The CIA is the agency that prepares the “CIA World Factbook”. Being an ‘agent’ for the CIA doesn’t, in itself, mean anything more than that you read the daily papers and prepare reports.
The CIA hides it’s undercover work under the cover of it’s undercover agents, who provide cover by the fact that most of them are just doing typing.
Perhaps you could explain by giving an explanation, what the point is that you are pointing at? 
People who “work in the clandestine services” are mostly just government employees like any other.
The difference is that they will have access to secret and sensitive intelligence information.
The point is that they mostly don’t have access to secret and sensitive intelligence information.
Because (1), intelligence organisations are information collecting organisations, not information distributing organisations.
And (2), most of the information they collect is from newspapers and similar.
Who do you think does collect the information from newspapers and similar? It’s officers working in embassies, reporting to the central information agency.
The average intelligence officer working behind a desk in Langley is not in clandestine service. That is a phrase with a specific meaning.
That’s the most naïve statement about the CIA I’ve ever heard.
I hate to break it to you, but the main purpose of the CIA is not to produce the CIA World Factbook.
The CIA gets information from:
[ul]
[li]Clandestine agents in foreign government services[/li][li]Spy satellites and drones[/li][li]Bugs - especially at foreign embassies and the UN[/li][li]Intercepted foreign government communications[/li][li]Shared information from allied intelligence services[/li][li]Intercepted emails, text messages, phone conversations[/li][li]Social media, chat rooms, forums, websites, etc., including the ‘dark web’[/ul][/li]
The CIA also conducts covert paramilitary operations and cyber-warfare (hacking into foreign computer networks).
Ok. Budget estimates? 
Why do you expect other people to do your research for you? :(
Anyway, I spent a few minutes googling, since you are unwilling (or unable) to do it.
In 2013 the Washington Post reported that the ‘black budget’ for intelligence programs was $52.6 billion, of which $14.7 billion went to the CIA.
The total ‘black budget’ in 2018 was $81.1 billion - no info on the CIA portion.
We can assume that the CIA budget is probably around $20 billion by now.
You’ve completely missed the point. I’m starting to suspect that might be deliberate. You are free to disagree with me. I don’t mind. But refusing to address the argument isn’t helping your case.
The CIA does mostly office work. Most of the CIA officers are office workers. CIA covert officers are a small fraction of the CIA, and mostly do office work, which obscures the small number of CIA covert officers doing covert work, which is a small fraction of a small fraction of the CIA.
No, the CIA budget does not tell you how many people are in danger. The purpose of the black budget is to conceal, not to reveal, and the James Bond 007 budget is hidden several layers down.
Melbourne, you asked what the budget was, I told you what the budget was. (It was obviously much higher than you thought.) You asked a simple question, and I gave a clear factual answer to your simple question. Now you are saying I didn’t address your argument. :rolleyes:
You are desperately floundering, as anyone can see.
I addressed your argument back in post #524. They are mostly office workers, but they are constantly working with highly secret intelligence information, the nature of which I explained in post #527.
Specifically, in regard to RAF Croughton, where Anne Sacoolas was stationed, as I cited in post #234:
The problem with that is that we would cause international and diplomatic issues by listing these countries. Sure, we would put Canada and the UK at the very top of any of these lists of where “a fair trial can be expected.” But then some other country not on our nice list is going to complain and if we don’t add them, that will cause issues. Better to just have a blanket rule.
Agreed. To slightly add to this, any laws about negligence and driving, whether in the US or the UK are not drafted with the inexperienced foreigner in mind. For whatever mistakes or inattention I or my neighbors might make on the road, blasting down the wrong side is not one of them.
I was in Grand Cayman several years ago and thought it would be nice to rent a car to see the island. After about 3 hours I took the car back. Every.single.action I took in the car I had to fight against my instinct to always keep right. Every turn I went around I felt like I was about to kill or be killed. I agree that countries should seriously consider not allowing foreigners to drive for a period of time when arriving from countries who drive on the opposite side of the road from the home country.
So the law, any law like this, is not a good fit for someone fighting their instincts. Most jurors would not be in a position, as they would for a typical crime, to put themselves in the position of the defendant and judge the defendant’s action against that of a reasonable person. A juror could understand that he or she should not be drunk and drive or not pay attention to red lights, but cannot truly be a “peer” of someone who just arrived and was trying to comply with local law and custom.
And the outrage is surprising to say the least. I understand that this young man is dead and that is very tragic. But to put this woman on trial for something very human makes little sense and sounds of vengeance instead of punishing wrongdoing.
Or, if you’re new to driving on the other side of the road (and I make no claim to knowing whether this lady was or wasn’t), you should have the sense of personal responsibility to do that for yourself.
We come back to the point:
An explanation is not an excuse.
The law here, like it or not, is as it is: whether someone believes it should be different, or thought that it was, is neither here nor there.
Whether or not what happened constitutes a breach of the law as it is can only be determined when all the evidence is heard in court.
…that people present in the UK covered by diplomatic immunity can only be charged if their country waives that immunity.
I’m not sure that just being in the country for a few days makes any difference. It’s a matter of constant vigilance. When I am driving in Ireland I am literally chanting in my head “to the left, to the left” the entire time I am in the car. It requires a purposeful attention to detail, rather than the usual near-automatic driving one does at home.
I also have the same thing at home for a few days when I arrive back. “On the right, on the right, on the right.”
Did the lady in question practice the appropriate level of vigilance? We’re never going to get an answer to that, because she does have immunity, and this is not going to trial. I’ve had to deal with diplomats and their driving habits my whole life. The vast majority are extremely thoughtful and respectful, but a few do exploit their immunity, especially when parking is scarce. You have to watch for their plates and drive defensively, because you can not win no matter what they have done wrong.
From the BBC today: I guess she won’t be too bothered at the present time, but she may need to think twice before travelling abroad in the future.
Just to keep y’all up-to-date:
The UK and the US have agreed to amend an “anomaly” that allowed Harry Dunn death suspect Anne Sacoolas to claim diplomatic immunity.
Here’s the BBC News reference: Harry Dunn death: US immunity rule used by Anne Sacoolas closed - BBC News
Whilst I can see that there are jurisdictional issues that need to be challenged just as a matter of international agreements, I think that the behaviour is Sacoolas is a pretty contemptable attempt to avoid accountability.
She fled when she could and claimed immunity - it was just a convenient handle to hang her justice evasion strategy upon and nothing to do with a genuine concern for her security integrity or diplomatic status.
Its pretty certain that she would have not even served a single day in prison - sh’e likely have been driving banned, fined, maybe some community service and a civil claim that would have been covered by insurance.
So to run away from such mild consequencies to a very serious incident, she chose to hide behind protocol, and this latest legal attempt to prevent accountability from persuing her across the Atlantic is really contemptable.
All of us can make drving mistakes, I daresay that quite a few of us have almost done something similar when driving in other countries - she’s have had some sympathy for being as human as the rest of us.
The continual evasion removes that empathy for her in my eyes, she’s just a common criminal now and hopefully US courts will come down on her far harder than the UK ones would have done.
I’ve got to admire Harry’s family for being so persistant when it should have been a fairly straightforward matter - most families would have given up by now, one assumes that they have access to good legal advice and personal drive.
The witch hunt going on, with the Government pressured into saying they’d bring criminal charges, says the opposite. And the prosecutors did mention possible maximum sentences.
It was a accident, not deliberate, often no charges at all would be filed.
Exactly what would be the point of convicting her? She isnt going to come back and do it again.
However, that is a gamble. There could have been hard prison time. Why take that gamble when the case have clearly been politicized? The Prosecution has already brought felony charges whereas normally no criminal charges would be brought.
“Mrs Sacoolas has been charged with causing the teenager’s death by dangerous driving but an extradition request was rejected by the US government in January last year.”