|
Post by johng on Jul 14, 2009 15:06:50 GMT -5
JD, I empathize with your since of "Lawfullness" and share many of these values, however having served in the military in a closely related venue I must tell you some things are necessary in the name of National Security which should always be kept in very small circles. Let me say it this way - I was in a decision roll with very powerful delivery systems in our weaponry. The phsycological implications of such is dependent upon a reasonable mind and stable process for evaluating a situation (if for no other reason than self preservation) before pulling a trigger. Our Intel is a must with eyes and ears on the ground, no matter how good we get with electronic surveilance we must have solid information availed. For this reason - having been close to the action - I prefer only to know the real data, not how it was obtained or "who slept with who" as it is over exposure! Tell me what the risk is, who the real enemy is, where he is and a reasonable assessment of "collateral damage" then get to hell out of dodge because if you convince me (there are plenty in the chain of command) of its merit - things are going to go BOOM. If not, go back to your bedding activity and call me when you have something of substance. There is nothing in that scenario that belongs in Congress with the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken! So please know that there are real people involved who daily take risk of life and look out for you, me and those loon bags in Congress!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 14, 2009 15:46:34 GMT -5
I will be the first to admit I never had day-to-day experience with national security or military matters, that I am just an average civilian. And I'm sure there are many dedicated and professional people in our intelligence agencies. The question is: What are they working for? Well, that question is what our whole government is about, deciding what the goals of our nation should be, and that is decided by our elected representatives making laws. (You may dislike Reid and Pelosi, but they were elected by their constituents) The point is, I have my one vote, and my one vote is as powerful as anyone else's, and I vote according to my moral values, and if my moral values are being violated by the CIA or any other people who work for us, they have to bend to my will if I am in the majority, not the other way around. And if I think all the secrecy does not serve America and is being used to hide morally repugnant actions, I will vote for people who will put a stop to it.
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Jul 14, 2009 16:16:43 GMT -5
Speaking of "elected representatives" who are responsible to their constituents, is anyone concerned about Obama's long (and growing) list of czars who are not elected, confirmed, or responsible to anyone except Obama? Last I heard he is up to 34 in approx. six months in office.
Is anyone questioning the constitutionality of this (power grab)? I am a lot less concerned about the activities of the CIA.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 14, 2009 19:11:28 GMT -5
I will be the first to admit I never had day-to-day experience with national security or military matters, that I am just an average civilian. And I'm sure there are many dedicated and professional people in our intelligence agencies. The question is: What are they working for? Well, that question is what our whole government is about, deciding what the goals of our nation should be, and that is decided by our elected representatives making laws. (You may dislike Reid and Pelosi, but they were elected by their constituents) The point is, I have my one vote, and my one vote is as powerful as anyone else's, and I vote according to my moral values, and if my moral values are being violated by the CIA or any other people who work for us, they have to bend to my will if I am in the majority, not the other way around. And if I think all the secrecy does not serve America and is being used to hide morally repugnant actions, I will vote for people who will put a stop to it. Understood and appreciated. I am only glad that this mentality was not prevailing when and where our defense was/is involved. I am also quite pleased the men and women who died-served to protect your right to feel this way (Warm and Fuzzy) did what they did and made the sacrefices necessary! I remain confident (albeit nervously) that our young men and women in the future will step up and defend our way of life in spite of the trend to surrender on principle contrary to interest.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 14, 2009 19:23:53 GMT -5
Speaking of "elected representatives" who are responsible to their constituents, is anyone concerned about Obama's long (and growing) list of czars who are not elected, confirmed, or responsible to anyone except Obama? Last I heard he is up to 34 in approx. six months in office. Is anyone questioning the constitutionality of this (power grab)? I am a lot less concerned about the activities of the CIA. The administrations appetite for CZAR's is more reason to protect the ellements of our military and intelligence community which are not yet entered the USSA.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 14, 2009 19:39:13 GMT -5
The CIA is the only branch of the government that does not have a budget. Valerie Plame was never an operative, but she is good looking. I worked three years for a competing agency. I’ll take a CIA operative over an Interpol cop in a heart beat. The CIA has saved this nations’ ass more than …….. (fill in the blank but the bidding starts at 1,000.) Screw congress. There I feel better.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 14, 2009 22:31:30 GMT -5
The CIA is the only branch of the government that does not have a budget. Valerie Plame was never an operative, but she is good looking. I worked three years for a competing agency. I’ll take a CIA operative over an Interpol cop in a heart beat. The CIA has saved this nations’ ass more than …….. (fill in the blank but the bidding starts at 1,000.) Screw congress. There I feel better. "The CIA has saved this nation's ass.." Funny how all the good things the CIA supposedly did are all secret, but the public things it did are all big f-ups. Remember Bay of Pigs? Murder of Allende? Formerly secret torture prisons? WMDs? I could go on. Screw the CIA.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 14, 2009 22:43:26 GMT -5
I will be the first to admit I never had day-to-day experience with national security or military matters, that I am just an average civilian. And I'm sure there are many dedicated and professional people in our intelligence agencies. The question is: What are they working for? Well, that question is what our whole government is about, deciding what the goals of our nation should be, and that is decided by our elected representatives making laws. (You may dislike Reid and Pelosi, but they were elected by their constituents) The point is, I have my one vote, and my one vote is as powerful as anyone else's, and I vote according to my moral values, and if my moral values are being violated by the CIA or any other people who work for us, they have to bend to my will if I am in the majority, not the other way around. And if I think all the secrecy does not serve America and is being used to hide morally repugnant actions, I will vote for people who will put a stop to it. Understood and appreciated. I am only glad that this mentality was not prevailing when and where our defense was/is involved. I am also quite pleased the men and women who died-served to protect your right to feel this way (Warm and Fuzzy) did what they did and made the sacrefices necessary! I remain confident (albeit nervously) that our young men and women in the future will step up and defend our way of life in spite of the trend to surrender on principle contrary to interest. I'm not sure how much warmness and fuzziness is involved. Unfortunately I am of the opinion that a great many good people have been, in fact, used for political reasons the Postwar Era, and it is still happening today.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jul 15, 2009 10:33:29 GMT -5
The CIA is the only branch of the government that does not have a budget. Valerie Plame was never an operative, but she is good looking. I worked three years for a competing agency. I’ll take a CIA operative over an Interpol cop in a heart beat. The CIA has saved this nations’ ass more than …….. (fill in the blank but the bidding starts at 1,000.) Screw congress. There I feel better. "The CIA has saved this nation's ass.." Funny how all the good things the CIA supposedly did are all secret, but the public things it did are all big f-ups. Remember Bay of Pigs? Murder of Allende? Formerly secret torture prisons? WMDs? I could go on. Screw the CIA. Just trying to cheer you up, I see I didn’t do a very good job. CIA success rarely if ever make headlines, a thankless job, when they strike-out its front page news.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 15, 2009 12:22:13 GMT -5
Understood and appreciated. I am only glad that this mentality was not prevailing when and where our defense was/is involved. I am also quite pleased the men and women who died-served to protect your right to feel this way (Warm and Fuzzy) did what they did and made the sacrefices necessary! I remain confident (albeit nervously) that our young men and women in the future will step up and defend our way of life in spite of the trend to surrender on principle contrary to interest. I'm not sure how much warmness and fuzziness is involved. Unfortunately I am of the opinion that a great many good people have been, in fact, used for political reasons the Postwar Era, and it is still happening today. Maybe it is my "charming personality" or just plain stupidity but I never once felt what I was doing for us in our defense was wasted labor or needed a "common vote" of support from those who were not willing to do what I do/did! The most important part of the Oath, you don't separate the protected between meek, mild and active!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 16, 2009 0:23:36 GMT -5
"The CIA has saved this nation's ass.." Funny how all the good things the CIA supposedly did are all secret, but the public things it did are all big f-ups. Remember Bay of Pigs? Murder of Allende? Formerly secret torture prisons? WMDs? I could go on. Screw the CIA. Just trying to cheer you up, I see I didn’t do a very good job. CIA success rarely if ever make headlines, a thankless job, when they strike-out its front page news. I would love to see even one of these so-called "successes". Oh wait, I think the CIA's role in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention is considered a "success", if "success" is thought to be killing as many Russkis as possible. Not by me, though.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 27, 2009 5:13:14 GMT -5
I killed the "Do We Need the CIA?" thread because I stumbled onto this one. My three remaining brain cells just aren't what they used to be...
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 27, 2009 12:53:33 GMT -5
I killed the "Do We Need the CIA?" thread because I stumbled onto this one. My three remaining brain cells just aren't what they used to be... Yes and I just reread the entire mess and it seems you are the sole holdout here to execute the CIA? I think they should just come public with all the "goods" they have on all the "politicians" so the people can close the book on criminal politics!
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 27, 2009 12:59:43 GMT -5
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Reforming the CIA [Ishmael Jones]
President Obama’s decision to create the High-Value Interrogation Group, headquartered at the FBI and controlled by the White House, is good news. The best path toward intelligence reform is to take away responsibilities from the CIA and assign them to other U.S. government entities that will do a better job. The CIA has now lost a significant element of its productivity and a big piece of its turf.
Terrorist interrogations provided valuable intelligence that saved the lives of many innocent people. At times, information obtained in these interrogations was even able to stop terrorist attacks that were already in motion. But the CIA undertook the interrogations grudgingly. Its Byzantine command structure was unable to supervise the interrogations properly, leading to torture allegations. Top CIA officials rebelled against the interrogations by assigning much of the work to contractors and by leaking information to journalists, which significantly weakened the Bush administration. Taking the interrogations away from the CIA will increase the quality of intelligence these interrogations produce.
The CIA erred in losing the interrogations program because a bureaucracy must always appear to be busy in order to avoid scrutiny. With the distraction of interrogations gone, the CIA’s traditional mission of human-source intelligence production will come into better focus. Its inactive rogue-state and nuclear-proliferation programs, its lax financial controls, and its decision to assign more than 90 percent of its officers to posts within the United States can be better examined and improved.
— “Ishmael Jones” is a former deep-cover officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is the author of The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, published last year by Encounter Books.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 27, 2009 13:08:27 GMT -5
Here is a real threat to the Obama group and all the Liberal members of "The World IS GOREy" Fighting global warming with CIA?Some say security fears are counterproductive WASHINGTON - Melting ice caps. Drought. Spreading disease. US defense planners view global climate change as a national security threat because it could create millions of new refugees and intensify conflicts over resources. But a diverse group of specialists is warning that the Pentagon’s involvement in helping address climate change carries its own dangers. A new debate is unfolding over whether linking climate change too closely with security planning will create a self-fulfilling prophecy, running the risk that the United States will rely too heavily on its armed forces to deal with global problems. “Once you try to securitize the problem, you also securitize the solution,’’ said Adil Najam, director of the Boston University’s Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. “The solution to those problems is not in the Pentagon,’’ he added. “It is moms and pops driving SUVs.’’ Najam and a growing number of others fear that policymakers will turn to the military too quickly - dispatching naval forces to secure new shipping lanes in the resource-rich Arctic as polar ice recedes, for instance - or hand the Pentagon a virtually limitless mission to stabilize regions suffering from environmental dislocation. www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/08/22/pentagon_concerns_on_climate_debated/IMO the biggest fear for these Global Windbags is the full and final "Intelligence" that the GW business is more bullshit than fact. But they will play the "Don't abuse our Military Power" to remove this new CIA assignment to protect their Billions to be made...
|
|