Killing Osama bin Laden versus increasing Polio victims

[Craig234]

Sometimes intelligence operations compromise other, good groups for what they want.

An example of this is when they penetrate a group like the Peace Corps or other humanitarian group given access.

They get what they want; but if they're caught, or even suspected, it can cause harm. This is why groups like the Peace Corps are vigilant against such penetration.

Now it's come out that in the effort to kill bin Laden, a phony Polio vaccine project was set up to gain access to the household and collect DNA samples from the people there.

However, humanitarian groups are saying that this has increased distrust of legitimate Polio vaccinaters and other aid workers, increasing cases of Polio and vioence against workers.

Politically, the benefits of killing bin Laden far exceed the harm to the other programs. Morally, it's more questionable.

Pakistan reportedly has the highest rate of Polio - eradicated in the US - in the world.

There was a lot of anger over the government's efforts to trace guns in Mexican drug cartels by delivering marked guns. How about for this program?

It's not just a question of weighing how many polio cases, how many killed aid workers, how muc hard is justified.

It's also a question about how much effort the security groups put into coming up with a plan with less harm, versus being one-track and not caring about the issue.

Aid workers and the victims they serve have enough problems - they're already unarmed and in danger needing to be trusted by suspicious groups.

Caution and restraint about making things harder for them should be used.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/02-3

 

[cubby1223]

If Pakistan doesn't want our help healing their diseases, then I say we don't give them help. Problem solved.

I mean, if you want to blame the United States for Pakistan people killing aid workers, my feeling is your blame is misplaced.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At some point people need to assume responsibility for themselves. If a people will kill for the incorrect but well intentioned disposal of a book and harm health workers for this excuse perhaps it's the killers themselves who deserve blame. The world cannot perpetually walk on eggshells.

 

[Jaskalas]

Terrorists won't get polio vaccines? The horror!

 

[Kadarin]

Personally, I really don't care if Pakistanis get polio. Let them. In my opinion it's a worthless country and religion anyway.

 

[nonlnear]

It's well and good to say that intelligence agencies infiltrating humanitarian missions to gain access compromises humanitarian efforts, but there is nothing anyone can do to make the intelligence community give a crap. They will always use every avenue available to them, and pretending that a certain channel of access is free from intelligence operations would only make that channel of higher value ot intelligence operations. It's not even like it would be possible to set up a firm legal barrier like the CIA ostensibly has with respect to domestic operations because nobody can ever write a bulletproof definition of what is and is not a humanitarian mission.

 

[Craig234]

I considered including an anti-asshole provision in the OP to not post to people who wanted to say anything about not caring about people getting polio.

I decided not to and see it was useful to have done.

So far I have ignore, ignore, asshole, asshole posting - good thing nonlnear posted next.

To Jaskalas' 'post', yes, those children getting polio are terrorists. You're scum again.

To nonlnear's point, that's why there are political authorities above the security agencies, to put limits in place. It can be done.

But as I said, politically, it's all too easy to take the benefit of just getting bin Laden.

There ARE things that can be done to limit what they do.

Take a look at Operation Northwoods - the JCS thought it'd be just fine to launch attacks on Americans and blame Castro; McNamara killed it.

The recent attack on an Israeli diplomat looks like it might well have been a false flag operation by Israel intended not to seriously injure the diplomat.

What if Mossad had wanted to kill an Israeli diplomat and blame Iran? There are authorities above them to say 'no'. But compromising anti-polio efforts? No problem.

 

[nonlnear]

I wish I could believe, as you do, that it is possible in this universe for Congress to keep a leash on intelligence operations. They are already scouring the internet for anyone who might have anti-American sentiments, or oppose the government's views on proposed policy.

The thing is data rich governance is no longer confined to intelligence operations. The cat is too far out of the bag. All those IBM ads about building a smarter planet (and the hundreds of similar contractors hawking similar wares to every department of every government in existence) are selling [what was, as little as 10 years ago] cutting edge spy technology.

The "spy boots on the ground" function is now a pretty small - albeit vital - part of what intelligence operations are composed of. It's about collecting massive amounts of data, and processing it quickly and efficiently. It won't be long before infiltrating a vaccination mission to collect DNA samples won't require sending an operative undercover, but will just require a quick undetected hack of a humanitarian database. Don't for a second think that there aren't medical data systems vendors licking their chops at the prospect of cataloging the DNA of everyone who has an interaction with, say, any international aid agency. There are enough legitimate humanitarian uses for that data that such a proposal won't even be questioned in twenty years, maybe less.

Don't for a second think that there is any government or international agency which maintains a large database that is capable of securing it from intelligence agencies. Even if Congress wanted to prevent such intrusions by intelligence operations, it couldn't. In order for any intelligence agency to be worth existing it must retain enough talent and capability to hack any other agency, period. That's the game. The only question is whether intelligence agencies can maintain a pervasive culture of ethical compliance with the law. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think Craig should put everyone on ignore so his move into Plato's Cave is complete. 😀

 

[Jaskalas]

To Jaskalas' 'post', yes, those children getting polio are terrorists. You're scum again.

What children? You take my comment and ignore you own context in your own post. What is it that we did exactly?

Now it's come out that in the effort to kill bin Laden, a phony Polio vaccine project was set up to gain access to the household and collect DNA samples from the people there.

We infiltrated Osama Bin Laden's safe house. You scream children, I see terrorists. Now let's look at the consequences.

Aid workers and the victims they serve have enough problems - they're already unarmed and in danger needing to be trusted by suspicious groups.

Terrorist groups are now more 'distrusting' of aid workers. Too bad! The terrorists should be KILLED regardless. They put their own families at risk by proximity and to resolve that problem all they'd have to do is surrender their violence or separate themselves from their family.

THEY are the ones responsible for their own safety, not us. They choose the collateral. Having children is no excuse to play 'nice' with these folks. They do not get a pass from us killing them because they screw their enslaved women.

That you even try to spin this against us is the treason of the Left.

 

[cybrsage]

The recent attack on an Israeli diplomat looks like it might well have been a false flag operation by Israel intended not to seriously injure the diplomat.

What if Mossad had wanted to kill an Israeli diplomat and blame Iran? There are authorities above them to say 'no'. But compromising anti-polio efforts? No problem.

Israel does not need to attack its own people to garner support from its own people to attack Iran. Iran's own statements are enough.

Israel also does not care what the rest of the world thinks about its actions - so no need to attack its own people there.

 

[cubby1223]

I considered including an anti-asshole provision in the OP to not post to people who wanted to say anything about not caring about people getting polio.

In other words, you are only interested in reading opinions of people who already agree with your perspective. Everyone else is an asshole.

 

[Fern]

Most of us realize that in life most things require some sort of trade-off. There's the 'ying and yang'. The upside and the downside.

So, in confirming it was actually UBL they added one tiny lone example to the irrationality of Pakistani's as regards NGO health services.

Well, for one thing UBL is dead and gone, no need to fear any more shens from that. For another, the Pakistani's already believed that free medicine programs were nothing but a ploy by the West to sterilize them. Hard to see how that one UBL example can make them any more loony than they already were.

Somewhere in all this seems to me it needs to mentioned that this info about the CIA's methods etc should have never been leaked in the first place. IMO, the leakers carry as much blame as the CIA.

Fern

 

[nonlnear]

Fern,

What makes you think the "leak" was accidental? Is it hard to imagine there are powers within the MIC that are only too happy to give countries like Iran one more reason to be suspicious of western and international agencies?

 

[Fern]

Fern,

What makes you think the "leak" was accidental? Is it hard to imagine there are powers within the MIC that are only too happy to give countries like Iran one more reason to be suspicious of western and international agencies?

I don't know that I said it was accidental.

Seems to me far too much info about the UBL operations has been leaked for it all to be accidental.

Does "MIC" mean military industrial complex? I take it those are US contractors and companies building our weapons and such. If so, I don't know why they should have the info in the 1st place.

Fern

 

[nonlnear]

I don't know that I said it was accidental.

Seems to me far too much info about the UBL operations has been leaked for it all to be accidental.

Does "MIC" mean military industrial complex? I take it those are US contractors and companies building our weapons and such. If so, I don't know why they should have the info in the 1st place.

Fern

When I use MIC, it includes military as a noun, not as an adjective modifying "Industrial". It's the Military + Industrial Complex. The M part has the info.

 

[Craig234]

Great, now we have Fern, the forum's biggest apologist, apologizing for this.

Jaskalas, we set up a phony Polio treatment program in the community.

We didn't just go to that compound. This created problems for the aid workers and larger Polio efforts, wich is why they are requesting the CIA not do that.

There's no indication you read my link or other info on the agencies' issue and impact.

This isn't about 'terrorists'.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Since the people gathering human intel really can't be expected to hand out cards identifying themselves as spies, they will always assume the identity of a more benign occupation.

It is of course best to keep it secret. If they tried to (and I would guess that did; why give up the asset), I see little to fault.

 

[Screech]

If we have to chose between having suspicion that an aide worker might be working to fight terrorists vs having osama bin laden dead, that isn't a very difficult choice.

Besides, if the idea that fighting terrorists is 'bad' (which is something that someone who would find themselves fighting 'aide workers' on the basis of possible anti-terrorist activity would necessarily be supporting) is a commonly held belief in some region of the world, why bother giving them aide?

 

[Craig234]

Since the people gathering human intel really can't be expected to hand out cards identifying themselves as spies, they will always assume the identity of a more benign occupation.

It is of course best to keep it secret. If they tried to (and I would guess that did; why give up the asset), I see little to fault.

They did other professions; for example, they had a real estate agent pretending to have someone interested in the property visit.

There's not the same outcry about that.

It's a bit like, say, when the police in a situation with children taken hostage have undercover police pretend to be medical workers.

If they do that, it might help in a situation - but then make it a lot harder to get medical care for hostages in future situations, so they might have a policy not to do that.

It's also a bit like, say, abusing the 'white flag' on a battlefield. Hey, great chance to trick the enemy and kill them when they come to negotiate.

Oh wait, now the white flag doesn't work anymore.

Not really worth the tradeoff.

Being unable to get the Peace Corps, doctors, and other such humanitarian groups into help, having them be at much increased risk for detention, interrogiation, possibly torture in case they're agents, is a price they don't care to pay so that intelligence agencies can get a mission done more easily. It takes a long time to get trust built up.

Right now, the Red Cross is trying to negotiate a brief cease fire period of access daily in Syria to extract and help the wounded.

How much more difficult is that if Syria thinks the Red Cross will be operatives providing aid to the rebels, collecting intelligence for the west to plan an attack on Assad?

So, it's ok for the Red Cross to be denied access in Syria and elsewhere because it was convenient to use them as cover in some operation somewhere?

 

[davmat787]

Craig, why don't I save myself the time of writing my reply, and you just call me an asshole like anyone else who disagrees with you?

 

[Craig234]

If we have to chose between having suspicion that an aide worker might be working to fight terrorists vs having osama bin laden dead, that isn't a very difficult choice.

Yes, it is. Efforts to fight Polio are harmed by this, both Polio victims and workers.

You discount any feelings the people have against Western *security agencies*. You're wrong.

The people there don't like Western security agencies. That doesn't mean the efforts to fight Polio there aren't good to do.

There are a lot of legitimate Muslim charities. But some terrorists raised funds by posing as Muslim charities. That was discovered and publicized. I haven't checked the numbers, but I've little doubt it's crippled the fundraising by the legitimate charities, because people don't want to take a chance donating to a front group. That hurts people.

The people there interact with the western security agencies usually as 'collateral damage', with things like drones flying over killing civilians.

If we had Pakistan flying drones over the US killing civilians regularly, there might be some resentment against our 'ally' doing that. Guess that'd make the American people terrorists.

Besides, if the idea that fighting terrorists is 'bad' (which is something that someone who would find themselves fighting 'aide workers' on the basis of possible anti-terrorist activity would necessarily be supporting) is a commonly held belief in some region of the world, why bother giving them aide?

This isn't even about aid, though some cases are, like the Red Cross I mentioned earlier.

This is about Pakistan's efforts to fight Polio. A Pakistani doctor was co-opted for this.

It's a very immoral, immature position to take that 'if you don't embrace the US security agencies killing civilians with drones, you don't deserve Polio efforts'.

We're dealing with pretty uneduecated people a lot - in the *US* we have a lot of people who have thought that Fluoride in water was a mind-control plot, who don't want to vaccinate their children thinking there's some harmful government conspiracy behind it - the suspicions run a lot higher in a place like Pakistan.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, why don't I save myself the time of writing my reply, and you just call me an asshole like anyone else who disagrees with you?

You're an idiot, not an asshole (so far). I won't say a liar without intent, but you lie.

I do not call 'everyone disagreeing' an asshole, despite your trying to play the victim.

The word asshole is for the people who have said it's fine with them however many people get Polio there, because they don't care about those people.

Not for 'disagreeing'.

I find that 'asshole' is one suitable word for such posters - who quickly rush to 'kill all those people' in situation after situation. Middle east is easy - nuke it.

There are always such 'assholes'. When anti-slavery people said slavery was wrong, these assholes said 'who cares'. When people said we were supporting Apartheid, terrorism, torture, murder by regimes such as South Africa or Latin American dictatorships and others, they said 'who cares, I'm glad'.

Even these assholes usually seem to have some limits. If we talk about the Tuskagee progject - infecting blacks with Syphilis by the US health department claiming they were giving the men free healthcare - I don't see many people who defend that. But if they were consistent, they'd say 'who cares?'

I'm using the word very specifically and appropriately, not how you dishonestly claim.

Not the first time you have misrepresented my posts. You do it consistently.

Edit: I'll add that I very much dislike using a word like 'asshole'. But I think, as I said, it's appropriate for the extreme immoral views I mentioned.

I think I use it *very* sparingly - I'd guess less than one in a thousand posts. I checked and only used it for a poster one other time in at least the last several months.

There was a thread where a poster in Pakistan condemned terrorism by the US - drones killing civilians - and a posted responded saying he had 'killed a lot of your kind for shits and giggles'.

I said that poster came across like an asshole - see a pattern yet, people who defend and advocate horribly immoral behavior, in that case claiming they have done it?

 

[Lanyap]

So let me get this straight, the CIA sends one doctor into one town to start a hepatitis B, not polio, vaccine project several weeks before they take bin Laden down and it increases polio victims in Pakistan?

Sounds like a lot of people are blowing this way out of proportion and without facts for their own political purposes. They are causing more of a possible increase in polio than the original CIA operation. The article linked below is the only one I found with details and they don't even prove the vaccine was fake. They say it is but they don't provide any evidence to back it up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna

OP's CD article seems to be a progressive feel good article about how bad the CIA and USA are.

Oh look, someone has already infected wiki.

The situation in Pakistan is complex. The lowest number of cases reported in one year was 32 in 2007. In the first six months of 2011 there were 69 cases (compared with 37 in the same period in 2010). The remaining focuses lie in three parts of Pakistan: Balochistan Province, Karachi and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.[51] About 25% of children in Karachi are unvaccinated against polio; in Balochistan ~50% are unvaccinated. In contrast in Afghanistan the unvaccinated rate is ~10%. The difficulty in Pakistan appears to be a lack of trust in the health workers trying to vaccinate the children, fueled partly by the CIA using fake vaccination campaigns as a cover to gather DNA samples from Osama Bin Laden's relatives[52].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication#cite_note-51

 

[Craig234]

So let me get this straight, the CIA sends one doctor into one town to start a hepatitis B, not polio, vaccine project several weeks before they take bin Laden down and it increases polio victims in Pakistan?

Sounds like a lot of people are blowing this way out of proportion and without facts for their own political purposes. They are causing more of a possible increase in polio than the original CIA operation. The article linked below is the only one I found with details and they don't even prove the vaccine was fake. They say it is but they don't provide any evidence to back it up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna

OP's CD article seems to be a progressive feel good article about how bad the CIA and USA are.

Oh look, someone has already infected wiki.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication#cite_note-51

One doctor *set up* the phony program. It's not about the vaccination being real or fake, it's about the distrust for any such program this creates among the people.

Note the point of my post: saying that there should be strong control against the use of programs like this, weighing the impact against the benefit.

*If* it came out that the situation were misrepresented and the CIA had not done what's said - that'd be good news. My point would remain the same, but that the policy I'm recommending was followed. In that case, there would be an issue with the spreading of false rumors harming these programs, and the truth should be well publicized.

But that seems unlikely to be the case. It appears largely confirmed that the CIA did use the doctor to set up a phony program, which causes distrust of other programs.

You misrepresent the article quite badly and dishonestly.

It's criticizing an action done by the US, and you try to spin that as some kind of 'unfair attack on the US overall', like it's a lie designed to wrong the US. Wrong.

By posting that false attack on the article and its reporting of this, you are supporting the action and defending the undermining of humanitarian organizations.

Not only that, you are attacking journalism itself, implying that any criticism of any action by the US, no matter how wrong and how accurate, is 'anti-US'.

With your mentality, nothing the US does can be criticized - making addressing wrongs and making the US better, preventing harm, impossible.

You would fit in quite well in the old days of Pravda, where any criticism of the state would be 'unpatriotic' and censored.