It's no surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency breaks the law. But how much they do it is a real shocker. In 1996, the House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a huge report entitled "IC21." Hidden among hundreds of pages of this report lies one, shocking paragraph:

The CS [clandestine service] is the only part of the IC [intelligence community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.

CIA expert, John Kelly, also notes that "The CIA's crimes include terrorism, assassination, torture, and systematic violations of human rights."

Question:
Do you think that the CIA's crime doesn't pay, or do you like how our country makes trouble for the benefit of the US?

Of course the CIA breaks laws of countries they are conducting espionage and intel .gathering in. Why would that be news ?

Exactly how do you expect spies to gather information about foreign, often hostile governments?

And exactly what do you think other countries' intelligence agencies are doing to collect information about us? Think they are obeying our laws while trying to obtain our military and national security secrets?

What, exactly, do you think spies are supposed to be doing?

Elliot

Do you think that the CIA's crime doesn't pay, or do you like how our country makes trouble for the benefit of the US?Hello gallivant:

Well, it depends...

IF, in the commission of their crimes, they get intel that works to our nations benefit (like missiles in Cuba), then I'd say it's worth it. However, if in the process of committing their crimes, they come back with BS (like "slam dunk"), then I don't think their crimes benefited the US at all. And no, that doesn't please me.

excon

Gallivant

If you are looking for a real interesting read about the CIA then try "Sabotage: America's Enemies Within the CIA." by Rowan Scarborough .

I do not mind the CIA doing America's work in foreign nations . I object strongly when they interfere in domestic politics.

My own position on the agency is that it should be disbanded as a separate entity and intelligence operations should be returned to the military .

By way of reply, let me put roughly the same scenario in different context:

Should narcotics officers be allowed to possess, buy, and/or sell narcotics in their efforts to apprehend drug dealers? Technically, such things are crimes.

However, if by their actions they keep my boys from being offered drugs, then I'm all for it.

Likewise, if by their efforts the CIA keeps bad guys out of my yard, then I'm all for it.

Espionage is a dirty business, no argument there. But as someone aptly pointed out, "criminal activity" is the very NATURE of espionage, as your whole goal is to secretly acquire what is not yours, mostly intelligence, but sometimes tangible items as well.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Of course the CIA breaks laws of countries they are conducting espionage and intel .gathering in. Why would that be news ?
Of course they do crime like espionage, that's what they're for. They assassinate people too, again no surprise to anyone. BUT, this article isn't about them just spying and getting secrets, it's about SERIOUS CRIMES!! The serious crimes include TERRORISM, TORTURE, AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Do you get what I mean now? Everyone knows the CIA does tons of illegal stuff, but the question is: Do you feel comfortable with the CIA's serious crimes, which they do in mass amounts, or do you think they should take it down a notch?

Hello gallivant:

Well, it depends.....

IF, in the commission of their crimes, they get intel that works to our nations benefit (like missiles in Cuba), then I'd say it's worth it. However, if in the process of committing their crimes, they come back with BS (like "slam dunk"), then I don't think their crimes benefited the US at all. And no, that doesn't please me.

excon
Thanks excon. You were the only one who read and understood my post. It's not about the CIA spying in any way. It's about the "CIA committing crimes against humanity with de facto impunity and congressional sanctioning." -John Kelly

Why in hell would I write about a spy agency just spying?

Ah! The fine art of espionage… tradecraft, the duplicities, treacheries, and violence…the mole… the use of torture, espionage training…a world that exists almost completely in shades of gray. Men and women who lay their lives on the line 24 hours a day.
We owe more to the men and women in the “Company” than we do to any Congressman. If anything we should get Congress out of the business of what the CIA is doing.

We need to move further away from Idealism and closer to Reality.

Hmmm, let's look at this in context shall we? From the report mentioned (http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21_toc.html), under the heading Finding #6: The Clandestine Service should be under the direct control of the DCI (the Director of Central Intelligence) and form a separate organization:


1) Most of the operations of the CS are, by all accounts, the most tricky, politically sensitive, and troublesome of those in the IC and frequently require the DCI's close personal attention. The CS is the only part of the IC, indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in counties around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself. In other words, a typical 28 year old, GS-11 case officer has numerous opportunities every week, by poor tradecraft or inattention, to embarrass his country and President and to get agents imprisoned or executed. Considering these facts and recent history, which has shown that the DCI, whether he wants to or not, is held accountable for overseeing the CS, the DCI must work closely with the Director of the CS and hold him fully and directly responsible to him.

Amazing what someone can do with part of a paragraph out of context. I found nothing about torture or "crimes against humanity with de facto impunity and congressional sanctioning." Of course the CIA breaks the law, of course they do things which could cause embarrassment or danger to other agents, of course they do things I'd rather not know about - it's an ugly world out there and I hope they're damn good at it.

Thanks excon. You were the only one who read and understood my post. It's not about the CIA spying in any way. It's about the "CIA committing crimes against humanity with de facto impunity and congressional sanctioning." -John Kelly

Why in hell would I write about a spy agency just spying?
I suppose in some idealist way you personally can separate committing crimes from spying, but given the fact that spying in itself is inherently illegal it cannot be realistically accomplished.:)

Of course they do crime like espionage, that's what they're for. They assassinate people too, again no surprise to anyone. BUT, this article isn't about them just spying and getting secrets, it's about SERIOUS CRIMES!!!!!! The serious crimes include TERRORISM, TORTURE, AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Do you get what I mean now? Everyone knows the CIA does tons of illegal stuff, but the question is: Do you feel comfortable with the CIA's serious crimes, which they do in mass amounts, or do you think they should take it down a notch?

Again, I am going to pose the question to you that I posed above.

Exactly what methods would you like the CIA to use in order to obtain the information they need to protect the country? And exactly what methods do you think other international spy organizations from other countries are using to spy on us?

No, I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with what the CIA does. I sleep quite well at night, and pray daily for those who do the job of protecting me and my family from those who would do them harm... by any means necessary. And if ever called upon to do the same (which I doubt, considering my lack of expertise in such matters), I would do the same things in a heartbeat.

I am quite comfortable with what the CIA does.

What I am uncomfortable with is the idea that it is public knowledge, thanks to, yet again, another leak to the press.

And what absolutely pisses me off is when people who have no knowledge about how human intelligence is gathered are willing to put my family, and everyone else's, at risk for the sake of their own personal bull$h!t, PC, kumbaya, naïve notions of how the world "ought" to be and how the people who put their lives on the line every day "ought" to be doing their jobs. People who have never had to actually face an enemy, never had to otain information necessary to stop a threat to national security, never had to actually do the job of protecting this country from threats foreign and domestic, but who think they know the most moral way to do those jobs. That totally pisses me off.

But I have no problems with the CIA. I give them my blessings to do whatever it is they have to do to keep me and my family safe, without being second-guessed by a bunch of armchair political hacks and couch potato generals reading one paragraph of a huge report and thinking they know all there is to know about what the CIA does. And anyone who doesn't give them the same level of confidence is a friggin' idiot and an ungreatful jerk. Instead of criticizing the CIA, why don't you just say "thank you" to them for making sure your butt hasn't been blown up today, and let them get on with their jobs.

Elliot

Edit: And while we're at it, why don't you just say thank you to the soldiers, marines, seamen and airmen of the US Armed Forces, the police, the FBI, the firemen, and anybody else in or out of uniform who is keeping you safe today or ever did so in the past. Try doing that instead of criticizing them for doing their jobs.

The world is a very dangerous place; Espionage is a really tough, but necessary business.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the work done by the CIA.

I, personally, don't care too much about their serious crimes. I do want to hear people's ethical standpoints on the issue though. I mean, The War On Terror. The CIA uses terrorism sneakier and more effectively than anyone on the planet. I'm just glad I'm friends with the bully.

This is the sort of things that I find appalling: CIA Station Chief in Israel Unmasked


“Describing the CIA's participation in the Middle East peace process, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in the New York Times on October 27 that "[T]he agency's role has become widely publicized." In fact, the rather unconventional role of the CIA in mediating between Israeli and Palestinian security forces has entailed a significant erosion of the traditional secrecy surrounding CIA activities abroad. This erosion is reflected most starkly in the publication of the name of the CIA station chief in Tel Aviv, who has practically become a public figure.
The naming of intelligence officers under cover is something of a taboo, and potentially a criminal act. Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Athens, was murdered in 1975 by a Greek revolutionary organization after a local newspaper published his name and address. This incident eventually led to passage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 which generally makes it unlawful for authorized personnel to publicly identify a covert agent, and for others to expose such agents "as part of a pattern of activities" intended to impede U.S. intelligence.
So the recurring publication of the name of the CIA station chief in Tel Aviv has been viewed with alarm and dismay by U.S. intelligence officials. Senator Robert Kerrey, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, remarked on the PBS News Hour on October 26 that a certain publication had "identified the station chief in Israel. And it was a very unfortunate declaration."
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield would not formally acknowledge that the name had been published. "As a matter of policy, we don't discuss individuals serving abroad." But he observed generally that disclosure of CIA personnel under cover is a serious security issue. "It puts them, their families, and the people they deal with at risk. That's the overriding concern."”

I have for some years been appalled that “Station Chiefs” are not more independent and less under control of Washington Bureaucrats. They usually have a number of moles operating whose life is uncertain.

Secrecy & Government Bulletin, Issue 75 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec75.html)

Counteracting Jihadism(guerrilla warfare)s a complicated endeavour, to say the least! It can be called a war, but the traditional definition and conduct of war is not effective against Jihaism. :)

America is going to defend herself against these psychopaths, misfits, and drunk on religion Jihaists in the strongest possible way.

So, you say you are friends with the Jihadists... GOOD LUCK... we're going to kill a load of them in the coming decades.

ETWOLVERINE, I did not in anyway judge what the CIA does as good or bad. I pasted on a paragraph from a government report that was found by a CIA expert(no press leak here). Then I posted a quote from the CIA expert. My question was if you are for or against the CIA's serious crimes and you anwered yes, whatever keeps us safe. I agree with that too, others may not.

In no way did I criticize our military, FBI, CIA or state "How it ought to be" anywhere in my post. The article from this gov. report, IC21, is however offensive to the CIA. That's why I asked whether people care what they do or not.

I, personally, don't care too much about their serious crimes. I do want to hear people's ethical standpoints on the issue though. I mean, The War On Terror. The CIA uses terrorism sneakier and more effectively than anyone on the planet. I'm just glad I'm friends with the bully.

So that's what you believe?

Counteracting Jihadism(guerrilla warfare)s a complicated endeavour, to say the least! It can be called a war, but the traditional definition and conduct of war is not effective against Jihaism. :)

America is going to defend herself against these psychopaths, misfits, and drunk on religion Jihaists in the strongest possible way.

So, you say you are friends with the Jihadists....GOOD LUCK....we're gonna kill a load of them in the coming decades.
I mean I'm glad I'm friends with the CIA. I called them the bully because they are bigger and stronger. I'm American too by the way. My best friend since kindergarten is over there protecting us (Army intelligence).

Dark Crow, I assume you're asking if I believe that the CIA uses terrorism sneakier and more effectively than anyone in the world. My answer is yes, but terrorism against other terrorists. Our country's people are masters at getting terrorists and other enemies of ours to fight each other, to try to attack us when we're ready to intercept them, etcetera, using attacks that are technically terrorist attacks. I'm not saying we're worse or even come close to Osama and those guys, but we're more effective and sneaky(Also defensive). We're fighting fire with fire. Let's say some group is definitely going to attack us. They can be provoked by a 'terrorist' attack which makes them launch an unsuccessful strike. Then our country catches them.

Also guys, the paragraph isn't my work. How John Kelly interpreted it isn't my work. I guess pieces of the paragraph are missing too, well I got it out of a book by Russ Kick, I wouldn't edit something this serious. I just asked the last question of the paragraph to see what you think. Again I support the CIA and think that it's probably necessary, it's okay if someone doesn't though. If you hate the info, or think it's twisted, find John Kelly and call him all the stuff you are calling me!

Sorry girlfriend, if I came across too tough. I apologize. It is an *excellent question. :)

I suppose in some idealist way you personally can separate committing crimes from spying, but given the fact that spying in itself is inherently illegal it cannot be realistically accomplished.:)
I think we can all separate serious crimes like torturing people, from crimes like spying on someone's plans. Sure spying is a crime, but nothing compared to the big stuff. Also, I didn't say spying wasn't a crime. I just said it's not a serious one like this article is about. I was trying to keep everyone on topic with the paragraph and it turned into a battle. You guys are going to give me a heart attack at 19.

I think we can all seperate serious crimes like torturing people, from crimes like spying on someone's plans. Sure spying is a crime, but nothing compared to the big stuff. Also, I didn't say spying wasn't a crime. I just said it's not a serious one like this article is about. I was trying to keep everyone on topic with the paragraph and it turned into a battle. You guys are gonna give me a heart attack at 19.
I certainly don't approve of everything the CIA has done, or for that matter America. In fact one of the greatest evils was the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh; Time magazine chose him over Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its Man of the Year for 1951.

Yes, unbelievably the CIA on Eisenhower's orders ousted a democratically elected prime minister of Iran, followed by the U.S. government's ardent support of the shah of Iran's repressive dictatorship for the next 25 years.

And the reason, want of oil and fear of Communism. Is it any wonder terrorist are at our door? The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits from Iranian oil. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split; is it any wonder we are called greedy Imperialist.

The overthrow of Mossadegh was also not in the American interest either . But I say that with 20 20 hindsight. The prism of the cold war sometimes made for some strange bed-fellows ;the fallout of which we are still paying for .

Well, thanks for your opinions guys. I found out a lot about your thoughts on our CIA. And guys, this post wasn't a way to degrade our CIA or prove myself as a couch potato general. I just wanted a response to the written information. I'm stating this once again just to make sure you guys don't think Russ Kick and John Kelly's words are mine. I have my own opinions, which I stated.

I also learned a lot on how sneeky writers can be. Speechlesstx pointed out something very important about the IC21 paragraph, which I copied exactly from the book "100 Things You're Not Supposed To Know". It seems the writer of the book, Russ Kick, or someone who works for him cut pieces out of the paragraph to make it really dramatic. Russ Kick's organization is called Disinformation, and he writes all his books about how the gov. dis-informs us. How in hell could he dis-inform his readers, or even let dis-information slip past him from one of his writers? I don't believe a lot of the stuff in this guy's books because it's not well researched, but seriously, how could he go against all he stands for? Overall, it doesn't surprise me that much. I did find out the answer to my question of what you guys think, and I did find out that Russ needed to be kicked, which I did via e-mail. I will also inform his already skeptical customers at BarnesandNoble.com that he dis-informs people in his books. I sense... Book sales... Plummeting...

Speaking of kicks, Google <John Kelly CIA expert> and hope his next employer doesn't (unless you want him to be seen as part of Russ's Disinformation crew.)

The one word for this post: Intense! I think I might have post about Arts and Crafts for a while before I do another one like this.

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

Elliot

The one word for this post: Intense! I think I might have post about Arts and Crafts for a while before I do another one like this.

We like intense... but don't let it drive you over to arts and crafts. Stick around and don't be so apologetic :)

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

You mean this mode?


Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose going to do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. -Col Jessep

What a great line...

I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights. Hello again:

The problem being, Mr. Wolverine, is that you are unable to distinguish between soldiers (in and out of uniform), and their orders (the government). To me, it's clear that one is doing the bidding of the other.

I have no problem with the ground pounders, and neither does Gallivant. They're just doing their jobs. Of course, I would (and do) argue with you over the right wing proposition that "the government.... is protecting our rights". In fact, it's my position that it’s the government itself, who's taking away my rights.

excon

Was this 1996 report part of the justification for later emasculation of the agency leading to the 911 intelligence failures?

excon,

It's called the social contract. We give up certain rights and liberties in exchange for the safety and security and rules provided by government. The alternative, of course, is to have NO government, no military, no protection against threats foreign and domestic, no security, no rules. It's called anarchy, and it's a pretty piss-poor way to live. So you get to choose: government, with its protections and occasional limits on your liberties, or anarchy, with its complete freedoms but no protection, no recourse for acts committed against you, and no rules except "might-makes-right". I choose the former, with the caveat that if the limits on my liberties get too burdensome, I will fight to get them back. I choose society over anarchy.

Elliot

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

Elliot
I thought I recognized some of the stuff you said from that movie, but I didn't know for sure, so I didn't mention it. LOL

You mean this mode?
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. -Col Jessep


What a great line...
What a sick and perverted line coming from a madman.