CIA Declassifies the "Family Jewels"

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."

Good stuff for people across the world

[cygnusx (193092)]

For example, readers from India might want to check out the CIA's files about the India-China war [nationalinterest.in] of 1962, especially since India's Freedom of Information laws (IIRC) don't cover matters of national security.

Re:Good stuff for people across the world

[topher_k (622399)]

There is one reason to keep information that old classified: Protecting the identities, and the lives, of current operatives.

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.

bah!

[ekran (79740)]

Where are the top secret documents about the assassination of Kennedy? I wanna read them!

Re:bah!

[Nazlfrag (1035012)]

You see, the role of the CIA is to assassinate foreign heads of state. It's the NSA and FBI files you're after.

Re:bah!

[FredDC (1048502)]

You see, the role of the CIA is to assassinate foreign heads of state.

They're pretty bad at it though...

Re:bah!

[joss (1346)]

How do you know the CIA had nothing to do with Kennedy assassination:
because he's dead.

Re:bah!

[Opportunist (166417)]

You sure? I think I saw Dick Cheney's soul on EBay a while ago. Think it was counterfeit? Should I report it?

Signs of change?

[Eukariote (881204)]

The abuses and illicit activities listed within date from the 1950s to the 1970s.

It is interesting that more of the dirt is surfacing now. Last year, the CIA's executive director was made to resign http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/taxonomy/term/30 1?page=2 [sunlightfoundation.com]. The story will be far from complete until there are more details on what poppy Bush was doing in that period. For one take on that see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-396767779 1931129793 [google.com].

Re:Signs of change?

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Instead, perhaps we would be better focussing on how nations cannot protect themselves without an organization like this.

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.

This quote seems fitting

[Mgns (934567)]

"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones".

        Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680)

Ok. You read it, now extrapolate

[Opportunist (166417)]

Those documents are about 60 years old. In other words, around 2070 we'll finally get to see what is done now.

You think it's in any way different today? If anything, it gets worse.

The message this sends current CIA operatives

[niceone (992278)]

The message this sends current CIA operatives: go ahead, do whatever illegal stuff you want because you're going to get away with it - in 50 years time we'll tell everyone and have a good laugh about it.

More Dirt

[ChemE (1070458)]

The "Family Jewels" are also available from National Security Archive website [nsarchive.org]. Also included is a short history and some additional documents.


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.

My favorite bits from the files...

[Qwavel (733416)]

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?

[Kokuyo (549451)]

What exactly is your point? That we should stop giving the CIA the finger because Mossad and KGB and all the others were/are doing the same thing?

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.

Re:A surprise?

[pzs (857406)]

I'm starting to wonder whether being a "powerful" country is such a good thing. The US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) is in all kinds of trouble trying to maintain and exercise it's power all over the world. If you compare this to countries that just mind their own business, like those in Scandinavia, I wonder what the point is. Denmark, Norway and Sweden routinely come out top in quality of life and happiness surveys.

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

Re:A surprise?

[DrDitto (962751)]

The U.S. tried policies of isolation in the early 20th century, but they didnt' work. The outcome of WWII placed a lot of responsibility on the U.S. Blame Europe.

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.

Water on burning oil

[delire (809063)]

These days, the biggest threat is not from invasion and occupation, but from global guerilla warfare, also known as terrorism. The weapons we spend all our money on - submarines, fighter jets and all that high tech robotic crap - is almost useless against all that.

Worse, the sheer expenditure on 'defense' in America indirectly encourages the terrorist response. The more the U.S exerts geo-strategic authority over foreign nations, the more "our guns are bigger than yours" fear propagating down-wind, the more terrorism the U.S will see. The more trade embargos, the more military bases, the more punitive measures to reduce nuclear and/or military power elsewhere but not on the home front, the more furtive and rigorous the resistance against the U.S.

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.

Re:A surprise?

[pzs (857406)]

Yes, but is this the modern threat? These days, the biggest threat is not from invasion and occupation, but from global guerilla warfare, also known as terrorism. The weapons we spend all our money on - submarines, fighter jets and all that high tech robotic crap - is almost useless against all that. There might be an argument for removing a huge proportion of the money we spend on all that phallic hardware and sticking it into other activities, like intelligence and hearts-and-minds work to stop the terrorists from hating us so much.

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

Re:A surprise?

[Admiral Ag (829695)]

It makes no sense for Canada to have a military that is focused on anything other than UN peacekeeping. Now that the cold war is over, Canada has no enemies. What on earth do you need a huge military for if you have no enemies? Other than the United States (which could probably buy Canada if it really wanted to), who is in a position to invade Canada?

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.

Re:A surprise?

[LaughingCoder (914424)]

Ahhh, but Canada is a major exporter of oil (the world's 8th largest). And it is well known on /. that the US routinely invades countries to take their oil ... so if I were Canada I would be pretty worried.

Re:A surprise?

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Do you really think the agencies are there to protect the security and wealth of a nation?

Being a bit of a tin-foil-hatter myself, yet knowing quite a few people who work in the FBI & other agencies -- as institutions, they exist to further their existence and scope. Yet most indidivuals, at least the ones I know pretty well, really do have service to the nation as a prime motivation. Of course, job security etc are also motivators, but it's always refreshing to spend time with people who still believe in the concept of public service.

Re:"Among the documents"

[Half a dent (952274)]

Just a wild guess but I'd say that relates to Watergate.

Re:"Among the documents"

[El-Wrongo (1105293)]

I also got interested by that comment, so I searched for 1972 in Wikipedia and here is what I found: # May 28 - Watergate first break-in. # May 30 - The Angry Brigade goes on trial in the United Kingdom. From the Wikipedia article on the Watergate burglaries, it appears (without me having completely read trough them) that those who broke in was from the CIA.

Re:Yeah, but...

[RuBLed (995686)]

Hmmm... If you type the word "shark" in their search box then type "laser" in the Search Within Results, it would display a link to a document that had something to do with a report regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hmmm....