CIA Declassifies the "Family Jewels" 356
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 (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.
Re:The CIA just suddenly became honest? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, Moulder, put your shiny hat away now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
C//
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, with redacted names, addresses, and exact instructions about how they create things like fake identification.
That is a much more reasonable solution than now. Let us see what goes on so that we can defend our rights, and put pressure on those who wish to take them away.
How many lives would it have saved looking at the current declassified record? How much torture could we have prevented? Coups against democratically elected leader
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not understand what nutcase modded this Troll.
It is somewhat confused about a few details, but it is mostly just a restatement of well-known (and well-known-for-a-long-time) facts.
That said, let me add a few clarifications:
The CIA collects information when and where they think it is useful for them. They release information when and where they think it is useful for them. This does not distinguish the CIA fro
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.
Search (Score:2)
bah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It has been argued that we need some form of intelligence gathering agency, and that the CIA fulfills that role. Maybe. But what the CIA also provides is a decapitation squad, well versed in killing heads of state and others. Here's a partial review of the declassified record.
1. The CIA was most likely behind the attempt to kill Chou En-Lai of China in 1955. An Air India flight that took off from Hong Kong crashed under mysterious circumstances on its way to the Bandung Con
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
because he's dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I'm looking for the UFO stuff. That file is probably in the same box as the Kennedy stuff. Iran/Contra, Vince Foster, the assassination of Paul Wellstone and Dick Cheney's soul are probably all in the same dusty bin, in a bunker in Wyoming.
Re:bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(I assume you're referring to the theory that a rogue Bay of Pigs commando group who had been affiliated with a "Bush" according to the one FBI memo were the people who got Kennedy. Just a coincidence that Dubya's father George H. W. was in the CIA working on Pay of Pigs.)
I know you're kidding, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to work pretty well. A lot of energy spent on things that are unimportant, which is as useful to them as you not paying any attention.
It's just a plot (Score:3, Funny)
Signs of change? (Score:4, Informative)
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So I wouldn't get my hopes up that this continues for much longer.
Re:Signs of change? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we should be thinking that we don't need agencies like this at all. Perhaps we should get our government back to defending our borders, rather than interfering with other countries. Perhaps the very idea of the CIA is inherently flawed. Perhaps we could then further improve our situation by getting rid of a number of our other three-letter political tumors, such as the FCC, PTO, NSA,
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.
Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course many will, seeing they cant dismiss this as loony stories anymore, justify them like its something completely normal and everyone does just the same so its ok to do it (like Puls4r, a couple of posts above).
At least Im glad theyre coming clean about i
This quote seems fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680)
LITTLE faults?! (Score:2)
Ok. You read it, now extrapolate (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's in any way different today? If anything, it gets worse.
Re: (Score:2)
60 years is really pushing it. It is more like 30-55 years ago. And I am young enough (~25) that I may actually find out what is happening today.
Is it bad? Definitely. Is it as bad as what happened during World War II or the Cold War? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget, this is a war for the very survival of western civilization itself! The commies only wanted to enslave everyone, but the terrorites want to KILL EVERYONE(tm)! The cold war was just warm-up, this is the real deal!
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I can live with that.
Re:Ok. You read it, now extrapolate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a few things actually do come to mind. Internment camps for citizens of Japanese descent. Compulsory sterilization of those deemed genetically inferior. McCarthy's campaign against "reds" and everything that went along with it. Exposing citizens and soldiers to things like LSD and radiation without their informed consent while knowing the effects were guaranteed to be pernicious.
By no means does remediating these behaviors ser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's where you're wrong. Everyone on here that cries about illegal wiretaps and such are just too naive to think that it wasn't happening in the past. If anything GWB is just being honest about it.
The Patriot Act isn't a new set of laws and a loss of freedom; it's a declaration of what has been the standard operating procedure for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If they got away with illegal stuff before, then they will now, but their illegal acts are new and improved.
The message this sends current CIA operatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting not releasing them. It is just frustrating that even though they are admitting doing illegal things, there are no consequences for those that performed or ordered them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's gone out of fashion to drag someone who's dead to court. Last time I remember was the trial against Pope Formosus [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Why not? What's an expendable agent against a political opportunity? Case in point, Valerie Plame.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty easy for you to say that, when you are not the one that will get shot for not following those orders, right ?
Re: (Score:2)
We'll you're partially right. The US will indeed press the UN for such resolutions, but mainly because the second point is moot: The US has officially decided to commit any act of war it likes on countries that prosecute one of its agents for any of those crimes.
See this interesting document
http [state.gov]
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.
Yeah, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
CIA isn't a rogue agency (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense. "The CIA" wasn't desperate to eliminate Castro, the U.S. government was, starting at the top. The CIA doesn't decide to assassinate foreign leaders without direct orders from the President of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to JFK and E. Howard Hunt [rollingstone.com].
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.
1st 'family jewel' redacted (Score:2)
In other words, abuse of power is nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just an administration's response to the insinuation that they are somehow the first to do unpleasant things "in the service of" their country. This says, "even you Democrats did bad things; not only that, your great Champion Kennedy did some of the worst. We could easily declassify plenty of damaging goods on Clinton the Popular, but we don't want to set that precedent, now, do we?"
This has nothing to do with the past, except insofar as it might distract from the present.
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."
Psyops (Score:3, Informative)
Shiny hat material? Read "Psychological Warfare" by Paul (E.E. "Doc" Smith to S.F. fans) Linebarger. It's 60 years old, but is still a required text at the War College. You can be sure the primary movers of the present administration have read it and taken it to heart. The barely concealed course of the present administration, based on machinery put in place by previous administrations, is an obvious application of the techniques described and prescribed by Linebarger. But as I said, read it. Don't just believe me. That's the point of it.
You'll have trouble finding it. Although still in print for the limited distribution noted, it's barely available to the public. Last I looked I could only find German translations, going for over US$300. I only got to keep mine due to a clerical error that made it appear that I'd returned mine already, as required. Generating clerical errors like this are now called "social engineering". It's not a new idea.
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.
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
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.
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A surprise? (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Steel, cheap! A penny for a ton, for you. (Score:3, Informative)
Weaker countries ride on the coat-tails of the stronger ones. Best example I can think of is Canada - for decades we've been able to neglect all our national defence responsibilities because we live next door to a guy with some really big guns.
"Able to neglect"? You mean ordered to cut funding and destroy all plans and prototypes, right? Right?
In August 1957, Diefenbaker signed the NORAD (North American Air Defence) agreement with the United States, which required the subordination of the RCAF Air Defence Command to American command and control. The USAF was in the process of completely automating their air defence system with the SAGE project, and insisted that the RCAF had to use it as well. One aspect of the SAGE system was the BOMARC nuclear [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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
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:2)
First of all, I've done something of a disservice to the government, who provide a good deal of aid funding to Palestine and elsewhere.
Secondly, the £10bn we've just "saved" would put a very large number of Brits who work for arms company out of work. In an ideal world, they can just go and work at a school or hospital, but these don't usually require missile assembly or guidance system engineering
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That statement applies to a large percentage of bible-thumping, bible-belt, good ol' boys in the United States.
Hell... the queen of the right, Ann Coulter, said we should go to the middle-east and "kill or convert" them all.
"From the Middle East to the Middle West, it's 'pray and pass the ammunition'"
---From Rush's new song "Way the Wind Blows"
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to invade Britain? The last successful invasion was in 1066, IIRC.
Who is going to attack Britain? It's traditional enemies are now politically tied to it through the European Union, and the Russians just aren't interested any more (despite Putin's posturing). Anyone else is too far away, and has nothing to gain by attacking Britain.
It's standard
Re: (Score:2)
You're older than I thought.
(with apologies to Spike Milligan)
Re: (Score:2)
But it does have some merit. Would WW2 have happened if the Allies had a credible military deterrent?
I can't identify any threats to Britain at the moment, but would some appear if there was no nuclear deterrent? What about global warming, what if the changing environment causes wars over resources? Is there time to build up a nuclear deterrent if the political atmosphere changes for the worse?
You're right, spending a fortune on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only countries that could conceivab
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, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A noble sentiment. However, I doubt it has much value as a means to console (for example) the victims killed in our war upon, and subsequent occupation of, Iraq. Or those held without access to legal representation. Or those who have been tortured.
The fact is, our political system is far too unresponsive to the will of the people, and while it may indeed, as you infer, be self-correcting over the
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.
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....
Re:A surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:"Among the documents" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea whether the intended break-in target was Dunking Donuts or not.
Re:"Among the documents" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Get it here! [toba.ath.cx].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's SO surprising about this ALL this? (Score:4, Insightful)
In your case, I'm guessing all of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll start with your ridiculous hypothetical. Very few situations manifest themselves such that information is needed from a captive immediately in order to save lives.
These are confirmed reports. The only angle from which it wasn't torture was in that the US changed it's definition of torture to allow for 'creative interrogation'.