CIA Issue

#1 (**permalink**) 05-08-2006, 02:52 PM

first i would like to say, i am not sure if this belongs in US news or in current... because it fits both. so if this is not in the correct forum, admin please move it.

Anyway, does anyone have any news on that or can explain to me what is happening? From what I understand that the head of the CIA stepped down. There was a person appointed but he currently does not have enough support to get it.

Then i heard that there is talk to shut down the CIA because it is corrupt (80% funds are from the pentagon and it is not worth the money). Is it really possible to have the CIA be closed???

noetsi · #2 (**permalink**) 05-08-2006, 04:55 PM

a thread on the leadership of the CIA. But briefly 1) the existing director steped down because the military and the new intelligence Czar were busy converting intelligence (traditionally run by civilians in the US) into the realm of the military (as it formally is in Britian since SIS is or was MI6 - military intelligence 6 although that is a formality). The CIA is some argue being gutted.

2) There is a lot of debate having a military man already tied to spying on the US public run the CIA. But he will likely win nominantion.

3) The CIA could be abolished by Congress which created it.

SenaxFlatulus · #3 (**permalink**) 05-08-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noetsi";p=&quot

There is already a thread on the leadership of the CIA. But briefly 1) the existing director steped down because the military and the new intelligence Czar were busy converting intelligence (traditionally run by civilians in the US) into the realm of the military (as it formally is in Britian since SIS is or was MI6 - military intelligence 6 although that is a formality). The CIA is some argue being gutted.

2) There is a lot of debate having a military man already tied to spying on the US public run the CIA. But he will likely win nominantion.

3) The CIA could be abolished by Congress which created it.

Wow... you can't even give unbiased news on a basic level. Are you a recent graduate of the Dan Rather school of journalism?

mmelen, don't listen to this liberal, he's telling you what he wants you to know.

The bare bones of the story is this:
1. Porter Goss resigns as head of the CIA.
2. The Bush administration nominates a new replacement.
3. As all appointees have to do, this nominee must go through Senate confirmation hearings for approval

That's it. The rest is just spin, speculation, opinions, and guesswork.

noetsi · #4 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 07:31 PM

I disagreed with the last statment so its spin.

Sort of like the FOX school of advertising when they claim, falsely, that fewer people were dying in mining incidents under Bush than before or that FDR endorsed privatising social security. But then distortion is stock in trade for Fox and routinely ignored by conservatives.

SenaxFlatulus · #5 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noetsi

I disagreed with the last statment so its spin.

I got news for you sweetie, I disagreed with all three of your points. The facts were all wrapped up with your opinion and snuggled in leftist reasoning. (I know, that's an oxymoron, but I just went with it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by noetsi

Sort of like the FOX school of advertising when they claim, falsely, that fewer people were dying in mining incidents under Bush than before or that FDR endorsed privatising social security. But then distortion is stock in trade for Fox and routinely ignored by conservatives.

If you're trying to compare yourself to FOX I fail to see the parallel. If you're trying to say you're distorting the facts, well yeah... that's evident.

noetsi · #6 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 08:43 PM

on your statments on Rather while ingored repeated lies by FOX, the ones I listed are a few examples.

Its fasinating that you disagree, based on your last statment, that Congress can get rid of the CIA or that the general nominated for the position was in fact in charge of spying on US citizens. Most conservatives admit the later point, they simply think it was justified. The former point is basic Constitutional law 101.

SenaxFlatulus · #7 (**permalink**) 05-10-2006, 03:40 AM

Your third point is indeed possible albeit hypothetical. Congress could actually dissolve the CIA.

Congress also could:
*make a third term possible for presidents
*attempt to disband the Supreme Court
*pass a bill to have inflatable balloons and lollipops on every street corner
*dissolve the IRS, FBI, and any government agency whose name contains a vowel
*proclaim each and every Friday to be a national holiday
*outlaw the color pink
*ban the use of automobiles (you'd like that wouldn't you?)
*add an ammendment to the constitution legalizing speeding
*make it a national law to drive on the left hand side of the road, mandatory
*tax stupidity... oh wait, that's called the lottery isn't it?

Congress could do a lot of things. Your hypothetical is open ended. So, while you are correct... the point you make is rather silly.

skeptic-f · #8 (**permalink**) 05-10-2006, 04:23 AM

Just after World War 2, President Truman (convinced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff) dissolved the O.S.S., America's first true intelligence agency. The thinking was that its services were no longer required and that the military intelligence services could do the job. I believe it was only two years later that Truman had Congress create the C.I.A., because the fact that the Cold War had started was now apparent.

Now America is faced with the C.I.A., which is a relic of the Cold War that does not seem to want to reform itself. Perhaps what is needed is to dissolve the C.I.A. (while absorbing a few essential technical services into other agencies) and then starting a specific new agency or expanding an existing one to meet the needs of The War on Terror / Imperial America (take your political choice).

noetsi · #9 (**permalink**) 05-13-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

make a third term possible for presidents
*attempt to disband the Supreme Court

In fact it can not. Both require constitutional amendments which need approval of 3/4 of the states. I stoped at the first two statments, I am sure others were incorect as well.

rota · #10 (**permalink**) 05-14-2006, 11:08 AM

You you can read articles like these two that say Goss was a part of the "watergate II" scandal:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-351086c.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/05...rgate-related/

Or read this article which tells for me at least a more credable story about the CIA losing a lot of power. These two paragraphs are what stood out to me.

Quote:

Acting on a recommendation of the independent Sept. 11 commission, Bush had reduced the CIA director's power by creating Negroponte's post and transferring to him what had been Goss' job of managing the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community. Negroponte also took over other duties that had belonged to the CIA director, including Bush's morning intelligence briefing.

Two U.S. intelligence officials said Goss had complained privately for months about becoming subordinate to Negroponte. They said they believed that one reason Goss resigned was because of recent decisions by Negroponte that reduced the CIA's role in terrorism analysis and the supervision of relations with foreign services on which the CIA relies - critics say far too heavily - for intelligence.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/14512916.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode