Well I think this article does a good job of saying CIA has done some crazy stuff. But then it goes from there to -> so let's get rid of it, which to me seems like potentially a much scarier proposition.
It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things like hacking elections. 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. (Also it's a shame Biden's speech about "hey we're a democracy" had bad visual optics, but again, not really relevant)
Maybe this article isn't saying to eradicate the whole intelligence apparatus, but it's not clear to me what incremental practical step it is proposing.
>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'.
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.
> 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.
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)
> 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-... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
My reading of TFA is that the CIA cannot continue to operate without real oversight. Snowden was a part of the intelligence apparatus, every interview I've seen with him has indicated that he still sees a need for it. However he also believes that the apparatus must be accountable to the legislature, and that in a functioning democracy, representatives of the intelligence apparatus should not be allowed to lie and conceal things from the representatives of the people.
If we elect representatives who run on a platform of assassinating 8-year old US Citizens, and overthrowing leaders of foreign democracies, then that's terrible, but it's far superior to a world in which a single person can unilaterally decide to do these things and then hide it from Congress.
That's my reading. All of the comments that do not address this specific point are missing it.
Is Snowden now a Russian asset? Maybe. Doesn't matter. Why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
It's necessary to "break a few eggs to make an omelet" and that's how "the sausage is made"? Ok, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
Snowden writes too flowery? Sure, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
90% of the freakouts over each President each term is because the Office of the Presidency has so much power ceded by Congress over the decades. No one would have been so deeply freaked out by Trump if the President did not have the power to wage war, to assassinate US citizens, for secret trials, to spy domestically, to put people on no-fly lists, order nuclear strikes and so on.
That's not what I'm asking at all. I'm asking if she was purposefully targeted (assassination) or if she was in a house where other's were the targets (seems to be the case).
Because it doesn't matter. Who cares if they were specifically to kill her, which is loathsome, or that they were there to kill her family and were so ruthless they didn't bother to spare her. Either situation speaks to the general immorality of the organization.
>Maybe this article isn't saying to eradicate the whole intelligence apparatus, but it's not clear to me what incremental practical step it is proposing.
Proper adversarial (a la GAO) oversight is hinted at when he points out the failure to inform Congress about multiple activities. A commission appointed by Congress to inspect CIA activities could go a long way.
It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things like hacking elections. 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. (Also it's a shame Biden's speech about "hey we're a democracy" had bad visual optics, but again, not really relevant)
Maybe this article isn't saying to eradicate the whole intelligence apparatus, but it's not clear to me what incremental practical step it is proposing.