Slashdot Log In
CIA Declassifies the "Family Jewels"
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Jun 27, 2007 04:03 AM
from the in-case-you-were-inclined-to-trust-the-government dept.
from the in-case-you-were-inclined-to-trust-the-government dept.
An anonymous reader informs us that the CIA has recently declassified for your reading pleasure some records relating to illegal spying, assassination attempts, and other goodies. These are available from the CIA's FOIA portal. From the BBC article: " Last week, CIA chief Michael Hayden announced the decision to declassify the records, saying the documents were 'unflattering but part of CIA history.' The documents detail assassination plots, domestic spying, wiretapping, and kidnapping... Among the documents is a request in 1972 for someone 'who was accomplished at picking locks' who might be retiring or resigning from the agency."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good stuff for people across the world (Score:5, Interesting)
The CIA just suddenly became honest? (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost the CIA's ONLY purpose is to help rich people get richer [krysstal.com] by providing information and violence paid for by U.S. citizens. The organization did not just suddenly become honest. (Read the linked article.)
Bush and Cheney [cbsnews.com] have consistently claimed they are above the law. This fits the definition of a dictatorship: "A form of government in which the ruler is not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition".
The CIA invented a term for the destructive consequences of its actions: Blowback [thenation.com]. Blowback doesn't matter to the agency, however, since it still gets what it wants. Also, for CIA employees, more trouble in the world means more money and promotions.
Remember, the terms NSA and CIA are just names that you are allowed to know, to try to get you to think you know what the U.S. government is doing. There are many agencies with names and purposes you are not allowed to know. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are, however, expected to pay. If you are not a U.S. citizen (and sometimes if you are), you may be expected to pay with your life.
Parent
Re:The CIA just suddenly became honest? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, Moulder, put your shiny hat away now.
Parent
Re:Good stuff for people across the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example: Let's say the CIA's current operatives in Shanghai were all recruited by a long-serving operative there, starting back in the 1960's. If the classified information provides enough information for China to identify him, China can go back into their intelligence files and possibly identify people with whom he has had regular contact over the years, allowing them to identify the current operatives. This could cripple the intelligence network for that area, and possibly result in the deaths of many CIA employees.
Parent
bah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
because he's dead.
Parent
I know you're kidding, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's just a plot (Score:3, Funny)
Signs of change? (Score:4, Informative)
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Signs of change? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Signs of change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, the ends justify the means, and the means ain't too pretty. But the thing is, most of these abuses are just that- they're abuses, not places where tough choices had to be made to save lives. For instance, in the 1960s, Johnson was convinced that the Communists were behind all the protests, so the CIA had agents grow long hair and learn to talk like hippies so they could infiltrate leftist groups, where they collected hundreds of thousands of names and created dossiers on thousands of people. And they found that among the foreign supporters who contributed money to these groups were John Lennon. Lennon, hm? Sounds a lot like "Lenin". Coincidence? They were spying on reporters, testing LSD on citizens, and to put things in context, there were some doors at a little place called the Watergate that the Nixon administration wanted opened, and that's why the CIA was asked about a lockpicker.
The lesson I take from this isn't that dangerous times require drastic measures. It's that breaking the law didn't really produce much in the way of good intelligence, didn't uncover many Commie plots, and didn't save many lies. And likewise, I think that 30 years from now, we'll look back at the secret prisons, Guantanamo Bay, domestic wiretapping, and uses of torture, and find that it did damned little to make the United States safer, and if anything, made us less safe because it convinced more people that America really is an Evil Empire which has to be fought.
Parent
Re:Signs of change? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unfortunate that people use the power invested in them to try to prove that they are indeed evil (i.e. the present US administration).
Seeing Dick Cheney trying to avoid legal checks and balances by claiming that the office of the Vice Presidency doesn't fall under the Executive Branch is just the latest disgraceful act of a morally corrupt administration. I wonder how long before they start using that line for the President himself?
I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of the current occupants of the White House. Not only will they lie and cheat, but they'll lie and cheat about their lying and cheating, even when the whole world can see that they're doing it.
The fact that 29 percent or so of Americans still approve of the job that the President is shocking. Presumably these people would need to see their leader sprout horns and a forked tail, slip George Michael the tongue at a pro-choice rally, and see him waste the land with seven plagues before finding any fault in his job performance.
But returning to the article...
If this is the kind of shit that they will admit to, albeit decades later, doesn't it make you think about what stuff they won't admit to that's happening right now? Remember, that's your government and your tax dollars at work.
Parent
Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
This quote seems fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680)
Ok. You read it, now extrapolate (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's in any way different today? If anything, it gets worse.
Re:Ok. You read it, now extrapolate (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The message this sends current CIA operatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No - it's sending the message "look we're a little bit naughty because we pick locks" as a distraction instead of sending the message that there are evil out of control bastards torturing people to death. The entire organisation is guilty by association and it is up to those that run it to fix those portions that would face war crimes tribunals in other situations.
There are some crucial pieces of information missing from the released documents which the CIA are active in suppressing, including $*UFEF&*@#_**NO CARRIER**
Re:The message this sends current CIA operatives (Score:4, Insightful)
At the present time, the administration has defended torture, "extraordinary rendition" (AKA "kidnapping"), and started a war of aggression on a sovereign country by attempting to kill the leader with the first bombs dropped — which is simply assassination with a side order of collateral damage. So I think the odds favor medals awarded and certificates of thanks issued, rather than investigations, trials, and punishments.
Parent
Yeah, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More Dirt (Score:5, Informative)
The National Security Archive (a private organization based at George Washington University) has lots of other dirt from the CIA and other organizations all obtained by the Freedom of Information Act. The site is definitely worth a visit.
Accountability (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite bits from the files... (Score:5, Informative)
These are quoted from this mornings NYT article. I think they tell us a lot:
"Some anecdotes reveal just how far outside the law some C.I.A. agents strayed. One technician was arrested in 1960 after trying to bug a Las Vegas hotel room. The operation had been requested by Sam Giancana, the Chicago mobster, who was then helping the C.I.A. in a plot to assassinate Mr. Castro.
Mr. Giancana had been concerned that his girlfriend, the singer Phyllis McGuire, was having an affair with the comedian Dan Rowan, and surveillance was ordered to "determine the extent of his intimacy" with her.
Some of the activities detailed, while lawful, would have been embarrassing had they emerged at the time. One document revealed that John McCone, director of central intelligence during Kennedy's presidency, authorized an Air Force plane to fly the Greek tycoon Aristotle Onassis and the soprano Maria Callas from Rome to Athens, a favor that led to media inquiries."
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's an interesting step to release all this information, though. Would be great if more agencies would follow.
What I find very funny about your post, though: Do you really think the agencies are there to protect the security and wealth of a nation? The nation basically consists of the people and the government. So this is at least partially wrong. The agencies are there to protect the government and its agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether that is in the best interest of the public is a matter of opinion and coincidence.
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
A particular example of this: the proposal to renew the Trident missile system in the UK. It will cost a vast amount of money. A lot of it will be housed in Scotland, and nobody in Scotland wants it. It raises foreign policy hypocrisy questions, because we have nukes and we say other people shouldn't have nukes. So why are we doing it? I think it's because post-imperial Britain wants to believe it can still sit at the big table.
I say let's stop trying to do that.
Peter
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Who has reason to strike Canada when Canadians will pretty much give you anything if you ask nicely and say you like hockey.
The answer is no-one. Canada has no need for a cold war level military.
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a global economy - enemies don't have to invade to cause you harm. Let's take your syllogism (no one can invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies) and apply it to the United States. Clearly no one is in a position to invade the U.S. either... therefore the U.S. has no enemies?
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I no this is no excuse for abusing power. The U.S. is far from perfect. But in general, the U.S. is not evil and hasn't changed in the last 10 years. We'll have a new election.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Water on burning oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorism directly is pouring water on burning oil. The victim of terrorism is - generally speaking - intended to be politically and/or emotionally linked to what the terrorist sees as the source of their troubles. That's the cause, the 'message' of terrorism.
I sincerely doubt any terrorist wants to "kill everyone", leave that for depressed teenagers. Terrorists usually want more power, a return to prior power, the end of an occupation or freedom of movement in a 'free market' (an end to trade embargos). In the case of anti-US terrorism, they probably feel they are fighting a gigantic geo-strategic and economic machine that has historically exerted power over them, so reducing their options in many areas. The U.S is the target of so much terrorism because it plays nastily and such with a hard-hand abroad. So, terrorists play very unfairly back, resorting to all sorts of horrific and unquestionably sickening measures in turn.
To think that terrorists are just some rabid suicidal maniacs that fantasise about putting holes in the buildings and people to "exert terror" for the fun or fear of it is a grave misunderstanding I think. Blame your current Government for designing that misunderstanding.Terrorists seem to believe they are messengers, speaking for desperate people in extremely harsh situations elsewhere. Only a terrible mess, bleak maldistributions of power, will produce these animal responses. No, I don't think terrorism is a valid 'reponse' in any case at all. History tells that many do however.
A sorry fact, for much of the world America is perhaps the scariest, least trusted country on Earth. Many countries are shit-scared and/or angry with America and they don't like that feeling. Few Americans have the slightest idea what their Government gets upto abroad. Until America learns to back-off and stop being so economically and geo-strategically aggressive, it will sadly continue to experience hard times on the home front.
Americans can change that with their vote - if it still counts.
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, great idea! And it's about time Britain learned lessons from history. After 1914 and 1938, you finally learned that staying out of foreign conflicts is a good way to prevent war.
Er.... wait....
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit like the Royal Navy in WW2. They thought battleships still ruled the waves, because that's what Nelson used. Then they sent a few to the Pacific theatre, which were promptly sunk by Japanese air power, leading to the fall of Singapore. Now nobody has battleships anymore.
Also, the cost of one bunker buster is probably enough to buy a school in Palestine. That school might prevent a good few people from becoming suicide bombers. That sounds quite cost effective to me.
I know, I know part 1: it doesn't really work like that in the real world, but we're not really trying these other options are we?
I know, I know part 2: I'm a commie pinko leftist bastard who needs to be beaten senseless by a large red-neck.
Peter
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could probably cut military spending by £10 billion, put £2b on new nuclear weapons, £3b on new s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, that's a damn decent reason. Look, we're human, so we're annoying. Some other advanced civilization is going to whack us once they watch some of our television for a while just to shut us up.
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:A surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not because so much of what they did was underhanded. We should be concerned that so much of what they did was pointlessly stupid.
That's the problem with secrecy. It is necessary to protect reasonable covert action, but undispensible at covering up incompetence.
Parent
Re:"Among the documents" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:"Among the documents" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What's SO surprising about this ALL this? (Score:4, Insightful)
In your case, I'm guessing all of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To think that any President is fully aware of all of the activities proposed or undertaken by agencies under the executive branch is delusional.