There is an article on the new news outlet The Intercept by Glenn Greenwald (who came to prominence when he was among the first to report Snowden’s leaks about government spying for The Guardian) that claims that the FBI is taking a large role in manufacturing terror plots, making arrests and then proclaiming them proudly.
The FBI has become corrupt. I am just guessing but, since no one in power stops them, the FBI must have dirt on them. They need to be cleaned up and power removed. It is a common problem with any power unit. Power corrupts. Intent gets twisted with criminal justification.
The first article only implies that the “plotters” are always arrested before they actually carry out their tasks,
The second is less clear, but the case in the quoted text (The Newburgh Four) was also not pulled off. They also state:
So here they are saying there seems to be some evidence for this being the case only about 50% of the time. I suppose you’d also have to read the particular studies to see what kind of evidence they are making the claims by.
I haven’t personally come across any documentation or mainstream article that implicates the involvement of the FBI in any successful attacks since Sept. 11, 2001.
I suppose that the main significance of what is posted above is that the FBI, according to these reports, is playing an active role in making terrorism seem more prominent than it actually is. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. If I am recalling correctly, I have heard Greenwald say that the believed the government’s role in surveillance and their terror strategies to be more about control than safety of the population.
As an addition to my last post, it also depends how you consider terrorism. Oxford online dictionary’s definition is:
“The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:”
It says “violence and intimidation”, if it had said or it would have been closer by that definition, but it also says “unofficial or unauthorized”, and I suppose these could be considered by that definition as authorized and official…
On the other hand, you could make a case such as, a democratic government is supposed to be by and for the people and so such actions being taken without the will of the people and against the people would be unauthorized, and if you would count terrorism as being the use of intimidation without violence then there would be a case for calling the actions of the FBI as reported here terrorism…
Also, I guess if such a charge were actually to be mad, one must use the legal definition of terrorism which is held in whichever of court the case would be brought to.
A lot of this article is put in perspective with a little reminder of what an FBI informant is. It’s not an FBI agent, it’s a criminal who has agreed to help the FBI in exchange for a reduced sentence. So whenever they are talking about “This was done by an FBI informant” they are talking about a criminal embedded in a criminal organization doing the kinds of things he would have done had he not turned informant, so that people involved in his plot can be arrested. It’s pretty much the same thing they did with the Mafia, and the mob’s defense lawyers raised the same defenses you see here - that for some reason Mickey ‘The Spoon’ Bonanno wearing a wire as he helps plan hits and run rackets is entrapment and the FBI is the real bad guy. You even had anti-defamation leagues claiming that there was no such thing as the Mafia and the whole thing was racist plot by the State, which of course is parallel to the “Everything is Islamophobia” trend we see now that supports this kind of view.
That said, who knows. Our higher law enforcement agencies certainly haven’t shown themselves to be beyond recrimination lately. But even with Obama in the White House, the idea that this is about ‘giving an excuse to exert control’ sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me. If it’s about something, it’s about money and/or votes.
I see what you’re saying, but some of the things the Human Rights Watch article states does not follow that interpretation, such as:
and
It seems to be implying that the FBI has played a role in finding people who would not otherwise be involved in terrorism, not the same as an informant taking part in something like mafia activities which would have already been taking place with those particular people who have already been initiated into the mafia and held an active role in the initiation.
The second quote I provided here above also says the FBI played an active role in developing the plot and provided resources to carry it out, it seems less likely they would have done those things with the mafia who I believe have their own funding for their activities. It also says the FBI targetted people with mental disabilities for this…
On the other hand, it might be necessary to see more detailed reports about what is actually being talked about here to make a more minute judgement about what is going on. The report is here provided : https://www.hrw.org/node/126101
It is 214 pages so it might take some time to look through it and find out more. Peering into that document, I immediately see this quote:
To be honest, I find this attached report also a little vague so far, at least insofar as it is not giving out specifics.
Here is a case study from the report:
It does not say how the informant came first into contact with the individual in question or why he believed him to be a viable threat, though there is an implication that his mind was not on politics… It links to another report which might say more about the way that the informant came into contact with this particular individual.
As for the above, I don’t think government control is anything unusual. I think many people would say that at least some amount of control is necessary (unless you are an anarchist who is okay with crime), and control both intentional and unintentional takes place all the time (that’s what laws are for). But for such statements to be taken seriously beyond the obvious it would be necessary to explain what kind of control is being attempted (such as “positive” control which seeks to direct or create certain behaviours, or “negative” control which prevents certain behaviours, as well as making it clear what these behaviours in question are) and concrete and verifiable examples would have to be given of instances of control, and even then I suppose the merits of such control would potentially be debatable…
Also, in this vein, there are plenty of acedemic disciplines which study social control outside of the context of “conspiracy theory”, you can read up some about it here:
And if you make a search you will find there are plenty of books printed by university presses as well as academic journals for a number of disciplines, including legal theory and political science (the point I am making is not just for the sake of social , cultural, and critical theory) about social control.
I’m seeing a difference between what they allege and what they can show- they allege all sorts of scary things, but the examples they give that actually have names and dates attached don’t seem to me all that different than RICO act stuff.
The troubling bit here would be that the FBI would be acting more like the CIA. It's not a big deal (or at least uncommon) for the CIA to set up a fake criminal organization and actually plot crimes and so on in order to establish themselves so that their targets reach out to them and trust them. One would hope, though, that this would be going on in other people's countries where any ensuing havok doesn't hurt Americans. If the FBI is behaving in that way, I'm not comfortable with it at all.
That's what I was noticing in the article you posted, it was saying things like "The FBI has been threatenng jail or in some cases paying people off" and then all the concrete examples they give is of threatening jail, making you wonder where the other part of that 'or' came from.
Maybe he wasn’t a viable threat, he was a viable threat’s ward. And maybe he’s in Witness Protection and the prison story is to keep him safe. Not trying to make up stories, just shedding some light on how this stuff actually works and how little we may know. Civvies passing judgment on what intelligence agencies may or may not be doing is a whole different game than doing it with like a corporation or even the police.
I will give you this to an extent, I too think more searching up would be necessary to make clear judgements, but I will explain why I say to an extent immediately below.
I would agree with setting up sting operations in cases where the person/group being targeted is known to already be involved in criminal activities or organized crime, like in the case of the mafia. I think these documents at least make it clear that the individuals were not involved in any crimes prior to their being monitored and brought into involvement in these plans, in particular the case study I posted above “Case of Shawahar Matin Siraj”
This strikes me as entrapment, and I wouldn’t really support it in these instances or in others, regardless whether a law or act was passed to condone it.
Also, being familiar with studies of social psychology, I am aware that it is very possible to influence people to convince things they wouldn’t ordinarily do. While there is no evidence whatsoever that such tactics were being intentionally employed here, there is still a possibility that chance circumstances could replicate those kinds of results, in the case mentioned above it says:
That to me sounds kind of sketchy and even sounds like a relationship being formed not only of respect but of authority and heirarchy relations (ie. father > son), what I am thinking of here is Milgrams obedience to authority experiment, and if the other information about the mental state of that individual is to be believed it sounds very questionable indeed.
I don’t think the CIA is by default unimpeachable, but it also sounds like what you’re talking about is the CIA setting up a fake organization to attract those who were already targets because of some preestablished role in criminal activity.
Another point on a slightly different issue is that there are many cries of outrage about “radicalization” being done by terrorist groups or similar recruiting groups. If such radicalization were being done by government agenies that would shed an entirely different light on that outrage.
I agree insofar as people passing judgement should become informed so that their judgements reflect the reality of what is going on, and that can be difficult, especially when media outlets work to send people into a fervour through persuasion rather than relaying facts.
On the other hand, I think it is important for people to know what their goverment’s practices are, and a necessaity to make clear judgements, particularly in a democracy where people are expected to play a role in steering the direction the state will take.
I think the responsibility for gathering valid information lies mainly on citizens, but to varying degrees and in varying senses also on parents, the media, the government, particularly the education system, and I don’t think, at least where I was born and went through school, a suffiencient education was given in political practices (also I don’t think such education should be tied to lessons of good and bad, but merely of factual studies of those practices).
Also, as someone who is not American, I would be interested in knowing what you mean by the above. If you mean that the CIA’s activities could/should be condoned if they harm citizens of other countries, I hope you wouldn’t take such activities lightly because without very good reasoning such would appear to be an act of war against a foreign population.
It is certainly entrapment if Shawahar was actually their target and who got the punishment. I'm envisioning a scenario where they take a harmless dope who is close to somebody dangerous, manipulate him into getting involved with crime so he can inform (probably without even realizing the consequences to himself and those he's informing on), then sending him to 'jail' when it's all over so he doesn't get clipped by associates of the FBI's real targets when the dust settles. If the FBI was setting up actual crimes themselves and allowing them to be carried out to boost the credibility of their C.I., though, THAT is the part that is more like CIA activity and the part that worries me. The article you presents it as something like "The FBI hates Muslims so they goaded a retarded Muslim man-child into performing crimes just so they can stick him in prison." That seems cartoonish to me, but would certainly be vile if it were true.
.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that setting up those fake organizations may involve [i]actually committing crimes[/i] in order to give your org the credibility to attract who you want to catch. Which is why I said the part about this hopefully not happening where it can influence Americans.
That might be where our biggest difference lies. Organizations like the CIA and even the FBI simply can't operate effectively if the citizens know everything they are doing- there's no point in even having a CIA if the public at large knows what countries they are operating in and what they are doing there and so on. Now, I agree with you that the public knowing would still be invaluable in regulating them to make sure they aren't going astray. But to me, that's just one of those paradoxical things with no ideal solution.
Well, yeah they can be condoned- by the US, certainly not the countries they are causing mayhem in... but other countries liking what the CIA is up to has nothing to do with their goals. If you're part of the whole NZ/CAN/AUS/UK//USA intelligence alliance then that's one thing, the CIA isn't going to be (shouldn't be) blowing things up and causing mayhem in your country to respect that mutual alliance. But the CIA isn't InterPol: if you aren't one of the above nations you shouldn't WANT the CIA in your country and shouldn't be assuming they are doing things in your best interest if you find them there. I sure as hell don't want the Mossad or GRU in mine. But I am sure they are, and I am sure they are doing things I'd rather they not do, and I'm sure CIA counter-intel is working to hunt them down, and so it goes.
There is nothing in the report to indicate that the plot that Shawahr Siraj was involved in was part of a larger plot made up of others known to have connections to terrorist organizations or activities, there is another article on this case from The Guardian:
Without any information, it seems to assume the FBI was working under a broader plan to catch others with deeper connections to terrorist activities is just fabrication to support the organization.
As for the reason for this, there is a possibility that it could be part of a public relations tactic to gain support with the continuing war on terror, by making the amount of terrorist plots seem more prevailent and the competence of the FBI seem greater.
This is definitely a complex issue and to be addressed would take much consideration so I wouldn’t for my part want to try to cover the whole situation with a quick an easy statement. I think things like national interest (whose interest?) needs to be considered. I don’t think organizations like the CIA would be necessary if government was structured differently so that the interest of a nation was the interest of a people who were educated and prepared to act and protect it as necessary. This is open to debate of course, and I don’t think this is only an American issue, to be clear, but an issue about secret services anywhere. The importance of American politics in the world for the last few decades brings their activities to the forefront of world consciousness and influences political action internationally, and for that reason I think that the United States are a valid topic for discussion, but besides that discussions about politically philosophical discussions would on my part be meant in general.
I would also say, and of course the same thing intended in terms of which secret service activities are important for me, that if any of one of the organizations was found to be acting against the interests of the citizenry it would be very important that the situation be rectified, and perhaps to a degree more critical that it be so than for private organizations, mainly because public institutions are expected to act on the public’s behalf and not against it, which is not to say that I would give leeway for such activities (mainly harmful activities, and still such activities would warrant scrutiny in themselves) from private organizations in any way.
Well, there isn’t a whole lot to be said about this. In any case I would hope that every country would desire its own government and their institutions to stay out of the affairs of others’, particularly in such cases that would cause physical harm to the citizenry.
The FBI operatives (and HSD and the others) consider it merely “fighting fire with fire” (uncontrolled terrorism with controlled terrorism). Their higher governance considers it to be “creating self-value”. Throughout history it is known as False Flagging. Occultists call it “sacrifice”. Altruists call it first degree murder.
And the innocent call it a “king with no cloths (fig leaf)”.
OK, so the FBI spent a bunch of time and money to organize a sting against a harmless, borderline retarded man because the world wouldn't see the justification in opposing Muslim extremism if they didn't? We''re going to take the word of [u]The Guardian[/u] for it, because they are a notoriously reliable, non-biased source when it comes to matters of political importance. All I'm saying is, the FBI is never going to get to say there piece in this, and it's easy enough to imagine what that piece would be in a sense that makes this not at all what folks with a certain political agenda would like it to be. Im not seeing what things like Siraj, which don't even get press, are supposed to accomplish that Charlie Hebdo , 9/11, and etc. etc. aren't accomplishing just fine without help from a conspiracy. I mean, even COINTELPRO wasn't designed to 'prove to the world' that Black Panthers, communists and so on were bad- the world already knew, just like it for the most part knows when it comes to Islam. If anybody is trying to manipulate public opinion against all reality for political gain, it would be folks trying to say that Islamic Extremism isn't actually a problem, wouldn't you say?
Right. Your two choices are that, or that sensationalist media with a political axe to grind are presenting data in a way that gets them clicks and advances their own agenda. What we know is that Muslims actually DO attack the Western world with some regularity and ferocity, and that the media apologize for it out of fear of Islamophobia constantly.
I don’t see how that could be possible, but maybe that’s too broad for this thread. Or maybe it should be the real focus.
This is totally beyond me, what you're saying here. Every nation that matters has covert operators in every other nation that matters, and this has been true for centuries. Those covert operators are [i]at the very least[/i] relaying data about their host nation that the nation wants kept secret, except in the case of a few strategic alliances (maybe), and outside of those alliances, covert agencies work with their home nation's interests alone in mind, including to the detriment of their host nation. It is nothing for a covert op to work with organized crime in their host nation, up to and including perpetuating crimes, if it will get them closer to a matter of their own nations' national security. Do I desire it to be different? Yeah, I guess in the way that I desire a gold toilet and for all crime to cease everywhere forever, yeah...but it seems to be entailed by the very nature of sovereignty. We've seen all manner of Government forms over the centuries, socialisms and democracies and monarchies and so on, and not one of them seemed to even for a moment lead to the conclusion that covert ops weren't necessary.
I think it becomes confused when one has an unnecessarily cosmopolitan view. The idea of one world people all looking out for each other’s interests really breaks down at the level of statecraft and intelligence. The moral schema of charity organizations simply doesn’t apply there.
What I am actually saying is that without any reason to believe otherwise, you pushing that stance in fact betrays a political axe to grind only in the opposite direction, and making statements like "and that the media apologize for it out of fear of Islamophobia constantly. " betrays your own bias…
While it doesn’t add any information about this case, it chooses the side of intelligence agencies explicitly… So I stand by my previous comment, unless you have any reason to think so, you are fabricating a scenario to support your own ideological bias in favor of the US government.
The Guardian article also states:
So there could be a possible scenario such as, the FBI has come into contact with Eldawoody as an informant and given him resources for his tasks to get into connection with terrorists, and Eldawoody of his own accord chose as you put it, “a harmless, borderline retarded man” to manipulate because doing so would keep him on the FBI’s books, but the selection of Shawahr was Eldawoody’s, not the FBI’s.
I am also wondering, do you never believe newspaper articles, or only when they suit your bias? I have expressed openness to opposing details of this case being presented for a reconsideration of my view, but until there is reason to believe so, I state, it is fabrication to conceive a new situation merely in order to continue support for the FBI’s activities.
Beyond that, on The Guardian and eslewhere there is constantly pro-government articles.
I do think it would overtake the thread to discuss because what I am suggesting would entail an entire rearrangement of the political apparatus and especially education. I have no problem discussing it, I do wonder if it would be better in a separate thread though.
This may be how nations work, what I said was I hope you would desire your government to keep itself to its own affairs and that I would desire mine to do the same. I think it is also safe to say that no form of government in the past has desired to let its citizens out of the dark on all aspects of life, and this ties into the dicussion above. It would probably be better had in a new thread, so far the only part connected to this thread is under the first quoted text about the FBI’s role in creating terrorist plots.
I have not said I believe that everyone is or even should be looking out for each other’s interests once, if I have please point me to it. What I said is that I hope you would not desire your intelligence agencies in another’s country without good reason, and particularly not engaging in operations which harm the citizenry:
To take my words the way you have above appears to be another fabrication (adding in things about moral charity schemes) on your behalf in order to condone your own government entering foreign countries (possibly without good reason?) and causing harm to foreign citizens. You went on a rant above about the moral bias of the media, in fact there is a very strong ideological bias expressed in your posts which even fabricates and intentionally twists words… however you got a moderator position is beyond me.
While I do desire to discuss my ideas of government, until I can be sure you are not ready to be engaged in twisting peoples posts and fabricating to suit your own agenda then I am not even sure it would be worthwhile.
Yes, my wording betrays my bias, and of course the Guardian has their’s and that’s well known as well. We can’t escape that, but we can examine which is the more plausible conspiracy on a case to case basis. I’m just not seeing what the FBI has to gain by making these false stings to demonstrate something that radical Islam is demonstrating perfectly well on it’s own. It doesn’t add up UNLESS you’re in a frame of mine where you’re denying that radical islam is doing what it’s doing, and you need an explanation for all the evidence to the contrary.
Does the Guardian allow a token conservative on their opinion board to maintain appearances? How nice for them, but I don't see what it changes. You could spend 30 second on wikipedia checking out the known political allegiances of The Guardian- As far as I know the Guardian makes no apologies for it's political leanings and has made several public statements affirming them. So I don't know why you'd bother defending them from an allegation they don't deny. So far you've cited a blog who's very existence is based around exposing/undermining intelligence agencies, a left wing newspaper, an Human Rights Watch (funded by left winger George Soros) as sources for this FBI theory, and you've resisted acknowledgment of the left wing paper for what it is. It seems strange to me that after having done all that you are concerned primarily with [i]my bias[/i] as if you hadn't set an exceptionally low bar for it yourself when you created the thread. It seems to me it's the direction of my bias and not the degree of it that you object to.
Yes, that's precisely what I'm doing- proposing an alternate scenario that fits the data we have. Deciding that the FBI is picking on retarded people in order to frame Muslims is [i]another[/i] example of fabricating a scenario to support an ideological bias. You just have to decide which one more likely a match for reality, given what we know about radical muslims, intelligence agencies, and so on. Of course what I really think is that when it comes to intellgence agencies, civilians are helplessly guessing at best (even when there are leaks, usually), and that's the point of my counter-theory, to show how little we know and what else it could mean.
Read this over. The sources you are citing are basically just reciting the case Shahawar’s defense attorney made without bothering to mention the prosecution’s rebuttals. So if you want motivation for fabrication on the other side, there it is. The Guardian , Human Rights Watch and TheIntercept look to me to be repeating what Siraj’s lawyer says as if he’s a journalist.
I do desire that my nation keep to it’s own affairs. But sometimes my nation’s own affairs are best served to the detriment of yours (and vice versa of course), and that’s where things get weird.
The arms race is a good counter example to this. I can’t imagine any form of Government wanting it’s citizens to know how to build the latet weaponry. They need to keep it a secret, and yet, other countries want to find it out, especially if they are lagging behind the arms race. That dynamic alone would probably justify (that is to say, account for) half or more of all the espionage that’s ever been done.
Oh, I’m on board with that, at least the technical wording of what you’ve said. I just think there’s nearly always a good reason, or at least arguably so. If there’s no good reason for one country to be spying on/messing with another, they have probably mutually acknowledged this and signed a treaty including measures that they don’t do such things. That’s why I brought up the US, CAN, AUS, US, NZ thing- these nations have no reason to spy on each other, mutually are aware of this, and so they have a treaty that they don’t, and they even exchange covert intel with each other with a special desgination. The designation used to CANAUSUKUS or something like that, but then NZ got added and I have no idea. My point is that even when what you’re suggesting happens, it’s a product of the specific outcomes of specific relations, not a general good will towards other nations.
I did not claim that The Guardian does not support a bias, but these articles at least purport to be displaying facts, if you wish to debate the facticity of the claims then that is an issue of itself. The Intercept also is surely created for the reason you have stated " exposing/undermining intelligence agencies", but does that make defacto everything it says untrue? Could it also be possible that these are the only sources interested in exposing any government malfeasance?
If we wish to get rid of all bias and discuss this, then we will have to lay down the known facts in this case whether they come from these sources or other, including the FBI’s own mouth, or any right wing newspaper which discusses the issue with facts, or other documentation available. Then we will have to decide on a method by which such information can be judged to tell us something, whether that something is conclusive or inconclusive and we must declare ourselves in a position unable to judge the matter.
I may have chosen ideologically biased papers, but they do at least purport to present facts, I hope that you will admit, and besides that they are troubling to me, I have made this thread to investigate these claims and I have attempted to give the issue a fair reading, though I do admit that I have been tempted to side with the presented interpretation, but I am willing to bring it to the barest possible level and examine only the facts presented here and possibly elsewhere. I am not sure if you saw an edit I made providing another possible interpretation above:
Sure, I will read it over. I think it is also valid and necessary to look at. I think The Intercept and The Guardian both took Human Rights Watch as their source, so if anything the responsibility (if we could call it that) would fall on HRW first and then the others for potentially bad fact checking.
Okay, I have no problem dealing with the reality of the situation. I still hope that the first instinct would be to try to reconcile between the interests between nations before espionage takes place.
I think your example is valid. I would want to investigate further what it means when you say “I can’t imagine any form of Government wanting it’s citizens to know how to build the latet weaponry.” unless you mean a that forms of Government must not be the citizens themselves. Also keep in mind that when I consider a form of Government, what personally comes to my mind as the first and most important thing is education, physical and intellectual, education being done through institutions , by individuals for themselves, families for their own childen, and otherwise. I do not support any kind of enforced equality, but I do think that enough aware and capable people would be able to balance the proclivities of each other.
Okay, my desire is not that everyone go frolicking in candyland, but that at least people should act in good faith until that faith is broken, in which case I also think such “breaking” should be investigated to understand its contours, and even then I hope that nations would attempt reasonable solutions before harming foreign citizens, and of course all of this must be put into context of facts.
Check my most recent edit (I apologize, I rewrote my thing like 10 times). I think your sources are basically taking Siraj’s defense attorney’s case at face value as an account of what happened.
And that’s the problem, is that when it comes to what some nation’s intelligence agency is up to, what you’re left with when just examining the clear facts is…not enough to conclude anything. I mean, if the agency is halfway competant at least. I don’t know how you approach something like this without just throwing up your hands and saying ‘nobody knows’ or allowing your biases to fill in the gaps so you have something coherent to say.
Eldawoody certainly used his credibility as a terrorist to convince Siraj that he could outfit him with weapons for a bomb. It seems the defense and the prosecution agree on that. Who’s idea it was, I don’t know if we could say.
Yeah, I think to do otherwise would just be malice.
That's interesting. When I think of a form of Government, what immediately comes to mind is how the state preserves order while letting it's citizens be themselves as much as possible. The answer to that dilemma is the primary characterstic of a government system to me. Then I'd probably prioritize defense, then an economic plan that promotes wealth, [i]then[/i] education. I think maybe because I envision education as something that will come up on it's own and be at least passable if the State just gets out of the way, and those other things I listed as being roles of any state inevitably.
As far as the state being the citizens themselves, yeah I don't see that as possible. The closest you would get, at least superficially would be a direct democracy where elections are facilitated through the internet, and even then you have two big impediments:
1.) Natural aristocracy of pundits, priests, and etc. who shape public opinion being the real force of the State, and
2.) somebody having to actually DO the work that is voted to be done, and their expertise overriding the electorate. In otherwords, a direct democracy will vote for contradictions and impossibilities, and somebody has to enact their will as best as can be represented.
And then it comes down to the question of defense. Is a nation that votes for all it’s defense measures including tactics, weapon designs and use of military force in a transparent way viewable by all putting itself in a position where it can defend itself from hostiles that don’t do that? If your democracy makes you go extinct, little else matters.
Yeah, I see that. I guess my whole point in bringing up the CIA is to show why it would be a bad thing for the FBI to act like them because the FBI interacts with it's nations own citizens, so everybody hurt by their actions are the very people intended to be protected. When the CIA does something terrible it FOR people they exist to protect, and at the expense of people they don't, so there's a certain justification there. I would see the Siraj situation- even it's most pessimistic formulation as 100% different if it was the CIA doing all those things to a foreign national, because there's a much greater possibility for justification then.
Disclaimer: This post is very long, mainly because I have strived to clearly express the means by which the society could operate differently. I am not sure if it (the description) will be satisfactory for its purpose of answering the questions relevant to the thread. It might help if you consider that I did not strive to give answers in the nature of either/or propositions but instead to develop what I see as possible and viable bases and functions of society. This in particular relates to the latter half of the post.
Yes I saw that edit, I think that is definitely valid and it should be taken into consideration where the information is coming from to determine what can even be considered a fact. I will elaborate a little on the implications of this below.
I agree with you not only about the activity of intelligence agencies but about considering situations in general. These kinds of issues are even found in mainstream history quite often.
I wouldn’t try to say I don’t have an ideological position, that would deceitful (even if I was deceiving myself), but I do at least hope to take a step back from it if it is at all possible for me to bring myself to do so.
I think there is some relevance even in coming to a conclusion that we don’t know or can’t know, because that conclusion (particularly the latter “can’t know”) is itself a piece of information, or a fact if you will, which should be considered in its own light, asking questions like, “What does it mean for me as (in this case) a member of a ‘democracy’ that I cannot know the activities of (in this case) the FBI?” Maybe we can entertain "what if?"s, while acknowledging that they are simply that, possibilities or conjecture. I think these kinds of reasoning processes are also valid, and of course the way we answer them would hopefully be proportional to what is at hand (for example a what if should be dealt with as a what if, but all the same that doesn’t mean it should be disregarded, because very often we take precaution for things that might happen, but we would hopefully not drive ourselves to the point of insanity over things that also might never happen.)
I think that is also a difference between what is called “conspiracy theory” and healthy thinking. I don’t think it is unusual or wrong to be suspicious, but if suspicion is taken to the point of obsession or a willful disregard of facts then it has gone too far, at least if we understand “too far” as in this case being the creation of behaviours which are proportionally ineffective to the reality dealt with, and effectiveness would be determined by a predetermined or chosen outcome for and by the acting individual.
This is going slightly off topic and mainly applies to the moments when facts and implications of a situation are known (including such a situation as cannot be known), but the latter paragraph has further implications because the outcomes I mentioned are no doubt differing and often conflicting for various individuals and so what even seems reasonable, or in the above terminology “effective” might be different for the one making the decision and an outside observer.
I am mentioning this because it is at least part of what I am understanding in the discussion of education, that I think these considerations should be made conscious and practicable for individuals in situations where things like time constraints do not apply. It is not to put forward a model of humans which insists that humans are reasonable creatures, it is an attempt to create a model where effective behaviour can be maximized for individuals who would have the ability to use it. Which is not to say it is at this point a complete or perfect model, but I hope it would be a step in clarifying what I am talking about in terms of the education process.
I don’t think our understanding of the purposes of government are far off, if they differ at all. I will give a brief description from my own point of view for the sake of clarification.
I understand government is an instrument for the maintenance and promotion of as good of a standard of life for individuals as is possible (I will explain this further below). Which individuals I am referring to would depend on the case of the government itself, and, even within a state, on the particular situations at hand.
A government “maintains” life by enacting functions that individuals would be incapable of performing alone and which is in the interest of the people bound together (by some means) to form and/or support the government. (I am attempting to deliniate this in a realist method where the countours of any given government would be specified on a case-by-case basis). By enacting functions I have in mind things like building roads, sanitation, etc. even defense (also to be considered on a case by case basis and presumably under the decision making process of particular governments.)
This maintenance and “promotion of the standard of life” also takes place on the level of mediation, either between individuals who are in conflict, or among groups, whether they be within the bounds of the governmental jurisdiction (and it depends what form that “jurisdiction” would take, because I am taking government here to be also applicable to the management of human organizations other than state apparati), or between different governmental units whether in the case of conflict, trade, or for the sake of some kind of mutual undertaking.
The reason I hold education in prominence is because after human existence (coming into existence and being existent), then action, it is through the transmission of knowledge by which modes of action and developed and maintained over time among people and across generations. This can be something as simple as a man hitting two stones together and creating fire (action) then showing the same action to another human so that they can both create fire, and the information continuing to be passed on. It is only through this transmission of knowledge that institituions can continue to exist (and arguably by which they can be build up from simple actions and abilities (such as meaning creating — words)). So it is only through the awareness, development, and transmission of information (education) by which effective actions and culture (including institutional apparati) can be created and mantained.
So in reality I take existence and action itself to precede education, but I don’t think these things even need to be said.
I think it has to be taken into consideration first how we are conceptualizing the state. I don’t have any problem with (what I understand to be) what you are calling a “natural aristocracy”. I am not advocated a kind of forced equaltiy of ability or power. In many ways what I am advocating is the opposite of that, I am advocating that people educate themselves and each other in such a way as to become individuals of ability and power, which is not to say that everyone will obtain that ideal or even on the same level, I am just advocating that the educational apparatus of states be made open to people for the attainment of these ideals.
I wanted to add it to an earlier post but I decided not to because I wasn’t sure how far the discussion would go, but what I am saying is also dependent on whether state education is mandatory or not. If state education is mandatory (as it is in many countries at present), then I personally think it is more important to support the ideal I am promoting. If state education is optional, then it is less important, but perhaps I would still advocate it. This is not to say that those who would chose not to attend state education would attain the ideals I have provided (power and ability) but that if they failed to do so they could have failure on their own terms, whereas if education is mandatory and certain important facts about the workings of states and human behaviour is not brought to the attention to developing children, I believe the state itself should be held responsible for these gaps, at least I think if a child or their family would hold the state responsible for such gaps they would be justified in doing so.
What the “consequences” of such a justification would be remains to be seen, and I will make it clear that I do not think it would necessarily be the case that a state would care about such “condemnation”…
The reason I bring it up at all is because I think this, among other things, is one reason for such “condemnations” or criticisms to arise, and besides any moral implications which may seem to lie behind the word “justified”, I think that in a realist sense this is at least important for understanding why someone might criticize, for example, a government.
So to be clear, my goal is not to seek the means for the creation of a utopia, but to make clear why unrest and discord would arise in otherwise prosperous nations and to suggest possible solutions for them, it is an ongoing process, not one which expects to make a series of claims to the enactment of which our political woes will be ended.
I simply think that the education process is (as explained above) the thirdmost important process for individuals to guide and maintain their own existence.
I would also suggest things like citizen parlaiments maintained by voluntary attendance and of a perhaps lesser power, and still I think that a more sensitively developed education system (and a higher educational consciousness for individuals who would educate themselves and their families and neighbours) would aid that process.
As for defense, I hope you will accept when I say that military is an institution within the higher government institution. To understand my position on this you have to understand that I would not call for a disorganization of the military apparatus under a homogenous glob of people I am now calling the state. As I understand it, even if for a moment the government allowed an anarchy to exist by relinquishing all its powers, some new form of government would arise either by a natural aristocracy taking the preexistence positions of government or else creating new positions for themselves.
I am calling for a reorganization of the military apparatus wherein education takes prominence (keep in mind my statement about the obligatory nature of education, and also that I would personally desire education to not be obligatory, but still possess the standard of education I am suggesting, but I also think it is important for individuals and families to be conscious of these considerations so that they can determine effective behaviour).
In this call for education, please keep in mind, I think that relaying facts and keeping opinions out of them as much as is possible (and possibility here being dictated by consciousness of the presence of opinion clouding fact, not desire for a certain opinion to be in place) as well as for students to be able to direct their own area of studies as much as possible, with the help and guidance of instructors (so that education plans are not “determined” for them, where a selection process of what is important is not made, at least so far as is possible under the same stipulation as above. The only time I would consider directed education to be desirable is when the child is so small that they have not even learned the basics which would enable them to direct their own studies (reading, writing, at least elementary math, etc.) and perhaps at the beginning of lessons an overview could be given about which subjects exist, and this would be done categorically to explain which subjects there are, what they are, and what their significance is — so you could go over the sciences, the humanities, social studies, and at least to begin with you’d probably refrain from sub-sections and perhaps as education commenced deeper indications could be made apparent, though a “student” could very well discover these beforehand of their own initiative.) For this purpose, ideally computers could be used, but if for some unforseen reason computers were unavailable, ideally as part of the education system there would be developed some method developed by which areas of research could be easily brought up, for example of the kind used in large catalogues and libraries.
To return to the subject of defense:
In practice, the operations of military institutions take place on a case by case basis. Members of the military are educated, and much of the contents of this education is in the public domain (in the sense that it is accessible by civilians), in this sense it would remain so and be optional for “students” to make study of as they see fit.
The example you gave was the arms race, I can see two ways of discussing this which aren’t as mutually exclusive as they might at first appear. The first way is if we accept my paradigm of a new form of government for dicussion and we attempt to hammer out its relative faults and merits, or the second way is that we discuss the implications of the current state paradigm for the arms race and try to hammer out its relative faults and merits. The reason I say I don’t think they are mutually exclusive is because even for discussing in the second way given it might be helpful to understand where I am coming from in the positions I am taking. Also, I would like to make it clear beforehand that when I engage in these discussions I am engaging in my own dialectical method (the faults and merits of which are another issue) and so I will make it clear to you now that I do not always speak straight at the point, and I don’t mean that I digress, but that I dredge up scenarios for the sake of consideration because I consider them revealing for the sake of understanding our present circumstances and our current options in these circumstances, and this would be the case more than usual in presenting hypothetical possibilities which could be adopted, because I am not recruiting.
With that stipulation in mind, let me continue. Understand first that I have not expressed that private individuals could not or should not keep their actions hidden, only that public institutions representing a people should not keep their actions hidden from those they are representing.
Allow me to explain, my reasoning behind the latter is that every individual must act in order to maintain and promote the prosperty of his/her person. While maintenance and promotion of propserity is a function of a government apparatus, it is also, and foremost, the function and responsibility of themselves and the things of importance to them. We can call this personal soveriegnty or self-ownership, which entails not only the right to, but also the responsibility for one’s own person.
In the case when an individual does not know the actions of another (be it government or private person) or when such an individual encounters push back from such an agency which blocks that individual’s “effective behaviour” directed to some predetermined goal, personal soveriegnty is jeopardized. In the case where an individual is blocked from information, it may conflict with his/her (for the sake of brevity I will use the designation his if any such case arise) ability to act in such a way as maintains his person and promotes his personal prosperity, because the individual does not “know” (as in cannot be certain) about the reality of the situation, and so must either act blindly at the risk of his well being, or else entrust his soveriegnty to the privileged party (privileged as in possessing the missing information) so that the sovereignty of the individual becomes dependent on the other party (in this case the state).
In the situation where effective action directed towards the acheivement of a predetermined goal is blocked, then personal soveriegnty is again in jeopardy. That individual must find a different mode of action or route to the attainment of said goal than would otherwise have been the case. If the necessary mode of action is dictated by an outside party (for example a government) then personal sovereignty is in jeopardy, because the right to self-determine is either acceded to the other, or else given up along with the previously determined goal. This is, by the way, a situation of social control in the non-conspiratorial sense and the merits of specific instances are for debate in terms of their merits.
The purpose of this exercise of discussing what I have called personal soveriegnty is to make clear the situation of individuals in their social capacity and make it clear that it is frequently the case that personal sovereignty is jeopardized. In case it is unclear how this relates, I will point out that this is the main issue around which this whole discussion revolves, and the impetus which in my mind necessitates the discussion.
What I maintain is that as personal sovereignty is diminished, that being the right of an individual to his self-determination, so too is his responsibility to it. I am not saying that when an individual is blocked from committing an action they lose all responsibility for their person, but that the responsibility of an individual is inherent in their choice, their ability to choose, and for diminishment of personal sovereignty which is not absolute, so is the diminishment of responsibility not absolute, but an absolute diminishment of personal sovereignty (wherein a person for example was tied up and their limbs contorted by force to perform an action) so too would responsibility be diminished absolutely.
This must be considered in instances even where legal responsibility is not under consideration. In such instances where personal sovereignty is diminished, even in a situation wherein information is withheld, it is natural (though not necessary) for an individual to be frustrated by the diminishment of his knowledge used for actions which maintain and promote his prosperity in the present or the future, and it is natural for such frustration to be expressed as criticism or resentment against the withholding party, and in such proportion as his sovereignty is diminished so too is his responsibility, the first responsibility being to his kind thoughts (and not first his deeds).
In such proportion as a government (whether of stately apparatus or otherwise) proclaims right over the sovereignty of individuals, so too do they possess responsibility over the well being of those individuals, else those individuals, bereft of the determination of their actions and the maintenance which their actions would afford, would bear grudge against the agency which has diminished their sovereignty.
Because it is the nature of states to not have access to the content of what amounts the well being and prosperity of diverse individuals in their own estimation, yet be in such a relation to individuals that it jeopardizes their sovereignty regularly by its laws and institutions, it must be acknowledged that the state does not provide maintenance for the well being for those individuals in whose estimation well being and prosperity are not met.
For this reason, what I propose is that those individuals whose estimation of well being and prosperity are satisfied by the state remain loyal to its apparati, and those dissatisfied be relinquished from relations of all mutual responsibility to the state.
To be understood, what I am after here is not to proclaim that being a man alone would be better than life in any state. In fact, I think it could be highly foolish (although there are circumstances where certain individuals or groups might be able to make such a situation work), but because what I desire is for a clear relationship between individuals and the state to be drawn in relation to personal sovereignty.
To clarify some things:
As for the direct relation to this and the arms race, of course those who have relinquished mutual responsibility with a state would be free of state obligations to bear and develop arms (which is not to say an “outside” state would not stop this behaviour, but again the purpose I am after here is the deliniation of clear relationships) and as far as my concerns for life within a state, the discussion of education covers this — and to be clear it is also my belief that an education system of the kind I described would make it abundantly clear what an individual’s relation to the state is.
Also, when I said
what I meany by the government being the citizens themselves I meant this, personal sovereignty, and I wanted to know if you meant that government “must not” be thought of in this way, as in couldn’t or shouldn’t be.
And finally, it is my belief that if a society, even the ones we find today, was to be developed under these ideas of personal sovereignty and education, all of the relations of the society would gradually change, for one because people would begin to think of themselves in relation to their own actions and outside influences differently (in terms of their personal responsibilities and self-determination), and for the reason given above about education, because education is primary for the development and spread of human knowledge and culture (which would include social instutitions and effective actions).
Yeah, conspiracy theories are the result of going too far in the direction of filling in gaps with ideology I think. I dont know if there's a rule to answer that situation of if it's just a matter of degree. I think one difference between intelligence agencies and matters of normal history is that with history, saying 'you don't know' really means 'you don't know yet' a lot of the time, and applying ideology to it is something that's easier to tell when you should and shouldn't; if a person is reading history in the light of Marxism and they want to focus on economic history then that's not even so much a matter of gaps as interpretation. But with intelligence agencies, since [i]when working properly[/i] we don't know what they are doing, reading ideology into what we don't know seems less...rational somehow. It's hard to put into words what I'm thinking here but it's something along the lines of, since them being secretive is them working as intended, I am more likely to give the benefit of the doubt or just let it remain a mystery. A matter of history which is unresolved simply because not enough documentation survived is quite a bit different to me.
In other words, when people say “Isn’t it mysterious that we don’t know what happened here” with regards to the FBI or the CIA and are inspired to suspect their motives, my instinct is to think “This isn’t mysterious at all, an intelligence agency hiding their motives isn’t something to provoke speculation, it’s business as usual,” and so my instinct is to defend them.
I agree with all this so far. I would add a negative clarification to the above if it were me, stressing that the Government ought not enact functions that the people are capable of performing alone. It is not just a good thing that the State provides the above, it is a bad thing if they try to provide more; assuming of course that everything they provide is charged in taxes or otherwise comes from the wealth of the people.
Yep, so far I think we’re both just echoing Locke here.
I don’t disagree with anything in that paragraph. I also don’t see anything in there that leads me to think that education falls into the “People can’t provide it for themselves” category.
I don’t have a problem with natural aristocracy either, as I see it as inevitable in any government system. I suppose would have a problem with a government system that fails to take it into account adequately.
I skipped a bit here because I was tired of just saying “Yes I agree,” and I wanted to say more about personal sovereignty.
So, I agree with you that the power of a person’s vote and their ability to make decisions about their lives is reduced the less they know about the State that governs them. Yes, having intelligence agencies diminishes personal sovereignty. But I’m seeing that as a tradeoff for security and collective power. To my way of thinking, all systems are a series of trade off’s- you give up something to get something, and if you sacifice military intelligence secrecy to give people back some personal sovereignty, you’re paying a price for it. As you said, you aren’t looking for a utopia, so there is no ideal state from which the present state is a deviation. There’s merely a question of what do we value, and when will we pay the price of something we value to get something else we value. There’s also a measure of real politik here too; a state that doesn’t have intelligence secrecy has a massive disadvantage on the world stage vs. one that does, period. So while it’s true that through military secrecy we are giving up personal sovereignty in exchange for collective power (something a libertarian or conservative should frown on), ultimately if you don’t have enough collective power you lose your personal sovereignty anyway at the hands of invaders who may value your personal sovereignty much less than the degree you were willing to compromise it. So you have a ‘giving up some personal sovereignty ultimately to preserve it’ thing going on here which makes it a more appealing trade, at least to a point.
Yep, this all sounds right to me. And I think the equation runs both ways as well- as people are freed from the responsibility of their actions, they lose personal sovereignty as well. If a person doesn’t suffer consequences for their mistakes, that is a form of reducing the information they need to make good decisions, and thus reducing their sovereignty as well.
That sounds good, but what do you do with such people? They can say they are relinquished from all relations of mutual responsibility (taxation, military service) but if they are still benefiting from defended borders and using infrastructure as is going to be the case anywhere in the first world, that severing didn't really occur. The only real way to effect that break in relationship is deportation, and then of course the question becomes[i] to where[/i]? A modern state can't sustain within it's borders a population that isn't using the infrastructure, isn't protected by it's laws, doesn't pay taxes, and so on. Or at the very least, can't sustain it without causing massive problems to the rest. The best example I can think of would be gypsies, who seem to be a plague on everybody they settle near from what I've heard.