7 ms·

>8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. Really? That seems exactly like th

>8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. Really? That seems exactly like the kind of thing that should get an agency canned, especially because its not an aberration. In fact, I'd say virtually any other agency that did so would be canned in short order. Why doesn't the CIA have to play by the same rules as everyone else? Especially when those rules are as basic as 'don't murder American children'.

zug_zug 4y ago
??? Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. But nonetheless, no, we wouldn't shut down the whole EPA, fire everybody, delete all the databases, and cancel worrying about pollution if the EPA killed a child. I know this is an emotional topic, but imo overreacting proposals actually make less progress toward a concrete improvement than practical ideas.
- everforward 4y ago
  > Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. I don't think this is true. Executive Order 12333 states: > No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. They then go on to note that it was "re-interpreted" to not apply to counterterrorism. Under the same logic, the EPA could be extended to allow assassination of people harmful to the environment. The problem is that the CIA is meant to operate in secrecy, which makes sense for information gathering. Having a secretive group that's also tasked with extrajudicial killings virtually guarantees ineffective oversight. Let the CIA go back to gathering info, and let the SEALS or rangers or whoever do the killing. Some branch of government with a level of oversight.
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    There’s some misunderstanding here regarding US law and intel agencies. Intel agencies don’t actually do the killing. The military does. CIA as an intel agency only says where and who. That is essentially the function of an intel agency. These functions are outlined in USC Title law. So it already is as you state. CIA gathers info, military does the killing. It is the same reason there’s NSA and US Cyber Command. So no, the EPA cannot kill anyone as the law only allows the military to engage in offensive operations. (USC Title 10)
    - everforward 4y ago
      > Intel agencies don’t actually do the killing. The military does. CIA as an intel agency only says where and who. Nope https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-1489444374 https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-... The CIA has the authority and hardware to launch their own drone strikes. It was classified, so we don't know when it started, but Obama removed their power to do it and Trump gave it back. The US has two separate drone strike programs. The military runs one, and the CIA runs the other. Edit: Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri it's specifically noted that the CIA conducted the drone strike after approval from Biden.
      - jonnybgood 4y ago
        This is an ongoing debate between the authorities of Title 50, which the CIA falls under, and Title 10, which the military falls under.
scottLobster 4y ago
Fun fact, your life has a monetary value. So does an 8-year old child. So does each and every body part. This is how insurance companies work. If your child is killed, even in the most horrifically tragic of circumstances, you might think you're morally entitled to everything the killers have and more, but under any civilized legal system in the world, you aren't. You might get a few hundred-thousand dollars, maybe even millions. But you're not getting 50 million, or even 10 million. Blood money is a thing, it has never ceased to be a thing, and it's arguable that no system of government could function if it wasn't a thing. If every life is priceless then entitlements would rack up to impossible levels really quickly, there's a great deal of tragedy and brutality in the world that would overwhelm such a system, well beyond the tiny fraction that makes any part of the news. This is a long winded way of saying: assassinating an 8 year old girl should lead to various corrections, and generally shouldn't happen, but the CIA as a whole is worth more than one life.
- carapace 4y ago
  But by saying that aloud and apparently in earnest you have revealed that you are someone whose beliefs and opinions on the matter are not worth considering. You should not be allowed to run the CIA nor should anyone who thinks like you.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Are you okay? I'm simply describing the way things are, and to some degree or another always have been. Good thing you're not in charge, your idealism would quickly turn to anarchism and despair if you saw how the sausage is made. You'd bring the whole house down on all our heads just to spite it.
    - carapace 4y ago
      I thought about not replying, but there's a slim chance that I may be able to help you out. You're living in a hell. The gates of your hell are not locked nor guarded, you can leave whenever you want, but you have to realize that you're in hell before you can realize that there's a better place to be.
knodi123 4y ago
> That seems exactly like the kind of thing that should get an agency canned But the article literally says she was killed during a commando attack ordered by Donald Trump. I agree the CIA has done lots of awful things, and that knowingly or carelessly killing children should not be allowed. But did the CIA do this particular killing?
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
You know the previous president said this was a thing he would intentionally do out loud multiple times and got cheered for it: > "When you get these terrorists," Trump said, "you have to take out their families." > O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would "take out" the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would "put out hits on women and children" if he were elected. Trump replied, "I would do pretty severe stuff." The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. "Yeah, baby!" a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children. And then when asked about it being illegal: > Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families. > Mr Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.” > The entrepreneur elaborated with claims that the wives of the 9/11 terrorists knew what was going to happen and fled to Saudi Arabia just before the attacks.

zug_zug 4y ago

??? Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. But nonetheless, no, we wouldn't shut down the whole EPA, fire everybody, delete all the databases, and cancel worrying about pollution if the EPA killed a child. I know this is an emotional topic, but imo overreacting proposals actually make less progress toward a concrete improvement than practical ideas.

everforward 4y ago
> Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. I don't think this is true. Executive Order 12333 states: > No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. They then go on to note that it was "re-interpreted" to not apply to counterterrorism. Under the same logic, the EPA could be extended to allow assassination of people harmful to the environment. The problem is that the CIA is meant to operate in secrecy, which makes sense for information gathering. Having a secretive group that's also tasked with extrajudicial killings virtually guarantees ineffective oversight. Let the CIA go back to gathering info, and let the SEALS or rangers or whoever do the killing. Some branch of government with a level of oversight.
- jonnybgood 4y ago
  There’s some misunderstanding here regarding US law and intel agencies. Intel agencies don’t actually do the killing. The military does. CIA as an intel agency only says where and who. That is essentially the function of an intel agency. These functions are outlined in USC Title law. So it already is as you state. CIA gathers info, military does the killing. It is the same reason there’s NSA and US Cyber Command. So no, the EPA cannot kill anyone as the law only allows the military to engage in offensive operations. (USC Title 10)
  - everforward 4y ago
    > Intel agencies don’t actually do the killing. The military does. CIA as an intel agency only says where and who. Nope https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-1489444374 https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-... The CIA has the authority and hardware to launch their own drone strikes. It was classified, so we don't know when it started, but Obama removed their power to do it and Trump gave it back. The US has two separate drone strike programs. The military runs one, and the CIA runs the other. Edit: Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri it's specifically noted that the CIA conducted the drone strike after approval from Biden.
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      This is an ongoing debate between the authorities of Title 50, which the CIA falls under, and Title 10, which the military falls under.

scottLobster 4y ago

Fun fact, your life has a monetary value. So does an 8-year old child. So does each and every body part. This is how insurance companies work. If your child is killed, even in the most horrifically tragic of circumstances, you might think you're morally entitled to everything the killers have and more, but under any civilized legal system in the world, you aren't. You might get a few hundred-thousand dollars, maybe even millions. But you're not getting 50 million, or even 10 million. Blood money is a thing, it has never ceased to be a thing, and it's arguable that no system of government could function if it wasn't a thing. If every life is priceless then entitlements would rack up to impossible levels really quickly, there's a great deal of tragedy and brutality in the world that would overwhelm such a system, well beyond the tiny fraction that makes any part of the news. This is a long winded way of saying: assassinating an 8 year old girl should lead to various corrections, and generally shouldn't happen, but the CIA as a whole is worth more than one life.

carapace 4y ago
But by saying that aloud and apparently in earnest you have revealed that you are someone whose beliefs and opinions on the matter are not worth considering. You should not be allowed to run the CIA nor should anyone who thinks like you.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Are you okay? I'm simply describing the way things are, and to some degree or another always have been. Good thing you're not in charge, your idealism would quickly turn to anarchism and despair if you saw how the sausage is made. You'd bring the whole house down on all our heads just to spite it.
  - carapace 4y ago
    I thought about not replying, but there's a slim chance that I may be able to help you out. You're living in a hell. The gates of your hell are not locked nor guarded, you can leave whenever you want, but you have to realize that you're in hell before you can realize that there's a better place to be.

knodi123 4y ago

> That seems exactly like the kind of thing that should get an agency canned But the article literally says she was killed during a commando attack ordered by Donald Trump. I agree the CIA has done lots of awful things, and that knowingly or carelessly killing children should not be allowed. But did the CIA do this particular killing?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

You know the previous president said this was a thing he would intentionally do out loud multiple times and got cheered for it: > "When you get these terrorists," Trump said, "you have to take out their families." > O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would "take out" the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would "put out hits on women and children" if he were elected. Trump replied, "I would do pretty severe stuff." The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. "Yeah, baby!" a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children. And then when asked about it being illegal: > Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families. > Mr Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.” > The entrepreneur elaborated with claims that the wives of the 9/11 terrorists knew what was going to happen and fled to Saudi Arabia just before the attacks.