sure I would have been fired, but it's something to at least think about first. Sniping at the organization that hired your employer is *never* wise, and I honestly wonder what was going through this woman's head. In the race to scream about censorship, I think some of us are forgetting that her decision was ill-advised by professional standards.

On the other hand, I would question the thought process of whomever decided to pull her security clearance. Was this decision subject to the normal procedure or review? Did the government overseer overreact (or intentionally respond) in a way that forced BAE to fire her without good cause, or was this another incident in a long line of discontented grumblings that made it look like her political attitudes went against the contracting agency? If this is the case, it may have been wise to yank her clearance. Having people work with organizations they despise is not particularly prudent, especially when it involves exposure to sensitive issues. This could be knee-jerk management, it could be pettiness, or it could be a prudent handling of an employee whose attitude was increasingly hostile to the organization for which she was employed. Without further details, I'm not sure there is a way to figure out which of these it is.

Re:Let's think about this for a second...

[iminplaya]

And sometimes the best way to defeat the enemy is from the inside. Torture is a despicable practice, no matter for what or by whom. It's that simple. I will grant that the person may have been overcome by emotion and wasn't thinking clearly, but the torturers must be stopped. And the subject fits right in with "Your Rights Online". Considering the horrible news we usually see in this matter, maybe we should just call it "No Rights Online". Frequently what begins as private policy becomes public policy. In our post 9/11 hysteria, freedom has become an obscenity to be dispatched as soon as possible. The economy is what people vote on(that,and the candidate's hairstyle). They simply want to fatten their wallets, so I am willing to assume that things won't get better any time soon.

Like She Didn't Know What The CIA Does??

[Black-Man]

I think its checkered past speaks for itself... botched coup's... political assasinations... what do these "do-gooders", even like Valerie Plame, think they are getting into? Like they are gonna change the agency? ROFL!!

Re:Like She Didn't Know What The CIA Does??

[crmartin]

Um, Valerie Plame, given the most charitable interpretation for her role, didn't see anything wrong with what the CIA weas doing; her complaint is that she can't keep doing it.

Torture CREATED the fundamentalist jihad movement

[NZheretic]

View the first chapter of Adam Curtis's documentary The Power of Nightmares.

From Baby it's cold outside

VO: In the 1970s, this film was made, that showed what happened in Nasser's main prison in the '50s and '60s. It was based on the testimony of survivors. Torturers who had been trained by the CIA unleashed an orgy of violence against Muslim Brotherhood members accused of plotting to overthrow Nasser. At one point, Qutb was covered with animal fat and locked in a cell with dogs trained to attack humans. Inside the cell, he had a heart attack.

General FOUAD ALLAM, Interrogator Interior Ministry 1958-87 (speaking in Arabic; subtitled): Sayyed Qutb thought of himself as a superior sort of person. He saw himself as an important Islamist thinker and a strong character. And so on and so on. But at the end of the day, when he was in the military prison he gave us the exact details about his secret group and the orders he had given. The most dangerous was the order to flood the whole of the Nile delta and drown this corrupt land of infidels.

VO: Qutb survived, but the torture had a powerful radicalizing effect on his ideas. Up to this point, he had believed that the Western secular ideas simply created the selfishness and the isolation he had seen in the United States. But the torture, he believed, showed that this culture also unleashed the most brutal and barbarous aspects of human beings. Qutb began to have an apocalyptic vision of a disease that was spreading from the West throughout the world. He called it jahilliyah--a state of barbarous ignorance. What made it so terrifying and insidious was that people didn't realize that they were infected. They believed that they were free, and that their politicians were taking them forward to a new world. But in fact, they were regressing to a barbarous age.

Inflamatory Headline At Best

[mpapet]

The editor who let this one through needs to seriously reconsider it.

It can't be take back, but some kind of reconsideration is necessary.

Clearly the woman did the wrong thing at the wrong place.

Until one second after a major client complains

[giafly]

"All our people will be encouraged to realise their full potential as valued members of the team... We will strive to be the partner of choice, respected by everyone for our co-operation and openness... We will encourage a hunger for new ideas, new technologies and new ways of working" - Vision and Values

That seems reasonable

[moosebreath]

It makes sense to me. If you bite the hand that feeds you, you should expect it to quit feeding you.

Torture will always give you a confession...

[digitaldc]

...whether the person being tortured did it or not.

Confessing to a crime is always better than being tortured by another.

Bullshit

[geekoid]

If they were good at it N.Korea would ahve a new leader, Castro wouldn 't be here, Bin laden would be dead, Saddam would have been killed, and weapons of mass destruction would have been found, because they would have put them there.

Use your brain.

oh, and it was a Female.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were good at it N.Korea would ahve a new leader, Castro wouldn 't be here, Bin laden would be dead, Saddam would have been killed, and weapons of mass destruction would have been found, because they would have put them there.

If there were no perceived outside threats, they would have to invent them, wouldn't they? You can't sustain billions of dollars of defense spending if you have no enemies.

For example, thanks to 911 alone, the US military gained an immediate gain of 230 billion dollars in emergency funding by Congress. That's worth trading the lives of quite a few people to get, provided you're the ruthless type.

The CIA is chock full of ruthless types; it's their job to break the laws of other nations: to spy, to cheat, to lie, and to kill. Once you grant ruthless people vast amounts power, how can you assume they haven't been corrupted by it? It's in the nature of ruthless and unprincipled people to be, well, ruthless and unprincipled...

The more threatened the US feels, the more money the defense contractors make, and the more money the CIA is likely to be handed. The wrong sort of person might be swayed by that; people like spies, assasins, and other underhanded types; and those are the kinds of people the CIA is, by definition, composed of.

I still remember something someone told me, back when the Cold War was ending: he claimed the US government was setting up terrorists to be the next big threat, and they'ld been planning it for years. I laughed at him: in the late 1980s, terrorists were considered a nuisance, not a threat. He told me to look him up in fifteen years, and see what I thought then.

I still don't know if he was paranoid, or if he was right. I do know that the US stands to make a killing off of war, literally; and the current bogeyman, terrorism, is being played up as just as dangerous as the commies ever were...

Use your brain.

I am. It's just more suspicious than yours is. I'm probably older than you; and I've been lied to longer... you'll grow up in time, no doubt. I was more trusting when I was younger, too.

oh, and it was a Female

I doubt the CIA would care much about rules of Chivalry. ;-) They're just not the type.

It's Like E-Mail

[artgeeq]

It was an internal company blog, using the company's facilities (paid for my the US taxpayer, not Mrs. Axsmith), so it's like e-mail. A little discretion should be shown. We all know about firings due to e-mail -- it happens all the time.

BTW, Mrs. Axsmith is also lawyer, so I wonder if she should have known better.

Re:It's Like E-Mail

[zerosix]

How do you know she's a lawyer??? In the article is says she is a computer engineer but says nothing of her being a lawyer...and if you do a Google Search, the name does popup but I didn't see any indication of her specifically being a lawyer...Just Curious.

Re:It's Like E-Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, Mrs. Axsmith is also lawyer, so I wonder if she should have known better.

Indeed, you can find her site and CV here

Re:It's Like E-Mail

[artgeeq]

No, the article does not, but you could google her or see her website, axsmith.net.

White House responds in 3...2...

[kalirion]

So when will we have a White House press release accusing Washington Post of endangering National Security by revealing that the CIA has records of using waterboarding torture?

Free Will

[blacknblu]

Regardless of where you work, if you don't agree with the perceived standards and practices of your employer, look for a new job.

If you are religious, you may want to pass on the job offer in the abortion clinic. If you oppose alcohol, accepting the position at Budweiser may not prove to be a great decision. Accepting the gig with the CIA was the first in what appears to be a line of poor decisions Axsmith made.

Long live free will!

Re:Free Will

[tehcyder]

If you are religious, you may want to pass on the job offer in the abortion clinic. If you oppose alcohol, accepting the position at Budweiser may not prove to be a great decision. Accepting the gig with the CIA was the first in what appears to be a line of poor decisions Axsmith made

Ah, I see, so if I oppose torture, I shouldn't be able to get a job with the government at all? Interesting.

Re:Free Will

[blacknblu]

If you perceive the government uses torture, then no, this would not be a good career move.

Limited categories == broad strokes.

[Vellmont]

I guess I'm not sure why you think that the word "online" obviously only means the public internet. It certainly didn't used to mean that as recently as 10-12 years ago. Before that "online", just meant electronic communications, sometimes just via a private dialup BBS.

Slashdot only has a few limited categories (which is a mistake IMO), so the category definitions tend to get stretched beyond the literal definitions of them. While this isn't literally "My Rights Online", since I don't have access to private government intelligence websites, it's certainly someones rights online.

Lovely false dichotomy there.

[ArghBlarg]

So either one must torture captured suspects, or do nothing and 'take it in the ass'. No middle ground, like standard police interrogation techniques, gathering intelligence via interviews, forensics, etc. Wow.

Ever thought of interviewing for Fox News or Crossfire? Oh wait, that one's gone now.. hah

It would be sad, yet somehow amusing in a black-humour kind of way, if people who argued as you do found themselves in an interrogation room someday themselves.

Re:Lovely false dichotomy there.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is quite a difference in the urgency and tactics required to a) obtain information from someone suspected of plotting to rob a bank and b) obtaining information from someone plotting to kill hundreds or thousands of people.

If, in another life, I happen to plant a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago, I in no way expect the ACLU to stand between me and those attempting to rectify the situation.

With standard police techniques, various mobsters and druglords have been untouchable for decades. These guys are mostly killing themselves, so, no one steps up to the plate.

I'd like your opinion on how we should treat a known accomplice of the perp that is holding your wife and daughter hostage while raping and beating them in an unknown location. He will kill them when finished. Maybe we should throw the accomplice in jail for contempt until he tells us where the hideout is. I say bring out the waterboard -- no lasting physical effects is perfect, not only for covering up the torture, but for an innocent suspect continuing his life. Much better than going without toes, fingers, an eye, et cetera. And, while not always the case, if you are an innocent suspect, it is highly likely that you are not as innocent as you'd have us believe.

Once again, you show your detachment from reality.

Re:Lovely false dichotomy there.

[Knuckles]

if you are an innocent suspect, it is highly likely that you are not as innocent as you'd have us believe.

Once again, you show your detachment from reality.

Oh boy.

Tomorrow's Story...

[Bob9113]

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on Axsmith's case but said the policy on blogs is that 'postings should relate directly to the official business of the author and readers of the site, and that managers should be informed of online projects that use government resources. CIA expects contractors to do the work they are paid to do.'

Tomorrow's story will be, "Axsmith was fired for numerous reasons completely unrelated to his blog entry, which we spent last night inventing. Paul Gimigliano has been fired for not knowing when to employ liberal amounts of whitewash."

Terminate and be prepared

[Anonymous Coward]

And if a company foolishly terminates someone for stating something they didn't like they should be prepared to be taken to task for it. Nobody should be surprised she's complaining.

Re:Mod Informative At Least

[rahrens]

You've got a good point.

There is a lot of controversy over this, even in gov't circles, believe it or not. On one hand, you are right, the intelligence field is a world that operates in a very murky, semi-legal, dirty world. Sometimes, the only way to get information from a determined enemy is to do bad things to good people to get them to provide info. That could mean deliberately compromising an individual in an influencial position using drugs, sex, money, gambling or other shady vices, it could mean finding people with a grudge and plying them with money, drugs, sex, or all three.

The use of interrogation to obtain information from an enemy prisoner is always touchy. You have to know the person's attitudes about his employer. Is he patriotic? Has he a weak spot in his feelings? Can we expand on that? If he is a strong supporter or a fanatic, then the problem is compounded and made more difficult. The use of environental factors to reduce a person's resistance to interrogation does not necessarily have to include what the law would call torture. That could include such things as sleep deprivation, disturbance of the sleep/wake cycle, isolation from fellow prisoners or outside news, etc.

The use of such techniques as waterboarding are controversial because they do not necessarily include the deliberate infliction of pain - but DO inflict mental anguish through inciting a fear of what one's captors may do to you next. Remember - many of the people we have kept prisoner are from cultures where torture is a common method of interrogation. The CIA uses the fear this incites in their prisoners to influence them to talk, and in the heat of the overall conflict, it is remarkably easy to convince oneself that taking just that one small step further won't hurt.

There are those that would argue that subjecting these people to harsher methods of interrogation are necessary because the people we are holding are trained to withstand the legal methods we are allowed to use. That is the heart of the controversy, and there are arguments on both sides.

Myself, I tend to come down on the side of more civilized conventions. Not over how effective it may or may not be, but as soon as we gave up the high ground, we lose any protections we may have been able to claim from holding that high ground. That may put us at a disadvantage, but we've overcome such disadvantages before and come out on top.

Important change in phrase

[PHAEDRU5]

Fired "for" versus fired "after". There is a difference.

Of course, one doesn't expect the moonbat anti-ChimpyBusHitlerMcHalliburton crowd to catch this.

Re:Important change in phrase

[PHAEDRU5]

And it's even worse. The person in question was a contractor, not an employee.

What if the headline had been "Time-wasting Contractor Finally Exhausts Management Patience: Contractor preferred blogging to writing software."

I refer you to my anti-Chimpy..., etc commen of some moments ago.

The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Valdrax]

I find interesting the cognitive dissonance that allows for members of the right-wing to claim that there is an objective moral authority above and beyond the laws of man on issues like gay rights but that only the law and points of technicalities of citizenship are all that matters when the ability to torture foreigners suspected of knowing terrorists is on the line. Pick one or the other, and if you pick the "objective moral authority" side, then do try and strain your brain to think of what Jesus would've thought of torturing people to save your own skin.

There's no quibble about whether the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments apply to our current law enforcement procedures. The restrictions are on the government, and they apply anywhere the government acts, and nowhere in the amendments is government only barred from action against citizens. Go, and see if you can find limitations to bar injustice against citizens only in the Constitution. Furthermore, given the results of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, it's pretty damn clear that torturing people is flat out illegal in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Arg! Torture by mangling of...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...the English language. Peaceful, not peaceable.

I call bs

[955301]

"spy agency uses blogs to let agents and other workers share information and ideas"

Lets. Nice. A few years back CIA suspended a collection of workers for the summer accusing them of running a collaborative network in house without approval. Now that blogging is cool, they're allowing what amounts to the same thing?

It was being done anyway, and clearly the allowed channel is risky if you can get fired for writing the wrong things. I bet money the back-channel is up again.

Re:Two things: .......Ummmm- We don't????

[TroopaCabra]

re: It is against everything we stand for to torture someone, even if it meant that a terrorist suspect would go free. What about the School of the Americas? Isn't that torture training suposidly?

Re:This wasn't the peoper place for her to complai

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Hmm, a goverment contractor critisizing the employer about something that is totally unrelated to their work. Is it suprising they were fired?

Torture

[Britz]

It might be a bit offtopic here, but torture seems to be really have a comeback. And it IS popular, even by the average western voter. I guess for modern society it means back to square one: The middle ages (for people teaching evolution, please draw your inquisition card). Have fun!

I remember

[Lord Ender]

when slashdot used to be about technology.

the people in the buildings

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that was pretty horrible. That's why it is important that the coup plotters, the ones now illegally operating as authority inside DC, the ones who both hijacked the vote and are complicit in the 9-11 attacks need to be brought to justice, for murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, arson, and etc. maybe a little RICO action as well.

The list of high level people who are asserting this grows larger, one of the latest ones is a retired US general, retired Major General Albert Stubblebine. His specialty is image analysis, he says, that based on his own research, 9-11 was an inside job based on the evidence, that there is some considerable shenanigans involved with the civilian planes and ay-rabs with razor knives _only_ destruction scenario, and that serious investigations are in order. Real. Damn. Serious. ones, not joke whitewash investigations.

You can argue with him or any other of the high level people now daring to speak out against the american murderous coup fascists, support them and their take over- or not, take the opposite tack-your choice. It is getting to the point there is no middle ground left, not to anyone even mildly interested in the subject of freedom, laws, the concepts of right and wrong, our history, and just where the moral high ground is.

So be it. Nations have been ripped apart before for much lesser reasons.

    All I can say is, anyone who swallows the blood profits neocon fascist coup plotters fairy tale public conspiracy theory is a *complete and utter loon*, has a sub median IQ, and simply refuses to look at the evidence because it doesn't fit their pre conceived notions. And if you are "following their orders", you might want to rethink that seriously. Go ahead and extrapolate how bad this is going to get the longer those murderers are in charge and "deciding" things.

That there are a lot of planetary muslim idiot murderers no one argues against, ample evidence to show this is true, this is a fact. That the US (and Israel and the UK and some others) is/are now run by the same sort of murderers and liars is *also a fact*. The evidence is overwhelming now. 9-11 was a reichstagg fire event, a contrived allowed-to-happen "new pearl harbor" to quote one of their think tank coup plot scenarios, that was OPENLY PUBLISHED. I mean, c'mon now! This is as blatant as it can get!

If there is a crime, look first to "who profits". Flatfoot 101 work. Go ahead, look hard, who has profitted from this?

Not sure how much more evidence you need to see what is going on here, but if it is much more than what is available now, just count yourself in as a fascist and coup supporter and be done with it, at least be honest about it.

Why is this political at all?

[briancnorton]

CIA Blogger Fired for Criticizing Torture Policy

Perhaps a better one would be
CIA contractor removed from contract for NOT DOING HER JOB.

Misuse of government resources is a CLEAR violation of the oath she swore when she got her security clearance, agency policy, her company policy, and any modicum of professional ethics.

This is no different than her being asleep at her desk.

Re:Why is this political at all?

[plasmacutter]

yes, it is different.

one involves hours of inactivity, the other involves a minute here and a minute there doing an activity which they claim in TFA they encourage in order to help people share information and perspectives to better do their jobs.

Apparently their encouragement of blogging ends when the blogger crosses the line between supporting bush and not supporting him?

Re:Why is this political at all?

[humankind]

She was using a government network and resources that were undoubtedly made available for this very purpose. The WAP article states that the CIA allows and supports such blogs and sees their value. She just crossed a line with content, not with her use of time or resources.

Re:Why is this political at all?

[briancnorton]

"share information and perspectives to better do their jobs."

How does a software developer discussing torture policy help them better do their job?

Welcome to Government Contracting

[chezmarshall]

The woman in question was working for a CIA contractor, and the duties for which she was given access were software testing.

FYI, just having a security clearance is not enough to work at a particular facility. You need the requisite clearance AND access. Access is at the absolute discretion of whoever is running the facility.

Contractors in such a setting are always in a precarious circumstance. In many ways, they're encouraged to feel like part of the team, but they're not. Contractors who become nuisances or whose choices require the customer to spend time and effort usually get their access yanked.

At one place I worked, incoming contractors were explicitly cautioned about all the way in which some of their predecessors had gotten their access yanked. Because our customer was the only one the company had, losing your access to the customer's facitily meant you got fired. Some of the reasons that had resulted in losing access seemed incredibly petty.

I can think of many reasons this woman lost her access. The biggest problem is that she used her customer's computer system to criticize that very customer! As a contractor to the US government, she should have just known better than to critique foreign policy on a CIA intranet. A secondary problem is that she based her opinions on an interrogation transcript for which she apparently had need-to-know at some point. However, it's inappropriate in that setting to share even the fact that she had access to the transcript with anyone who didn't have a need to know about that.

Contractors who think independently and who aren't willing to follow even the most picayune of the customer's rules are problems (from the customer's point of view) that are very easily solved.

I'm not saying that I disagree with her comments or that I don't think this is all much ado about nothing. However, she should have seen that extending her comments from funny discussions about the cafeteria food to her opinion of the country's foreign policy was turning her into a nail that was sticking up. If there's one thing that places like the CIA can do very well, it's knowing how to hammer down any nail that sticks up.

Re:Welcome to Government Contracting

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The biggest problem is that she used her customer's computer system to criticize that very customer! As a contractor to the US government, she should have just known better than to critique foreign policy on a CIA intranet.

Yeah, just because criticizing the government is the single, most highly protected, right in out entire system of laws is no reason she should not have known better than to actually do it. How sad, RIP bill of rights.

Re:Welcome to Government Contracting

[danielobvt]

Yeah, but you don't do it on the clock at work...... That time you are spending doing that is not your time when you are being paid to work.

Re:Welcome to Government Contracting

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yeah, but you don't do it on the clock at work...... That time you are spending doing that is not your time when you are being paid to work.

But do they get everyone fired from their contracting position who does something non-work related, or was it the particular content that motivated this reaction? My guess is the latter.

Re:Welcome to Government Contracting

[chezmarshall]

Anyone is quite free to criticize the government on his own time using his own property. If I give you a contract to test my software, that doesn't mean you get to use my computers to blog about your perceptions of my shortcomings, regardless of whether I'm Joe the Donut Maker or CIA.

Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences. If I go to your house and start shouting about how I don't like the US's foreign policy, the government cannot (usually) put me in jail because of it. You, however, can ask me to shut up or leave. My freedom of speech doesn't trump any consequences of my speech, namely that I have been asked to leave your house.

My point is just as valid if I say, As a contractor to Coca Cola, she should have just known better than to blog about how much she loves Pepsi on a Coca Cola intranet.

Re:Mod Informative At Least

[Tim C]

Like paying and training humans for an army to kill, it must be done.

That's a very interesting opinion; do you have any facts or arguments to back up that assertion? In other words, can you prove that it "must be done"?

What's the story?

[moracity]

This article submission is a waste of space and time. If you critize your employer using its own property, you will probably get fired. Props to the CIA actually firing someone. The biggest waste of money in the government today is worthless employees and contractors.

Re:What's the story?

[plasmacutter]

YEAH! we'll be damned if we have these damned lower class drones which have the nerve to demand to be called human "expressing" themselves inside our buildings or networks.. they should just sit down, shut up, and mindlessly toil for subpar pay under our iron fist! *end sarcastic rant*

How did we end up at a point where OT opinions like this are considered "insightful"?

Seriously.. we are human beings.. every single one of us.. and we should be entitled to basic expression and encouragement of open discourse in the office, especially if it's a government office.

your vote, your responcibility.

[Burlap]

yes, it is your fault, you voted didnt you?. And if you didnt, then it's still your fault as you didnt do your duty to ensure that your voice was heard.

There are 3rd party options and if you (and enough people like you) are as fed up with "the way things are" as you say you are to vote for someone who isnt in the red or the blue. They may just win and do something you actually support insted of moaning about how you have no say while you waste your ballot, or vote for someone you dont like.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

yes, it is your fault, you voted didnt you?. And if you didnt, then it's still your fault as you didnt do your duty to ensure that your voice was heard.

I appreciate the sentiment, because in an ideal, fair world, people can be happy that their guy lost because 'the other guy' is still 'pretty good.' And American politics did have that happy medium for the first ~60 years of its existence (writings of a French author.. agh what was his name.. starts with a T.. wrote a book about US politics in the 1840's...).

But that kind of political climate disappeared a long time ago, so I've never liked this argument.

Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is still voting for an evil - and you still have every right to complain about what they do. Once, we didn't have to vote for an evil - just a potentially less effective politician. And to be fair, of course there were corrupt politicians in the early days of the US. Just fewer of them, because the education was different, the values were different, and the laws were different.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[DarkDragonVKQ]

I have to agree. Not to mention its almost impossible for a 3rd party to win the Presidency seat seeing as how people are still blindly brought up as "my dad was a republican so I'll vote republican" or "so and so so so and so" I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote, and none of those times have they ever won. -_-. My only form of recourse is for a President from one side to screw up so badly, then a president from the other side to screw up even worse. Then we need a massive campaign of "TRY SOMETHING ELSE YOU IDIOTS"

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[elrous0]

Just out of curiosity, what country are you from? I need to know so I can blame YOU for every dumbass decision YOUR government has ever made. After all, you're a citizen, must be YOUR fault!

-Eric

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens are not directly responsable for their governments actions, but in all other free countries the citizens protest when they disagree. Perhaps it is because i'm not living in the usa, but i've never seen a serious protest march against your government (i did see the illegal immigrants protest).

It would be nice to see americans actually protesting en masse against some of the absurd decisions of their government, even if it does not change anything.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Bull SR]

(writings of a French author.. agh what was his name.. starts with a T.. wrote a book about US politics in the 1840's...).

Alexis de Tocqueville
http://www.tocqueville.org/chap1.htm

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Sweet, thank you!

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[elrous0]

We have mass protest rallies all the time. The Bush administration just never listens to them.

-Eric

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Znork]

"Then we need a massive campaign.."

Unfortunately, it wont work. Single-winner first past post systems are inherently flawed in the manner so exceedingly well demonstrated by the US. You end up with two parties, and then the two parties get taken over and/or corrupted by special interest controlling groups. Should a third party ever get closer to real power, they'll get taken over too.

Proportional representation systems are far less susceptible; the ease of forming new parties and gaining actual representation if the old parties are unresponsive creates a strong incentive for participation, and makes it much more expensive and unreliable to manipulate the system. As you also tend to get a higher voter turnout, the combination leads to a far better representation of the voter base; government coalitions in PR systems often represent at least 40-50% of the voter base, compared to, for example, the US senate in which the leading side currently is elected by less than 20 percent of the eligeble voters.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Knuckles]

I wonder, what constitutes a "mass protest rally" in the US, that is how many people does it take to show up to be perceived as such?

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

So America sits on its collective arse while complicitly allowing 'evils' to be elected. And this is a government who is stipping your freedoms, stripping your consitutional rights, and is defending torture.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The point of that consitutional amendment was to allow The People to remove an 'evil' government, by force or threat of force if necessary. Whatever happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me Death"?

Oh, I know - dependence on cheap gas happened.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[DarkDragonVKQ]

I know that the 3rd parties would eventually get corrupted. But hopefully the first time the 3rd party is in power there wouldn't be any influences yet. Though after that we need a new party to replace it. And eventually keep shaking it up so special interest groups could never latch onto one for to long.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Your post echoes sentiments of my own. I was not attempting to make a case for sitting back on your ass and doing nothing - if anything, my post can only encourage people to realize the current system is broken and needs fixing in a major way.

Armed revolution is one option, but an armed uprising is extremely difficult to organize, and I fear we are too far gone for people to ever consider physical violence to ensure their freedoms. And that, I think, is very sad.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[BlueYoshi]

The author you think of is Alexis de Tocqueville who write in 1835 "De la démocratie en Amérique" in french: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_d%C3%A9mocratie _en_Am%C3%A9rique in english http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Democracy_in_Ameri ca

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[StikyPad]

The idea that corruption, greed, and "evil" were less present, or more subdued back in the 18th Century is simply fallacious. Human nature has not changed appreciably in thousands of years, and politicians back in "the day" were every bit as questionable as they are today. That is to say, they were human. Likewise, books written several hundred years ago are no more reliable than their counterparts written today. Just because we made up new words like "spin," doesn't mean we've invented new behavior.

We do tend to glamorize the past though, especially anything older than living memory, and the founding of America and the people involved have long since made the transition from historical to mythological. There's an idea that things were always better "back then," and that we've somehow strayed from the ideal, when in fact we never reach ideals, which is why they're called such. We wrestle with the same questions today which have been debated for hundreds of years. The unerring sense of purpose and direction so evident in our forefathers is simply the result of hindsight along with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and the choices they made were only "right" because we have nothing to compare them against, and because we marginalize their failures.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Burlap]

Canada, and youre right, i AM responcible for their actions. If a party whos policies i dont agree with gets voted in I take full responcibility for getting them voted out come the next election, If they do something i dont like I send a letter to my member of parliment, the relivent cabinent minister and the Prime minister telling them why i dont like it and what i think they should do in its place.

Next time you try and trow an argument back in someone's face, make damn sure they arnt wearing a catchers mit and is actually a person who practices what they preach.

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[elrous0]

Sorry, but I'm not having a debate with the scumbag responsible for the Canadian war atrocities in Somolia.

-Eric

Re:your vote, your responcibility.

[Burlap]

then you must not do much talking to Americans either... or Britts, French... anyone in NATO, most of the countries in the UN.... Ok, who DO you talk to?

MORON MODS

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?! WTF?! US does NOT have freedom of speech. It is not about what the law says, it's about practice. According to this fuckface's logic a country that has a law that allows anyone to critisize the government, but where you get killed for actually doing so, this country has freedom of speech. And you mod this asshat up? Mod down NOW, this is one of the lowest points of slash.

NDPTAL, if your awesome country is civilized, explain these things: being arrested (not convicted) limits your rights/people are tortured/ID was not laughed at & dismissed/having a machine do certain mathematics is illegal/free-speech zones (oops, free speech dies again :( )/gay marriage is actively opposed by people, so much that it is stopped in most (all?) places

Note how I did not pick any left vs right wing issues. These are universal, selfevident standards of civilazation. The 'omg leftwing hippy' trick does not work here. And I always do love the 'hey, there are other countries where people have it worse, so it's ok what our government does to us'

Sickening.

A 3rd thing (what got her fired)

[MikeRT]

Was blogging against her company's client, on the client's network on client time. People like her get paid extremely well. It's a very, very lucrative market for people with clean legal records, or mostly clean legal records, and programming skills. She got axed for timecard fraud, not blogging. If she did this on her own time, without using client computers, they wouldn't have done anything. However, she not only identified herself, but broke almost all of the basic rules of conduct for her market.

This woman is an idiot. Maybe she considers it a virtue to be "loud-mouthed," but her being a "mouthy bitch" just cost her a clearance for at least the next five years. Most likely, because it's time card fraud, she'll be barred for life from contracting with the CIA or any other major agency.

Re:A 3rd thing (what got her fired)

[bnenning]

She got axed for timecard fraud, not blogging.

I suspect guys at the CIA occasionally talk about the latest Redskins game when they're officially on the clock.

Re:A 3rd thing (what got her fired)

[timeOday]

I'll forgive you because you've apparently never worked in a beaurocracy before, but "timecard fraud" is simply the normal way to fire somebody you don't like in a beaurocracy. It's the "crime" that 100% of employees are guilty of. Watch anybody for a while and you'll catch them not furiously working away, at some point.

But seriously, do you believe she would have been fired if the content of her speech had been something else?

Re:A 3rd thing (what got her fired)

[Alsee]

I suspect guys at the CIA occasionally talk about the latest Redskins game when they're officially on the clock.

They were probably doing their jobs. Bush probably
ordered them to research other other things that had used before against "terrorists". If we're ok with using torture, why not dig up some smallpox laced blankets while we're at it?

Yeah yeah, I know. I have a seriously sick sense of humor.

-

The headline here is wrong

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

The CIA didn't fire her, BAE did...

Her own recreation of the blog post

[Bromskloss]

...from her other blog:

Waterboarding is Torture, and Torture is Wrong

Not to mention ineffective. Econo-Girl has serious doubts as to whether European lives were saved.

Econo-Girl's purpose in writing this blog is to start a dialog on the Geneva Convention, since it now applies to the Department of Defense again. Guess it's not quaint anymore, eh?

Over the next few weeks, Econo-Girl would like to post articles about the Geneva Convention, like its origin and major provisions. Legal analysis is not the magic some would have you believe.

If the grunts and paper pushers are knowledgeable, the anti-torture infrastructure will be strengthened.

What happened to the party of Goldwater?

[Valdrax]

Oh, it was on a BLOG on an INTRANET - guess that must make it newsworthy. Feh - this is partisan posting and nothing else.

A) What the hell happened to America to make whether or not torture is wrong a partisan issue?

B) A taxpayer-funded government agency charged with the protection of our homeland fired someone for expressing the opinion that agency policy was immoral. That should be wrong no matter what the issue is and no matter what your political affiliation is unless it's Totalitarian.

Since when did support of torture and of suppression of dissent become core Republican principles? Whatever happened to the party of Barry Goldwater?

Painful ignorance?

[ChePibe]

I'd say it's all coming from you, my man.

I know I'll get modded down for this. I have dared to go against the slashdot group think, and I dare to contradict a post that states "George W. Bush represents the real threat to the American way of life." Oh well, sometimes you must "speak truth to power", as they say.

The first is the lovely moral equivalism between what an elected leader does based on personal beliefs - last I checked, leaders were still allowed to use their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise - with Sharia law. One can only assume this stems from a complete ignorance of Shari'a and its various applications that the parent, were he objective in the slightest, would likely deplore.

Perhaps it sounds like, and perhaps it is, a tired cliché that they "hate us for our freedom", but I'd argue there's more than a grain of truth in it if one bothers to read and understand Al-Qaeda, et. al. and actually comprehend their message rather than attempt to make them something like the next Che Guevarra. The Jihadi ideology represented by many insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is obsessed with imposing its will on various parts of the world - and for some, the entire planet. Democracy is the enemy to them because it usurps "true" government come from Allah. Read Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones" and other inspiration for Jihadis around the world. This is a very different enemy we're at war with, and attempts to tie some sort of moral equivalence between stem cell research and those who believe it is their god-given duty to "smite the necks" of those who don't happen to follow their particular brand of Islam - which includes an overwhelming majority of Muslims - and to do everything they can to make the old Caliphate a reflection of the Taliban in Afghanistan - hardly a regime that respected human rights.

"Oh, so those weren't soldiers, not part of the a regular uniformed force. Well, according to our president they couldn't be prisoners of war and not covered by the Geneva Convention. And besides, there are a few morons in every bunch, right?"

Yes, but you conveniently neglected his other example of the other U.S. soldiers who were tortured, killed, then decapitated all on video - all in clear violation of Geneva Conventions, as if the other side considered them to be of any importance. Not to mention the various non-combatant civilians who have met a similar fate. Or is that excusable? Is sawing off the head of a live civilian trying to install cell phone infrastructure excusable? Is there moral equivalence between shooting an innocent woman who works for an aid agency in the head on video tape and the things that happened at Abu Ghraib? I don't think so. Not to defend the simply inhuman acts of Abu Ghraib in the least - they deserve the strictest condemnation. The difference is that when U.S. soldiers and others in uniform do things like that they are punished, Jihadis believe it is the normal way of war and commendable.

Please, if you can, provide one example wherein the insurgents in Iraq have afforded all - or even most - Geneva Convention rights to anyone they have captured.

I cannot say the U.S. is by any means close to perfect - I can only say it is better than the alternative. Yet you seem to find no difference between those who are willing to directly kill human beings by the bushel for their cause and elected officials who dare to use their position to do something you disagree with.

If anyone represents a threat to the "American way of life", I would argue that it is your ilk that is "painfully ignorant" of the west's enemies and does nothing but try to to prove that, somehow, we are just as bad.

*** You may now mod me flamebait, off topic, or troll as you wish... also feel free to respond saying I'm the real threat to America. I always get a kick out of that.

Re:Painful ignorance?

[bnenning]

I cannot say the U.S. is by any means close to perfect - I can only say it is better than the alternative.

Already posted so I can't mod, but very well said. Yes, it really is possible to oppose many current American policies while still recognizing the oppressive and dangerous ideology of radical Islamic fundamentalism.

"When they came for the bloggers..."

[rjung2k]

"Maybe if you want to keep your job you should keep your mouth shut and not criticize your employeer. There are plenty of people who can fight the fight for you"

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Re:"When they came for the bloggers..."

[Anonymous Coward]

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

At risk of sounding like a Revisionist that suddenly seems to be becoming "When the Jews came for me..."

Re:"When they came for the bloggers..."

[OrangeTide]

That's very nice. but irrellevant in this discussion.

You are free to not join the CIA, you are free to quit a contract position at the CIA at any time. And you can quit a full-time position at the CIA but the process takes a while depending on what level access you have and the reason for leaving.

Re:Show Me

[mpapet]

A dominant geopolitical society that did not have the military might to back their rule. Please don't whip out some tribal artifact either. I'm talking G8 superpower.

Can't do it without the guns and bodies. It's a sad matter of fact.

"I don't like this"

[Rob the Bold]

She's lucky they didn't arrest her. Dammit, "I don't like this" is not a sufficient reason for violating classification.

Wow. What, if anything, would someone have to do to rise to your threshold of what is unacceptable? Aparently torture is not bad enough. At least not waterboarding -- most victims don't actually die when being "interrogated" by a skilled torturer. Murder? Genocide?

To me, that's enough reason to "violate classification", whatever that means. It's reason enough to do a lot more than that. Can you believe that there are people around the world who act out of conscience? Do these folks strike you as starry-eyed dreamers, living in a fantasy world?

Count me in with the dreamers and the idealists. The CIA is someplace I'd be proud to have been fired from.

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what time frame you are using when considering that "The US used to be civilized", but remember that less than half a century ago, black and white people weren't able to share the same bus seats, drinking fountains, etc. in the United States. Even though things have gotten better, to this day there is a large amount of institutionalized racism in many parts of the country. I'm not trying to use this as a justification to claim that people who are non-citizens shouldn't have the same rights as those who are citizens, but to consider that the US "used to be civilized" and somehow isn't anymore is flat wrong. Just like any other country in the world, the United States has a long way to go until it becomes land where all are treated equal. Will that ever happen in even the most "perfect" society? I don't think so, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to do so.

P.S. - I don't like Dubya and his goons.

To: Intelblog +1, Inspirational

[Anonymous Coward]

To report an offender:

Call your Commander-In-Crime

Have a day,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.

At least troll like you CARE about your trolling.

[ScentCone]

Nah, now they are forced to suicide like Turkey makes its females that violate honor.

Really? Girls that go to school in Afghanistan are forced to kill themselves? Or the mothers that take them there are? Please kindly supply a link to that effect. Maybe you'll find that sort of information here, or here, or here, or here. That last one documents the yearly doubling of girls attending school there. You can just cut to the chase by linking to an article showing that the rate of those girls' mothers being forced to kill themselves has also doubled. Or you can just STFU and grind your "Afghanistan was better under the Taliban, and Mullah Omar just needed a little more time to really show some progress" axe in some other way.

The late 1990s.

[Valdrax]

I'm not sure what time frame you are using when considering that "The US used to be civilized"...

I pretty much consider the current peak of our civilization to have been the late 90s. We were moving towards a more tolerant society. We were widely respected for the freedom of our culture. We worked with the international community to end a civil war and genocide in Kosovo. We looked to the future with hope and expectation, and there was always a sensation that America was moving forward towards fairness and justice, and to me that forward motion IS civilization.

Civilization is ethical, moral, and cultural growth. Stagnation is just decay. One of these days we might reach a plateau where everything is as fair as it can be, and I'd have to change my definition of being civilized, but we are centuries or millenia away from that point if it's even achievable.

Post 1999-2001, the nation has changed. We actually have news and media personalities that try to convince people that torture and detention without fair trial is a good and just thing. We stoke up fears about Arabs and Mexicans daily. We are widely hated for arrogant policies that have stalled and actually reversed the world's progress on human rights. We are bogged down in an occupation that is leading to a civil war that is killing more people than the evil dictator we displaced had done in over a decade. The future is now something to fear and dread instead of something to hope for.

America has done better, and I think that it can do better again, but people are going to have to come face to face with what we've become and act with determination to save our nation's very soul.

Re:The late 1990s.

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider the peak of American civilisation to be the middle 1700s. After this they rebelled against their government and set off on a trail of genocide and destruction which resulted in the death of most Indians (and Buffalo) by the mid 1800s. I don't think that Africans were too happy with the US at this time either!

They then invaded any small countries they could find, stole all the raw materials, and practically enslaved the countries of South America. By the 1930s they were happy to work with Hitler so long as they didn't lose any money, and made sure that they came out of WW2 as the richest nation, having charged everyone for war materials.

In the last half-century they have assasinated their way through most of the third world in their obsession with eradicating Communism, and supported all kinds of ruthless dictators in murdering anyone who threatened big business interests.

For such a young country the US has probably the worst record of any nation on the planet. You are only now starting to see what everyone else has been noticing for the past 200 years.

Re:The late 1990s.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We were widely respected for the freedom of our culture. We worked with the international community to end a civil war and genocide in Kosovo."

By funding and aiding terrorists and bombing a country with poisonous weapons?

Foot, shoot.

[Clovert Agent]

What's the best way for a covert group to get maximum embarrassing exposure? Oh yes, try to hush it up. When justified [1], it works. When not, it can backfire spectacularly, as MI6 (the UK's sorta-equivalent to the CIA) is learning (or not), yet again through Richard Tomlinson - http://richardtomlinson.typepad.com/

[1] Cos sometimes it really is, this sort of debacle notwithstanding.

Yes, but do we follow it.

[S.P.B.Wylie]

You must admit there is the argument that a civilized society would follow it's own rules, which we don't. It isn't just the torture thing, either. Remember all that illegal wire tapping the NSA did? And the Patriot Act? Sure, the Patriot Act follows the WORDING of the constitution, but it doesn't exactly follow the spirit. Getting a warrant after the search? What if the warrant was unsupported, what recourse would they have? How does that comply with right "against unreasonable searches and seizures"?

I find it funny that, in trying to fight terrorism, we did the very thing they wanted all along. Disrupted our way of life.

Is the US a modern county? Yes. Is it civilized? Arguable.

Gangster mentality.

[elucido]

You also have to take into account that there is a gangster mentality, not just among kids in ghettos and street gangs, but the foundation of this country was based no gangs. Just watch gangs of new york, or watch a mafia movie. The cowboy mentality applies well to the south but then everywhere else you have the gang mentality.

Also, your statistic figures appear racist. Most criminals are not in the projects dealing drugs, those are just the criminals we want to catch. The criminals we don't want to catch commit crimes essentially for decades and nothing happens to them. Some people are above the law, only the small criminals get caught, usually the drug dealer types. No one really knows how many murderers there are in the US, but we do know the death tolls, the life expectancy, and things such as this. In general, the number 1 method of murder is through poisoning, not gun violence. Most violent crimes are not racial, this means you are more likely to face violence from someone who looks like you do, than someone who looks different from you. Most violence comes from a small percentage of aggressive minded individuals who like violence, and the majority of us simply go to work, pay our taxes, raise our families, and avoid the violent life. It's always been this way.

Our criminal justice system is too outdated to handle violence because we arent focused on violent criminals. Drug dealers arent violent criminals.

Re:Gangster mentality.

[cayenne8]

"Also, your statistic figures appear racist. Most criminals are not in the projects dealing drugs..."

Hmm....where in my OP did I ever mention a person's race? Granted, NOLA is where my most recent experience comes from, and the projects are predominately black...but, the proportion of blacks to whites pre-Katrina was very lopsided...like near 70/25 or so for black/white. However, I again didn't speak to race...IMHO, it is more of a poverty thing if extrapolated to the rest of the US with more balanced populations. And if you can get and look at the charts the NOPD put out in years past with markings of the murders in the city, you could plainly see the dense areas of murder, where around the housing projects, which also coincided with where most drug dealing took place...at least in the open.

I agree with you, no one should be above the law, but, with limited resources, and what I think to be common sense...my worst crime fear is violent crime..murder in particular. I'd much rather limited resources be dedicated to preventing and cleaning up hotbeds of violence. While all crime is bad...at least you are still breathing in the end if you aren't murdered. I'd rather have the cops going after a murderous person or gang rather than sitting with a radar gun looking for a normal citizen trying to get to work about 10 mph over the limit. Let's face it, some crimes are worse than others, and need to be addressed as such.

But again...I said nothing in my OP that was racist at all. Just stating what my experience, and what the numbers/stats of my city in the past proved to be...I cannot think that the truth, no matter which way it points can be racist...

Well said!

[Valdrax]

Of course it's horrid that there are spots in that country where that same attitude still exists. But the difference is that now there is no longer a "government" that directly embraces and celebrates that medieval nonsense by actually having government employees who run around and do that evil crap. It will be at least a generation before it becomes culturally embarassing, for more like a majority of Afghanis, to have that stuff happening in their more rural areas. But the difference is crucial: before, it was the law of land, and now it's not.

This is very well said. Afghanistan may be just as bad as under the Taleban in some places and backsliding in others, but the whole country isn't like this anymore, and that's a crucial difference.

Heck, there are women holding political offices right now! Their new Constitution enshrines equal rights for women. Our Constitution put equal rights for all men in the 14th Amendment but it took us over a 100 years to actually live it. As long as the current government doesn't collapse, then I think the future of Afghanistan is pretty bright.

Contractor and Company Property

[GiggidyGiggidy]

I was a contractor for IBM for a few years, doing business consulting. As a contractor on the client's premisis, we were held to very high standards. I know somebody who was removed from the contract for parking in a forbidden area. I also know employes of the client who were fired for mis-use of the intranet for communicating such things as items for sale, opinions not valid to the department, etc.

Re:Torture CREATED the fundamentalist jihad moveme

[Cederic]

Oh please. Muslims torture people too.

Re:Show Me

[Anonymous Coward]

2 points:
"Hasn't been done" is not even close to "can't be done".
Having an army is different from having a gov't supported sect of criminal torture enthusiasts.

Due Process

[beakburke]

Military tribunals ARE due process. They aren't a civilian court, but they would satisfy due process requirements. Our own military personel are subject to a different standard than a civilian. I don't see why that standard isn't good enough for a suspected "non-uniformed" combatant. What the GGP was saying is the "The People" are US citizens and/or legal residents. As opposed to just "people" or "persons". I know that's probably parsing the language somewhat, but given historical practices and our understanding of the intentions of the constitution as written, it's probably the most accurate way to read it. Of course I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

Re:Due Process

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Our own military personel are subject to a different standard than a civilian. I don't see why that standard isn't good enough for a suspected "non-uniformed" combatant.

If you were accused of being a deserter, and the question was whether or not you were the guy they think you are, the one who enlisted, I doubt that question would be answered by a military tribunal. What happens to you after it's established that you are is up to them, but until then, you'd probably have the usual civilian processes.

Or at least I hope to God that's how it works.

Re:Due Process

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Military tribunals ARE due process. They aren't a civilian court, but they would satisfy due process requirements."

And yet the US federal supreme court, the highest court in the land, disagrees...perhaps there are details of which you are unaware, or are discarding?

Re:Due Process

[homer_ca]

There's a huge difference between the due process of the UCMJ and the "due process" of the military tribunals at Guantanamo. Here's a quick summary from the obviously biased BBC (/sarcasm). Pay attention to this part and tell me if this is due process:

The Pentagon says it is a "misconception" to think that every prisoner at Guantanamo Bay is due a trial by military commission. It sees the main purpose of the camp as stopping "enemy combatants" returning to the field of combat, although there is dispute over whether many of those held are actually combatants.

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Talchas]

The restrictions are on the government, and they apply anywhere the government acts

Unfortunately this is not true, at least according to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, this is not new - it goes back to the early 20th century, when the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution does not apply everywhere. Of course it would be nice if the SC would go and change its mind about this...

Our REAL Strategy in Iraq

[nathanicus]

Consider this for our national strategy:

Terrorists attack America because they hate our freedoms. Rather than removing the terrorists, which any sensible person knows cannot be done, we remove the motivation, in this case, our freedoms.

1.) We deliberately leak information to the media that portrays us in a negative light, e.g. publicly firing CIA bloggers who dont like torture, or the whole rendition campaign. We advertise how much we muzzle dissent. We make ourselves appear incompetent and weak.
2.) We make ourselves out to be like any other old totalitarian state: we leak evidence of torture, make it sound widespread, argue that torturing is OK, and so on. Not only are we incompetent, we are also dangerous. Unknown unknowns are very frightening.
3.) We follow Kim Il Jongs tactics and appear to be completely irresponsible with our use of military force- the crazier we act, the less likely the terrorists will want to blow us up for fear that we will destroy their whole homeland... we add a bit of religious zealotry to make it sound authentic.
4.) Not only do we save America from terrorists, but we save America from Americans as well!
We disillusion the terrorists by convincing them that the freedom they want to destroy doesnt actually exist... then putting those insinuations into policy.
Conspiracy theorists can take over from here.

All in all, this policy sounds like it might work better than what we currently think our strategy is!

Re:Show Me

[AshtangiMan]

Uhhh, that's not proof. It might be begging the question. Of course you can't prove it. But it is worth noting that just because that is the way it has always been does not mean that it can't also happen some other way. We are using military might in situations that don't call for it (Iraq), at the expense of situations that do call for it (getting to Osama). Previous posts give plenty of reasons why torture is innefective at yielding good intel, as well as other interrogation methods that do yield good intel. Don't limit yourself to accepting as possible only that which you have seen or heard about.

Poor criminals get caught quicker.

[elucido]

Poverty has nothing to do with the criminal mentality, and everything to do with the chance you have of getting caught. Yes poverty can motivate a person to commit crimes to survive, but a greedy rich person will commit crimes to keep up with their rich neighbors and stay ahead just as quickly. The difference is, white collar criminals almost never get caught, and when they do it's a slap on the wrist. Tabacco drug dealers, and Pharma drug dealers sell drugs all the time which are harmful, like Viox, and none of them go to prison for it because they can pay a fine. Even the big marijuana dealers, who deal in tons, and who operate in other countries are immune for political reasons.

The end result is, only the stupid drug dealer, who sells drugs by walking up to people and asking "wanna buy some drugs?" gets caught. Stupid criminals get caught, smart criminals almost never get caught, and thats the only point to make.

I agree with you completely, I think we should elimate the drug laws, and regulate drugs on safety, as a form of quality control. The more money we spend going after marijuana dealers the more money we arent spending going after the murderers. In gangwars, most gangsters arent killers or murderers, they are just like you and me, but because of the environment they live in, the lack of oppurtunity, the lack of education and in some cases dyslexia and inability to read, their options are a life of McDonalds or a life of crime. Most people in these desperate situations have nothing to lose.

We also must remember, that the entire world is just a group of gangs, factions, groups, networks. Yes there are street gangs, but theres gangs of lawyers, doctors, and everything else. Basically everyone is in some sorta group or community, including the slashdotter open source community which could just as easily be labeled a gang by anti open source groups.

We have to start viewing street kids as people, and yes maybe they are just as scared of being shot as you, and maybe because they are living in such a violent neighborhood they join a gang out of fear. Once we can see that there can be someone just like us in any gang we can see that it's not gangs that are bad, it's violent individuals in gangs that commit the violent crimes. Perhaps we could have more success fighting violent crime if we just faught violent crime instead of fighting entire groups, gangs, etc and treating every member as a violent criminal. The average drug dealer, does not support the murderer in their community anymore than you would. The average thief does not support the murderer. The non-violent criminals are not in some sorta suicidal alliance with the violent criminals, it's more that the non-violent criminals fear both the violent criminal, and the police, and they side with the violent criminal because they know the violent criminal better than they know the police. Maybe if there were better community policing, and maybe if there were better communication between kids in the hood, or ghetto, or gangsters with the outside world, this wouldnt be such a problem.

Why are there no websites on gangs from a gangsters perspective? It's nothing like those rap videos. Perhaps it is due to the code of silence, as all mafias have a code of silence, but in any case even with a code of silence, without any form of communication to the outside world, those who are inside this world are trapped.

The simple way to deal with violent crime is to track people who commit violent offenses or who are carrying a gun. If someone is a gang member, and we can see they carry a gun using advanced surveillance technology, we can track just these gun carrying persons. If someone is known to get into lots of fights and commit assaults we can track people with this criminal history. The violent criminal database would solve this problem. what do you think?

Re:Poor criminals get caught quicker.

[Axess Denyd]

"The simple way to deal with violent crime is to track people who commit violent offenses or who are carrying a gun."

Don't go spying on me just because I am a law-abiding citizen.

Re:Poor criminals get caught quicker.

[elucido]

National Security trumps privacy, it's already been decided on. The gun registry exists for non-criminals, so surveillance of gun ownrs isn't new. Criminal gun owners are in a league of their own, especially if they are carrying a gun without a license.

I'm not saying you cannot carry a gun, I'm not against the NRA, but if someone carries a gun everyone should know it, including the police, the government, and other citizens. We should know where the people carrying guns are.

Re:Poor criminals get caught quicker.

[cayenne8]

"The gun registry exists for non-criminals..."

What gun registry? I've never lived in a state where I had to register any firearm I bought. I bought all mine from private individuals...no record of a cash transaction.

Re:Poor criminals get caught quicker.

[Mister Whirly]

So, you know Guido that works from the trunk of his car in the 7-11 parking lot too, huh?? He always has a good selection....

Two bad examples

[beakburke]

There are two simple arguments against the examples you cite. In reading the 4th ammendment, it is most reasonable to assume the "rights of the people" is refering to the rights of US citizens/residents on US soil, not just anyone in particular.The language construction is important here. Why "The people" and not "all people"?? I think it is obvious from the language and historical record that this right was never ment to protect the privacy of a pirate ship captain's quarters from the US Navy, unless they obtained a warrant first of course!! There are some guarantees in the constitution that are not phrased this way, and Congress can certainly create (admitted less authoritative than a constitutional guarantee) additional protections, but I don't see the 4th ammendment as applying to foreigners on foreign soil.

In the case of the 6th ammendment, we aren't dealing with a domestic criminal trial. They aren't being chared with a crime under domenstic law. So the 6th Ammendment is moot here. You could make an argument that operatives like Richard Reed (shoe bomber), who was caught on US soil, ought to be entited to more protection than those captured on a battlefield, but precident isn't in your favor here. German saboteurs during WWII weren't treated as criminals either, they were treated as combatants and dealt with in military tribunals. The only time I believe civilian courts ought enter the picture is to determine if combatant caught on US soil is, in fact, an operative of a foreign power at war with the US. If they determine he is, then the facts of the case are tried in a tribunal setting, like all other combatants. If he is not, then he would be tried as a civilian.

Re:Two bad examples

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"it is most reasonable to assume the "rights of the people" is refering to the rights of US citizens/residents on US soil, not just anyone in particular."

It is interesting to note that "We, the people..." began the Declaration of Independence. Yes, they where residing together. But people are the alpha and omega of democratic forms of govenment. Consider:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and notice the switch from "citizens" to "any person". I think it is fairly obvious that the "rights of the people" thus have to refer to "anyone in particular" who is indeed within the reach of the power of the government of the United States of America.

Mythbusters..

[plasmacutter]

mythbusters examined water torture.. it is real torture if youre strapped down or confined while you were dripped on..

Groupthink? I dont think so.

[nurb432]

No, its more fundamental then that, and has little to do with politics at its core.

The CIA is a *JOB*. The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired. Regardless of what industry you work in. Be it flipping hamburgers, building cars or protecting the country.

its pretty simple. Dont like the opinions of managment, find another place to work.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[Knuckles]

If you dont agree with the boss and speak out against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired

Gosh, I am so happy I don't work in the same place as you. That might be partly because I wouldn't.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[DarkVader]

Um, no. It's NOT that simple.

The CIA is part of the US Government. The US Government is supposed to work for the people of the United States.

When the "bosses" in government fail in their duties (as is currently occurring in the United States Government) it is the responsibility of those in a position to do so to go over the heads of their direct "bosses" to their real bosses - the people.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The president's boss is the people.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[The Fanta Menace]

The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired.

Yeah, because businesses work so well when the CEO is surrounded by yes-men.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[sumdumass]

The presidents boss is himself and america as a country. The people don't have any power over him. They cannot remove him from office. Hell they didn't even elect him to office, an electorial colledge does that. This is something called a republic. or better yet, a represenative republic.

The reason we are in this mess is because too many dumbasses think the government works for them. It was never designed to work that way. It isn't there to make laws about people commiting crimes were hate might be construed as an reason. It isn't there to provide you with jobs and it definatly wasn't designed to give money to those who won't find a job. It was put in place to prove for a common defence, settle disputes between states and provide post services. Oh yea, and there is something about copyrights or pattents too.

Not a big role compared to what we see today. But too msny people have the wrong idea and made it this way. We are reaping the rewards of our own greed!

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[whit3]

While it may be simple to say
    >>The CIA is a "JOB". The president is your "BOSS".
that ignores several important aspects of the current situation.

Firstly, the CIA is established by Congress, by the assembly of
representatives of the people of the United States. Its charter
defines the duties of the people who work there, and allows
for LOTS of insulation against the whims of political appointees
or other control by the President. Civil servants can't be fired
for this kind of thing, by law. The oversight by the President
and executive branch simply doesn't extend that deep.

That law was written after major abuses of Executive oversight
of civil agencies in the 1800s. Call me a conservative, but
I want that law STRICTLY enforced, it is definitely preferable
to the strong-executive-fires-at-whim model.

But, the person involved was a contractor, not a civil servant.
Thus, cancelling the contract WAS a legal option. It is
not an option that has a benign odor, however. It stinks.

By law, the practice of torture is illegal; our Congress passed
recent legislation to that effect, when the issue seemed unclear.
I see no problem with civil servants discussing this, even
taking positions on it. They're required to stay within the law,.
and discussion can clear up confusion.

The specter of discussion causing loss of income is... disturbing.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[kinzillah]

what is a colledge?

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[sumdumass]

It is the wrong spelling of college. If you sound it out you will be able to phoneticly understand it. I doubt you will get the meaning though.

BTW, it was misspelled on purpose to kind of show the fine line advantage some one could get when using the "COLLective EDGE" for the electorial proccess (as in an electorial college)instead of the popular vote. It goes back to the principle of the founding fathers knowing the limitations of what they intended the federal government to have along with thier understanding that the popular thing to do isn't alway the right thing to do.

This can be illistrated simularly to after 9/11 were every pole grabbing politician supported going to war against terrorist (and even IRAQ) because it was the popular thing. Now after many amercan service men died, it isn't popular and they are against it. Some liberal politicians are now wanting to just run and hide leaving things however they might be for someoen else to clean up. Not much unlike they tend to do in office. But halfass policies that guarrentee thier re-election is something all politicians tend to do and it is another discusion.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[kinzillah]

Hm, you're right. I'm not entirely sure on the meaning of college. Do you perhaps mean collage? I like pretty collages as they are easy for my feeble mind to comprehend.

Now, I'll give you the benefit the doubt as to "COLLective EDGE," as I cannot possibly understand the inner workings of your noggin. However, it is my personal opinion that you are merely too lazy to pick up a Funk and Wagnalls. Honestly, without a basic understanding of the English language, how can you expect your ideas to be taken seriously? If you are going to deliberately misspell a word, perhaps you should indicate that in some manner.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[sumdumass]

Maybe i couls explain it a little further for you. Seeing how you have such a great grasp on the english language and all..

A college, as in an educational institution, Can carry several meanings. One can also be a group of people working for the colective good. Now a collage, on the other hand, is a collection of different works or types of works presented as one. Why i would need a Funk and wagnalls to look that up,i don't know.

Maybe the problem is that i assumed you knew about the electorial proccess and politics in america seeing how you were commenting on the process. But then i should have considered that you actualy though the president worked for the people. You see, even though we vote for the president and vice president, the Electorial colledge actualy elects them to office. This means that everyone could vote for canidate A and the electorial colledge could elect canidate B and we would be stuck with B. Now the people casting these votes are assembled differently depending on the state they represent but it is possible to stack them with cronies that will elect a certain paerson based on whoever is controling them at the time. On more then one occasion, this has produced a sitting president who wasn't elected by the majority of people voting just as it was intented for. Thats the edge they have.

Also, there is no way to remove a president unless he commits a high crimes or misdemeanors and _congress_is convinved_of_it_. Seeing how he controls the state and it's direction, I doubt you could ever get a treason charge to stick either. But the people themselves have no way of removing him from office. It is all up to the congress to do so if they deem it neccesary. In government the highest vote needed to pass something is a two thirds aproval. This ilistrates the lack of control the people have over the president because the approval ratings have droped below this 2/3rds level on more then several occasions with more then one sitting president(meaning two thirds of the citizenship would have voted to remove him). The preident doesn't make laws and cannot be told what to do by "the people". The only thing the people can do is not vote for him but thats kind of pointless when he is term-limited and not able to run for that office again.

how can you expect your ideas to be taken seriously?

I don't expect anything. When you expect something from someone you get disapointed too easily. Like this thread, I just asumed you would understand my sarcasm. Unfortunaly it went way over your head. Then after attempting to explain it, it went even futher. But the fact i was willing to explain it more then once to you ilistrates that i wasn't expecting anything from you. I'm really just sumdumass hoping everyone else is as smart as the other dumb asses out there. Ohhh, BTW, I decided not to spell check this draft on purpose just so you could find some mispelled words and then suggest speeling with entirly different meaning to replace them with.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[kinzillah]

Did you, perhaps, miss my return volley of sarcasm? It was rather thin, which would have been to better effect had you noticed it.

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[marcello_dl]

And remember, if anybody criticizes you later for crimes against humanity: "I only followed orders". Sieg heil. :P

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA is a *JOB*. The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired.
its pretty simple. Dont like the opinions of managment, find another place to work.

There is a word for a president with absolute power, who fires any government employee who dares disagree with him. The word is "dictator".

What are you doing in nasty democratic America? Why don't you go live somewhere with a political system more suitable to your beliefs, like Cuba or North Korea?

Re:Groupthink? I dont think so.

[sumdumass]

Why yes, I did miss the sarcasm.

I actualy thought you were some Eurotrash wannabe commenting on the american political process when brief encounters from a readers digest was the major qualiflyer for the opinion. My mistake.

And yes, it makes much more sence with the sarcasm tag enabled.

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Valdrax]

I was not aware of that. I'll have to do a lot more research into what the article means by "full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control."

I'll just have to add that to my list of Supreme Court decisions I think were blatantly pandering to the government desires of the times instead of to the intent of the framers.

Re:At least troll like you CARE about your trollin

[kabocox]

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/16 4
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/9/96 4
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-2851(199821) 206%3C12%3ACHIFSH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
http://polyzine.com/arabwomen.html

I wasn't really speaking of Afghanistan, but I believe that now that the US is preventing their tradional means of killing of those that violate their usual morals that they'll adapt like these other neighboring countries and you'll see these honor killings happen there as well. You don't get it. I'm not saying that they are worse off. I'm saying that the girls are in more danger once they actually start acting westernized or sexually active and living what we'd consider and normal teenage life. I bet it isn't happening right now because most are more afraid of the US than of the women. Give it 5-10 years while most have forgotten Afghanistan or Iraq and see how those female suicide rates have climbed. I was first made aware of this through an AOL news article (happening in Turkey) and was surprised. The families were using every means at their disposal to make the female feel that their life was worthless and that to do the best for their family that they should kill themselves. I've just tried searching for any data concerning Afghanistan suicides or honor killings and haven't yet found anything. That only means that the data or news reports aren't open to you or I. It doesn't mean these things aren't happening over there.

the tough fate of the conscientious objector

[Anonymous Coward]

No employer is ever going to spell this out, but part of your job is that you implicitly support whatever the employer does. All of it.

If you ever get to the place where you don't support some of it, you have reservations, etc., you're already (internally) half out the door. You will probably eventually have to quit, or be fired, or else learn to adopt the employer's way of seeing things, or worst of all (this is the classic corporate soul-sucking, spiritual death option) learn to live with the conflict and "take the money".

I feel sorry for the lady. At the same time, offering advice on intelligence gathering tactics were not part of her job description. You can always expect to get slapped or worse for entering into things that are not part of your brief, especially in a vertical and compartmented authority structure like government or a big company.

Re:Torture CREATED the fundamentalist jihad moveme

[FhnuZoag]

Way to miss the point, bud.

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>torturing people to save your own skin

Do you truly believe that's why the government is torturing people?

Why do you believe this?

Torture does not provide information. It provides whatever the interrogator wants to hear.

Re:At least troll like you CARE about your trollin

[Anonymous Coward]

...or here [worldvision.org]. That last one documents the yearly doubling of girls attending school there.

According to the linked article they're now up to 16,000. Given that Afghanistan's population is around 30 million, they're up to something like 1 out of every 2,000 people in Afghanistan.

On the topic of whether women are better off now then they were under the Taliban, it probably depends on the women. Some women/girls now have a couple years of education but then some women have lost friends and family in the violence associated with the US invasion. On the whole, most women are probably in about the same situation they were before. I mean, it's not like all 15 million or so women in Afghanistan are suddenly PhD CEO's making 10 million a year.

The hope, of course, is that women might end up being much better off decades in the future but, then again, the presence of foreign troop could eventually generate so much resentment that the whole country dissolves into civil war. Even without the invasion it is also possible that Afghanistan would have become gradually more progressive and within a few decades women would be better off than if the US invaded and had to deal with the resentment to foreign troops.

That raises the question: where is the bar for one country deciding to invade another country. Is it enough that the one country thinks it can possibly slightly improve the situation in the other country? Looking at 9/11, people really don't like it when they are killed violently so it seems to me that the bar should be pretty high. On the other hand, people that thought 9/11 was no big deal might favor the use of military force in a lot more situations.

Torture makes us less safe.

[Zeinfeld]

By the plain text of the language, the same holds true of the US Constitution. It doesn't use the word 'citizen' at all - it speaks of the rights of 'people' instead

The constitution states that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. No ifs, no buts, no jurisdiction stripping, the supreme law of the land

And article 3 of the Geneva convention absolutely prohibits use of torture without exception. It is irrelevant what status the administration claims the prisoners have, the convention recognizes no exceptions.

And waterboarding was one of the favorite tortures of the Spanish inquisition, Torquemada himself describes its use. Ergo there is no doubt whatsoever that the administration has been illegally using torture and that the President, Vice President and Defense Secretary are unindicted war criminals.

The crimes are war crimes because the US has a specific law that states that crimes against the Geneva convention are war crimes.

The broader picture here though is that torture is a near useless form of interrogation. It is easy to make someone talk, impossible to work out whether they are telling the truth or not. Forget the ticking bomb scenario, the interrogation subject will lie.

Every victim of torture is a new potential terrorist. Al Zarqawi was merely a petty thief until the Jordanian secret police tortured him and gave him the grudge that he acted on for the next ten years after his release.

The reason that we won the cold war is because even the communists knew that the West had the moral high ground. Senior communists would defect or pass intelligence because they knew that the West had the moral cause and the Soviet Union was a tissue of corruption, lies and oppression. The pictures of the actions George W. Bush is responsible for at Abu Graihb, the knowledge that the same actions took place and take place today in the Guantanamo gulag, those attorcities serve as daily recruitment sargents for our enemies and the result is that we are not only less free we are less safe.

If you do the math it is impossible for the Democrats to win a sufficient majority in the Senate to convict after impeachment without Republican support. Every day it appears that the the administration gives new reason for Republicans to convict.

The administration has demonstrated a degree of incompetence, ignorance and stupidity that is without comparison in US history. They failled to complete the elimination of Al Qaeda and the Taleban because they were more interested in starting a new war in Iraq.

This is what evil looks like.

Re:Torture makes us less safe.

[fishbowl]

>And article 3 of the Geneva convention absolutely prohibits use of torture without
>exception. It is irrelevant what status the administration claims the prisoners have,
>the convention recognizes no exceptions.

Well, there are a few interesting things going on at the time we happen to be witnessing:

1. We are testing the ideas of "international law", in some ways, for the first time in history, and the ideas are not meeting their goals, for the simple fact that there is no realistic possibility for such laws to be enforced against a sufficiently strong nation.

2. The US has demonstrated that it is possible for a nation to invade another, sovreign nation, replace its government, and torture and kill its people, and no nation will raise the slightest opposition to this. Other nations are now learning this lesson, and following suit.

Re:Torture makes us less safe.

[Zeinfeld]

The US has demonstrated that it is possible for a nation to invade another, sovreign nation, replace its government, and torture and kill its people, and no nation will raise the slightest opposition to this. Other nations are now learning this lesson, and following suit.

On the contrary, the people of Iraq are opposing it.

And the people of this country will have the chance to repudiate the crimes committed in their name this November.

The actions of one utter fool can be reversed if enough people are willing to make it so. Ask you Congressman what their position on torture is, ask what they are doing to question the administration's torture policy. If they don't give the right answers ask the person challenging them in November. If they give the right answer help them defeat the incumbent, if not find a candidate who does, consider standing yourself.

Re:Torture makes us less safe.

[fishbowl]

>On the contrary, the people of Iraq are opposing it.

Oh, I was picturing something on the order of an alliance between Russia, China and Germany with ships and subs blockading the Gulf to prevent the US from invading, or if you want diplomatic solutions, a scenario where Americans are not allowed to travel or conduct business elsewhere in the world.

That sort of opposition might have had an impact. Iraqi guerilla defenses do nothing except put a finer point on the fact that nobody was willing to do the slightest thing in their defense. You could say this is because everyone in the world is afraid of confronting the US or the UK, either economically or militarily, but I say it is simply because nobody with a military force had any interest whatsoever in defending Iraq to begin with.

>And the people of this country will have the chance to repudiate the crimes
>committed in their name this November.

You should prepare yourself for the possibility that the status quo may indeed continue to prevail.

Notice, for example, that after 2000 or so, large numbers of peaceable, liberal minded people did not choose to relocate from the cities to the interior in order to affect the political distribution. Red states are still red states. If you live among people who are like-minded, it is very easy to forget just how much support some of these lawmakers actually enjoy among their consituents -- constituencies which have not dramatically changed over the past decade, and who, if they have changed their views, are actually now even *more* in support of the bellicose, intolerant representatives, many of whom *will* be re-elected in November, or replaced by even more conservative candidates.

Even the most optimistic projections lead to a seven- or eight- seat Democratic majority in the House -- that would be good enough to help resolve some issues, but not the revolution some would have us believe it will be.

>Ask you Congressman what their position on torture is

Interesting that you should bring that up. The Congressman from my district is a first-generation American citizen whose parents were immigrants from Mexico. He doesn't go too deep into foreign policy issues, but he is certainly a champion of human rights, particularly issues related to humanitarian aid and immigration reform.

But one of the Senators from my state happens to also be on the very short list of national politicians who I personally know -- he is a Republican Senator who was a POW during the Vietnam war, and he was also a neighbor of mine in Yavapai county for several years. Despite his being a Republican politician, and me being generally a Democrat for lack of a real party representing my own ethos, this candidate would enjoy my full support for any office he would aspire to, regardless of party affiliation.

So there you go. You've got a liberal peacenik hippie willing to re-elect a Republican incumbent.

Now, to be fair, my politics are weird -- I tend to support people I know personally (happens a lot in local politics, especially since I grew up in a very small town, and these days, I happen to live near a few politicians -- council, sherriff, school superintendent, and one or two others), regardless of "party" concepts.

Re:Torture makes us less safe.

[Zeinfeld]

That sort of opposition might have had an impact. Iraqi guerilla defenses do nothing except put a finer point on the fact that nobody was willing to do the slightest thing in their defense.

The 'little war' in Spain toppled Napoleon in the end. Without the Guerilla Wellington's Peninsular campaign would have been much less successful.

There was a time when knowledge of this type of history was a prerequisite for being considered an expert. Today we have know nothings and learn nothings in charge.

Re:Torture makes us less safe.

[fishbowl]

> Today we have know nothings and learn nothings in charge.

They would learn a lot more, and much more quickly, if people were willing to bring consequences to them.

Why do so many nations even tolerate the actions of the US? Why no opposition?

Re:At least troll like you CARE about your trollin

[fishbowl]

>where is the bar for one country deciding to invade another country[?]

That's easy: The prevailing doctrine in global politics has been shown to be "Might Makes Right."

If you can invade a country and no other nation lifts a finger to defend it, then it is justified. The whole world has voted on this one, pretty much unanimously. The USA gets the blame because they were the most recent to successfully test the idea, but today Israel is following through on the same premise.

She'd never make it to the NY Times

[vinn01]

She'd fall for this trick....

"It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift. "

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

[vix86]

Little digging around and I find this on Wikipedia (Pulled up the 1840 page and looked under "literature").

Democracy in America (De la démocratie en Amérique) by Alexis de Tocqueville I assume thats who you were refering to.

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[Eunuchswear]

Torture is terrorism.

It is useless as an information gathering tool, as any cop could tell you. But it's a great way to scare people.

Mod parent up - should be +5 Funny

[alizard]

The author is obviously joking. Only a drooling tard with neofascistic tendencies could seriously make these statements in a public forum.

Tear.

[Vlad2.0]

I'm sure I'll be modded down on Slashdot for saying this and marked as Troll for giving my non-bleeding-heart-opinion, but I think my karma can handle it.

Have you forgoten that they are people, too?

Anyone who kills someone in cold blood pretty much stops being a person in my eyes. There's a lot of grey area here, of course, and it greatly depends on how you define murder. If you're morally bankrupt enough to think it's okay to shoot someone because they're wearing your favorite color, then aside from the sad fact that you share the same genetic makeup as me, I find you to be pretty much not human.

What if it was your brother that was involved in drugs, or you son, or ever your parent?

I would be really, really, really heartbroken and wished I had intervened more in his or her life. In the end, people make their own choices and must face the consequences of those choices (including myself, for letting my son/daughter/sister/brother/whatever for slipping away like that).

Because the people you talk about have brothers and mothers and children, and people care about them.

Which is, again, heartbreaking, but that's life. But they have to face the consequences of their actions.

You also forget that these people are redeemable.

Redeemability is certainly subjective. Manslaughter due to negligence is redeemable. Gunning down a classroom of children is not. No, they aren't all redeemable.

O Henrey, a renound and classic writer, wrote some of his best stuff in prison.

Good for him. Should we let Stephen King kill people because he writes great fiction?

Many have gotten out of a life of crime, and added something great to society.

Most don't. Especially most people heavily involved in drugs/gangs/whatever. What great things would the people murdered have added to society? Unfortunately, they don't get an appeal process.

But in the end, the best arguement is that many of these people were conditioned by there enviornment to be criminals from children. These people weren't even given much of a chance to avoid crime; they were born into it. And it is unfair to condem people to death because of where they were born.

Woah there, double check your logic. I feel safe in saying no one has ever been convicted of being born in a certain area and thus sentenced to death. Sorry, I disagree that just because these people were born in an undeniably BAD situation that they automatically recieve a Get Out of Jail Free(TM) card. Granting a group of people special rights under the law because they were born in a specific geographic location or match a specific demographic is totally unconstitutional in the US (read the 4th amendment). "Because I was raised in bad environment x.y.z" is definitely not an excuse to comitt a crime.

Before you condem them to death, try to understand there plight. You can't know a person untill you walk a mile in thier shoes, as the saying goes.

Ah, my favorite logical falacy: appeal to emotion. I don't need to know their plight to condemn them to death and in my ever so humble opinion their plight has ZERO to do with wether or not they're guilty of committing a crime such as murder.

It's the 21st century. If you can't resist the urge to kill someone because he's wearing a red bandanna then you have no business in living our society, period.

Speaking out against The Company

[chub_mackerel]

>The CIA is a *JOB*. The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out > against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired. Regardless of what industry you work in. > Be it flipping hamburgers, building cars or protecting the country. Damn straight. Years later when you're asked about your time at the company, you want to be able to say that you were "just following orders."

Re:Speaking out against The Company

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Heh. Just like it worked in Nuremberg.

Re:Snark - NOT

[Doc Ruby]

I'd say you forgot your tag, but you're an Anonymous denial Coward, so it's obvious you've forgotten your straitjacket.

The US and our CIA certainly do torture. Of course that doesn't mean that Iranians, N Koreans, Taliban, Saddamists, Palestinians and Lebanes don't torture, any more than their torture means we don't. You've got your insane kindergarten rationalizations confused: you're supposed to say "everyone's doing it, we can too".

We need to stop all these evildoers by getting rid of Bush, who's helped stoke them to their worst violence in your lifetime. And we should get rid of you, too, by forcing you to learn what the hell you're talking about rather than just vomiting rightwing talkradio blabber like "stand by our president and Israel" when adults are busy talking.

mod this up ! eom.

[cathector]

this is well-written and cogent.

Re:Snark - NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say you forgot your SNARK tag

No, I was being serious.

but you're an Anonymous denial Coward,

And you're a Doc unpatriotic Ruby.

so it's obvious you've forgotten your straitjacket.

No, a straightjacket could be considered torture, and we've already established that Bush doesn't do that.

The US and our CIA certainly do torture.

You linked to Google, and it is a well-known fact that Google's pageranks show a left-wing bias. Since Google can't be trusted with good, conservative values, I call BS on your link.

Of course that doesn't mean that Iranians, N Koreans, Taliban, Saddamists, Palestinians and Lebanes don't torture,

I'm glad we agree on something.

any more than their torture means we don't.

Then again, maybe you really are an absolute "the US is all wrong" crackpot.

You've got your insane kindergarten rationalizations confused:

Considering the self-contradictory stuff you're posting (once again the link to Pinko Google), it is you who seems to have failed kindergarten. Bush supported education in the 2000 election, so educated is what the correct right are.

you're supposed to say "everyone's doing it, we can too".

Oh am I? Now you freedom-haters are trying to decide what I should think?! Things aren't so black and white that we upstanding conservatives are supposed to condone torture. Only the Sith deal in such twisted absolutes.

We need to stop all these evildoers by getting rid of Bush,

No, that would help the evildoers. Since the Bush administration is doing its best to fight them, "getting rid of Bush" would only take out one of the forces trying to keep these cold, heartless souls from taking away our freedom.

who's helped stoke them to their worst violence in your lifetime.

In case you haven't noticed, this is WAR! Of course there will be violence!

And we should get rid of you, too,

And why on earth would we get rid of a good conservative citizen?

by forcing you to learn what the

Pay close attention to the word that comes after that. Don't say words like that in the future. Please think of the children.

you're talking about

As proven above, you're the deranged one.

rather than just vomiting rightwing talkradio blabber

The fine men who work talk radio should know far better than you - they are educated conservatives just like I am.

like "stand by our president and Israel"

Which we should do. The president is there to stop evildoers, and Israel is on the same side. To question that is like questioning whether we should have risen to stop the Nazis in World War II.

when adults are busy talking.

I'm mature enough not to use that H-word, unlike somebody we both know.

Now, I'm off to play Rainbow Six like a good American.

Re:Snark - NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

either you're retarded or you're a very good satirist

Wrong

[aepervius]

Torture is a type of "crime against humanity", just like genocide is. Did you forget nuremberg ? Anybody being given such order should disobey them. And anybody accidentally getting a whif of such things happening should also loudly denounce them, clearance or not. Do you want us to go 60 years back and use the "I did not knew it" or "I was ordered to do it" excuses ?

Re:The US used to be civilized. Then came Bush.

[the_womble]

Pick one or the other, and if you pick the "objective moral authority" side, then do try and strain your brain to think of what Jesus would've thought of torturing people to save your own skin.

Alternatively be a hypocrite and talk about what Christian morality one the few occasions it happens to suit you!

Let me look at a few key Christian teachings:

Lets start with "give all you have to the poor" (Mark 10: 21, Matthew 19:21), "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25), "blessed are the poor" (Matthew 5 and Luke 6:20) .and "woe to you who are rich" (Luke 6:24). Would you say the Bush administration is composed of people who act like they believe those?

Next what about: "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) and "don't resist him who is evil, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other one also" (Matthew 5:38 and Luke 6:29).

Is that enough for starters? I could find more but I do not want excessively long quotes and explanations.

Because Jesus's teaching were about how to live your own life, rather than on how to run a country it is hard to find a Christian stance on public policy purely from the bible. However there is a Christian consensus on many issues and the right wings opinions are not usually in line with the consensus - on the death penalty for example.

A final thought. The behaviour of the early church was often quite socialist: "All who believed were together, and had all things in common. They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need." Acts 2:44-45. Monasteries, convents and rligous orders still function this way.

greatest democracy in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah right!..

EXACTLY as Evil as any Nazi was.

[mikelieman]

When you fell for the Fear Card, and gave up Due Process, and tortured your very first prisoner to death, you became EXACTLY as Evil as any Nazi was.

The ONLY differences being the methods and bodycount (so far.)

Do you think to the VICTIM it matters one bit if it's one, or 12 million?

Re:Snark - NOT

[Carewolf]

You know things are fucked up, when you can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or serious.

This text really really ought to be satire, but I'm just not that confident in americans anymore.

Re:Snark - NOT

[iced_773]

a very good satirist

Why, thank you. I think this is the first AC compliment I've ever seen.

Yes, it was satire. I saw DocRuby's OP just asking for an ultra-right-wing response. Having spent a considerable amount of my life in a region that believes this stuff, I should think I would be quite qualified to satirize it. In other words, I couldn't resist the urge to troll an area I know quite well.

Re:Snark - NOT

[iced_773]

It's satire. I know because I wrote it.

What's sad, though, is that there actually are educated people who think this way. I grew up in southern Virginia surrounded by this sort of crap. My AP History teacher was exactly like this: Reagan and Nixon could do no wrong yet Carter and Clinton did everything wrong. These people will go on insane rants, contradicting themselves a zillion times; you try to argue with them and they just spew off a bunch of figures so quickly that you could not possibly verify them.

It's exactly this sort of attitude that is keeping the entire region down. While the north and east of the state are moving forward, this anti-progressivism is keeping us in the hinderlands.

And to DocRuby: I'm sorry to say this, but YHBT.

Fresh news

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/19/usint13 767.htm

Thats not what I meant.

[elucido]

I mean simply put a tracking device in all the guns. Problem solved, every owner of a gun no matter where they buy it is tracked.

Re:Thats not what I meant.

[Mister Whirly]

Hey, why bother with guns?? Guns don't kill, people do. Put the tracking device in all people, problem solved.

Woah

[kahei]

Normally, I post long informative helpful comments on slashdot (well, kinda). Not as long and helpful as the other guy that replied to you, but still, I like to think they're at least average, that they add a bit, that they occasionally entertain or inform.

Reading the above, though, I pretty much have to break my general habit. Here is my response:

You, son, are fucked up! Not just a bit weird. Not just kinda kooky. Not even Anne Coulter level. You have serious problems. If people really do keep trying to kill you, maybe you should just consider that, you know, a hint.

Ok, that sounded mean. But on the other hand, (up until you started on the steel guitars and gang killings) you came across as a psychotic, sadistic sociopath with a strong sideline in extreme right wing hate-politics and a side of racism. So, you know :)

No

[elucido]

Not in all people. Not all people are killers.

Re:No

[Mister Whirly]

Not in all guns. Not all guns are killers.
See how that logic doesn't quite work?

law & torture

[N3wsByt3]

"Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago."

Your argument is doubtful, seen the fact that even in the 70ies, the CIA was 'educating' torture to police-departements of Pinochet. But even when taken as true; your argument is, then, because vile terrorists used it before us, we must now start using the same vile position?

"While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo,"

That's your lack of empathy: I feel sorry for *any* humans being treated inhumane, even if they themselves would have less moral scrupules. The whole point is of being *above their* level of acting. And not only do you show a lack of empathy and little sense of justice (which should be applied equally to all), you also make the awful generalisation that shows blind stupidity... Not for *any* of the prisoners? So not even for those who, after years, were released from prison, without being found guilty of anything? Well, good for you, sir. I guess you *always* sleep sound.

"and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing."

Yes, I'm sure it's amazing to people like you, who seem to think that human rights are only due towards some people, and not others. I, as well as the parent poster (I presume), stand by the rights of those people, not because we stand by their viewpoints, but because every human deserves basic rights, regardless of their actions. That's what the difference between a state with a rule of law, and a dictatorial state is all about.

I guess the difference is wasted upon you, as it is for the current USA government.

I meta-modded you Insightful

[Morosoph]

It's a reasonable point. But feel a need to reply, as I disagree.

The real problem here isn't morale or loyalty; in most other contexts the CIA's action would have been reasonable. The real problem is groupthink. In an intelligence context this matters a lot. Eliminating someone not "on mission" harms the integrity of your intelligence; this action strongly indicates the misordering of priorities for what is meant to be an intelligence agency. It's not as if Christine Axsmith criticised the agency to outsiders.

To quote Mark Twain "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please".