5 ms·

> they operate with absolutely zero oversight There is extensive oversight of the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community_Over

> they operate with absolutely zero oversight There is extensive oversight of the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community_Oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Com... > there[sic] only rule being that they're not supposed to be involved in domestic matters There are extensive rules, law, regulations, and executive orders governing the CIA. Many are listed or referenced in this document. https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/privacy-and-civil-liberties/CIA-AG-Guidelines-Signed.pdf https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/privacy-and-civil-liberties/CI...

viivaux 7y ago
I wonder - do HN rules prevent people from pointing out suspicious accounts even when the user's name is a balls-out reference to shilling? Am I allowed to reference other comments made in the last three days, such as > "If Iran didn't attack the ships who did?", or > "In 1971, 60 Minutes, the most watched TV show in the country won an Emmy for it's story on "What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf?". The truth was out pretty early, and well accepted." Maybe we :are: dealing with an incredibly naive and honest fella here - but with that fucking name?
morpheuskafka 7y ago
Per your first article, the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties). That means most of the representatives and senators who we elect to actually vote on the laws governing and funding the CIA don't even get access to briefings on all of its activities (meanwhile, nearly 5 million Americans have a security clearance).
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties) 1: that's not "absolutely zero oversight" 2: It seems like a reasonable way to maintain critical secret information while still informing members of the opposition party. That means at least several of these members are being briefed: Dianne Feinstein - California Ron Wyden - Oregon Martin Heinrich - New Mexico Angus King - Maine Kamala Harris - California Michael Bennet - Colorado If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight. Historically, that's not true at all. I was going to give a list of cases of egregious actions by the CIA, but quickly realized I'd be sitting here all night if I really wanted to put together any halfway complete list. The sheer number of coups, assassinations, drug-running operations, weapons smuggling operations, etc. that the CIA has run is just mind-boggling. The list of countries that haven't had a CIA-backed coup or insurgency might be shorter than the list of countries that have. Things "go off the rails" so often with the CIA that going off the rails seems to be the plan.
xkcd-sucks 7y ago
But when have these laws been enforced? When have any CIA leaders suffered the consequences of breaking these laws? What impartial party is in a position to determine that the CIA is in compliance with the law? What recourse is available when it's proven that law has been violated?
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  You are begging the question. What laws have been broken? Which CIA leader should have been charged? Nobody is impartial, but you have Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who seem pretty hostile to the CIA who can fill that role. The last big CIA scandal was Iran/Contra, and four from the CIA ended up indicted: Joseph Fernandez, Alan Fiers, Duane Clarridge, and Clair George. The CIA director, William Casey, probably would have been indicted but died.
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    The last big CIA scandal was the Bush torture program, and nobody was indicted over that. They even burned tapes of the interrogations as part of a coverup and saw no consequences for it.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      You could see "abolishing" the CIA by name and replacing it with a new agency over the Bush torture program, and the failure to cut through the legal morass erected to protect the authors of the torture program --- a lasting shame for the CIA and the nation --- would certainly justify that. But there's no possibility of abolishing the function of intelligence analysis and clandestine service, nor should you want there to be: net-net, the CIA might in fact prevent more armed conflicts than it contributes to, and in any case no major power will ever unilaterally disarm. Against all that, you have a 70-year legacy of people putting their lives on the line for the agency, which abolition/rebranding would likely be seen as sullying (further than the torture program already has). It's not going to happen. I echo the other commenters on this thread who suggest that we might want to think harder about holding Congress and our Presidents responsible for how they've overseen and directed the CIA.
astazangasta 7y ago
The oversight is a joke. The CIA tortured people throughout its history, including following 9/11; what oversight did they face as a result? What were the consequences? More funding for running their drone program?
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  Torture was the official policy of the government. Oversight wasn't the problem, it wasn't rogue CIA black ops. Don't confuse lack of oversight with policies you don't like.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    Torture is illegal under international law, and it is unconstitutional. It cannot be the official policy of the government, which is why they tried so hard to pretend they weren't doing it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      You are talking about how things should have been, not the reality. Reality was that it was explicitly policy, they weren't hiding it, they were rationalizing it. You can read much of it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
That "extensive oversight" apparently involves the CIA spying on a Senate committee investigating CIA torture, and the CIA deleting documents in order to hide them from the Senate: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/213933-cia-admits-to-wrongly-hacking-into-senate-computers https://thehill.com/policy/technology/213933-cia-admits-to-w...

viivaux 7y ago

I wonder - do HN rules prevent people from pointing out suspicious accounts even when the user's name is a balls-out reference to shilling? Am I allowed to reference other comments made in the last three days, such as > "If Iran didn't attack the ships who did?", or > "In 1971, 60 Minutes, the most watched TV show in the country won an Emmy for it's story on "What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf?". The truth was out pretty early, and well accepted." Maybe we :are: dealing with an incredibly naive and honest fella here - but with that fucking name?

morpheuskafka 7y ago

Per your first article, the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties). That means most of the representatives and senators who we elect to actually vote on the laws governing and funding the CIA don't even get access to briefings on all of its activities (meanwhile, nearly 5 million Americans have a security clearance).

WillPostForFood 7y ago
the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties) 1: that's not "absolutely zero oversight" 2: It seems like a reasonable way to maintain critical secret information while still informing members of the opposition party. That means at least several of these members are being briefed: Dianne Feinstein - California Ron Wyden - Oregon Martin Heinrich - New Mexico Angus King - Maine Kamala Harris - California Michael Bennet - Colorado If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight. Historically, that's not true at all. I was going to give a list of cases of egregious actions by the CIA, but quickly realized I'd be sitting here all night if I really wanted to put together any halfway complete list. The sheer number of coups, assassinations, drug-running operations, weapons smuggling operations, etc. that the CIA has run is just mind-boggling. The list of countries that haven't had a CIA-backed coup or insurgency might be shorter than the list of countries that have. Things "go off the rails" so often with the CIA that going off the rails seems to be the plan.

xkcd-sucks 7y ago

But when have these laws been enforced? When have any CIA leaders suffered the consequences of breaking these laws? What impartial party is in a position to determine that the CIA is in compliance with the law? What recourse is available when it's proven that law has been violated?

WillPostForFood 7y ago
You are begging the question. What laws have been broken? Which CIA leader should have been charged? Nobody is impartial, but you have Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who seem pretty hostile to the CIA who can fill that role. The last big CIA scandal was Iran/Contra, and four from the CIA ended up indicted: Joseph Fernandez, Alan Fiers, Duane Clarridge, and Clair George. The CIA director, William Casey, probably would have been indicted but died.
- noelsusman 7y ago
  The last big CIA scandal was the Bush torture program, and nobody was indicted over that. They even burned tapes of the interrogations as part of a coverup and saw no consequences for it.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You could see "abolishing" the CIA by name and replacing it with a new agency over the Bush torture program, and the failure to cut through the legal morass erected to protect the authors of the torture program --- a lasting shame for the CIA and the nation --- would certainly justify that. But there's no possibility of abolishing the function of intelligence analysis and clandestine service, nor should you want there to be: net-net, the CIA might in fact prevent more armed conflicts than it contributes to, and in any case no major power will ever unilaterally disarm. Against all that, you have a 70-year legacy of people putting their lives on the line for the agency, which abolition/rebranding would likely be seen as sullying (further than the torture program already has). It's not going to happen. I echo the other commenters on this thread who suggest that we might want to think harder about holding Congress and our Presidents responsible for how they've overseen and directed the CIA.

astazangasta 7y ago

The oversight is a joke. The CIA tortured people throughout its history, including following 9/11; what oversight did they face as a result? What were the consequences? More funding for running their drone program?

WillPostForFood 7y ago
Torture was the official policy of the government. Oversight wasn't the problem, it wasn't rogue CIA black ops. Don't confuse lack of oversight with policies you don't like.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  Torture is illegal under international law, and it is unconstitutional. It cannot be the official policy of the government, which is why they tried so hard to pretend they weren't doing it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    You are talking about how things should have been, not the reality. Reality was that it was explicitly policy, they weren't hiding it, they were rationalizing it. You can read much of it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

That "extensive oversight" apparently involves the CIA spying on a Senate committee investigating CIA torture, and the CIA deleting documents in order to hide them from the Senate: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/213933-cia-admits-to-wrongly-hacking-into-senate-computers https://thehill.com/policy/technology/213933-cia-admits-to-w...