Talk:Human rights violations by the CIA/Archive 1

Untitled
There is an existing Central Intelligence Agency article that has grown to almost 300K, and needs to be split to be manageable. I have set up several geographic and functional sub-articles into which content from the main article will go.

Do note that an Intelligence project/task force is being set up in Military History.

I request this not be deleted, as it is simply part of a series of articles intended to deal with the problem of a single article that has grown far too large, interfering with browsers and making it difficult for multiple editors to work on different pieces. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance between this and linked article
Can we have a consensus about how much detail should be in this article versus "Extraordinary Rendition"?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed name change
This name is too cumbersome, and doesnot really fit Wikipedia guidelines on articles names. I suggest:
 * CIA human rights activities

Any objections? Any better suggestions? Ground Zero | t 04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the transnational aspect is essential. In South America, for example, there are interactions among Argentina, Honduras, and Colombia when it came to police abuse. The Congressional actions on the topic often are continental or worldwide in scope.


 * Assassinations and targeted killings also do not stop at national borders. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:
 * CIA transnational human rights activities?

Ground Zero | t 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This one is more tricky, because some of the activities violated human rights. Others supported them. I'm free-associating here, but the issue is more how the CIA interacted with human rights issues.


 * It's also an awkward section, although I still think a common thread runs through assassination, human experimentation without informed consent, licit or illicit police training, detention, etc. I haven't been able to think of a better name, because it's also not completely about violations -- some activities promoted human rights Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about CIA transnational human rights actions? This could be broad enough to cover both violations and promotions. "Activities" does make it sound like only promotional activity. Ground Zero | t 12:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's much better. I'm smiling at the ambiguity of English, as I had thought of "activities" as "violations", which it does not mean but is still the way I perceived it. Thanks! Oh -- thanks for the diacritical marks on the French drug material -- I can handle diacritics for German, but that's about it beyond recognizing and copying them in other languages when I have an example.


 * Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Bit in "General Principles" Section
I don't know anything about the CIA or anything, so I can't really edit this, but I noticed a mangled paragraph in this article:

See Honduras 1987 training by Argentina and Chile, where Florencio Caballero, a former Honduran Army interrogator, said that he had trained by the Central Intelligence Agency, which the New York Times confirmed with US and Honduran officials. '''Much of his account was confirmed by three American and two Honduran officials. may be the fullest given of how army and police units were authorized to organize death squads that seized, interrogated and killed suspected leftists.''' He said that while Argentine and Chilean trainers taught the Honduran Army kidnapping and elimination techniques, the C.I.A. explicitly forbade the use of physical torture or assassination.[3] Kyrahowe (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

disingenuous irrelevance
removed the following:

" While there are US officials (e.g., John Yoo) and scholars (e.g., Alan Dershowitz) who argue that torture may be justifiable, American opinion is generally opposed to US personnel inflicting torture or ordering it done. Unfortunately, torture and violation of human rights were endemic in many countries before the CIA ever existed. CIA personnel, who become aware of such violations, may or may not be able to stop them. As with legitimate US military interrogators, who became aware of torture by host country interrogators (e.g., Sedgwick Tourison in South Vietnam), the American may conclude that he cannot stop the activity, but he can advise against it, and hope to change the traditions of that country. American personnel in these difficult circumstances face the ethical question, to which there is no simple answer, is whether greater harm would be caused by withdrawing all American contact with the country. Variations of this problem occur throughout Just War Theory. "

Well ... let's see. This section of the article is about torture and rendition by the U.S. so observation of it as done by other countries is thoroughly irrelevant. Johnofjack (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Police Section
What has this got to do with Human rights given that it is unsure whether CIA are actually involved in any training. Per WP:UNDUE I prose reducing it in size to only CIA related items.Cathar11 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

9x5's revert
9x5, the bulk of the article concerns human rights violations. Your edit seems to push a POV that CIA activity is more balanced than that. Care to explain? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I would like you not to address me personally before I become involved in a discussion. The addition of "less frequently" gives the impression that the CIA less frequently protects/preserves human rights than it does violate them. I do not know if this is true or not, but I doubt it can be quantified, and hence is WP:POV. In context, "less frequently" reads the way I've outlined, and does not imply the article covers those topics less frequently. That the article is imbalanced is not something that should be noted in the lead, it should probably be tagged instead. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Again"? Where was the first time? Why do you believe the article is imbalanced? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. I have no opinion on the article, you implied it was imbalanced with your first post here. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Far from saying it was unbalanced, I pointed out that "the bulk of the article concerns human rights violations." Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

style
This article currently has a self-referential style, that I haven't seen in other wikipedia articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: CIA transnational human rights actions → Human rights violations by the CIA Per consensus in the discussion. Philg88 ♦talk 04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

CIA transnational human rights actions → CIA transnational human rights abuses – The page is clearly about human rights abuses, not "activities of the Central Intelligence Agency that preserve or violate human rights." The phrase "human rights actions" is a vague euphemism. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 79.97.226.247 how does Human rights in CIA transnational activity sound? There are many "Human rights in .." titles but even in a case such as "Human rights in ISIL-controlled territory" we haven't used Wikipedia's voice to declare abuses.  We do not know everything about the backgrounds of the people in the hands of either ISIL or the CIA.  GregKaye 12:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like your suggested beginning, but does maintaining "transnational" in the title mean that the article should be stripped of the allegations of domestic abuses (e.g. CIA transnational human rights actions)? - Location (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Location Human rights in CIA activity then? I personally prefer this as, to me, CIA transnational human rights actions presents a one sided view of the CIA as only supporting and not violating human rights.  GregKaye 18:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, Greg. I wonder if Human rights abuses by the CIA might be more appropriate since the article does not discuss the preservation of human rights as stated in the lede. - Location (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Location In this case I personally think it best to present the information and let readers decide. This is not a group cutting off all the thumbs and big toes indiscriminately off all captives of a town and catapulting the heads of enemies over battlements.  Its a, no doubt, ruthless intelligence agency purporting to track down threats to, amongst other things, human rights.  Rightly or wrongly they would argue, I guess, that they have the right to conduct all their appalling practices.    GregKaye 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, it is clear that this article is talking about allegations of human rights abuses by the CIA (which doesn't mean just torture) and not their promotion of human rights. I see you are discussing similar moves in another article. It might be better to bring all of these to a centralized arena for greater feedback. Otherwise, I am OK with your suggestion. - Location (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer "violations" to abuses; "human rights abuses" is a term that has come into vogue, but it really makes little sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Human rights violations by the CIA does make a bit more sense than Human rights abuses by the CIA. - Location (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Human rights violations by the CIA works for me. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think, Greg? - Location (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can say for certain is that, while I am in two minds about this, I don't have any current objection. I think I would need to read some more to formulate a view as the most I know about it is from general news broadcasts and from watching 24.  On one side of what is on my mind is that some of the people being interrogated by the CIA may have been perpetrators of serious crime but on the other side of things I wouldn't want to make excuses.  I think that, if American exceptionalism is applied, then some kind of action might be warranted.  I guess my question regards the preservation vs violation of human rights resultant in context of CIA action.  GregKaye 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should what somebody else may have done have any impact on how we describe the CIA's actions? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Human rights violations by the CIA works for me, but also consider: CIA human rights violations or The CIA and human rights to avoid specifically purposing this article for violations; there may be other content that could fit in.-Ich (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Human rights violations by the CIA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf to http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ap.org/bilalhussein/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing assassination
Assassinations are missing the Portuguese Prime Minister assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Camarate_air_crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.114 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The crash was ruled an accident. The idea that he was assassinated is a conspiracy theory blaming the usual suspects (i.e. Frank Sturgis, Oliver North, Henry Kissinger). Even so, there is no mention that the alleged assassination was a human rights violation. -Location (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Original research
I've tagged the article with. It appears as though this article has become a dumping ground for anything anyone might consider to be a "human rights violation" by the CIA. Despite the vast number of citations in the article, most of them are either irrelevant or used in conjunction with some form of WP:SYNTH. Very few of them actually discuss human rights violations. - Location (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Four years later, there are still no mentions of human rights violations in the section regarding targeted killings. Targeted killings are not necessarily human rights violations and there is no mention of human rights violations in this section. I have removed this material as "original research", but have preserved it below for future reference. -Location (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the concept of "human right" is not universally agreed. Under some versions of it the "right to life" is considered a human right. As such extrajudicial killings (e.g. targeted assassinations) are a violation of human rights. (In fact some consider that executions by a state even after judicial process are a violation). What definition of human right are you using in determining that "targeted killings are not necessarily human rights violations"? Burrobert (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am working with the premise that Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Not every homicide or attempt to commit homicide is tagged as a "human rights violation". The right to self defense is another concept that is not universally agreed upon, so some might consider torture or the targeted killing of a leader as such. -Location (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Drone Program
Should the CIA drone program referenced on this page?

Many reputable media organizations claim that many innocent civilians have been killed as a result of the program. Probably a human rights issue. It started under Bush, increased under Obama, increased a lot through Trump, and is still going under Biden. They have happened all over the world to include Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya per the Long War Journal and numerous other media.

over ten thousand killed in Afghanistan, 1,500 killed in Somalia, 5,700 killed in Pakistan, 1,600 killed in Yemen.

The Trump Administration essentially loosened the restriction on the strikes of the Obama Administration, and the Biden Administration is still conducting them.

Either way just asking. ManofWarandPeace (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)