Author does not fully address that the CIA effectively funds and directs the rest of the IC. They gate all infrastructure - from networks to satellites to drones. When Congress tried to limit their operations with heavy oversight, they spun out a brand new intelligence agency, classified its very existence, and spun out operations on that side for years before CBO caught on.
The NRO was not spun out from the CIA. It's a separate organization. The wikipedia article you link to suggests that it was not created as part of the CIA.
If you remove government budget from an NGO and it cease to exist, it was never really a non-government organization, it is technically a government organization.
Spun off to another subsidiary seems like the game here!
Not just CIA. Whenever military industrial complex or bankers want a make over, defers litigation risks or just conceal ownership, they just create a subsidiary, spun it off with another name and/or hide the everything behind client attorney privileges.
It also gives the public a memory wipe. Very clever technique indeed.
The Campus operates under the cover of Hendley Associates, a financial
trading institution. Hendley Associates is a trader in stocks, bonds, and
international currencies, though, it does little in the way of public
business and is not known to have any clients. . . . By intercepting
communications between the CIA and NSA, the Campus is able to take advantage
of SIGINT they gather and cross-deck to the CIA. This gives The Campus
currency-trading troops the best sort of insider information, which enables
the organization to make a ton of long-term money without anybody really
noticing. . . .
The CIA used to be in charge of the US intelligence community, at least on paper.
But since 2004, there's the Director of National Intelligence, who heads an organization with about 1700 people. They supervise CIA, NSA, NRO, and the armed services intelligence agencies, and control the flow of information to the President.
They create the President's Daily Brief, which the CIA used to generate. (Not to be confused with someone's podcast of the same name.) Tulsi Gabbard is the current DNI.
On paper sure, but ODNI & CIA are interchangeable highside. The NRO is spun off the CIA, NSA’s network sits in a network gated by the CIA, and everything under DIA is overseen by the NSC which is “advised” by the CIA. They also control all HUMINT which is critical to the mission of nearly every agency.
Would also mention the last two DNI were CIA directors. The two before that were NSA directors during a time where the NSA was largely controlled by the CIA and its leadership largely shared positions on the CIA’s senior leadership team.
It should be heavily emphasized that pre and post 9/11 IC are two completely different entities. One of the biggest changes post 9/11 was a fundamental analysis of how our agencies are split up and how they share information.
"they spun out a brand new intelligence agency, classified its very existence, and spun out operations on that side for years before CBO caught on."
- Do you have any details on this? Super interested in this.
They don't. This guy is talking out of his ass. They don't have the same funding streams (NSA falls under DoD for example) or missions. Hell, several IC members are military organizations and definitely do not fall under CIA in any way.
yeah the NSA is straight up US military. It's headed by a general or occasionally admiral. located on a US Army base (Fort Meade).
instead of each branch of the US military having their own codebreaking and SIGINT group the DoD decided to merge them and members of all services work at Ft Meade.
Until 2004 directly via DCI, since then via embedding officers in leadership across the rest of the IC.
Today, NSA SIGINT still flows directly to the CIA. They are also the only agency without an independent mission, and must rely on the CIA or CYBERCOM to actually do anything with SIGINT (they are only allowed to gather)
Also an open secret that the FBI and CIA often collude and any operation that they can’t get a warrant for just gets performed by the CIA. The FBI’s threat matrix is coordinated by the CIA and despite the Church probes their collusion has only incentivized and even been codified (eg NCTC)
NSA SIGINT flows to any agency who has a need to know.
And what do you mean by can only do anything with SIGINT? SIGINT is a broad term that includes COMINT and ELINT, which many other agencies do quite a lot with.
I think they mean what they said, but in reality its due to what you are describing. The IC is symbiotic in their missions and capabilities.
In the same way you might say a lot of the NSA's technical accesses are gated by the CIA (due to being HUMINT derived), the inverse is also true where the SIGINT collected by those accesses is gated by the NSA. This isnt strictly true though, since the NSA also has plenty of other non-CIA derived sources.
I also think in a lot of ways it like saying the Army and Navy control the entire military because all the other branches broke off from them and if you need eg aquatic support then the Navy has to provide it.
I mean exactly what I said, the NSA cannot do anything with SIGINT except collect it. This is not “due” to anything, it is an explicit constraint.
If one state’s borders were controlled by another’s, its operations reliant on another’s, and its leadership largely coming from or connected to the other’s, we would not consider that state sovereign. In the same way, my point is that the NSA cannot be considered independent of the CIA.
While other agencies can use SIGINT, all of it goes to the CIA by default and access to the NSA’s network is still gated by the CIA. The converse is not true - the NSA does not oversee most broader intelligence networks (shockingly neither does CYBERCOM), and the CIA also operates siloed networks and operations.
The military example you gave is a great way of thinking about it. The Army and Navy gather resources and maintain readiness, but operations and control of resources is afforded to component commands. All of these are technically separate and roll up directly to JCS/JTFs or DepSecDef. Similarly each intelligence agency is technically separate and oversees gathering/maintaining intelligence under its mission, but is still practically under the CIA’s influence.
yep!! people tend to overlook how powerful the CIA is. it's probably the only gvt agency which can fully fund itself, answers to no one. can probably take down the president, or the whole congress and judges.
what has saved americans is the CIA has been focused on foreign issues. once that might is turned internally there's hell to pay.
That's true to a point, but it has no legal mandate to operate domestically. That doesn't mean it has no domestic operations, it exists domestically after all, but it means it does so at the discretion of the entire rest of the executive and judicial branch. The FBI, police services and Homeland Security have jurisdiction, which the CIA doesn't.
Of course an agency which specializes in performing illegal actions without getting caught (often in places where even their mere presence would warrant their agents being quite literally shot) would never violate the law.
Foreign abuses eventually rebound on the imperial core. The establishment of more and more internment camps and the snatch squads to fill them is extremely alarming, even if it doesn't have a "CIA" label on it but "ICE" instead.
America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande?
Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them.
> I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front,
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops to the crazed Trumpers who think that USAID is a waste of money.
It's a jobs program for midwestern farmers to grow unprofitable legacy crops and then it morphs into an intelligence operation by giving those crops to the poorest of the poor as food donations in some resource rich but economically poor and geopolitically strategic areas, all while creating tremendous goodwill and ground-level intel.
And somehow, this combo deal that puts money in poor farmers' pockets AND creates tremendous political goodwill AND serves as a fountain of continuous strategic information in vital localities is seen as a bad thing by Trump fans.
I don't get it. It's probably one of the most economically beneficial operations the CIA has ever taken part of outside of trafficking cocaine.
The counterargument is pretty simple - it was directly funding propaganda. One of the truly fascinating aspects of the USAID budget cuts was a lot of journalists suddenly looking for new funding including an astonishing 9/10 Ukrainian outlets who were drawing funding from foreign sources like USAID [0].
As a matter of principle it just isn't possible to run a democracy where the government, in its official capacity, is working to shape the narrative. I can't deny that is what has been happening for decades, but the result is a toxic soup of lies and would explain a lot about why the journalist community seems to have been slowly unmooring from reality - they're attached to the money printing pipe. People shouldn't be paying for political propaganda with their taxes; particularly not in the US where it is probably leaking into domestic politics. Those NGO networks USAID was pushing money towards appear to be hostile in the main to the Trump voter base and their political objectives.
[0] https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-jou... - I note they put in an erratum, although given that the US is almost certainly trying to obscure where its propaganda funding there are still a lot of questions. Their source in imi.org.ua was quoting some eyebrow-raising numbers.
>As a matter of principle it just isn't possible to run a democracy where the government, in its official capacity, is working to shape the narrative.
You're not that naive...come on.
Of course it's possible to run a democracy when the government is working to shape the narrative. Every government regardless of their type tries to control narratives. That's sort of their whole thing....
100%, CIA has long controlled that narrative in this country though its subsidiaries. Just a few BIG examples:
1. USAID – Frequently used by the CIA for covert operations and as cover for agents abroad. (Washington Post [1])
2. Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) – CIA-founded and funded anti-communist intellectual network during the Cold War. [2]
3. Air America – CIA-owned airline used heavily during the Vietnam War and Laos operations. PBS [3]
4. Blockstream - CIA backed "non-profitable" company that controls the Bitcoin GitHub repository and guides development founded by useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell, "Blue Hair Matt," and a handful of other internet trolls with no real software credentials.
>Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them.
If it was a swamp/intel front I don't think it could've gotten burned down. I think the CIA laughed the whole time "this is what those idiots get for not doing their stuff under our umbrella and letting us take our cut".
Just because Trump represents a slightly different faction of capital doesn’t mean he seriously threatens the one the CIA is the paramilitary arm of, though.
That would explain a lot about how aggressively it was nuked. Trump's operators hate the CIA with a memetic passion, to the point it's like a joke.
I would be shocked if the CIA hadn't registered what was happening, isolated its would-be minder, and gone totally dark. If they hadn't been running an American imperialist plot to conquer their Cold War enemy, by now they've got no choice but to do that. And we won't be hearing about it unless they had a complete collapse of opsec.
They don't have operational control of the ICE camps, though maybe they'd rather take them over than take them down.
>>America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande?
It's been used in Ukraine and other Eastern Europe countries as well.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying the USA doesn't screw with Latin America. I'm saying it's also screwing with Eastern Europe via it's Colour Revolutions etc, but people seem more willing to accept that or look the other way.
> Those words are a sure sign of serious brainwashing,
Hardly. Pinning all recent human history on the CIA seems like a "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" kind of thing. The world is far more complex than stale Usenet copypastas suggest, and the CIA is entirely outclassed by a number intelligence organizations in Eastern Europe purely it lacks an understanding of local history and culture. For the longest time, Eastern Europe has been academically taught through a Russian-centric lens. It's like learning the history of Africa through the perspective of colonial empires rather than the natives; gives barely any understanding what's going on between the different peoples of Africa. This has led to major intelligence failures, such as the failure to accurately predict the collapse of the USSR, which took CIA analysts by surprise. This, in turn, left everyone in Eastern Europe stunned: how could they be so completely oblivious to the facts on the ground?! That gave a lifelong immunity to the whole category of "almighty CIA" conspiracy theories.
I'm not concerned with bla-bla natives outside of them being sicced on each other like Pavlovian dogs. The history in general doesn't mater, life matters the most and that necessarily brings death into utmost scrutiny.
I clearly sense that you cannot relate to issues of life and death, which puts your non-botness into serious question. Besides, I've never argued about who is doing the siccing, you're simply following your old context which happens to be wrong.
man youve got to be borderline retarded to believe that shit. what about Jacobo Árbenz? And Americans have the fuckin cheek to cry over Russian election interference - richest country in the world crying about how "unfair" everything is
>This is a slur against the genuine demands for freedom from those countries, and not one you'd say if you listen to people from there.
People from there do say those things just as well. Unless one only hears the expats that say what he wants to hear and/or have adopted their host countries politics, or only taks to people who share his own lifestyle, which are usually hardly representative, there's even a name for this phenomenon in journalism, because it's often how things are told in western media.
The "genuine demands for freedom for those countries" range from actual ones, to orange "revolutions", to astroturfed bullshit, to grooming the political establishment and civic society with tons of imperial money.
There are plenty of well documented and unambiguous cases where the CIA has overthrown governments, directly interfered in elections and exerted covert influence but Ukraine really doesn't look like one of them. Possibly in the covert influence sense, sure, but nowhere near at the level of determining the outcome.
The constitutional crisis in Ukraine in 2014 was between President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian Parliament, which is actually the sovereign institution. In a constitutional sense it wasn't even really a revolution because the sovereign institution was never overthrown. It pressured Yanukovych into resigning, backed by massive public support.
There are no sovereign institutions in client states except in name. And anybody who tries otherwise (like spurning the IMF), gets economic, diplomatic, and even personal blackmail. Propping a dissident far right ultra-nationalist minority to build up as "mass revolt" is then easy, classic Banana Republic style.
It doesn't work that way, there is a pretty clear separation between civilian and military intelligence. For example, CIA and FBI are civilian, NSA and DIA are military. This separation is both legal and practical.
Some agencies are more influential than others but that waxes and wanes over time. There is always some agency in ascendency and another in decline. I've seen the centers of influence shift between agencies more than once.
Congress gave the president the power to create national security agencies with the National Security Act of 1947. Eisenhower created the NRO in 1960 (well if was named differently and renamed to NRO in 61) There have been several changes to the relationship of the various national security agencies and Congress over the years.
The entire existence of the NSA was classified for a long time too (including that they had a budget). These agencies seem to go through a cycle where a prior agency gets noticed/public and starts to get blowback, so can’t hide anymore. This makes it more difficult for them to do some or part of their mission, so a new secret agency gets spun up to do the new hotness part - and their existence is classified, wash rinse repeat.
And this is the American government functioning as intended! The president was given powers to create these agencies by Congress, and Congress regularly steps in to regulate and put into law various details of how they operate.
Today's Congress entirely failing to regulate the executive branch and seemingly... uninterested? in doing so is troubling for the stability of the republic.
> Today's Congress entirely failing to regulate the executive branch and seemingly...uninterested?
You say uninterested, yet it seems more like complicit. Both chambers of Congress are led by the same party as POTUS. They are quite happy with how things are going, and actively work to enable POTUS and his agenda. There are some things where previous Congress has put limits on POTUS that this POTUS is ignoring. If this Congress was really effective, they'd repeal those regulations so POTUS' actions would not run afoul of legislation. Instead, they are just ignoring the flagrant violations, and letting SCOTUS (also led by the same party) get involved with their decisions that POTUS has flagrantly pushed back against as well.
I’m assuming it’s some form of regulatory capture - Schumer’s comment to Trump [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/schumers-warning-int...], and the many shenanigans that Diane Feinstein apparently ran into over the years, makes it clear they intentionally dodge oversight and probably have a lot of dirt on people.
And if you were the NSA, how could you pass up on using some of that ‘accidentally’ collected intel to help avoid distractions while you ‘protect the nation’ eh?
Regardless of how you feel about the US IC, I think the systematic dismantling of the national infrastructure and capacity to govern is, to put it mildly, a serious problem.
I suppose that position comes down to weather you feel like these folks are representing you or you feel like they govern you.
Having read a couple of popular histories of the CIA and knowing how they thought about how folks like me live in the world, it is easy to understand that they are decidedly not acting in my interests.
If you find the interests of the US power to align with your own, that's probably pretty normal for US citizens. But even just looking at Paperclip and Phoenix, I'd be sad to be aligned with either of those crimes, and that's not even looking at the horrible outcomes of their work in Guatemala, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, etc.
The CIA is a pretty handy thing I suppose, as it's existence has convinced me that the US gov neither has my interests in mind nor represents me in any meaningful fashion.
Given the fact I think that they have done an immense amount of harm in the world, that fact has made my conscience much lighter.
That depends on the degree to which a nation is entangled in foreign trade and security and the threat it faces from foreign aggressors. The US of course being one the the most integrated, most meddling and most targeted nations in the world.
Averting threats from abroad is sort of important. E.g. a more capable foreign intelligence organization could have averted 9/11, and with it, an avalanche of changes in the way US citizens live and are governed.
I agree, but the CIA is quite out of line, quite a lot of times. Specifically in its current iteration, I do not see the agency being high up in the absolute requirement for the capacity to govern.
> but the CIA is quite out of line, quite a lot of times
More than other intelligence agencies? Extant or historical?
Intelligence is messy. Here. And among our enemies. We have to contain that messiness domestically, to keep it from consuming us. In that way, it's analogous to our immune system. And just like our immune system, turning it off means all the other out-of-line elements around the world now have easy pickings over you.
The CIA has been more destructive than other modern agencies because it's far reaching. It's not more evil than other ICs. Just more capable. I'm not thrilled to learn who occupies that vacuum if the CIA goes away; almost by definition, it won't be anyone benevolent.
> Some 9/11 attackers were CIA assets and protected from FBI/police scrutiny as such
Citation seriously needed. This is untrue unless the words you are using are not to be understood in any sense common to English speakers. The most generous fact based interpretation I can give it is that Saudi financiers were underscrutinized for political reasons, resulting in missed opportunities to stop the attacks. The actual attackers were not CIA nor FBI assets.
> The most generous fact based interpretation I can give it is that Saudi financiers were underscrutinized for political reasons, resulting in missed opportunities to stop the attacks.
We more or less agree. "Asset" does not mean card-carrying CIA agent.
I think if the US had an intelligence strategy priotized around protecting the homeland rather than interfering in distant lands, it is highly unlikely that 9/11 would have succeeded.
Keep in mind 9/11 was a godsend for the latter strategy. PNAC was begging for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense/IC spending just months before it happened.
> if the US had an intelligence strategy priotized around protecting the homeland rather than interfering in distant lands, it is highly unlikely that 9/11 would have succeeded
Sure. That still doesn’t implicate the CIA in a domestic intelligence failure.
The CIA didn’t aid and abet 9/11—I frankly thought this nonsense died a decade ago.
Or it could have sit on that information in full knowledge that something like 9/11 would enable an avalanche of changes in the way US citizens are governed that increase the power of said foreign intelligence organization...
How big is "big enough"? All aspects of the US Federal Government have grown enormously within my lifetime, and there have been very few cutbacks. Often times, an organization is less effective when it is bigger. You have the "too many cooks" issue, and the "need for consensus" issue, both of which become more of a problem with growth.
I'm sure the "all conspiracies are without basis / nothing ever happens / I'm not organized so no one else is" crowd is pretending Iran Contra never happened as they downvote you.
"Yankees, Confederacy, California, Texas, and None Of The Above" would probably reflect the political and population-geography splits of the US better than the current situation. Would be very messy getting there though.
That's what US is openly planning against all other countries in the world. Divide every country into dozens tiny "independent" countries with puppet "democratic" governments obliging every decision from USA.
There are maps of this new world regularly published by US think tanks.
It's good for the US, where it will have absolute hegemony. Bad for all the other countries that will be too small to defend their own interests. Also this scheme will inevitably start hundreds of new wars all around the world. Again, good for US, bad for everyone else.
The great problem of intelligence is that collection will tell you capability but not intent. During a war, capabilities tend to be used. Finding out that the enemy has massed forces somewhere or has a new weapon indicates something is about to happen.
During peacetime, there's mostly unused capability, and preparations take place that don't result in actual conflict. Military assets are built and trained, but not being used.
Intent may exist only in the mind of the leader and may change rapidly.
This often frustrates decision-makers, who want intelligence to tell them what's going to happen.
> great problem of intelligence is that collection will tell you capability but not intent
We had a pretty clear picture of intent in the build-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Different countries have historically been skillful in different elements of intelligence. American geospatial and signals intelligence is renowned. Our human intellignece, on the other hand, has been crap in the modern era. I would be wary about projecting the strengths and weaknesses of the American IC to intelligence as a whole.
don't know why you were voted down. You are right, the intent was clear, thanks to geospatial and signals intelligence.
Given the amount of amunition, medical teams, blood reserves, etc, it was clear that they were not staging an excercise. Unfortunately the Americans lost all credibility after the Gulf war. History is a bitch.
There was already a war on the border of Russia and Ukraine in 2022. The Donbas conflict from 2014-22 took thousands of lives and devastated several towns.
That's by design of the military industrial complex that we were distinctly clearly warned against. Also, it's very hard to convey not being peacetime when all of the fighting is thousands of miles away across various oceans where the US citizens are not affected by it. By all accounts of the US citizens, it's been very peaceful. We haven't even had to ration food, metals, or any other type of sacrificial gestures. We've had tax break after tax break, so the citizens haven't even had to make financial sacrifices to pay for the fighting. There's been no media blitz to "support the war effort" by buying war bonds. So by all means, it has been quite peaceful for the citizens. Sure, some soldiers are getting killed like soldiers are prone to do, and that affects some of the US citizens, but that's still a very small percentage. A larger percentage are affected by drunk drivers, distracted drivers, or other auto accidents.
"We haven't even had to ration food, metals, or any other type of sacrificial gestures."
More than ten percent of the population is on SNAP and everything is corn, but there is no food rationing? Usians toil under an absurd lack of welfare, but that's not a sacrifice? Starving public services through "tax breaks" is not sacrificial?
I like the idea of explaining Mad Magazine's Spy v Spy as a Nash equilibrium. Nash is about strategies, particularly that neither side could do any better with any other strategy. Spying's justification then comes from fact that withdrawal would be a worse strategy.
The CIA does more than counterespionage. For example, Chile would be a much better place if the CIA didn't overthrow its democracy and install a fascist dictator, Pinochet, in its stead.
The US needed access to Chilean copper mines. The Allende government wanted to nationalize the profits of Chile’s natural resources.
Allende was democratically elected. Costa-Gavras made an excellent film about the coup & aftermath.
What do you mean Eastern Europe? The only one meddling is Russia, which is why Eastern Europe wants to join NATO. To protect themselves from an aggressive neighbor who started the end of the Cold War with invading a former satellite state. If Russia wasn't so eager to revive its imperial ambitions, there would be no interest in joining NATO.
The answer should be an obvious yes here, reading HN on anything political is an exercise in frustration, fascist apologies and whataboutism+mccartism.
How do you know, having some superpowers? Since when has US mandate to overthrow democratically elected government because its not leaning towards direction CIA wants? Saddam was also heavily supported by CIA and whole US government for example. And few other merry folks.
At least admit a fuckup and don't try to macho-out of this sin of your fathers. Decent folks would be at least ashamed of their mistakes and apologize (I know that's for decent nations to pick up, but its nice to lay clean moral actions and then watch reality divert because of blahs).
Good one. I guess Allende being a socialist justifies killing him, disregarding the popular vote, dismantling a democracy, stripping Chileans of their rights and putting up a fascist dictator. Jesus Christ.
>Chile would be a much better place if the CIA didn't overthrow its democracy and install a fascist dictator
Empirically that's not a very well-supported statement, if you compare the economy and living conditions of Chile to its neighbours. Empirically speaking, electing communist governments almost always leads to reduced living standards. It's like if the US hadn't intervened in to help a fascist dictator in South Korea, the whole of South Korea would be as poor as North Korea is now.
> Empirically speaking, electing communist governments almost always leads to reduced living standards.
Almost always leads to a CIA-backed coup or civil war which indirectly indeed reduces living standards. In the other scenarios it often resulted in generally improved living standards via industrialization, increase of literacy and social programs. In yet others gross mismanagement and large scale famines, or fluctuating results depending on the time scale. There is no commonly accepted uniform outcome, and "almost always worse living standards" is clearly not one.
Saying the "CIA overthrew its democracy and installed a fascist dictator" is a vast oversimplification of what actually happened and ignores the role of other international actors, not to mention the domestic actors themselves.
Like most "CIA coups", the role the CIA played in Chile is more of a "hey let's help this guy who is already planning a coup" and if you dig into the details, it raises the question if the CIA had done nothing whether the outcome would have changed at all.
> Like most "CIA coups", the role the CIA played in Chile is more of a "hey let's help this guy who is already planning a coup" and if you dig into the details, it raises the question if the CIA had done nothing whether the outcome would have changed at all.
Helping a fascist coup is bad, even if the fascist coup didn't need your help.
Is it worse if the alternative is another authoritarian?
It's not a choice between democracy and a fascist (Allende was going regardless), it was a choice between a US friendly authoritarian or a USSR friendly authoritarian.
This is a nice summary of the situation in Chile at the time, the actors involved (domestic and international) and the role of the CIA.
To get a sense of the CIA’s role, they didn’t even think Pinochet had it in him - they had others pegged as the coup leader. They were surprised to find out it was Pinochet.
No. Non sequitur. If I say Pinochet is bad, saying "Allende is bad too" is a completely nonsensical comparison, as they aren't even remotely similar and the things people are claiming are bad aren't even in the same categories.
It would be like someone saying "Kim Jong Un is a horrific leader" and then another person responding with "yeah well my home owner's association president is terrible too." Just a complete non sequitur.
> As if the money was for the strikers and not just their leaders...
So you're claiming the leaders were able to convince 250,000 union members to strike because... the leaders wanted it? That makes no sense.
As laid out in the article, the truckers were already upset at the government undermining their entire industry. They didn't need $28 USD to convince them to strike.
It wild how people think the CIA with a few million dollars can convince an otherwise stable democratic nation to overthrow it's leader in a coup.
As the article lays out, the CIA were mostly observers who tossed a bit of money to opposition parties. It's questionable if the CIA had any impact at all considering they weren't backing Pinochet himself, and the timing of the coup caught them by surprise. It's pretty clear they weren't very plugged in to what was happening.
> Is it worse if the alternative is another authoritarian?
Yes, the USA shouldn't be meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries to action its proxy cold war against a rival super power.
I acknowledge that the USA determined this was a correct course of action in order to strengthen its hegemony, and the hegemony of global capitalism, however it was still unethical and in opposition to the needs of people in the USA.
It is insane that this is downvoted. You have to be wrong in the head to think that a country helping a coup that clearly damaged another country is a good thing.
But if the USDR is already meddling it’s not longer purely “domestic affairs” is it?
If your take is that it’s unethical, that’s fine, but you need to consider the alternative - giving the USSR free rein to meddle in the domestic politics of the Southern hemisphere. The citizens of those countries end up living under an authoritarian anyways.
I’m not saying it isn’t an ugly business, but I’m not sure the alternative is much better.
I also believe it's unethical for the USSR to meddle. I don't think two wrongs make a right. Also, let's not be naive and pretend like the USA supported Pinochet out of the goodness of the CIA's heart - it was absolutely to use the country as a pawn in the country's cold war against the USSR.
First, I'll answer the post ipso facto aspect: The USA did meddle, and was that good? In the case of Pinochet, no, because he was a brutal authoritarian and was obviously the worse alternative to the leftist, not even communist, government he overthrew. Also, if the people voted for communism, then, that's self determination, let them have it. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't, that's no business of America's. A military coup is "might makes right," an unethical ideology. So if we compare the two forms of meddling, actually, the USSR's was more ethical, since it was aligned with the will of the people. Overall though I still think neither country should have meddled.
What should have been done instead? If the USSR is meddling, the USA as a nation state should do nothing more than leverage its platform to expose any instances of meddling, especially if they were against the will of the people (e.g. fraudulent votes). The people in the USA is a different thing entirely, if I knew what direct action people could take to resist nation state meddling entirely I'd write it here, since I don't, I'll just say the usual: form subversive relationships with neighbors in opposition to authority, mutual aid in opposition to capital-derived infrastructure, mutual education, mutual bonds.
As for Hitler, who also rose to power undemocratically I might add (Reichstag fire and the like), he was committing a genocide, any and all means to stop that is ethical, including full invasion by other nation states. On the other hand, I can't think of an ethical way for a nation state to prevent him coming to power. After all, at the time, I'm not sure it was possible to predict what he was about to do - an anti-semitic politician wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and nobody had ever seen a Holocaust before. If Germany can't prevent itself from becoming a fascist hellhole I don't really see America's responsibility there other than to offer safe haven to any fleeing Jewish people, gays, trans people, communists, etc. Since time machines don't exist, I can't think of an ethical justification for USA meddling in Germany pre-Holocaust or pre-invasion of Poland.
What do you think? I think an interesting question is, "what is ethical and allowed if Hitler 2 arrived today and began seeking power?" Such questions could have interesting answers depending on what you think America should be allowed to do to the current person and nation conducting a genocide, Netanyahu in Israel.
>Like most "CIA coups", the role the CIA played in Chile is more of a "hey let's help this guy who is already planning a coup"
Absolutely wrong, to the point of negationism. Amongst many things, the CIA trained South American militaries and police in torture through the School of the Americas.
If "this guy" wasn't already planning a coup, the CIA would have done it themselves anyway. Overthrowing Allende by any means was a core mission for them. The CIA was directly responsible for killing a general, René Schneider, who stood against any attempt at a coup.
And then they collaborated with Argentina's (and other South Amrican dictatorships') Operation Condor:
-mass abduction
-death squads
-torture of anyone suspected of being even vaguely leftist (electric shocks, prolonged immersion in water, cigarette burns, sexual abuse, rape, removal of teeth and fingernails, castration, and burning with boiling water, oil and acid)
-throwing them alive fron planes into the sea, hands and feet bound
-kidnapping newborns from their "leftist" mothers (subsequenly killed) to give them to conservative families
“ In the best traditions of the CIA, catastrophe ensued. Viaux ignored the explicit U.S. instructions to cease-and-desist; two abduction efforts against Schneider, on 19 and 20 October, failed; the third attempt, on 22 October, ended with Schneider being mortally wounded (he died on 25 October);”
Your whole article is a giant "trust me bro" based on some unclassified testimonies coming from the most guilty, and ends with the insane and unsupported assertion that Allende was going to set up gulags (which doesn't address the fact that the CIA, before and after the coup, trained the juntas of all South America how to disappear and torture opponents on the French model of the Battle of Algiers).
Yeah, with help of KGB. What could possibly go wrong? It could become as democratic as Cuba. In best case. Or take path of other countries with exported communist revolutions, like North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam. You just don't know about pervasive and perverted level of informants and delation that was installed by these "democratic" countries
Well you went off the rails. The comment is talking about Chile, which was a democracy before the CIA overthrew the government and installed a dictator. What does that have to do with other countries or the KGB?
In the short-term, the wheat and chaff are very mixed for sure.
But I don't think nation-states are likely to survive for more than 500 or so more years. And the capacity for collaboration, innovation, and even perhaps transcendence into something like a distinct and more peaceful species seems to only grow.
> if they were abolished the world would be a better place
I'm not so sure about that; some actions of the CIA are questionable at best, but the Soviet Union or KGB were not the good guys by any means, nor is Al Qaeda or Putin's Russia.
The failures are far more publicised than the successes. How many $bad_things has the CIA prevented? I don't have a clear answer for that but it's obviously non-zero. How does that balance against the mistakes and crimes? Unclear.
And look, obviously the world would be far better off without the CIA, or KGB/FSB, or Al Qaeda, or any of these assholes. But I can't control what Russia or Al Qaeda does and neither can anyone else, and obviously we need to do something to counter these people. It seems to me what we need is a way to have a secret service that doesn't go to the dark side.
>How many $bad_things has the CIA prevented? I don't have a clear answer for that
Well that's the problem for your steelman on a position being an unfalsifiable hypothesis, isn't it? We DON'T know - and neither you or I know if it's actually non-zero either. We can probably list 20 main atrocities committed by the CIA together, and with a few hours of research we can probably get it up to a few hundred. But we can't find the inverse, so why introduce is as support in your argument?
The last major intelligence coup CIA had (that we know of) was when the agency called the Russia's invasion of Ukraine months in advance.
Going public with that was a bold call - CIA put its reputation on the line. But Ukraine was more prepared because of it - and so were its allies.
A lot of Ukrainian officials didn't believe that the war was about to start up until the moment it did. Imagine how much worse the situation could have been without US beating the drum.
That's intelligence gathering. I don't personally have any problems with the CIA's literal spying and intelligence operations. That's what the voters were sold on when it was set up. Gathering accurate information for our democratically elected officials to use to make their decisions can only be a good thing, assuming they follow the rules and leave Americans and America alone (which they of course don't).
The entire issue I and most people have with the CIA is that it isn't just a bunch of guys having coded conversations on park benches in foreign capitals and writing thick reports. Yes, those guys are there, but mainly its an unaccountable army that ignores the rules of war and does tons of illegal assassinations, blackmail, etc. These are the lowest of the low. These are people that, in any just society, should be tried and publicly executed while the citizenry packs a picnic lunch and lights off fireworks to celebrate.
We can have the fake-mustache guys without the extralegal murder-for-hire and using-computers-to-industrialize-domestic-political-blackmail guys.
>I don't personally have any problems with the CIA's literal spying and intelligence operations.
That's magnanimous of you.
>We can have the fake-mustache guys without the extralegal murder-for-hire and using-computers-to-industrialize-domestic-political-blackmail guys.
People say that, but is it true? Any examples? I feel like these "fake-mustache guys" are always getting themselves into something. That's why they have the fake-mustaches, after all.
MI6, the British foreign intelligence agency, doesn't have a covert action arm. Which is not to say that our government hasn't done any fuckery with other countries' politics (we're also a former imperial power) but it does lessen the temptation and the capability.
“ SIS activities included a range of covert political actions, including the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (in collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency).[85]”
“ During the Soviet–Afghan War, SIS supported the Islamic resistance group commanded by Ahmad Shah Massoud and he became a key ally in the fight against the Soviets. An annual mission of two SIS officers, as well as military instructors, were sent to Massoud and his fighters. Through them, weapons and supplies, radios and vital intelligence on Soviet battle plans were all sent to the Afghan resistance. SIS also helped to retrieve crashed Soviet helicopters from Afghanistan.[90]/
“Some of SIS's actions since the 2000s have attracted significant controversy, such as its alleged complicity in acts of torture and extraordinary rendition.[10][11]”
“ The stated priority roles of SIS are counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, providing intelligence in support of cyber security, and supporting stability overseas to disrupt terrorism and other criminal activities.[8]”
“ In March 2016, it was reported that MI6 had been involved in the Libyan Civil War since January of that year, having been escorted by the SAS to meet with Libyan officials to discuss the supplying of weapons and training for the Syrian Army and the militias fighting against ISIS.[113] In April 2016, it was revealed that MI6 teams with members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment seconded to them had been deployed to Yemen to train Yemeni forces fighting AQAP, as well as identifying targets for drone strikes.[114] In November 2016, The Independent reported that MI6, MI5 and GCHQ supplied the SAS and other British special forces a list of 200 British jihadists to kill or capture before they attempt to return to the UK. The jihadists are senior members of ISIS who pose a direct threat to the UK. Sources said SAS soldiers have been told that the mission could be the most important in the regiment's 75-year history.[115]”
“ E Squadron is the sole paramilitary group within SIS.[132] There is limited information about the squadron in the public domain, and it was not until the 1990s that it was officially recognised by the British government. Although the Government has declassified some information about the squadron, details about its operations generally remain secret. Before the 1990s, the group was known mainly by pseudonym The Increment.[133]
Out of all the British special forces units, E Squadron is a branch of the wider UKSF and many of its combatants are hand-picked to work with the SIS. The group is available for undertaking any task at the requirement of the both UKSF Directorate and SIS. It is manned by operators from the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).[133]”
They definitely have guns, and aren’t afraid to use them. And they’re fundamentally covert.
However, the big issue is that you can't argue the values of liberal democracy, the rule of law, elections, freedom of speech, but at the same time overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph
psychological experiments and keep people believing you.
I believe that the CIA has done more to destroy the trust in democracy and promote the rise of totalitarian regimes that we are seeing now, than any other single entity. Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO.
>"Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO."
What's always been funny to me about the CIA is if they didn't even do these things:
>"overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments"
There probably would have been less - if any - of those terror attacks to worry about in the first place.
It always existed to provoke and to force varying degrees of military response from nations we antagonized. It was ALWAYS to justify a status quo propped by a military industrial complex - and to overstay the luxuries given to us by Pax Americana. We could have pulled off a peaceful era without bullying, I'm sure of it.
I don't know that much about Putin, but "some hands in Putins rise to power" is not really substantiated by your article. It just claims that the US knew some things and didn't act on them, and provides some weak evidence for it. In general I think the hope was always that Russia would see the benefits of liberal democracy and would slowly shift in that direction. Jumping on every incident wasn't really worth it, so they were willing to forgive them. That shift to liberal democracy obviously didn't happen.
"Created Al-Qaeda" is certainly far too simplistic. There are unforeseen consequences to everything you do (or don't do). The alternative of leaving Afghanistan to their fate after the Soviet invasion also wasn't appealing. If you want to blame someone for Al Qaeda, then start with the Soviet Union and Pakistan.
These two examples also conflict by the way: in one instance they had to do more, and in the other less. It's easy to sit here in judgement decades after the fact, but at the time a lot of this was less clear.
They did knowingly supply weapons, not just to any random mujahideen groups, but specifically to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar predominantly, with full knowledge of what the guy and his forces are doing with that money, on the basis that it was the most efficient way to hurt the Soviets. I don't think this can be chalked down to "unforeseen consequences". More a case of "the ends justify the means".
Is this a defense of the CIA? The first half of the article catalogs decades of failures ranging from comical to catastrophic.
"There was a time when the C.I.A.’s existential fear was of losing its adversary. In Al Qaeda, it found a new one; in Iraq, it created others. In Trump, it faces an adversary of a different kind."
Further, calling the Commander in Chief its "adversary" is terrible framing.. if they're working against the elected leadership of the US, who are they working FOR?
> if they're working against the elected leadership of the US, who are they working FOR?
The various executive branch departments were created by Congress and are supposed to follow the instructions given by Congress. Various theorists disagree as to the extent to which the President is permitted to override the instructions from Congress.
> The various executive branch departments were created by Congress
Yes
> and are supposed to follow the instructions given by Congress.
Well, yes, but also no. Executive agencies must adhere to the law, but Congress cannot fully set the Executive's policy. Congress has very limited powers to force policy on the Executive, mainly advice and consent (for appointments and treaty ratification) and impeachment.
Past Presidents have wielded vastly more power relative to Congress than the current one. You should see the things that Lincoln did! Lincoln: suspended Habeas Corpus even though the Constitution says only Congress can, he abrogated treaties against the will of the Senate even though the Senate believed that since ratification requires their advice and consent then so much abrogation (but the Constitution is silent on the matter of abrogation) and as a result modern treaties have abrogation clauses to try to hem in heads of state but obviously those clauses can only go so far, and many other things. President Jefferson denied Adams' 18 lame duck federal judge appointees their commissions (and Marbury had something to say about that, namely that it was unconstitutional but also that he couldn't do anything about it). And that's just some of the notable things that Presidents have done that Congress (or in Jefferson's case, the preceding Congress) didn't like.
It hardly matters what various theorists think while 6 justices on the Supreme Court are dedicated to giving the President as much power to override Congress as he pleases.
I think immibis's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44639370) has a couple great examples of what I'm talking about. To add on, the Court has also allowed the executive branch to essentially shutter federal departments that were created by Congress, such as the Department of Education. They also ruled that lower federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to stop executive action, thereby ending a check on presidential power that has vexed both parties when in office.
> To add on, the Court has also allowed the executive branch to essentially shutter federal departments that were created by Congress, such as the Department of Education.
The Dept of Ed had ~4200 employees and they laid of ~1400. It is not "essentially shuttered" currently regardless of the goal.
The important question is: "Can they fulfill their legally mandated obligations with the smaller staff?"
If the answer is "yes" then we saved money and still did the job. If the answer is "no" then we have a problem.
So far I haven't seen anyone identify "here are the legally mandated obligations that won't be fulfilled any longer" which would be useful and could be compelling.
Can you elaborate on this? This past term, in the Loper Bright case[1] the Supreme Court took away a massive amount of power from the executive in interpreting statutes beyond what Congress specified.
Uh, that was the past term. Have you also paid attention to the current term?
The current supreme court (which was also the supreme court past term) has a very consistent pattern of taking away power from Democrats and granting power to Republicans. Since the president is a Republican, they've been consistently granting power to the president; since the last president was a Democrat, they were consistently taking away his power. You can watch the pattern continue in 2029.
They ruled the president has unlimited power to do anything at all, without punishment, if it can be justified as a presidential duty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States - during the last term, but in relation to Trump.
Notice all of these sorts of decisions are always 6-3: the 6 conservative justices forming a voting bloc in support of expanding Trump's power (specifically Trump, not just any president), and all 3 non-conservative ones voting against.
Which, is a mixed bag. Judge shopping was a huge problem from universal injunctions. But at the same time, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for?
If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches?
Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch.
Sometimes, there should be things that should have avenues to be quickly stricken down before more parties fall victim to them
This framing torments me. Political parties "win" and "lose"... It's the quality of life of our parents, children, neighbors, and alike that waxes and wanes by the judgment of these far-removed decision makers.
You say "Stalin took over as dictator of USSR" and I say "This seems like a very ominous-sounding way of saying that Trotsky lost an election." That response would make sense if you'd said it about Arsenal vs Manchester, but when it's Stalin vs Trotsky it has real consequences, like the Holodomor, and shouldn't be trivialized.
The President is chosen during an election for this very job. We can't discard democracy in order to save it if sovereignty is meant to be popular. We're not lucky like theocracies or kingdoms, where everything boils down to expert sages or raw power; the vote is the only thing that justifies our country. The only thing that makes people from the US a nation is their commitment to popular rule, one which inspired the world.
The Executive was made to serve the country and the law, not Congress. Congress is meant to serve the country and make the law. The Judiciary is meant to serve the country and rule on the Executive's service to Congress's written law, when asked. At any time and for any reason, Congress can impeach the President, and refer his case to the courts if they think it appropriate.
If law (as regulation) is made from arbitrary agencies, denying people access to the courts when disputing that law is not helpful for democracy, it is anti-democratic, because it denies access to the judicial interpretation of Congress's intent. Congress, however, is free to make itself clear at any time, if it has the votes.
This all comes down to complaining about not having the votes. And in democracies, we shouldn't be sympathetic to people who don't have the votes.
>"The only thing that makes people from the US a nation is their commitment to popular rule, one which inspired the world."
What's this even mean?
Sherman compromise (2 states per state in one chamber of the bicameral legislature) isn't popular rule,
the electoral college doesn't have to operate by popular role,
voter suppression in modern times isn't popular rule,
gerrymandering isn't popular rule.
These existing systems of structure in American political institutions ARE sympathetic to those without votes. We are not a pure democracy. This is civics 101 and amateur hour.
> The Judiciary is meant to serve the country and rule on the Executive's service to Congress's written law, when asked.
The Judiciary is meant to resolve justiciable [civil] controversies, and in its more boring role to try criminal cases. In particular the judiciary cannot exceed its jurisdiction which is set by law and the Constitution. The judiciary cannot say that something the Executive is doing is unconstitutional and force a remedy if the law does not allow it. That's what Marbury v. Madison was all about! In that decision the SCOTUS says that yes, the Executive's action against Marbury was illegal, but no the Court cannot remedy the situation because the law that would have allowed it was unconstitutional! (Holy pretzel batman!) In Marbury two wrongs made a right, or perhaps two wrongs made a third -- depends on how you look at it.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the entire executive power to the President, so technically it is the President who is responsible for following and implementing the laws that Congress has passed. Since recent Congresses (going back to at least the 70s and somewhat even to the 1930s) have written laws somewhat vaguely to give the executive branch a lot of discretion, there is a lot of legal uncertainty as to what actions are allowed in this discretion. This is why so many of Trump's executive actions are working their way through the courts as it isn't immediately clear what he's allowed to do with his executive authority vs where he is stepping on Congress's toes. For example, it is an open legal question whether the President and executive agencies are required to spend every dollar allocated by Congress or if they can decide they've already spent enough to meet the Congressional intent of the spending and can decide to not spend anymore.
IMO CIA is probably a state within a state with its own agenda and does not get enough oversight.
Oversight is a two edged sword. In one side of the argument, too much oversight effectively slows everything down and makes keeping secrets much hardet. On the other side, without enough oversight the intelligence agency simply has its own agenda, depending on who really control its financing.
Judging from the history of the Cold War era, it is impossible to give enough oversight when you want to fight a cunning enemy. I bet it is the same on the Russian side.
All institutions are supposed to work for the people no? And kind of supposed to have some amount of independence for check and balances? To make sure none of them stop working for the people?
These jobs are pretty big ones like CISA chief but it doesn't matter much how well you serve the people or whatever. It just matters how well you serve the president
Ostensibly the CIA continues to exist through your elected congressional leadership as an agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. Voters don't have to vote consistently and can choose to have one branch of government ideologically at odds with the others. This would be the CIA working for the people but without it being aligned with the President.
If Congress decided to end the CIA then they could pass a law abolishing the agency or pass laws that refine the things they can or cannot do, but they're not inherently beholden to the President. The legislative branch being at odds with an executive branch representative isn't inherently problematic unless you think the President should be king.
>"The legislative branch being at odds with an executive branch representative isn't inherently problematic unless you think the President should be king."
There's another lens: You could think this, and have it rooted in the belief that separation of powers and the "checks and balances" against political institutions should have expanded beyond 'Executive' <-> 'Legislative' <-> 'Judiciary'.
There are more than three institutions and checks and balances between them. There's also: a) the States as a foil to the Federal government (and vice-versa), and b) the jury.
Jury is really the ontologically-vested check and balance that “The People” receive, the rest are implied through negative rights (right to guns BECAUSE congress can’t infringe, right to speech BECAUSE congress cant abridge)
Jury is a positive right within the right of due process - AND the right of citizens to participate in - and is therefore treated as a compelled responsibility on members of the populace, that exists to quell concentrated power from legal proceedings. In my opinion, we should have had more of those - and “The People” should have been an enumerated institution within the political structure that offers more comprehensive positive rights, negative rights, and compelled (and tensioned) checks and balances against the other institutions (executive, legislative, judiciary, “state”)
I didn't find it to be defending the CIA's failures in any way.
The CIA didn't call Trump its adversary, the reviewer of the book did. They also said that Trump was the Agency's adversary, not the other way around. It is also possible to be adversarial against an individual while doing a good job working for them (see for example everyone with a boss they don't like).
I wouldn't read too much about the intentions of the intelligence community into that provocative sentence by an unaffiliated book reviewer.
Sending in troops to LA over the objections of the mayor and governor, masked ICE agents kidnapping people off the street without identifying themselves, people sent to El Salvador prison without due process in violation of a Federal judge's orders, Congress does his every bidding, conservative majority on SCOTUS continues to cede him executive power, sues newspapers and universities he doesn't like, threatens to arrest political opponents, lies about the Epstein files being a hoax. What more evidence do you need? He's consolidating power like Putin and Orban did.
The president is not the state. That's been established multiple times in cases like Nixon, and unfortunately recently regressed with the Trump SCOTUS decision.
But in theory all these organizations swear an oath to the constitution, not to any branch of government, and especially not their leadership.
If any of the leadership issues illegal orders or does work to undermine the constitution or the country, according to the oath sworn by CIA agents, they should be doing everything they can to work against this leadership.
Even the military expects soldiers to reject illegal orders to commit gencode.
The peak of the "the president is not the state" was when the SCOTUS approved of the special counsel law in the 80s. After the Clinton fiasco the SCOTUS has pretty much adopted Scalia's dissent in that case.
Isn't the point of the previous examples that every organisation ultimately works for its own survival/growth?
The cia was basically pointless when the ussr fell (I'm not sure I agree but that's the logic). It needed a reason to exist and Al Qaeda provided that. When that wore thin, it manufactured its own reason in Iraq, a country that had no wdm and was no threat. And so on.
I'm not saying I agree but that is the logic I believe
> Further, calling the Commander in Chief its "adversary" is terrible framing
Terrible, but not an unusual one. There has been a lot of talk about CIA feuding with various presidents, starting from JFK at least. And it's not exactly a secret they do this:
> New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.
> “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
And man was Schumer right about that.
> who are they working FOR?
The same all large bureaucracies work for - itself. Self-preservation and self-expansion.
Always interesting to read these highly-selective histories of the CIA, where the most powerful clandestine organization in the world is presented as largely above-board and under-resourced.
Apparently the CIA was struggling to find a place in the early 90s while its former director was the sitting POTUS and the USA was renewing its grand campaign to covertly and overtly reshape the Middle East. Sure buddy, totally believable.
And no mention of the CIA's protection of 9/11 attackers from FBI persecution prior to the attacks.
The article comes off as a laughable attempt to fire the arrow and then paint the target around it. For example the author claims about 9/11 that "the first attack had already achieved its aims: it dragged the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan, pushed the country back into the moral swamp of torture, and, as a bonus, helped goad America into invading Iraq." Bin Laden was a fanatical mass murderer and his aim was to establish a caliphate. I highly, highly, highly doubt that he saw the attacks as an attempt to degrade the morals of the CIA (or any of the other outlandish claptrap that the author claims).
You should read the words of Bin Laden, pre 9/11. His stated goal was: "Terrorizing you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanding duty."
He wanted to get the US in another Vietnam. He understood the effect it would have on the American people.
Bin laden did achieve what he set out, hurting the US, not just the CIA. You could argue that todays problems actually started with Bush and his cronies cheney et al. And while he poked the monster that killed him too much, America is not what it use to be.
And you, underestimate people that are not of your own.
Yeah, this article hasn't aged well. It looks like a CIA briefing of a friendly journalist in advance of the Tulsi Gabbard releasing the evidence that the CIA colluded with Obama to lie about Trump/Russia collusion:
The press release seems to conflat cyber attacks (of which there were none) with election influence (I think interference would be another phrase for the same thing?). But those are different no?
"Russia tried to get people to vote for candidate X" can be true even when "Russia tried to stop people voting by breaking machines" isn't.
So you believe a known liar but it's impossible for you to believe that trump has ties to russia? the guy who has invested in russian real estate? the guy who went to russia many many times before he even became president?
it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia?
Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking.
> [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary...
Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?
Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President.
Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke).
Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President.
Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
Democrats are also in them, most likely Clinton. Trump, however, is not simply a client, so the whole thing is such an apocalyptic mess that NOBODY wants to deal with it. And so, nobody ever did. Also, it would be dangerous to pry into.
This is an extremely credulous take. Even reading the press release it's obvious Gabbard (a massive defender of Putin's Russia) is conflating two entirely different things, namely hacking election infrastructure vs the massive political influence/misinformation campaigns.
You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors.
>>You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors.
At Trump's request though? That was the lie from Obama.
Obama didn't actually talk about Russian election interference until after the 2016 election due to a fear it would appear partisan. In interviews afterward, he avoided suggesting Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia at all.
I can't find anything about Obama accusing Trump of asking Russia to interfere. It would be so out of character that it is hard to believe.
Anyone claiming ‘that never happened’ while missing the obvious direct statement from Trump himself is a delusional idiot, not counting everything else going on.
The rest of the evidence makes it even more damning.
Trump worked on a massive plan with Putin to influence the US election. However, rather than bothering with encrypted messages, dead drops etc, they both decided that the best way to manage this TOP SECRET PLOT was for Trump to ask for help from Russia in a TV interview.
And then verifiably received that help. (The one sided targeted email leaks right afterwards)
Who is dumber - the one who does the dumb thing, or the one who refuses to believe that the person did the dumb thing literally right in front of them, and then refuses to act.
No one has to be sophisticated when the world is willfully this stupid. The US is like the wife that insists their husband is faithful (and punishes the kids who try to say something) while the husband is literally cheating right in front of them.
It's weird how accounts like this one forgets to mention how the CIA rebooted global heroin trade (as well as addiction at home) and gave it to italian mafia networks, and of course subsequent deep interfacing with such actors.
Especially since it mentions election interference in Italy through those same mob networks.
Perhaps it's easy to forget they early brought the fruits of their activities home and never stopped, or easy to believe that they only have effects abroad.
Yes, it was killed by the second world war, then reignited by the US, as famously documented by Alfred McCoy. In the US it wasn't just Frank Sinatra that was friends with Lucky Luciano, you know.
"If a genuine emergency were to take place, and Trump tried to use the occasion to cancel elections or declare martial law, who would be able to stop him?"
This comment was killed, and I vouched for it because the comment's quote from TFA is accurate, and its implication in TFA is that the CIA should be able to do something like, idk, kill or remove the POTUS, something that is quite nefarious. Pointing out that TFA does that is very much worth having here. Feel free to discuss.
Agreed, but it's a good question. Will the will of the people do it - should we expect the will of the people, as a conglomerate, to make such a concentrated and calculated decision?
What are you talking about? The subject was TFA implying that the CIA should be able to kill or otherwise remove the sitting POTUS. The CIA does not implement "the will of the people" -- the POTUS in principle does, and should, but the POTUS is an individual with his own will. There is no "will of the people" involved in this sub-thread. The question is: should the CIA have the capability and power to remove the sitting POTUS, yes or no?
While correct, the implication of the quote in the article that GP shares is that of, “who ELSE CAN incapacitate the president in event of overreach on the status quo?”
There’s usually 2 implied answers to this - at least in American discourse (the people - with an extralegal right to revolution, and foreign states - as an act of war).
However, the author actually introduces a party that usually isn’t discussed in the conversation - the IC.
I was just bringing up the party of “The People” that is USUALLY assumed the responsibility in hypotheticals like these, and actually challenging the grounds of doing so
"Dismantling" is very far from what is happening. "Slightly reducing" would be more accurate - even if we concentrate on the discretionary budget, i.e. start with ignoring 3/4 of the whole federal spending - the projected 2025 spending is around $1.6 trln, where 2024 was at $1.8 trln. It is a cut of about 12%, which is substantial, as federal budgets go, but nowhere near "dismantling". If we dig further down and ignore defense and security spending (which is the whole point of this post, but let's go wild!) then it's projected that 2025 figure would be about $710 bln, down from $910 bln in 2024. Thats about 22% reduction (Trump's cuts, unsurprisingly, mostly go to nondefense budget parts) - again, a substantial reduction, but nowhere near "dismantling".
In fact, the government, spending 7 trillion dollars per year, does not look "dismantled" to me, dwarfing the GDP of every country on Earth excluding USA and China. And this is not likely to change much in the rest of Trump's term, more likely these are the biggest cuts we will see and some of them may even be quietly rolled back later in the term.
People pay attention to both SPOKEN/PUBLISHED intentions along with how cuts were implemented/planning for dealing with the cuts. Both of those show your absolute numbers don't matter in the determination that this regime is in fact "dismantling" the government.
So you are saying "dismantling" is actually Trump speaking about what he's going to do rather than actual actions on the ground? In this case, the federal government has been "dismantled" by pretty much every President since FDR, they all promised to implement cuts and fight "waste and abuse" and the federal spending only grew. In fact, if Trump cuts all government spending in half (including mandatory spending, which is nearly impossible to do, but let's assume for a second he can do that) he'll just go to the size of the government as it was in 2008, and that's not exactly a tiny government, let alone a "dismantled" one. The actual cuts, of course, are way smaller than that, and will always remain so. And I am willing to bet that once Trump retires, not only the federal government will be alive and well, it likely would be spending a lot more than it had been when he first became President. And there's more than even chance it will also be spending more than when he took the oath of office for the second time.
It is quite discouraging though that people are now openly calling to ignore politician's actions and only take their words into account, even if not supported by any actual action. There was a time, not so long ago, where it was considered smart to do the opposite.
The military industrial complex lies in ruins, the west is in full retreat while other empires expand in another great game and the CIA conspiracy theories where revealed as just left racism dogwhistles. Because of course , non-white people can not be bad acteurs , creating their own destiny and pursuit the original sin that is imperialism, racism and genocide. They are noble savages.
Meanwhile , the agents of centralized incompetence aggregated, rainmade the public behind this conspiracy facade, by hijacking the stories of local developments.
So tirrd of all this hyperbiased nonsense, that then turns out to be the narratives pushed by the working secret service of hostile nations.
If you willingly turn yourself into a propaganda asset of a hostile foreign power, you should leave the democracy you reside in .
A good article that is critical of the previous book by Weiner ("Legacy of Ashes") is this article[0].
Here is a quote from it:
"A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist has distorted what was said, why it was said, when it was said, and the circumstances under which it was said—all to support his thesis that CIA has been a continuous failure from 1947 up to the present. Weiner’s use of the plural 'final gatherings' in the excerpt from his account suggests he knows what he is doing."
Author does not fully address that the CIA effectively funds and directs the rest of the IC. They gate all infrastructure - from networks to satellites to drones. When Congress tried to limit their operations with heavy oversight, they spun out a brand new intelligence agency, classified its very existence, and spun out operations on that side for years before CBO caught on.
Not just CIA. Whenever military industrial complex or bankers want a make over, defers litigation risks or just conceal ownership, they just create a subsidiary, spun it off with another name and/or hide the everything behind client attorney privileges.
It also gives the public a memory wipe. Very clever technique indeed.
It's called Treadstone, there are a few movies about it.
Would also mention the last two DNI were CIA directors. The two before that were NSA directors during a time where the NSA was largely controlled by the CIA and its leadership largely shared positions on the CIA’s senior leadership team.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/gabbard-c...
"Oh no! A missile is hitting Kiev!" (puppeteer makes sound of explosion like BKSHSH!)
Also really happy to see a living legend hanging out here with us.
instead of each branch of the US military having their own codebreaking and SIGINT group the DoD decided to merge them and members of all services work at Ft Meade.
Today, NSA SIGINT still flows directly to the CIA. They are also the only agency without an independent mission, and must rely on the CIA or CYBERCOM to actually do anything with SIGINT (they are only allowed to gather)
Also an open secret that the FBI and CIA often collude and any operation that they can’t get a warrant for just gets performed by the CIA. The FBI’s threat matrix is coordinated by the CIA and despite the Church probes their collusion has only incentivized and even been codified (eg NCTC)
And what do you mean by can only do anything with SIGINT? SIGINT is a broad term that includes COMINT and ELINT, which many other agencies do quite a lot with.
In the same way you might say a lot of the NSA's technical accesses are gated by the CIA (due to being HUMINT derived), the inverse is also true where the SIGINT collected by those accesses is gated by the NSA. This isnt strictly true though, since the NSA also has plenty of other non-CIA derived sources.
I also think in a lot of ways it like saying the Army and Navy control the entire military because all the other branches broke off from them and if you need eg aquatic support then the Navy has to provide it.
If one state’s borders were controlled by another’s, its operations reliant on another’s, and its leadership largely coming from or connected to the other’s, we would not consider that state sovereign. In the same way, my point is that the NSA cannot be considered independent of the CIA.
While other agencies can use SIGINT, all of it goes to the CIA by default and access to the NSA’s network is still gated by the CIA. The converse is not true - the NSA does not oversee most broader intelligence networks (shockingly neither does CYBERCOM), and the CIA also operates siloed networks and operations.
The military example you gave is a great way of thinking about it. The Army and Navy gather resources and maintain readiness, but operations and control of resources is afforded to component commands. All of these are technically separate and roll up directly to JCS/JTFs or DepSecDef. Similarly each intelligence agency is technically separate and oversees gathering/maintaining intelligence under its mission, but is still practically under the CIA’s influence.
what has saved americans is the CIA has been focused on foreign issues. once that might is turned internally there's hell to pay.
That doesn't really fit with "answers to no one", which can be understood as "it can focus on whatever it pleases".
America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande?
Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops to the crazed Trumpers who think that USAID is a waste of money.
It's a jobs program for midwestern farmers to grow unprofitable legacy crops and then it morphs into an intelligence operation by giving those crops to the poorest of the poor as food donations in some resource rich but economically poor and geopolitically strategic areas, all while creating tremendous goodwill and ground-level intel.
And somehow, this combo deal that puts money in poor farmers' pockets AND creates tremendous political goodwill AND serves as a fountain of continuous strategic information in vital localities is seen as a bad thing by Trump fans.
I don't get it. It's probably one of the most economically beneficial operations the CIA has ever taken part of outside of trafficking cocaine.
As a matter of principle it just isn't possible to run a democracy where the government, in its official capacity, is working to shape the narrative. I can't deny that is what has been happening for decades, but the result is a toxic soup of lies and would explain a lot about why the journalist community seems to have been slowly unmooring from reality - they're attached to the money printing pipe. People shouldn't be paying for political propaganda with their taxes; particularly not in the US where it is probably leaking into domestic politics. Those NGO networks USAID was pushing money towards appear to be hostile in the main to the Trump voter base and their political objectives.
[0] https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-jou... - I note they put in an erratum, although given that the US is almost certainly trying to obscure where its propaganda funding there are still a lot of questions. Their source in imi.org.ua was quoting some eyebrow-raising numbers.
You're not that naive...come on.
Of course it's possible to run a democracy when the government is working to shape the narrative. Every government regardless of their type tries to control narratives. That's sort of their whole thing....
1. USAID – Frequently used by the CIA for covert operations and as cover for agents abroad. (Washington Post [1])
2. Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) – CIA-founded and funded anti-communist intellectual network during the Cold War. [2]
3. Air America – CIA-owned airline used heavily during the Vietnam War and Laos operations. PBS [3]
4. Blockstream - CIA backed "non-profitable" company that controls the Bitcoin GitHub repository and guides development founded by useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell, "Blue Hair Matt," and a handful of other internet trolls with no real software credentials.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/usaid...
2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1263191.The_Cultural_Col...
3. https://www.miamiherald.com/
Citation #2 is a link a good reads page for "The Lincoln Lawyer" - confused on how this is relevant to "air america"
Citation #3 is not a specific link to any particular article, just the miamiherald's home page.
And someone previously mentioned there is no citation for claim 4
Kind of feels like astroturfing or a bot of some sort. Mind clarifying any of this?
If it was a swamp/intel front I don't think it could've gotten burned down. I think the CIA laughed the whole time "this is what those idiots get for not doing their stuff under our umbrella and letting us take our cut".
And yes, they've been operating domestically as well with the same color revolution tactics. Particularly to try to keep Trump out of office.
Trying to project this onto ICE is cute.
I would be shocked if the CIA hadn't registered what was happening, isolated its would-be minder, and gone totally dark. If they hadn't been running an American imperialist plot to conquer their Cold War enemy, by now they've got no choice but to do that. And we won't be hearing about it unless they had a complete collapse of opsec.
They don't have operational control of the ICE camps, though maybe they'd rather take them over than take them down.
It's been used in Ukraine and other Eastern Europe countries as well.
(while I'm happy to condemn the CIA, the existence of one bad actor does not disprove the existence of other bad actors out there)
But that has been deemed unfit by the CIA and somehow Pinochet coup d'etat succeeded.
Backing from the US helped a lot there.
US support for the ‘64 Military coup in Brazil? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%...]
and Bolivia.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...]
Not to mention all the drug war meddling in Columbia, etc.
Or the really crazy Operation Condor [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor]. Which included Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Peru.
You’d have to be willfully ignorant to not know this history.
Screwing with South America has to be one of the CIA’s favorite hobbies.
You mean in Ukraine, right? It's quite normal to not see something that's been carefully designed to be invisible.
> It sounds like a kind of American provincialism to think that everything revolves around them.
Those words are a sure sign of serious brainwashing, similar to the Russian side. In the meantime the dead keep piling up... Quo bono?
No.
> Those words are a sure sign of serious brainwashing,
Hardly. Pinning all recent human history on the CIA seems like a "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" kind of thing. The world is far more complex than stale Usenet copypastas suggest, and the CIA is entirely outclassed by a number intelligence organizations in Eastern Europe purely it lacks an understanding of local history and culture. For the longest time, Eastern Europe has been academically taught through a Russian-centric lens. It's like learning the history of Africa through the perspective of colonial empires rather than the natives; gives barely any understanding what's going on between the different peoples of Africa. This has led to major intelligence failures, such as the failure to accurately predict the collapse of the USSR, which took CIA analysts by surprise. This, in turn, left everyone in Eastern Europe stunned: how could they be so completely oblivious to the facts on the ground?! That gave a lifelong immunity to the whole category of "almighty CIA" conspiracy theories.
I clearly sense that you cannot relate to issues of life and death, which puts your non-botness into serious question. Besides, I've never argued about who is doing the siccing, you're simply following your old context which happens to be wrong.
People from there do say those things just as well. Unless one only hears the expats that say what he wants to hear and/or have adopted their host countries politics, or only taks to people who share his own lifestyle, which are usually hardly representative, there's even a name for this phenomenon in journalism, because it's often how things are told in western media.
The "genuine demands for freedom for those countries" range from actual ones, to orange "revolutions", to astroturfed bullshit, to grooming the political establishment and civic society with tons of imperial money.
The constitutional crisis in Ukraine in 2014 was between President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian Parliament, which is actually the sovereign institution. In a constitutional sense it wasn't even really a revolution because the sovereign institution was never overthrown. It pressured Yanukovych into resigning, backed by massive public support.
It is extremely likely but not proven that they have done so at least one time in the past.
As the latest release of docs from the DNI shows, the CIA certainly tried to do this with Obama instigated Russian collusion hoax.
Some agencies are more influential than others but that waxes and wanes over time. There is always some agency in ascendency and another in decline. I've seen the centers of influence shift between agencies more than once.
Your conspiracy theory is a bit overwrought.
Today's Congress entirely failing to regulate the executive branch and seemingly... uninterested? in doing so is troubling for the stability of the republic.
You say uninterested, yet it seems more like complicit. Both chambers of Congress are led by the same party as POTUS. They are quite happy with how things are going, and actively work to enable POTUS and his agenda. There are some things where previous Congress has put limits on POTUS that this POTUS is ignoring. If this Congress was really effective, they'd repeal those regulations so POTUS' actions would not run afoul of legislation. Instead, they are just ignoring the flagrant violations, and letting SCOTUS (also led by the same party) get involved with their decisions that POTUS has flagrantly pushed back against as well.
And if you were the NSA, how could you pass up on using some of that ‘accidentally’ collected intel to help avoid distractions while you ‘protect the nation’ eh?
Having read a couple of popular histories of the CIA and knowing how they thought about how folks like me live in the world, it is easy to understand that they are decidedly not acting in my interests.
If you find the interests of the US power to align with your own, that's probably pretty normal for US citizens. But even just looking at Paperclip and Phoenix, I'd be sad to be aligned with either of those crimes, and that's not even looking at the horrible outcomes of their work in Guatemala, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, etc.
The CIA is a pretty handy thing I suppose, as it's existence has convinced me that the US gov neither has my interests in mind nor represents me in any meaningful fashion.
Given the fact I think that they have done an immense amount of harm in the world, that fact has made my conscience much lighter.
More than other intelligence agencies? Extant or historical?
Intelligence is messy. Here. And among our enemies. We have to contain that messiness domestically, to keep it from consuming us. In that way, it's analogous to our immune system. And just like our immune system, turning it off means all the other out-of-line elements around the world now have easy pickings over you.
The CIA has been more destructive than other modern agencies because it's far reaching. It's not more evil than other ICs. Just more capable. I'm not thrilled to learn who occupies that vacuum if the CIA goes away; almost by definition, it won't be anyone benevolent.
How is that even a question?
Citation seriously needed. This is untrue unless the words you are using are not to be understood in any sense common to English speakers. The most generous fact based interpretation I can give it is that Saudi financiers were underscrutinized for political reasons, resulting in missed opportunities to stop the attacks. The actual attackers were not CIA nor FBI assets.
We more or less agree. "Asset" does not mean card-carrying CIA agent.
This is unsubstantiated. If you dissolved the CIA at the end of the Cold War, chances are 9/11 still happens.
Keep in mind 9/11 was a godsend for the latter strategy. PNAC was begging for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense/IC spending just months before it happened.
Sure. That still doesn’t implicate the CIA in a domestic intelligence failure.
The CIA didn’t aid and abet 9/11—I frankly thought this nonsense died a decade ago.
If CIA ends up hurting for money they can go back to using Israel to sell weapons to Iran and selling cocaine to intercity youth.
Like the good old days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)
There are maps of this new world regularly published by US think tanks.
During peacetime, there's mostly unused capability, and preparations take place that don't result in actual conflict. Military assets are built and trained, but not being used. Intent may exist only in the mind of the leader and may change rapidly.
This often frustrates decision-makers, who want intelligence to tell them what's going to happen.
We had a pretty clear picture of intent in the build-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Different countries have historically been skillful in different elements of intelligence. American geospatial and signals intelligence is renowned. Our human intellignece, on the other hand, has been crap in the modern era. I would be wary about projecting the strengths and weaknesses of the American IC to intelligence as a whole.
Given the amount of amunition, medical teams, blood reserves, etc, it was clear that they were not staging an excercise. Unfortunately the Americans lost all credibility after the Gulf war. History is a bitch.
More than ten percent of the population is on SNAP and everything is corn, but there is no food rationing? Usians toil under an absurd lack of welfare, but that's not a sacrifice? Starving public services through "tax breaks" is not sacrificial?
But I lack the basic sympathy for these organizations, if they were abolished the world would be a better place.
It's like wishing militaries didn't exist.
Russia invades Georgia
Poland and the Baltics join NATO
Russia: Surprise Pikachu
At least admit a fuckup and don't try to macho-out of this sin of your fathers. Decent folks would be at least ashamed of their mistakes and apologize (I know that's for decent nations to pick up, but its nice to lay clean moral actions and then watch reality divert because of blahs).
Empirically that's not a very well-supported statement, if you compare the economy and living conditions of Chile to its neighbours. Empirically speaking, electing communist governments almost always leads to reduced living standards. It's like if the US hadn't intervened in to help a fascist dictator in South Korea, the whole of South Korea would be as poor as North Korea is now.
Almost always leads to a CIA-backed coup or civil war which indirectly indeed reduces living standards. In the other scenarios it often resulted in generally improved living standards via industrialization, increase of literacy and social programs. In yet others gross mismanagement and large scale famines, or fluctuating results depending on the time scale. There is no commonly accepted uniform outcome, and "almost always worse living standards" is clearly not one.
Like most "CIA coups", the role the CIA played in Chile is more of a "hey let's help this guy who is already planning a coup" and if you dig into the details, it raises the question if the CIA had done nothing whether the outcome would have changed at all.
Helping a fascist coup is bad, even if the fascist coup didn't need your help.
It's not a choice between democracy and a fascist (Allende was going regardless), it was a choice between a US friendly authoritarian or a USSR friendly authoritarian.
This is a nice summary of the situation in Chile at the time, the actors involved (domestic and international) and the role of the CIA.
https://www.kyleorton.com/p/myth-1973-american-coup-in-chile
To get a sense of the CIA’s role, they didn’t even think Pinochet had it in him - they had others pegged as the coup leader. They were surprised to find out it was Pinochet.
Comparing the two is so fatuous I can't believe it.
It would be like someone saying "Kim Jong Un is a horrific leader" and then another person responding with "yeah well my home owner's association president is terrible too." Just a complete non sequitur.
This article is on the level of "the holocaust never happened" cherry-picked argumentations.
Just an example: it doesn't even mention the trucker's strike was directed by the CIA.
The total funding was $7M over 2 years. The strike involved 250,000 trucker drivers, or $28 per striker.
As the source said in a NY Times article..
““The whole point of this is that covert action provides a 1 per cent impetus for something that the people want anyway,” he said.” - CIA source
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/09/20/archives/cia-is-linked-to...
As if the money was for the strikers and not just their leaders...
(But even so, 28 USD in 1974 would be 180 USD today and was still a pretty sum in Argentina at the time, especially for a trucker)
Bad faith arguments doesn't help believing you have an honest argument to begin with.
So you're claiming the leaders were able to convince 250,000 union members to strike because... the leaders wanted it? That makes no sense.
As laid out in the article, the truckers were already upset at the government undermining their entire industry. They didn't need $28 USD to convince them to strike.
It wild how people think the CIA with a few million dollars can convince an otherwise stable democratic nation to overthrow it's leader in a coup.
As the article lays out, the CIA were mostly observers who tossed a bit of money to opposition parties. It's questionable if the CIA had any impact at all considering they weren't backing Pinochet himself, and the timing of the coup caught them by surprise. It's pretty clear they weren't very plugged in to what was happening.
Yes, the USA shouldn't be meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries to action its proxy cold war against a rival super power.
I acknowledge that the USA determined this was a correct course of action in order to strengthen its hegemony, and the hegemony of global capitalism, however it was still unethical and in opposition to the needs of people in the USA.
If your take is that it’s unethical, that’s fine, but you need to consider the alternative - giving the USSR free rein to meddle in the domestic politics of the Southern hemisphere. The citizens of those countries end up living under an authoritarian anyways.
I’m not saying it isn’t an ugly business, but I’m not sure the alternative is much better.
Do you just shrug your ahoulders and do nothing?
First, I'll answer the post ipso facto aspect: The USA did meddle, and was that good? In the case of Pinochet, no, because he was a brutal authoritarian and was obviously the worse alternative to the leftist, not even communist, government he overthrew. Also, if the people voted for communism, then, that's self determination, let them have it. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't, that's no business of America's. A military coup is "might makes right," an unethical ideology. So if we compare the two forms of meddling, actually, the USSR's was more ethical, since it was aligned with the will of the people. Overall though I still think neither country should have meddled.
What should have been done instead? If the USSR is meddling, the USA as a nation state should do nothing more than leverage its platform to expose any instances of meddling, especially if they were against the will of the people (e.g. fraudulent votes). The people in the USA is a different thing entirely, if I knew what direct action people could take to resist nation state meddling entirely I'd write it here, since I don't, I'll just say the usual: form subversive relationships with neighbors in opposition to authority, mutual aid in opposition to capital-derived infrastructure, mutual education, mutual bonds.
As for Hitler, who also rose to power undemocratically I might add (Reichstag fire and the like), he was committing a genocide, any and all means to stop that is ethical, including full invasion by other nation states. On the other hand, I can't think of an ethical way for a nation state to prevent him coming to power. After all, at the time, I'm not sure it was possible to predict what he was about to do - an anti-semitic politician wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and nobody had ever seen a Holocaust before. If Germany can't prevent itself from becoming a fascist hellhole I don't really see America's responsibility there other than to offer safe haven to any fleeing Jewish people, gays, trans people, communists, etc. Since time machines don't exist, I can't think of an ethical justification for USA meddling in Germany pre-Holocaust or pre-invasion of Poland.
What do you think? I think an interesting question is, "what is ethical and allowed if Hitler 2 arrived today and began seeking power?" Such questions could have interesting answers depending on what you think America should be allowed to do to the current person and nation conducting a genocide, Netanyahu in Israel.
Absolutely wrong, to the point of negationism. Amongst many things, the CIA trained South American militaries and police in torture through the School of the Americas.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2246205
If "this guy" wasn't already planning a coup, the CIA would have done it themselves anyway. Overthrowing Allende by any means was a core mission for them. The CIA was directly responsible for killing a general, René Schneider, who stood against any attempt at a coup.
And then they collaborated with Argentina's (and other South Amrican dictatorships') Operation Condor:
-mass abduction
-death squads
-torture of anyone suspected of being even vaguely leftist (electric shocks, prolonged immersion in water, cigarette burns, sexual abuse, rape, removal of teeth and fingernails, castration, and burning with boiling water, oil and acid)
-throwing them alive fron planes into the sea, hands and feet bound
-kidnapping newborns from their "leftist" mothers (subsequenly killed) to give them to conservative families
“ In the best traditions of the CIA, catastrophe ensued. Viaux ignored the explicit U.S. instructions to cease-and-desist; two abduction efforts against Schneider, on 19 and 20 October, failed; the third attempt, on 22 October, ended with Schneider being mortally wounded (he died on 25 October);”
Your rebuttal consists of one source completely unrelated to what happened in Chile. Well done.
And what the CIA was doing in other countries is irrelevant to whether what was article describes as happening in Chile is accurate.
If you're going to claim the article isn't true, then an actual rebuttal of the article arguments would be a helpful place to start.
Meanwhile you pretend we should ignore the CIA trained every torturer and executioner of the juntas of South America.
Pure negationism.
I take that as you can’t actually prove the article is wrong?
I'm convinced that the evolution of the internet will bring this as well.
But I don't think nation-states are likely to survive for more than 500 or so more years. And the capacity for collaboration, innovation, and even perhaps transcendence into something like a distinct and more peaceful species seems to only grow.
I'm not so sure about that; some actions of the CIA are questionable at best, but the Soviet Union or KGB were not the good guys by any means, nor is Al Qaeda or Putin's Russia.
The failures are far more publicised than the successes. How many $bad_things has the CIA prevented? I don't have a clear answer for that but it's obviously non-zero. How does that balance against the mistakes and crimes? Unclear.
And look, obviously the world would be far better off without the CIA, or KGB/FSB, or Al Qaeda, or any of these assholes. But I can't control what Russia or Al Qaeda does and neither can anyone else, and obviously we need to do something to counter these people. It seems to me what we need is a way to have a secret service that doesn't go to the dark side.
Well that's the problem for your steelman on a position being an unfalsifiable hypothesis, isn't it? We DON'T know - and neither you or I know if it's actually non-zero either. We can probably list 20 main atrocities committed by the CIA together, and with a few hours of research we can probably get it up to a few hundred. But we can't find the inverse, so why introduce is as support in your argument?
This isn't obvious to me. Can you help me understand?
Going public with that was a bold call - CIA put its reputation on the line. But Ukraine was more prepared because of it - and so were its allies.
A lot of Ukrainian officials didn't believe that the war was about to start up until the moment it did. Imagine how much worse the situation could have been without US beating the drum.
The entire issue I and most people have with the CIA is that it isn't just a bunch of guys having coded conversations on park benches in foreign capitals and writing thick reports. Yes, those guys are there, but mainly its an unaccountable army that ignores the rules of war and does tons of illegal assassinations, blackmail, etc. These are the lowest of the low. These are people that, in any just society, should be tried and publicly executed while the citizenry packs a picnic lunch and lights off fireworks to celebrate.
We can have the fake-mustache guys without the extralegal murder-for-hire and using-computers-to-industrialize-domestic-political-blackmail guys.
That's magnanimous of you.
>We can have the fake-mustache guys without the extralegal murder-for-hire and using-computers-to-industrialize-domestic-political-blackmail guys.
People say that, but is it true? Any examples? I feel like these "fake-mustache guys" are always getting themselves into something. That's why they have the fake-mustaches, after all.
MI6, the British foreign intelligence agency, doesn't have a covert action arm. Which is not to say that our government hasn't done any fuckery with other countries' politics (we're also a former imperial power) but it does lessen the temptation and the capability.
“ SIS activities included a range of covert political actions, including the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (in collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency).[85]”
“ During the Soviet–Afghan War, SIS supported the Islamic resistance group commanded by Ahmad Shah Massoud and he became a key ally in the fight against the Soviets. An annual mission of two SIS officers, as well as military instructors, were sent to Massoud and his fighters. Through them, weapons and supplies, radios and vital intelligence on Soviet battle plans were all sent to the Afghan resistance. SIS also helped to retrieve crashed Soviet helicopters from Afghanistan.[90]/
“Some of SIS's actions since the 2000s have attracted significant controversy, such as its alleged complicity in acts of torture and extraordinary rendition.[10][11]”
“ The stated priority roles of SIS are counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, providing intelligence in support of cyber security, and supporting stability overseas to disrupt terrorism and other criminal activities.[8]”
“ In March 2016, it was reported that MI6 had been involved in the Libyan Civil War since January of that year, having been escorted by the SAS to meet with Libyan officials to discuss the supplying of weapons and training for the Syrian Army and the militias fighting against ISIS.[113] In April 2016, it was revealed that MI6 teams with members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment seconded to them had been deployed to Yemen to train Yemeni forces fighting AQAP, as well as identifying targets for drone strikes.[114] In November 2016, The Independent reported that MI6, MI5 and GCHQ supplied the SAS and other British special forces a list of 200 British jihadists to kill or capture before they attempt to return to the UK. The jihadists are senior members of ISIS who pose a direct threat to the UK. Sources said SAS soldiers have been told that the mission could be the most important in the regiment's 75-year history.[115]”
“ E Squadron is the sole paramilitary group within SIS.[132] There is limited information about the squadron in the public domain, and it was not until the 1990s that it was officially recognised by the British government. Although the Government has declassified some information about the squadron, details about its operations generally remain secret. Before the 1990s, the group was known mainly by pseudonym The Increment.[133] Out of all the British special forces units, E Squadron is a branch of the wider UKSF and many of its combatants are hand-picked to work with the SIS. The group is available for undertaking any task at the requirement of the both UKSF Directorate and SIS. It is manned by operators from the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).[133]”
They definitely have guns, and aren’t afraid to use them. And they’re fundamentally covert.
If you have invented the disease, then surely you can warn in advance that a cure will be needed.
It feels ridiculous even writing that out. Can you help me understand your perspective?
However, the big issue is that you can't argue the values of liberal democracy, the rule of law, elections, freedom of speech, but at the same time overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments and keep people believing you.
I believe that the CIA has done more to destroy the trust in democracy and promote the rise of totalitarian regimes that we are seeing now, than any other single entity. Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO.
What's always been funny to me about the CIA is if they didn't even do these things:
>"overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments"
There probably would have been less - if any - of those terror attacks to worry about in the first place.
It always existed to provoke and to force varying degrees of military response from nations we antagonized. It was ALWAYS to justify a status quo propped by a military industrial complex - and to overstay the luxuries given to us by Pax Americana. We could have pulled off a peaceful era without bullying, I'm sure of it.
"Created Al-Qaeda" is certainly far too simplistic. There are unforeseen consequences to everything you do (or don't do). The alternative of leaving Afghanistan to their fate after the Soviet invasion also wasn't appealing. If you want to blame someone for Al Qaeda, then start with the Soviet Union and Pakistan.
These two examples also conflict by the way: in one instance they had to do more, and in the other less. It's easy to sit here in judgement decades after the fact, but at the time a lot of this was less clear.
If it could be transparent and ‘clean’ it would be able to operate in the open.
"There was a time when the C.I.A.’s existential fear was of losing its adversary. In Al Qaeda, it found a new one; in Iraq, it created others. In Trump, it faces an adversary of a different kind."
Further, calling the Commander in Chief its "adversary" is terrible framing.. if they're working against the elected leadership of the US, who are they working FOR?
The various executive branch departments were created by Congress and are supposed to follow the instructions given by Congress. Various theorists disagree as to the extent to which the President is permitted to override the instructions from Congress.
Yes
> and are supposed to follow the instructions given by Congress.
Well, yes, but also no. Executive agencies must adhere to the law, but Congress cannot fully set the Executive's policy. Congress has very limited powers to force policy on the Executive, mainly advice and consent (for appointments and treaty ratification) and impeachment.
Past Presidents have wielded vastly more power relative to Congress than the current one. You should see the things that Lincoln did! Lincoln: suspended Habeas Corpus even though the Constitution says only Congress can, he abrogated treaties against the will of the Senate even though the Senate believed that since ratification requires their advice and consent then so much abrogation (but the Constitution is silent on the matter of abrogation) and as a result modern treaties have abrogation clauses to try to hem in heads of state but obviously those clauses can only go so far, and many other things. President Jefferson denied Adams' 18 lame duck federal judge appointees their commissions (and Marbury had something to say about that, namely that it was unconstitutional but also that he couldn't do anything about it). And that's just some of the notable things that Presidents have done that Congress (or in Jefferson's case, the preceding Congress) didn't like.
The Dept of Ed had ~4200 employees and they laid of ~1400. It is not "essentially shuttered" currently regardless of the goal.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ed...
The important question is: "Can they fulfill their legally mandated obligations with the smaller staff?"
If the answer is "yes" then we saved money and still did the job. If the answer is "no" then we have a problem.
So far I haven't seen anyone identify "here are the legally mandated obligations that won't be fulfilled any longer" which would be useful and could be compelling.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
The current supreme court (which was also the supreme court past term) has a very consistent pattern of taking away power from Democrats and granting power to Republicans. Since the president is a Republican, they've been consistently granting power to the president; since the last president was a Democrat, they were consistently taking away his power. You can watch the pattern continue in 2029.
They ruled the president has unlimited power to do anything at all, without punishment, if it can be justified as a presidential duty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States - during the last term, but in relation to Trump.
Very soon after Trump took power, they ruled that courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Trump's orders: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf?...
Notice all of these sorts of decisions are always 6-3: the 6 conservative justices forming a voting bloc in support of expanding Trump's power (specifically Trump, not just any president), and all 3 non-conservative ones voting against.
No, specifically they said district judges couldn't write rulings that applied to other districts.
Your local city council would hit the same limitation if they attempted to write laws for other cities.
If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches?
Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch.
Sometimes, there should be things that should have avenues to be quickly stricken down before more parties fall victim to them
The Executive was made to serve the country and the law, not Congress. Congress is meant to serve the country and make the law. The Judiciary is meant to serve the country and rule on the Executive's service to Congress's written law, when asked. At any time and for any reason, Congress can impeach the President, and refer his case to the courts if they think it appropriate.
If law (as regulation) is made from arbitrary agencies, denying people access to the courts when disputing that law is not helpful for democracy, it is anti-democratic, because it denies access to the judicial interpretation of Congress's intent. Congress, however, is free to make itself clear at any time, if it has the votes.
This all comes down to complaining about not having the votes. And in democracies, we shouldn't be sympathetic to people who don't have the votes.
What's this even mean?
Sherman compromise (2 states per state in one chamber of the bicameral legislature) isn't popular rule,
the electoral college doesn't have to operate by popular role,
voter suppression in modern times isn't popular rule,
gerrymandering isn't popular rule.
These existing systems of structure in American political institutions ARE sympathetic to those without votes. We are not a pure democracy. This is civics 101 and amateur hour.
The Judiciary is meant to resolve justiciable [civil] controversies, and in its more boring role to try criminal cases. In particular the judiciary cannot exceed its jurisdiction which is set by law and the Constitution. The judiciary cannot say that something the Executive is doing is unconstitutional and force a remedy if the law does not allow it. That's what Marbury v. Madison was all about! In that decision the SCOTUS says that yes, the Executive's action against Marbury was illegal, but no the Court cannot remedy the situation because the law that would have allowed it was unconstitutional! (Holy pretzel batman!) In Marbury two wrongs made a right, or perhaps two wrongs made a third -- depends on how you look at it.
Oversight is a two edged sword. In one side of the argument, too much oversight effectively slows everything down and makes keeping secrets much hardet. On the other side, without enough oversight the intelligence agency simply has its own agenda, depending on who really control its financing.
Judging from the history of the Cold War era, it is impossible to give enough oversight when you want to fight a cunning enemy. I bet it is the same on the Russian side.
I would think this is true of any intelligence agency.
There is just too much power involved to not form an internal cabal. Financing is a trivial hurdle for the cabal to overcome once formed.
Regardless of what one thinks of trump, this should be enough to have serious consequences for the CIA and other three letter agencies
Unironically: Either themselves, or the American people.
That's what I always thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_pleasure_of_the_preside...
These jobs are pretty big ones like CISA chief but it doesn't matter much how well you serve the people or whatever. It just matters how well you serve the president
If Congress decided to end the CIA then they could pass a law abolishing the agency or pass laws that refine the things they can or cannot do, but they're not inherently beholden to the President. The legislative branch being at odds with an executive branch representative isn't inherently problematic unless you think the President should be king.
There's another lens: You could think this, and have it rooted in the belief that separation of powers and the "checks and balances" against political institutions should have expanded beyond 'Executive' <-> 'Legislative' <-> 'Judiciary'.
Jury is a positive right within the right of due process - AND the right of citizens to participate in - and is therefore treated as a compelled responsibility on members of the populace, that exists to quell concentrated power from legal proceedings. In my opinion, we should have had more of those - and “The People” should have been an enumerated institution within the political structure that offers more comprehensive positive rights, negative rights, and compelled (and tensioned) checks and balances against the other institutions (executive, legislative, judiciary, “state”)
If the POTUS feels the CIA is not obeying legal orders then he can roll heads till they do.
The CIA didn't call Trump its adversary, the reviewer of the book did. They also said that Trump was the Agency's adversary, not the other way around. It is also possible to be adversarial against an individual while doing a good job working for them (see for example everyone with a boss they don't like).
I wouldn't read too much about the intentions of the intelligence community into that provocative sentence by an unaffiliated book reviewer.
The current POTUS is doing neither of those things.
But in theory all these organizations swear an oath to the constitution, not to any branch of government, and especially not their leadership.
If any of the leadership issues illegal orders or does work to undermine the constitution or the country, according to the oath sworn by CIA agents, they should be doing everything they can to work against this leadership.
Even the military expects soldiers to reject illegal orders to commit gencode.
The cia was basically pointless when the ussr fell (I'm not sure I agree but that's the logic). It needed a reason to exist and Al Qaeda provided that. When that wore thin, it manufactured its own reason in Iraq, a country that had no wdm and was no threat. And so on.
I'm not saying I agree but that is the logic I believe
Legality doesn't matter as long as the money keeps flowing.
Terrible, but not an unusual one. There has been a lot of talk about CIA feuding with various presidents, starting from JFK at least. And it's not exactly a secret they do this:
> New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.
> “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
And man was Schumer right about that.
> who are they working FOR?
The same all large bureaucracies work for - itself. Self-preservation and self-expansion.
Probably the same can be said of MI5.
Apparently the CIA was struggling to find a place in the early 90s while its former director was the sitting POTUS and the USA was renewing its grand campaign to covertly and overtly reshape the Middle East. Sure buddy, totally believable.
And no mention of the CIA's protection of 9/11 attackers from FBI persecution prior to the attacks.
He wanted to get the US in another Vietnam. He understood the effect it would have on the American people.
And you, underestimate people that are not of your own.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...
"Russia tried to get people to vote for candidate X" can be true even when "Russia tried to stop people voting by breaking machines" isn't.
it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia?
The cult is strong it seems.
> [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary...
Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?
And honestly if you think a one line joke in an interview is "Russian Collusion" you have your own cult issues to deal with.
Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President.
Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke).
Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President.
Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors.
At Trump's request though? That was the lie from Obama.
Obama didn't actually talk about Russian election interference until after the 2016 election due to a fear it would appear partisan. In interviews afterward, he avoided suggesting Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia at all.
I can't find anything about Obama accusing Trump of asking Russia to interfere. It would be so out of character that it is hard to believe.
The problem was that Obama didn’t do anything about it, include calling it out at the time.
The rest of the evidence makes it even more damning.
Trump worked on a massive plan with Putin to influence the US election. However, rather than bothering with encrypted messages, dead drops etc, they both decided that the best way to manage this TOP SECRET PLOT was for Trump to ask for help from Russia in a TV interview.
Who is dumber - the one who does the dumb thing, or the one who refuses to believe that the person did the dumb thing literally right in front of them, and then refuses to act.
No one has to be sophisticated when the world is willfully this stupid. The US is like the wife that insists their husband is faithful (and punishes the kids who try to say something) while the husband is literally cheating right in front of them.
Democracy and politics are outside of the realm of the CIA and intelligence, because the CIA is under the command of the white house.
It's true that Putin found a big vulnerability in the US by abusing its democracy, it's difficult to deny it.
Especially since it mentions election interference in Italy through those same mob networks.
Perhaps it's easy to forget they early brought the fruits of their activities home and never stopped, or easy to believe that they only have effects abroad.
https://history.wisc.edu/publications/the-politics-of-heroin...
Author makes it sound like democratically legitimate oversight is bad
"Not today, CIA" "Nice try, FBI" "Nice attempt at obscurity, Department of Homeland Security"
“$&773AjjaWj7-_£7f, NSA”
LOL
There’s usually 2 implied answers to this - at least in American discourse (the people - with an extralegal right to revolution, and foreign states - as an act of war).
However, the author actually introduces a party that usually isn’t discussed in the conversation - the IC.
I was just bringing up the party of “The People” that is USUALLY assumed the responsibility in hypotheticals like these, and actually challenging the grounds of doing so
In fact, the government, spending 7 trillion dollars per year, does not look "dismantled" to me, dwarfing the GDP of every country on Earth excluding USA and China. And this is not likely to change much in the rest of Trump's term, more likely these are the biggest cuts we will see and some of them may even be quietly rolled back later in the term.
It is quite discouraging though that people are now openly calling to ignore politician's actions and only take their words into account, even if not supported by any actual action. There was a time, not so long ago, where it was considered smart to do the opposite.
Meanwhile , the agents of centralized incompetence aggregated, rainmade the public behind this conspiracy facade, by hijacking the stories of local developments.
So tirrd of all this hyperbiased nonsense, that then turns out to be the narratives pushed by the working secret service of hostile nations.
If you willingly turn yourself into a propaganda asset of a hostile foreign power, you should leave the democracy you reside in .
There are a lot of great people who work there. And people who innovate, but that's in spite of.
It is the opposite of nimble, innovative, and adaptable.
Here is a quote from it: "A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist has distorted what was said, why it was said, when it was said, and the circumstances under which it was said—all to support his thesis that CIA has been a continuous failure from 1947 up to the present. Weiner’s use of the plural 'final gatherings' in the excerpt from his account suggests he knows what he is doing."
[0]: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/legacy-of-ashes.pdf
https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/nicholas-dujmovic/