CIA Blogger Fired for Criticizing Torture Policy 576
PetManimal writes "A contract software developer for the CIA who had a blog on the CIA intranet was fired after criticizing torture in an entry. The title of the post: something along the lines of 'Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong.' The Washington Post reports Christine Axsmith is not the only CIA blogger -- the spy agency uses blogs to let agents and other workers share information and ideas." From the article: "Hundreds of blog posts appear on Intelink. The CIA says blogs and other electronic tools are used by people working on the same issue to exchange information and ideas. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on Axsmith's case but said the policy on blogs is that 'postings should relate directly to the official business of the author and readers of the site, and that managers should be informed of online projects that use government resources. CIA expects contractors to do the work they are paid to do.'"
So does anything go in YRO now?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two things: (Score:5, Insightful)
Who claimed the US was a civilized country??? That's pretty subjective, and the perception about the US from within her walls are a lot different than the perception outside her walls.
as expected (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So does anything go in YRO now?? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's a government intranet. Paid for by US taxpayers and in blood by others.
To determine if this was appropriate. (Score:3, Insightful)
If they fire contractors who "waste" time, that's okay.
If they only fire contractors who "waste" time criticizing the government, that's not okay.
Why Is This News?!! (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't really news. It happens a lot in the working world.
When you're a human being (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see both sides here (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also the sort of thing where, despite needing to really know a bit more to be able to make any reasonable judgement, we are simply never going to hear anymore due to secrecy constraints. I guess that means I'll just flag it as "mildly dubious" and keep an eye out for any more of this sort of shenanigans.
Re:Two things: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Two things: (Score:5, Insightful)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being fired seems like the logical concequence.
Re:Two things: (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, name a single piece of valuable correct information the US has ever gotten by means of torture. Didn't we supposedly overthrow Saddam because he was a vicious dictator who tortured his own people (that's the line these days)? Then how is the US government any different if they torture people?
Re:Fired for blogging? (Score:3, Insightful)
Criticize and be prepared (Score:3, Insightful)
Why people haven't figured this out..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, this was an internal blog that was actually used BY the CIA employees to discuss information that may be needed...this type of post was uncalled for and deserved a punishment, though maybe a suspension would do. Blogs are nothing but a way to get in trouble.
Re:Two things: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, although I never said it was. I hope that this is just a troll and that you don't honestly think that it can ever be ok to do this to someone who *might* have done something wrong. I'm for harsh punishment for crimes as much as the next guy, especially murder, but I would only ever accept that any punishment could be ok if it had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury of their peers - without that they'd as good be dragging people off the street and beating the living hell out of them; it's about as wrong.
Further if you really care about people who have been killed by terrorists then you wouldn't let their names be discraced by these actions. Not only that but do you really think you could trust the information? I'd tell you I was Bin Laden to stop something like this, but I'm not, I know nothing of interest to anyone about terrorism (and if I did I'd report it myself).
Finally if someone took me away from my family for years and tortured me for crimes I have not committed, nor been tried for, I'd be pissed off - really pissed off. I'm a Christian and would try to forgive even the people who did that (even if I couldn't there's "thou shalt not kill")... but what if someone thought that maybe getting even could be ok in their ethics? more terrorism, and you can bet your arse that more people would want to get even than those who would forgive it.
Re:Why Is This News?!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should keep your mouth shut (Score:4, Insightful)
It has shown many times that torture often produces falses confessions, so I'm skeptical of its effectiveness for gathering information. I will not deny its effectiveness for punishment though. Punishment that leaves no scars is a step up from the usual beatings that take place.
Re:Two things: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fired for blogging? (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "better" you mean "women are no longer dragged out into what used to be a soccer field in front of a crowd at lunchtime and shot in the head for daring to teach their daughters to read," then... yes, better.
Re:So does anything go in YRO now?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's on YRO because there are a bunch of goddamn children around who think "TOP SECRET" means "I won't talk about it unless I'm of a mind to."
Re:Two things: (Score:2, Insightful)
Holy shit.
Re:Two things: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty sad that the only thing apparently keeping the government from torturing us is that some people have a right not to be tortured.
Re:Wrong all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, yes it is.
Should she have been fired for breaking security? Yes.
Should she have done it anyway? Yes.
This is a classic case for civil disobedience. There come times when following the law violates your own integrity as a person, and the dual virtues of loyalty and compassion conflict. At that point, you must showcase you humanity and be willing to take the punishment for it.
Might I have the strength to choose as wisely.
Re:When you have issues with torture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for those "other countries", but the Canadian constitutional applies to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, just like the rest of the laws.
It's also why we're reluctant to extradite death-penalty cases unless we get assurances that the death penalty won't apply. Once they're here, they have the same right not to be put to death for a crime as anyone else.
It must work - our murder rate is 1/3 the US rate.
Re:Why was this greenlighted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, it was on a BLOG on an INTRANET...Here we have a contractor who did something the employer didn't like. Employer fires contractor. End of story.
I take it you don't understand the difference between private companies and government actions? A private company can fire you for saying something. If the government takes any action to get you fired for saying something, they have violated the First amendment in the Bill of rights and broken the law.
I can tell you that generally contracts are written...
Who cares. It doesn't matter what the contract you signed says, it does not mean the government can break the law. If you have a contract that says you can be fired for any reason, fine, but if a government agent payed for with my tax dollars went to your workplace and tried to convince your boss to fire you because you are jewish, or black, or for something you said, or because you own a firearm, they have just broken the law.
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm striving to underdstand your logic. You claim that the USA is civilized because it has laws banning torture. Yet, in spite of the fact that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, there is uncertainty over whether the illegality of torture applies to non-citizens. This would suggest that non-citizens are not all men, but something else. Indeed, this wholly undermines any claims that the outlawing of torture are based on moral considerations. How can it be moral not to torture me, but to torture my neighbour?
The USA may guarantee freedom of speech. But it doesn't gaurantee freedom from execution from the state -- and many other things. Furthermore, when you think about recent concepts such as 'free speech zones', you see that the utility of freedom of speech extends only as far as the 'right' can be excercised -- which in the current US political climae is not very far at all.
Finally, if you use countries that practice infanticide or honor killing as your yardstick, then something is wrong. After Abu Ghraib, I heard people like yourself pointing out that 'at least we aren't as bad as Saddam was'. This sort of reasoning strikes me as very worrying.
Re:Fired for blogging? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not the same. Yes, Afghanistan has long been a fractured place with a wide range of local cultural pockets ranging from Cool to Insane. But the Taliban moved in and said, "Now there's a central authority here, and a dominant theocratic culture that we will enforce at the point of a gun, and one feature of that culture, country-wide, is: women who try to get a job (even if we've killed her husband), or who teach daughters to read will be put to death."
Of course it's horrid that there are spots in that country where that same attitude still exists. But the difference is that now there is no longer a "government" that directly embraces and celebrates that medieval nonsense by actually having government employees who run around and do that evil crap. It will be at least a generation before it becomes culturally embarassing, for more like a majority of Afghanis, to have that stuff happening in their more rural areas. But the difference is crucial: before, it was the law of land, and now it's not.
Just like it took a while before some people in the deep south of the US stopped openly lynching blacks (and getting a nudge-nudge-wink-wink from the local law enforcement). Now, such a think is loudly, and instantly condemned from every meaningful corner of the culture, and perpetrators of such crimes get what they deserve. The Taliban was still running the courts and what passes for law enforcement in Afghanistan just five years ago. This stuff takes a little while - but to suggest that there's no difference between the two conditions is absurd. Both in philosophical and practical terms.
Re:Snark (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a breath of fresh air on slashdot to see someone else of a like mind. So many posts are just "Abu Ghraib! Torture! Bush is taking our rights!" (while the last has merit, a lot of misunderstanding goes on, and exaggerating)
Re:Had something similar happen to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:3, Insightful)
What quibble are you talking about? The current administration has asserted that even US citizens apprehended on US soil can be classified as enemy combatants and held outside of the usual (criminal, military) prison systems.
The quibble I'm concerned with is whether the laws of the nation apply to everyone, or if the president and his cronies are exempt.
But hey, it's a free country, so if you want to be ignorant and WRONG, go right ahead.
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:2, Insightful)
Torture will always give you a confession... (Score:4, Insightful)
Confessing to a crime is always better than being tortured by another.
It's Like E-Mail (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, Mrs. Axsmith is also lawyer, so I wonder if she should have known better.
Re:Two things: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right - correlation isn't causation.
Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar.
Guns don't kill - stupid people with guns kill.
Per capita, Canada has more firearms, but WAY less hand guns, than the US. There's the causative difference - pretty much unregulated hand gun ownership.
Re:Snark (Score:3, Insightful)
No, please don't go on. Your ignorance is painful. About those bodies hanging from a bridge...
Oh, so those weren't soldiers, not part of the a regular uniformed force. Well, according to our president they couldn't be prisoners of war and not covered by the Geneva Convention. And besides, there are a few morons in every bunch, right?
If that were true we'd be invading Washington D.C. instead of Iraq. Education policy decided on personal religious beliefs, science and research policy decided on personal religious beliefs, health and medical policy, who you can consider part of your family, all policies on the federal level being directed by the president's personal religious beliefs.
George W. Bush represents the real threat to the American way of life.
Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you browsing slashdot from work, by chance?
As a human being, she should be concerned about torture.
Someone put it this way: You know you are living in a messed up time when "pro-torture" or "anti-torture" is some kind of plank in a party-platform. It's the kind of subtle hint a sci-fi author drops you to let you know you are reading about a dystopic future.
Re:Wrong all around (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never held a security clearance. While I agree that "I don't like that" is not OK, what we are talking about here goes *way* beyond that. I believe that the *vast* majority of the US population would condemn torture if asked. Most of those people aren't just vaguely opposed -- They find the concept to be morally reprehensible.
So my question is this: What *is* sufficient justification for violating the terms of your security clearance? You cannot expect me to believe that the answer is none. I can't think of a whole lot that exceeds evidence of torture.
Re:Two things: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why was this greenlighted? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the story? (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective.
I reject this argument entirely. Looking to the lowest common denominator and striving to be "a little better than they are" is sickening. We should strive to be the best at everything and look to the best at any given thing for our ideals. Anything else results in not reason, but rationalization of wrongdoing. "Someone else is still worse," is no excuse for wrongdoing.
Re:Snark (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) [wikipedia.org] are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.
Like you are taking care of Iraq? Sorry, but you are asking us to go on faith here. The US federal government has seen fit to lie to the entire world about Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, WMDs and of course $(cat /usr/share/dict/words). To say that there's not a whole lot of credibility left is a bit of an understatement.
And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world.
The best doctors in the world work in Guantanamo Bay? What on God's green earth have you been smoking? You don't find the best doctors in the world in concentration camps that are in blatent violation of the Geneva Convention. Maybe by "the best" you mean "the best at keeping their mouths shut".
They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe.
I wonder what the SS were saying when they first started rounding up Jews. I would imagine they said whatever the hell they fucking wanted because there was no one to say otherwise. When international observers are allowed unimpeded access to Guantanamo (when hell freezes over) and THEY tell me that prisoners there are allowed to send a post card to their families then I'll believe it.
They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask.
Don't forget food and water. Lots of water!
The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran.
Maybe [abc.net.au] you should give them something a little more solid to keep their Korans in. You know, so nothing bad happens to them.
There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads.
"Comfort items [bbc.co.uk]." I'm glad they are so comfortable over there.
There's plenty more, but you get the idea.
I'm sure there is and I'm sure I do.
via Global Security [globalsecurity.org]How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street [mypetjawa.mu.nu], burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge [cnn.com]. Do I need to go on?
Really?! It's shocking that they would engauge in such sick acts when they have such a wonderful role model in the US Federal Government.
We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.
This asshole [aljazeera.net] seems to just want the US to quit killing his countrymen. He's probably not representative of those you are fighting though, is he? Have you ever actually listened to what he has to say? He is an asshole because he answered violence with violence. Does that sound like anyone you know?
Re:your vote, your responcibility. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that kind of political climate disappeared a long time ago, so I've never liked this argument.
Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is still voting for an evil - and you still have every right to complain about what they do. Once, we didn't have to vote for an evil - just a potentially less effective politician. And to be fair, of course there were corrupt politicians in the early days of the US. Just fewer of them, because the education was different, the values were different, and the laws were different.
Re:A 3rd thing (what got her fired) (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, do you believe she would have been fired if the content of her speech had been something else?
Re:The US is absolutely civilized. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with the substance of your post There is a problem with the "all men are created equal" part. The Founding Fathers of the USA did not actually mean that all human beings are equal. They meant that all white, male, christians of a certain seniority, income and social standing are created equal. The 'equality' part has been gradually extended over the years to include young, poor white males, women (sheesh!) and non-whites. If one wants to be picky, the line should read "all men are created equal except..."
This culture of exception to the rule is still prevalent. The US is obliged to adhere to the Geneva Convention except, says the administration, in Guantanamo. The administration is obliged to adhere to the US Constitution except, says the administration, when that makes things awkward. The US prizes Free Speech except, says the American People, where that speech is used to criticise the US (case in point the firing of the blogger for criticising the administration's torture policy
I find it odd that in a nation that was born in a struggle for self-determination and to hold its rulers accountable, people are so ready to abrogate that responsibility. The citizens of the US have a constitutional obligation to hold their government to account and to make that government justify its actions.
Lastly I agree with your comment about comparison. My wife does the same. Whenever she has been caught doing something wrong, her response is to find something that can make the accuser 'even wronger' thus forcing THEM to apologise so she doesn't have to. This also seems to work on a global scale - "If it wasn't for whiny, liberal people like you we wouldn't need to break the Constitution - you made us do it"
Re:Two things: (Score:4, Insightful)
The late 1990s. (Score:3, Insightful)
I pretty much consider the current peak of our civilization to have been the late 90s. We were moving towards a more tolerant society. We were widely respected for the freedom of our culture. We worked with the international community to end a civil war and genocide in Kosovo. We looked to the future with hope and expectation, and there was always a sensation that America was moving forward towards fairness and justice, and to me that forward motion IS civilization.
Civilization is ethical, moral, and cultural growth. Stagnation is just decay. One of these days we might reach a plateau where everything is as fair as it can be, and I'd have to change my definition of being civilized, but we are centuries or millenia away from that point if it's even achievable.
Post 1999-2001, the nation has changed. We actually have news and media personalities that try to convince people that torture and detention without fair trial is a good and just thing. We stoke up fears about Arabs and Mexicans daily. We are widely hated for arrogant policies that have stalled and actually reversed the world's progress on human rights. We are bogged down in an occupation that is leading to a civil war that is killing more people than the evil dictator we displaced had done in over a decade. The future is now something to fear and dread instead of something to hope for.
America has done better, and I think that it can do better again, but people are going to have to come face to face with what we've become and act with determination to save our nation's very soul.
Re:One Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the story? (Score:1, Insightful)
How did we end up at a point where OT opinions like this are considered "insightful"?
Seriously.. we are human beings.. every single one of us.. and we should be entitled to basic expression and encouragement of open discourse in the office, especially if it's a government office.
Re:Snark (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the legal perspective.
However, much like the Constitution, I believe that the Geneva Convention is in many ways partially an expression of moral values that demands decency and just behavior.
The terrorists may not have signed it, but they didn't sign any statements agreeing to not kidnap and behead people or to not treat women like property, but we expect them not to and don't use their behavior as justification to do the same things ourselves "in this new kind of war." Similarly, I think we can and should try to hold them to the commitments to deceny in the Geneva Convention that we ourselves agreed to be bound by.
Re:Groupthink? I dont think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gosh, I am so happy I don't work in the same place as you. That might be partly because I wouldn't.
Re:Groupthink? I dont think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
The CIA is part of the US Government. The US Government is supposed to work for the people of the United States.
When the "bosses" in government fail in their duties (as is currently occurring in the United States Government) it is the responsibility of those in a position to do so to go over the heads of their direct "bosses" to their real bosses - the people.
Re:your vote, your responcibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it wont work. Single-winner first past post systems are inherently flawed in the manner so exceedingly well demonstrated by the US. You end up with two parties, and then the two parties get taken over and/or corrupted by special interest controlling groups. Should a third party ever get closer to real power, they'll get taken over too.
Proportional representation systems are far less susceptible; the ease of forming new parties and gaining actual representation if the old parties are unresponsive creates a strong incentive for participation, and makes it much more expensive and unreliable to manipulate the system. As you also tend to get a higher voter turnout, the combination leads to a far better representation of the voter base; government coalitions in PR systems often represent at least 40-50% of the voter base, compared to, for example, the US senate in which the leading side currently is elected by less than 20 percent of the eligeble voters.