One of the memes from DailyDot article “No one is reading the CIA torture report, so we turned it into 11 fun memes”…see the rest at http://www.dailydot.com/politics/cia-torture-report-memes
Press release via LP.org:
Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas J. Sarwark released the following statement today:
“The CIA’s practice of torture confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Report released on December 9 shows the agency engaged in reprehensible and illegal behaviors that were, in effect, war crimes.
“The CIA and politicians redacted the bulk of the government’s report, which remains withheld from public view. One can only speculate as to the additional horrors that lie within the rest of the report, given the gravity of what was revealed.
“These acts of torture were immoral, disgusting, and un-American. And worse still, they were ineffective.
“Yet the CIA and the Department of Justice, which sanctioned the torture, claim that it was legal and exhibit a shocking lack of remorse for the brutality inflicted on its victims.
“Whether it’s choking a man to death for selling loose cigarettes in New York or torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the government refuses to prosecute government employees who brutalize the vulnerable. When the government investigates itself, it almost always clears itself of any
wrongdoing.
“This is why we must shut down the CIA. Its 70-year history is littered with episodes of human rights violations, illegal activities, and deception, including:
- Targeted killings and assassinations
- Overthrowing democratically elected governments,
- Human experimentation, including giving the hallucinogenic drug LSD to U.S. and Canadian citizens without their knowledge
- Dealing heroin in Asia
- Spying on Americans, members of congress, and foreign leaders,
- Shipping war prisoners to foreign countries where torture is permissible (‘extraordinary rendition’).
- Lying to Congress
“The CIA is one of sixteen U.S. spy agencies that should have been severely downsized if not abolished during the alleged ‘consolidation’ of the U.S. government’s spy apparatus in 2004.
“But rather than downsize, politicians merely added another layer of bureaucracy, increased government spending, and expanded government authority.
“Government-sanctioned torture is bipartisan. Republican President George W. Bush authorized the torture revealed in the senate report. President Barack Obama granted him full immunity.
“Famed journalist Glenn Greenwald said ‘The Obama administration’s aggressive, full-scale whitewashing of the “war on terror” crimes committed by Bush officials is now complete.’
“Whereas Democrats and Republicans have continually funded and encouraged CIA war crimes, the Libertarian Party has consistently and strongly opposed the use of torture, mass surveillance, and human rights violations by the U.S. government throughout the party’s 43-year history.
“The Libertarian Party calls for real accountability, including prosecuting all of those who authorized and performed these brutal acts.
“The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report after this year’s election – when it was safe, even though the report was finished four years ago.
“Perhaps both Democratic and Republican politicians are hoping voters will forget about this disgrace before the 2016 election.
“The Libertarian Party urges you to remember — and to demand human decency by voting Libertarian.”
The Libertarian Party platform plank on Internal Security and Individual Rights states:
“The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.”
Id like the threads/comments from other LPnevada leadership.someone send them to me on FB
Only read as far down as Bretts response. My first thoughts are ,I like the release, its not the usual uber-intellectual reasoned release that neither persuades or ruffles but generally bores.. Its nice, IMO , to take a hard stance. However Iwonder if Nick has any oversite in writing? does there have to be a vote or approval with anyone? I dont like the idea of one person, anyone , being our sole voice without imput. Having said that, the CIA needs to be abolished, Ron Paul says it , a ton of people say it , and its not a compromise issue like say accepting legal regulated pot, vs a total black market free of regulations. Torture isnot negotiable.
Im not understanding the hoopla, and I didnt like the post by Brett. Its not his usual style and I can only fathom that this particular release upset some balance he was working on. Most LP members in NV would support this , and while he and the excom controls the email list , perhaps he shouldnt have 1 broad list. Maybe put people that may be giving us money but arent fully immersed in LP stances in a separate list. When I did all the correspondance ,I had many lists.. .one for those we are dating-courting and 1 for us full fledgers.
Ive dealt with the same thing, I like the analogy of a man dating a girl, he knws he wants the jayjay but he doesnt lead with that, you gotta reel em in , reel em in
Huge spike on this post from reddit that day…
L, yes, YOU PERSONALLY may only know such. So yes that’s a fact. It’s also a stereotype, since MANY liberals also support the existence of the CIA. My quick research suggests ABOLITION of the CIA is not a matter in the Public Square, left, right, or otherwise.
JP, no, I’m sorry if I’ve given you the impression that I didn’t think Gandhi wasn’t a catalyst, for ex. It seems I’ve acknowledged that many times.
PF, yes, few engage in politics. My assessment is that of those few, few of THEM sway policy, whether they are moderates or extremists. It’s mostly hot air they generate. The moderates are generally in it for the gwap and the PERCEPTION of power.
L: And as for the popularity of the CIA, the only people I know that like it are people who listen to a lot of right-wing talk radio.
Me: That’s the stereotype.
It’s not a stereotype. It’s a statement of fact. The few people that I know that like the CIA are all fans of right-wing talk radio. That’s what I said, and it’s a fact (one that your polls do nothing to refute).
So, yes, while conservatives like the CIA more, looks like liberals like it, too.
If you’re trying to debunk a stereotype, perhaps you should try using a poll that undermines, rather than supports, the stereotype you’re trying to refute.
OTOH, someone like, say, Bill Clinton swayed policy, albeit slightly.
No matter how moderate he is, Bill Clinton is still part of a small minority that actually takes action to turn their views into political pressure of some kind. The vast majority of people don’t.
RC said: “Single-issue extremism CAN be an effective catalyst…I’ve never suggested otherwise”.
You have definitely said that Robert, many times.
pf: The ones who sway policy, on any side of any issue, always start out as a tiny and persistent minority, organize relentlessly, and are still a minority even when they achieve success, with the majority always being those who watch from the sidelines.
me: That CAN be the case, usu on single issues, like perhaps Snowden might if there’s actually change due to his efforts. OTOH, someone like, say, Bill Clinton swayed policy, albeit slightly.
Single-issue extremism CAN be an effective catalyst…I’ve never suggested otherwise. The electoral political game, however, is not set up for extremism. Ls are prone to a multiplicity of extreme positions, one’s that sometimes alienate fellow travelers. The cumulative effect of multi-pronged extremism > severe marginalization.
I agree with Paulie. A good example of someone who was on the “fringe”, who definitely didn’t worry about being “popular” was Edward Snowden. His courage is changing the country, a little at a time.
Most people don’t care, or don’t care very much, or are afraid to make waves, or too lazy, or too cynical and discouraged. The ones who sway policy, on any side of any issue, always start out as a tiny and persistent minority, organize relentlessly, and are still a minority even when they achieve success, with the majority always being those who watch from the sidelines.
A, your guess might be right, although I’d say maybe 5% would buy NAPsolutism. Maybe 33% might be lessarchistically leaning.
I would also suggest that success breeds success. Were there ever a conscious move to lessarchy, and it was more or less working, we might even see more than 50% become lessarchists.
““There are similar divisions on other issues. At the high end of support for the agency, 82 percent of conservative Republicans say the CIA’s actions were justified – and just 30 percent think the interrogation techniques amounted to torture. Across the political and ideological spectrum, among liberal Democrats, 38 percent think the CIA actions were justified, and 73 percent see them as torture. There also are large partisan and ideological gaps in views of the committee’s report.”
One important point to keep in mind is that the Libertarian Party is not for everyone. I’d say that around 1/3 of the American population are hardcore statist Democrats or Republicans, and we will never recruit any of these people to our side no matter what we do. Another 1/3 of the population are the apathetic middle, and we likely will not draw much support from any of these people either. Our target audience – as in the people who we are most likely able to gain as supporters – is only about 1/3 of the population. So whenever you are doing outreach or talking about surveys of the public, you’ve got to remember that around 2 out of 3 people in this country will probably never be libertarians no matter what we do.
“Jill Pyeatt
December 19, 2014 at 11:37 am
Robert is clearly passionate about his issue of no fringiness, and I guess many of us have issues we continue to focus on here at IPR.”
Yes, and he is so passionate about his non-fringy activism that he is bringing so many new people to the Libertarian Party that membership is rapidly increasing because of his non-fringy activism. (Sarcasm intended.)
I keep trying to run away from myself, but wherever I go, there I am. And whenever I try to stop running away from myself I realize that running away from myself is at the core of my nature.
Is that solipsistic enough yet?
also inescapably true!
Don’t be silly. It’s not about you at all. It’s all about ME here 🙂
PF, thanks. May be. I learn a lot here, actually, and of course it is ALL ABOUT me, which is an inescapable truth! 😉
LTEs/Op-Eds may be a better use of your time. We could discuss them at IPR too, but spending a lot of time on comments here doesn’t accomplish much (as I would know better than anyone, LOL).
JP, you are TOO kind! Truth is, I’m not passionate about the way of peace, I’m peaceful about it! 😉
I just finished a book on film, and I’ve started Volume 2, so my writing calendar is quite full. I do appreciate the conversation here on IPR, as it allows for sporadic political dialog for me.
L: And as for the popularity of the CIA, the only people I know that like it are people who listen to a lot of right-wing talk radio.
Me: That’s the stereotype. Here’s some polling data that suggest not so much:
“There are similar divisions on other issues. At the high end of support for the agency, 82 percent of conservative Republicans say the CIA’s actions were justified – and just 30 percent think the interrogation techniques amounted to torture. Across the political and ideological spectrum, among liberal Democrats, 38 percent think the CIA actions were justified, and 73 percent see them as torture. There also are large partisan and ideological gaps in views of the committee’s report.”
If 38% of liberals think “enhanced interrogations” were justified, is it a stretch to think that MUCH larger percentages of them think that the CIA itself is generally a positive force?
So, yes, while conservatives like the CIA more, looks like liberals like it, too.
I’m all about a third way, but buying into caricatures probably doesn’t take us to the Promised Land!
Robert is clearly passionate about his issue of no fringiness, and I guess many of us have issues we continue to focus on here at IPR. My thoughts to him this morning: You’re an excellent writer, Mr. Capozzi. I’d love to see you wriing Letters to the Editor in the manner you speak of. Some LTEs get quite a bit of mileage, as Joshua Katz’s did, for example, on the issue of torture (featured here as an article). Why don’t you write up a few, and let us .see the alternative you have in mind?
Both. I believe they are still on the books in some places, although the enforcement is the more important part.
LOL. How did I know you would go there?
Exactly!
I didn’t read it like that. I thought he was just extending Nick’s analogy.
Same here.
They are an oversaturated audience for potential LP converts. We’ve been going after them relentlessly, to the detriment of being able to bring in converts from other directions.
jk: You cannot move policy in any direction, let alone libertarian, by limiting your statements to those already widely accepted. This would be like demanding that, while participating in a debate, you only say things your opponent agrees with. It makes no sense.
me: Yes, that WOULD make no sense. It’s a question of calibration, which effective communicators know to be all important. As I’ve pointed out in this thread, NS’s reaction to this CIA-abuse report COULD HAVE BEEN: CIA tortures, let’s abolish all government.
That would have been the MOST extreme reaction.
Or it could have been what I call “edgy positioning,” wherein he could have called for an end to all torture and a significant re-think of the national security apparatus and US foreign policy.
Such a message could alienate some, rally some, attract others, and get others to think through the issues of the day with a different perspective. That’s a good place for Ls to be, I’d say.
There is no unanimity on any one issue. That’s a given. My theory is to be positioned at the edge of the Public Square saying “follow us…let’s go in this direction, toward peace and liberty.”
The deontological NAPsolutist has a different message. Sitting WAY out on the fringes, he or she brays, “I know truth with absolute certainty. If you disagree, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.”
NS’s message is in between, way past the edge, not completely on the fringe. Be honest, JK, does NS’s equivocation trouble you at all?
pf: everything from legalizing marijuana to ending slavery to ending sodomy law enforcement to women’s legal equality and voting rights and much more was once equally radical.
me: Yes, true. These, however, are not “agencies” in the government, but POLICIES.
Abolishing the CIA does not:
1) Stop torture
2) End intelligence and spooks
Legalizing marijuana is CLASSIC incrementalism. Whether holding high the banner for immediate legalization of heroin SPEEDS UP or SLOWS DOWN the march toward relegalizing rope is an interesting question. A case could be made that it could slow things down.
In the US, ending slavery illustrates the downside of abolitionism > much death.
Ending sodomy law enforcement? Is this what you meant to say, vs. abolition of sodomy laws?
Suffrage…ya know, I should probably read up on how that unfolded. Might be a case where abolitionism worked well.
Now I note that the actual posting said this:
* The CIA is one of sixteen U.S. spy agencies that should have been severely downsized if not abolished [ME: SO MUCH FOR HOLDING HIGH THE BANNER! DOES SUCH EQUIVOCATION TROUBLE THE ABOLITIONISTS?] during the alleged ‘consolidation’ of the U.S. government’s spy apparatus in 2004.”
and this:
” “The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security.
So, it strikes me that the messaging in this release is not crisp, careening around on various points, much of which I agree with. In fact, most of the stuff the CIA does I would personally LIKE to see abolished, actually. Org charts generally bore me.
“paulie Post author
December 18, 2014 at 7:03 pm
I don’t get where this notion that the CIA is so universally loved and popular comes from, either.”
It is probably mostly coming from paid government trolls and shills.
Our purpose is to move policy in a libertarian direction by running and electing candidates to public office. You cannot move policy in any direction, let alone libertarian, by limiting your statements to those already widely accepted.
This would be like demanding that, while participating in a debate, you only say things your opponent agrees with. It makes no sense. If you want to move things, you need to say things that are not widely accepted, and get them widely accepted by backing them up and arguing for them. That’s what we did, and it’s what we’ll continue doing.
Robert Capozzi said: “me: Exactly. NEW babysitter. You don’t leave the kids unwatched. You make my point, Mr. Chairman!”
This assumes that the American people are a bunch of children who need a babysitter, and it also assumes that the true purpose of the CIA is to fulfill this function. I disagree with both of these assumptions.
Whatever it is, everything from legalizing marijuana to ending slavery to ending sodomy law enforcement to women’s legal equality and voting rights and much more was once equally radical.
Exactly.
And as for the popularity of the CIA, the only people I know that like it are people who listen to a lot of right-wing talk radio. I’d say those aren’t the kind of people that are potential LP converts.
Then again, you probably shouldn’t listen to me, since I’m one of those “fringy anarchists” that RC keeps warning everyone about!
“Popular”. Something no libertarian worried about, ever.
Whatever it is, everything from legalizing marijuana to ending slavery to ending sodomy law enforcement to women’s legal equality and voting rights and much more was once equally radical.
I would say 25 % to 30 % at least would love to get rid of the CIA. It might even be more.
Sounds low to me. But I don’t know. I don’t think they are more popular than the other agencies I mentioned.
I’d guess maybe 5% of pop explicitly want the CIA to be abolished.
Dunno. It’s not that scientific. I don’t think it’s more unpopular than getting rid of, say, TSA, NSA, DEA or BATFE.
Do you have a percentage estimate?
10, 20, 30%?
Yes.
pf: So the defense of it is nebulous and must be assumed to be valid on faith…
me: Never! I don’t defend the CIA. Personally, I like things tidy, so were I omnipotent, it would probably be in the DoD, which would be much smaller than it is, and I would prohibit torture. Sad to say, I am not omnipotent.
pf: much like its alleged popularity,
me: Hmm, is it your sense otherwise? Do you believe large percentages of our fellow citizens want it abolished?
Wasn’t that what Heinrich Himmler said? 🙂
So the defense of it is nebulous and must be assumed to be valid on faith, much like its alleged popularity, while its offenses and abuses – the ones we know about, never mind the ones we don’t – are numerous and specific as well as heinous.
Many things have been tried unsuccessfully, even many times, before they succeeded. The light bulb comes to mind.
That assumes we are overplaying the hand.
a: Should libertarian no longer call for an end to the Social Security program due to this program being popular with a lot of Americans?
me: Abolition of SS is a losing proposition, correct. It’s a bad idea.
Thoughtful transitions away from a near-insolvent, poorly designed retirement security plans are highly recommended.
ns: If your babysitter has three prior convictions for molesting children, you don’t accept his apology and let him babysit your kids. Not even if having someone watch your kids is a necessary and good thing. You get a new babysitter.
me: Exactly. NEW babysitter. You don’t leave the kids unwatched. You make my point, Mr. Chairman!
(Actually, I really don’t know if the US’s defenses would be sufficient if there were NO intelligence agencies at all, mostly because such things don’t have laboratories to test such alternatives. It strikes me that in a complex, technological world it makes sense to have information about foreign threats. What the government’s org chart is seems beside the point.)
to pf: Because the CIA works largely in secret which is largely understable, proving or disproving what it has dissuaded is hard to know. I am not anywhere near an expert on foreign intelligence, so I leave it others to comb through declassified debriefs.
I see that Moynihan actually introduced a bill to Abolish the CIA in the 90s that went nowhere, btw.
My point is mostly about rhetoric and positioning. I am VERY cool with taking a principled stance against torture. But in a low-stakes game of poker, raising $1mm is likely to drive the other players from the table.
Why overplay the hand? Why not limit the specific case to ending torture, and then suggesting a more general re-think of US foreign policy?
Good point.
I’d be willing to bet that the Social Security Administration is a lot more popular than the CIA. Should libertarian no longer call for an end to the Social Security program due to this program being popular with a lot of Americans?
If anyone has a non-facetious answer to that (unlike Andy I will start with the assumption that was itself not a non-facetious answer), I’d still like to hear it. Take your time.
John Brennan isn’t out doing press conferences because the American people love the CIA.
He’s doing damage control because his agency let people shove pureed hummus up the asses of prisoners and tortured and killed an innocent man.
Dick Cheney may be fine with that, but the average American is not.
I don’t get where this notion that the CIA is so universally loved and popular comes from, either.
If an agency has been caught exceeding its authority to the extent of violating the Constitution, spying on Americans, and engaging in war crimes and torture multiple times over it’s short history, allowing it to throw up its collective hands and say, “Mistakes were made / we’ll reform / 9/11 was bad” and call it a day is the fringy and dangerous position.
If your babysitter has three prior convictions for molesting children, you don’t accept his apology and let him babysit your kids. Not even if having someone watch your kids is a necessary and good thing.
You get a new babysitter.
P.S. I’m far from a pacifist.
There are other government agencies, such a public schools, public libraries, public roads (as in the departments who run them), that have a lot more popular support than the CIA has. Should libertarians no longer call for an end to public (as in government run) schools because a lot of the public thinks we need them? I would say no to this question.
I’d be willing to bet that a significant number of Americans do not like the CIA, or do not care about the CIA, or have no idea what it is or does.
RC: “OK, then, why stop at the CIA? Just advocate abolition of the government, which the CIA is part of, after all”.
Yay! You’re finally getting it!
RC: “But in politics, popularity is probably 80% of the game.”
–which is why things rarely change.
jp: How about because it’s the RIGHT position?
me: OK, then, why stop at the CIA? Just advocate abolition of the government, which the CIA is part of, after all.
JP: You clearly don’t understand getting things done, Robert. To get ahead in a business, a relationship, or anywhere of real value, being popular or “unpopular” should barely factor into the decision.
me: Hmm, different movies for you and me. But in politics, popularity is probably 80% of the game.
I have no idea how or why you come to these conclusions.
I didn’t know they were for that. It didn’t exist until 1979, but I haven’t heard of Republicans making any real effort to get rid of it since then.
RC said: “I no longer get the point of why one would advocate wildly unpopular positions”.
How about because it’s the RIGHT position? You clearly don’t understand getting things done, Robert. To get ahead in a business, a relationship, or anywhere of real value, being popular or “unpopular” should barely factor into the decision.
I try not to respond to you because you’re essentially just saying the same thing on every thread (“don’t be fringy, yada yada”), but it’s hard to understand what kind of a world you think most of us libertarians live in. Do you think ANY of us really care about being popular? If we wanted that, we would have made no progress in the ability of people to smoke marijuana, and gay people would still not be allowed to marry. These were not “popular”. The personality of someone who thinks like a libertarian is usually a person who is outside the norm, and we’re used to it. Now, I’m proud of it! We are libertarian! We are DIFFERENT.
pf, yes, it most certainly IS off the cuff. Do you feel otherwise?
Abolishing the other agencies you cite sounds less fringy to me. But I’d suggest focusing less on agencies and more on functions.
You could advocate abolishing the Dept of Ed, but then you’ll sound like Republicans!
Here’s one: if you MUST (because it feels good!) advocate abolition of agencies, advocate abolishing the Dept’s of Commerce and Labor in tandem. Make it about ending special interests on both sides. Might play….
“sounds fringy and dangerous, therefore broadly unattractive.”
“wildly unpopular…”
Sounds like off the cuff, unsupported opinion to me. I’m wiling to hear evidence.
How about, say, the DEA and BATFE? Can we advocate getting rid of those?
MP, no. I don’t think abolition of agencies is off the table at all. I can think of many that would not raise an eyebrow.
I happen to think that politics is about persuasion, attracting more and more to the cause in this case of lessarchy. My sense is that abolish the CIA hurts the cause of lessarchy, since it sounds fringy and dangerous, therefore broadly unattractive.
I no longer get the point of why one would advocate wildly unpopular positions.
Do you have any polling to support this guess? And supposing you do, is it a general principle of yours that the LP should not advocate the abolition of any government agency at any time unless a poll shows that most people already agree it should be abolished?
pf: As far as I can tell it is associated with abuse of power on a grand scale throughout its history.
me: And THAT really sums it up. It’s a valid association FOR YOU, but that is NOT (near as I can tell) the public’s association with the CIA. My guess is that most think that our safety has been helped by “Jack Ryan.” They probably also think that the CIA is sometimes excessive.
So, when they see the LNC Chair calling for its abolition, they probably associate that with extremist pacifism.
Is the public ultimately incorrect? Perhaps. Shocking them with broadside snippets of factoids is probably not going to persuade them, though….
Correct. And that’s a separate point from opposing torture no matter who does it, which we should also do – the CIA’s abuses of power are by no means limited to torture, and it is by no means the only agency that has been or could be involved in torture.
“Robert Capozzi
December 18, 2014 at 4:35 pm
pf, right. Torture is cruel and unusual, and shouldn’t be practiced, by the CIA, Army or Navy.
Calling for TORTURE to be abolished would be a great message. Calling for an agency that is associated with defending the nation but that has tortured is dubious messaging.”
Who says that the CIA is really defending the nation? I do not buy into this assumption.
This country operated without the CIA from its founding (1776 or 1787 depending on how you want to define the founding) until 1947. I’d call the CIA an unnecessary and destructive government agency that should be disbanded.
No, because those acts are not constitutional no matter who does them. I thought I already replied regarding that point. I’ll check. Yes, I did, at 16:28.
If I told you I’d have to kill you?
But you deflect. Were the CIA split between the Army and the Navy and it did the same acts, would Constitution Andy be OK with said acts?
The agency structure seems less significant, and whether it lines up with TJ’s interpretation of the Constitution. The point is TORTURE, not the bureaucratic setup.
As far as I can tell it is associated with abuse of power on a grand scale throughout its history. When, where or how has it proven necessary to actual defense?
pf, right. Torture is cruel and unusual, and shouldn’t be practiced, by the CIA, Army or Navy.
Calling for TORTURE to be abolished would be a great message. Calling for an agency that is associated with defending the nation but that has tortured is dubious messaging.
See the difference?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
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.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
Andy, TJ’s opinions are certainly valid, but let’s not confuse one (dead) man’s opinion with the force of law or the final say on the matter.
If the Army and the Navy had their own CIAs that practiced torture, would that be OK with you? Not me, to be clear.
Paulie – my understanding is that at least one reason that Bush wasn’t briefed has to do with him saying he didn’t want to know about it. I have an issue with just letting it stand at “they never briefed him” which seems to let him off the hook.
Hey, guess who else was briefed? DiSpy. Pelosi. Most of the Congresscritters feigning outrage now.
But I get it – as V said, people do stupid things when they’re scared. At the time, DiSpy and Pelosi were scared and they let it happen. I do blame them for not mentioning that little fact now, though.
“The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government’s] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385
“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
Gotta start somewhere!
ns: “Yet the CIA and the Department of Justice, which sanctioned the torture, claim that it was legal and exhibit a shocking lack of remorse for the brutality inflicted on its victims.
me: Why not call for the abolition of the DoJ, too?
I don’t see how it is even close to being necessary or proper. Please advise.
Andy, you are correct that the CIA wasn’t EXPLICITLY authorized by the Framers. But “necessary and proper” left all sorts of room to carry out functions that Congress wants.
Perhaps the Constitution should be tightened up. Perhaps much/most of what the CIA does should be stopped, perhaps even all of it.
“Robert Capozzi
December 18, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Andy,
Preamble: ….provide for the common defense, ….
A1, S8: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
None of this authorizes the CIA, or the FBI, the NSA, the TSA, the DHS, etc… These are expansions of state power not intended by the Founding Fathers.
The Army and the Navy are specifically authorized by the Constitution, but even they have expanded beyond their intended function.
Not sure what I will do but I agree we should keep exploring this topic with new articles.
There seems to be interest in this topic, still. Perhaps I can have an article up about the conversations within the next few days. I’ve got Christmas stuff tonight, but I can probably get to it over the weekend. If you have time to, Paulie, before that, that would be all right.
I like what Brian Ryman wrote. He is a friend of mine here in Southern CA, and has given me (us) permission to post the whole thing.
I’m all for acknowledging reality. Like this, for example:
How in the world are we going to get anyone’s attention is we use soft, non-offensive words? Fuck that. We need to say “murder” instead of “collateral damage”; we need to speak of atrocities as the atrocities they are.
How is the nice, soft way working? Oh, that’s right. It isn’t.
RC
I’m not sure how any of that relates to what CIA actually does though….? And “we” already had a military, and even military intelligence, before the CIA.
BWR: Since its inception in 1972,
me: This is true. It is also true that the LP continues to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, which doesn’t exist. IOW, simply because something was advocated in the past does not make it true.
BWR: the Libertarian Party has called for an abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a return to having foreign intelligence gathered by military intelligence agencies.
me: There is a case for this, I would think. I agree that “intelligence” functions need to be re-thought.
But the logic of this release could easily be expanded…list all the terrible things government does, then call for its abolition. REALLY hold high the black banner, why not? In for a penny, in for a pound!
Andy,
Preamble: ….provide for the common defense, ….
A1, S8: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Brian W. Ryman posted in Discordian Libertarians
5:53pm Dec 17
#OperationPhoenix: Between 1965 -1972, the #CIA oversaw a #torture program that killed between 26,000 and 41,000 people, which used tactics such as #gangrape, #electrocution, and even #rape using a live eel. http://investmentwatchblog.com/operation-phoenix-between-1965-and-1972-the-cia-oversaw-a-torture-program-that-killed-between-26000-and-41000-people-which-used-tactics-such-as-gang-rape-electrocution-and-even-rape-using-a-liv/#EgaVEgk0tgDKQqOm.99
The CIA is not authorized by the US Constitution. Heck, the CIA did not even exist until around 1947.
It is stipulated that the CIA has done deeply dysfunctional things. So, of course, does the government generally. It does not follow that either should NECESSARILY be “abolished.”
The case simply has not been made. Hand waving is not a case.
a: I would not be surprised if most of the people attacking this release are paid government trolls.
me: What would be perfect, though, is if YOU are the government troll, engaged in a slick counter, counter agitprop campaign! 😉
Make frequent accusations against those who see the obvious: that the NAPsolutist L approach is insane. Statists LIKE the LP to be self-marginalizing. This undercuts the power of liberty in the Public Square, undermining it with fringy extremism!
Mark, there has been some discussion on a couple CA Lp Facebook pages due to my reposting the letter. A few points have been made that, although my mind certainly hasn’t been changed, at least make me understand there’s discussion to be had. I’m very proud of Nick and Arvin, and will continue to represent the Libertarian Party as I understand it to be. I continue to worry about our brand being diluted, though, and I’m worried about the continuation of the perception that we’re similar to the Republican Party. We are not.
Jill–
Most state chairs who have expressed an opinion back the release, so no reason to be distressed.
My concern is that if we eliminate the CIA, it just means the NSA will have to hire more torturers.
Nick and Arvin ran as representatives of the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party, and I for one am glad to see them staying true to principle.
Jill: I am sending you additional emails in the thread, after I had mailed you the whole thread to that point, as separate emails as they come in. Let me know if and when that gets to be too much.
I would not be surprised if most of the people attacking this release are paid government trolls.
It’s also been one of the most widely read articles at IPR in the last couple of years, according to the stats.
Jill,
I sent you the statechairs conversation to date.
I think most of the people expressing opinions largely agreed with the release (although some think it could have been worded better). Brett’s was the most negative opinion posted and most of the rest of the negative views were also from Nevada leadership, and even then not completely negative.
If someone wants to forward me the letters regarding this release, I’ll put them together in an article.
Well, I’m dismayed by that, Mark. Not torturing is a core value for me–not changeable under any circumstances. I don’t think torture is appropriate ever, under any circumstance. But then, I also don’t believe in going into other countries and murdering their citizens, either.
Jill–
There has been quite a lot of discussion of the press release on the state chairs list as well.
It appears that the press release got people’s attention and got them talking. I call that a successful press release.
The CIA should most definitely be abolished. This used to be a part of the LP National platform. It was taken out by ignorant wussytarians after the 9/11 attack. Hell, the CIA played a big role in carrying out the 9/11 attack, and even if you buy into the official government nonsense about what happened that day, the CIA failed to stop the 9/11 attack from happening.
Kudos to those at LP National responsible for putting out this press release.
“Has anyone else in the party been contacted by their members/leaders about this email from national calling for abolishing the CIA.
This is 100% crazy and whoever put this out should have their head examined.
Americans do NOT want to read nonsensical stuff like shutting down the CIA, they just don’t. This is placating to a very small audience and this is EXACTLY the type of thing that hurt us,”
Nevada is still Rootified. I’m SOOOO dismayed to read this.
I’m very disappointed in Brett.
I’m concerned anew about the joint “convention” between CA and NV.
Anyone can quote what I just said. I’m tired of trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Abolish torture with a bright-line test? Yes.
ns: If there is intelligence gathering to be done, it should be done by an agency without the same history of ignoring the law.
me: Changing the name of HEW to HHS IMO changed little. The name of an agency means little. Assessing the FUNCTION and BEHAVIOR strike me as the more useful approach.
Abolish intelligence, or not. My take is no, not now. Reassess after the Frankel Singularity. 😉
I like the press release a lot also. Some people don’t though. Here’s what Brett Pojunis posted to the statechairs list:
I’ll join others here in applauding Libertarian Party chair Nick Sarwark on a strong press release that pulls no punches in going after torturers.
What proper response can there be to an agency with an unapologetic attitude toward its proven and admitted practice of torture and history of other serious abuses Sarwark documents besides “Shut ’em down!”?
The only problem I see with the release is the sentence, “These acts of torture were immoral, disgusting, and un-American. And worse still, they were ineffective.”
I hope and assume that grammatical construction was just an unfortunate oversight. Even if torturing prisoners were a reliable way of getting accurate information about them — a supposition that is widely rejected (see e.g. http://thinkprogress.org/report/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed/#Ia ) — it would remain an unconscionable and inexcusable violation of basic human rights.
Those who still find the usual establishment nostrums about “national security” and terrorist threats and so on compelling either forget or do not realize that the #1 threat to the security of people in the United States is the U.S. government itself.
The defense of the people against the ravages of the State requires that we have adequate intelligence (read: transparency) to detect and to counter this threat to domestic security, which is why the government report on the CIA’s torture needs to be released in its entirety.
Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado), who recently made a strongly worded speech on the subject (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/mark-udall-cia-lying_n_6302894.html), is reportedly considering reading the full report into the congressional record, an action for which he as a Senator would be immune from prosecution.
Please take 30 seconds and sign the petition urging him to do so here:
http://releasethetorturereport.com/
I agree with the argument. I just think framing it differently might have helped reduce some of the negative response.
If what we’re talking about is a re-organization and consolidation of intelligence agencies, and if the CIA is to be eliminated completely because its institutional culture can’t be reformed (again, I don’t disagree), then a line about “…with its responsibilities rolled into the Defense Intelligence Agency, etc.” would go a long way towards clarifying what we’re saying. That important point was buried halfway down and only briefly alluded to, where I don’t think most of the critics ever even saw it.
I think a good parallel to draw on, would be the recent pushes to try and abolish the ATF for similar reasons, with its remaining responsibilities transferred to the FBI. That one might yet still happen.
Just some constructive criticism. I like the gist of the release, and agree we should be out there with a more radical, substantive reform message than the weak sauce on offer in the current debate. I think a headline like “Libertarians highlight breaking the law is nothing for CIA” or something like that would have gone over better, and been harder to argue with.
I am very pleased to see the LP taking this out from the crowd and showing some leadership.
The CIA is not a legitimate component of anything, given its historical record.
BTW, I need no convincing that we need to shut down the CIA. They’re too corrupt to ever hope to fix.
Facebook is crawling with trolls. I don’t recognize the names of anyone leaving comments. They’re most likely conservative trolls.
I’m surprised at all the flak the LP is getting on their Facebook page about Mr. Sarwark’s press release:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152893524477726&id=5978057725&refid=17
This article might help: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/cia-director-john-brennans-case-for-a-torture-trial/383693/
The CIA has been repeatedly caught torturing and spying on Americans during its history. It is an organization not amenable to reform. If there is intelligence gathering to be done, it should be done by an agency without the same history of ignoring the law. See, e.g. the Church Commission report and the ineffective reforms that came out of it.
I don’t know that I would have lead with “abolish the CIA.” I agree with the position and the argument being made, but that headline is getting a negative reaction from those who aren’t aware of the redundancy and multiple agencies, and think instead we’re saying the US just shouldn’t have any foreign intelligence agency whatsoever. And if we’re talking reorganization and consolidation, other agencies being folded into the CIA is more likely than the reverse, which makes the headline seem even more unrealistic.
Short of making an anarchist argument, you’re going to have a hard time convincing anybody that some sort intelligence agency isn’t a component of ‘legitimate’ national defense. And I don’t really see why we should care if it’s called the CIA or not.
It used to be better in the past.
I like the release. I just realized though….our platform plank is a bit weak here.