We haven't apologized, we haven't made restitution, and we sure as heck haven't prosecuted the guilty (as required by the convention against torture). I'm struggling to see any saving grace.
Kiriakou was charged with using numerous forms of classified information about foreign intelligence operations in order to promote a book, and, in doing so, outing a still-undercover foreign operative involved in the Zubaydah case. That operative had allegedly been under cover for over 20 years.
If you read the filings, you'll also see that Kiriakou claims to have outed the program accidentally --- in other words, that the leak didn't occur because he was deliberately blowing the whistle on the program, but instead by accident (or, as the USG would have it, negligence).
However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network.
The case files are not themselves dispositive; I merely comment to suggest that it's harder to judge the Kiriakou case than it immediately seems.
I share the prevailing sentiment that our failure to prosecute CIA employees at all levels for torture is frustrating, and a miscarriage of justice. Though I'm not particularly interested in discussing that on HN.
Is that supposed to be a rationalization for his treatment?
You could sum that case up by saying that Kiriakou is accused of two major harms to the USG: first, outing a 20-year undercover operative, and second, potentially compromising the Zubaydah case. It would be an easy message board rebuttal to say, "well, it turns out Zubaydah was a pawn with virtually no value to the USG or Al Qaeda, so compromising him was not a big deal". But, at the time when Kiriakou was alleged to have leaked secrets to promote his book, nobody believed that about Zubaydah. He was instead believed to have a key operational role in Al Qaeda, and compromising him to promote a book would have been a grave matter.
It is hard to explain the nuance of this case without sounding like I'm taking a side in it. CIA is also accused throughout the Senate report of leaking secrets to polish its own reputation. The only issue I'd have a problem with is the idea that Kiriakou's actions were heroic. By his own stipulations that appears not to be the case.
I'll say this again: I'm may be more ambivalent than most of HN when it comes to surveillance and law enforcement and regulation, but I am not ambivalent about torture or, for that matter, the CIA, or criminal liability for the CIA.
I should have to make that disclaimer, but obviously I do.
"However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network."
which seems totally unrelated to anything you have posted above, which was what make it stand out in the first place.
I cannot see any other way of interpreting it than the way I mentioned in my previous post, could you clarify what you meant by this since I am obviously not getting your meaning?
If the report leads to no action, where is the good in releasing it?
Real risk for real people has been created. It's not theoretical. Actual innocent people have been placed in danger.
If there's no good coming from the report, was it worth placing those people in danger?
You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future.
> You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future.
Actually, you can. It's one of the main categories of normative ethics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_eth...
"Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result", this particular category includes one of the most famous theories of ethics, utilitarianism.
Your problem with it is valid, however. As far as I've understood from my study of the subject matter, no ethical theory is perfect, not even utilitarianism.
Check out the wiki page for the other categories. Personally I like virtue ethics, keeps me on my toes and critical. I wouldn't recommend it though, I'd prefer if the rest of the world was utilitarian :-P cough
Risk of what?
> Actual innocent people have been placed in danger.
Who?
I'm not attempting to argue the point. I haven't read the report. It just seems a strong statement to make that innocent bystanders (with no connection to torture) have been put at risk (of what?).
I'm curious how legitimate this claim is since to be honest it reads a bit like FUD (that's just how it comes off; but I'm just looking for a rationale).
People working for the US government overseas. Or just Americans. Or even just westerners in general.
Security is heightened, units are on alert worldwide. The risk is real and serious.
Remember, radical elements killed people over a silly video on youtube. This is much more inflammatory.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mcc...
Incentives for information: 1.) Extract information. 2.) The information should be useful.
Incentives for intimidation: 1.) Information extraction is of no concern. 2.) The torture should be so shocking, and awesome, that George Carlin style many extra syllables need to be added to the word "tor-ture" like when Diane Feinstein says the supersized Orwellian phrase that "tor-ture" has become. 3.) The details of the torture should be made public.
Doesn't seem shocking these days. Can't prosecute the good ol boys club.
[0] - http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/doj-stan...