I think I was already aware of most of the facts presented, but I'm not sure I know what argument is being made?
That the CIA has not enough oversight? This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious.
That the President of the United States shouldn't mention it if he learns someone is plotting a coup or terrorism in his country because that's hypocrisy?
Legacy of Ashes is a good book on the CIA and he has one on the FBI (which covers the two groups petty infighting as well).
The thesis seems to be that America's recent civil unrest is not exceptional, and only continues the pattern that the founding of the CIA and NSA started. The implication seems to be that making federal agencies more transparent would result in more widespread acceptance of American democracy internally, though that's never explicitly stated.
Confession: I didn't read the OP. I'm a believer in Snowden and what he has to say, but to attack Biden's address to the nation felt like whataboutism.
I've been a political observer for decades, and where we are today feels like we've gone through the mirror to upsidedown land. It borders on crazy-making in how bad and deep the divide is, and I even see plenty of it here on HN (which I think of as a meeting place for intelligent people to have intelligent conversations).
Political dialog is dead and I see no hints it will improve any time soon.
Just because something is "well known" doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up. In fact, I'd argue we should bring it up more often when there is low progress being made. People associate importance with frequency of a topic. There's also new people being born every day, so plenty of people that are hearing about these things for the first time. Why shame them? Do you just not care?
"For nine consecutive, long years during those crucial days from
1955 through January 1, 1964, I was one of those briefing officers. I had
the unique assignment of being the "Focal Point" officer for contacts
between the CIA and the Department of Defense on matters pertaining to
the military support of the Special Operations[1] of that Agency. In that
capacity I worked with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, several
Secretaries of Defense, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well
as many others in key governmental places. My work took me to more
than sixty countries and to CIA offices and covert activities all over the
world--from such hot spots as Saigon and to such remote places as the
South Pole. Yes, there have been secret operations in Antarctica.
"It was my job not only to brief these men, but to brief them from the
point of view of the CIA so that I might win approval of the projects
presented and of the accompanying requests for support from the military
in terms of money, manpower, facilities, and materials. I was, during this
time, perhaps the best informed "Focal Point" officer among the few who
operated in this very special area. The role of the briefing officer is quiet,
effective, and most influential; and, in the CIA, specialized in the high art
of top level indoctrination.
...
"Henry Kissinger was a briefing officer. General John Vogt was one
of the best. Desmond Fitzgerald, Tracy Barnes, Ed Lansdale, and "Brute"
Krulak, in their own specialties, were top-flight briefing officers on
subjects that until the publication of the "Pentagon Papers," few people
had ever seen in print or had ever even contemplated.
...
I have not chosen to reveal and to expose "unreleased" classified documents; but I do believe that those that have been revealed, both in the "Pentagon Papers" and elsewhere, need to be interpreted and fully explained.
I am interested in setting forth and explaining what "secrecy" and the "cult of containment" really mean and what they have done to our way of life and to our country.
Furthermore, I want to correct any disinformation that may have been given by those who have tried to write on these subjects in other related histories."
No, the point is that it's an idea that everyone is likely to be familiar with, so it's not particularly novel. Why do you think that became a trope in the first place?
Sure, the blog post is good in that it references specific real world events, but the thesis is not really new information.
Movies often show that the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean that our expectation of a blue sky is irrational. Nevermind the fact that those movie tropes, and much of art in general, is a reflection of real world issues and events. The idea is so pervasive because we already know that it's true.
That the CIA has not enough oversight? This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious.
That the President of the United States shouldn't mention it if he learns someone is plotting a coup or terrorism in his country because that's hypocrisy?
Legacy of Ashes is a good book on the CIA and he has one on the FBI (which covers the two groups petty infighting as well).
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7441109M/Legacy_of_Ashes