The 35-Year War on the CIA

jetsetter

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
The 35-Year War on the CIA
Arthur Herman December 2009

When your own outfit is trying to put you in jail, it?s time to go.? Those are the words of Robert Baer, once a CIA operative in the Middle East, describing the days in 1995 when he found himself under investigation by the Clinton administration, the FBI, and the CIA?s own inspector general. Baer?s crime? Daring to talk to Iraqi dissidents who were plotting to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

CIA officers in 2009 who are living with a Sword of Damocles hovering over their heads?in the form of a special prosecutor appointed by Barack Obama?s attorney general in August to probe allegations of torture during interrogations of al-Qaeda members and other suspects?now know how Baer felt. In September, every living former director of Central Intelligence (except Robert Gates, the current defense secretary) signed a letter to President Obama asking him to halt the special-prosecutor proceedings for the sake of the future of the agency. The president did not respond.

Subsequent events have largely vindicated Baer. The charges against him were dismissed in 1997. Five years later a CIA director might have suggested pinning a medal on him rather than trying to throw him in jail. How posterity will view the CIA?s use of enhanced interrogation tactics during the anxious years of 2002 and 2003, when the real possibility of another 9/11 attack loomed, may depend less on what we learn about the results of the interrogations themselves than on the Obama administration?s conduct in determining their appropriateness and legality.

The appointment of a special prosecutor is just one of a series of administration attacks on the CIA. Those attacks have included the release?over the objections of his own CIA head, Leon Panetta?of the classified 2004 CIA Inspector General Report revealing which enhanced interrogation methods were actually used on which suspects (including threatening to seize members of one suspect?s family and intimidating another suspect with a power drill). The administration has also created a new ?High Value Detainee Interrogation Group,? effectively stripping the CIA of responsibility for interrogating important terrorist suspects and handing it over to the vastly more constrained FBI.

Article continues at length: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-35-year-war-on-the-cia-15292?page=all
Click to expand...

It is indeed quite unfortunate that the greatest enemy of the CIA is other elements in the government. I lay failures in intelligence right at the feet of those who would reduce the effectiveness of the CIA.
 
Cobol74 said:
Do not do illegal stuff, special prosecutors and take a running JUMP!
Click to expand...

How do you define "illegal stuff". The current problem is that the CIA is not secret enough. Doing terrible things is what the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) must do to accomplish their mission. Look, intelligence gathering can be a rough and bloody business. If you constrain the agency its effectiveness will be reduced. The lay bleeding heart can't seem to understand that.
 
Last edited:
If you are required to do illegal stuff - leave and do something else and let someone else do the illegal stuff - do not bleat when you are special prosecuted (What is that btw?).
 
Cobol74 said:
If you are required to do illegal stuff - leave and do something else and let someone else do the illegal stuff - do not bleat when you are special prosecuted (What is that btw?).
Click to expand...

"illegal stuff" like what? Technically CIA isn't really breaking U.S. laws.
 
jetsetter said:
How do you define "illegal stuff". The current problem is that the CIA is not secret enough. Doing terrible things is what the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) must do to accomplish their mission. Look, intelligence gathering can be a rough and bloody business. If you constrain the agency its effectiveness will be reduced. The lay bleeding heart can't seem to understand that.
Click to expand...

Yes because they did so well before. The one million failed attempts at killing Castro, and the LSD/mind reading experiments come to mind.

The CIA likes secrecy as it allows them to hide their ineptitude.
 
Those are the examples you use to prove failure? Remember that it is only the failures we hear about, not the successes as they are classified. The agency has been in operation for over 60 years, please remember that.
 
I can get more. I've been meaning to read my copy of Legacy of Ashes.

I don't like secretive agencies. They lack accountability.
 
argatoga said:
I don't like secretive agencies. They lack accountability.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we are speaking of an intelligence agency, right? Being secretive is a requirement of their functioning.
 
jetsetter said:
You do realize that we are speaking of an intelligence agency, right? Being secretive is a requirement of their functioning.
Click to expand...

To an extent. If they limited themselves to solely information gathering things I wouldn't have a huge beef with them. Doing bat shit experiments and espionage without accountability is not something I approve of.
 
Name one thing the CIA have done well.
 
AiR said:
Name one thing the CIA have done well.
Click to expand...

Well, when they were the OSS they were extremely effective. But, even I have to agree they have gone downhill, and have bungled us into bad situations. That will happen when a quasi military agency is run by politicians, not the military or martial minded.
 
AiR said:
Name one thing the CIA have done well.
Click to expand...

Those are the examples you use to prove failure? Remember that it is only the failures we hear about, not the successes as they are classified. The agency has been in operation for over 60 years, please remember that.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what some seem to think the CIA has actually done fairly well. Many of the "failures" have actually be the products of interference from politicians.
 
jetsetter said:
Those are the examples you use to prove failure? Remember that it is only the failures we hear about, not the successes as they are classified. The agency has been in operation for over 60 years, please remember that.
Click to expand...

So we can't judge them because we don't know anything about them, and we can't know anything about them because they must be secretive?

That is a load of bull. I'm not going to blindly believe they are doing a good job because they tell me so. For all I know they could be spending all their money on drugs and prostitutes. Oh wait they have already done that. Who is to say they aren't again?
 
FATMOUSE said:
He could, but then he'd have to kill you :p
Click to expand...

It really isn't our place to. As I said, we have generally only hear of the well publicized failures of the agency. They can't release information about the successes because that would compromise operations. What are they to do? Press only talks about failures and you can't release info about success.......:|
 
jetsetter said:
It really isn't our place to. As I said, we have generally only hear of the well publicized failures of the agency. They can't release information about the successes because that would compromise operations. What are they to do? Press only talks about failures and you can't release info about success.......:|
Click to expand...

How do you know they have had great successes? What unbiased source has said that?

This isn't the USSR, we have a right to know what our government is doing.

And yes I would rather have freedom and live in fear of "the enemy" than have a dictatorship and be afraid of my government.
 
Keeping the operations of a few agencies secret is not the definition of a dictatorship. As I have said, the nature of an intelligence agency is that it needs to be secretive. No secretiveness=no intelligence agency. We have the right and duty to acknowledge the fact that some things are best kept secret.
 
I have no problem with keeping names secretive. I have problems with allowing them to perform experiments on people without consent, assassinating world leaders (or attempting to), and a number of other horrible things.

But I should assume they are saints despite their history. Because government is always right. The Party is never wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top