CIA - Police agency? or Crazy Illegal Agency?

[Tatar Khan]

Well for Nuremberg I can say that when Nazi judges were asked if Holocaust was legal under the German jurisprudence of the day they said that it was not. The government and the apparatus of the Nazi party were acting outside the law. This was how the argument that "we were following orders" was broken, since the orders were illegal according to German laws and so German soldiers, police and other government employees could have refused them.

Here is something to consider despite that the whole world knew what Nazis were doing to Jews, opposition leaders and other minority groups no country gave a damn before 1939. Why? Because that was domestic policy and nobody cared only when the German foreign policy started to attack interests of other nations that they started to fight against Germany. And when Roosevelt and Churchill sign the Atlantic treaty which stated why they fight the WWII. There was no bullshit about freedoms for German people and etc. They said that the reason they fight is because Germany is taking away the right for self determination from the people of Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, etc. No mention of oppression of the Germans.

As for laws they are what determine what is good or what is bad in the country. Different nations have different laws and different believes systems. They ave the different outlook at what is right and what is wrong.

ex. Sweden allows openly the distribution of some materials which according to other Western countries laws is a crime of theft of copyright property.

ex. Netherlands allows use of cannabis while US believes it to be an evil drug.

ex. Canada allows the gay marriages, while Iran believes that to be degeneration of society

ex. In western countries divorce is allowed in some parts of the world that is seen as breaking family values, leading to break down of families and social problems with the teenagers in the west.

Who is right or who is wrong. No universal ideals only things based on the local believes and values that are reflected in the laws.

As I said before if the government doesn't serve the people, people have the right to change the government.

Nations are the result of blood and sweat of the ancestors of the people who belong to it. They represent the sum of believes and values and culture and people. When soldiers fight they fight for those things, they fight to preserve that identity and through their actions make their families and their friends better off.  Secret services are nothing more than the frontline, the first line of defense of nations interests. In Soviet Union KGB used to refer to itself as "the invisible front". If government of a nation doesn't protect the interests of its people other nations will wipe their feet on that nation. It all comes down to the fact that any one of our actions is benefiting one and making others worse off. You eat a donut than there is one less donut for somebody else. You make a trade treaty with nation B, well all other nations get screwed over since nation B and A now have advantage in each other markets over other nations.

[gunner154]

From a purely economic viewpoint, you have to account for all externalities. This also means that the tangible benefits you reap from a particular action will have intangible effects boosting or weighing it down. I don't think people are taught to be nice to others in order to receive potential benefits from them in return. At what cost are you willing to sacrifice the intangibles in order to benefit your nation?

Utilitarianism is not as simple as a cost benefit analysis because you have to account for what exactly your costs and benefits are. Why what is legal is not necessarily morally right is exactly because of the externalities of these actions, and you cannot truly account for all these externalities. Nonetheless, there are a good number of them that are blatantly ignored in favour of boosting other supposedly more important reasons. The one in question here? Justice.

[Tatar Khan]

Of course under perfect information there would be no screw ups in the government actions and policies. However we do not have that and so governments screw up.

If the CIA's actions would be more costly (and I mean intangible costs, such as relationship with other nations) than the benefits they provide than the actions would be stopped and revised. However since that did not happen that means US government believes that CIA actions provide more benefits than costs.

Justice is anyway you point it is an artificial concept. There is no concept of justice in natural world. Humans created the understanding of justice. And each society based it on its own beliefs, philosophy, values and experience. The same way we have the laws being based, that is why there is the legal system that enforces each societies understanding of justice in the courts of law, using the laws.

I understand that we were all brought up to be nice to each other and we were told that it is the right thing to do. Children are not given cost benefit analysis except through punishments administered by parents. "you steal somebody else's toys and no TV/no desert/spanking for you". The right and the wrong are hammered into us by the culture around us, children literature, cartoons, theatre, movies, TV shows. Where bad guys are just bad and good guys are just good. This is done to teach children the morals and ethics of their society, it is easier to teach it that way than try to introduce them to analytical cost-benefit analysis. Most kids have very small analytical capabilities before they are 10 years old. They able to absorb information but can not really effectively analyze it. Analytical capabilities are developed mostly during the teenage years.

[gunner154]

Of course under perfect information there would be no screw ups in the government actions and policies. However we do not have that and so governments screw up.

Governments do screw up, but that should not be reason to not question a government's actions. Even in the context of working for its own best interests, the imperfection would surface and there would be good reason to change it.

If the CIA's actions would be more costly (and I mean intangible costs, such as relationship with other nations) than the benefits they provide than the actions would be stopped and revised. However since that did not happen that means US government believes that CIA actions provide more benefits than costs.

Naturally someone would do something if he/she were to consider its benefits to outweight its costs. However, that is often a far cry from what the actual costs and benefits are.

Justice is anyway you point it is an artificial concept. There is no concept of justice in natural world. Humans created the understanding of justice. And each society based it on its own beliefs, philosophy, values and experience. The same way we have the laws being based, that is why there is the legal system that enforces each societies understanding of justice in the courts of law, using the laws.

How natural or artificial a concept is has no bearing on its place in society. The effects are what make them run in the world, not their origins. Granted that people in different societies have differing viewpoints on justice, there is all the more a need to understanding these differences in a bit to avoid a clash on the appropriateness of a certain action. You don't start the day walking somewhere else and doing everything people around you would expect you not to do.

I understand that we were all brought up to be nice to each other and we were told that it is the right thing to do. Children are not given cost benefit analysis except through punishments administered by parents. "you steal somebody else's toys and no TV/no desert/spanking for you". The right and the wrong are hammered into us by the culture around us, children literature, cartoons, theatre, movies, TV shows. Where bad guys are just bad and good guys are just good. This is done to teach children the morals and ethics of their society, it is easier to teach it that way than try to introduce them to analytical cost-benefit analysis. Most kids have very small analytical capabilities before they are 10 years old. They able to absorb information but can not really effectively analyze it. Analytical capabilities are developed mostly during the teenage years.

Doing what is right alone is a benefit that can be factored in a typical cost-benefit analysis. This is because of the fulfilment of non-utilitarian motives in decision making. It's sort of like the multiplier effect, as the good in one action can be translated to other types of "trickling down" benefits. To get to perfect information as much as possible, these have to be taken into consideration.

[Tatar Khan]

Governments do screw up, but that should not be reason to not question a government's actions. Even in the context of working for its own best interests, the imperfection would surface and there would be good reason to change it.

I have no problem with questioning actions, but I have problem with calling actions illegal when there are no laws broken by which the organization or a person must abide.

Granted that people in different societies have differing viewpoints on justice, there is all the more a need to understanding these differences in a bit to avoid a clash on the appropriateness of a certain action. You don't start the day walking somewhere else and doing everything people around you would expect you not to do.

Thus you should not force your viewpoint of what is just or not just on another nation, unless not doing so will cause harm to yours.

If CIA was to take interests of the British people ahead of American interests than it would be effectively committing treason as it will be serving people of another nation.

Doing what is right alone is a benefit that can be factored in a typical cost-benefit analysis. This is because of the fulfilment of non-utilitarian motives in decision making. It's sort of like the multiplier effect, as the good in one action can be translated to other types of "trickling down" benefits. To get to perfect information as much as possible, these have to be taken into consideration.

There is always a costs associated with getting information, one of the biggest ones is time.

I am of opinion that there are no such things as non-utilitarian motives or actions. Every action can be explained whether it causes happiness or pain.

[gunner154]

I have no problem with questioning actions, but I have problem with calling actions illegal when there are no laws broken by which the organization or a person must abide.

I never highlighted legality when it comes to right and wrong. In fact, it is because of the dichotomy between legal and moral that causes me to critique the essence of an action, not just whether it could be done or not.

Thus you should not force your viewpoint of what is just or not just on another nation, unless not doing so will cause harm to yours.

If CIA was to take interests of the British people ahead of American interests than it would be effectively committing treason as it will be serving people of another nation.

If America were to step in and do whatever they want with some random British guy for their own people, that would exactly be letting its notion of justice affect other people who might not bother about this.

There is always a costs associated with getting information, one of the biggest ones is time.

I am of opinion that there are no such things as non-utilitarian motives or actions. Every action can be explained whether it causes happiness or pain.

It's hard to see how time can be a significant-enough cause to dissuade one from obtaining more information, especially if information can greatly reduce the risk of making a severe mistake or incurring the ire of another nation.

Just because non-utilitarian motives do not work for you doesn't mean they don't work for others as well. Other people would factor these considerations in in their own cost benefit analyses.

[Tatar Khan]

Just because non-utilitarian motives do not work for you doesn't mean they don't work for others as well. Other people would factor these considerations in in their own cost benefit analyses.

I would like to know what exactly do you mean by non-utilitarian motives?

As for time, it is the cost of sitting and checking and double checking something while the person under suspicion could be going on with what ever activity that is threatening, by the time everything is checked the person could have already committed the act of terrorism.

[gunner154]

If I were to do good to a person, not only would that person benefit from my action, I would feel good about doing something good for that person. That feeling accounts for personal satisfaction and happiness. I don't, however, expect to gain anything out of helping that person.

As for the issue on time, we consider the case involving one's own countrymen (in this case, Americans) and that involving a foreign suspect. For Americans, the people who are most at risk at the minority groups, like those of Middle Eastern origin. Basis for having action taken against these people need not be solid, only present, because you place an infinite weightage on the threat of a person commiting an act of terrorism. This, however, only gives people a greater reason to be pissed at your government (and is also the reason why the CIA could be referred to as a Crazy Illegal Agency).

As for foreigners, an added complication needs to be factored in: No country is going to cheer you for the number of its innocent people you'd falsely persecute. Sadly, this number greatly exceeds the number of people you'd catch who would otherwise be a major threat to security.

The risk of gathering information is not an excuse to end up resorting to paranoia to safeguard the nation. Where exactly would your nation stand when it becomes notorious for persecuting people by unwonted paranoia?

[Anathema]

I mean that while they formally speak of protecting people, they are doing many things contrary to that - like supporting oppressive regimes all over the world. It's the hypocracy of saying that one supports "freedom and liberty", while actually doing everything opposing that. It's the support for Saudi Arabia and making enemies of Venezuela.

I expect that (most of) the people at the CIA really do believe that what they're doing is in the best interest of America. The problem is that given the nature of their organisation and a certain "the end justifies the means" ethos they're capable of doing some pretty messed up things, especially when a hawkish president is in control.

[gunner154]

Sadly, when it comes to a population, what concerns them is what the experience based on the actions of the CIA, and not so much of what the intentions of the CIA are.

[Tatar Khan]

If I were to do good to a person, not only would that person benefit from my action, I would feel good about doing something good for that person. That feeling accounts for personal satisfaction and happiness. I don't, however, expect to gain anything out of helping that person.

The utilitarian response to this would be since everything is measured by pain and happiness, this would include happiness that the person gets from feeling good about himself by helping others.

Optimally CIA would consider all the implications of its actions. However since happiness and pain are not measurable it is up to the organisation to decide where the more happiness lies and where less. Now US did go besserck over 9/11 attacks because such things never happened to it before. And so lately the security of the people has been placed as the large happiness that is greater than the pain caused by the actions of the government and its agencies to provide security.

How long this will persists, I don't know a sociologist and psychologist would be needed to analyze how long it will take for the country and people to recover their senses after such a shock.

As for foreigners, an added complication needs to be factored in: No country is going to cheer you for the number of its innocent people you'd falsely persecute. Sadly, this number greatly exceeds the number of people you'd catch who would otherwise be a major threat to security.

If the response of those countries would be too strong and offset the benefits than US would reconsider such actions.

The risk of gathering information is not an excuse to end up resorting to paranoia to safeguard the nation. Where exactly would your nation stand when it becomes notorious for persecuting people by unwonted paranoia?

Hopefully it start reconsidering its policies.

As for statement by Anathema I completely agree and can only add the following quote

"There are no self-proclaimed villains, only regiments of self-proclaimed saints."

[gunner154]

The utilitarian response to this would be since everything is measured by pain and happiness, this would include happiness that the person gets from feeling good about himself by helping others.

That's exactly what I was saying. I was basically trying to incorporate non-utilitarian models to fit the utilitarian model.

Optimally CIA would consider all the implications of its actions. However since happiness and pain are not measurable it is up to the organisation to decide where the more happiness lies and where less. Now US did go besserck over 9/11 attacks because such things never happened to it before. And so lately the security of the people has been placed as the large happiness that is greater than the pain caused by the actions of the government and its agencies to provide security.

How long this will persists, I don't know a sociologist and psychologist would be needed to analyze how long it will take for the country and people to recover their senses after such a shock.

When cases that make the population feel threatened get a chance to be publicised and become a cause for controversy, with people expressing their opinions for and against the cause, it clearly shows that the shock factor has more or less evaporated. Otherwise, people would end up in a frenzied state and align themselves in one direction - for that cause.

If the response of those countries would be too strong and offset the benefits than US would reconsider such actions.

It's sad that countries are not protesting enough. Some even cooperating. I can't much about those that do cooperate (despite interest groups speaking otherwise) but countries that protest don't seem to be doing much. Come to think of it, however, with the power of the United States, I am inclined to believe that these countries do not have much leverage on the issue. Perhaps the United States can afford to trigger ire after all, and do its cost benefit analysis such that they still go ahead with their own plans. Oh well.

Hopefully it start reconsidering its policies.

Yep.

[Sneakgab]

''If the response of those countries would be too strong and offset the benefits than US would reconsider such actions.''

I think that this is assuming to much. What guarantees that the US govt always makes the logical and calculated decision? It is fully possible that the US is governed by fools. In addition to this, these cost-benefit analysis (plurular?) are dependent on the objective. Some out to gain self-profit as much as possible has a different analysis to someone wanting profit for the greater good of all. What makes the people in the US govt so special that anyone should assume the latter?

[Tatar Khan]

Assumption are always made to analyse any problem because there are way too many factors to look after if they are not made. Assumption of responsible government comes from the fact that US has a long history of civil rights movements, protests, Nixon was impeached for corrupt dealing, different inquiries that brought down other officials and programs that were found to be illegal. This makes any illegal actions by the governments costly. Overall historical analysis suggests that over last 50 years the government acted on a believe that its actions were benefiting their people.

I am sure CIA doesn't do cost of benefit analysis for every little thing it does, there are always rules of thumb. However, it would be logical for it to do cost benefit analysis for actions that could be controversial, otherwise those who did them could find themselves kicked out of their positions.

[gunner154]

I was indeed basing my argumentation on my acceptance of Tartar_Khan's (What happened to colonel_here? ;)) assumption that the American government intends to maximise the benefit of the American population. I don't really think that is entirely true, but I was analysing on that perspective. Even that argument has its problems, so take the argument to another tier...

[Tatar Khan]

I changed from Colonel_here due to the fact that it was a residue nick from the days when I played Age of Empires, and due to lack of my creative skills I could not come up over last 9 years with anything new (laziness was part of the reason too).

[nemafakei]

"Assumption of responsible government comes from the fact that US has a long history of civil rights movements, protests"

Yes... against irresponsible governments. The constitution hasn't changed much since; governments are just more subtle.

"Nixon was impeached for corrupt dealing"

Only because he got caught going it to the Democrats, who consist of about 50% of the ruling class. No-one batted an eyelid at COINTELPRO when it was busy sabotaging other parties and groups.

"different inquiries that brought down other officials and programs that were found to be illegal."

And many illegal things that go on aren't noticed, or aren't actually found to be illegal. Not to mention the legal=legitimate assumption. Remind me who makes the laws?

"This makes any illegal actions by the governments costly.

Potentially costly. Only works if someone with enough money to do it calls them out. And often, the gain is worth the risk for the rulers.

"Overall historical analysis suggests that over last 50 years the government acted on a believe that its actions were benefiting their people."

I'm sure they do believe it's all for the greater (American/global) good. The issue is more if such an assumption is true.

"However, it would be logical for it to do cost benefit analysis for actions that could be controversial, otherwise those who did them could find themselves kicked out of their positions."

Sure.

But unless the organisation is fully publicly scrutinised and accountable, there's no threat to their position; they won't be found out, never mind kicked out. The cost-benefit analysis is not a universal cost/benefit analysis, but an analysis of the costs and benefits for the individual CIA operative and/or their boss, not the American People, never mind non-Americans.

[Tatar Khan]

"Assumption of responsible government comes from the fact that US has a long history of civil rights movements, protests"

Yes... against irresponsible governments. The constitution hasn't changed much since; governments are just more subtle.

The harder it is to be corrupt the more expensive it becomes the less attractive it looks. The fact that there are different parties competing for power reduces corruption as each party is interested in destroying other's reputation.

No-one batted an eyelid at COINTELPRO when it was busy sabotaging other parties and groups.

Hoover was as paranoid as he was smart. Actually it is possible to see the same paranoia right now in the current administration. However the final result is that COINTELPRO actions were deemed to be illegal when they came to the eye of the Congress, plus the paranoia died down somewhat.

And many illegal things that go on aren't noticed, or aren't actually found to be illegal. Not to mention the legal=legitimate assumption. Remind me who makes the laws?

Laws in US are made by elected representatives of people who are elected by the people, if people don't like they should not elect.

"However, it would be logical for it to do cost benefit analysis for actions that could be controversial, otherwise those who did them could find themselves kicked out of their positions."

Sure.

But unless the organisation is fully publicly scrutinised and accountable, there's no threat to their position; they won't be found out, never mind kicked out. The cost-benefit analysis is not a universal cost/benefit analysis, but an analysis of the costs and benefits for the individual CIA operative and/or their boss, not the American People, never mind non-Americans.

Organisation has direct interest in not doing something that will put it in publics eyes too. If the actions are found to be wrong than the person authorising the actions will be the one to take the hit and anybody who gave that person such possibility or was supposed to double check that person's decisions. So if Congress sees some actions of CIA surpassing its authority than the person who authorised the actions and those who did it will be the one that will take the hit.

While CIA has ability to hide certain things the amount of what you can hide is becoming less and less as the number of people who are interested in finding out such secrets and globalisation overall making this harder and harder.

[nemafakei]

"The fact that there are different parties competing for power reduces corruption as each party is interested in destroying other's reputation."

Two. And they're cagey about doing it too much because the governing party can point out that the other party did it four years previously.

"However the final result is that COINTELPRO actions were deemed to be illegal when they came to the eye of the Congress, plus the paranoia died down somewhat."

After just how many years' worth of operation? And how much of their actions was actually censured, let along prevented from recurring? Mainly it was just the Watergate business. And the only reason COINTELPRO came before Congress was that one sloppy job on the Democrat Party Offices.

"Laws in US are made by elected representatives of people who are elected by the people, if people don't like they should not elect."

Um, election campaigns cost billions. The only people who can realistically afford to stand are the ultra-rich and those backed by sections of the very rich, and the media largely backs some variation on the status quo. The constituencies are often gerrymandered, the voting system makes it mathematically unlikely that third parties will develop except in anomalous situations. And, of course, any major non-establishment party could well be full of spooks. Sure, in theory, the people could elect another party. But in practice? You're honestly telling me that people have a genuine choice, that elections are a level playing field?

"While CIA has ability to hide certain things the amount of what you can hide is becoming less and less as the number of people who are interested in finding out such secrets and globalisation overall making this harder and harder"

Sure, but in absolute terms, there's still a lot that goes on.

"... So if Congress sees some actions of CIA surpassing its authority than the person who authorised the actions and those who did it will be the one that will take the hit."

In theory, yes. But I refer you to almost every other point in my posts for why that virtually never actually happens in practice.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Um, election campaigns cost billions. The only people who can realistically afford to stand are the ultra-rich and those backed by sections of the very rich, and the media largely backs some variation on the status quo. The constituencies are often gerrymandered, the voting system makes it mathematically unlikely that third parties will develop except in anomalous situations. And, of course, any major non-establishment party could well be full of spooks. Sure, in theory, the people could elect another party. But in practice? You're honestly telling me that people have a genuine choice, that elections are a level playing field?

Ditto.  It's not level at all.  I like Germany's party setup, from what i can remember about it in class anyways. 

I don't know if any country has an efficiently egalitarian method of putting candidates on the ballot, but a change in th US election/nominee system would be nice.

But to counter my own thoughts, if you think of money as an expression of energy transfer among individuals, could you not justify this billion dollar campaigning, controlled by the upper class, as being perfectly democratic? (in a capitalistic sort of way).  bit of a stretch, just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Edric O]

Ditto.  It's not level at all.  I like Germany's party setup, from what i can remember about it in class anyways.

The American electoral system is probably the worst in the Western world. The German system also has many flaws and serious problems, but it is much better than the American one.

100 years ago, the American system was very good compared to the other ones at the time. But the world has evolved and moved on since then, while the US kept the same system.

I don't know if any country has an efficiently egalitarian method of putting candidates on the ballot, but a change in th US election/nominee system would be nice.

I agree.

But to counter my own thoughts, if you think of money as an expression of energy transfer among individuals, could you not justify this billion dollar campaigning, controlled by the upper class, as being perfectly democratic? (in a capitalistic sort of way).  bit of a stretch, just thought I'd throw that out there.

Different individuals have different amounts of money. If spending campaign money is just an expression of free speech or some other human right, then the existence of inequalities of wealth means that some people have more rights than others.

Besides, capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is based on the principle that all people have equal power and capitalism is based on the principle that power is held by the rich.

[Anathema]

I think Germany's system is pretty neat, actually. The Bundestag elections yield almost proportionate results (it's a complicated process though that can cause (constitutional) problems with "uberhangmandate") and so allows for a varied political landcape, while the Bundesrat ensures a fair amount of influence from the "states".

Also while I don't like the US system, I think that the UK electoral system is probably worse.

[Sneakgab]

Of course, the people with the power to do so have no interest in updating and improving system as it benefits them :P

[Edric O]

I think Germany's system is pretty neat, actually. The Bundestag elections yield almost proportionate results (it's a complicated process though that can cause (constitutional) problems with "uberhangmandate") and so allows for a varied political landcape, while the Bundesrat ensures a fair amount of influence from the "states".

As far as a federal representative democracy goes, I agree that the German system is the best in the world, and probably one of the best possible systems.

But that's only if you want a federal representative democracy. I think the whole idea of representative democracy as it stands today is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt. Elected politicians are less and less representative of the wishes of the people. The fact that choices are restricted by a rather small number of parties and the fact that people have no input in the making of actual laws and policies has resulted in politicians basically ignoring the vast majority of the people and trying to please only those whose votes are strictly necessary to win an election.

Also while I don't like the US system, I think that the UK electoral system is probably worse.

I think the UK system looks worse on paper but works better (or less bad) in practice. Both the US and UK systems are awful because they are first-past-the-post, but the US one is worse because you need more money to win and there are only 2 major parties.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Besides, capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is based on the principle that all people have equal power and capitalism is based on the principle that power is held by the rich.

Well, I always thought of capitalism as being a system based on the idea that an individual has as much opportunity to make as much or little money as he desires, but this only only a "fair" system in today's society when assuming that everyone has an equal playing field as far as education is concerned (which is not the case). however, I believe the advent of free information via the internet could quickly fix that problem to a degree. but i digress, despite what capitalism is based on, the result has nonetheless been that the people w/ money are the people with more political power/voice in democracy.  I think that with the rise of the internet it is possible to once again have a direct republic instead of a representative republic.  I haven't thought it all the way through but it seems feasible to me.

Different individuals have different amounts of money. If spending campaign money is just an expression of free speech or some other human right, then the existence of inequalities of wealth means that some people have more rights than others.

Yes, but if making money (as well as spending money) is an expression of a human right, then how much you money you decide to make/spend is a reflection of how much you choose to take advantage of your human rights.  So, no money=complacency.  The rich are the motivated once the poor/middle class are the complacent onces.  This is assuming many things, z.b that everyone has made their own fortune and that the economic/social/educational playing field is equal.  These are not the cases so, this idea is really worthless.  (but slightly fascinating.)  But this means that economic competition in capitalism means competition for human rights among people.  it turns human rights into a currency (and thus makes it a limited resource in someways).  It's quite disgusting really. so i'll stop entertaining this idea.

wait.....wasn't this the cia thread?  lol. oh well.