orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/18/86)
> > Nobody supports terrorism, but it is possible to not support terrorism and > still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism. > Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA > does not support terrorism. > > This referendum sounds a lot to me as if someone had made a referendum asking > if the students support the sanctity of human life. Who doesn't support the > sanctity of human life? Therefore the referendum passes, but after it's over, > a committee is formed that not surprisingly forbids all pro-abortion groups > from any activities on campus. > > Just substitute "don't support terrorism" for "support the sanctity of human > life" and "the CIA" for "pro-abortion groups". What's happening in both cases > is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in, > but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone > believes in. > > Kenneth Arromdee I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism. I refer you to the testimony of Edgar Chamoro, a former director of the contras, whom I have quoted in the past. Another former contra, one of Eden Pastora's supporters, has voiced sentiments similar to Edgar Chamoro. There is interesting testimony in the latest Progressive from a member of the Salvadoran armed forces on his training in "interrogation" techniques by American advisers. Congress several years ago banned aid to Latin American police forces because it had been proved that it was being used to train forces like El Salvador's Death Squads in Brazil, and throughout Latin America. On the other hand, your second point has some merit. Rather than simply *BAN* groups which are not liked (as Catholic University banned Eleanor Smeal because she is pro-choice) it is better to demonstrate *why* they should not be liked. Freedom of speech is as vital to the University as to other institutions. But more speech is always preferable to less. (unless you're trying to sleep - like the great American electorate at this time!) tim sevener whuxn!orb
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/22/86)
>> Nobody supports terrorism, but it is possible to not support terrorism and >> still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism. >> Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA >> does not support terrorism.... What's happening ... >> is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in, >> but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone >> believes in. >I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism. So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my argument. >On the other hand, your second point has some merit. Rather than >simply *BAN* groups which are not liked (as Catholic University banned >Eleanor Smeal because she is pro-choice) it is better to demonstrate >*why* they should not be liked. > tim sevener whuxn!orb If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be barred from campus, I could accept that. But from what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/24/86)
In article <1969@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism. > >So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The >people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my >argument. I fail to see what "legitimate" means here. In the world of 1984, it's legitimate to think that Big Brother believes in peace. Whether the CIA does or does not support terrorism is an ascertainable fact, not a matter for democratic vote. If the Libyan population voted that Khadafi was not involved in terrorism, how would that change anything? >If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking >if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that >that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be >barred from campus, I could accept that. But from >what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the >question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people >who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the >question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA >off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort. To add the CIA as a specific example adds nothing to such a resolution. It doesn't sound to me like "yes" votes are being used to claim that students want the CIA off campus. It does sound to me like "yes" votes are being used to claim that terrorists should not recruit on campus. The point of resolutions like these are to get people to vote on general principles. Once that's done, the work is to see those principles carried out. > >Kenneth Arromdee >BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS >CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA >UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780,amd}!ubvax!tonyw
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/01/86)
In article <458@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >In article <1969@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>>I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism. >>So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The >>people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my >>argument. >I fail to see what "legitimate" means here. In the world of 1984, it's >legitimate to think that Big Brother believes in peace. Whether the >CIA does or does not support terrorism is an ascertainable fact, not >a matter for democratic vote. If the Libyan population voted that >Khadafi was not involved in terrorism, how would that change anything? In a democracy, many things are matters for democratic vote, especially those matters that many people disagree on. It may be an ascertainable fact, but there is by no means agreement upon what has been ascertained. In the world of _1984_, only one viewpoint is legitimate. You seem to be saying that only one viewpoint, namely yours, is legitimate, while I am saying that either viewpoint is legitimate. In this respect, your position seems much closer to the world of 1984 than mine. >>If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking >>if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that >>that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be >>barred from campus, I could accept that. But from >>what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the >>question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people >>who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the >>question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA >>off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort. >To add the CIA as a specific example adds nothing to such a resolution. >It doesn't sound to me like "yes" votes are being used to claim that >students want the CIA off campus. It does sound to me like "yes" votes >are being used to claim that terrorists should not recruit on campus. According to the original articles on the net that led to my posting, the resolution WAS aimed at the CIA, but didn't mention the CIA. Again, this seems to me like taking a poll of who thinks human life is sacred, then using the results to ban pro-abortion groups, showing the poll results as support for the ban. >The point of resolutions like these are to get people to vote on general >principles. Once that's done, the work is to see those principles carried >out. In my abortion analogy, the principle would be carried out--IF you believe abortion is murder. If you do not, you would not consider that to be carrying out of the principle. If the CIA is banned from campus on the grounds that it promotes terrorism, the principle would be carried out--IF you consider the actions of the CIA to be promotion of terrorism. But not everyone considers it to be so, and so it's deceit to take a vote on the general principle and then "carry out" the principle in this manner. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) (03/03/86)
In article <2041@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >If the CIA is banned from campus on the grounds that it promotes terrorism, >the principle would be carried out--IF you consider the actions of the CIA to >be promotion of terrorism. But not everyone considers it to be so, and >so it's deceit to take a vote on the general principle and then "carry out" >the principle in this manner. This is very true. Also, banning the CIA from a majority of campuses may frustrate the CIA's recruiting effort slightly, but I strongly doubt that it could affect any REAL change. Such a ban is at best symbolic. And what about the college graduates who want to work for the CIA with the intent of rising to a level in the organazation where they can effectivly change policy. Such is not unreasonable. So you ban the CIA, you feel real good for a while - your made things better. Then you start looking for something else to ban. Soon you have and empty campus. -- Roger Bly
abh6509@ritcv.UUCP (A. Hudson) (03/05/86)
In article <1500@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: >In article <2041@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: > >>If the CIA is banned from campus on the grounds that it promotes terrorism, >>the principle would be carried out--IF you consider the actions of the CIA to >>be promotion of terrorism. But not everyone considers it to be so, and >>so it's deceit to take a vote on the general principle and then "carry out" >>the principle in this manner. > >This is very true. > >Also, banning the CIA from a majority of campuses may frustrate the CIA's >recruiting effort slightly, but I strongly doubt that it could affect >any REAL change. Such a ban is at best symbolic. > >And what about the college graduates who want to work for the CIA with the >intent of rising to a level in the organazation where they can effectivly >change policy. Such is not unreasonable. > >So you ban the CIA, you feel real good for a while - your made things better. >Then you start looking for something else to ban. Soon you have and empty >campus. > -- Roger Bly Some of you guys are so narrow minded that I am truly amazed. Or are you kidding? I can't tell which. Yes, consider the banning of the CIA a symbolic act. A symbolic protest is not always meant to have a DIRECT affect, often times an indirect action speaks louder and more appropriately for the circumstances. I don't think that protesting the CIA and its covert imperialist death policies will bring peace in El Salvador and Nicaragua by next weekend. It may, however, bring attention to its questionable policies. I don't think that banning the CIA will appreciably limit its recruiting and I certainly don't think it is going to scare off any other recruiters. But eventually things will change for the better. Andrew Hudson rochester!ritcv!abh6509
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (03/06/86)
In article <9415@ritcv.UUCP>, abh6509@ritcv.UUCP (A. Hudson) writes: > > I don't think that protesting the CIA and its covert imperialist > death policies will bring peace in El Salvador and Nicaragua by next > weekend. It may, however, bring attention to its questionable policies. Everybody here has been talking about the CIA and *its* policies as if William Casey was autonomous from the Executive, like he's some sort of KGB head or something. Do you actually believe this, or has "teflon Ron" discouraged you from direct attack on the source? Don't you think the NSC knows about and approves what the CIA is doing? "Covert imperialist death policies"...that's some classic rhetoric. > I don't think that banning the CIA will appreciably limit its recruiting > and I certainly don't think it is going to scare off any other recruiters. > But eventually things will change for the better. > > Andrew Hudson > rochester!ritcv!abh6509 The only way things are going to change for the better is at the polls. I, among many others at Purdue, interviewed with the CIA and proceeded to the "background check" stage before I decided it was not for me. I would have been a programmer...would that have made me a "covert imperialist"? Gosh, I hope not... Michael Lewis @ Purdue University
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
Better, defined as favorable to the Communists, right ? OF course, maybe the Tibetans, Cambodians, Cubans, Ukranians, Poles, etc., etc., etc. would disagree? But they never post anything to the net, must be they don't have an opinion. Before you talk about death, pal, get it straight, the Communists are the ones whose only real tool is just that, death. Guy
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/07/86)
> And what about the college graduates who want to work for the CIA with the > intent of rising to a level in the organazation where they can effectivly > change policy. Such is not unreasonable. > > -- Roger Bly This is really dreaming! Changing the CIA from the inside? It should be evident to most that the vast majority of CIA actions implement administration policy. True, the president may not know every detail, but if he thought the CIA was working against his policy, or subverting it, he would fire its chief tomorrow. Further, if the congress really did not like what the CIA is doing, they have ways of crippling it. The fact is, the executive and legislative branches, on the whole, approve of the often - to be charitable - unsavory actions of the CIA, not to mention other agencies with police or intelligence gathering powers. They somehow rationalize to themselves that it is all for the good (of?). If you do not like what the CIA does, point the finger at the policy makers (e.g. the National Security Council), and at the sheep in Congress.
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/10/86)
It seems to get overlooked that only a relatively ninor percentage
of CIA activity falls into the category apparently alluded to in this
discussion, namely the supposedly covert interventions in other
countries. Intervention in the politics of ours was an aberration of
the Nixon years. The vast majority of CIA personnel and resources are
devoted to the gathering of information. Most of this is obtained by
perfectly overt means, and the CIA task is to sift, analyse, assemble
pieces of the puzzle. Little bits are added by clandestine means.
There is great doubt about how useful all this, because the historical
record shows that most of the time policy makers accept only the
information which fits their previous perceptions and conceptions of
reality.
Considering this, the decision whether to work for it or not,
should be based on the major part of the task, not the occasional
special tasks (they're called "covert operations" in the jargon, as
contrasted with "clandestine intelligence collection.") A partial
analogy would be a very large city police department. Almost all of
them (consisting of 10-20,000 people) either have been, or are at one
time or another, charged with abuses of various kinds... some very
serious. Should that stop someone from deciding to become a
professional police officer? Philadelphia right now would be a
specially poignant example... the mayor stands charged with a
tragically horrible "abuse."
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tosphoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (03/19/86)
Sometime before 1975, the US government hired a number of anthropologists for something they called "Project: Camelot". They were supposed to study the mechanics of Chilean society, the object being to identify cultural weak points and hot-spots with the intent of causing a cultural collapse. The anthropologists refused (since the major idea behind anthropology is understand cultures, not destroy them). This is documented in the book *Culture, People, & Nature, 2nd Ed.*) by Marvin Harris. Does anyone know the results of Project Camelot and what happened to the anthropologists? -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."