The Senate CIA torture report

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/09/20-quick-take-aways-senate-report-cia-torture/

Some of this was already known or suspected by us, but the confirmation and surprising excesses just make me ashamed to be American. It's a black mark on all the Americans who previously or currently fight for freedom and human rights honorably, or in some cases they do it smartly/peacefully so they don't need to fight at all.

Of course the CIA regurgitated the same tired lines that this disclosure will put US personnel and interests in danger overseas, and their tactics (albeit ugly) prevented attacks. Well on the first point, there is no such thing as secrecy in our social media connected world. Even if there was no Senate report, people all over the world have experienced or know of relatives and neighbors getting kidnapped, tortured, or assassinated. Do you think they don't care and just forget? They hate us for it and it breeds new security threats for the US. So don't blame the Senate for exposing what foreigners already know. The Senate is just forcing the apathetic, aloof public to look at ourselves in the mirror - which is a critical requirement of a functional free society that we may overlook.

Re: their second point, that the ends justify the means - well we know where that argument leads. Technically, it will probably make America safer if we nuke Pakistan tomorrow. Are we prepared to do that? Of course not. From a utilitarian perspective, you have to draw the line on how much evil you are willing to commit to do good, and I think our society wants to have a very low bar for that (as we should). If the outcome is good, you can rationalize and make all the excuses you want. But what if you're wrong and you failed? You committed all that evil for no gain, and we have to deal with the consequences of the evil too. The Senate report suggested that torture did generate some actionable intel, but they weren't critical pieces of intel, and in many cases that info was also obtained through more ethical means. So it was a lot of evil for very little benefits, and there were better ways to get the same benefits. Of course intel under duress is full of lies and false leads, which wasted intel resources. The CIA is a gov't agency too - so hawkish conservatives need to remember that it's not immune to similar screw-ups as we've seen at the VA, HHS, IRS, etc.

Like the recent NSA abuses, this is what happens when we as a society get so lazy/fearful/egocentric that we let our perceived security trump everything else, and entrust it to sociopaths with little to no scruples or accountability (and plenty of ulterior motives). Maybe that is not fair; I do believe that many in our security apparatus (even the criminals) do really love America and believe that they are doing what is best for our safety. But like Wall Street, they fail to take a broader, longer view of what safety truly means. Their mission at hand is not necessarily compatible to the overall mission of the US. And maybe like US law enforcement, we give the CIA more credit than they actually deserve in terms of brainpower and competence. Because it's pretty scary to ponder - are our protectors actually inept and immoral? Well it's better that we ask and find out, rather than just hope for the best and get a rude awakening (like 9/11, or Bay of Pigs, or Iran-Contra, and the list goes on and on).

Anyone who has worked a corporate job knows how easily it is for depts and teams to get fixated on their immediate objectives and success criteria, without considering the implications/significance on the overall company's success. I think this probably occurred at the CIA and NSA. Their narrow success criteria are "intel" and kills (in the case of the CIA), and they are the ones who get to tell their "customers" how good of a job they're doing. So without due diligence, attribution, and independent scrutiny, who is to say whether their intel and kills are actually low or high value? So of course, each morsel of info they gather is a home run, and each target they murder was an immediate threat to the US. They are incentivized to get as much info as possible, by whatever means available (and under Bush and Obama, they got the keys to the kingdom).

Sure there is some federal oversight, but most of it is classified and never gets public review. I don't think that is a very smart way to structure things. But we can't really expect the CIA and NSA to not go hog wild if we give them such freedom, mandate, and budgets. The bigger blame is on our civilian leaders who let the beast out of the cage, and the US public who failed to hold any of them accountable (until it was too late). And I doubt anyone will get fired or go to jail over the report, which adds to the tragedy. 

---

Regarding points 1 and 2 I would offer a less cynical approach:

1.  It will endanger Americans because the truth being exposed is ugly.  I heard some official say there really isn't a good time to release this kind of info.  So pragmatically speaking, they should expect backlash.  So not a reason to stop the release but an accepted cost of release.

2.  Whether this is true or not I can imagine an insider wanting or needing it to be true.  Not that the ends justify the means but that the means, having been done, provided something worthwhile.  The alternative is all loss and nothing redeeming.

So hopefully some of these people are making these assertions for the right reasons instead of political ones.

----

Thx, M. Yeah as you said, there's never really a good time to announce bad news. But if the CIA was worried about this stuff getting out and endangering Americans, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place. It's the act, not the revelation, that is damaging. And so far, I haven't heard of any attacks on US targets. An optimistic way of looking at it might be that foreigners will respect America more for investigating its dirty laundry rather than burying/denying it like Putin or Kim might.

Like the VA hearings a while back, this is of course is prompting calls for a "total review" of the Agency and cultural change, but as we know, that stuff happens slowly or never. Congress seems upset that they were misled/not fully informed, although the CIA denies it. No president (incl. Obama) has tried to stand up and rein in the CIA. There was some talk that Kennedy wanted to after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but obviously didn't get the chance (and some believe that the CIA had a role in his death, but I don't mean to bring up conspiracies).

I think the timing of the report is slightly political, as the Dems are losing the Senate next month. But based on the sheer volume of the report, I guess it was years in the making. There was a push within the Dem party to investigate and try to hold someone accountable for the errors during the Bush years (they already did 9/11 and WMDs, so torture/Gitmo was the last one).

---

Why are they beyond reproach? They were created by the state, and the state represents the citizenry. It's not like they're some rogue kingdom like North Korea that we have to handle with kid gloves. But I guess they do act like a "state within a state" at times.

Maybe our leaders don't have the stomach for it, but with a stroke of a pen, Congress and the President could require the CIA to expose its finances, data, and emails each year (to the right eyes of course), and we could appoint an independent watchdog that needs to be present at all high level intel and strategy meetings - and also has to approve any tier 1 action. Just knowing that someone is watching you is often enough to clean up behavior and reduce risk taking. And if this is done delicately, it won't degrade our security readiness at all. In fact, could be the opposite. Sure the CIA will bitch about it (no one likes a micromanager), but then they should have behaved better in the first place.

---

Isn't that sort of not true though?  I mean the whole part that is in contention is whether and/or to what extent the CIA fed lies to the overseers.  The classic who watches the watchers dilemma.  So watchdog all you like there will never be a guarantee that an agency whose sole agenda is covert ops will be fully forthright with anyone but themselves.  Not to say we quit and take it but these gaps in information are sort of the cost of entry to this type of game.

---

I see your point, but that is why the CIA can't be trusted to self-report truthfully (just like you have to take a defendant's testimony with a grain of salt unless corroborated by others). We have to go beyond the Congressional committees (even though they swear oaths when they testify), and have non-CIA people embedded at the Agency to watch the watchmen. It's also like SOX compliance, public companies have to hire a third-party audit firm for the accounting - they just can't tell the SEC to trust them that it's all good.  

How technology is affecting the American Dream

We talked about most of this already but it's a good take on the issue: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/

Also another take on the elites vs. rest idea (even Jay-Z, Obama, and Oprah are not spared!) - the author Packer was on Real Time tonight: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/books/the-unwinding-by-george-packer.html?pagewanted=all

An aside: L is right that Maher is an idiot and a psycho when it comes to security issues and Islam-bashing. He rightly trashes the 2nd Amend. yet proudly owns guns because "the other crazies are armed". He claims to be a true Libertarian, but supports all sorts of liberty-reducing actions that ostensibly prevent terrorism. It's funny... self-respect and humility often make us better people. But self-preservation and self-love make us pricks. No one wants or needs to die, but the world doesn't need us either.

I guess America's Great Society of the '60s and '90s socialism in Europe were the exception and not the rule. As the author said, most of the modern world resembles the pre-French Revolution "nobles and serfs" model. But it's sad because our generation in the US was brought up to believe that the Great Society was our birthright and if anything, we would make it even better in our lifetimes. Of course things weren't all rosy in the past (bigotry, ignorance, Cold War, etc.), but it's amazing that America of that time period had low unemployment, low wealth inequality, ample gov't services, and low deficits.

Now the opposite is true, though our employment situation is much better than Europe's... and their society may be unraveling faster than ours.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578386-euro-zone-desperately-need-boost-no-news-bad-news-sleepwalkers

But that is a little deceiving, because while US unemployment is down to like 7.5% now (much higher for young people though), the quality and security of most American jobs are not great, the social safety net is about depleted, and many are not counted as unemployed because they have taken the disability route instead (as we've discussed), or have just become the "permanent, uncounted, unhirables".

The change coincides with the rise of Si Valley, hyper-finance, and globalization. We can't be sure what caused what, but similar things happened during the Guilded Age, fueled by the tech bubble of the time - railroad, electricity, telco, etc. that Wall St. ate up. I guess disruptive tech always creates new winners and losers, but usually doesn't rewrite the labor map. Our new tech industry seems more extreme: highly paid jobs with specialized skills that are not accessible to the mainstream, emphasis on quick ROI rather than long term sustainable growth, and "virtual" products that create a ton of wealth for some but not many new jobs (or in fact replace old jobs). That could be called "progress", but the effects appear to be socially unjust too.

 Also here is a great interview on the issue with Moyers and Richard Wolff:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/

Moyers interviews Sanders on Obama

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-challenging-power-changing-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+moyers+%28Moyers+%26+Company%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

Sanders brought up a good point: with Romney-Ryan showing their hand and betting the farm on the Ryan budget that aims to severely cut popular entitlements (and many conservatives have acknowlegded this liability too), why hasn't Obama come out more vociferously on the issue and slammed them for it? Does that mean that Obama would also consider cutting SocSec or Medicare if needing to compromise with the GOP in his 2nd term? Obama could win the election right now with a statement along the lines of (and I hope he busts it out before it's too late):

My fellow Americans,

You have worked hard and played by the rules your whole life. Your parents and friends had a fair shot at the American Dream and many of them achieved it, but you're trying just as hard (if not harder), and haven't seen the same results. There are many reasons for this, and most are not my fault as some would allege. America means more than just markets and profit. We want a life, not just a paycheck. I love serving the American people in my job, but trust me I can think of better things to do that working late on national problems every night. That is what Social Security and Medicare are for, to reward you for your decades of hard work, for your decades of being good Americans, so you can have the most precious thing in your old age - health and peace of mind. And for those who aren't seniors yet, you also get the peace in mind that your loved ones will be supported, and you will too when the time comes. It's a promise, and some promises must be kept - even in Washington.

Social Security is not a pie-in-the-sky dream, but a basic right of civilized, free, democratic people. Some conservatives believed and supported this over the years, but the Republican Party has never acted on it at the highest levels. It was brought to you by Democrats, during some of the most challenging economic times - times not so different from today. Great Americans like LBJ, FDR, and many others were working for you, not the fat cats. I know the modern Democratic party has sadly chosen to pander to big money too (but remember that I and my party opposed Citizens United), but in my 2nd term I hope to remind us of our roots. Big businesses and the rich, who will want for nothing in their golden years, don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so that just-as-worthy other Americans can have a comfortable retirement too. I got mine, so forget the rest of you. Pensions are getting slashed, the retirement age is getting higher, and it will all get worse under a Romney-Ryan America. Yes there is some waste and abuse associated with retirement benefits, but I would rather have an imperfect system than no system at all, where everyone is on their own. That is the Romney-Ryan vision of America my friends.

So hear me now, every hard-working American concerned about his or her future and the country they love. Your labor not only goes to feeding your loved ones, but seniors all over America whom you've never met - and they are so thankful for it. Those old folks supported others in their younger days, and now they are getting taken care of by you. We honor our commitments, that is how a society works. That is how America should work, instead of every billionaire for himself. So this is my promise to you, my fellow Americans. If you give me the great honor and privilege of a 2nd term, I will improve - not gut - Social Security to make it viable for at least 75 years, so that you can be 100% assured to have it when the time comes. You did your part, now your leaders must do theirs. Make no mistake we should and will cut the deficit smartly, but not at your expense. I won't rob the Social Security trust to give tax breaks to the super-rich, as Romney-Ryan and many in the GOP Caucus plan to. That is a BETRAYAL. I do not, and Democrats do not, punish people for doing the right thing. So vote with your conscience, and let's do the right thing together. Thank you and God bless.

Hey Barack - I will write your speeches for $20/hour plus US gov't retirement (of course)!

--------

1 - Of course Obama will consider cutting Social Security and Medicare to compromise with the GOP. He's already proposed that as part of his "grand bargain" with Boehner and Cantor in summer 2011. This is the hilarity of all those asshat DC centrist column-writers who claim to want a centrist politician to come to a compromise to cut SS and Medicare in exchange for tax hikes: that politician exists, he's currently President, and they're still looking.

2 - Campaign finance realities prevent Obama from echoing FDR's "I'm hostile to the rich, they hate me, and I welcome their hatred." If you're mean to the rich they don't give your campaign money, and you don't get elected. Campaign finance really is the root of all our political evils.

--------

Agreed, thanks J. I was more suggesting that Obama hasn't fully capitalized on the SocSec issue, even if the data suggest he won't be the ideal protector of that program. So for the GOP to make their stand (for a campaign that is nearly devoid of substance, I'll give them credit for being this ballsy), and Obama not exploit it, is inexplicable to me. Maybe he's saving it for the debates, but I think it will work better on the trail or even in TV ads. Even if Obama may cut entitlements later, he probably will do less damage than Romney-Ryan. So for the binary choice (ignoring the possibility of voting boycott for now), Obama is the SocSec champion as far as many people are concerned. Plus the revenues gained from the grand bargain may go to some other social good. So I'm just saying he should run with that, and it will probably lead to a win for him considering the current campaign environment.

From FDR's famous "welcome their hatred" speech: about 3/4 of Republicans voted for the SocSec act in 1935. But in the 1936 campaign, the GOP leaders in Congress tried to use that issue (along with the passage of unemployment insurance, anti-monopoly reforms, Glass-Steagall, etc.) to show that FDR was an anti-business pinko. It didn't work then, and shouldn't work now even if Obama is clearly not FDR.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3307