does the government have the right to kill to keep secrets?

an agent of a foreign government steals weapon technology for his employers. he is caught by the united states government. does the government have the right to execute and possibly torture him? (i think everyone in their right mind says yes to this)


a scientist heavily involved in biological warfare, who is willing and able to both manufacture anthrax and blow the lid on any number of operations, goes off the deep end. does the government have the right to suicide him?

now suppose it's a journalist who is looking into the ufo coverup. most awakened people know that the government has been in contact with the greys for some time now, but this news would shake up our nation of blissful sleepers terribly. the government finds a smoking gun and all other options (disinformation, blackmail, discrediting him, etc) have failed. does the cia have the right to have him disappeared permanently?

okay now it's a couple of drunk college girls wandering around near groom lake. ordinarily the camo dudes would just scare them witless but this time they see something that can't be denied. they've seen something that puts national security in grave peril if anyone ever ever finds out. when the camo dudes pop those shots into them, are they morally justified?

i say "yes" to all these cases but i'm curious what my fellow ats types think.

Originally posted by Slothrop
an agent of a foreign government steals weapon technology for his employers. he is caught by the united states government. does the government have the right to execute and possibly torture him? (i think everyone in their right mind says yes to this)

Guess I'm not in my right mind. You know, I think there used to be a time where there was just one set of 'laws' the government had to follow, and just one set of 'rights', and they applied to 'all people'.

Now, it seems, the idea is, more and more, there's one set of laws and rights for 'good citizens', people the governments likes and deigns to grant them to, and another set of for 'enemy agents', 'terrorists', etc. - people the government doesn't like.

When did that change? I want the old system back.

reply to post by Ian McLean


this is treason. treason has always been punishable by death.

just ask the rosenbergs. they spied for israel and we still executed them.

reply to post by Slothrop


Well they have been doing it for years and years, so i guess that answer to your question is yes

Shocked?

reply to post by Slothrop

okay now it's a couple of drunk college girls wandering around near groom lake. ordinarily the camo dudes would just scare them witless but this time they see something that can't be denied. they've seen something that puts national security in grave peril if anyone ever ever finds out. when the camo dudes pop those shots into them, are they morally justified? i say "yes" to all these cases but i'm curious what my fellow ats types think.

Y E S. All the authorities I have read allow a government the “inherent” RIGHT of preservation. Two examples are the Chicago Fire of 1871 and the San Francisco Earthquake and fire of 1906. In the Chicago case, the Mayor ordered a fire break by dynamiting several blocks of houses. Not only was this repeated in San Francisco but for a short time and due to missed communications, there was a shoot-to-kill order of looters which was irresponsibly carried out to the great harm of several dozen people seen in the wrong places.

Law suits in both cases claiming compensation for destroyed private property or for wrongful death were ultimately dismissed from court.

One more example. Although it is now usually codified into law, it is not doubted any government would have the inherent power to quarantine anyone with a contagious disease. Which means depriving them of their freedom of movement, arbitrarily.

I recall when my sister had Scarlet Fever. The doctor made house calls. After he diagnosed her, he posted a pink quarantine notice on our front door. When my father came home from work, he respected the sign and knocked on the window. My mother raised it enough to explain what was happening. She handed him clothes through the window and he caught a street-car to his brothers house further south from ours. He lived out there for 3 days. When the doctor returned and lifted the quarantine my father came home. We had no problem with that.

This power does not excuse the person exercising it from later judicial review and potential punishment for unwarranted abuse of the power. Example: The US has forced the Iraqi government to sign a paper relieving both US armed forces and private contractors from review and punishment in cases of abuse. The newly emboldened Iraqi are refusing to renew the STATUS of FORCES agreement because of this provision. As any self-respecting sovereign state should, IMO.

[edit on 8/3/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Slothrop
this is treason

Main Entry:
trea·son
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Source

Originally posted by Slothrop
to execute and possibly torture

Are there exceptions to the prohibition against torture?

No. Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Has the United States accepted the obligations set forth in the Convention against Torture?

The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

Source

reply to post by Slothrop
\

just ask the rosenbergs. they spied for israel and we still executed them. \

Actually the Rosenbergs spied for the USSR and were executed under Pres. Eisenhower. More for show than for go.

Jonathan Pollard was the Jewish person spying for Israel but he was not executed. He got life without parole instead. If we ever settle the Israel-Arab Conflict perhaps his sentence can be commuted to time served?

reply to post by Ian McLean

Guess I'm not in my right mind. You know, I think there used to be a time where there was just one set of 'laws' the government had to follow, and just one set of 'rights', and they applied to 'all people'. Now, it seems, the idea is, more and more, there's one set of laws and rights for 'good citizens', people the governments likes and deigns to grant them to, and another set of for 'enemy agents', 'terrorists', etc. - people the government doesn't like. When did that change? I want the old system back.

No, Mr Ian McLean, you are the TRUE small "d" democrat here. From my perspective, I offer two dates that are sea change dates. 1933 and 1980. I'll leave it to you to figure what I see as significant in each date.

Oblique: Most modern governments have made rules and so forth to avoid making hasty decisions under pressure. In large countries like ours, there are plenty of “safe” alternatives to murdering the person who threatens the security of the nation. This alternative is attractive just in case you have made a mistake. Similarly as in NOT executing convicted prisoners. Note the Illinois case. Seven (7%) percent of the men on death row were found to be INNOCENT. Not by the courts, not by the state, but by law students of the Northwestern University. Illinois Governor Ryan had the spunk to commute all the other death row prisoners to life and he suspended the further imposition of the death penalty "until we get it right." Bravo Gov. Ryan!

Dumbya OTOH ordered the execution of 154 men in 6 years as governor of Texas. Commuted 1! One dead man every 2 weeks, on average. An American record unlikely to ever be broken! On the Illinois model he sent 11 innocent men to their death! Yet he gives shows no sign of remorse? May be he just does not know which were the innocent ones? May be he just does not give a dam? He has sent 4,400 US soldiers to die in Iraq on the WMD hunt. Life is cheap. Especially when it is the life of another person. I notice neither of his exciting twin daughters joined the Army to be Army Strong!?

[edit on 8/3/2008 by donwhite]

Yes, it does ...
their are several departments that are part of our government that our laws do not apply. they operate without supervision - and they get their funding from us and we do not have a pot to piss in, its for our own good.

reply to post by Slothrop

this is treason. treason has always been punishable by death. just ask the rosenbergs. they spied for israel and we still executed them.

But did you know DUE PROCESS appears more times in the Constitution than the word TREASON? Did you know Julius and Anna Rosenberg were NOT convicted of treason? The US Con requires TWO witnesses to the same overt act for conviction. it's a rarity. Instead, the Rosenbergs were convicted of violating the National Espionage Act. It obviously does not require the same high standard of proof for conviction. Justice on the cheap.

reply to post by donwhite

But did you know DUE PROCESS appears more times in the Constitution than the word TREASON? Did you know Julius and Anna Rosenberg were NOT convicted of treason? The US Con requires TWO witnesses to the same overt act for conviction. it's a rarity. Instead, the Rosenbergs were convicted of violating the National Espionage Act. It obviously does not require the same high standard of proof for conviction. Justice on the cheap.

justice on the cheap? perhaps. but we were locked in a war of survival against the communists. victory by any means necessary.

I suppose it probably does have the "right" to do these things, as least indications seem to imply it has the right since actions like these have happened in the past. The question is whether it's the "right" thing to do. Killing people for knowledge that will no doubt eventually get out anyway (I am talking specifically about the UFO information here in the hypothetical question) seems to be extreme. It would seem better to discredit the people and make them seem loony--something I am also sure the government has done often in the past.

The college girl scenario is the toughest for me to say "yes" to though. I would rather some memory altering drug be given them or extreme form of hypnosis to wipe their memory--surely our government has created something like that already.

Here's where I ring in on this. The only time someone should be killed is if it is indeed directly and immediately necessary to maintain OPSEC. This would include, say, killing a kid who happens to stumble across a Navy SEAL while looking for a lost sheep that wandered from the pasture.

This would not include however, someone who had seen some object out at Groom Lake, or even an alien for that matter. The difference being that the witness at the lakebed could say whatever they wanted, without really giving away any credible or "actionable" counter-intel.

I am also against capital punishment as a sanction for any crime, even treason.

Torture is also out of the question, being un-reliable as the foremost reason.

In most cases, regarding intelligence matters, indefinate detention would be just as effective as a death sentence.

reply to post by xtradimensions

The college girl scenario is the toughest for me to say "yes" to though. I would rather some memory altering drug be given them or extreme form of hypnosis to wipe their memory--surely our government has created something like that already.

not really plausible. mindkontrol exists but to use it on someone that age is neither practical nor cost effective. and there would be no way to be 100% sure she would never blab. when the stakes are this high, the solution has to be instant and foolproof.

Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters":

Includes a quote from a character that is poignant: "If the government doesn't want us here,... then it's none of our business..."

(said by an occupant of the military helicopter preparing to take them away from Devil's tower...)

I think the Director was trying to tell the audience that our perception of the role of Government has changed thru the generations...

We are not as naive as previous generations as to what our Government should be doing...

reply to post by Slothrop


I'd like to field you a few questions instead of answering yours.

If American spies are found abroad checking up on the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and finding out their military secrets, would those states have the right to torture and murder them? The idea of an American being tortured probably fills you with disgust. The idea of _anyone_ being tortured should fill you with disgust.

Originally posted by unnamedninja
reply to post by Slothrop

 

I'd like to field you a few questions instead of answering yours.

If American spies are found abroad checking up on the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and finding out their military secrets, would those states have the right to torture and murder them? The idea of an American being tortured probably fills you with disgust. The idea of _anyone_ being tortured should fill you with disgust.

nations have the right to defend their own interests, absolutely. spies understand this. if an american spy is caught, he WILL be tortured and killed. they are all totally aware of this and it is a risk they choose to take.

reply to post by unnamedninja

I'd like to field you a few questions instead of answering yours. If American spies are found abroad checking up on the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and finding out their military secrets, would those states have the right to torture and murder them?

I have extracted this from Canada Free Press.

The worst documented example of torture began on March 16, 1984, when William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Lebanon, was kidnaped by Hezbollah operatives. Buckley was kidnaped shortly after 8 AM Beirut time, on his way to work at the American Embassy. Several hours passed before senior Embassy officials concluded he had been abducted. A priority signal was sent to the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

On Monday morning, May 7, 1984, the United States embassy in Athens received a video posted in the city. Flown to W-DD, in CIA Director Casey's office, the director and senior staff began to view the video. It showed William Buckley undergoing torture. The absence of sound made it all the more shocking. The camera zoomed in and out of Buckley's nude and damaged body. He held before his genitalia a document marked "MOST SECRET."

The second video arrived twenty-three days later. It was proof the burn-bag had failed. The video had been shot against a similar background as the first one. It revealed Buckley continued to be horrifically treated. There was sound on the tape.

On Friday, October 26, 1984, two hundred and twenty-four days since Buckley was kidnaped, a third video arrived at the CIA. The tape was even more harrowing than its predecessors. Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking.

William Buckley's kidnaping was into its second year by the spring of 1985. By late May 1985, CIA Director William Casey had finally given up hope of getting Buckley back.

In October 1985, confirmation that Buckley was dead came in an announcement by the Hezbollah. Accompanying it was a photograph of his corpse, together with copies of some of the once secret documents from Buckley's burn bag.

Post Script. Searching for Buckley's body. Early in October 2002, two young Arabs drove a battered van out of West Beirut heading for the Beka'a Valley. One using a pick, the other a shovel, the youths began to dig. Finally they gave up, realizing they had been the victims of a con-man. www.canadafreepress.com...

I for one do not believe in SECRETS. Most of what is officially labeled as "Secret" is actually information often embarrassing and kept from our own people. Scientific knowledge cannot be withheld from anyone seeking it with sufficient resources. That is one reason why I opposed the execution of the Rosenbergs. They were useless casualties of the Cold War. It is no doubt true that they betrayed our country - their country too - but by 1949 the Soviets had already exploded their first atomic bomb. Their execution in 1953 was gratuitous. Justice on the cheap as I wrote above.

Although the notes typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was relevant to the Soviet atomic bomb project, this was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the conspiracy to commit espionage charge . . Their case has been at the center of the controversy over Communism in the United States ever since, with supporters steadfastly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of persecution typical of the "hysteria" of those times . . en.wikipedia.org...

Note: it was Julius and ETHEL Rosenberg, and not “Anna” as I posted above in error.

Democrat Truman could have commuted their sentence prior to leaving office in January, 1953, causing him no political harm. Instead he left it to Republican Eisenhower who did not want to offend the Right Wing of his party. Also, I expect Ike believed the sentences were appropriate. I did not believe that then and I do not believe that now. All we “proved” was America could be as vicious as the USSR. And so IMO, for political convenience Ike allowed the executions to go forward. I oppose all government sanctioned executions o grounds of principle. Our system of justice is unequal. Some say it is "broken" an assessment I accept. It is brutish and barbaric. It serves no acceptable purpose. As in torture, it DEMEANS the executioner, not the executed.

How deep is America’s real commitment to FAMILY VALUES? The Rosenbergs' two sons, Robert and Michael, were orphaned by the executions and no relatives dared adopt them for fear of ostracism or worse. Even in the Middle Ages - not an era noted for its concern over human rights - pregnant women were not executed until after their child had nursed for 2 years. God Bless America.

Despite America’s frequent claims to be a FREE and OPEN democracy, we are all too often reminded that like it or not, there is not all that much difference between the US and oh so many foreign countries we routinely denounce. See this July 30, 2008, account:

In a hearing U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein decided to make public the grand jury testimony of 36 of the 46 witnesses but not that of Greenglass. Citing the objections of Greenglass and two other living witnesses, the judge claimed that their privacy rights “overrides the public’s need to know.” Georgetown University law professor David Vladeck argued on behalf of historical groups that because of recent interviews Greenglass forfeited the privacy he now claims and that the testimony should be released. Judge Hellerstein was not moved. The testimony of the other seven witnesses will be released upon their consent, or confirmation that they are dead or not findable. en.wikipedia.org...

As relates to the executions, I say again, an act unworthy of a great democracy!

[edit on 8/4/2008 by donwhite]

I've never understood what could be so big they'd need to kill for? Would the masses riot if there were aliens? Would the world hate us if we really could control the weather?

pffff.