The Senate Report On the CIA Reminds Me of A Movie

There's been a lot of debate about the use of the CIA's interrogation techniques, in the wake of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report. It's been a chance for everyone to re-litigate the entire issue of whether we tortured detainees, and there's been some good debate on this.

It's certainly an open question, and anyone who conclusively comes down either way without acknowledging the other side may have a point is not a grown-up. This debate about torture is a debate about where you draw the line on what can and what cannot be done to captured combatants in war. Reasonable minds can disagree.

However, what really upsets me about this report has nothing to do with the issue of torture. What I find completely revolting about this report is the the fact that the main findings of the committee are essentially that the CIA didn't tell them about all this, and they are shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in Rick's. But that's not the movie reference I thought of.

Essentially, this report is some Senators trying to avoid the fact that they asked the CIA to do whatever it took to avoid another 9/11. Do you remember how America was after 9/11? I do. 

Everyone was looking at the smoking rubble of the twin towers, a crater in Pennsylvania, and a hole in the side of the Pentagon and saying: We cannot let this happen again. You guys in the CIA need to take the gloves off and make sure this doesn't happen again. Keep the country safe. Stop playing nice - go after these people. Do everything you can.

People who weren't openly saying this were silently happy to go along with those who were. Not a single representative of the people rose up to say Well, wait. Maybe we don't need to change how we deal with the bad guys just because they did something bad to us.

Accordingly, the CIA started turning up the heat - as they were asked to do. They didn't do this on their own accord. We the people, through our elected representatives, asked them to do this. The Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on exactly what the CIA was doing. And now, they're trying to say: Hey, I didn't intend for you to be mean to those poor souls! I wanted you to do everything possible to keep us safe while being perfect gentlemen! I have no culpability for these things that you did!

I know. Politicians evading their responsibility seems so farfetched. In any event, this whole thing reminded me of the end of Clear and Present Danger. In the movie, the President gets very upset when a Columbian drug cartel kills a personal friend of his who was laundering money for them (and stealing a little bit for himself). Therefore, the President tells his Chief of Staff to get the CIA to start really going after the drug cartel. The CIA basically does what it is told and starts really hurting the cartel - killing people and breaking things.

Eventually, the President decides he's had enough of the operation, simply says it should go away like "It never happened", and hangs all the men out to dry, who are then killed by the cartel. Ryan is neck deep in the whole thing and eventually goes to confront the President. Here's the scene:

The President tries to tell Ryan that he is "just becoming aware" of the certain things that happened, and that he "never ordered any" strike against the cartel. Ryan, having no patience for the cutesy little game of plausible deniability, tells the President: I will not have you dishonor their memories by pretending you had nothing to do with it.

That's the note that the Senate Report strikes for me. They're trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with the CIA's methods, when it's crystal clear that they asked the CIA to take the gloves off. Specifically, the WaPo had an editorial pointing this out:

On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be “business as usual.” The attacks, she said, let us know “that the threat is profound” and “that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”

This report is a purely political document, and its intent is to allow the authors to engage in some moral preening. They're simply engaging in a political act to curry favor with their constituents now that the existential threat from terrorism is a distant memory, and the people who swallow this report are doing the same thing.

I accept that we did some brutal things to people. We the people, asked the CIA to do exactly that. Maybe we made a decision in a moment of weakness that some of us regret. That's fine. However, it's just a damn lie for the Committee to say that they didn't know what was going on.

They all knew and approved. We The People all knew and approved. If you feel regret for what happened, that's fine. If you're ok with what we did, that's fine, too. But for goodness sake, take some responsibility for your actions.

Syria and the Just War Theory

More on Syria, y'all. Yeah, it's like that. This whole clown-show we have running our government really has things going swell. Since Congress is now "debating" whether or not to authorize the President to use military force a/k/a DECLARE WAR on Syria, let's talk about that for a moment. 

First, let's not kid ourselves. The President has proposed a "time-limited and scope-limited action" against Syria. Ok, what does that mean exactly?

It likely means we are going to launch missiles from submarines or surface ships and blow up buildings in Syria that are military targets such as military headquarters, bridges, radar sites, etc. We're going to blow up stuff in a foreign country with missiles and kill people.

Now, I grant you, it's not exactly the Normandy Invasion, but it certainly ain't junior prom, either. Whatever you want to call it, I guarantee you the people who are killed by missile attacks will not like it. They'll probably consider it war. Remember when two airplanes slammed into the twin towers? What did we consider that to be?

So, as our President likes to say, let me be clear: It's a declaration of War that he's seeking from Congress. It's not a big war. It's just a small, short war. And we're confident that the enemy will not be able to respond by bringing the war back to the US.

Also, the proposal from President Obama doesn’t satisfy the conditions of Just War theory. For those of you scoring at home, the conditions of the Just War Theory:

This is a big, over-simplification, but the basic three elements of a Just War are traditionally:

1. Just Cause;

2. Just Authority; and

3. Just Result/Intent.

Punishment is never a just cause. Defense of others is, but that’s not Obama’s proffered justification. He says he wants to “punish” chemical weapon usage. He also lacks Just Authority. He refused to go to the UN because in the words of an administration official, it would be pointless. Finally, the proposed war lacks a Just Result/Intention, since he says he wants to hurt others, but not to the point of causing their surrender.

That’s just the traditional Just War theory. If you want to add the modern elements of:

4. Proportionality; and,

5. Last Resort.

it gets even worse. Proportionality means that the benefits of war are proportional to the evils of war. “Saving face” is not proportional to killing people. And that's what the President has proposed. He wants to show that he means what he says, even when he says dumb things. And finally, there’s no argument that Obama’s “just enough not to be mocked” war could ever be a “last resort”. (Also, too late on that one, Skippy.)

Anyone in Congress who votes for this moronic little war throws the Just War theory out the window.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's no way we can strike Syria without it being a Just War, but the proffered military strategy here of "let's just dock Assad's allowance and move on" ain't it.

What is the Virtue of a Proportional Response?

The whole situation with a "time-limited, scope-limited" attack against Syria reminds me of this.

Is this proposed cruise missile strike really more than just docking Assad's allowance?

US Intervention in Syria: Why?

Apparently, our Nobel Peace Prize-Winning President is seriously considering sending military assets into Syria because...we'll I'm not sure way. On one hand we have a  oppressive tyrant who has committed atrocity after atrocity in the pursuit of keeping the country under his thumb. Not really a guy that we like.

On the other hand, we have a force of rebels led by jihadist elements of Al-Queda who are bent on establishing an Islamic based state. These guys aren't exactly who you want to bring home to mama, either.

So they're killing each other in a civil war of sorts. So far, about 100,000 people have been killed. Most recently, the tyrant has used chemical weapon on the rebels, killing a thousand or so. What to do?

When the US (or any country) is making the decision to intervene and bomb (kill people), there needs to be a solid reason why. Killing people is....a big decision, you know? We should be able to answer one of these two questions before taking military action:

1. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect ourselves, in that we have to do so because it's directly in our interest not to be a victim of an attack. (Self Defense)

2. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect another group, in that we would not be able to live with ourselves in being a bystander, while another group is harmed. (Defense of others)

Ideally, there should be a mix of the two. In the case of Syria, it's pretty clear that #1 doesn't apply. We're not being attacked, and we're not in any imminent danger of being attacked. It's a civil war in a country between jihadist elements and a secular dictator. Neither one of these groups likes us, and neither one of these groups is sympathetic. Why should we bomb either side? If we do, what's our goal? Is it to level the playing field? Is it to decapitate the regime? Is it to stop the use of chemical weapons, but allow normal killing to continue? Is there a moral difference between killing someone with chemical weapons and shooting them with an AK-47? Either way you're just as dead.

I know it's not a popular philosophy in foreign policy, but the doctrine of "Meh, shit happens..." shouldn't be overlooked here. I know that comes across as isolationist, but there has to be an event somewhere in the world that falls under the category of "Not our problem".

I think Syria qualifies as such.