It’s been my dream to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, just so I can know everything there is to know about space aliens, mind control rays, and what kind of pr0n Queen Elizabeth II enjoys. Knowledge is power, after all.
But seriously…is it true that David Patreus, William Casey, George H.W. Bush and all others had, when they held that position, absolute knowledge of everything the C.I.A. does, or could acquire it at a moment’s notice? That sounds like a lot of power to me, especially if one of them grows old and senile and starts babbling about state secrets.
Normally, having a security clearance to access classified information (e.g. “secret” or “top secret”) doesn’t give you an unqualified right to peruse any and every classified document you feel like. You have to have a “need to know” the information, basically meaning that you need it to do your job. Now, it might be the case that the Director of the CIA is considered to inherently have a “need to know” everything his subordinates are doing.
Don’t worry. Black-ops has contingency plans. As soon as something like the rears it’s ugly head, a sudden case of, … oh, I don’t know … bronchitis, or something like that shows up.
If anyone’s going to “know everything” I’d wager it’d be the DNI (Director if National Intelligence). The CIA is only one of many intelligence agencies, but the DNI is in charge of them all.
I am pretty sure - that when you are in a management position - you have access to everything underneath you. So while if you are in charge of Latin America - you don’t necessarily know about north Africa, but you do know (or can know) anything below that. So I think he would know (or be able to know) everything the CIA does, but not necessarily NSA/FBI/ETC
There’s definitely some compartmentalization. I mean, if the DNI asked to know the IFF (Identification: Friend or Foe) codes for aircraft on combat missions in a combat zone, the techs who maintain those codes would not reveal them. Need to Know doesn’t apply to operational details.
On the large scale – how many people really knew what the Manhattan Project was about? It’s been said that Truman didn’t know about the A-Bomb. Did the chief of the OSS? Did J. Edgar Hoover? How many Congressmen and Senators (given that it had to be funded!)
How many people knew about “Arms for Hostages?” (Which had the advantage, at least as some people tell it, of being self-funded via drug sales.) Could a rogue operation really get any traction?
It gets into Conspiracy Fantasy terrain, pretty fast.
Truman as Chairman of one of the Senate Committees overseeing funding for the war knew that a large and powerful weapon was being constructed, but he was not given all the details until a month or so after becoming President.
Extremely doubtful. The DCIA is a political level administrator. No single person could take the time to learn every single thing the CIA does. His job is to establish policy and represent the CIA before Congress.
Like all leaders, he will have a list of critical events that are important enough for subordinates to bring to his attention when/if they occur.
Further, he could presumably request briefings on any topic within his jurisdiction, but he wouldn’t care about every single nut and bolt unless there was a compelling reason.
That makes sense. It would still be a cool job to have, though. If only for the hot chicks.
So if he wanted, say, a complete list of covert black ops currently being undertaken in Liechtenstein, he could get it just at his say-so? Or would he need to present a valid reason?
I think if the Director of the CIA asked any question of his subordinates, he would be entitled to know, but in practical terms he’s too busy and doesn’t need to know. I don’t think any of them could refuse him if he asked, though.
I remember reading that President Eisenhower enjoyed hearing cloak-and-dagger tales from his Director of Central Intelligence (as the title then was). The DCI would use codenames and fudge certain details, with Ike’s acquiescence, to avoid any unnecessary disclosures.
Let’s look at it from a different angle: Bradley Manning was a lowly Army private, just barely out of boot camp, who had access to Millions of classified documents at his fingertips.
I would imagine that, on the other end of the food chain in the intelligence community, the Director of the CIA has electronic access to some really interesting stuff.
To be fair though none of the diplomatic cables were top secret, everything said in them could have been guessed by someone sufficiently cynical. The only surprise was how childish some of it was, didn’t one mention that some countries officials stink literally?
The CIA director is NOT a policy job. His or her function is to provide policymakers with information and assessments of policy options. Obviously there is a grey area, but the DCIA isn’t supposed to advocate for and set national policy.
We apparently have different definitions of “policy.” Every leader has control over certain aspects of their organization. If they do not, then they cannot be called a leader.
As far as I’m concerned, if the DCIA puts out a memo that says, “All CIA Agents will take fifteen minute coffee breaks,” he has established a “policy.” Now, this doesn’t mean he’s telling the President what to do. Establishing national security policy is not within his scope. Rather, the DCIA and his subordinates establish the plans and policies for how the CIA will execute the goals the Executive and Legislative branches direct.
I don’t see why not. If US intelligence personnel are involved, the DCIA has to be ready to brief Congress and the President on their activities.
In past generations, the CIA created a lot of problems by making national security decisions without alerting the President. Their idea was that the President should be able to have “plausible deniability.” Of course, this also meant the CIA was doing whatever it wanted, which was unnacceptable. The backlash led to what we call “intelligence oversight.” The days of intelligence agents being able to do what they want without telling their superiors are long gone. In the past few years the pendulum has swung the other way and agencies are now very risk-averse with regard to covert action.
