4 ms·

intelligence agencies have too much power and independence from government. I think this is one of those things that pretty much everyone agrees with regardless

intelligence agencies have too much power and independence from government. I think this is one of those things that pretty much everyone agrees with regardless of political affiliation, yet nothing gets done about it, and these entities keep growing and growing

V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago
Agree wholeheartedly. Within government, the tendency is to avoid the extremely uncomfortable discussions pushing back on questionable activities other government entities are engaged in, especially if those activities can be ascribed to some perceived good intent. Even harder if you learn of something questionable that has been going on for a long time - it's grandfathered in by both a long time in the pursuit of "good intent", and by you being a new objector when lots of people who came before you did not object.
mc32 5y ago
And from the pushback received by the previous admin, it’s looks like they don’t take kindly to getting sidelined or downsized... They spied on congress during the Obama years, they spied on the Trump admin when he was a candidate, and then of course the embarrassing revelation that they got caught spying on allies —which is par for the course, but still.
xtian 5y ago
It generally doesn’t go well for anyone who tries to do something about it.
landemva 5y ago
With black budgets shielded from adequate oversight, the people working in some of these agencies have escaped the rule of law and receive funding that allows rogue behavior. To some extent this is human nature, though taxpayers should stop funding it. A 50% cut in federal spending would be a good start.
- luffapi 5y ago
  It’s thought one of the main reasons the CIA is involved in drug trafficking is to raise funds for operations without having to get congressional approval or other oversight.
  - eganist 5y ago
    so basically just Iran Contra but not yet discovered.
    - anticodon 5y ago
      Just look at the amount of heroin produced in Afghanistan before US invasion and after (hint: it's increased by orders of magnitude). Even more: US invaded Afghanistan immediately after Taliban managed to destroy almost all heroin production. I don't think it's a coincidence. There're reports of people who visited Afghanistan after US invasion and they reported that it feels like US army guards poppy fields. It would be very easy for US to destroy them, but they behave like they didn't care. I think that's was the main reason for Afghanistan incursion: to kill two birds with one stone. Earn lots of money and flood Russia (which US hates) with drugs.
  - fedreserved 5y ago
    Nothing like invading Afghanistan the heart of poppy production with a us army. You would imagine we could shut down the production fairly easy, if that's the point.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Defund the (secret) police?
- capitol_ 5y ago
  Thinking that cutting federal spending would impact those kind of untouchable agencies instead of softer things seems very naive.
dcolkitt 5y ago
I think it’s actually shocking how few people seem to agree with this. In particular, the speed with which most of the left pivoted to reverence for the “intelligence community” simply because it was politically expedient after 2016. How many times did we hear breathless tirades about how the president wasn’t “respecting” the recommendations of intelligence agencies, or leaking classified intelligence. As if democratic representative of the American people was responsible to the unelected agency heads instead of vice versa. I voted against Trump twice, but when you get to the point where not even POTUS has the right to challenge the CIA and NSA, you’re no longer living in a democracy.
- yipbub 5y ago
  I'm not convinced. The criticism against the agencies is that they grossly overstep their bounds and commit atrocities. Not that they have bad intel. Trump quite clearly saying whatever was politically expedient.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > In particular, the speed with which most of the left pivoted to reverence for the “intelligence community” simply because it was politically expedient after 2016. I think you are either confusing the Democratic center-right (whuch has always had reverence for the intelligence community and defense establishment) with “most of the left", or confusing opposing abnormally blatant political abuse of (and by political officials within) the national security apparatus with reverence for that same apparatus, or both.
  - krrrh 5y ago
    Hm, I think GP is talking about how the left-of-center media in the NY Times & MSNBC called out goons like John Brennan and James Clapper for lying in front of congress about domestic surveillance and then lionized them because they were convenient enemies of Trump. You can relabel these left-of-center outlets as center-right but that’s not a common perspective.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
DSingularity 5y ago
This isn’t an “oops we didn’t structure the organization with sufficient oversight” kind problem. Nothing gets done about it because things quickly devolve into zero-sum games when nations are involved. You will certainly lose when you decide not to play. The American oligarchy decided they don’t want to lose out on juicy resources to those who will play dirty so here we are.
baq 5y ago
please suggest how to reconcile that with adversary nation states which don't have the same qualms about citizen rights.

V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago

Agree wholeheartedly. Within government, the tendency is to avoid the extremely uncomfortable discussions pushing back on questionable activities other government entities are engaged in, especially if those activities can be ascribed to some perceived good intent. Even harder if you learn of something questionable that has been going on for a long time - it's grandfathered in by both a long time in the pursuit of "good intent", and by you being a new objector when lots of people who came before you did not object.

mc32 5y ago

And from the pushback received by the previous admin, it’s looks like they don’t take kindly to getting sidelined or downsized... They spied on congress during the Obama years, they spied on the Trump admin when he was a candidate, and then of course the embarrassing revelation that they got caught spying on allies —which is par for the course, but still.

xtian 5y ago

It generally doesn’t go well for anyone who tries to do something about it.

landemva 5y ago

With black budgets shielded from adequate oversight, the people working in some of these agencies have escaped the rule of law and receive funding that allows rogue behavior. To some extent this is human nature, though taxpayers should stop funding it. A 50% cut in federal spending would be a good start.

luffapi 5y ago
It’s thought one of the main reasons the CIA is involved in drug trafficking is to raise funds for operations without having to get congressional approval or other oversight.
- eganist 5y ago
  so basically just Iran Contra but not yet discovered.
  - anticodon 5y ago
    Just look at the amount of heroin produced in Afghanistan before US invasion and after (hint: it's increased by orders of magnitude). Even more: US invaded Afghanistan immediately after Taliban managed to destroy almost all heroin production. I don't think it's a coincidence. There're reports of people who visited Afghanistan after US invasion and they reported that it feels like US army guards poppy fields. It would be very easy for US to destroy them, but they behave like they didn't care. I think that's was the main reason for Afghanistan incursion: to kill two birds with one stone. Earn lots of money and flood Russia (which US hates) with drugs.
- fedreserved 5y ago
  Nothing like invading Afghanistan the heart of poppy production with a us army. You would imagine we could shut down the production fairly easy, if that's the point.
pjc50 5y ago
Defund the (secret) police?
capitol_ 5y ago
Thinking that cutting federal spending would impact those kind of untouchable agencies instead of softer things seems very naive.

dcolkitt 5y ago

I think it’s actually shocking how few people seem to agree with this. In particular, the speed with which most of the left pivoted to reverence for the “intelligence community” simply because it was politically expedient after 2016. How many times did we hear breathless tirades about how the president wasn’t “respecting” the recommendations of intelligence agencies, or leaking classified intelligence. As if democratic representative of the American people was responsible to the unelected agency heads instead of vice versa. I voted against Trump twice, but when you get to the point where not even POTUS has the right to challenge the CIA and NSA, you’re no longer living in a democracy.

yipbub 5y ago
I'm not convinced. The criticism against the agencies is that they grossly overstep their bounds and commit atrocities. Not that they have bad intel. Trump quite clearly saying whatever was politically expedient.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> In particular, the speed with which most of the left pivoted to reverence for the “intelligence community” simply because it was politically expedient after 2016. I think you are either confusing the Democratic center-right (whuch has always had reverence for the intelligence community and defense establishment) with “most of the left", or confusing opposing abnormally blatant political abuse of (and by political officials within) the national security apparatus with reverence for that same apparatus, or both.
- krrrh 5y ago
  Hm, I think GP is talking about how the left-of-center media in the NY Times & MSNBC called out goons like John Brennan and James Clapper for lying in front of congress about domestic surveillance and then lionized them because they were convenient enemies of Trump. You can relabel these left-of-center outlets as center-right but that’s not a common perspective.
  - sangnoir 5y ago

DSingularity 5y ago

This isn’t an “oops we didn’t structure the organization with sufficient oversight” kind problem. Nothing gets done about it because things quickly devolve into zero-sum games when nations are involved. You will certainly lose when you decide not to play. The American oligarchy decided they don’t want to lose out on juicy resources to those who will play dirty so here we are.

baq 5y ago

please suggest how to reconcile that with adversary nation states which don't have the same qualms about citizen rights.