12 ms·
Has Trust in the U.S. Intelligence Community Eroded?
- amflare 3y agoWhat kind of question is this? Of course it has. The 3-letter-agencies are effectively a black box that command unlimited resources, all the power that can be wrung from a blank check cashed by the US economy, and no oversight except what they allow. What is there to trust?
- jvanderbot 3y agoThe question is not about public perception but mostly about policymaker perception. That's not obviously true that policymakers have lost trust.
- cheeseomlit 3y agoI get the impression that policymakers are more afraid of them than trusting, thinking of the "don't cross them or they have 6 ways from sunday to get back at you" sentiment
- okasaki 3y agoNew Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...
- bilbo0s 3y agoJust Devil's Advocate, but isn't this good? I want the intel community, the politicians, the journalists, the judges, etc to all be mutually antagonistic. Sorry, but that's just how I see it. In fact, if I can get the factions inside of the different silos to be sniping at each other as well, then score one for me! The idea of checks and balances is smart. If they want to be underhanded in kneecapping each other's power, more's the better for us. Do you really want people like DeSantis or Nikki Haley to have unchecked power over you? Of course not. These people are essentially criminals. The fact that they want to be president, is all you need to know to be confident that they shouldn't be president. If the intel community or the journalists take them down, that's nothing but good news for all of us out here in flyover country. You want Biden and Harris off the leash and running around the neighborhood? You want Trump doing whatever he wants with the levers of power? No. That's madness. This is why we have CNN and FOX, to snipe at sheriffs, mayors, police chiefs, DA's, governors, congresspeople and Presidents. Bonus points if the intel community gets in on the action. That'll guarantee no one will ever get control of your republic. And vice versa as well by the way. You want homeland security to be doing whatever they want? Or do you want senators and presidents to agitate against them? You want cops to be doing whatever they want? Or do you want the news media and judges to be breathing down their necks? The adversarial nature of our system's power allotments works for us. Maybe it causes gridlock? But so what? That's preferable to the alternative.
- hscontinuity 3y agoThis is an inherently naive take. I understand why you have it and where it comes from. It is however, disconnected from reality. Basic fundamentals of human existence since the dawn of time remit one thing above all else in a large civilaztion: Money and power dictate the actions of those wielding it and use it to continue a very closed cycle of power enticing money and vice versa. Period. Put any government up against that, any mega-corporation, and nearly all individuals whom are not named that have more money and control over assets (including populations) than you are keen to continue to remain in this cycle.
- _3u10 3y agoGiven how little they spend compared to the unlimited spending power you claim they have, the TLAs might be the only people who could balance the budget.
- dzonga 3y agobecause majority of the spending and revenue generated is off the books. they're not only getting financed by the US gvt through the budget. But they have their own ventures that generate profits to feed the monster. their ventures could be public such as the CIA venture firm or dark money as usual.
- _3u10 3y agoWell, given that these companies have unlimited profit making ability to fund their unlimited budget if they were to list these companies on the stock market the share price would be infinite. Truly whatever they have figured out is a massive boon to humanity. And they probably should be in charge of everything as no one else has figured out how to make unlimited profit. Their workers must be exceptionally productive. The TLAs could thus balance the budget simply by paying the taxes owed on these unlimited profit companies.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoYour comment is deep into tinfoil hat territory.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NEETPILLED 3y agoActually, its not tinfoil if its already been proven they have a history of this.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoDo share the proof, then.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lainga 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- everybodyknows 3y ago"Betteridge" ?
- ganzuul 3y agoThe U.S. IC considers itself untrustworthy because it knows how compartmentalized it is. If it tries to garner trust then it is straight up lying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thistletame 3y agoWas going to say, isn't this the whole point of what they do? Gain some assets, kill some assets, so no one really knows what they are up to.
- _mlbt 3y agoOnly a fool would have trusted them in the first place. They’re spies with little to no oversight.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stevenjgarner 3y agoHow can the the American voter trust the IC when the rubric for deciding what is secret, private, confidential or in the national interest is so far removed from them personally, removed even from their elected representatives? I think more transparency and open discussion of the actual rubric itself would go a long way to building trust.
- _3u10 3y agoEasy, look around the world and see if the things you want to have happen are happening. Are the right governments being overthrown? Or no.
- llostein 3y agoIt really depends on which side you are on. If you support Evangelical-backed business interests and are partial to Israel then you would have more trust in the intelligence community than someone who wants higher taxes or someone who has no religious preferences.
- unnamed76ri 3y agoI think you might be letting your own political biases guide your opinion here. I don’t know any evangelicals who trust IC.
- 1oooqooq 3y agoit goes both ways. there's two sides to the current praetorian guard setup. nsa if you're a technocrat liberal. cia if you're a bible conservative. with both having nothing to hide, of course
- wolverine876 3y ago> If you support Evangelical-backed business interests and are partial to Israel then you would have more trust in the intelligence community Don't many who fit that description consider the IC to be part of the 'deep state'?
- OrvalWintermute 3y agoI think the a legitimate and trusted IC is essential. Unfortunately though, the perception is the US IC: (1) has been weaponized against non-establishment politicals (2) is heavily involved in censorship cutouts against non-establishment politicals (3) is evading the spirit of the law around constitutional protections via 5 eyes & outsourcing collection to BigTech (4) is heavily involved in regime change operations "color revolutions" overseas that may trigger WW3. (5) Hasn't been completely forthcoming around a number of different things such as JFK assassination, 9-11 hijackers, Epstein/Mossad, Spying on Congress, intentional weakening of crypto standards, plots vs Asssange.
- dralley 3y agoCompared to 2006, or 2015? No. Compared to 1990, probably. Emphatically calling the Russian invasion despite widespread media, domestic and international skepticism helped gain a bit of it back. They should keep doing more of that and less fucking around with paramilitaries in South America.
- bell-cot 3y agoGeorge Bush Sr. was POTUS in '90. He'd served as CIA Director back in '76-'77, and (that I've heard) still knew exactly who to call, from the Oval office to 'way down the CIA's org chart, when he need correct and competent facts and analysis. (Obviously you can argue that he still wasn't talking to the right people about Iran & Kuwait in July of '90.)
- bell-cot 3y agoBetween the U.S. IC's long history of spectacular failures, blind eyes toward high-level enemy moles, and squanderous operating expenses...when in the (say) past 80 years would competent policymakers actually have trusted them?
- largehotcoffee 3y agoRussian misinformation has just gotten better.
- bigcat12345678 3y agoI get a vibe of manufacturing consensus I am an immigrant from China, I never trusted any intelligence community. In a title, it implies there has been a time when the intelligence community was trusted (by who?) I think this is mental manipulation from rand
- ganzuul 3y agoThe individuals who make up the IC are trustworthy* so it comes as a shock to them that on aggregate they are not. *E.g. One group can be trusted with fair elections, another can be trusted to predictably obliterate a village without asking questions.
- thistletame 3y agoWho says that's true? I always thought the people who got hired were just easily controlled and had enough dirt on them that they'd never act outside of their interests.
- ganzuul 3y agoThey have the same problem finding good employees as everybody else. Adding too much on top of that means their org stalls. The lizard-people type you seem to reference is actually quite rare.
- notavalleyman 3y ago[flagged]
- vkou 3y ago> Why did your brain default to that - to inventing and spreading a fake conspiracy theory, that you invented without evidence? It probably defaulted to that because RAND is a government propaganda office whose reason for existence is influencing public opinion. ~60% of it's funding comes from the army and the alphabet agencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation https://www.rand.org/about/how-we-are-funded.html#industry https://www.rand.org/about/how-we-are-funded.html#industry It's roughly in the same bucket of trustworthiness as something like Pravda. I's good to keep up with it if you want to know what the government wants you to think, and for little else. Right now, between this and other similar statements about the intelligence community, the government seems to want you to think that the alphabet agencies need more money and/or power.
- abeppu 3y agoI think in the same way that the Congressional Budget Office is generally regarded as pretty neutral and trustworthy, and makes forecasts about legislation proposed by both parties in a way that is generally credible, perhaps we need an intelligence branch whose remit is just to gather info and do analysis on issues of geopolitical and security importance -- and _not_ to execute on any particular administration goals, support or undermine foreign governments, detain or transport prisoners, etc. Retrospectively, it's easier to answer "Were they right in predicting X, about which more information has now come to light?" than to evaluate "Were they effective in pursuing administration goal Y with the information reasonably accessible at the time?" which involves a lot of messy counterfactuals.
- fakedang 3y agoIsn't that the DIA? They're in most of the Presidential briefings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency The issue is that the DIA isn't above the rest of the alphabet soup agencies in the hierarchy, hence it cannot just report on the activities of the other agencies itself.
- abeppu 3y agoIs that the DIA? I'm of the understanding that because the DIA reports to the Secretary of Defense, and is a combat support agency, that it is pretty tied to administration goals. An example of serving administration goals and political appointees in a way that erodes trust would be Rumsfeld's DoD asking for novel prisoner interrogation techniques. DIA staff were involved in proposing/developing and then implementing "enhanced interrogation" at Guantanamo and Bagram. I want a non-political intelligence agency, or as close to it as possible. I think it structurally cannot be within or reporting to the executive branch.
- patmorgan23 3y agoLike a congressional intelligence service? I don't know if that would be constitutional. I think the best you could get would be an independent executive agency.
- c0zgs33 3y ago[dead]
- silent_cal 3y agoI can't speak for everyone, but I have virtually no trust in it at all.
- daft_pink 3y agoThey said Russia would invade Ukraine. Many other people denied it. Russia invaded Ukraine. I feel this is pretty good evidence that people trust US intelligence. You can cherry pick some failures, but they generally do a good job.
- cess11 3y agoUnited Fruit.
- wolverine876 3y agoYou gave one example of a success. That doesn't make a track record. Iraq was an enormous failure, and also torturing prisoners.
- 93po 3y agoAlso general failure to even attempt prosecution of the politically well-connected and powerful, unless of course other well-connected people were harmed or allege harm
- wolverine876 3y agoIs that connected to the intelligence community?
- 93po 3y agoYes, the FBI is part of the IC, and the FBI is responsible for investigating and prosecuting many of the illegal things the politically powerful do
- wolverine876 3y agoI get it now. I can see law enforcement as kissing up to the powerful in a way similar to the IC kissing up to the President, and also Trump has used LE to further his ends and promises to do more if elected. But I wonder where to draw the line between LE and IC. All LE does some IC work, at least if it comes their way.
- cess11 3y agoNot sure how it would matter, but I'm also not living in the US. Vaguely related video which I found interesting, about the geography of state secrecies in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf64nBAfujk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf64nBAfujk
- TypicalHog 3y agoPretty sure CIA is the big brain which essentially controls the world.
- gamepsys 3y agoI imagine the U.S. Intelligence Community played a large role in preventing 9/11 style terrorism in the last 23 years. I sometimes worry about some of their actions, or rumors of their actions. I do think their north star is in the countries' best interest. Edit: 12 -> 23 years. Wow it's been a long time.
- protomolecule 3y ago"I sometimes worry about some of their actions, or rumors of their actions." Don't you think that you got 9/11 because of their actions?
- thistletame 3y agoMindcontrol programs, Tuskegee experiments, dropping biological agents on us civilians, distributing metric tons of crack cocaine, arent really rumors at this point. In this day and age if anyone thinks they are doing better things than the now public mistakes of the past I would advise to hold their beer.
- protomolecule 3y agoI meant operation Cyclone[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
- wolverine876 3y ago> I imagine the U.S. Intelligence Community played a large role in preventing 9/11 style terrorism in the last 23 years. I guess it's honest to call it 'imagination'. What evidence do you have? There haven't been those attacks anywhere for 23 years, and they didn't happen for 23 years before that. > I do think their north star is in the countries' best interest. Per TFA, their north star is often pleasing the current President.
- Scipio_Afri 3y agoOff the top of my head, I’m sure there are plenty others - “2006 transatlantic aircraft plot”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot#:~:text=The%202006%20transatlantic%20aircraft%20plot,during%20an%20extensive%20surveillance%20operation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_....
- csdreamer7 3y ago"The most common reason for bias internal to the IC is self-censorship IC analysts and managers have consciously changed or watered down assessments. This self-censorship was largely driven by a desire to stay relevant or an effort to avoid retaliation from policymakers. " Would anyone be able to offer insight into this? Are they worried about pointing out ties of lawmakers foreign investment ties? Biden's son to Ukraine and Republicans to Russia? Due to the political nature of this please post credible links to back up your claims.
- wolverine876 3y agoI've read about it or something similar in other reports: The administration puts pressure on them to produce certain results or to not produce others that conflict with their priorities or worldview. People hesitate to stick their finger in their boss's eye, and to produce work that will result in them being ridiculed, demoted, or simply excluded from the power structure, even though it's true. I remember some intelligence agency or agencies assessing that Iran had much less of a nuclear weapons program than generally thought. The report was dragged through the mud. Look up reports on past intelligence failures and you'll find similar issues.
- alecco 3y agoIt's interesting how they work to gain trust: just finance movies like Sicario so people accept they have no other option but to break the law. And of course they only want to serve the interest of the nation, not their selfish interests or private interests. Next movies will probably justify how they have to run the country. Just like the greatest ally in the Middle East does, where most presidents come from intelligence. War is peace.