Mary O'neil Mccarthy

[Dror]

Just now I was reading about the scandal involving Mary O'Neil McCarthy's firing from the CIA for revealing the existence of "black sites" to the Washington Post. Black sites are, apparently, secret prisons operated by the CIA in other countries outside US jurisdiction, and therefore not under public or congressional oversight. They detain "enemy combatants" at those places, and use "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (a CIA euphemism for torture) as part of the "War on Terror." They have also rendered certain prisoners to other countries that may torture them, and have kidnapped people in other countries. They have not, as yet, filed criminal charges against her, but I expect they will. The Bush Administration complains that the Washington Post article about the black sites has damaged our relations with our allies.

My question is, "What gives?" The Bush Administration violates both international and US law and then complains that when it is revealed to the public, it hurts our relations with allied countries. They blame Ms. McCarthy for the damaged relations because she blew the whistle, but wouldn't it be more fair to accept responsibility for their own actions instead? They are the ones who broke the law, after all.

They will accuse Ms. McCarthy of violating the law for revealing classified information, but wasn't that the right thing to do, anyway? I mean, if they classified the information for the purpose of hiding their own illegal activity, then geez! One could say McCarthy was simply doing the right thing, just as if someone informed the police their neighbor was dealing drugs.

Now the Bush Administration is questioning her motives because McCarthy donated to the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party. My question is, "So what?" Are we to require intelligence officers to give up their political beliefs and affiliations? Does every government employee have to be a member of the same political party as the President, or the majority in Congress? No, it's just a ploy on Bush's part to shift the blame for his administration's illegal activities onto McCarthy. IMO, those who broke the law in the first place are the ones who ought to take responsibility for their actions, not punish the one who told on them.

Dror

[pushka]

Well said Dror, I agree with you that these Black Sites should have been 'outed' as they were, and well done to Mary O'Neil McCarthy for being the one to do so...

[ALatterDaySaint]

You know, its getting so that its politically incorrect to kill a person during time of war.

Here is what I found on "Black Sites".

----------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

[Dror]

You know, its getting so that its politically incorrect to kill a person during time of war.

Here is what I found on "Black Sites".

----------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

It has nothing to do with "political correctness." It's a question of morality. Killing a person on the battlefield is one thing. Torturing and/or killing an unarmed prisoner is another thing entirely. There is no honor in that.

Besides, it's illegal. And as LDS, we believe, ostensibly, in the rule of law.

[prisonchaplain]

It has nothing to do with "political correctness." It's a question of morality. Killing a person on the battlefield is one thing. Torturing and/or killing an unarmed prisoner is another thing entirely. There is no honor in that.

Besides, it's illegal. And as LDS, we believe, ostensibly, in the rule of law.

Right or wrong, the question of legality is an open one. Keep in mind too that the purpose of the interrogation is to prevent future terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The justification the government has used is that "enemy combatants" are not traditional uniformed soldiers fighting a straight forward war, but are disguised individuals or small groups, whose intent is to inflict mass casualities on noncombatants, in order to scare the target country into whatever submission is sought (destruction of Israel, reneging on defense treaties with friendly nations, etc.). Since these enemy combatants do not honor the traditional rules of engagement, as enshrined in the Geneva Convention, and since they target civilians, they do require or deserve its protections.

The legality and morality of this line of reasoning continues to be debated.

[ALatterDaySaint]

Here is one way to look at this. During the revolutionary war in the Americas the Brittish tried to fight the "triditional and honorable " way, by lining up in ranks and marching right at the enemy. This is a good stratagy when fighting with swords and clubs etc....but stupid beyond belief when firearms are involved. And if you will notice that when the Red Coats fought Natives teamed up with Colonist and irregular French forces who used the tactics of attacking from the side, blending in with the surroundings and primitive forms of gurrilla warfare the Brittish thought of them "Dishonorable" and cowardly ways of fighting...none the less they were winning. The only thing the Brittish really had to sustain them was money and sheer numbers.

Today we're the Red Coats...are we going to stand in line and march to our death or are we gonna strap on some cammaflauge and start fighting this war in a way we can not only end it quickly but end it with us as the victors or are we going to follow the Genevia Conventions rules of war which at this point against this new enemy will get us killed almost as quickly as shooting ourselfs in the head?

Do I believe there is a perminant line of moral and immoral in war? Sure, but I also believe that if people dont want to be tortured then they need to stop plotting against our people to destroy and kill us and our way of life.

[Dror]

<div class='quotemain'>

It has nothing to do with "political correctness." It's a question of morality. Killing a person on the battlefield is one thing. Torturing and/or killing an unarmed prisoner is another thing entirely. There is no honor in that.

Besides, it's illegal. And as LDS, we believe, ostensibly, in the rule of law.

Right or wrong, the question of legality is an open one. Keep in mind too that the purpose of the interrogation is to prevent future terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The justification the government has used is that "enemy combatants" are not traditional uniformed soldiers fighting a straight forward war, but are disguised individuals or small groups, whose intent is to inflict mass casualities on noncombatants, in order to scare the target country into whatever submission is sought (destruction of Israel, reneging on defense treaties with friendly nations, etc.). Since these enemy combatants do not honor the traditional rules of engagement, as enshrined in the Geneva Convention, and since they target civilians, they do require or deserve its protections.

The legality and morality of this line of reasoning continues to be debated.

A couple of problems with that.

First, you're assuming the people captured are guilty as charged. The President claims the authority to capture and hold, indefinitely and without counsel, anyone he suspects of ties to terrorism, and he says he doesn't even have to charge them with anything. It seems to me we ought to at least have a decent amount of evidence these people are involved in terrorist activity, and they should be charged with a crime.

Second, if we start using shady methods, we lower ourselves to their level and lose the moral high ground. It becomes another Israel / Palestinian situation, a cycle of endless retribution and accusations. Americans pride themselves on being different from "rogue states." We are quickly becoming a rogue state, as we ignore international treaties and laws, ignore our own laws, and ignore basic human and civil rights.

Third, their are no checks and balances. This is all kept in the executive branch of the government with no judicial or congressional oversight. No warrants. No nothing. Allowing the President the power over detainment, life, death, and torture without accountability to the public or the rest of the government, and in secret, frankly scares me.