5 ms·

The CIA should absolutely be abolished.

by dls2016 6y ago

titzer 6y ago
For sure the CIA has done a ton of crazy shit. They should be subject to oversight and accountability, but abolishing them won't accomplish much other than introducing a massive blindspot in national security.
- daveevad 6y ago
  The last group that tried to hold them to account had their computers hacked.[1] It doesn't seem possible to hold the most powerful accountable to me. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture#Panetta_Review_and_CIA_Hacking_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...)
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  That massive blind spot may be preferable to the problems their actions cause.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Preferable in what way? Clearly the CIA has sinned and will likely continue to do so, but how can we evaluate an agency whose job by definition is either totally unseen (Espionage) or only reported on years after the fact (i.e. no one cares about the terrorist attacks that don't happen)
    - reshyith 6y ago
      We technically do not evaluate anything of this nature, without acknowledging that there are greater forces which evaluate evaluators. Without that belief, what we get instead, is vigilantism (either within the institution, or outside of it.) Preferable to that, is well-accountable and ethically mutual reflection which brings out the best, and roots out the worst in the participants. That is never impossible, as long as we presume accountability beyond immediate verifiability. As Christ said: "for there is nothing hidden which will not be brought to light." In horror tales of every institution (or individual) is the requirement to self-assess and demand better for oneself. If the CIA has entirely slipped its moorings, it is subject to the countervailing forces which would enlighten its enemies to its demise. What is more hopeful, is that only various activities have gone rogue. Regardless, only God knows entirely the state of affairs. God does respond. So with love, and a whole lot of grace, we'll see a brighter future for everyone involved.
      - navaati 6y ago
        Not to be too controversial, but that last part only works if you believe there is a god or some sort of cosmic justice. Those of us who don't would like to explore alternative solutions...
- varispeed 6y ago
  That's like supporting a protection racket... Wow.
  - seppin 6y ago
    A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Are you implying China isn't hacking America, or pushing out it's maritime borders, or threatening US allies? These are all engineered threats somehow?
    - colonelanguz 6y ago
      > A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Actually it doesn't
      - seppin 6y ago
        You're right: "Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket It implies that the protector has the absolute ability to control if an attack occurs or not. So if the CIA had a little more budget, they would have stopped 9/11. Because they had the ability to, they just didn't. Is that what you are saying?
        krageon 6y ago
        Part of a protection racket is staging attacks when you think you're not going to get paid (or you're not getting paid yet). You could just as easily make a case along those lines, but both cases would be disingenuous because real life is complicated. Just because it's a protection racket doesn't mean that it needs to at all times 100% conform to a sentence that you found on wikipedia. As in a real life protection racket, there will always be events that occur in spite of the protection offered. The core of a racket is to respond with disproportionate violence. For example, sending your army to harass the entire country that some of your attackers were part of. Drone strikes on schools that are known to be full of children. There are more salient examples to be found, but I think we don't need them.
- kthxbye123 6y ago
  The US has plenty of other intelligence agencies.
- mrb82k24 6y ago
  National security meaning what in this case? American business interests worldwide?
- baybal2 6y ago
  And so told the KGB, after the soviet union disbandment. I don't have to remind people where it went from there. At least, back in union's times few KGB generals were abducted from time to time, and tortured to death when they felt it was becoming too menacing to the state at large, and that was a natural check on its power.
trhway 6y ago
So you wanna live in the world where only Russians and Saudis do extrajudicial killings?
- pueblito 6y ago
  That would objectively be an improvement, absolutely
  - seppin 6y ago
    Shutting down spy agencies in democracies will not stop spying done by autocrats. If anything, it will create greater incentives to attack more, not less.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I think drawing direct equivalence to the CIA and what the FSB get up to is a little strong. It's a popular thing to say on HN, but if it were true it would mean there's evidence of (say) finding the CIA planting bombs the day after 9/11 in a different skyscraper i.e. The Moscow apartment bombings. Mass surveillance is a different matter, although I don't think that (nominally at least) falls under the CIA's remit

The CIA should absolutely be abolished.

For sure the CIA has done a ton of crazy shit. They should be subject to oversight and accountability, but abolishing them won't accomplish much other than introducing a massive blindspot in national security.

daveevad 6y ago
The last group that tried to hold them to account had their computers hacked.[1] It doesn't seem possible to hold the most powerful accountable to me. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture#Panetta_Review_and_CIA_Hacking_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...)
boomboomsubban 6y ago
That massive blind spot may be preferable to the problems their actions cause.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Preferable in what way? Clearly the CIA has sinned and will likely continue to do so, but how can we evaluate an agency whose job by definition is either totally unseen (Espionage) or only reported on years after the fact (i.e. no one cares about the terrorist attacks that don't happen)
  - reshyith 6y ago
    We technically do not evaluate anything of this nature, without acknowledging that there are greater forces which evaluate evaluators. Without that belief, what we get instead, is vigilantism (either within the institution, or outside of it.) Preferable to that, is well-accountable and ethically mutual reflection which brings out the best, and roots out the worst in the participants. That is never impossible, as long as we presume accountability beyond immediate verifiability. As Christ said: "for there is nothing hidden which will not be brought to light." In horror tales of every institution (or individual) is the requirement to self-assess and demand better for oneself. If the CIA has entirely slipped its moorings, it is subject to the countervailing forces which would enlighten its enemies to its demise. What is more hopeful, is that only various activities have gone rogue. Regardless, only God knows entirely the state of affairs. God does respond. So with love, and a whole lot of grace, we'll see a brighter future for everyone involved.
    - navaati 6y ago
      Not to be too controversial, but that last part only works if you believe there is a god or some sort of cosmic justice. Those of us who don't would like to explore alternative solutions...
varispeed 6y ago
That's like supporting a protection racket... Wow.
- seppin 6y ago
  A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Are you implying China isn't hacking America, or pushing out it's maritime borders, or threatening US allies? These are all engineered threats somehow?
  - colonelanguz 6y ago
    > A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Actually it doesn't
    - seppin 6y ago
      You're right: "Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket It implies that the protector has the absolute ability to control if an attack occurs or not. So if the CIA had a little more budget, they would have stopped 9/11. Because they had the ability to, they just didn't. Is that what you are saying?
      - krageon 6y ago
        Part of a protection racket is staging attacks when you think you're not going to get paid (or you're not getting paid yet). You could just as easily make a case along those lines, but both cases would be disingenuous because real life is complicated. Just because it's a protection racket doesn't mean that it needs to at all times 100% conform to a sentence that you found on wikipedia. As in a real life protection racket, there will always be events that occur in spite of the protection offered. The core of a racket is to respond with disproportionate violence. For example, sending your army to harass the entire country that some of your attackers were part of. Drone strikes on schools that are known to be full of children. There are more salient examples to be found, but I think we don't need them.
kthxbye123 6y ago
The US has plenty of other intelligence agencies.
mrb82k24 6y ago
National security meaning what in this case? American business interests worldwide?
baybal2 6y ago
And so told the KGB, after the soviet union disbandment. I don't have to remind people where it went from there. At least, back in union's times few KGB generals were abducted from time to time, and tortured to death when they felt it was becoming too menacing to the state at large, and that was a natural check on its power.

trhway 6y ago

So you wanna live in the world where only Russians and Saudis do extrajudicial killings?

pueblito 6y ago
That would objectively be an improvement, absolutely
- seppin 6y ago
  Shutting down spy agencies in democracies will not stop spying done by autocrats. If anything, it will create greater incentives to attack more, not less.
mhh__ 6y ago
I think drawing direct equivalence to the CIA and what the FSB get up to is a little strong. It's a popular thing to say on HN, but if it were true it would mean there's evidence of (say) finding the CIA planting bombs the day after 9/11 in a different skyscraper i.e. The Moscow apartment bombings. Mass surveillance is a different matter, although I don't think that (nominally at least) falls under the CIA's remit