|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2004 08:20:14 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
I think CIA officers are sworn to an oath to uphold and defend (and perhaps even obey) the laws and Constitution of the USA. They are also paid for there work. Their activities are of necessity constricted by that.
Your camera club, as a voluntary organization of private citizens, has greater freedom to use your talents and resources. For example, you as a private organization could raise and deliver aid for civilian war victims. The CIA as an organization (and its agents) are probably prohibited from such activities -- it is outside their mission and job description.
Ethics is a mighty tricky subject to discuss in a forum like this ... but I think it's obvious that some situations do not allow a black-or-white solution. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:31:04 PM · #77 |
The UPI article that I refered to said that the CIA was in full knowledge of, as well as, supporting Sadaam Hussein in his bid to assassinate the then Iraqi president Qasim:
"Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account."
More about the early relationship between the CIA and Hussein:
"While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said."
More: "But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said."
But again, we're both splitting hairs here. The most damning recent CIA support of Sadaam when they already knew what kind of madman he was:
"The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group."
When active CIA members, being paid by the CIA, are supporting a thug and cutthroat, you can be sure the higher ups in the organization are going to know about it also, because there has to be an outlay of money...and big money to do these kinds of jobs. I hope you're not going to be splitting hairs again about this. As far as I'm concerned he was supported by the CIA.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
|
The BBC article does provide an overview of Saddam's rise to power.
The article you link to doesn't disagree with the BBC article. By the time the U.S. supported SADDAM ( not the Ba'ath Party, MUCH earlier ) he has already risen to power.
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:10:31 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
I think CIA officers are sworn to an oath to uphold and defend (and perhaps even obey) the laws and Constitution of the USA. They are also paid for there work. Their activities are of necessity constricted by that.
Your camera club, as a voluntary organization of private citizens, has greater freedom to use your talents and resources. For example, you as a private organization could raise and deliver aid for civilian war victims. The CIA as an organization (and its agents) are probably prohibited from such activities -- it is outside their mission and job description.
Ethics is a mighty tricky subject to discuss in a forum like this ... but I think it's obvious that some situations do not allow a black-or-white solution. |
Every situation allows for an ethical solution. The problem is that the ethical solution may lead to repurcussions that are not desirable. As in, when my wife asks "Does this dress make me look too fat?". The ethical response might not lead to a desirable result. But, that doesn't change the fact of whether my response is ethical or not. Restrictions and/or permissions may dictate actions, but they cannot dictate ethics.
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:22:38 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by RonB:
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
Tell that to Oliver North. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:49:41 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
Tell that to Oliver North. |
Sorry, I can't. I don't know him. Do you?
But I will say this: Let him who has never done anything un-ethical, cast the first aspersion.
Ron
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:51:12 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:51:12 AM EDT.
|
