Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject United States Government Agencies, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Agencies and Departments of the United States Government. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is supported by the United States WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Central Intelligence Agency article.

Contents

[edit] Non-neutral point of view in "Relationship with other agencies"

This section includes very non-npov language, such as the following line: "Once the CIA will cease to be so arrogant and "unilaterally minded" towards their international counterparts, it will be slightly easier to install a climate of trust and, for instance, to fight "terrorism" for real." Whether we think the CIA is arrogant or not, this has no place on Wikipedia. This section needs a lot of work, but I'm not qualified to do it. Brbigam 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This whole section was biased. It was hard not to laugh when I read it- seriously, am I reading an editorial, a spy novel, or a reference article for gosh-sake? Also, the opening sentence also seemed out of place: "The CIA has strong links with other intelligence organizations, namely its Canadian counterpart, CSIS, which is headed by Jim Judd." What is so important about this as to warrant it being the first line? As I recall from English Writing 101, the first sentence of a descriptive paragraph should set the objective/direction for the rest of the article. Right off the bat from reading that line, I can tell a Canadian wrote it- funny too being that most people are not too familiar with CSIS in the arena of well-known intelligence agencies (NSA, DIA, MI6, Mossad, (extinct) KGB and SS). I'll give it a little more time for this bogus section to be better edited, before I decide to decimate it.

[edit] 100,000 illegal activities per year

The "NPOV" poster below scoffed at the 100,000 illegal acitivites number:

"A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself. In other words, a typical 28 year old, GS-11 case officer has numerous opportunities every week, by poor tradecraft or inattention, to embarrass his country and President and to get agents imprisoned or executed."

This is from The IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st CenturyStaff Study Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence House of Representatives One Hundred Fourth Congress Travb

The fact is that stating that the CIA commits 100,000 crimes a year is geared entirely towards bias. It is the CIA's job to commit crimes, essentially, and stating this is suggesting that the CIA is made up of criminals. (unsigned message from Prospero)
Concur. This is kind of a "no kidding" quote. Uhh... geniuses? Spying is illegal. Sitting there and having a discussion on how illegal it is, how many specific instances it's been illegal, and describing the people who do these illegal things is beyond asinine, unless you want to shut down CIA entirely... which would be a much more concise (and less deceitful) addition to the article. LordKadghar 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Prospero, This is an EXACT quote from The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century Staff Study Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence House of Representatives One Hundred Fourth Congress. A congressional committee that was set up to examine the CIA, the most important review of the CIA since the Church Committee. You remind me of those people who still beleive that Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction, despite what the 9/11 commission found. If you would like to extract quotes from the same study, take the time and click the link and add what you wish. But simply because this quote does not match your pet ideology, is absolutly no reason for it to be deleted. The fact remains that the congressional study found that the CIA found that easily 100,000 times a year the CIA engages in highly illegal activities.-- Travb 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Travb, Prospero is making a quite legitimate point. Just about every activity the CIA engages in in a foriegn country breaks the laws of that country. So does every other intelligence agency. But there's a big difference between breaking espionage laws of the country you're spying upon (for which the moral case is quite ambiguous), and, say, murdering people whose political views you don't like (which is, mostly, morally reprehensible). Let's not blur the line between the spying that, arguably, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and things like extraordinary rendition and US-conducted "hard interrogation" (or, as I prefer to call it, torture) that the CIA has engaged in under the Bush (and to some extent under the Clinton) administrations. --Robert Merkel
Hello Robert Merkel and Prosperoanyone who wants to read the Congressional study further is welcome too. I read it before and cannot recall what crimes the committee mentions, I will read it later today.
I simply argue that the committee actually said these words, "highly illegal activities" verbatium. If anyone would like to temper these words with more sections of the study, I welcome it. But please do not delete the section simply because you do not agree with the words, or think it is POV. The fact remains that the congressional committee said these words, and it is a verbatium quote of the committee.
This addition is properly in the "controversies section", where CIA controversies are explained in detail. I have deleted many POV sentences in the past which case a bad light on the CIA simply because they are unfounded allegations, this is different, it is not an unfounded allegation, but the finding of a committee that had access to everything the CIA did-- Travb 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Robert Merkel wrote: "Just about every activity the CIA engages in in a foriegn country breaks the laws of that country. So does every other intelligence agency."
Lets say you were put on trial for murder. Could you use the "everyone else is doing it defence" to get off on a murder charge? No. But American apologists do this all the time--mention the attrocities of America, and there is always another country that has done something worse, which somehow justifies America's actions. This is ethically dishonest and illogical.
Robert Merkel wrote: "But there's a big difference between breaking espionage laws of the country you're spying upon (for which the moral case is quite ambiguous), and, say, murdering people whose political views you don't like (which is, mostly, morally reprehensible)."
Okay, in that case, I will pull up and include a presidental Intellegence Oversite Board (IOB) study conducted in 1996, the same year the committee staff report was completed-- which found that in Guatamala: “we learned that in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets -- and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware of many of the allegations.”
Your argument also ignores the studies of the Church Committee, which has not been adequately covered here, which shows that the CIA actively attempted to assinate several Central American leaders. It also ignores the sucessful CIA assination of drug kind Rodriguez Gacha and the failed attempted assination attempt of Sheik Mohammed Fadlallah of Lebannon with a car bomb on March 8, 1985, which killed 80 innocent people and wounded 200.
According to the same above mentioned Intellegence Oversite Board (IOB) study conducted in 1996, the CIA created, trained, and armed death squads in Guatemalla as part of its coup and destabilization of the democratically elected government in 1954. These death sqauds were run by Guatemala's CIA-controlled secuirty services.
"the human rights records of the Guatemalan security services...the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as the "Archivos")...were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services unsavory reputation."
The IOB study stated that the CIA considered the security services their "partner" and provided "vital" funding even after offical US aid had been terminated because of systematic human rights violations.
These are not simply "breaking espionage laws" but they are "highly illegal activities", including murder. -- Travb 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Orwellian use of words:
Prospero wrote: It is the CIA's job to commit crimes, essentially, and stating this is suggesting that the CIA is made up of criminals.
What a bizarre way to defend the CIA--"yes the CIA commits lots of crimes, but no they are not criminals!" That is like saying yes she makes a living dancing, but she is not a dancer.
I think the confusion comes from using the word criminal. Did the editor mean "criminal" in a negative way or did they use criminal simply to mean someone who has commited a crime. For example, Ghandi broke certain laws yet many people do not consider him a "criminal" in the negative sense. - sigint
HELLO-- think about it--you accept and embrace the action verb (crimes) but you completly reject the noun "criminals" when a congressional committee criticizes the CIA. And please, lets keep in mind, no where in this one paragraph quote does the congressional committee actually call the CIA criminals, they are only using your own reasoning--stating that the CIA commits crimes, but the committee does not actually come out and call them criminals. I see only you doing calling the CIA criminals here.--Travb 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that some mention of their recent activities in Haiti should be added. Information for this was released (if only briefly) on many major news sources. Information may also be found on projectcensored.org. (unsigned by 68.146.171.251)
The Wikipedia community welcomes any additions, go for it. 69.150.209.25 17:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
We talk about crimes but we lack specifics. A lot of what the CIA does is gather intelligence that may be of economic value to corporations. Information gathered about money laundering for example may also reveal other financial transactions suggesting prudent investment in various resources.
The CIA's work may be to destablise regimes that don't co-operate and stabilize regimes that do. Some of that may involve kidnapping, torture, murder and infiltaring people from death squads into the meetings of the local peoples liberation front. Some of it involves drawing up ethnolinguistic maps and identifying funding, resources and infrastucture.
It might equally well involve placing a countries best and brightest in schools where they can get the proper upbringing to go back and be the teachers, doctors, lawyers, bankers, engineers, scientists, businessmen, gang leaders, reporters, police, drug dealers, warlords and religious leaders needed to properly exploit economic, social, political and cultural resources.
Up until recently that hasn't been done inside the US. Now that it is being done inside the US, the type of crimes may undergo a subtle shift more along the lines of old school machine politics.Federal Street 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't simply delete things without discussion

In the entrance to the main CIA building is the phrase "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It comes from the Bible, John 8:32. It seems relevant for the article based on the CIA's questionable history. It was added under Allen Dulles, and is speculated to mean that only he and the President would know the truth. I am not sure of a good place to include this in the article so I'll see if anyone else finds a place for it.

Note: that was removed from the entrance years ago. Also the buidling was erected in 1985 hardly "New" even though to this day it is refecenced internally as NHB vs OHB (Original Headquarters Building) July 21, 2006 66.225.104.130


The Kennedy quote has been cited by many historians as fact, and there is no real question that assassination has been part of CIA activities - if you don't put mention of these things back in, then a much more scathing account of the CIA's activities, back to RFK's various CIA assassination plans against Castro, and a laundry list of nasty activities, will go in.

The article was balanced as it was, but these removals make it seriously pro-CIA, which is not neutral for such a controversial agency.

Fix it, or watch it be fixed. 24:By all means, add in all the nasty stuff the CIA is alleged to have done, or tried to do, making sure you attribute your claims. However, a fair treatment would also compare and contrast their actions with those of other intelligence agencies (the KGB weren't exactly candidates for the Nobel), discuss to what extent they were acting under the instructions of their political masters and how much they were themselves a political agency, and acknowledge that the CIA's successes aren't usually publicised - not to mention the argument that the end justified the means.

Actually, the interesting thing would be to put in the article all the positive things the CIA has done like, how many tragic events were averted by their involvement. Oh yeah...thats right...no one knows about them because they don't advertise them. So all your information is based on the "News Media" and leaks which I am sure give the whole un-biased story. Not! July 21, 2006 66.225.104.130
We all welcome edits that make better articles. We fix or revert those that don't. I also grow kinda weary of the language of threat and confrontation, 24. --Robert Merkel
Don't forget that CIA recently came under a lot of criticism for failing to predict the events of September 11th. You can't really have a complete article without mentioning this, whether or not you actually believe they were at fault. Also, you should leave unrelated information about other intelligence agencies in their own sections. Contrasting the CIA actions against, say, the KGB's would show bias. Instead, people should feel free to list the nefarious activities of the KGB as well (similarly mentioning that the ends justify the means and so forth) --Axon
Oops, was a little like a rant - restored basics of a list to build off - think it important that it be there in some form. Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 10:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please don't simply delete things without discussion - for courtesy's sake I have started with an uncontroversial one here - the CIA doesn't even hide the fact that it supported Saddam Hussein right up until the Kuwait invasion. We can pad the site with references if you insist, but I think that would become excessive. Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 03:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Simply saying the CIA "supported" Saddam Hussein is simplistic, POV, and you have provided no references. Daniel Quinlan 04:16, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
It is a statement of fact, and a rather important one given the results. It isn't a matter of POV, since the facts are not really disputed. I have provided references to two well respected news organizsations, how many refs do you want?209.102.126.81 13:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
--- unless those are PBS channels....they cannot be referred to as "Respected" News Channels. They are trying to make a profit not perform a public service. July 21, 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.104.130 (talk • contribs).
I think references should be used to back up certain facts you mention. You shouldn't just mention "Saddam Hussein" and provide a couple of references that - according to you - might explain that Hussein was supported by the CIA. By the way, why don't you log in? Makes editing, and communication with other users, a bit easier :) Guaka 13:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In all this eagerness to fight over content, nobody seems to have noticed that 209 reverted all my careful copyedits, for instance to link directly to articles rather than through redirs (it's United States not United States of America), to link to the correct article (intelligence agency defines the term, intelligence agencies is just a list), not to mention Wikipedia in article content, etc and nobody has restored them. I'm tempted to do a Wik and just revert all the way back to my version, but I'm going to be good-natured and do them again. Please don't undo them, and logged-in users please check the history before editing on top of a anon's revert. Stan 14:06, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oops - sorry - I'll try and fix this. 209.102.126.81 14:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! I added some more refs, but a topic like this could easily justify another dozen. BTW if you're Look... accidently logged out, do a last preview and check the upper corner to see if you're still logged in, then open another window to log in without disturbing your edit. It's also OK to go back and fill in your user name if that happens, less confusing for reading the talk page. Stan 14:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


To the anonymous user who has been modifying the page: Please include outside references to support the statements ou wish to enter into the article. Thanks in advance. Christopher Mahan 07:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


!! I was scrupulous in only naming **easily** substantiated cases.


 !! I've got you're bloody referrences. here's a taste:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/guatemala.html
very reputable school.
!! But now I've got to write it all over again
I found the history eventually.  :p

[edit] Terrorism

"It also maintains a vast covert military apparatus, which during the Cold War was responsible for a number of terrorist campaigns and assasinations against foreign governments, leaders, and citizens." I added this because its not controversial - it should not be taken as POV, since it's only factual. If you want to debate the meaning of terrorism, and the distinctions between who does what to whom and what you then call it do that at Talk:Terrorism. Respectfully,-SV(talk) 21:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even the Al-Qaieda page doesn't actually say that the organisation is a terrorist organisation, it just says that it is considered to be one by many. Most people do not see the CIA as having committed terrorist acts, and "terrorist" is a loaded term which means different things to different people. I agree with you that the CIA has been involved with terrorism, but something so controversial cannot be stated simply as a fact. --Cadr
Also, the word "terrorist" adds nothing to the factual content of the article. If we just mention the coups and assasinations (as the page already did) people can decide for themselves whether those actions come under terrorism.

Well, I almost agree. But this article is but one among many. It cant work both ways. Either WP limits the use of terrorism to its logical stated definition (in which case it would apply) or it's just a term in polemical use (see Talk:terrorism). It's not just the problem with this article (or Wikipedia, for that matter). I would in most cases (includjoin me in 'rooting out terror,' ( rather typical misuse of the term) from other articles, as described on Talk:Terrorism and Talk:Terrorism/Draft. -SV(talk) 10:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But none of the articles you mention describe their subjects as terrorist; they just mention (truthfully) that they are regarded as terrorist by cing this one) prefer to limit the word terrorism, and replace it with paramilitary — but not if its not consistently applied. If things remain strictly POV-based ("most people do not see...") as they seem to be, then my position would be to amend the article with "the CIA is the largest, most influential state-sanctioned espionage and terrorist operations organization in the world." Sincerely,-SV(talk) 00:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The terms "terrorist" and "paramilitary" are not the same. Hence no such general replacement can occur. Also, there is an ongoing debate on the terrorism article, and Stevertigo's implication that there is currently an accepted "logical stated definition" for terrorism on Wikipedia is false. Isomorphic 00:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. To my mind, we should not use a word as controversial as "terrorist" without citing a definition (of which there are several). If we're going to cite a defintion anyway, we may as well just use that defintion instead of the word "terrorist" and avoid needless and fruitless controversy. As I've said before, the article already mentions the various terrorist acts of the CIA. Any intelligent reader can make up their own mind about whether or not they're terrorist. I wouldn't mind if the article mentioned that many people regard some of the CIA's actions as terrorist, so long as a reference to an article/whatever expressing that opinion was given. — Cadr
I agree. And I would apply this standard to other articles as well, not just Al Qaeda, but to Yasser Arafat, the PLO, and any other nationalist or ideological paramilitaries whom the CIA itself might selectively call "terrorist." So, we're all in agreement, right Iso? -SV(talk) 07:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, so if you agree, will you revert (or modify) your edit? —Cadr
Yes, I will, if you will join me in 'rooting out terror,' ( rather typical misuse of the term) from other articles, as described on Talk:Terrorism and Talk:Terrorism/Draft. -SV(talk) 10:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But none of the articles you mention describe their subjects as terrorist; they just mention (truthfully) that they are regarded as terrorist by certain groups of people. —Cadr
We must be reading different encyclopedias. -SV(talk)
I was referring the the pages on Yasser Arafat, Al-Qaida and the PLO. As I said, none of those articles actually says that their subject is terrorist, they just say that they are considered to be terrorist by certain groups. In any case, let's concentrate on this article. Can we now stop labelling certain actions of the CIA as terrorist, rather than attributing this interpretation to particular (groups of) people? —Cadr
Of course, its considered a weasel term to use the 'some people think this/that' method. By 'certain groups', and for certain reasons, thats reasonable. My change here was largley to tread the line, relative to the clear definitions of the terrorist term. -SV(talk) 16:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
On second thought - I change my mind a bit - we have to be clear - if the definition of terrorism has any use (thereby meaning) in other articles, it's use also belongs where it can be applicable. The objection is to the use of characterization of 'terrorist' in association with terrorism. This seems to run in circles, but we can agree to stick to definitions in international law, and there are uncontroversially certain CIA actions which qualify. The question as to whether this makes the CIA a terrorist organization is solved, but to term these particular acts as such, I doubt any intelligent person at Langley HQ would argue.-SV(talk) 16:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In my view, "X is terrorist" is an inherently POV statement given that there's no official Wikipedia definition of terrorism, and their is, in general, a lot of disagrement about which groups/people/organisations are terrorist. —Cadr
Ah you made an edit. OK, I've got not problem with 'calandestine'. —Cadr

[edit] Assassinations

Do we have any proof the CIA ever assassinated anyone, much less during the Cold War? If it's uncertain (as I suspect), it shouldn't be stated, and furthermore in any case "clandestine campaigns" seems explanatory enough for an opening paragraph, when details of those campaigns follow. -- VV 22:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

informal edit, please remark and guide me ----

Why is there no mention of former CIA Assassin Gene "chip" Tatum? He has taken his knowledge public, and claims to have eliminated a Venezualan Chief of staff, a Mossad agent and a rebel leader as part of Operation Pegasus. He's done radio interviews:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3842766f4616.htm (but that's part 5) There's a very good compilation of the whole story http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/the_pegasus_file-part1.htm

The wiki article mentions the 1996 congressional report by the ssci, there is a submission avaliable: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ssci.shtml

There is Tatum's affadavit: http://www.wethepeople.la/tatum1.gif

There is a copy of an assassination order: http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/bush.jpg

The problem of course is that you end up finding this stuff associated with some very odd alien abduction crystal worshipping conspiracy theory sites, which damages the credibility, so I've tried to steer clear of most of those. Oh yes, he apparently quit after receiving orders to assassinate Ross Perot, you can read a letter supposedly from him to Ross here:

http://www.leopoldreport.com/Pegasus.html#ankare731337

(on the right...)

And there's a reply around somewhere, supposedly from Ross, saying that he's scared of them too. But of course anyone can forge an email in a text file....

However, I need some guidance from a wikipedia veteran:

1) Is this stuff appropriate in wikipedia? If not, why not?

2) Is this stuff dangerous? What happens when and if wikipedia steps on the wrong toes? Do people get visits? Do I get a visit? If half-assed posts on Kuo5hin.org can inspire visits (http://sunir.org/meatball/KuroShin/02-December-2001-SSvsLeeMalatesta.html) then I don't think I'm being completely unrealistic, wikipedia is rather high-profile after all.

3) How can I/we determine the credibility of all this? Can we only rely on public record sources like newspapers? I can see how any fool can submit wild crazy talk to a senate committee, that doens't make it true and it doesn't make it public, but can we rely on the radio sources? How do you verify the allegations of a man that noone will formally acknowledge, and who, it seems, has now disappeared?

Thankyou for your time, I will check back in 48 hours -----

The page does not specifically state that the CIA successfully assassinated anyone, much less, it states that the CIA attempted assassinations. If any succeeded, we probably would not know about it. However, there is evidence that Che Guevara's killer met with a CIA officer shortly before Guevara's assassination. -- Prospero


!!! There's a *suspicious* lack of evidence on CIA complicity in assassination. They obviously [consider it]. But the crucial documents always seem to be missing (Nixon liked his paper-shredder). This [State Department] report on Chile follows the usual tack:

"On 15 September President Nixon informed the DCI that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States. He instructed the CIA to prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him and authorized $10 million for this purpose. The President specifically directed that this action be carried out by the CIA without advising the Departments of State or Defense" [which is nonsense because Kissinger was elbow-deep in this, I've seen the documents ;]


but then when it comes to the dirty work we hear:

"The US Government and the CIA were aware of and agreed with Chilean officers? assessment that the abduction of General Rene Schneider, the Chilean Army?s Commander in September 1970, was an essential step in any coup plan. We have found no information, however, that the coup plotters? or CIA?s intention was that the general be killed in any abduction effort."


Ok. And as for Allende himself we have the chilling line:

"The Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation in 1991 also concluded that Allende took his own life. There is no information to indicate that the CIA was involved in Allende?s death."

Sure, maybe Allende's rifle wound was self-inflicted; not inflicted by one of the armed rebels storming the presidential palace at the time of his death.

-xhris

[edit] "Other" Section

I have removed the following statements from the section labeled "Other":

Because of its blunders, some people think that a better meaning for the acronym CIA is caught in the act.
In the movie The Hunt for Red October there's a line that says: "Central Intelligence Agency - now that's a contradiction in terms"

They are clearly POV and have no place in a serious encyclopedia. Taco Deposit 21:12, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree on the quote from The Hunt for Red October. It's from a book/movie that largely portrays the agency in a positive light, and is written by a fan of the agency. You could put the quote back, along with something along the lines about the theory that the CIA likes people thinking they're inept, because then they don't expect the successes, many of which are probably still secret, and they've had some spectacular ones that are public, but not well publicized. -Joseph 01:26, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

The CIA is one of "the initials", or "Three Letter Agencies". The CIA is a spy agency that theoretically has no jurisdiction in the U.S., although they're so secretive no one could tell anyway. A common group in conspiracy theories. Some people think the CIA shot JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many other important people in the latter half of this century. Its motto is "...and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:32, a fact not pointed out in its web site. Creepy, when you think about it.... (unsigned, undated)

This is one of the sections that is making this article so chaotic. Either we need to do something about it now, or wait for the general organization of the general article to get cleaned up first... Either way, the information contained is not as high priority, just random tidbits that will need to be dealt with eventually. Akrabbim 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POWs and Daisy Cutters

This is in response to :

(These are very strong accusations. Back it up with a source, a link, or something.) (cur) (last) 02:11, 21 Sep 2004 67.150.1.158 (cur) (last) 01:51, 21 Sep 2004 N328KF (Clandestine operations - Can anyone confirm or deny this story? I will leave it in for the moment under a probationary period)

Who erased my 2 articles? My source for both articles is TV news and CNN. I have another article for the CIA. Your probationary period lasted only 20 minutes. Please respond N328KF.

It was me. The first comment was what the probationary period was about, and then the second addition was much more incendiary. You added the portions in question without citing names or sources. A name is pretty much necessary for the first portion, IMHO. For the second one, the incidents in the Hussein hunt did not involve daisy cutters. They involved bunker busters. There is a big difference. And I don't remember the immolation angle being part of the news coverage. In any event, for major details and accusations such as this, you should add a link or source or date or something. The information added was very nonspecific. -02:32, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

You could alter and correct the article instead of erasing it completely. You are probably right about the bunker busters. I do remember the bones turning to powder. Do you work for Wikipedia? If I get names and sources, will you let my articles exist?

We all work for Wikipedia. And yes, if you provide names and sources, I'll not interfere. The whole thing read like POV conjecture—that's why I axed it. The text is still there in the history, it can be recovered easily enough. In fact, I'll do it for you:
During a mission to save American POWs in Vietnam, the team leader (the most decorated Green Beret in U.S. history) reported that he saw the CIA selling illegal drugs in Vietnam. According to him, the U.S. government threatened him with a court martial if he told anyone what he saw.
and
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. led coalition forces, the CIA heard a rumor that a terrorist meeting was to take place in a certain building, and that Saddam Hussein might attend it. The CIA revealed this questionable intelligence to the U.S. military. The U.S dropped 4 daisy cutter bombs on the building, killing enemy and civilian alike in an area of destruction larger than a city block. Their bones were turned to dust by the intense heat, so there was no identification of the bodies. Saddam was not there, and the CIA was wrong again. Furthermore, civilians from nearby buildings were killed too. The news media picked up the story and embarassed the CIA worldwide.
-Joseph (Talk) 02:52, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of article to stable version

I have reverted the article to a recent stable version, after a large number of recent edits have turned much of this article into a rant unsupported by cites. Please, if you want to add controversial claims, back them up with independent, verifiable citations. If you do so, they are more likely to stay in the article. -- The Anome 09:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The cites are the specific names & dates included, which can easily be searched for on the internet. Much of the information was from the news or is general information. The theory about the CIA and drugs is everywhere - on TV as well as the 'net. It wouldn't take you long to find this stuff on news sites.

Well then, you won't have any problem finding specific and verifiable cites? (For example, a reference to a news source or book, with dates, page numbers etc. so someone else can check it.) For example, the stuff about releasing prisoners early and making them informers, that would be good for a start. It might be useful to note here that Steven Seagal films are fictional, and not useful as citation material. -- The Anome 10:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous User, The Anome expanded upon the point I was trying to express to you. The burden is upon you, as the person adding the material, to do the research and cite sources, not on us, as your co-editors, nor on the readers. -Joseph (Talk) 11:11, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

If you want to see how to do it, see the GWU National Security Archive at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html -- a site that is very critical of the CIA, but bases its criticism on verifiable sources, many of which are declassified old CIA documents, or recently revealed FOIA documents. -- The Anome 12:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text that was removed

Just for reference purposes, here is the text that I removed from the article:


Criticism of CIA Informants & Drugs

The CIA releases prisoners early, as informants. During the criminal's trial, his lawyer can make a deal with the CIA, if the criminal is involved in a crime organization. If the criminal pleads guilty, the CIA will consider him to be reformed and release him from prison long before his real-time sentence is finished. In exchange, the criminal agrees to act as an inside spy for the CIA, giving them inside information, such as names, times, and places such as where illegal drugs are being made or stored. This improves the CIAs ability to catch more criminals.

The CIA is criticized for releasing many drug lords, hitmen with multiple 1st degree murders, and other dangerous criminals over the years. Many feel that the criminals are not truly reformed after a few years in prison. Some criminals are released by the CIA without serving any time at all. Local police and FBI are amazed to see the dangerous criminals they just caught and convicted, walking around free on the streets. This upsets the victims, police, FBI, prosecuting attorneys, and community members who spent years of proof gathering to build a case and alot of money to place that criminal behind bars. These criminals are encouraged by the CIA to go back to the lifestyle of organized crime as informants, where they often repeat their crimes. Most released criminals tell the crime organization that they are informants, because they are still loyal to the crime organization. They mislead the CIA by giving them false information. When the CIA finally busts the drug dealers, they confiscate the drug money. Critics say that CIA agents skim some of the money for their own personal use, though the government gets most of it. Stealing drug money is easy because the CIA isn't required to report anything, unlike other law enforcement agencies and departments. The CIA can hide its crimes with their power to keep missions secret. The CIA has been accused of selling drugs on American streets by witnesses in those neighborhoods. The CIA claims that it must work close to drug dealers, so it may seem like they are selling drugs.

After private missions to save American POWs in Vietnam, Bo Gritz, the most decorated Green Beret in U.S. history, taped an interview with heroin kingpin Kun Sah. The drug lord said that US government officials are his biggest customers and that the CIA was profiting from drugs sold in Southeast Asia. According to Gritz, the U.S. government threatened him with a court martial if he told anyone about this. He told everyone, but the court martial never happened.

Alleged Crimes Against the People

Some agents quit the CIA in disgust. They wrote books about their experiences in the CIA. They claim to have seen other CIA agents commiting crimes against innocent people, including theft, rape, murder, wrongful interrogations, beatings, and surveillance for personal reasons (peek shows). The crimes were never reported. It is difficult to prove that the quitting CIA agents were ever really CIA agents, because the CIA keeps its list of employees secret. CIA agents have a licence to kill, meaning they can kill anyone without a justifiable reason, and don't have to report it. There are many claims by victims who often say a CIA agent drugged and raped them. The CIA is called the 'new KGB' by some.

Possible End of the CIA

Many are calling for the elimination of the CIA. The CIA was originally formed to fight Communism during the the Cold War. Now that the Soviet Union has converted to Democracy, there is no need for the CIA, they feel. The CIA is thought of as a dangerous Cold War relic, like nuclear missiles. During the Red Scare, people were so panicked, that they developed nuclear weapons and organizations with too much power. The CIA was given great power, more than all other law enforcement, to save everyone from the invading Communists. Thomas Jefferson once said,"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The CIA became corrupted by too much power, according to critics.CIA agents that commit crimes against innocent people have turned against the taxpayers who pay the CIA's salaries. Furthermore, the many CIA intelligence blunders makes them unuseful to the country.

This text is highly POV, highly subjective, and contains numerous grammatical/spelling errors. -Joseph (Talk) 13:55, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


I heard the part about the CIA letting many drug lords out of prison from CIA agents themselves, who wrote books about their experiences at the CIA. They were on a TV interview. I wish I could find their names, the titles of their books, and other specific information. I was unable to find them by browsing the internet casually. The news report of the CIA selling drugs on America's streets was equally elusive. Perhaps these could be placed on a seperate theories, claims, or conspiracies page in Wikipedia. I figured that the names, dates, and places of the bombing of the building in Iraq (4 bunker busters) and the Bo Gritz story were specific enough, that they didn't need cites. Many pages in Wikipedia have specific names and places with no cites. If people want to know more , they can do searches on the internet, using the specific names typed into the Search box. -- anonymous author

I agree with the initial person. Highly subjective POV. Untill someone provides heavy proof and evidence, it needs to be omited --Mitchowen 16:43, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Cites & Info

  • BO GRITZ: [Gritz, a colorful figure upon whom the character of Rambo was partly based, is the most decorated Green Beret commander of the Vietnam era] In his own words: "What I want to tell you very quickly is something that I feel is more heinous than the Bataan death march . . . What I'm talking about is something we found out in Burma - May 1987. We found it out from a man named Khun Sa. He is the recognized overlord of heroin in the world . . . On video tape he said to us something that was most astounding: that US government officials have been and are now his biggest customers, and have been for the last twenty years. I wouldn't believe him . . . We ran the war in Laos and Cambodia through drugs. The money that would not be appropriated by a liberal congress, was appropriated. And you know who we used for distribution? Santos Trafficante, old friend of the CIA and mobster out of Cuba and Florida . . . Fifty-eight-thousand Americans were killed. Seventy-thousand became drug casualties. In the sixties and seventies you saw an infusion of drugs into America like never was before."
  • "There were nine different speakers who addressed the disparate audience at the

historic "CIA-Drugs Symposium" here at the Lane County Fairgrounds in Eugene last weekend. All presented searing accounts and first-hand testimony demonstrating that yes indeed, the CIA and top levels of the US Government have been aware of political drug trafficking for years, and complicit in it." http://www.drugwar.com/../pciadrugsconnections.shtm

[edit] NPOV flag

I posted the following to User talk:4.242.153.136:

You added an NPOV flag to the Central Intelligence Agency article. Please discuss your reasons for doing so in the talk page. Flags posted without discussion in talk are removed.

If the user does not post anything here in a couple of days, I will remove the flag. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 12:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I concur with it. The text here is (for the most part) out of liberal PoliSci classes (having been in them, I think I can say that.) -Joseph (Talk) 14:03, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Please be more specific. I agree that the article is not comprehensive, but is it inaccurate? Where? "out of liberal PoliSci classes" is not an actionable complaint. DanKeshet 18:56, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Point out a specific inaccuracy or a few on the talk page if you have a problem with it. Jwray1 03:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said inaccurate, BIASED is more the word. And Dan, who made you the judge of what's acceptable? I readded the tag, but where do I start as far the article goes? There is so much to cover. July 26, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.32.250 (talk • contribs).
Anon, you ignored Dan's question. Further, who made you the judge of what is unaccpetable? It truly goes both ways, I find those that yell the loudest about NPOV usually are the biggest POV warriors. Travb (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts section missing

There should be setion with pure facts: how many employees, how big (official) budget is, how these data changed over time, list of directors, structure of the organization. Pavel Vozenilek

Agreed. I would like to see a list of major players in the past administrations. This information is not classified. The CIA Director and Deputy Director as well as the CIA Chief Council should be listed. (unsigned January 2006)

[edit] Successful programs?

The only successful about the "very successful 1982 CIA operation" seems to be that people believe it happened. Could somebody link to any information about that explosion that isn't based on the Safire story?

Not to mention that if the operation "did" happen, it could have killed thousands of civilians.

Why is it that the people so keen on facts are double blindfolded when it comes to showing the CIA in a good light?

[edit] SPAM block on external link to 100777.com

I just tried to repair the link to Philip Agee in the text. However there is currently a spam block in effect due to an external link at the end pointing to 100777.com (A variety of web articles criticising...), preventing any other editing. I would suggest that either an Admin remove the domain from the spam list, as it seems to be not mainstream but related on contents or remove the external link (after discussion) to free up the page again. What do You think? Ernst.schnell 14:41, Jan, 4, 2005

[edit] this article needs...

Here are what I see as the most glaring ommissions in his article. I've contributed alot to this article over the years, and I hope to tackle these. But please feel free to do it yourself.


1) more info about the *fleet* of Predator Drones

2) some mention of the church committee

3) some mention of Operation Mongoose

4) some mention of Operation Phoenix


it's tempting to speculate about Bush's ongoing intelligence shake-up, but I think It's too early, and I'm not qualified.

xhris


There is no "fleet" of predators, they are borrowed from the USAFDrew1369 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links Section...

I can see that the Philip Agee link I put up is gone due to "link overload".

It seems that the "interviews with whistleblowers" link is dead. So I'll delete that and replace it with a book excerpt from a leading whistleblower (Agee).

[edit] Other foreign intelligence agencies

More of a question than a debate, but in the beginning paragraph:

"The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of the American foreign intelligence agencies, responsible for obtaining and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals, and reporting such information to the various branches of the U.S. Government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency comprise the other two."

The other two? What about the NSA? That agency certainly specializes in gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence for the Defense Department, as well as the CIA. Perhaps the sentence simply meant the Defense Department as a whole; not just the DIA? Maybe it meant to say "The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and intelligence agencies within the Defense Department comprise the other two."

[edit] Liberal use of "agent"

The people who maintain this entry may want to revise it with the correct usage of the word "agent". The CIA has officers and the FBI has agents. In CIA diction, an agent is someone recruited by an officer. I'm not quite sure that those terms are used correctly in this article, and it's a distinction made very clear within the CIA itself.

[edit] NPOV

Any info on covert terrorist CIA activities, or its '100,000 serious crimes' committed annually? Some fairness and balance would be nice. -St|eve 04:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's just a congressional commitee report. glocks out 20:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Newland Scandal

Information about the ex-CIA Station Chief in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Ross Newland (who's cover was blown in a fight with SIDE). should be added here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretar%C3%ADa_de_Inteligencia#The_breakdown_of_CIA_and_SIDE_relations

[edit] Purpose

By looking at the first few lines of the article, I still couldn't answer the question "what is or was the purpose of the CIA"? The article provides a clear summary of what the organization does; but after the hooplah about its past performance and the chaos it caused in the world, still not clear of its purpose. |_|> Ariele 18:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suharto

"In 1965, the President of Indonesia, Sukarno was ousted in a coup d'état supported by the CIA, led by Suharto. The overthrow of Sukarno by the CIA and Suharto resulted in a nationwide purge of some 500,000 suspected Communists, most of whom were peasants. The CIA secretly supplied Suharto's troops with a field communications network. Flown in at night by US Air Force planes from the Philippines, this was state-of-the-art equipment, whose frequencies were known to the CIA and the National Security Agency. Not only did this technology allow Suharto's generals to coordinate the killings, it also meant that the highest echelons of the US administration were listening in. Suharto was able to seal off large areas of the country."

Interesting, but could you please document your source? Travb 03:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Bin Laden as asset

The Mujahhedeen were split into 6 different factions , three of which were hardline Islamists : Islamic Party , Islamic society , Islamic Unity and three moderate factions : Islamic Revolutionary Movement , National Islamic Front , and National Liberation Front . None of these factions were led by Bin Laden and not all them were supplied by the CIA , the hardliners were supplied by Pakistan , Egypt and Saudi Arabia . In an interview with Robert Fisk, Bin states he had no help from the Americans in Afghanistan. TDC 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your restaint TDC, when I first saw that you had edited my stomping grounds (this CIA page), I felt dread--I was afraid of an edit war here too.
But I appreciate your restraint. You left in my contribution--the 100,000 illegal activities and other information less favorable to the CIA intact. Which was a nice and pleasant surprise. Travb 17:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Restraint had nothing to do with it. It has a source, and is relevant to the topic. TDC 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Foreign Agencies...

Since there is little mention of this on CIA page. I was wondering could anyone post some credible information about the CIA cooperativeness and joint programs/task forces/projects/operations and so on with other nation's Intelligence Services. The CIA obviously shares alot of information and gathers alot too from foreign (mostly friendly) governments, such as MI6, ASIO, Mossad and so on. For example, the Joint CIA/FBI Counter-Terrorism Task Force constantly revises and updates Australia's counter-terrorism knowledge with ASIO, and we always seem to hear about it over here. And Mossad definately provides the CIA and the American Military of tactical ways of dealing with Suicide Bombers , Car Bombings, Hijackings and so on and information about Hamas and so on, as they have alot of experience with those sort of things (constantly bickering with the Palestinians). I would be willingly to say that the CIA other agencies & Intelligence Services have probably done alot of actual operational work too, so if anyone could shed some light on that it would be good, and interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.205.218 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] CIA operations in Iraq

The sources seem to have slightly less than reputable standing for the 1963 coup informaion. I'm not saying that they are definately wrong or biased; it doesn't seem out of line for the CIA given their role in the Iran/1953. However, I would like to see some more sources or the wording of the paragraph to be more neutral reflecting some skepticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.123.85.201 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] On crap!2

Isn't keeping foreign prisoners hidden from the red cross a war crime?

I'm not trying to debate I'm just trying to find out the facts before I post anything.

--grazon 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. government's position, as I understand it (and I am not saying I agree with it), is that terrorists are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention and therefore Red Cross visits are not mandatory. The U.S. has chosen to allow Red Cross visits to many of its prisoners, but not to all. --agr 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the "foreign prisoners" classification is that the prisoners have to actually be claimed by a foreign country. If no foreign country claims them, then they remain classified as "detainees" and do not fall within the Geneva Convention protections. The assumption is that these men were not acting at the behest of or in the interest of their country of origin and so the appropriate foreign ambassador has not filed a petition on their behalf. (unsigned January 2006)

The problem with this statement is that if you don't even tell anybody who you are holding captive, no foreign country can claim those people. Lars T. 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is that there is still no proof that the CIA is holding people in secret prisons, besides uncorroberated(sp?) news reports and a book! Drew1369 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Apart from President Bush defending their existence in a recent speech, you mean. Lars T. 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Controversies Page

It seems like the Controversies section is getting large, also, I know that these could be expandaded upon, maybe it's time to create a seperate page CuBiXcRaYfIsH 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia

Are there any sources for the CIA operations in Indonesia described in the article? CJK 21:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And I must say this article is poorly sourced in general. CJK 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing the stuff about the "field communications" pending evidence. CJK 17:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chile and central america

I will source this later:

The CIA continued to involve itself in Latin America, supporting military dictatorships in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay.

Overall, it was a good edit CJK on Chile, less POV, I never did like this sentence (and I temproraily deleted it):

While the CIA files surrounding that coup d'etat have not been declassified yet, given the Church Report it is hard to believe the CIA was not involved.

Good job.

While the CIA files surrounding that coup d'etat have not been declassified yet Is this true? Need to research.Travb 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Look for the name of "Michael Townley", wich was an ex-CIA assasin (how convennient that they are always ex-CIA, probably a NOC perhaps?), who took active involvement in several assasinations through the coup (assasinating a painter in Concepcion as part of an operation to dismantle a jamming device in Channel 5, conducted by Patria y Libertad, wich also may hint that the CIA was involved in supporting of the extremist rightist group). The assasinations of 2 generals that were pro-democracy also, and who knows in wich other operation he was involved. At the end, Townley was betrayed by Pinochet and delivered to the U.S., were he was trialed for murder and is now doing time in prison. The U.S. did gave an extensive aid to the oposition, around 10 million dollars if im not mistaken, wich was given mostly to finance the numerous strikes(as assuming how many of these strikes lasted months, they NEEDED to be financed by someone, several officials reported attempts of bribery by the oposition to support these strikes), newspapers for example (such as El Mercurio) and aparently Patria y Libertad also. American army boats were spotted in Valparaiso at september 11 1973, supposedly for trainning maneuvers, there were never such maneuvers though.

[edit] Clean-up

I placed the template because, even after I'd done some tidying (bringing bits of the article into line with the MoS, making usage consistent, etc.) there was still much to do. The style of the article is also uneven; sometimes it reads like an encyclopædia article, sometimes like a polemic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure cleanup

I think the organization of this section just need to be revised. I mean, it mentions the Director last, after everything else. Just a little structure (pun definitely intended) to this section would help. Akrabbim 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: new contribution

An anon added this:

The CIA armed and financed the Contras through the Iran-Contra affair, whose activities the U.S. State Department called "terrorist activities"[citation needed] thereby making the U.S. a state sponsor of terrorism. An example of a terrorist action conducted directly by the CIA was the disruption of shipping by planting underwater mines in Nicaragua's Corinto harbour, which resulted in the sinking of at least one civilian ship (See Nicaragua v. United States).

I will give anyone here a week to cite a source for the first sentence.

The second part of the sentence "thereby making the U.S. a state sponsor of terrorism" seems like a stretch. i.e. The state department said that the action was "terrorist activities" therefore America is a state sponsor of terrorism.

I am going to rewrite the sentence, if the sentence is not sourced by a magazine or book (not a web blog or web site) I will delete major portions of this paragraph. Travb

[edit] Changes /* Secret CIA prisons */

There have been repeated changes in the wording of that section by User:205.134.16.55.

  1. ... of shifting the focus of investigations from why these illegal prisons exist to how information of them was leaked to the public.
    - removed illegal
  2. Waterboarding is regarded widely as a form of [[torture]]
    - changed to 
    is regarded by some as a

I will revert those edits until he tells us why they make the article better. Lars T. 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, the sentence currently reads in full:

"Republican Senator Lindsey O. Graham accused the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of shifting the focus of investigations from why these illegal prisons exist to how information of them was leaked to the public."

Sen. Graham nowhere characterizes CIA detentions as "illegal" in the quotes I've found, such as this one:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110805prisonleak_lat,0,4572952.story?coll=la-home-headlines

If anyone has a source quoting Sen. Graham to the effect that CIA detention facilities are "illegal," the source should be added; if not, the word in question should be removed in order to eliminate the implication that Sen. Graham expressed what may be, instead, the author's facile conclusions about legality.

How would they be legal (if they exist)? Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I will provide a more detailed response shortly, but for now, I notice you still haven't provided a source with a quotation in which Sen. Graham characterizes the detentions as "illegal." Without such a source, the sentence is misleading, because it implicitly attributes a sentiment to him that he doesn't seem to have expressed and may not hold. JKN008 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not my obligation to bring up a source for something I never presented as a quote; if anything it is your's to show that it is not a quote, if you want that word cut. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As no theory of illegality has been identified, this is an openended topic. It's quite difficult to justify a conclusion that secret CIA detentions are always illegal regardless of the facts regarding the location of detention, the laws of the countries where any detentions are taking place, and the basis for detaining the people in question. Obviously a conclusion that such detentions violate national law would require knowing what national law applies and what it says about the matter. I doubt the author has grappled with this issue, and as Lars' "if they exist" comment indicates, the facts necessary for a reasonably complete analysis are lacking. Viewing CIA detentions as incident to an ongoing armed conflict, it's not obvious that all countries would take the approach that something like criminal due process is needed under national law.

Which brings us to the "shifting the focus of investigations from why these (illegal) prisons exist to how information of them was leaked to the public." How can they not exist if people complain that the information was leaked? My "if they exist" was hypothetical. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, a number of countries, including the United States, have declined to sign or ratify Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which would extend legal protections to unlawful combatants not affiliated with any state. Protocol I Without Protocol I, al Qaeda members, who do not obey the laws of war, do not carry arms openly, and do not use any fixed military insignia, are not entitled to prisoner of war status, which would bar secret detention. This is the case because Article 4 of the Geneva POW Convention establishes certain prerequisites for POW status, which is not automatically afforded to anyone in custody. [1]

My point is that factually we don't know very much and the legal standards are often murky, especially given the lack of a definitive adjudicator because there is no global sovereign. Thus, while the topic deserves treatment, the "illegal" nature of poorly-understood CIA detentions isn't a "fact" that belongs in the encylopedia. JKN008 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now all you have to prove is that the CIA didn't break any laws in the countries where these "nonexistent" prisons are, I doubt that in most (if any) of them it is legal for foreign agencies to have prisons. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, "widely regarded" is fuzzy advocacy language. "Widely regarded" within what community: international human rights activists, national governments, public opinion worldwide, public opinion in the West, in North America, in Asia, where?

"By some" is fuzzy advocacy language too. Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"By some" is a formulation that depends less on knowing which community is the referent because some people hold this view in all or nearly all communities. JKN008 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The linked Wiki re Waterboarding notes that it is "is a technique demonstrated on U.S. military personnel by other U.S. military personnel when they are being taught to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture." It's nasty and awful, no doubt about it, but is the military really torturing its own soldiers as part of training? It's unlikely that they "widely regard" that to be the case. There is another category that might be appropriate: the Convention Against Torture uses the term "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" to refer to harsh treatment that is insufficiently extreme to amount to torture. IMO, "regarded by some" better captures the reality that this is an area of intense contemporary debate where the definitions aren't very precise at the margins.

JKN008 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The US military would never do anything like subject its personnel to radiation either, right? Maybe would should ask you again after a little waterboarding. Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justifiable deletions by CJK about CIA's role in Yugoslavia

CJK deleted this sentence:

"There have also been allgations that CIA was responsible for starting the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia in an attempt to destabilize the heart of Europe."

I agree with the deletion, it makes all of the rest of the article look foolish and like a conspiracy theory.

Who alleged? These are weasel words.

Based on what evidence?

Some former Soviets blame America for the Soviet collapse, but simply because a handful of people allege this, with no evidence, does not make it true.Travb 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABBIE HOFFMAN

WAS ABBIE HOFFMAN ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.137.195 (talk • contribs) .

The place to ask is at Abbie Hoffman, and I quote:

Hoffman suffered from bipolar disorder (Jezer, 1993), and was found dead on April 12, 1989 at the age of 52. His death was recorded as a suicide, possibly connected to the news that his elderly mother had been diagnosed with cancer.Travb 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the CIA really a terrorist organization? (See:Where is the Love?)

--Greasysteve13 10:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Figurative speech, yes. But officially, no. Terrorism is rather a complicated word today, as the former meanning of the word (wich was around the lines of strategic attacks in order to get psychological terror on the public) has long been questioned, mainly by leftist groups. As for example, within the first days of the Iraqi war, the U.S. probably killed 10000 civilians in the strategic bombings, yet as they were a standard army, they dont get the tag of "terrorism", but rather the tag of "fighting for freedom" or other names like that, its all very subjective today. What is really terrorism?, does it involve bombings and killings specificly?, does it have to be perpetrated by a non-official army in order to be terrorism?, can the 5 colour terror alert implemented by the Bush administration be considered "terrorism" by literal definition?. It could be easier to say that terrorism is THEM and not US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.192 (talk • contribs).
See Nicaragua_vs._US
...U.S. attack against Nicaragua in the 1980s. I recall that was called the war against terrorism, but, in fact, it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to attack undefended civilian targets that were called “soft targets.” And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That’s even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to the International Court of Justice—World Court-- presented a case, which in this case wasn’t very difficult because it was obvious who the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called “unlawful use of force”--which is the judicial way of saying “international terrorism”--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim. The United States dismissed the court judgment with complete contempt. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council. Security Council debated a resolution which called upon all states to observe international law—didn’t mention anyone but it was understood it meant the United States. United States vetoed the resolution. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly which passed similar resolutions several years in a row. Only the United States and one or two client states voted against. At that point there was nothing more that Nicaragua could do. But if the United State would have pursued a legal course nobody would stop it. Everyone would applaud.
Terrorism:
General Definition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
General defintion, WordNet, Princeton University:
The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
Legal Defintion, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster:
The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
Legal Defintion, Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition:
The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.
Signed: Travb (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Efficiency

Shouldn't we be taking aim to make the world more efficient?

http://www.logic.school.nz/GovernmentIdeas_Outsourcing_HighYieldIntelligence_EconomicGainIncentiveRewardsAct.asp

Creighton Brown, 17:21 2006.02.05 GMT+12

[edit] Current edit of: Highly-illegal activities

===Highly-illegal activities===

The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Staff Study, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress: [2]


"A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the U.S. but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself. In other words, a typical 28 year old, GS-11 case officer has numerous opportunities every week, by poor tradecraft or inattention, to embarrass his country and President and to get agents imprisoned or executed. Considering these facts and recent history, which has shown that the DCI, whether he wants to or not, is held accountable for overseeing the CS, the DCI must work closely with the Director of the CS and hold him fully and directly responsible to him."

<!--However, it is important to understand that both the passive and active collection of information from informant-agents and technological means such reconaissance satellites regarding the means, methods, and plans of foreign governments or organizations is usually deemed as illegal by foreign entities. Unfortunately, given the state of the world as it exists today, regrettably illegal methods of information acquisition - eavesdropping and spying, are the most effective means of gaining "actionable intelligence".-->

To keep this second paragraph in, someone needs to source it. Who said this? If it is some wikipedians opinion, it is POV.

The quote is from a Congressional report, which compiled information from experts and spent hundreds of hours of time investigating the CIA.

This thorough investigation is then followed by a wikipedians unsourced opinion, attempting to temper and lessen the findings of the congressional committee. Very unencyclopedic.

The bold text is particuarly POV. Rewriting this paragraph is not enough--if it is unsourced, it is unencylopedic standing next to a US congressional report.

The hard fact is that Congress found that:

"A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the U.S. but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself."

No amount of spin or wishful thinking about America's role in the world from wikipedian US apologists will change this hard fact.

I suggest finding a Congressional report which contradicts this--no one can, because none exists.

Again, the fact is that the CIA "engage in highly illegal activities", "easily 100,000 times a year". Travb 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Gladio

Operation Gladio has been known about since 1990 and a simple google search would have shown that it is documented. Since many of the sources in a google search may be regarded as questionable, here is a simple lexis nexis search on the topic:

1. Operation Gladio fallout deepens around Cossiga, Financial Times (London,England), December 10, 1990, Monday, SECTION I; Overseas News; Pg. 4, 277 words, JOHN WYLES
2. Secret army controversy begins to threaten Italian president, Financial Times (London,England), December 6, 1990, Thursday, SECTION I; European News; Pg. 2, 556 words, JOHN WYLES, ROME
3. The Gladio file: did fear of communism throw West into the arms of terrorists?: As scandal unfolds, Whitehall's response is silence, The Guardian (London), December 5, 1990, 973 words, By RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR
4. Gladio is still opening wounds, The Independent (London), December 1, 1990, Saturday, FOREIGN NEWS PAGE; Page 12 , 1040 words, From CHARLES RICHARDS in Rome
5. THE SPIES TIME FORGOT, Herald Sun, November 26, 1990 Monday, 789 words, BAILEY E
6. Gladio arsenals to be opened up, The Guardian (London), November 19, 1990, 461 words, By ED VULLIAMY in Rome
7. Secret Italian unit 'trained in Britain', The Guardian (London), November 17, 1990, 398 words, By RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR and DAVID GOW in Bonn
8. Skeletons start emerging from Europe's closet; Operation Gladio was set up to go underground in the Cold War. Was it later used for dirty tricks against the Left? Charles Richards in Rome and Simon Jones in London report, The Independent (London), November 16, 1990, Friday, FOREIGN NEWS PAGE; Page 11 , 581 words, From CHARLES RICHARDS and SIMON JONES in London
9. 'Gladio' dominates Italy's political arena; Operation Gladio was set up to go underground in the Cold War. Was it later used for dirty tricks against the Left? Charles Richards in Rome and Simon Jones in London report, The Independent (London), November 16, 1990, Friday, FOREIGN NEWS PAGE; Page 11 , 1199 words, From CHARLES RICHARDS in Rome and SIMON JONES in London
10. Operation Gladio CIA link, The Independent (London), November 16, 1990, Friday, FOREIGN NEWS PAGE; Page 11 , 101 words, By EDWARD LUCAS
11. Cossiga agrees to talk on secret network; Italian political row over 'resistance group' created by Nato, Financial Times (London,England), November 13, 1990, Tuesday, SECTION I; European News; Pg. 2, 352 words, JOHN WYLES, ROME
12. Constitutional conundrum as Cossiga interview sought, Financial Times (London,England), November 10, 1990, Saturday, SECTION I; Overseas News; Pg. 2, 312 words, JOHN WYLES and DAVID BUCHAN, ROME, BRUSSELS
13. Italy re-opens more old wounds for new purposes, Financial Times (London,England), November 9, 1990, Friday, SECTION I; European News; Pg. 2, 751 words, JOHN WYLES

Also, check a google books search for more relevant information. Please, if you are going to remove information you find questionable, at least attempt to verify it before you delete it.--csloat 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The key piece of information linking Gladio, a real program set up post WWII to set up paramilitaries to resist a Soviet occupation, and right wing "terrorism" was US Army field manual 30-31B, long accused of being a forgery from the Soviet Union, and verified by Mitrokhin’s papers as being part of Service A's disinformation campaign. Now I know just how completely you research everything you put in here, so I will assume good faith and believe that you missed that little piece of information. Ten Dead Chickens 19:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide information about that, perhaps a cite? I didn't see that piece of information in the articles listed above, but if you are correct, this too is notable. Much better to provide the actual information rather than just delete things.--csloat 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source: Talk:Operation_Gladio#US_Government_response
Info removed:
In the 1960s-1980s, Gladio operatives, were involved in a series of "false flag" terrorist actions in Italy that were blamed on the "[[Red Brigades]]" and other Left groups in an attempt to discredit the Italian Left — called the [[strategy of tension]]). <ref>{{cite journal | author= Charles Richards and Simon Jones | title= Skeletons start emerging from Europe's closet | journal= The Independent | year= November 16th, 1990 | pages= p. 11}}</ref>
This appears legit, see: Operation_Gladio
Signed: Travb (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Government

The CIA has been criticized for being a front for Bavarian Intelligence, and that this German influence began when the Nazis were first allowed to work for the CIA in te 1940s. The CIA's torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes are said to be a continuation of the same characteristic Nazi methods. The question is whether the CIA controls the Nazis or have the Nazis control the CIA through gradual influence. The NSA and MJ-12 are said to be similar fronts. There is a widespread belief that the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government' within the U.S. governement, kept secret through the CIA's non-disclosure status. Any who discover this secret are assassinated, so believers say. (Added to article by 66.53.216.174 (talk • contribs))

Yes, the Bavarians, definitely. It all started on Walpurgisnacht. I hear the Bavarian John Negroponte was hanging out with Bavarian George Tenet and discussing Iraqi ties to al Qaeda when the ghost of Josef Mengele came to them and instructed them to kill.... In fact, we should just delete this article, as well as the NSA and MJ-12 articles, and have them all point to this page.
Oh shit, is that an assassin at my door? I gotta go.--csloat 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not such a matter of joke. The CIA was really formed around the same time that many Nazis were brought over to the USA under Project Paperclip. Allen Dulles was even shown to have Nazi sympathies and ideas, signing some of his letters with 'Heil Hitler'. Although, the CIA is now in itself a criminal organisation based in the USA, and not really a 'branch of Bavarian intelligence'. However, the Mossad on the other hand, has major connections to Berlin and Frankfurt am Maine Frankfurt am Main, which are in Germany... Whatever the case, the origins of these organisations, though damning (the Mossad was founded by pro-terrorists), are not so important as their modern crimes against humanity. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is bordering on conspiracy theory, and is based on Weasel Words: There is a widespread belief that the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government' within the U.S. governement, kept secret through the CIA's non-disclosure status. Any who discover this secret are assassinated, so believers say. I hope to God this is not in the article, because it should be removed. Conspiracy theories like the CIA killed JFK, etc only make those who oppose the CIA look less credible. There is a very rich and well documented history of "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" of the CIA without including unsubstantiated beliefs. This only makes the article less encyclopedic. It is a great theory, but I would strongly encourage wikipedians to focus on the exhastively documented "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" of the CIA. (Many of these incriminating documents are the actual CIA manuals and government documents themselves, which lends a level of credibility to these charges which cannot be matched). Is the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government' true? Maybe? But I am not going to spend my time running down unsubstatiated rumors and conspiracy theories, when there is solid, unrefutable proof of CIA "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" which still needs to be added to this article. Some authors have speculated that conspiracy theories are not created by the government, but are happily used by the government to mislead the public and have the focus on wild goes chases and searches down rabbit holes. Whether this is true or not is as likely to be proven as the Bavarian conspiracy theories.Travb (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That and the whole idea that the CIA wasn't formed until 1947 do to the national security act of 1947 makes them working with the Nazi's completly plausibe being that they were disbanded in 1945. Drew1369 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Nazis just vanished into thin air in 1945? Lars T. 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have to take issue with the direction this article is taking. There seems to be a systematic campaign by people to remove any positive mention of CIA accomplishments. In fact, there used to be a section dedicated to that which has gotten lost along the way. Like or hate the CIA, this article needs balance in a big way. If we are unable to find balance, then at least the section on successes needs to be reinstated. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, add it back. In my experience, many wikipedians ignore messages on this board, if you want it done, you often must do it yourself.Travb 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There is not section on the CIA's "failures" so why should there be a section on its "successes" both should be included in the section on its "Historical Operations." What you are perceiving as a "negative bias" is actually merely a factual matter of the level of controversy associated with the CIA. One definition of 'controversy' from dictionary.com is a "disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Indeed there is disputation about many of the CIA's activities, but this is not equivalent to declaring their activities "failures," or having a negative bias. It is merely stating the fact that the legitimacy of many of the CIA's activities are disputed. Dwinetsk 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and the CIA

Wikipedia and the CIA - How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia,Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens

Excerpt: "Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US citizens.

This has significance far beyond the particular instance here of false statements and propaganda, that have been maintained on Wikipedia in order to cover for a wealthy donor to the President George Bush family, and to try to sabotage American legal reform and a critic of the US empire.

What we are facing, is that Wikipedia may already be the ultimate Trojan horse of US government intelligence operations. Via this one overwhelmingly dominant website, the thousands of nameless agents at CIA and NSA headquarters, can now deceive and defraud millions of US citizens and much of the rest of the world as well. These agents can smear and attack those who challenge the government; they can easily launch lies and propaganda on this powerful web forum that can falsify anything and undermine almost anyone. .." -Dna4salE 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agent Dna4salE, you have been slated for summary termination. WikiCabal Enforcers are on their way. Please remain calm, and do not leave your place of residence. Have a nice day. --Ashenai 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, will the WC Enforcers be Sharon Carter and Joanna Dark again? I wonder, is it really conspiracyretical to state that Wikipedia is involved with/subjected to "public diplomacy" from entities such as the CIA or the Bureau of Public Affairs? -Dna4salE 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, but why not talk about this over at Talk:Wikipedia? It certainly doesn't belong here. This article is about the CIA, not about any putative connections between the CIA and Wikipedia. See WP:SELF. --Ashenai 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm sure that there are CIA operatives active on this website, as there are on every popular politically-associated sector of the Net (according to the USA government), they are almost all minor agents, basically a bunch of idiots getting moderate wages to distort the truth here and there. Really, though, Wikipedia is not the place to look for CIA interference, so much as the television newsmedia--that is, since Project Mockingbird. Many news personalities and talkshow hosts are admitted CIA assets. Unsurprising, given that they unabashedly promote the actions of the USA government without concern for whether or not they are crimes. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Travb, I was confused by the comments on the edit summary ... were they addressed at me? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm grateful for any suggestions. Kaid100 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No sir, another wikiuser who I talked too on their talk page. I was refering to deleted online articles. Travb 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok no probs... thanks for the clarification sir :) Kaid100 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] assassination and zawahiri

Ok, told me to check the talk...there's nothing here on it. It can't be considered assassination: zawahiri is a named enemy combatant. Killing him with an airstrike is the same as killing any other enemy combatant with an air strike. It's an act of war, not an act of assassination. This is well established by military precedent, in many other countries than the us: Israel, Russia, UK, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please give me sometime to write, please see below. Since i have quoted two news sources which clearly call an attempt on the terrorist's life an assassination, please provide a refence that states that it somehow is not an assassination. I think there is some confusion about what the definition of an assassination is.Travb 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination

Re: this edit: "This cannot be considered an assassination attempt, however, as al-Zawahiri is named as terrorist and an enemy combatant by the United States."

There are problems with the sentence:

  1. it is not sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  2. a persons US legal status does not change the definition of "assassination" An assination definition is:
To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.[3]

For example, the Church Committee found that the US CIA had attempted to assassinate many foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro. The committee did not play the definition game and say, it wasn't really an assassination because Fidel Castro is a communist who overthrew a dictatorship favorable to America.

In fact, I know of no major news outlet who has this defintion, the definition actually coberates what I said:

"In another recording, bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri taunted US President George Bush over near-misses by the US military in their assassination attempts." --I'll die first - bin Laden HERALD SUN February 21, 2006 Tuesday
"A U.S. counterterrorism official said such a tape was "fully expected" after al-Zawahiri survived the assassination attempt." --Monday, January 30 CNN.com

signed:Travb 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You just answered your own question: According to dictionary .com an assasination is done "for political reasons". Zawahiri was airstriked for military reasons. It by definition does not meet the standard for assassination. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sir, so I guess the Herald Sun newspaper and CNN are wrong and you are correct? How many more sources do I need to find? 10, 20, 30, 40?
"Top Ten Dodge List"
7. Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows.
signed:Travb 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"War is a continuation of politics by other means.", Karl von Clausewitz. Israeli attempts to kill Palestinian terrorist leaders are inevitably described as "assassinations". --Robert Merkel 00:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
True, I am not arguing the legitamcy of the attempted killing of al-Zawahiri, which I think there may be some confusion on, I am simply stating that it is an "assassination", as per CNN and Herald News.Travb 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
CNN and the Herald News are media sources, not legal sources. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There, I've cited LEGAL sources for you. Want the quoted text?:"Executive Order 12333 in no way restricts the lawful use of violence against legitimate enemy targets." from [4], as well as other links I provided from harvard law, FAS.org, court citings. It's legal precedent that a surprise attack on a named enemy combatant is not assassination. Zawahiri is a named enemy combatant, as cited in my links. Therefore, it's NOT AN ASSASSINATION. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Want more? "An individual combatant's vulnerability to lawful targeting (as opposed to assassination) is not dependent upon his or her military duties, or proximity to ...: archives.his.com/intelforum/2004-April/msg00025.html. "It is clear that targeted killing of an enemy combatant in wartime is not assassination" www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2003/08/080603.html ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my apologies. You were right, I was wrong. As per: [5] looks like the government is trying to play the defintion game, as they are with torture. Thanks for the link. I was wrong.Travb 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed personal attack per WP:NPA. As for law school, trust me I know what it's like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swatjester (talk • contribs).

[edit] Footnotes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1

Here is Lexis Nexus summary of this famous case:

Petitioners, eight German-born U.S. residents, were captured by the United States, as they tried to enter the country during war time, for the purpose of sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations under the law of war. The President of the United States held that petitioners were to be tried before a military tribunal under the Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.S. §§ 1471-1593. Petitioners challenged the President's authority, arguing that under the U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, amends. V and VI, petitioners had a right to demand a jury trial at common law in the civil courts. The court found that petitioners were alleged to be unlawful belligerents, and that under the Articles of War, they were not entitled to be tried in a civil proceeding, nor by a jury. The court also determined that trying petitioners before a military court was not illegal and did not violate the U.S. Const. amends. V and VI relating to "crimes" and "criminal prosecutions." Thus, the court affirmed the President's authority to try petitioners before a military tribunal without a jury.

This has nothing to do with the defintion of an assination. I see were you are going with this, that the president has the authority to deal with enemy combants. Your legal arguments are much more on point, and have been kept in the article.

If I had the time right now and desire, I could probably dig up law review articles which dispute this interpretation of the Ford Exectutive order. Suffice it to say, in my edit, I simply put that several legal authorities disputed the definition of assassination, and that these "targeted killings" do not fall under the EXecutive Order. I hope this satisfies both of us.

I should have known that I was dealing with an aspiring lawyer or practicing lawyer. Lawyers (and politicians) are very good at arguing what the real definition of "is", is.

Two similar cases come to mind, one with Rwanda and Slick Bill's administration arguing that the Genocide in Rwanda isn't really a genocide, and the recent definition of torture, as defined by the current administration. I am sure you can come up with more, as you have today with the definition of "assassination".

Web bloggers do the same thing, but the have much less practice using there tongues as weapons, and are therefore less effective.

I apologize for my negative words and I was 100% wrong in my assumptions above. I was wrong assuming:

a) you don't know the law, you appear to know the law, probably better than me, and
b) that lawyers have tried with their wit and sharp tongues to circumvent the laws established by the Church Committee.

signed:Travb 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Opps, my mistake, looks like it was signed by Reagan, I know there is early laws on this because of the Church Committee. I know little about this order, but correct me if I am wrong, that Reagan's order was more leneint than what was done by Ford.Travb 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I cited that case not as anything with the definition of assasination, but to actually define the presidents justification to name someone an "enemy combatant". My goal was 3 part: First to show that the POTUS has the authority to name someone an enemy combatant. Second to show that he named al-Zawahiri as such. And finally, that surprise attacks against enemy combatants aren't assassinations. Anyway, the current version looks fine to me. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You an army lawyer, or hope to be one? I notice you were in the military, or where in the military. Thanks for your contributions to the article, and sorry for my uncalled for and ignorant belittlement before.Travb 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoops missed your question. No, not an army lawyer, I was army infantry, on a RSTA team, hence my interest in the subject. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well this is all fine and good, except that this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, so if the legal definition of assassination conflicts with the consensed definition (i.e. the one in the dictionary), we go with the consensed definition. The dictionary claims an assassination is any murder by surpise attack -- it says, "as for political reasons" not "for political reasons". Even if political reasons were required by the consensed definition of the word, it would still apply, because the legal categorization of a person as an enemy combatant only serves to legitimize the political decision to kill him or her (remember that the law is created by politicians, who make it for reasons, which include the representation of their constituencies, i.e. politics). In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not a legal argument for or against the killing by surprise attack of al-Zawahiri, so it is an assissination. End of story. Dwinetsk 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting

I am going to delete the entire CIA Operation History section for lack of sources. Thank you and have a nice day.68.14.84.43 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that there are several references within the block you removed, along with a large body of discussion above. You can challenge the references, or mark the places that feel need additional support. I'm not seeing a consensus to the remove the entire section. Additionally, please use edit summaries when you remove a lot of text like that; even if you simply refer to the talk page. Thanks. Kuru talk 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least the anon mentioned what he was doing on the talk page, most people don't. I agree with User:Kuru, the section the anon deleted although not sourced as much as I would like, it is still referenced enough to avoid a large deletion. (see the Central_Intelligence_Agency#Declassified_CIA_manuals and Central_Intelligence_Agency#Drug_trafficking sections which I rewrote recently for a heavily referenced section) Travb 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long term effects of CIA Operations

I removed a sentence or two from the the 'Developing nations' section. My rationale is that one sentence attempted to show how the CIA action to reinstate the Shah led to the Iranian revolution. Firstly, the connection is debatable, but more importantly seems to be out of the scope of the article. I also removed some uncited conjecture on what might have been if the CIA didn't perform the action. Ashmoo 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added IAA to Covert Operations

Repercussions from the Iran-Contra scandal included the creation of the Intelligence Authorization Act in 1991. This defined "covert operations" as secret missions in areas where the U.S. is not involved in open or apparent engagement. This also required a certain chain of authorization, including an official presidential finding report and informing the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which under emergency situations only requires "timely notification".

[edit] Budget?

The budget is listed as "classified", but surely there is some think tank that has an estimate available? An article yesterday from the Washington Post indicates the combined national intelligence budget is $44 billion annually; so I'm guessing CIA is 1/4 to 1/3 of that, but surely there are better guessers out there than I ... and it would not be inappropriate to include a good guess or range of guesses in this article. Based on the budget, I'm guessing about 90 thousand employees, right? linas 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFO

I deleted this sentence, I (think) that I added the citation needed, and no one has come forward and substantiated this information with verifiable sources, the bold section is particuarly dubious:

In 1952 the CIA had founded the Robertson Panel to recommend what ought to be done about UFOs or alien contact after Washington, D.C. was involved in a major UFO sighting. It recommended that UFO-spotting organisations (such as Mufon) should be infiltrated and that prominent figures from them, and people who report UFO/Alien contact be publicly denounced and ridiculed[citation needed] .

Signed:Travb (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re.: Robertson Panel, Re.:Sources. There are nearly four listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.62 (talk • contribs).
There are indeed four (4) sources listed under the Robertson Panel and who had set it up, which was the CIA. Excuse my sig. Something is fouling it up and keeping me logged OUT. Martial Law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.81 (talk • contribs). 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but, 66.82.9.62 and 66.82.9.81 appears to be the same person.
I will read over the Robertson Panel and add the information back, with <ref></ref> tags.
I may find that it appears bunk, if it does, I will not spend my own time adding the sentences back in. You are then welcome to add the information back in yourself, with <ref></ref> tags. and argue with the wikipedia community of its verifiablity and legitamacy. Travb (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The above Robertson Panel sentences I deleted are not specifically referenced on the Robertson Panel page. The entry I deleted is basically the introduction to this page.
The Robertson Panel page has five sources for the article, all with UFO conspiracy titles:
  • Jerome Clark, The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial, ISBN 1578590299
  • Richard Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973, 2002, ISBN 1-57174-317-0
  • Terry Hansen, The Missing Times: News media complicity in the UFO cover-up, 2000, ISBN 0-7388-3612-5
  • Jenny Randles and Peter Houghe; The Complete Book of UFOs: An Investigation into Alien Contact and Encounters; Sterling Publishing Co, Inc, 1994; ISBN 0806981326
  • Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956, Chapter 16 online
As the old saying goes, don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. I will study a little on the Robertson Panel, and see if I can redeem these deleted sentences. Right now "I'm not getting near that train wreck".[6] And will not be associated with trying to redeem these two sentences. Mr./Ms. Martial Law you are more than welcome to fight for the inclusion of these sentences. I personally feel entries such as Robertson Panel give wikipedia a bad name.Travb (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is my mea culpa to Mr./Ms. Martial Law. After studying the issue a little. It appears like most of Mr./Ms. Martial Law was correct about some of what he/she wrote. I was wrong, she/he was right.
That said, Mr./Ms. Martial Law, if you want to continue to advance your CIA UFO coverup stories, I suggest you start doing real reseach. I have learned long ago that the best way to "win" a debate on wikipedia is to outsource someone. People are going to naturally be wary of anything with "UFO" in it, because of the nuts this issue attracts. So the only way that you can get a large audience to support what you write is to research what you write, and provide sources. Use amazon.com and google print. The best example in my expereince has been Business Plot.
Central_Intelligence_Agency#Highly-illegal_activities has recieved a little criticism, including someone attempting to delete it, but Central_Intelligence_Agency#Drug_trafficking which I completely rewrote, has recieved absolutly no criticism for months. Despite being highly controverisal sections, I think verifying every word has allowed these sections to remain unquestioned on the page.
I can empathize with your position, most of my views are highyly unpopular, and I often have to vigorously fight for my material to stay on wikipedia. Adding controversial material that has been deleted because of no references is a losing battle.
So enjoy: Central_Intelligence_Agency#UFOs_and_Robertson_Panel.
Please do not add any material to this section that is not referenced. I will add a {{fact}} tag then a week later I will delete this unreferenced material, as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
In the future, I suggest getting a copy of the Robertson Panel and quoting sections. I have found that US government files tend to be the very best sources, and the least likely to be attacked. Travb (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor revert war RE: Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei

Why do people keep adding this man, and others keep deleting him? What is his signifigance, and why can't we resolve this on the talk page? This has been going on for at least a month, maybe longer.

Maybe User:Akademy-force and others insistent inclusion of Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei on the CIA page would be bolstered if they built the Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei page first, then added the link to the CIA page. Travb (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just check the first entries for Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei [7] - it looks, smells and tastes like a Troll or a Kook (replacing a section with "Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei (Active spy in the Iran) - I have informations at the active neculari in the khoozestan. emaile:Ethan_hunt_philips AT yahoo.com"), and Google shows nothing on even parts of that name. Lars T. 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this to the anon, User talk:84.241.8.130 on his page:
==RE: [[CIA]]== ::{{Template:Nonsensepages|CIA}} and Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei. See: Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#Minor_revert_war_RE:_Mohammad_Reza_Aghaei_Laghaei. If you add such nonsense to the CIA page again, without building the Mohammad_Reza_Aghaei_Laghaei first with verifiable information, myself and other users will ask that you be booted or banned from editing the CIA page. Travb (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully this solves the problem.
Looking through his edits, it looks like he has added email addresses and this guys name to several pages. If it happens again, I think this guy should be permenantly booted. Travb (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This jerk is at it again.[8] I am reporting him right now to vandalism in progress: Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#IP_addresses [9] I also added sockpuppet warnings to all eight of his pages, with information I collected: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Akademy-force Travb (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked: User:Akademy-force yeah! Travb (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

What are all those little yellow locks for which are scattered throughout the article? It's pollutive and should be removed. This does not belong in an encyclopaedia, except if it's for a real good reason... Someone explain? Scotteh 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you taking about? Travb (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For example, see the "organizational chart" link under Central_Intelligence_Agency#Structure. The "yellow lock" tells you that the linked page is an https (secure) link, rather than an http. These links don't bother me, however it might be worth converting all the links (https and http) into proper references. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
CIA Organizational Chart I don't see anything with the color yellow. I have converted many of the links using the ref tags. If someone else wants to take the initiative, here is the proper way to source the documents, just cut and paste these templates, for book, journal, or web page. :

<ref name = " "> {{cite book
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =
| title =
| publisher =
| location =
| id =
}}</ref>

<ref name = " "> {{cite journal
| first =
| last =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =
| month =
| title =
| journal =
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =
}}</ref>

<ref name = " "> {{cite web
| title =
| work =
| url =
| accessdate=
}} </ref>

<ref name = " ">
{{Cite video
| People=
| ReleaseYear=
| Title=
| Medium=
| DistributorsLocation=
| DistributorsName= <nowiki>}}</ref>

albiet, I am well aware that 99% of the time that asking someone else to do something on a talk page is a waste of time... Signed: Travb (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA Organizational Chart The little lock thingy is yellow... But maybe it depends on what browser you are using or what your settings are. But nevermind now I understand the situation here. Scotteh 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am using internet explorer, how about you? Travb (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Mozilla Firefox --Scotteh 10:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep on Mozilla Firefox, i see them too. Travb (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmpf, interesting... Well, problem solved then. --Scotteh 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's HTTP over SSL, or HTTPS. DolphinCompSci 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allende - Bribes

After the election of Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1970 the CIA covertly worked to prevent him from taking office through bribery of Chilean officials, which failed. Afterwards, an attempted coup was plotted by the CIA with anti-Allende factions, but it eventually was forced to abort the project.

This sentence reads as if Allende was trying to bribe Chilean officials. If this is the case, I request source or removal of the sentence (it's a serious allegation not to be backed up by a source), if not, a rephrasing is necessary to make the point more clear. --67.68.31.143 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Err. Now I just realised that it means the CIA was trying to bribe the officials. The sentence is still not very clear "the CIA covertly wowrked to prevent HIM from taking office through bribery" (This would mean that "HIM" is trying to take office through bribery. I'll reword it to:
After the election of Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1970, the CIA covertly worked to prevent Allende from taking office by bribing Chilean officials, which failed.
Still, I don't understand. He won the election and after he won, they wanted to prevent him from taking office? --67.68.31.143 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The following was removed

The following was removed as per WP:RS:

It has now been firmly established (see references below) that the OSS actively recruited and protected many high ranking Nazi officers immediately following World War II, a policy that was carried on by the CIA.[1] These included, the CIA now admits, the notorious "butcher of Lyon" Klaus Barbie, Hitler's Chief of Soviet Intelligence General Reinhard Gehlen, and numerous less-renowned Gestapo officers. General Gehlen, due to his extensive (if dubious) intelligence assets within the Soviet Union, was allowed to keep his spy-network intact after the war in the service of the United States. The Gehlen organization soon became one of America's chief sources of Intelligence on the Soviet Union during the cold war, and formed the basis for what would later become the German intelligence agency the BND.

Signed: Travb (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA Operations and Terrorism

I noticed the statement about the CIA charter fitting under the FBI's definition of terrorism. I think this violates NPOV as it is a clear attempt to imply that the CIA is a terrorist organization without explicity stating it. In other words, it is an attempt to circumvent NPOV rules in order to preach the author's high controversial, personal viewpoint. The implication that the CIA engages in terrorism is endlessly debatable and, thus, a statement or implication toward one side or the other is, by definition, not neutral. Therefore, I've removed it. If people have a problem and want it added back, then I strongly request that I NPOV flag be placed on the article.

Sbstern 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)scott

Are you also going to flag the FBI article because you don't like their definition of terrorism? Lars T. 15:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

While reading through this article, it definitely seemed to be pervasively negative towards the CIA, in ways that seemed to me to be in direct violation of the neutral point of view. It also seemed to jump on theories that are not necessarily grounded in fact and to provide them as though they were (ie the MK-ULTRA project, Mafia hitmen, drug scandals, etc). If someone else is willing to do a quality check as well that would be much appreciated, however, it seems to me that this article should be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

Commander Cool, part deux 07:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


You need to be more specific in the "ways" the article violates the neutral point of view. If the article pervasively reflects "negative" information, perhaps that is because most of the information that is available regarding the agency is negative in nature.


The agency is a spy agency that also engages in covert activities. These tasks lend themselves to otherwise anti-social activities (theft, extortion, bribery) and often whatever limits are placed on such behavior is difficult to enforce. There is an apparent requirement of secrecy about the agency's operations.

RPJ 02:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly Illegal/Questionable

I made the change because the body of the section is more equivocal than the heading. In addition, "highly illegal" is POV, especially since it gives the impression that the CIA is violating US laws, when the laws being broken are foreign laws. As a sort of compromise, I am willing to have the section titled "Illegal Activities". Ramsquire 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not "foreign" laws, they are international laws. Major difference. Dwinetsk 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the section makes it clear that the laws violated are foreign laws.
Talk:Central Intelligence Agency
 The [Clandestine Service] is the only part of the [Intelligence Community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the U.S. but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.
Talk:Central Intelligence Agency
Ramsquire 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not even going to try to deny that I didn't actually read the section before I wrote that. But here's why I didn't. It says in my passport that "while in a foreign country, [I am] subject to its laws." Now, where does that come from? Is that U.S. law (because then these crimes would be illegal in the U.S.)? Is it international law (because then these crimes would be violations of international law)? Is it no law? No, it's not no law. What I'm getting at is that, though I cannot locate it's origin, what my Passport says is that, either by U.S. law or by international law, foreign laws are binding to U.S. citizens. I'm assuming this applies to state agents as well. Now, I am no international lawyer, but it seems to me that you might reply that there is such a thing as State immunity in international law. But when I read about it here on Wikipedia, I get the sense that this only protects states from being sued in the courts of other countries. It does not give state agenst the right to violate the laws of other countries. It only exempts them from being prosecuted for them. Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, you've got me... But it seems like it at least means that it shouldn't happen. Dwinetsk 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It varries. Many CIA officers operate under diplomatic cover, meaning they have diplomatic immunity. That's pretty standard for all national intel services across the board. The agents recruited by these officers are usualy foreign nationals who do violate foreign law, and are subject to prosecution if caught. Why people continue to be surprised and shocked that an espionage agency conducts espionage is beyond me, however. If you want another shock, I hear the Ford Motor Company builds vehicles, most of which have motors in them. Shock! Horror!

[edit] JFK Assassination section

RE: [10] and [11]

I placed a {citeheck} tag over the JFK Assassination section. This page just states John Newman's opinions and accusations against some CIA agents based on his interpretation of CIA documents. Because it is on a PBS Frontline website it appears to give his statement more weight than they deserve. It is is not a news article, with any attempt to balance his position with any rebuttal. I think the section need to go. Mytwocents 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The editor couldn't find any information to rebut the information from the PBS show. Therefore, his solution is that the information on the show should be deleted. RPJ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

=== JFK assassination ===

{{Citecheck}}

Documents obtained and disclosed by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board revealed that the CIA concealed documents, for more than thirty years, about its direct knowledge that a Lee Harvey Oswald impersonator tried to contact an assassin in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, Mexico, less than two months before President Kennedy was assassinated. The PBS "Frontline" documentary news program reported that said information already was known to the CIA, was learned by President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover hours after President Kennedy was assassinated; it "electrified" top Washington insiders.[2]

Nice catch User:Mytwocents.

I didn't read the PBS article, nor have I.

I removed this section to the talk page. I suggest it remain here, unless someone else cuts and pastes a small snippet of the actual words of the PBS show, so there will be no argument or doubt what the PBS special says.

The other JFK conspiracy sections which have been deleted are found here: [12] for anyone who cares. Travb (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Odd admission

The editor above is deleting information without even reading the source?

I didn't read the PBS article."

Wikipedia policy prohibits:

  • "Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance"
  • "Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible."
  • "Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms [such as PBS's FRONTLINE].

RPJ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Assassins

someone added a category to the article: "american assassins". i've commented it out pending discussion, as i feel that it's controversial. if i should not have done this, please revert the change, but i think there should be discussion and that the category's placement is not NPOV. Vbdrummer0 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's controversial. Not even the most ardent CIA-supporter could deny this reality. If you have a real argument against this categorization (other than your feeling), then please state it. I'll come back tomorrow and uncomment it if you haven't replied by then. Morningmusic 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so naive to think that CIA hasn't been behind assassinations, but to label the ENTIRE agency as an assassin seems very prejudicial to me. I have no problem with linking that categorization to individual agents who were directly involved, but not to all the analysts, translators, clerks, etc. in the agency. Vbdrummer0
Then you also have to remove the categories Sensitive Information (because not everything about the CIA is sensitive information) and Terrorism (because the CIA doesn't exclusively deal with (anti-)terrorism - even today) too. Lars T. 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Point made. I'll remove the comment tags. Vbdrummer0 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed the category. To follow this path to its logical conclusion, we'll also put on Category:American criminals, and then add Enron. The category is clearly not intended to be used in this manner, and when it's the only entry of this kind in the category it does not serve as a useful navigational tool. - 152.91.9.144 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon ip beat me to it; my comments were: this is clearly a category for individuals. If you know of individual CIA agents who can be categorized as assassins feel free to add them to this category. Otherwise, the only purpose of this is POV-pushing. I have been as critical of the CIA's role in assassination as anyone else, but I don't see the point (other than to call them names) of adding them to a category like this. If we had a category "Phony Texan Warmongers," we could perhaps put George W. Bush in there, but not Bush Administration.--csloat 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ODCI

ODCI Redirects here, but it is not mentioned anywhere on the page. 74.104.177.80 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/Talk%7ECentral_Intelligence_Agency_a879.html"