| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
The Central Intelligence Agency : CIA CIA or President? Who sets policies? by Sophia Barkat Funnily enough, the CIA gets the blame for all the "faulty" info that reaches the President and it should, if the information is wrong. In the case of Going to War against Iraq, however, we heard how the CIA tried to warn Bush that Blair was quoting from some graduate student's thesis was obsolete information. The thesis was written in the nineties. We all know what Bush Jr. did with this tip. He went to Congress and made a Speech about having proof that Saddam was buying weapons-grade Uranium from Nigeria. It boggles me how an intelligence-gathering agency should take blame for Presidential policies that do not use CIA intelligence. And the President sets policies, not the CIA. The CIA FAQ page, in reference to what the CIA does, says: "The Central Intelligence Agency's primary mission is to collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US Government policymakers in making decisions relating to the national security. The Central Intelligence Agency does not make policy; it is an independent source of foreign intelligence information for those who do. The Central Intelligence Agency may also engage in covert action at the President's direction in accordance with applicable law." http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html Authors of books on the CIA - sometimes ex-CIA -- also tell us that the CIA does NOT set policy. It merely presents facts. What the President does or doesn't with it is NOT their concern. The fact that the CIA's work often gets ignored got mentioned in many books about the CIA, by ex-CIA's. In his tell-all biography, A Look Over My Shoulders, ex-CIA Director (1966-73) Richard Helms gives Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) high marks as users and leaders of intelligence. Clearly some presidents just don't use the advice they get. But is all the info correct? Statistically every information gathered has a possibility of error. The question is what is range of error and is it systematic -- due to "how the CIA functions"? The way Hollywood and TV sometimes depict the CIA or M15 one might get the idea that the possibility for error is minimal. Even if the mission goes awry, another will always fix it. In reality, are errors in human intelligence easily fixable and are attempts even made? After all, the CIA doesn't just use aerial shots on whoever they want to keep an eye-on, using satellites. It also relies on the human element. To find out whether Saddam is contemplating buying weapons of mass-destruction the CIA must have his closest confidants bugged or bribed and working for the CIA. History has taught us that this is always probable. Hence human intelligence is often used. Is it reliable at all times, though? Are people who the CIA thinks are working for them actually working for them? A long history of double agents working for themselves reveals that information ultimately goes to the highest bidder or is decided by some form of coercion or persuasion. Intelligence agents are not institutionalized. They are freelancers. More so, if they don't get the right kind of pay-off, what's to guarantee they will give you the right intelligence later? Hence the chance of getting reliable information about future events in particular must be quite narrow. And in such cases, there must be a cut off point of risk at which the CIA decides that the information is NOT reliable enough. Questions arise about how sure CIA agents are about information regarding the possibility of future events before they contact the President with it. The only sure events are events that have taken place and have been documented. The CIA informing the President that Saddam has purchased a missile from some nation backed up with photographs/physical proof is a SURE EVENT. The CIA has to now rely open experts in its labs to see if the factual evidence is in fact the real deal. We all know that such "expert" advice is based on both scientific means, on chance, and on experience-levels of the experts. The fact that there are excellent forgers in this world means that such expert analysis involves being able to work past this element of error. Looking at photographs of Osama Bin Laden on TV released during the war on Afghanistan and now and the pictures once aired of him visiting people in Nigeria -- one can see that later photos do NOT match earlier photos. Is this a fault of the CIA? Are we looking at an imposter? I didn't hear a word about it on US Media but how can the CIA, not have scrutinized it and informed the President? A look again at the CIA.gov website is very telling about how eager the CIA is to inform the public about anything it does. For it's duties are not to the people, but to the President. If you go to the section on CIA FAQs: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html#9 You'll see how the CIA denies its relationship in drug trafficking and assassinations, events that are entirely possible as the CIA must carry out clandestine operations ordered by the White House: "Q) The CIA has been accused of conducting assassinations and engaging in drug trafficking. What are the facts? A) The CIA does neither. Executive Order 12333 of 1981 explicitly prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in assassinations. Internal safeguards and the congressional oversight process assure compliance. Regarding recent allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, the CIA Inspector General found no evidence to substantiate the charges that the CIA or its employees conspired with or assisted Contra-related organizations or individuals in drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras or for any other purpose. In fact, the CIA plays a crucial role in combating drug trafficking by providing intelligence information to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department." But FBI officials have testified against both high-ranking officials in the White House and the CIA for being part of drug trafficking operations to finance CIA's Clandestine Operations: http://www.quietpoly.com/juryfury/debates/narcoticsandstate/USgovernmentrole.html So, does the CIA seem like a credible source? To the public it need not be, as long as it is to the President. In the case of Oliver North and the Iran-Contra the Clandestine operations were carried out by the CIA. But was the CIA suggesting policy, though? Turning to the CIA.gov website, we find that indeed such possibility arises from the hiring of Political Analysts: http://www.cia.gov/employment/jobs/political_analyst.html The site says: "Political analysts support US policymakers by evaluating the goals and motivations of foreign governments and entities" Clearly the CIA is not a place where they just gather factual evidence. The Political Analysts suggest theories to the White House. Just not facts. In fact, the very fact that the CIA starts briefing Presidential Candidates well before elections are decided means that the CIA is considered as indispensable in Foreign Policy making. by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett re: Sophia's post Now this is a subject I do know a lot about. The CIA does have some major problems. Many go back to the Reagan era. The Reagan Administration and the Bush Sr. Administration as well as this Administration wants information to back up what they want to do and not use information to figure out what to do. Since 1980 the advance in satellite information and listening devices to listen to phone calls have greatly advanced. The CIA has an overload of information which it can not properly analyze in the limited time it needs to be analyzed in to be relevant. Because the Reagan administration and the Bush Sr. administration just wanted information to back up what they wanted to do and because the CIA had an information overload the CIA got into the habit of just combing the information to get information backing up what the administration's wanted to hear. The CIA also has undercover agents and I do know some former CIA under cover agents. They will tell you in private that they were encouraged to report only things the administration wanted to hear and slant their reports that way. The poor under cover agents feared for their jobs if they didn't do this as they would have been thought to have been flipped (gone over to the other side) or thought of as unpatriotic if they reported what they really thought the feelings of people they were with were. No one wants to lose their jobs. The people debriefing the under cover agents don't want the information passed on to them by the under cover agents because then the debriefed has to put it in the report and then the administration won't like the information. Now it is well known that Billy Clinton never got briefed by the CIA and this is why- as he felt the information was useless and was slanted to report just what he wanted to hear. Billy much preferred to talk to leaders of other nations and feel them out. He felt he could get a more reliable pulse on the feelings of the world that way and I got that straight from the horse's mouth. This is not George Tenet's problem. it has been going on since the 80's for sure. George Tenet is a good man and needs to remain head of the CIA but they need to get a good organizational man in to help with how to solve their information over load problem. They also need to encourage under cover agents to tell them what they believe and not what they think the administration wants to hear. There is also a problems with debriefing people. the people are tortured until they figure out what the debriefed wants to hear and report it. And Billy Clinton hated this. I won't tell you what he asked ever time they came up with information from someone they had "debriefed" or a foreign government's information agency had "debriefed" for us. I can tell you when I heard about it straight from the horse's mouth there were lots of cuss words! A president can't rely on the information from the CIA to do anything but back up what he believes. Billy Clinton wanted information to help him make a decision. by Allan Hampton re: Sophia's post Truman, started the CIA to gather information in to one organization from all other organizations and to report to the Prez. The CIA is one mistake Truman admits. by Craig Johnson re: Cherrie's post Except for small-scale local (foreign) signal intercepts the CIA doesn't collect any signal intelligence. That is the sole responsibility of the NSA and DIA. Not all the information at NSA is divulged to the CIA. The CIA of today is nothing like the agency during its heydays in the 1960's. American intelligence agencies are the only intelligence gathering structures in the world that allows (after scrutiny) it's past employees to publish memoirs legally. The CIA is now the political "whipping boy" of both the left and the right. If you have read the rather large body of work published by the former employees of this agency, you will also notice that the one thing they all agree on is that the agency's successes rarely if ever are made public, only their failures. by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett re: Craig's post Craig said: "Except for small scale local(foreign) signal intercepts the CIA doesn't collect any signal intelligence. That is the sole responsibility of the NSA and DIA. Not all the information at NSA is divulged to the CIA. " You are probably right on this. I don't know exactly how the delineation of information is set up. However the CIA has a working relationships with the NSA, DIA, State Department and Pentagon, or did during the Clinton administration. The CIA does get the information, any felt relevant for their operations, and do have their own analysis department. As this stuff works now, or use to, everyone has such an information overload, the NSA and DIA sends the information (tons of it) out raw to the CIA and the CIA is expected to interpret it themselves. No one can in a timely fashion interpret it all and no one wants the buck to stop on them. However "we" feel if the right persons with great organizational skills (and also those persons would have to know about information collecting which is a combination of talents hard to find) would be put into each agency, (CIA, NSA, DIA) then they could come up with a way to quick scan information in a timely fashion and then keep that which needs to be analyzed further to analyze first. And also a procedure for who is going to analysis what. Sometimes all three agencies are analyzing the same information and lots of other important information never gets analyzed! I know a lot of the information is never analyzed. They have an information overload and no system to figure out what needs to be analyzed first and what to throw in the trash as it all can't be analyzed. The CIA does brief the State Department and the pentagon. Also this attitude of giving them the information they want to hear instead of collecting the information and analyzing it properly and passing on that analysis has got to stop! The undercover agents could help a lot in making sure the information is analyzed right and that the right information is analyzed first but no one wants the under cover agents to report what they think. They only want facts to support what they think the "in power" administration wants to hear. What is the purpose of having a human being that can think and feel emotions and trends on the ground if you don't want them to report these things or they are afraid of reporting them for fear they will be thought of as being on the case to long and taking the enemy's point of view or being flipped or on the take? Craig said: "The CIA of today is nothing like the agency during its heydays in the 1960's." You are so correct here! The CIA was the world's premiere intelligence agency during the sixties. Now it does not collect and analysis information. It just makes sure it has information to back up the current administration policies. It also does many covert operations which are nothing but Mafia like hits but on a world basis. They have hit men, men to torture people, and other rather dubious types of people working for them and are not the class act information agency they once were. This is really harming our country's security as we don't know what is really going on in the world. When I say "we" I mean the president and his administration and the congress or those members of congress who should know something due to the committees they are on. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND IS DANGEROUS FOR THE COUNTRY!!! AND I FOR ONE AM VERY ALARMED THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION COLLECTING AGENCY. This is very dangerous for those in charge of the country. They could make monumental errors in decisions making because of this. Worst than the one already made in Iraq. And I am thinking of North Korea for one but a couple of other countries also who are really more dangerous to us than North Korea even and these countries do have great information gathering agencies!!! AND THEY KNOW THE CIA IS SHIT NOW!!!! IN FACT THEY LAUGH AT OUR CIA AND I WANT IT STOPPED!!! I WANT US TO HAVE THE PREMIRE INFORMATION AGENCY LIKE WE USE TO HAVE!!!! Craig said: "American intelligence agencies are the only intelligence gathering structures in the world that allows (after scrutiny) it's past employees to publish memoirs legally. The CIA is now the political "whipping boy" of both the left and the right. " The CIA has earned its name as the whipping boy!! It is nothing but a "yes, sir- I can get you the information you want to prove what you want to do" agency now. Of course it has no respect from people who know the truth. You are right though also that it has gotten the blame when it shouldn't have but that is because it has gotten in bed with the administrations' in power and has not retained its high standards of being just a collecting and dissemination, and analysis of information agency. Craig said: "If you have read the rather large body of work published by the former employees of this agency, you will also notice that the one thing they all agree on is that the agency's successes rarely if ever are made public, only their failures." I have read nothing. I get my information from people who have been in office and from some former CIA under cover agents and from people who also know former under cover agents and all the information is off the record that I get. Of course I go on line and write and write. If you think you get the truth from books written by former CIA operatives-well I have a bridge in California called the Golden Gate bridge I would like to sell you. Meet some-get to know them then talk to them off the record. I would also like to say that the CIA has many good honest and decent (although a little odd) ( I have read the book on Robert Hanssen "into the Mirror" and while he was FBI and not an under cover agent I do find him very much like many of the CIA under cover agents I have Known. They are an odd lot) people working for it and I don't want to run down the individuals or most in the CIA. They are good, honest hard working individuals that do put their lives on the line but they should be putting their lives on the line for more than we get!!! The problems are at the top with the political appointees and not with the hard working people within the agency and I don't include George Tenet here. He is a very good and decent man. by Craig Johnson re: Cherrie's post Cherrie said: "The CIA of today is nothing like the agency during its heydays in the 1960's." You are so correct here! The CIA was the world's premiere intelligence agency during the sixties. The CIA has never been the premier intelligence service in the world. Everyone in the business knows the Russians were the dominant forces through the 70's. And for their size and capabilities, the Brits & the Israelis where far better an human intel than the US Now it does not collect and analysis information. It just makes sure it has information to back up the current administration policies. It also does many covert operations which are nothing but Mafia like hits but on a world basis. They have hit men, men to torture people, and other rather dubious types of people working for them and are not the class act information agency they once were. This is really harming our country's security as we don't know what is really going on in the world. When I say "we" I mean the president and his administration and the congress or those members of congress who should know something due to the committees they are on. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND IS DANGEROUS FOR THE COUNTRY!!! AND I FOR ONE AM VERY ALARMED THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION COLLECTING AGENCY. This is very dangerous for those in charge of the country. They could make monumental errors in decisions making because of this. Worst than the one already made in Iraq. And I am thinking of North Korea for one but a couple of other countries also who are really more dangerous to us than North Korea even and these countries do have great information gathering agencies!!! AND THEY KNOW THE CIA IS SHIT NOW!!!! IN FACT THEY LAUGH AT OUR CIA AND I WANT IT STOPPED!!! I WANT US TO HAVE THE PREMIRE INFORMATION AGENCY LIKE WE USE TO HAVE!!!! As of the early 80's there were only 35,000 employees in the CIA. Half of them were Secretaries and analysts. Compared to the KGB in the early 70's who employed somewhere near 650,000 not to mention over a million "contacts". I'll bet the day homeland security was formed they surpassed the CIA and the NSA combined in manpower. Cherrie said: "If you have read the rather large body of work published by the former employees of this agency, you will also notice that the one thing they all agree on is that the agency's successes rarely if ever are made public, only their failures." I have read nothing. I get my information from people who have been in office and from some former CIA under cover agents and from people who also know former under cover agents and all the information is off the record that I get. Of course I go on line and write and write. If you think you get the truth from books written by former CIA operatives-well I have a bridge in California called the Golden Gate bridge I would like to sell you. Meet some-get to know them then talk to them off the record. Most NSA and CIA analyst and agents are professionals. They are career people, not political appointees. If you have served your 20 to 30 years you probably have served both Democrat and Republican administrations in your tenure. Most of the whistle blowers of illegal intelligence operations in the last 20 years where blown by other intelligence officials. by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett re: Craig's post Craig said: "The CIA has never been the premier intelligence service in the world. Everyone in the business knows the Russians were the dominant forces through the 70's. And for their size and capabilities, the Brits & the Israelis where far better an human intel than the US." Well you are kind of right here also. The KGB was the best. (Did I ever tell you I knew a KGB agent during the 70's-met him because I was given the "job" (no pay-just a favor for a friend) of passing notes and messages to this KGB agent from a governor of a state who told me the messages were from the executive branch. They could have been or could have been from capitalist power brokers, I don't know now. But I was younger and more gullible then and believed the governor who I was also having an affair with.) I feel in love with the KGB agent to and had an affair with him also. I did believe you could love many people at the same time just in different ways. But anyway I learned a lot about Russia and found out that the people weren't evil devils are we were lead to believe. Really in a lot of ways women had far more rights then we did in the US at the time. And I loved their school system. Well I taught him about economics and the free enterprise system and why it was the best system. So we each learned from the other. He's dead now- died back then. Anyway that is another story. But for the size the CIA was the premiere intelligence system, in my opinion, back then. Maybe I am prejudice but well I keep that option to be prejudiced when it comes to the US. I don't like the Israeli's at all and hate their intelligence operations. they are nothing but barbaric low level animals in my opinion! As far as the British goes-well I don't know much about them yet. However give me time. You never know who I email with. Craig said: "As of the early 80's there were only 35,000 employees in the CIA. Half of them were Secretaries and analysts. Compared to the KGB in the early 70's who employed somewhere near 650,000 not to mention over a million "contacts". I'll bet the day homeland security was formed they surpassed the CIA and the NSA combined in manpower." Yes, and working for the KGB was a premiere job to have in the Soviet Union and they got the cream of the crop as far as people go. That has never been true in the US but the CIA does have good people. Russia still has a good intelligence agency for its size. It is much smaller than before but is still great. Don't remember what they call theirs now. by Allan Hampton re: Cherrie's post Ok, same problem for Citizens; Why argue over any political issue but the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of it? The CIA is an illegal unconstitutional entity, or at least is used (as is Amendment XVI) in an unconstitutional manner. So, full circle; What can Citizens do about unconstitutionality? To stop living under unconstitutional legislative laws Citizens must elect Representatives that will honor their oath of office. by Craig Johnson re: Allan's post Brilliant, yes lets abolish all the intelligence service post haste. Especially now, Let's not forget the lack intelligence gathering (only the second oldest profession) thanks to Mr. Wilson's "gentlemen don't read each others mail" b.s. sucked us right into WWI. I'm sure your desire to abolish all intelligence gathering is just what some small-minded Islamic militants have been praying to Allah for some time. There maybe no mention of intelligence gathering or responsibility in the constitution, but I'll bet your social security check against mine, that Washington was running a spy network before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. Restricting the CIA Covert Ops by Sophia Barkat Citizens may not have much power in the US Constitution. Their votes mean nothing unless the electoral college is made up of people who believe that the popular vote should rule. Citizens have more power as far as which Senator or House Representative gets elected. They can let their Congressperson know what they think should be done on issues -- and become the most powerful lobby group ever. As far as the CIA is concerned, citizens should realize that the CIA controls the kind of information that gets to the President, and demand higher standards of accuracy via the Congress. Is there already a committee that oversees this? Perhaps they should be written to on a constant basis by their OWN constituents -- as they don't reply to anyone else. Citizens should know that the CIA HAS TO carry out covert operations on behalf of the White House. Thus citizens should hold the White House responsible for covert operations that make the US a potential target for worldwide terrorism. They can PUSH FOR covert operations that are only directed towards situations that uplift World Peace without ambiguity. Now how can that be right? An unambiguous operation would be like Mother Teresa helping the needy. Clearly taking out Saddam in a CIA operation is NO unambiguous operation. NO hostile action on the soil of another sovereign nation can be unambiguous. More so it is illegal as it is NOT an act of War the US Congress knows of and thus has approved of. What should happen to the CIA covert ops then? I propose that for the greater good of the US -- which is related to how peacefully the rest of the world can sleep at nights -- the CIA Covert Ops be restricted to rescue missions of US citizens. by Allan Hampton re: Sophia's post -- Restricting CIA Covert Ops The Prez doesn't have enough power to worry about, the Prez can't do very much at all without the aid of Congress. Citizens elect House (of Congress) members every two years and the House control the purse strings of the U.S. government. The electoral collage (used only for the Prez) is to keep the States more equal, to keep large States from running over small States. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college method. Citizens are living under unconstitutional "legislation" laws (not "constitutional law), and are arrested by law enforcement officers for violating those illegal laws, and the Courts enforce those illegal legislative laws. We, The People (Citizens) need those illegal unconstitutional laws "REPEALED". Citizens cannot repeal federal legislative law, only Congress can repeal federal legislative law. |
ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Archives Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations MoveOn.org MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |
|