[lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way? (and otherresponses)

[Jerry Monaco]

On 6/19/06, Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: "Jerry Monaco" <monacojerry at gmail.com>
> > Perhaps, one does not have to be a psychopath in
> >order to undermine democracy, employ people to murder peasants,
> >priests and nuns, etc.  I really don't care much about the
> >psychological state of such people.  It is a tenth order
> >consideration. Quite a few CIA agents are bound to do awful things
> >because that is their job. ...
>
On 6/19/06, Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Who but a lunatic would want to work for the CIA in the first place?  I
> don't consider this a trivial matter.  An important part of educating the
> public about the nature of spycraft is informing Americans what a bunch of
> wackos the US employs to stir up trouble around the world.  These people
are
> demented, dangerous and should be discredited wherever possible.
>
> Carl
>
Carl,

I don't know the psychological state of any particular CIA agent or of CIA
agents in general.  I have met more than one and they didn't seem to be
insane.  They didn't even "seem" to be "bad people."  But who cares?  The
psychological state of the people who run these organizations should not
make a difference to whether you oppose what the organization does or not.

Perhaps you know the psychological state of CIA agents, in which case, go
ahead and use it as evidence.  It is not completely irrelevant, simply a
side issue.

If the CIA was composed completely of psychopaths who did nothing with their
lives but play chess (Chess Institute of America) I would not oppose it.

If the CIA is made of dedicated children-loving, dog-petting people but it
is still the institution that helps to set up death squads I would oppose
it.

If we don't know the psychological state of the people in the CIA it is
better to concentrate on what the institution does and why we oppose it.  In
fact, even if we do know the psychological state of CIA agents I think it is
better to focus on institutional criticism. I think our basic philosophical
difference is here.  Do you think this difference is worth a long
argument?  We seem to basically agree.

I don't know the psychological state of any particular CIA agent, or of CIA
agents in general, so I simply concentrate on what the institution does, why
it does it, and who it serves.

The same applies to bank executives, for that matter, and arguably banks in
our society are more destructive as institutions than even the CIA.

Jerry Monaco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060619/d94f0076/attachment.htm>