3 ms·

AIUI the CIA is not supposed to operate domestically, so the comparison between the two is not exact (I don't believe the CIA would operate domestically the sam

AIUI the CIA is not supposed to operate domestically, so the comparison between the two is not exact (I don't believe the CIA would operate domestically the same way as the KGB did anyway, though, but the KGB was basically just helping to prop up an openly tyrannical state), but even if the KGB has the CIA beat on home turf, I think the CIA 'wins' abroad. Even just taking the example in this thread, a monstrous program of 'black sites' set up around the world specifically to torture innocent people indefinitely, where is the KGB version? Leaving aside any comparisons, if they're a distraction, why is an organization that does the terrible things the CIA has done throughout its history not only tolerated in a civilized democracy, but actually still viewed generally positively?

ikeboy 10y ago
> a monstrous program of 'black sites' set up around the world specifically to torture innocent people indefinitely I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is not a fair description. Also, as far as I can tell the claim is just that he wasn't part of al-Qaida or some of the other stuff he was accused of, not that he's completely innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah#Biography_and_early_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah#Biography_and_ear... >Zubaydah eventually became involved in the jihad training site known as the Khalden training camp, where he oversaw the flow of recruits and obtained passports and paperwork for men transferring out of Khalden.
- hartpuff 10y ago
  I was thinking more generally, about the fact that these sites are set up and used specifically to avoid due process. I mean by definition, the people being tortured, not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    >not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent. That's not what innocent means. You should use unconvicted.
    - hartpuff 10y ago
      Why I should use "unconvicted", which implies possible guilt, for people who have not even been charged with anything, but are simply imprisoned and/or tortured indefinitely?
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        If you don't like that word, then use a longer phrase to convey what you mean. Innocent does not.
        hartpuff 10y ago
        No, I will not come up with another word or phrase just because you will not accept innocent.
- pjc50 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is always true of almost everyone arrested by the police: they're arrested because they're suspects. Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Torture is, in and of itself, a crime against humanity under international law and the laws of war. This is not a theoretical point, it was used in the post-WW2 war crimes trials to prosecute even low-ranking staff who were involved in systematic torture. The Allies executed people for torture.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. >Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have such rights.
    - hartpuff 10y ago
      > I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        That word does not mean what you think it means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence >A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law.

ikeboy 10y ago

> a monstrous program of 'black sites' set up around the world specifically to torture innocent people indefinitely I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is not a fair description. Also, as far as I can tell the claim is just that he wasn't part of al-Qaida or some of the other stuff he was accused of, not that he's completely innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah#Biography_and_early_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah#Biography_and_ear... >Zubaydah eventually became involved in the jihad training site known as the Khalden training camp, where he oversaw the flow of recruits and obtained passports and paperwork for men transferring out of Khalden.

hartpuff 10y ago
I was thinking more generally, about the fact that these sites are set up and used specifically to avoid due process. I mean by definition, the people being tortured, not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  >not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent. That's not what innocent means. You should use unconvicted.
  - hartpuff 10y ago
    Why I should use "unconvicted", which implies possible guilt, for people who have not even been charged with anything, but are simply imprisoned and/or tortured indefinitely?
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      If you don't like that word, then use a longer phrase to convey what you mean. Innocent does not.
      - hartpuff 10y ago
        No, I will not come up with another word or phrase just because you will not accept innocent.
pjc50 10y ago
I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is always true of almost everyone arrested by the police: they're arrested because they're suspects. Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Torture is, in and of itself, a crime against humanity under international law and the laws of war. This is not a theoretical point, it was used in the post-WW2 war crimes trials to prosecute even low-ranking staff who were involved in systematic torture. The Allies executed people for torture.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. >Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have such rights.
  - hartpuff 10y ago
    > I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      That word does not mean what you think it means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence >A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law.