Edited for Scubatim's pertinent post:

The CIA has been caught lying again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_...e/cia_rendition

However, some people continue to use them as actual credible testimoney or as a source when posting- consider the waterboarding thread here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...16189&st=20

When attempting to say "waterboarding worked"- various insider sources in US the intelligence community are used as "reliable sources" in making this claim.

(following source linked by Ted on above debate thread, using it as an example of, is this story believable?-or are they just covering thier butts?)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...ohammed_worked/

Consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former Al Qaeda operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many Al Qaeda secrets. If anyone had a motive for remaining silent, it was the man known to terrorism investigators as “KSM.” But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk. He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA’s interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11. Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captured Al Qaeda figures.

What made KSM decide to talk? The answer may be waterboarding, to which KSM was subjected on at least one occasion, according to various accounts. Intelligence operatives say that while waterboarding can break through a suspect’s initial resistance, it isn’t effective for long-term interrogation. Once a suspect begins to communicate, however, an interrogation specialist can put into action a wide range of far more subtle techniques, which include playing to a subject’s ego or pretending to be his friend.


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...ohammed_worked/

What struck me as odd about this entire story- is that the only people that know the truth of what happened here are CIA agents- there is no way to independently confirm those claims. WE just have to take thier word for it- because no one gets to see what happened, what information was valuable, if he was tortured or not, yadda yadda- the sole source of information is the CIA, with no real way to find the truth- unlike, say, if we brought up a welfare division head to capitol hill to grill them under oath for a bit- the truth can be found out, because there are few roadblocks to conducting a real investigation.


1) Do you believe that the CIA is a credible source of information- any information- considering thier long history of lying and covering up?

2) If you do believe sources in the CIA when coming to judgements on issues such as the WOT, do you give more or less trust in agencies like Social Security or Welfare, in terms of "trusting the goverment", especially considering that the CIA and the FBI or NSA can actually take away civil liberties much more easily than comparitively open and transparent orgs like Health and Human Services or Social Security Administration or the Post office?

3) If you consider the CIA a more efficient and truthful and non-self-serving than the other goverment agencies in the US, why?

Actually, I am all for smaller government, and I don't trust anything GW and the various secret organizations say. A little over-generalizing, aren't you?

Secondly, what possible response is there to be presented after your obvious loaded questions leave no room for anything to be debated?

1.) Yes. They're an intelligence agency. They don't put the spin on things. Politicians do.

3.) I view them as impartial. Like I said, these agencies get their wings clipped by politicians. FEMA is the only federal agency I really choose to badmouth given the incompetence in inner-office management. The CIA and others at least in the past have been operational.

1) Do you believe that the CIA is a credible source of information- any information- considering their long history of lying and covering up?

I think it has a lot to do with who is CIA chief at any given time. Regardless of the leadership, however, the organization will seek to protect itself through obfuscation, misdirection, and denial when necessary.

I do believe that for the most part the CIA is comprised of people who genuinely place the welfare of the country above nearly everything else.

One thing I did learn was that there were conflicting reports from the CIA about Iraq in particular, and that all of these conflicting reports were presented to the President. I think that's the way it should be. It does indicate a measure of honesty.

2) If you do believe sources in the CIA when coming to judgements on issues such as the WOT, do you give more or less trust in agencies like Social Security or Welfare, in terms of "trusting the government", especially considering that the CIA and the FBI or NSA can actually take away civil liberties much more easily than comparatively open and transparent orgs like Health and Human Services or Social Security Administration or the Post office?

Did the President or Vice President Cheney believe sources in the CIA when coming to judgement on the WOT? Nope. What about that National Intelligence Estimate that wasn't used before the invasion of Iraq? Bush/Cheney/Rummy were dead-set on blaming Iraq for 9/11 regardless of evidence of the contrary. They didn't even trust the Pentagon's DIA, instead establishing something called the Office of Special Plans.

The CIA might have had some useful information regarding Iraq that flew in the face of what was being told to the President by one particular Iraqi who was blathering on about WMD, etc. The problem is that we as humans tend to assign more credibility to positions that agree with our own.

At any rate, the FBI had pertinent information on terrorist activity in the United States. While field agents dutifully reported their findings, the higher-ups dropped the ball.

With the CIA and any organization whose function is to operate in secrecy, there can be renegades who do things the way they want to, regardless of agency dictates.

No, I don't trust the CIA or NSA, but I haven't needed to deal with them, either (thank God).

I do trust Social Security to send me the monthly disability check that keeps me alive, and I do trust the Postal Service to deliver the mail.

3) If you consider the CIA a more efficient and truthful and non-self-serving than the other government agencies in the US, why?

The CIA might be efficient. As to the rest of your question, the CIA will be the CIA, regardless. I just wish that the appointments to the CIA were not comprised of ideologues or political cronies of any given administration. Like Caesar's wife, they should be above reproach.

Yes. To say the “CIA lied" in this case is to involve more that their mouthpieces but several current and former employees who imo would not risk jail etc. just to cover some perceived wrong. Remember waterboarding as used was legal – and I believe still is.


All agencies are “self-serving” but they are also under constant Congressional scrutiny esp. the CIA which has Congressional oversight people all over them. If you are saying there is a “vast conspiracy” here please document it.

Strict oversight. As Reagan Said so eloquently – Trust but verify

Can you show us how this so called congressional oversight you claim all over them is actually true and as far reaching as your post infers to me.

As you know it is impossible to find so called conspiricies till they are arrested, and if you are correct the oversight is all over them then it would be hard, but if there is not oversight all over them then impossible to catch misdeeds. As we know even in the military region where there are open doors, billions of dollars of money has disapeared without any accountability and that too has so called congressional oversight and virtually none of that theft is being prosecuted. empty trucks and no meals were being served up to the billions of dollars and this is in a war zone where americans are directly dying and losing limbs for not having proper armements due to lack of money.. So how is oversight better in a secret operation, where in general we are not at war letting our soldiers die?

Also Just as in the watergate where some or one of these characters had a CIA background and could have been active, and the Oliver North using the CIA for illegal activities, and the guy in the Kennedy assignation that the CIA later told us was a CIA agent. It was not the day to day congressional oversight that found any of these from what I remember....

Scubatim

I can see your argument here, I think your comment has some legs to stand on regarding this point.

Scubatim


I don't agree with this portion at all. All three questions are worded in a way that gives you leeway to post your favorite ideological way. Let's look at each one:



This is a simple "yes" or "no" question that can be backed up. If you don't believe the CIA has ever lied, you could answer "yes" and then explain why. Perhaps the second part is a bit presumptive, but not too bad.



Another "yes" and "no." If you disagree that the SSA or HHS are not as transparent as the department of homeland scurity or DOD, then please post about their "openness" and prove him wrong. Simple statements of bias don't help anybody.



Pretty straightforward. How could he have possibly re-worded it?

You should have seen the opening post before it was edited!




If you answer yes, you have to prove the second part false, if you answer no, you are agreeing that the CIA is nothing more than a corrupt institution. Not much gray area. It isn't about whether or not the CIA has ever lied, it is about the validity of the information as a whole.


You know as well as everyone else here that nothing is as simple as "yes" or "no". In thinking so, you are over-simplifying the question. Giving credibility to an agency such as the CIA for information regarding WOT is a completely different discussion than trusting the SS Administration to take care of those in need fairly and in the most efficient way possible. When you include statements such as "especially considering that the CIA and the FBI or NSA can actually take away civil liberties much more easily", pretty much draws a line in the sand. You might be on the side of the author of this thread, or not, but there is definately a line that anyone responding has to address. Not so simple of a question as you would like to make it out to be.


This particular question doesn't necessarily draw a line in the sand as the previous two do.

Okay Scuba- let me ask you this- is there an organization that can more profoundly affect your personal freedoms and liberties in the US than those "secret" organizations.

If there is oversight on these orgs- it is not nearly enough. They obviously are allowed to hide things from various legislative body commitees- and they even, I am sure, hide quite a bit of things from ANY elected official.

Even thier damn budget is a secret for gawd's sake!

Imagine if the SS division head said "well, we can't tell you our budget- that is classified".

We know for a fact that the CIA has engaged in

1) Torture or rended people over to be tortured, and then lied to the goverments involved- as the link has shown.

2) Participated in or actively encouraged "extra-judicial killings"

3) They have kidnapped people at gunpoint- some of them innocent, with no hope for a trial- and no hope for a civil law suit against the org, and no punishment for those that committed these crimes.

Sounds a bit like a dictatorship when put that way eh?

If it's all so secret, how do we know such things?

I don't think anyone would accept a secret budget for SS, after-all, they aren't in the business of protecting the country from those that wish to do us harm.

Aside from that, I have not taken an opposing position. I simply pointed out that the way the post was originally written was a little loaded. After Nebraska pointed questions to me, I answered them. I didn't know that I was actually debating your position. Thanks anyway!

Edited to add: And yes, there is an organization that can "more profoundly affect your personal freedoms and liberties in the US than those "secret" organizations", it's called Congress, and the way things are going, they are moving closer and closer to affecting everyone's personal freedoms each session.

You know, I do agree with you on the lawmakers slowly killing freedom in this country- sure, but still, I have yet to have a congressmen accused of abducting citizens off the streets and sending them to other countries to be tortured.

We only know that happened because the canadian dude had family. Had they not made a stink, in another country- I wonder if we would have known at all.

The actions you speak of affect a handful of people. The actions of Congress affect the entire country, some would argue the entire world. Who is scarier from that perspective?

What motivations does the CIA have to allegedly violate people's individual freedoms versus the motives Congress has?

I am not trying to justify any allegations against the CIA, but I as a citizen of this country am willing to give them some leverage to do their jobs; since I have never walked a mile in their shoes, I choose not to be too judgemental everytime a story breaks that is made up of unidentified sources. Especially since we have not been attacked since 9/11, and I feel pretty safe in this country. I don't deny that I believe another attack will happen, but I do think that by and large, our intelligence community has done a significant job protecting us thus far.

I have to agree. I really don't like the idea of unlimited government, but this is an agency that exists because of government management. I maintain because of personal understanding, connections, etc. that these intelligence groups have no vested political agenda and that they operate impartially until their intelligence gets filtered through a partisan group like the White House or Congrsss.

Lets look at it this way- the most profoundly dangerous thing to any free and open society is an organization with little to no real oversite that answers to no one but the president. "Secret police" have always been the bane of freedom- but yet, neccessary to defend against outside forces.

On top of that- the CIA has no problems with doing very, very bad things- as an organization- once again, look to America's biggest blunders are pretty much CIA driven issues- we toppled the Iranian goverment in 1953, and we are STILL dealing with blowback on that one- Guatemala, that was downright evil- the CIA intervention there has cost over 100k lives. Central America- anywhere. Downright cartoonishly-if-it-wasn't-real evil. Running drugs and guns to thugs and pedophiles there. Iraq- little less culpability there, but nevertheless, an important cog in the wheel of bad behavior by the US.

I guess, if it were me, there would be some more reform coming - I would take most of the power completely out of the executive branch, as far as oversite- he can still order them to do this or that- but the "checking up" would be completely out of the executive hands, as far as testimony, oversite, funding, etc etc.

More checks and balances are obviously in great need in the FBI and CIA- there are too many bad apples there now.
Cops chafe more and more under these rules as time goes by- perhaps the CIA agent isn't quite doing bad things for "political" reasons- but he believes he is protecting the nation or some such- but through the filter of someone that sees "commies" everywhere- a very bad thing indeed, if not checked in some way.


The difference is- cops get this way, people I work with in my field get this way- they are frustrated when bad guys get away- hell, I hate it like crazy when we "lose" one to the courts (for whatever reason)- but we are still forced to play well with others, because we ARE open and transparent.



But the CIA and FBI are not. The executive, as noticed in this admin, and admins before it- have used this power to do bad things, and then declared it "classified" in order to cover up thier bad behaviors.

One thing would be to take away the power to call things "classified" from the executive branch entirely- and give it to the judicial branch. With several levels of judges that can review and over-turn those decisions.

There is a ton of info on oversight and the laws that govern it.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf



Not “disappeared” just not properly accounted for. And it was “oversight” by the GAO that discovers this in the first place.

funny, from your source the first paragraph... the summery....... If this does not spell it out.. well

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf

stage for reconsideration of the problems affecting Congress’s structure in this
area. The commission’s unanimous report, covering a wide range of issues,
concluded that congressional oversight of intelligence was “dysfunctional” and
proposed two distinct solutions.�[/quote]

That was years back. Did you bother to read further? Or just throw your hands up?

The CIA gets heavy oversight. As in the recent “waterboarding” nonsense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0801664_pf.html

so you think a bit of oversight on one tiny aspect of that humongous agency constitutes oversight?

By the way, many records tapes have disappeared during this so called heavy oversight? If it was heavy an order would have been placed not to destroy any document of any kind or life imprisonment. Now that would be serious oversight.

The statement I pulled out in the summery at the beginning of the document was for overall not one small part of the CIA.

Scubatim



We found out because of journalists interviewing whistle blowers and making agency heads into liars as a result. In regards to torture at Abu Ghraib, it was the work of journalist Seymour Hersh who exposed the truth, not some general or agency head. These things percolate through the media and through "reliable sources. Your comment makes it appear as if the agencies themselves have been forthcoming, they haven't.



Yes, we don't have to know about troop movements or spending for armaments, but extra-judicial rendering, torture, and throwing up roadblocks to even simple document requests are never appropriate.

1) Do you believe that the CIA is a credible source of information- any information- considering thier long history of lying and covering up?

2) If you do believe sources in the CIA when coming to judgements on issues such as the WOT, do you give more or less trust in agencies like Social Security or Welfare, in terms of "trusting the goverment", especially considering that the CIA and the FBI or NSA can actually take away civil liberties much more easily than comparitively open and transparent orgs like Health and Human Services or Social Security Administration or the Post office?

3) If you consider the CIA a more efficient and truthful and non-self-serving than the other goverment agencies in the US, why?

1) You said it yourself--pretty tough to cross-check the CIA. I guess I trust them more than I would the Islamic Jihad, as presumably the CIA and I have something in common.

2) You really have no choice but to give some credence to all of our agencies. Again, as a citizen we have very limited access to good information about many areas of our govt. Even with FOIA, who has time to chase all of the data down and really sort through it, or has the expertise to do so? About all you can do is elect men and women of competence and good character and hope they can sort it all out. Frankly, I trust the govt about as much as I trust the media. So many agendas, so little time.

3) No. All agencies have an interest in self-aggrandizement. I know--I worked in one.

They get more oversight than any agency. So I dispute “bit” of oversight. They have a job to do and there are strict rules on how they can do it – beyond that – oversight/Congressional approval.



Try destroyed – with notice to Congress – and someone may go to jail at that.




Notice the “was” – that “was” history. Read it again

Turns out you are very, very wrong about everything- they had been abusing it, for some time, and it got far worse after GW took office. Check out my new thread on the matter. The FBI agents commiting this abuse should be jailed for treason against the constitution, and hung by the neck until dead. They lied and fabricated, turns out, with total impunity to any oversite, and, in fact, fabricated letters in order to circumvent a denial of wiretaps, and there were at least 3000 innocent, American civilians being 'watched" G Edgar Hoover/Stasi/nazi style.

Yep, go ahead and believe the CIA and FBI only have good intentions and only spy on evil-doers- evidence suggests there is nothing of the sort- they are routinely spying and wiretapping people that have nothing to do with terrorism, at all.

Hey you will never get me to say big government is good. But what has this to do with the CIA or their ability to listen to terrorists – NOTHING.

Sure some FBI guys will be fired and some go to jail - love it. But this does not mean all “wiretaps” are bad – that CIA and FBI are watching us all (an impossibility) or that we don’t want and NEED to listen to people talking about hurting us over seas. Dose it.

And you know as well as I do CR that in states where this did happen on a regular basis and was widespread – most people never heard of it and certainly it never came out in the press – did it.

Dude- do you live under a rock or something? Fine's investigation has been all over every news service in the nation, and probably the planet.

Are you sure you are really NOT 13 years old or something?

I mean really- you have not heard of all this? You really believe it didnt' come out in the press? - I think I just spewed coffee on the monitor- but it does speak volumes on your ability to be informed

Here- just one measly paper- I suggest this thing called, you know, "google" if you want a few hits- about 200k I got on it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030802356.html

But Fine found that FBI agents used national security letters without citing an authorized investigation, claimed "exigent" circumstances that did not exist in demanding information and did not have adequate documentation to justify the issuance of letters.

In at least two cases, the officials said, Fine found that the FBI obtained full credit reports using a national security letter that could lawfully be employed to obtain only summary information. In an unknown number of other cases, third parties such as telephone companies, banks and Internet providers responded to national security letters with detailed personal information about customers that the letters do not permit to be released. The FBI "sequestered" that information, a law enforcement official said last night, but did not destroy it.

Alan Raul, vice chairman of the White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and a former Reagan White House lawyer , said in an interview that the Bush administration has asked the board to review and recommend changes in the FBI's use of national security letters.

Bottom line is- what little that the Justice department has even been ALLOWED to investigate (to date, they have been stonewalled by the GW administration and the CIA itself- as posted many times before- but I am starting to question your skills in the researching and reading departments )

But of course- there can be no "proof" if there is no allowed investigation, now is there?

I also think it is pure horse manure that it wasn't "on purpose" or whatever- not when you read this part right here:

According to three officials with access to the report, Fine said the possible violations he discovered did not "manifest deliberate attempts to circumvent statutory limitations or departmental policies."

That law, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed national security letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies

So the lie of "we aren't doing this on US citizens or residents"- debunked.

"It is for national security"- straight up lie- (you might want to re-read that last line I emboldened- in case you missed it )

"it has oversite"- it does not- it took a whistleblower to uncover this- it is impossible to have ANY oversite, because there is no power to force oversite, and it is only changed when:

1) A whistleblower makes it public, because senators and other elected officials can not, by pain of jail time

2) Lawmakers let the provisions expire.

the combination of those two is finally what brought this to light.

So- to summarize


1) The abuses are widespread and pervasive

2) they have nothing to do with national security

3) they haven't caught a single damn terrorist with it in over 47000 letters.


So- really, don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

On top of that- what we need now is a complete declassification of the CIA wiretaps, except where we have clear and convincing evidence of a terrorist cell, public hearings, and complete dismantling of the entire program- and to get back to constitutional guaruntees for US citizens and legal residents.

I don't care if they spy on the rest of the world- but they need to keep thier grubby evil little paws off US citizens, and get a damn warrant when they want to wiretap someone.