At ex-CIA panelist's insistence, Oxford Union reneges on promise to upload video of whistleblowing debate

boing
21

They are not obliged to post anything on youtube for me, her or you. They can if they want. Their gaff, their rules.
‘I read the transcript. I’m not familiar with every episode described, but the ones Im familiar with are all true, and the rest certainly seem in keeping with the way the CIA has behaved for the last 65 years. Is there anything specific she said that you think is factually untrue? Calling somebody pointing out the truth an “attack” is doublespeak at its finest.’

It was irrelevant to the topic, for the third bleeding time. And factually incorrect. The mafia is a criminal organisation. The CIA is an intelligence agency which does commit crimes in foreign countries and is permitted to do so by law. You might not like it. You might disagree with its actions, with the policy directing the action or the law which empowers it do that. Fine, whatevs - I might agree with many of your views.
But if you go to a discussion about whistle-blowing, stick to the topic. Launching vulgar abuse at a fellow panel member is a loser’s trip. Being true is not the issue.
And yes, calling a legal entity the mafia is an attack. Sayoing the CIA ‘are torturers’ is an attack.
You need a dictionary, mate, Truth or otherwise is irrelevant to ‘attack’ - it might qualify the attack as ‘factual’ but it is still an attack.
When she gets invited to an OU panel on the behavior of intelligence agencies, then her comments would be germane. Not in this context.
BTW, having read the transcript, why do you think she censored the replies to her rant?

22

Yup. You could say exactly the same thing about ISIS, and it would be just as true.

I would say that attitude of papering over atrocities with a veneer of civility is part of what allows them to continue. Personally, I think being true is fundamental to this, or any issue. Saying it isn’t is a self-serving argument that your favored sides lies should go unchallenged.

They have certainly worked together with drug cartels and organized crime, including spying on the DEA in Washington, and turning over information on informants to their pet cartels, to said informants can be tortured to death. This is a matter of semantics, but at least arguably true.

This is a simple statement of fact. Saying that it should not be brought up in any discussion relating to the CIA is nothing more than supporting their lies.

I don’t know. She’s the one asking for the entire video to be published. If the company man in question wants his rebuttals to be part of the record, that would be very easy for him to accomplish.

3 Likes
23

I imagine Mr Shedd’s letter went something like this:
Dear xxx,
Thank you very much for inviting on the panel to discuss whistle-blowing. I enjoyed almost all of my time. I realise that camera were running in the room and that I consented to this being published on YouTube but I would politely request that in this instance the video not be uploaded.
This is because one of the panelists rather de-railed the discussion. I am well aware that my organisation is controversial: many people hold strong views about us, and they are fully entitled to hold their opinions.
However, I was not there to defend the Central Intelligence Agency against a rather intemperate attack on our historical record but purely to take part in a discussion on whistle-blowing.
I fully expected our own system to be questioned and was well prepared to defend a system - which while not perfect - is an honest attempt to ensure that the way we work (which f necessity is often veiled in secrecy) can be challenged by fellow employees.
I do feel that the discussion veered rather off-topic as one panelist’s very strong views over-rode her ability to engage in polite discourse. Whatever the truth or otherwise of her accusations, that was not the point of the event.
Yours sincerely
etc

And the reply:
Dear David,
Thank you for appearing- we enjoyed your contribution. We’re sorry that you feel this way. Obviously we can’t stop her publishing her own account but in this instance we tend to agree that the video would not show the Union in a good light.
Best regards
etc

Ha! Read my question and have a stab at answering it. Go on, you know you’re dying to.

Did you actually read my post? The point is not the truth or otherwise. An attack is an attack is an attack.

24

Debates are typically a series of attacks and counter attacks, that is the nature of an adversarial argument.

The nature of an organization is entirely relevant to how it deals with it’s members when they step out of line. An organization who’s operations are often of an inherently illegal nature, who’s actions have global repercussions is placed in jeopardy whenever someone threatens not to tow the line.

3 Likes
25

I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Debates are a series of arguments and counterarguments, not attacks at all.

1 Like
27

They have certainly worked together with drug cartels and organized crime, including spying on the DEA in Washington, and turning over information on informants to their pet cartels, to said informants can be tortured to death. This is a matter of semantics, but at least arguably true.

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

The CIA is an organ of the United States government, with all the moral baggage that implies. Despite what you may have seen in the Jason Bourne movies, they are first and foremost an Intelligence agency. Their primary business is to learn the secrets of our adversaries; and as all countries have laws protecting state secretes this job requires them to break the laws of other nations.

I for one see nothing wrong with this. In a representative democracy we elect leaders to make decisions that can affect the lives of millions. It is essential that those decisions be made in light of the best possible information.

Unfortunately the temptation has often been for those same leaders to try and use the skills and resources necessary for this important job to other purposes. For decades American presidents have fallen into the James Bond myth of the secret agent as a kind of jet setting international commando, rather than a particularly ruthless sort of investigative journalist with a very selective readership.

The historical record will show that in the course of waging secret wars at the behest of of thirteen presidents they did things that, as agents of a democracy, they had no business doing, things that have left a stain on our country’s reputation.

Nevertheless, that is not all that the record will show.

They have aided those resisting Soviet imperialism in Europe, and those who collaborated with US imperialism in Latin America. The funded the Socialist party in France, and helped to murder members of the Socialist party in Chile. They likely saved democracy in Italy, and destroyed in in Iran. They bloodied their hands in south east Asia, even while their spy planes gathered intelligence that helped to avert a nuclear war. And they have protected Americans form the scourge of international terrorism, while they reduced themselves to brutal methods little better than those of our enemies.

But they did these things because they were ordered to do them by the men chosen by the American people to make those decisions. To single out the CIA and call them criminals ignores that they are acting on behalf of the constitutionally elected commanders-in-chief, and ultimately those that elected them. Sure they’re sons of bitches, but they are our sons of bitches.

It would be tempting to believe that the evil done by our government is the work of some secret cabal undermining the will of the people, but it isn’t. It’s is the work of civil servants who respond to the demands of a public who wan’t absolute security, and don’t care to know the ugly details of how it is provided.

28

It’s not a “secret cabal” – it’s the fucking ultra rich people, Jesus.

I agree that they have done some things that most decent people would support, along with lots of things decent people wouldn’t.

Where my mind goes, is to wonder how much better the world would be, without all of the avoidable horrible acts. Versus taking the “gotta break some eggs when making a cake” perspective. And yes, that can absolutely be true to an extent, but responsibility also needs to be taken, and policies need to be changed, when it comes to the awful, horrible aspects of the agency.

As you said, the ultimate responsibility comes down to the will of the people.

3 Likes
29

This seems like a good spot for my favourite Truman quote:

Excerpt from Limit CIA Role To Intelligence by Harry S Truman

image

3 Likes
30

And some Stockwell:

image

2 Likes
31

Another thing of relevance:

And this:

Recently updated by this:

…which was recently exploited by the CIA in their campaign in defence of Gina Haspel.

The CIA actively interferes in domestic politics, with the aim of subverting their own (minimal) supervision. They have been a policy-making rogue agency since the days of Truman.

3 Likes
32

These things are mostly public record these days.

https://twitter.com/ourhiddenhistry/status/1003132628231446528?s=21

That’s from this committee:

Remember the spying on the torture investigation? It was only a few years ago. This stuff ain’t just history.

2 Likes
33

I have spoken in OUS floor debates on many occasions back in the 1980s and never signed any form of copyright release. It was understood then that every debate was recorded, there are microphones prominently placed on the dispatch boxes. But none of those debates was published at the time. There is an archive no doubt but the Web did not exist when the recordings were made.

This panel appears to have been on the same terms. There was no guarantee of publication. There was however a right for each panelist to veto publication. Seems pretty clear to me.

1 Like
34

Well Truman was wrong about Dulles. A corrupt shit of the first water as Eisenhower found out.

1 Like
35

Here is a book by a DEA agent involved in this:

Franky, if you were familiar with the public information about the Iran-Contra scandal, this wouldn’t surprise you at all. The fact that the American public is ignorant of what happened there is testament to the competence of our propaganda machine.

If that were true, I wouldn’t have a problem with them either, but it has not been the case since they orchestrated the coup in Iran in 1953. They have staged a lot of coups since then, never with any kind of permission from congress. After they started down that path with the Iran coup (which was explicitly about oil), Truman, the president who established the organization, had this to say about it:

“Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they’ll have something to report on. They’ve become … it’s become a government all of its own and all secret. They don’t have to account to anybody.”

and plenty more:

1 Like
36

Here’s a fun bit of trivia re: DEA & CIA.

1 Like
37

Well, in fact, her assertions about what she agreed to and why are what is relevant.

She states that she agreed as a result of the representation made to her by the Union that there would be significant media coverage of the event and that the level of media coverage would be hers to decide.

They specifically stated that the event could be recorded for broadcast on Youtube and in fact, it was so recorded.

Apparently, all concerned signed a waiver to confirm they were happy with that. That would obviously include Mr Shedd.

Even if he did not agree or if, as seems likely, the offer of media coverage at the level the speaker desires was made to all the panellists - that just means that the Union made representations it might not be able to fulfill.

Did you read her transcript? What she said was hardly “off on a complete tangent”. It was all explicitly linked to the topic of the panel.

Yes, the transcript is online - put there by Heather Marsh.

The comments from Mr Shedd are fairly obviously removed and summarised given his insistence that he does not want his comments and involvement in the panel published.

No, it doesn’t. See above.

There seems to be no question that the Union is entitled to publish the video if it chooses to. At least the Union does not appear to have argued that it is prevented from doing so. If it were able to make that argument, you would expect it do so since “We can’t publish for legal reasons” makes a far better PR response than “We don’t have to and we’re not going to, so there.”

1 Like
38

Having spoken many times at similar events, it is my understanding that when I am told that the decision to publish lies with the panelists, that it lies with all of the panelists and that any one of them can exercise a veto.

Each of the panelists has a copyright interest in the material. They were each assured that they would be consulted before publication occurred.

In this particular case, verbal statements are irrelevant as a copyright interest cannot be waved by a verbal statement under US copyright law (which would apply to YouTube publication). The same is likely true of UK law and for the same reason and under the same treaty but it is the US law that I have personal experience with.

39

That may be your understanding but it is not what the Union’s invitation says. That clearly says that the decision will be entirely Ms Marsh’s.

I personally think her argument is on a hiding to nothing because it’s doubtful whether there was any sort of contractual arrangement between her and the Union but that’s another matter.

Which verbal statement? There are allegedly signed documents.

And whose copyright are you trying to assert? The speakers don’t have copyright over the Union’s recording and they are not entitled to object to the Union recording the debate.

40

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.