rush@ukecc.UUCP (Richard Starnes) (03/03/86)
I have a question for all that care to answer. To what extent should
let the CIA "loose" on the world at large. I relize this is a rather
broad topic. I will say first of all that I'm very pro intelligence
and I believe that we should leave them alone and let them do the
job there payed to do. Should we try to "actively" steal other
countries secrets I think yes. Should we have poeple assassinated
(under very extreme conditions "yes")? What should we do with spies
(our people that turn coat) and their's that we catch? I guess what I
would like is a general view of the CIA and how it works as viewed
by the public. Also I would like to hear from any present or former
intelligence people. I can hear the laughs about asking intelligence
people to reply but its worth a try.
P.S. I take no responsiability for the grammar or spelling of
this letter and if you can't read it that's too bad.
Disclaimer: All opinions represented here are mine and thus so considered
fact.
Subject: CIA
Expires:
References:
Sender:
Reply-To: rush@ukecc.UUCP (Richard Starnes)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Univ. of KY, Engineering Computing Center
Keywords: michael@ucbiris.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) (03/04/86)
In article <377@ukecc.UUCP> you write: >I have a question for all that care to answer. To what extent should let the >CIA "loose" on the world at large. The CIA should be eliminated altogether. A truly democratic society should have no need for such an organization of official thugs. The NSA and the FBI should be quite sufficient to meet our national needs. >Should we try to "actively" steal other countries secrets I think yes. Stealing is reprehensible within our country, why shouldn't it be reprehensible outside of our country? >Should we have poeple assassinated (under very extreme conditions "yes")? The problem is that when the CIA has been allowed to assinate people, the have done so wantonly. Consider in particular, the late President Salvadore Allende of Chile whose assassination was the responsibility of the CIA. President Allende was democratically elected, and now the CIA's chosen government of Chile, the Pinoche regime has had a reign of terror throughout its existence (consult Amnesty International or America's Watch on this one). Since the CIA is under the executive wing of the government, it gets very little scrutiny from the Congress because of so called national security being waved at every instance. Is it in our national security to assassinate democratically elected world leaders? The anti-democratic policies of the CIA continue to this day, as it has made attempts at destabilizing the democratically elected Nicaraguan government by mining harbors and blowing up oil storage tanks. The CIA not only broke international laws with these two actions, but did so without the knowledge of the Congress (that is until the actions were already accomplished).
mahoney@bach.DEC (03/05/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 2-MAR-1986 21:49---------------------
I believe that the CIA has the right to collect information. (Euphemism for
steal :-) That is what there job is. They don't have the right to destablize
governments or the right to assisinate leaders of governments. I think that
people in our country who "turn coat" should go to jail and depending on the
sensitivity of what they gave out should determine the time in jail. Depending
on who is doing the spying for them they should be either put in jail or
if covered by diplomatic immunity they should be expelled. They should also
be watched to make sure they are not gathering information on people in the US.
That job if neccessary should be left to the FBI. I think that the CIA's
actions in Nicaraguia go far beyond what there bounds of power should be.
Personally from what I have read and heard I see the CIA as bungelers. If
you are going to assisinate someone don't let people find out. (Remember
Allende). It also is not smart to let people know that you are out righting
pamphlets that tell people how to fight guerrilla war far using terrorist
actions. I admit some of these problems are caused by the freedoms that the
press in the US has. This in itself means that the CIA will be much more in
the public eye then other intelligence organizations and as such must work
with higher standards.
Brian Mahoneygdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
Sure, abolish the CIA. Abolish the KGB too. And all other foreign intelligence services on top of that. Maybe we can't affect other countries, so we'll start here at home. It is 'reprehensible' to do X. Therefore, don't do X. It is reprehensible to kill people, therefore don't do it, even if they are SS panzer troops, or more relevantly, Communist mass-murderers! Welllll, (as our beloved President Reagan would say), I'm sure that after these ideas are carried out, we will all enjoy our 'moral superiority' while suffering some sort of Communist genocide. (Tour of Tibet and Cambodia leaving soon!). Of course, that sort of thing won't happen, right? Guy
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/07/86)
In article <1517@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@bach.DEC writes: > > ---------------------Reply to mail dated 2-MAR-1986 21:49--------------------- > > I believe that the CIA has the right to collect information. (Euphemism for > steal :-) That is what there job is. Oh, come now. If the C.I.A. has the right to steal information elsewhere, then why do the "intelligence" agencies of other nations not have the right to steal information here? Think of the outrage we as Amercians feel when a major espionage ring is uncovered. Furthermore, when our C.I.A. people seduce someone in another nation into betraying their country, we think of this as a pretty good trick, but if their side seduces one of *OUR* people, why, their side is playing dirty, and the person they seduced is considered scum. Fascinating double standard. > They don't have the right to destablize > governments or the right to assisinate leaders of governments. Ah, but they *DO* have the right. More importantly than the right, they have the power and the intent. Even more importantly, they exercise it. > I think that > people in our country who "turn coat" should go to jail and depending on the > sensitivity of what they gave out should determine the time in jail. Obviously so, though I question tying sentence duration to perceived sensitivity. If one were to judge on the basis of classification status, some pretty ridiculous things could wind up being considered awfully sensitive. > Depending > on who is doing the spying for them they should be either put in jail or > if covered by diplomatic immunity they should be expelled. They should also > be watched to make sure they are not gathering information on people in the US. > That job if neccessary should be left to the FBI. I think that the CIA's > actions in Nicaraguia go far beyond what there bounds of power should be. > > Personally from what I have read and heard I see the CIA as bungelers. If > you are going to assisinate someone don't let people find out. (Remember > Allende). It also is not smart to let people know that you are out righting > pamphlets that tell people how to fight guerrilla war far using terrorist > actions. I admit some of these problems are caused by the freedoms that the > press in the US has. This in itself means that the CIA will be much more in > the public eye then other intelligence organizations and as such must work > with higher standards. Well, Brian, we agree that the C.I.A. are bunglers, at the least. However, it would appear for the remainder of your paragraph (I'm not going to flame you over grammar and spelling, am I? No, I'm not, but I *OUGHT* to!) that you essentially believe that the biggest blunder the C.I.A. has made is getting caught, not breaking the law, or violating simple ethical standards. Hmmm... -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/11/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 7-MAR-1986 10:27--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 >Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA >Summary: what's fat for the goose is fat for the gander, friend > >In article <1517@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@bach.DEC writes: >> >> ---------------------Reply to mail dated 2-MAR-1986 21:49--------------------- >> >> I believe that the CIA has the right to collect information. (Euphemism for >> steal :-) That is what there job is. > > Oh, come now. If the C.I.A. has the right to steal information elsewhere, >then why do the "intelligence" agencies of other nations not have the right >to steal information here? Think of the outrage we as Amercians feel when >a major espionage ring is uncovered. > Personally I think they do have the right. > Furthermore, when our C.I.A. people seduce someone in another nation into >betraying their country, we think of this as a pretty good trick, but if >their side seduces one of *OUR* people, why, their side is playing dirty, >and the person they seduced is considered scum. Fascinating double standard. > I think both sides are scum not just our own who defect. >> They don't have the right to destablize >> governments or the right to assisinate leaders of governments. > > Ah, but they *DO* have the right. More importantly than the right, they have >the power and the intent. Even more importantly, they exercise it. > The original question was what do you think the rights should be. I do not believe that the CIA should have the right to do this destablization. The problem is that they exericize power that I feel they have no right to have or exercise. >> I think that >> people in our country who "turn coat" should go to jail and depending on the >> sensitivity of what they gave out should determine the time in jail. > > Obviously so, though I question tying sentence duration to perceived >sensitivity. If one were to judge on the basis of classification status, >some pretty ridiculous things could wind up being considered awfully sensitive. > This is true I was just proposing you have shown a flaw I didn't think about but I don't have a better idea right now. [I cut out my own text here] > > Well, Brian, we agree that the C.I.A. are bunglers, at the least. However, >it would appear for the remainder of your paragraph (I'm not going to flame you >over grammar and spelling, am I? No, I'm not, but I *OUGHT* to!) that you >essentially believe that the biggest blunder the C.I.A. has made is getting >caught, not breaking the law, or violating simple ethical standards. Hmmm... > >-- If that is how it came across I apologize that is not how I meant it. How the CIA works is wrong pure and simple. I will not change my stance on their right to gather information that is fine. They should not have the right to assisinate or disstablize governments unfriendly or friendly towards the US. What I said was more of an aside to the reality of what is going on. That as an intelligence organiztion the CIA bungles many things and this makes the US look bad. What they do is something that many intelligence organizations do but other agencys are better at it and don't get caught. Personally I wish there were I watchdog group to make sure the CIA didn't even attempt the stupidity that they attempt and sometimes succeed at doing. (Of course that is probably the job of the President.) It is good that are press biased as you may think it is still try to keep the government honest. >tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 Brian Mahoney