What do you think of the CIA?

[Stinky The Clown]

Given this thread that just made the Greatest list:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1730486

It appears the CIA is back in the news.

I see them as a movie title ...... The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Make of that what you will.

What is your opinion of the CIA?

[mikelewis]

1. I think we need them to get thier collective shit together and...

remember thier oaths to "protect the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic." If they are too chickenshit, they shouldn't be there.

[craigolemiss]

4. If you have ever had to go overseas

To a country you have never been to and needed info, the CIA country guides are an invaluable resource.

The CIA is an information collation agency, but it should be remembered that there are really 2 parts to the CIA. One is for gathering, collecting, and reporting information, the Information Directorate, and the other, the Operations Directorate is for acting on that information.

[mitchum]

2. They have been a cancer on freedom since their inception

The end of any semblance of transparency in our government

[punpirate]

3. Not having seen the IG's report...

... can't speak to that part of it.

That said, I think the CIA has gone through periods when the covert ops side (Operations Division) was pretty much out of control. One of periods is now. The great danger seems to me to be the ability of the NSC to influence the President and convince the President to use the covert side of the agency for ill purpose (right now, having the CIA operating the extraordinary rendition system and guiding torture of individuals in some locations is a good example).

The other problem today is one that the VIPS has repeatedly mentioned--the politicization of the leadership of the agency. Had Tenet not been overly mindful of the White House, Cheney would have had little effect, and the CIA's NIE on Iraq would have read much differently than it did, had it principally been the product of the analysts. Good intelligence helps prevent problems and wars. Bad intelligence or worse, corrupt intelligence, provokes them.

Had Tenet been a stronger leader of the CIA, Powell would have had no speech before the UN Security Council, and Bush would have had no war, because the actual intelligence--the truth--probably would not have been enough to convince Congress. If Congress had forced through a partisan vote in favor of war, the Republicans would have owned it lock, stock and barrel, and Bush would not be in the White House today. That's indicative of the power of the CIA, for good or ill.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Just a thought here .......

...... would it help if there were more Congressional oversight?

Just by way of example ..... what if the same PDB that the president gets were also given to the majority and minority leaders of both houses?

Or the chair and ranking member of the Senate and House Intel Committees?

Or some other such arrangement?

[fujiyama]

14. Well said

At the moment the agency seems too politicized (I think the same problem exist with the FBI and the entire intelligence aparatus as well). I think you and punpirate have some great suggestions.

I like the idea of distributing the PDB to the ranking members of the intelligence commitee. That way the intelligence is atleast a little less politicized and there is less of a chance of abusing the intelligence as Bush has clearly done. Also that way hacks like Tenet have less of an impact in distorting the objectivity and it creates at least a little more accountability.

Also, I think there has to be more openness about the budget they and the entire Dept of Homeland Security is allocated. I recall hearing somewhere that intelligence budgets all the way back to the begining of the Cold War (and possibly earlier) haven't been declassified. This is ridiculous.

Intelligence agencies serve an important purpose and it's naive to believe it can (or should) be completely dismantled. But accountability is absolutely necessary and any military action (including any sort of covert op) should ultimately still be in the hands of the civilian government - in fact it might be argued that any action should still require congressional approval.

[punpirate]

16. The interesting part of this requires a bit of history...

... when the CIA was first created (by the National Security Act of 1947) the Operational Division, for practical purposes, didn't exist. Within months, the CIA was lobbying for changes which would enable a strong operational division--and to keep that side of the CIA very secret and to even keep those portions of its budget secret from Congress.

The laws passed then restricted information on CIA operations to a select few in Congress--those on the select intelligence committees--and created a system of "findings" where Presidential approval was required for CIA foreign ops. Those findings weren't immediately transmitted to the select intelligence committees, so operations were often in progress before even a small part of Congress knew what was happening.

All those things contributed to isolating Congress from its Constitutionally-mandated oversight role, and greatly enhanced the power of the Executive, as did the creation (also in 1947) of the National Security Council. If Congress had then required Congressional membership on the NSC for oversight purposes, history might been quite a bit different.

Today, the problem is even further exacerbated by Presidential directives from Bush to deny intelligence information in some crucial instances from even the select intelligence committees and restricting it to just a few people--the chairs and ranking members of the two select intelligence committees, which has made oversight even more problematic. Of course, the Republicans are quite comfortable with that arrangement, so that's not going to change any time soon.

The irony is that the CIA--particularly its covert ops division--has, over time, become a tool of the President to enable what Congress would never openly permit, and Congress simply won't rein it in for fear of being attacked by the administration for "diminishing our security." Carter, the Pike and Church Committees tried in the `70s, and the CIA stuck it to Carter. From that point onward, the intelligence community has simply gotten stronger, leading to more excesses. Congress gave up its Constitutional role, and in doing so, immensely increased the power of the Executive over Congress and the CIA. Now, with an intelligence "czar" marginalizing the analytical side of the CIA and the NSA, the Pentagon side of intelligence and the covert ops side of the CIA is much, much stronger and Congress--and the people--are the losers. And yet, Congress has authorized all these things.

I think if Jefferson and Madison could see the incredible power of the Executive today as compared to their intentions as written in the Constitution, they would rightly blame Congress for giving up their own power without adequate thought to the consequences. So, in a way, it's not about Congress' ability to exercise oversight--it's more about its lack of willingness to do so.

Cheers.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Good summation! Thanks!

I think we're on the same page here.

I'm not of a mind to see the CIA disbanded. If anything, it needs to be brought up to date. But more than that, it needs to be brought back under control.

And I see that control as involving the Congress. Again. As it was set up to be. In the beginning. As you point out.

The notion of an 'intelligence czar' (I hate that term ... 'czar') is a good start. But we MUST bring Congress back. And involve members of the majority and the minority. And grant them full and equal access.

Maybe put some really draconian punishments in place for violating secrecy .... but bring both sides to the table. Face it, virtually anyone in Congress is as qualified to be president as any president we've had (to be sure, some would be crappy in the job, but it is surely possible they could **get** the job). So allow them to get the very same intelligence as the president.

That would be called a check and a balance. And that's a good thing.

I continue to strongly believe we need the CIA and the NSA and the various forms of them in the DoD. What we now lack is bipartisan oversight. And that lack of oversight is what allows shit to run amok. That lack of oversight is what allows the black ops in particular to wage a given president's private wars.

I also continue to believe that black ops are not inherently evil. There are, in fact and indeed, bad actors out there. On our side and on the side of those against us. Let's control our bad actors with bipartisan oversight and aim our power at those who are against us.

I know this could sound very right wing and very 'strong arm'. And it could be ...... if there's no checks and balances.

The need for the CIA is there. We just have to figure out how to control it. It works for 'we the people' .... not for one president or one party or the other.

"We The People" ...... remember us, dear leaders?

[punpirate]

22. I have one difference...

... with you on this--I think the creation of a cabinet-level intelligence chief was a huge and horrible mistake. I don't care if it was recommended by the various commissions--that single act by Congress did more to politicize intelligence than any other has in history.

First off, it will guarantee a change in leadership with each President, because it is a political appointment. The DCI was never intended to be political, and was generally filled by people who did not have political ambitions--with the notable exception of George H.W. Bush. In fact, GHWB's political ambitions very nearly cost him (and should have cost him) that nomination.

Second, look at the first pick for that job--John Negroponte. Negroponte is smooth, charming, and utterly ruthless. As ambassador to Honduras, he was intimately associated with the major crime of the Reagan administration--the creation of a secret army, entirely beyond the control of Congress, and helped create and support death squads throughout the region. Death squads began to appear in Iraq shortly after his term as ambassador there ended. That means that it's likely in the future that this job--answerable directly to the President--will be filled by people who will do, for the President, exactly the sort of covert ops jobs that have tarnished national intelligence in the past.

Third, as a cabinet officer, answerable directly to the President, he cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. The DCI did not work directly for the President and could be so compelled. Now, consider this. The national intelligence director has control of all intelligence agencies of the country--military and civilian--but Congress is powerless to demand his testimony on any subject. The latter is also true of the President's national security advisor and the Secretary of Homeland Security. How much power does that invest in the President? How much power does that invest in this President?

Cheers.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Oh .... I forgot ......

As I am suggesting the majority and minority leaders get the exact same information as the president, so should they get real representation on the NSC. Since this approaches a full tiem job, I would allow for the House and Senate leaders of both parties to each appoint one person (that would be one Democrat and one Republican, not one for each leader) who has a 'full rights' seat on the NSC.

Keep the whole thing under some oversight and keep it always bipartisan.

[sam sarrha]

9. Right.!! they started as the OSS, got in tight with the Mafia Dock Unions

to watch out for japanese and german sabitours..

seems their association has become one in the same for a lot of the agency..

check this out.. http://www.blackwatersecurity.com

http://www.blackwaterusa.com

the "Black" part of the name is Mr Black.. a very high echelon well dug in member of the CIA.. they do mercenary work for Iraq.. a 4 member team costs $5000 a week to maintain plus wages of $400 to $700 a day.

they have the entire of Iraq as a Free Fire Zone and use it... our wet brain alcoholic village idiot in Chief has an executive order declaring them immune from charges or prosecution of ANY CRIME.

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. Considering it was formed by Prescott Bush & Friends for their own benefit

...and a vehicle for BCE interests including drug smuggling, terrorism, and possibly foreign and domestic assassinations ever since, I really don't think much of them.

Of course one could point to their role in intelligence gathering and estimation of threats to this country. But that's usually done without asking how the threats came to be in the first place.

They are an indispensable part of the military industrial complex. That entire corrupt machine needs to be broken once and for all. It should have happenned in 1961 when Ike warned us about it.

[NEOBuckeye]

12. The MIC's breakdown is well underway, and only just beginning.

That's the good news. The bad news is it will completely break the US in the process.

[wli]

7. drug running, death squads, assassinations...

Not my cup of tea overall.

[Porcupine]

10. Scatter the staff, publish the files, burn the building

Torturing, nun raping, war starting, anti-democratic scum of the earth. Satan's spiritual homeboys.


and that was the gentle version.

[wli]

11. yes, the non-gentle versions include Gehlen and Barbie n/t

[firefox]

8. Hardcore terrorist n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. In my opinion...

...Buscho will significantly marginalize, if not altogether phase out, the CIA. They're no longer relevant---just like the U.N. and the American public.

http://www.karlandkinggeorge.com/The_Kings_Revenge.html

[Blue_Roses]

15. Alias

:scared:

[rman]

17. "...there are some extraordinarily real patriotic Americans..."

(in the FBI, CIA..)

"In fact, and this has to be made very clear, there are some extraordinarily real patriotic Americans and good people in the FBI, as has been said by, I believe, Agent Colleen Rowley, one of the FBI whistleblowers’ bosses, that there’s a wall in the FBI, and this has been validated to me by various attorneys in Houston, who are very close to the power bases, and are pretty ticked-off at what’s happening in this country and are speaking out, as are many CIA agents who are very concerned that it has gone too far, as are many NSA agents who are concerned that it’s gone too far, and FBI agents. So we have a lot of people who are speaking out, they’ve kept quiet too long; they’re afraid, they’re afraid of what’s happening to this country. And when I say the Third Reich, what is happening to this country, they say, and I will identify ‘they’ if pressed, they say, will make the Third Reich look like a tea party."
- Indira Singh


Indira Singh testimony and interviews
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=344x4

[burrowowl]

18. What do I think?

#&%&@*$&@)$&*@()
Along with U$ corporatist/facist policy. There were some good ones during the Cuban Revolution. Ther are some sane ones now, however, their main thrust is to carry on U$ policies that do not further the commoneal. They probably cannot help themselves. That we need such an agency, maybe, should they do black ops? NO!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. The information gathering side is fine--every country needs that

I used to do contract translation work for the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which collects published newspaper and magazine articles from around the world to monitor what people are doing and thinking in other countries. (I gave it up because their pay rates were half of the going private sector rate and because you still had to submit translations by a funky modem-based interface that required several attempts to transmit a simple one-page article.)

However, ever since reading The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence and Endless Enemies in the early 1980s, I've been opposed to the covert op side of it. The first book makes the point that "covert" operations are kept secret only from the American people. The people in the targeted country know what's going on, the so-called enemy knows what's going on, people in third countries know what's going on--only average Americans are kept in the dark, and understandably so, because some of the things that the CIA has done in the name of fighting Communism or fighting terrorism are truly despicable.

Endless Enemies documents how so many "covert" ops have been not only despicable, but stupid and counter-productive.

It all reminds me of the saying, "Don't do it if you wouldn't want to have it be the lead story on your local news."

[eridani]

23. You mean the information gathering part, or the "wet work" part?

The latter ought to be tried for crimes against humanity, possibly followed by being put up against a wall and shot, and the former is necessary, and has had some dedicated professionals in it. Also a lot of hacks cherry-picking data for what their superiors want to hear, unfortunately.