4 ms·

No, not at all. If you've ever served in a public position, you'd realize not only the general kinds of values one must have in service, but the differing sets

No, not at all. If you've ever served in a public position, you'd realize not only the general kinds of values one must have in service, but the differing sets of values people in different branches must have. The level of integrity of most of these people is far beyond what you'll find on the street, or even in 'high tech'. I've worked in 'public service' - and when entering in the private sector workforce, well, everyone seems really quite self-interested and kind of greedy in comparison. The CIA is not a 'tool of the government' - they are there for American citizens - and others quite frankly. The 'whistle blower' who blew the whistle on Abu Garib prison was well protected by the US Army/Gov, because he was actually a whistle-blower. Manning, a lowly private, released gigabytes of information wherein he (well a 'he' then ...) didn't even know the contents thereof. Mounds and mounds of sensitive information. This is 'treason' point blank. His only saving grace is that he was at least earnest in his belief he was doing the right thing, i.e. he wasn't selling secrets to the Russians or what not. Ironically - most of the leaks did not reveal malfeasance by the US diplomatic corps - just the opposite. The 'Arab Spring' was partly launched by this exposition - as Arab citizens saw how ridiculously corrupt most of their regimes were, as validated by the attempts by the US diplomats to try to bring some sense to the region. Not a single 'scandal' was uncovered by the cables at least (of course, the video of the attack helicopter was contentious). She's served her time, she's out, which is fine and good - but she's still convicted of some very bad crimes and serious breach of trust, and it's beyond ripe that Harvard - or any organization - would honour this person in this regard.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
The population was not consulted prior to the war on Iraq, or afterwards, neither is the CIA answerable to the people. It operates in secret, at the behest of the government, it’s not a democratic or public institution. The video attack was “contentious”? If it was Russians say, attacking American Journalists in that manner you would not say it’s “contentious”. During the Arab spring, the US government did what it usually does, support the dictators right until the very end, even when it was clear their time was up. Eg in Egypt. And when a ne military dictator comes in, (Sisi), the US diplomatic and military support resumes like normal, no matter how terrible his human rights record.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  The US Congress, elected by the people, voted for the war. The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people, in terms dictated by elected officials with oversight. It would be absurd to suggest that an espionage apparatus would be 'democratically elected' or 'transparent'. As far as the 'video' - it was the unfortunate death of a few extremely irresponsible journalists, who ventured deep into a war-zone, directly into a firefight - with and armed escort - without coordination with US elements. It was utterly stupid of them, frankly. Their deaths were tragic - but could have been 100% avoided by some basic adherence to common sense on their part. I don't think the military, after reviewing the video - might even change any protocols on the part of their combatants. I think the only changes they could make would be stronger in their conviction to forbid or warn journalists away from combat zones without protection or at least communication. I'm sympathetic to Manning because I think she felt what she was doing was 'right' - but it wasn't. And 99% of the time people in the CIA etc. are trying to do their jobs well, and for most of them it's a moral cause, they have a sense of duty. And of course I'm not saying they don't do bad things, or that the 'secrecy' of their activities might result in some bad news. I wouldn't absolve them entirely - just that they are generally a force for good.
  - throwaway7312 9y ago
    > The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people Ah, I guess that explains it. As an American, I've wondered for years why we armed, trained, funded, and provided cover for bin Laden and other mujahideen, al'Qaeda, ISIS, and spent trillions destabiizing the Middle East to bring death, terror, and stone age fundamentalist Islam back to the picture. Now it makes sense. It's because it's what the American people want.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      Your premise that the US is trying to 'destabilize' the Middle East is not correct. The US - and even China want stability over all else. Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support for Israel. The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive. The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them. Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt. Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment for the US. Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is the #1 flashpoint in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide. The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They allow anyone - even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow, and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...) When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that 'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s, ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' - decided to invite in the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan, burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years - so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not 'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the 'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after 9/11. The s*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it would be more like the other 'stans' - and not a complete disaster. The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' - their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem. The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western powers that one out, it was others. 'Chaos' is bad for business. The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else - and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.
bambax 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the...
djrobstep 9y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Your comment is spoken like somebody whose salary depends on ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work. To everybody else, underlying assumption that the CIA and the US military have any moral standing at all is plainly wrong. Chelsea Manning knew this - and was brave enough to do something about it. Her actions were good, and she deserves our respect.
- Caveman_Coder 9y ago
  > "...ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work" Which "interests" would those be in your opinion?

Synaesthesia 9y ago

The population was not consulted prior to the war on Iraq, or afterwards, neither is the CIA answerable to the people. It operates in secret, at the behest of the government, it’s not a democratic or public institution. The video attack was “contentious”? If it was Russians say, attacking American Journalists in that manner you would not say it’s “contentious”. During the Arab spring, the US government did what it usually does, support the dictators right until the very end, even when it was clear their time was up. Eg in Egypt. And when a ne military dictator comes in, (Sisi), the US diplomatic and military support resumes like normal, no matter how terrible his human rights record.

alexasmyths 9y ago
The US Congress, elected by the people, voted for the war. The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people, in terms dictated by elected officials with oversight. It would be absurd to suggest that an espionage apparatus would be 'democratically elected' or 'transparent'. As far as the 'video' - it was the unfortunate death of a few extremely irresponsible journalists, who ventured deep into a war-zone, directly into a firefight - with and armed escort - without coordination with US elements. It was utterly stupid of them, frankly. Their deaths were tragic - but could have been 100% avoided by some basic adherence to common sense on their part. I don't think the military, after reviewing the video - might even change any protocols on the part of their combatants. I think the only changes they could make would be stronger in their conviction to forbid or warn journalists away from combat zones without protection or at least communication. I'm sympathetic to Manning because I think she felt what she was doing was 'right' - but it wasn't. And 99% of the time people in the CIA etc. are trying to do their jobs well, and for most of them it's a moral cause, they have a sense of duty. And of course I'm not saying they don't do bad things, or that the 'secrecy' of their activities might result in some bad news. I wouldn't absolve them entirely - just that they are generally a force for good.
- throwaway7312 9y ago
  > The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people Ah, I guess that explains it. As an American, I've wondered for years why we armed, trained, funded, and provided cover for bin Laden and other mujahideen, al'Qaeda, ISIS, and spent trillions destabiizing the Middle East to bring death, terror, and stone age fundamentalist Islam back to the picture. Now it makes sense. It's because it's what the American people want.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    Your premise that the US is trying to 'destabilize' the Middle East is not correct. The US - and even China want stability over all else. Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support for Israel. The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive. The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them. Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt. Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment for the US. Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is the #1 flashpoint in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide. The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They allow anyone - even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow, and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...) When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that 'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s, ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' - decided to invite in the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan, burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years - so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not 'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the 'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after 9/11. The s*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it would be more like the other 'stans' - and not a complete disaster. The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' - their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem. The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western powers that one out, it was others. 'Chaos' is bad for business. The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else - and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.

bambax 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the...

djrobstep 9y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Your comment is spoken like somebody whose salary depends on ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work. To everybody else, underlying assumption that the CIA and the US military have any moral standing at all is plainly wrong. Chelsea Manning knew this - and was brave enough to do something about it. Her actions were good, and she deserves our respect.

Caveman_Coder 9y ago
> "...ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work" Which "interests" would those be in your opinion?