How Dangerous IS The CIA

[BrainGlutton]

@Iridium

Soviet influence over developing countries was viewed as a serious threat to US national security and American ideals by US administrations.

:dubious: Was viewed as a threat, yes; but, in hindsight, really wasn’t, you know. That kind of thinking could justify the Vietnam War – as my in-most-respects-political-intellectual-hero Michael Lind tried to do in Vietnam: The Necessary War (Free Press, 2002) – an argument which was fundamentally misconceived even with respect to open, more-or-less-honest war, and could never be stretched far enough to justify the kind of thing the CIA does.

@Iridium

And no politician wants his administration to be labelled “unprepared” for a given event, so it’s more prudent to have all of these orgs in place and extend/limit their powers according to public expectations. Currently, public tolerance for morally “dubious” acts runs rather high, especially when officials mention the GWOT.

:rolleyes: That is precisely why we should not have something like the CIA in place to take such actions when the crisis emerges, Iridium.

[BrainGlutton]

@Duckster

So if the CIA is so dangerous, do you have an alternative?

As I said above, the alternative is to make “black ops” an explicitly illegal and never-to-be-considered option, regardless of what agency might be willing or ready to carry them out; while leaving the CIA (or whatever agency or agencies) in place to perform truly legitimate and necessary intelligence-gathering operations.

[BrainGlutton]

@Nietzsche

BrainGlutton, your idealism is as exemplary as your morality . But do you really think “laws” are going to stop anyone from doing something?

Not always, no. But practical limitations – such as a deliberate lack of institutional preparedness to perpetrate criminal “black ops” – might prevent us from taking such actions until the blood-boiling crisis has passed and cooler heads can prevail. That is why I think the CIA should be stripped of all such functions, and in particular of all “black budget” funding for such functions. Slows everything down, you know?

[Duckster]

@BrainGlutton

As I said above, the alternative is to make “black ops” an explicitly illegal and never-to-be-considered option, regardless of what agency might be willing or ready to carry them out; while leaving the CIA (or whatever agency or agencies) in place to perform truly legitimate and necessary intelligence-gathering operations.

But don’t we already have an order that political assassinations of foreign heads of state are a big no-no? Well, if we now find ourselves in a long term terrorism war with folks who don’t fall under that criteria, are political assassinations of them OK? In the current climate in America, do you really expect Congress to extend the political assassination ban to terrorist chiefs and the like? After all, political assasination is a black op. Does this mean the assassination of Osama bin Laden is now illegal?

I’m not tryin to set you up with these questions. I only pose them because if you want all black ops made illegal, do you really mean all or are there “exceptions” to the ban? Our government is so good at rationalizing everything these days, there will always be exceptions to an explicit ban.

[BrainGlutton]

@Duckster

Well, if we now find ourselves in a long term terrorism war with folks who don’t fall under that criteria, are political assassinations of them OK?

No.

@Duckster

Does this mean the assassination of Osama bin Laden is now illegal?

Yes.

[Iridium]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: Was viewed as a threat, yes; but, in hindsight, really wasn’t, you know.

When exactly does hindsight kick in? After the fact, correct? Not particularly useful for an organization that is required to develop and act on predictive forecasts based on currently available information. The best you can expect is an org that is agile enough to change course based on evidence that their current paradigm is flawed, and change it fast enough to respond to the next event appropriately. I’m sure successive US administrations viewed the Soviet threat as significant, or it wouldn’t have been addressed on so many levels.

:rolleyes: That is precisely why we should not have something like the CIA in place to take such actions when the crisis emerges, Iridium.

Why, exactly? Because it is not an American ideal to exert pressure on other countries, including threats to sovereignty? Sure it is, when public expectation swings in that direction. Package it nicely as “Freedom on the March” or “Planting the seeds of Democracy”, but no country acts counter to its own interests. More often they will pursue these interests quite ruthlessly. Figuring out whether covert or overt action will cost fewer lives is just devil’s algebra, there is just more spin accompanying the overt stuff. It’s about minimizing short and long-term risk and responding to a population that demands results.

[Rashak_Mani]

What about CIA and Military Intelligence estimates of Soviet forces that were always alarmist and exagerrated ? Recently the “bad” info on Iraqi WMDs ? I’d say there greatest failures would be those over blown estimates.

I think the CIA is way to political to be useful sometimes. They simply gorge out whatever the current administration needs to justify outrageous spending or panic. Or they overdo estimates in order to justify further spending on those “threats”.

Overall though… the CIA is a tool… and those giving out orders are the dangerous ones too. Still the chosing of Noriega, Osama and other fuck ups are plainly the CIA’s choices and a sign of their repeatedly dealing with the wrong people.

[Iridium]

@Rashak Mani

What about CIA and Military Intelligence estimates of Soviet forces that were always alarmist and exagerrated ? Recently the “bad” info on Iraqi WMDs ? I’d say there greatest failures would be those over blown estimates.

Facilitating cooperation between disparate ethnic groups (uzbeks, tajiks, etc.) and equipping the Northern Alliance to fight a proxy war with the Soviets was pretty “effective” in terms of achieving certain objectives.

I think the CIA is way to political to be useful sometimes. They simply gorge out whatever the current administration needs to justify outrageous spending or panic. Or they overdo estimates in order to justify further spending on those “threats”.

Any gov’t agency is susceptible to politicization if the current administration has a very top-down, micromanaging style. Also, funding for projects is dependent on political winds, so if an agency’s work is key to a President’s election platform, then they will most certainly try to grab a bigger share of the budget, even if it means stretching numbers. This is the rule, not the exception. You can’t necessarily blame the CIA for shitty WMD data, info is often used “selectively” in order to satisfy political objectives, a practice that tends to drive analysts/ops people crazy.

Overall though… the CIA is a tool… and those giving out orders are the dangerous ones too. Still the chosing of Noriega, Osama and other fuck ups are plainly the CIA’s choices and a sign of their repeatedly dealing with the wrong people.

To reiterate, state-level strategic decisions are most certainly made at political levels (e.g. above the Director), not at bureaucratic levels. The Agency can make recommendations, which are either ignored or accepted based on risk/political environment. It’s the people with executive control over the org that are most “dangerous”, not the org itself.

[Lemur866]

Wait a minute, President BrainGlutton.

So you’re telling me that your administration wouldn’t use military force to destroy terrorist training camps? If an army sniper has Osama bin Ladin in his sights, you would forbid pulling the trigger? That our operation in Afghanistan was illegal? That when our military shot at Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers they were criminal murderers?

How about when the US shot down Admiral Yamamoto’s airplane in WWII? Was that assassination? Is there a moral difference between an army sniper shooting Taliban soldiers and an army sniper shooting Taliban leaders? Why is it OK to kill the grunts but immoral to kill the leaders?

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

If an army sniper has Osama bin Ladin in his sights, you would forbid pulling the trigger?

Of course I would. Leaving beside the legality and morality, bin Laden should be taken alive for interrogation. Killing him would accomplish nothing important (save revenge); al-Qaeda would go on without him. This is not like cutting the head off a snake; it’s like cutting the head off a Hydra.

@Lemur866

That our operation in Afghanistan was illegal?

No, that was plain old war. Though I would have felt a lot more comfortable about it if Congress had actually declared war, which would have been easy to justify under the circumstances. (Why don’t they do that any more?)

@Lemur866

How about when the US shot down Admiral Yamamoto’s airplane in WWII? Was that assassination?

Yes, but since Yamamoto was an officer of a nation with which we were at war, he was fair game.

Fidel Castro, on the other hand, is not, and never has been since he came to power. Yet the CIA kept trying to get him, until at last they gave up in despair and embarrassment.

[Lemur866]

So if that army sniper has a Talib soldier in his sights he can pull the trigger–it’s war after all. But if he has a Talib leader in his sights it would be wrong to pull the trigger? We send troops to attack Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and those Taliban fighters are killed without a trial. But if Osama bin Ladin were fighting alongside them, we wouldn’t be able to shoot him?

I agree that we shouldn’t kill enemy soldiers when we have a reasonable opportunity to capture them…if they are surrendering for example. But we can kill enemy soldiers even if they aren’t directly threatening our troops, self-defense doesn’t apply. If we can morally kill Talib soldiers, why can’t we morally kill Talib leaders? Is it the specificity of attacking a particular person? Would it be moral to tell our soldiers to preferentially shoot officers over enlisted personell? The Geneva conventions apply to irregulars as well as regulars. We can’t expect our troops to always only fight regular soldiers, we also have to fight paramilitaries where the distinctions aren’t so clear. We can drop bombs on a Taliban base. Why then would it be wrong to drop bombs on the base if we know that Mullah Omar is there and the bombing has a good chance of killing him?

In WWII we were dropping bombs all over Germany. Would it have been wrong to target Berlin?

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

So if that army sniper has a Talib soldier in his sights he can pull the trigger–it’s war after all. But if he has a Talib leader in his sights it would be wrong to pull the trigger?

Well, I believe under the rules of war it is considered an atrocity to specifically target civilians, even if they are leaders of the enemy government. If they happen to be killed by indiscriminate fire or bombing, that’s different. (Although maybe it shouldn’t be.)

[Lemur866]

Yeah, but that Talib fighter isn’t a “soldier”, he is probably a member of a tribe that supports the Taliban. We aren’t talking about the armed forces of a country we are at war with, we are talking about irregulars who occasionaly shoot at our soldiers. What makes the fighters moral to kill, but not the leaders? And is it really illegal (against the Geneva convention) to attack civilian leadership?

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

What makes the fighters moral to kill, but not the leaders? And is it really illegal (against the Geneva convention) to attack civilian leadership?

From http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html:

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:

Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.

When questioned — in the prisoner’s native language — prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.

Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.

Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.

International Rules About Civilians

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

No exceptions noted for civilian political leadership. The definition of “soldier” is, I believe, broad enough to cover Taliban irregulars.

[Lemur866]

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

A force of irregulars is protected by the Geneva conventions. But surely there is no real distinction between civilian and military leadership in a band of irregulars. If it is legal to shoot the guys shooting at us, we can certainly shoot the guys telling them to shoot at us.

And of course, it is certainly within the Geneva convention to kill enemy soldiers even when they are not attacking you. So if someone is a Talib fighter our soldiers could bomb his house even when he’s “off duty”. Yes, we couldn’t shoot someone if he was trying to surrender…but we could drop a bomb on his head without warning him beforehand.

[Nietzsche]

@BrainGlutton

Not always, no. But practical limitations – such as a deliberate lack of institutional preparedness to perpetrate criminal “black ops” – might prevent us from taking such actions until the blood-boiling crisis has passed and cooler heads can prevail. That is why I think the CIA should be stripped of all such functions, and in particular of all “black budget” funding for such functions.

Without the preparedness, then the effectiveness would also be reduced. Your concern in regards to black ops seems to be where is was misused against a state. But to eliminate funding for black ops completely would hamstring your intelligence agencies significantly. Considering that now your nation is in a war against shadowy organizations which will require black ops more than any other method, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate funding for black ops. As others have mentioned, black ops and the agencies that utilize it are just tools. It’s the misuse that causes problems. Me using a hammer to hit someone shouldn’t mean funding for hammers should be eliminated. I should be held accountable, not the hammer.

Slows everything down, you know?

Wouldn’t that be a welcomed change. The problem is, the slowdown would come with a severe increase in risk to your nation.

Lemur866:
I think you’re extending the meaning of black ops. If a leader, whether a general, a president, or a terrorist leader, is killed on the battlefield, it can not be considered a targeted assassination or a “black op.” In the circumstances you describe, yes, it would be legal. What is illegal is sending out a team of agents with the exclusive mission to kill for example Castro or Ho Chi Minh and do so in secrecy and without following the rules of warfare.
An errant bomb taking out Mullah Omar can not be considered a targeted assassination. Spiking Yushchenko’s soup with Dioxin is (and in no way am I suggesting that any US intelligence agency was responsible… just using that as a recent example).

And is it really illegal (against the Geneva convention) to attack civilian leadership?

If they are posing no direct threat, then yes it would be illegal. However, if he’s about to shoot at your soldier, then it would be legal to kill him first. But again, keep in mind that this wouldn’t fall into the category of a black op.

[BrainGlutton]

@Nietzsche

Without the preparedness, then the effectiveness would also be reduced.

That is the point.

@Nietzsche

Your concern in regards to black ops seems to be where is was misused against a state.

No, my concern is that there is practically no use for black ops that is not misuse.

[Nietzsche]

@BrainGlutton

That is the point.

Well, if that’s the point, I’m afraid you’ll have a hard time convincing many people, let alone a concerned American populace. Why would one want to reduce the effectiveness of a form of intelligence and by extension their defenses? If such a thing can be used to defeat a terrorist cell, want logical argument could be presented against it? If your concern is the misuse, then it’s the misuse you should be focused on. I’m skeptical of Senate committees as a black op can easily be made to look like the work of another government’s intelligence agency. But that just means the public needs to look at other methods of combating abuse. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to suggest doing away with black ops entirely.

No, my concern is that there is practically no use for black ops that is not misuse.

How about my example above? Using it against an actual-and-for-true terrorist cell?

[BrainGlutton]

@Nietzsche

Why would one want to reduce the effectiveness of a form of intelligence and by extension their defenses?

“Black ops” is not a form of "intelligence.

How about my example above? Using it against an actual-and-for-true terrorist cell?
[/QUOTE]

If you want to neutralize a “shadowy organization,” you don’t want CIA methods, which have rarely if ever been effective for such purposes (that we know of). You need FBI methods, adapted as necessary for operation in a foreign country with the foreign government’s grudging acquiescence.

[BMalion]

and if the foreign government does not acquiesce?