CIA and torture

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The sheep, the sheepdogs, and the wolves.

If you persist in an environment such as academia and don't venture out into the real world, your view will be skewed such a way in that you confuse the sheepdog with the wolf..

Very nice twist on a speech by William J Bennet given to the Naval Academy in 1997:

http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM

You've gone farther than his view of the sheep toward the sheepdogs. He says even though the sheep consider the sheepdogs heroes when they're saved by them, they, generally, being in denial about the real danger of wolves, have an innate distrust of the sheepdogs because they look a lot like the wolves.

But you've clarified a more influential subset of sheep--academia, which molds its view through its influence on the schools and the various print and visual media. And a subset which is even farther removed from reality than most of the sheep. It believes it has a morally superior view than the rest of the sheep of how life works, even though they are sheltered from most of the evil aspects the rest are heir to. So it goes beyond merely distrusting the sheepdogs, it actually equates the sheepdogs with the wolves.

So our sheepdogs, to them, are just as much wolves as wolves are. And to be vilified, even punished as much as the wolves should be. In their view, if their must be sheepdogs, they are expected not to bite the wolves. Rather, they should protect the sheep by the superior example of respect for life. This would teach, by moral example, that it is better for the wolves to respect the sheep, and to live by the sheep's example. Perhaps, to eat grass rather than sheep meat. A sort of turning of the other cheek. Not that the sheep should turn a cheek, as they tremble with fear, but that the sheepdogs, standing between them and the wolves, should represent such a gesture by treating the wolves with kindness, generosity. The sheepdogs should display the values of all the world's sheep by gesturing towards the wolves with the various treaties and conventions on the proper treatment that wolves, or at least other sheep gone astray, should be accorded.

Unfortunately, in the real world, the vast majority of wolves don't care about the treaties that various sheep have agreed to. Like all smart wolves, if they learn to game the sheep system, and they know that the sheepdogs won't bite, they can wave a friendly tail, move along, and come back later with the knowledge they have gained, and feast on more sheep.

And sheepdogs, indeed, are like, in many ways, the wolves, with a major exception, as noted by Bennet--they will bite the wolves but never harm the sheep. It is that distinction which not only separates them from the wolves, but which makes them such an effective protection for the sheep against the wolves.

I suppose, others with a more progressive nature than I, would say that such parables don't really apply to humans. We are not really sheep or wolves. We have a "higher" status on the evolutionary scale.

But we have not yet evolved to the higher state of existence that our superiors demand. For instance, they depend so much on genetics to equalize cultural disputes. Our genetics, to them, basically makes us who we are. There are genes that dispose some to this or that. To a particular sexuality. Or to love or criminality. To dominance or subordination. But is there an acknowledgment that some are genetically inclined to be warriors--the warriors Bennet speaks of in his speech? And that, as the genetic makeup supposedly cannot be overridden in sexuality, that neither can the warrior makeup. Throughout history, warriors have been brutal in war, and they must because they face each other with their inherent will to win, to defeat an enemy and protect their homes. Some warriors, as Bennet points out, are more or less so in the continuum of war behavior. It takes the consummate warrior to face the enemy in the most extreme circumstances. Asking the warrior to play nice in the face of intractable enemies, enemies who have no agreement nor inclination to play by the rules of sheep, is asking for defeat.

Are interrogators warriors? Who would have the genetic makeup to be an interrogator? Have we isolated such a gene? Until we do, who do we depend on to interrogate? Aren't the CIA a branch of the warrior class? And when they go into the interrogative battle with an enemy, do they act as the sheepdogs they are, or should they act like a university professor?

[JohnR]

That was a great speech on a subject that has gone on for centuries and has spun off many interesting bits of thought.

I see it frequently with people that have lived most of their life in their thought silos & circles.

You really teased my thoughts out past where I was going with it but there is much truth in that.

[justplugit]

Great read and comment on Bennett's speech, Detbuch.
Last night Dr. Mitchell said the reason he took the job with the CIA and it's interrogation program was after seeing people falling from the trade center and the "sheepdog's" from Flight 93 heroism. He was willing to give up his life for his country. Now without even being interviewed by the Dem sheep in their report tey are on their high and mighty Political "morality condemning him.
I wonder what these sheep would be saying if we had had another 9/11 hit?

Meantime the sheep are out protesting against the very "sheep dogs" that put their lives on the line for the protection of all our lives.

[Jim in CT]

It is something that a petty, vindictive elitist like Diane Feinstein can release that report without bothering to ask the folks at the CIAs clandestine srvice, for their side of the story.

The interviews with Megyn kelly were fantastic.

She also had Marc Thiessen on (he's a frequent guest, was a speechwriter/policy advisor to Bush, a brilliant young conservative, thoughtful and respectful). When talking about whether or not we actually got any actionable intelligence from torture, Thiessen said that one of the guys recently killed by an Obama drone attack, was only made known to us by the enhanced interrogation of the terrorists.

Can't we just find out the truth? If Thiessen is lying, I genuinely want to know, so that i don't listen to him anymore. If he i stelling th etruth, then a lot of liberals who claim it didn't work, will have egg on their faces.

I have to believe that if th eliberals could prove that Thiessen and #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney are lying that it worked, they's present the evidence to show the world that #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney is a flat-out liar. That they haven't done that, tells me that they know that Cheney and Thiessen are telling th etruth.

It's putrid. One side is lying, and the documentation exists for us to know who the liars are.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The interviews with Megyn kelly were fantastic.

She also had Marc Thiessen on (he's a frequent guest, was a speechwriter/policy advisor to Bush, a brilliant young conservative, thoughtful and respectful). When talking about whether or not we actually got any actionable intelligence from torture, Thiessen said that one of the guys recently killed by an Obama drone attack, was only made known to us by the enhanced interrogation of the terrorists.

Can't we just find out the truth? If Thiessen is lying, I genuinely want to know, so that i don't listen to him anymore. If he i stelling th etruth, then a lot of liberals who claim it didn't work, will have egg on their faces.

hahah a former speechwriter. He's probably not lying, he just may believe anything he's told.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

hahah a former speechwriter. He's probably not lying, he just may believe anything he's told.

Then let's find out! I think we can all agre ethat th eleft has no love for #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Cheney says the torture produced actionabl intelligence. If Cheney is lying, than the CIA has proof of that, in th edocumentation of what the tortured told us. I'm supposed to believe that the Democrats have tangile proof that Cheney is lying, and they won't share thst for some reason?

I mean, Obama keeps saying that torture doesn't work. IF THAT'S TRUE, show us the proof of that, and then instantly, public opinion would be in Obama's favor.

The feds have released a lot of details about th etorture - who did it, ho wmany times, etc. Why not release the proof that nothing the tortured said, produced actionable intelligence?

Thiessen said that a recent drone victim wa sonly revealed to us through torture. If Obama is telling the truth, then we must have learned about thi sguy another way. Show us the proof.

Spence, Obama has the proof (one way or the other) in his hands, but he won't share it. I wonder why that is?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM

An interesting perspective with a lot of truth.

But while sheepdogs act with much instinct aren't their behaviors also governed by the training of their owners?

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

What again is a wolf?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM
An interesting perspective with a lot of truth.

Yup.

But while sheepdogs act with much instinct aren't their behaviors also governed by the training of their owners?

Any owner who trains his sheepdog to be nice to the wolves will lose his sheep.

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

If the wolf is satisfied, its already too late.

What again is a wolf?

A radical Islamist.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Any owner who trains his sheepdog to be nice to the wolves will lose his sheep.

BOOM!





Originally Posted by spence

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?


sorry....this is a new level of dumb

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

sorry....this is a new level of dumb

Put the cap back on.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

Originally Posted by spence

Put the cap back on.

your New Year's resolution should be to try to make sense once in a while...since you like this wolf analogy...

a) the wolf will always become hungry again(never satisfied)
b) the wolf becomes more emboldened each time if feeds successfully
c) other wolves will follow emboldened by the success of the first wolf
d) the wolf doesn't care whether the sheepdog views it as ready to feed or satisfied, it's going to feed at the next best opportunity
e) navel gazing sheepdogs and shepherds pondering how to coexist with the wolves and whether or not they are ready to feed or feeling satified at that moment will surely lose their flock