Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Foreign Prisoners

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)
Sorry Lars but legally the burden is on the prisoner to give his captors his name and country of legal residence, and even then it isn't a given he's a prisoner of war. After all if his country isn't at war with the U.S. he can hardly claim he's a prisoner of a war between the two nations that doesn't exist in the legal word of his own nationality. If a terrorist chooses not to divulge any information, we are not required nor should we be required to waste our efforts in finding that information out. If we do find it out we are expected to notify his country if we think he might actually be operating on their behalf, but invariably his country denies claiming him as a prisoner of war since that would be admiting they are at war with us. Not a smart move unless you would like us to add some new divots in your terrain where your military use to be or you'd like your GNP to drop about 30% overnight. The Geneva Convention covers civilians and prisoners of war. Terrorist detainees are neither. To be a civilian you must not be engaged in any military or paramilitary operations. To be a prisoner of war, you must generally be fighting for a country recognized to be in the conflict or covered in some very specific exemptions the terrorists don't abide by (IE they hit civilian targets more often then military ones... hence they lose the right to legally call themselves independant soliders, those sort of tactics have to be the minority in your modus operandi, not the common goal, if you want to recieve an exemption). Those individuals are neither. In fact given their desire to kill civilians over US personel in Iraq, many of those insurgents are now simply being classified as murderers under their own countries laws. Comes of managing to blow up a man, woman, and baby for every US soldier you try for. Often on purpose. Only left wing liberals love a good murderer, but sadly, their are plenty of both around these days, so theirs lots of coward love to be spared. Sadly that last part is all PoV so it has no place in the article. The rest you're welcome to verify througth the Geneva Convention itself and international case law. (Unsigned comment by 75.132.156.26)
So you are claiming that none of the prisoners actually stated which country they are from? Khalid El-Masri - probably mistaken for Khalid al-Masri, was held in a CIA prison months after his true identity and innocence had been determined. Lars T. 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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.?.B. 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we can be pretty sure at least the Nazis didnt infiltrate the Mossad!...83.78.169.134 00:38, 28 February 2007 (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)

The CIA grew out of previous organizations like OSS, it just didnt appear out of nowhere, and Nazi germans didnt start the CIA. It is indeed a fact that american intelligence brought over many previous members of the Nazi party, both intelligence people and scientists. Werner von Braun for instance who helped found the american space program. But its not like such things are not done typically after large wars between powers, and the CIA bringing in some German intel people was some new precendent in human history. The CIA also worked heavily with former Nazi intelligence that had detailed helpful information & contacts for infiltrating and spying on the Russians. The question of just how much influence the former Nazis were able to exert over their new american masters is highly debatable of course, as is their own various allegiances to Nazi ideals after the war. One could make a case that former Nazi german intelligence was able to create a larger conflict between the US and Russia than what may have been there, yet its all speculation really, even for those few with all the information...Of course there surely was some Nazi influence into the CIA as would naturally occur when absorbing a large number of foreign agents, yet likely somewhat greater american intelligence influence over the viewpoints of the former Nazis. Anyways, really any intel agency of the nature of the CIA from any country or nation has a somewhat nationalistic rightwing mentality to begin with, they dont need to take in some Nazi germans to have sometimes hard right types of ways and means, and any failings or excesses of american intelligence cant really be all put off on "the nazis". To look for the true earliest precursors of the CIA you could go back i think to the first small societies in the top universities, and the cliques & connections between the educated powerful americans in the elite institutions, it may sound slightly conspiracy theory, yet really such secret societies like "skull and bones" were indeed the earliest examples of what might be termed "american central intelligence" and a coordinated "intelligence network" part "business network". Then during the world wars official organizations were formed to deal with the complex matters of those wars, and many of the (mostly men) from these secret societies became a part of the OSS or CIA or always had a hand in them, to this day. And I would argue that to this day these small secretive elite societies are still the backbone of the true american intelligence network, (perhaps less so than a hundred years ago, its much more complex these days) and the CIA is one "tool" of these networks, and im not putting a negative or positive on that. A current typical CIA operative has far far less power than those who move in the truly powerful intelligence-business networks, yet they could rise into that network, or may have started out in that network and are a part of it, and have then taken a position in CIA 83.78.169.134 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sadly this is what's bound to happen. I want to say it's because people with a bias against the CIA and/or US government (especially in it's current form) have more motivation to take the time to edit things here for PoV reasons then people neutral or pro. It's the same reason volunteer surverys get a slightly higher negative response then more neutral ones... people who are content don't go out of their way, people who are upset do. Unfortunatly that is my conservative bias coming through and I don't think the more extreme posters here have lived up to that fear. Many have gone to lengths to link valid sources not questionable ones. So sadly I think the reason is grounded in much more reasonable fact behind that trend, the CIA is an intelligence agency. For every ninety nine stellar success it has, every key piece of information it gains that helps the free word, every bad guy it ever helped put a bullet in that keeps him from putting bullets in thousands of others, for every nation it helped bring a positive change to upon request, it will have ONE operation that was illconceived and failed, or was overly self serving and dastardly. The problem is, the 99 good things are... well... secret! You don't go bragging to the world how you did what you just did right, because that just helps the other guy counter you next time. Unfortunatly that one horribly stupid thing you did and maybe shouldn't have done (and okay, the CIA has racked up more then a few of those I'll concede)... that gets blown all over the headlines. The whole world sees how you screwed up, usually because it's in the best interest of the other party to make it very, Very public. Like it or not, if I ever see an intelligence agency on Wikipedia that has more good stuff then bad listed (not counting historical stuff so old it would be declassified like WWII stuff), then I'll know the article is crap (or maybe Mossad, but their almost more relgious agency then a national agency). The PoV of any intelligence agency article will, over time, degrade to more negative then positive. If you know about all the positive, then they aren't an intelligence agency.

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)

that was silly! 83.78.169.134 00:00, 28 February 2007 (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.?.B. 06:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

fools! you are all CIA!, all of you with american citizenships contributing material to wikipedia are american intelligence. Your CIA and you dont even know it!!! They are everywhere! When you look in the mirror its CIA staring back! 83.78.169.134 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ow no, you are all on to us! I have reported you to my evil overseers. Ahahahahaha! Soon our Volcano stronghold deathray will be ready, and then the world will tremble once again at the letters C.I.A.! Long live America! ;-D Sorry, this whole theme is too funny. Even if it's true, they have just as much right to edit this place as anyone else, and sadly they probably put LESS propeganda up then most 'editors' here do.
You guys are all stoopid. CIA sux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.13.81 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

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.[1]

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 [2], 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: [3] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

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. §§. 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)


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)
Yes. Here's the breakdown. The CIA tried to prevent the elected Salvador Allende from actually taking office by bribing Chilean officials. It failed. In their noble attempts to spread democracy and freedom around the world, the CIA hands the country to Augusto Pinochet who goes on to reign for 16 years and kills thousands of people. Let freedom ring! 71.68.17.141 15:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Question. In the paragraph pertaining to links with other non-US agencies, MI6 etc, why is Pakistan's ISI not included? Considering the current climate, and its obvious links with terrorism and the war in Afghanistan i believe it must be added to highlight the CIA's integration with and influence over other countries. The Saudi secret Service is another.

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)

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)
Highly illegal, by the fact you add 'highly', instantly becomes PoV and inapproriate. Something is either legal, or it isn't, or it is what's sometimes refered to as quasi legal... when a definition is unclear. The most something can be is illegal. The 'highly' is a weasel word. It is a word masquerading as neutral when in fact its mere usage in this context would be PoV.
Actually the section makes it clear that the laws violated are foreign laws.
“ 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. ”
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!

I don't know about that, Mr./Ms. anonymous. Diplomatic immunity is for diplomats, not for intelligence agents. Are you saying that all CIA employees conducting illegal activities have also happened to be diplomats or have been under cover as diplomats. That seems kind of absurd to me. It's not exactly "low-profile." Also, historically, many CIA members have posed as Peace Corps Volunteers or aid workers (for example, much of the secret war in Laos was conducted by way of aid workers, all of which was against international conventions -- I forget which one at the moment).
Also, there is a difference between being shocked and being aphalled. I'm not shocked that the CIA conducts illegal activities (more to the point vast violations of human rights), because that's what they do, but I am aphalled. Being aphalled involves ethical considerations. Being shocked involves whether or not you knew something before.
-Dwinetsk 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Many CIA officers" and "all CIA employees" are two very different propositions. A great many CIA officers operate as part of the diplomatic staffs of embassies. This is has been common practice amongst national intelligence services for centuries. Again note, not all. Many. As in a subset of all. They are the "legals." Their existence is an open secret, if a secret at all. Military attache's, for example, are perhaps the most transperant of the "legal" spies. The more covert "legals" (those with a non-intelligence "day job" at the embassy) then recruit foreign nationals. That is where most of the illegal activity occurs.
And yes, appalled and shocked are different. But much of the preceeding does seem to be shocked at the prospect that spies spy on people. And I find that an appalling lack of understanding. unsigned

Crimes committed by those with diplomatic immunities are still crimes under the laws of whichever country they're in. The immunity prevents them being prosecuted, unless the nation from which the diplomat comes waives that immunity.212.219.158.129 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

JFK Assassination section

RE: [4] and [5]

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)

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: [6] for anyone who cares. Travb (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


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)
Yes, I did move this section to the talk page, and yes, I did not read the article.
I spent several hours one night editing the UFO conspiracy section, and I have spent days editing this page. I am a little burned out verifying unpopular and fringe views, and I invite you to spend time researching your article, instead of quoting wikipolicy on the talk page.
Your view is the minority view, not our own. You are welcome to cite the PBS Frontline episode in the article, as I invited you to do above "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."
I don't want to delete your information (thus I moved it to the talk page), I simply want it well sourced, as all wikipedia information should be. WP:CITE
There are two independent editors who feel this information should stay out of the article. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

ODCI

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

Contradiction with Another Article

I was reading through this article and in the history section in the second to last paragraph it states, "all fifteen Intelligence Community agencies are under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence." However, if one follows the link to the Intelligence Community, this article states, "The United States Intelligence Community is a cooperative federation of sixteen United States government agencies," One of these articles must be in error, and somebody who knows which is correct should fix this.

Dammnit, sign your posts using ~~~~ PLEASE. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Section on Chile, moved to talk

Moved to talk, reason:

removed to talk, link to article is enough info, wikiusers can argue about the facts at the Project FUBELT page, not here


After the election of Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1970, the CIA covertly worked to prevent president-elect Allende from assuming office by bribing Chilean government officials; they failed. Afterwards, fascist anti-Allende politicians, military men and the CIA planned a coup d'état that eventually was aborted.
Three years later, President Allende was overthrown in a military coup d'état led by Army General Augusto Pinochet; no allegation has been proved that it was sponsored by the CIA on the orders of U.S. President R. M. Nixon. The Church Committee, investigating the U.S.'s involvement in the internal affairs of Chile during that time stated: "There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid.[3] In 2000 the CIA also denied that it assisted the coup.[4]
The Church Report also revealed the CIA's prominent political, economic, and para-military role in Chile after the 1973 coup d'état: The goal of covert action, immediately following the coup, was to assist the Junta in gaining a more positive image, both at home and abroad, and to maintain access to the command levels of the Chilean government. Another goal, achieved in part through work done at the opposition research organization before the coup, was to help the new government organize and implement new policies. Project files record that CIA collaborators were involved in preparing an initial overall economic plan which has served as the basis for the Junta's most important economic decisions.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial and speculative as they are, all links should have a small summary about how this incident relates to the C.I.A. Foe example, Project FUBELT was the overthrow of the socialist President of Argentina Salvador Allente by the right-wing General Augusto Pinnochet, who recieved C.I.A backing See Also Project FUBELT
Would be suffiecient I believe. --Sharz 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about split too CIA controversies

I want to gauge everyones opinion on moving the controversy section to a new article. This was done a few weeks ago. Being the contributor to several dozen of the refrences here (possible the most references in this article were added by myself), and large sections of this article, I personally am opposed to the move, and in the interm I have moved this section back.

I have seen moves like this before.

Bad past examples

1. Wal-Mart is probably the worst example. From what I gather, two groups argued for months about creating a Wal-Mart controvery page. It was created Criticism_of_Wal-Mart, and now there are two competing articles: one within the Wal-Mart article, Wal-mart#Criticism and one with Criticism of Wal-Mart. These articles copy each other in content.

2. Another example is Ford. Someone moved the Firestone and Ford tire controversy to its own article, and it is currently in my opinion, not a very good article. There is not one source in this article.

3. A current example is Firestone Tire and Rubber Company where a user in two cases began to move out the criticism sections to other articles.

What happens in these cases? In my experience: Worst case scenerio: Wikipedians write two articles in tandem, repeating there efforts on two seperate articles, like Criticism_of_Wal-Mart. It leads to edit wars and prolonged anomosity. Best case scenerio: The article is orphaned like Firestone and Ford tire controversy, and eventually the link is edited out of the article. Result: No controversy section.

I am sure there are positive examples of splitting off articles. I am sure those that support splitting off this article will mention them. Microsoft was mentioned in the Wal-Mart debate. I think it is clear though, no matter how well the split goes, that the smaller split off article suffers. Based on my experiences, CIA controversies will suffer.

Something this important deserves more community input from everyone.

Thanks, Travb (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a couple of different threads to the argument, and I'm not convinced that using negative examples to support your contention is useufl as there are probably examples where it has worked well.
The size of the existing article is quite high, in terms of WP guidance the recommendation is to consider splitting the page up. In practical terms; I looked at this page over dial up a few days ago and it was a painful experience, readability is horrendous, although that is heavily stylistic as well as the text volume.
Much of the existing content is pretty light in its treatment and references daughter articles anyway, this leads to a mix of styles with some summary and some main body style on the page, that doesn't aid readability or the articles ability to convey information content.
With that in mind I'd suggest a review of the approach to this and related articles, rather than just considering the controversies proposal on its own.
ALR 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User:ALR, I agree with the vast majority of your thoughtful and intellegent arguments. Can we have a third party group review this page? I know there is a wikiorganzation that does this for history articles, movie articles, etc. I just removed a large portion of this article to talk See above: #Section on Chile, moved to talk reason: removed to talk, link to article is enough info, wikiusers can argue about the facts at the Project FUBELT page, not here.
I personally only know negative examples of splitting up a page, maybe someone can share postive examples of splitting up a page? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth asking at the Military History project. I'll have a look over and see where I might be able to come up with some thoughts but I'm less familiar with the CIA than I am with my own government apparatus. It might be worth initially coming up with a proposed structure, the MilHist standard is quite useful although personally I find that it turns into huge swathes of history before you get to anything meaningful. With some of the UK organisations I'm moving towards discussion of organisation, role, relationship with other organisations, selection and training etc. kind of approach.ALR 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be split

This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

It's kinda needed... F.F.McGurk 14:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stasi files

added information about the rosenholz archives, see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/703303.stm for reference. I would have plenty of finnish references if the one who reverted the edit would understand them :) -Thor-

Director of NCS

Is Jose A. Rodriguez really the director of the NCS?

From the CIA's web site:

The National Clandestine Service is responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence. The current director is under cover and cannot be named at the present time.

I heard the same thing from a CIA agent at NCS.

Air Phloo 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Negative Bias

It's very clear that this article has taken on a negative bias. There is now little-to-no reference of positive actions performed by the CIA. Sure, the CIA is surrounded by a lot of controversy, much of which is conjecture. It just seems that any time someone posts something that paints the United States Government in a neutral-to-positive light, people jump at the chance to scream, "POV! POV! BIAS! BIAS!" Present both sides and let people draw their own conclusions. Jackryan 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you show us what negative bias do you imply? We need to know exactly to know what should be improved. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from PoV post above... Sadly this is what's bound to happen. I want to say it's because people with a bias against the CIA and/or US government (especially in it's current form) have more motivation to take the time to edit things here for PoV reasons then people neutral or pro. It's the same reason volunteer surverys get a slightly higher negative response then more neutral ones... people who are content don't go out of their way, people who are upset do. Unfortunatly that is my conservative bias coming through and I don't think the more extreme posters here have lived up to that fear. Many have gone to lengths to link valid sources not questionable ones. So sadly I think the reason is grounded in much more reasonable fact behind that trend, the CIA is an intelligence agency. For every ninety nine stellar success it has, every key piece of information it gains that helps the free word, every bad guy it ever helped put a bullet in that keeps him from putting bullets in thousands of others, for every nation it helped bring a positive change to upon request, it will have ONE operation that was illconceived and failed, or was overly self serving and dastardly. The problem is, the 99 good things are... well... secret! You don't go bragging to the world how you did what you just did right, because that just helps the other guy counter you next time. Unfortunatly that one horribly stupid thing you did and maybe shouldn't have done (and okay, the CIA has racked up more then a few of those I'll concede)... that gets blown all over the headlines. The whole world sees how you screwed up, usually because it's in the best interest of the other party to make it very, Very public. Like it or not, if I ever see an intelligence agency on Wikipedia that has more good stuff then bad listed (not counting historical stuff so old it would be declassified like WWII stuff), then I'll know the article is crap (or maybe Mossad, but their almost more relgious agency then a national agency). The PoV of any intelligence agency article will, over time, degrade to more negative then positive. If you know about all the positive, then they aren't an intelligence agency.

External Links

Two external links sections make the article look very confused. I think some of the second section can be moved to ==Further reading==. Moreover, I see some exlinks seem not to be very reliable. Can anyone help me clean and classify them? Apple••w••o••r••m•• 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

personal experience

much of the shadow world is left handed. see for yourself www.abaddon.helrazers.com/ <spook hangout or.. just do it the easy way & look up the webpages/memestreams of spook types 'lynn' is a common name for the same reason 'li' is.

do whatever you want, but dont lie to yourself or others about what the truth is. ;)

Spelling error in Logo CIA

Agengy? See the logo(CIA.svg) carefully please. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong with your eyes. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Which word is misspelled (if any)? I don't see any. BQZip01 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with Nussknacker's eyes. The word "Agency" was indeed misspelled. Shortly after the posting, I managed to contact the creator of the file, who fixed it right away. —Gintar77 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? I didn't notice it and when I do, I see nothing wrong with the image. Sorry Nussknacker. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is the file's creator? BQZip01 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
An user on Commons. Gintar77 is right. Here's the old version. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

I think there is some very real bias present in this article. For example, there is no attempt made to describe the Phoenix Program, which was a campaign to assassinate Viet Cong leaders; it is simply compared as a "Nazi atrocity". Clearly whoever wrote that is more interested in having the reader draw the conclusion "CIA = Nazis" then presenting an actual objective viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.123.244 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Another officer in "Phoenix", Bart Osborne, testified before Congress in 1971: I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through his interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown out of helicopters. Osborne again: It [Phoenix] became a sterile depersonalized murder program... Equal to Nazi atrocities, the horrors of "Phoenix" must be studied to be believed." Poor CIA, being compared to Nazis by (former) CIA officers in front of Congress. Well, maybe we can take out the part with the Nazis, and replace it with the part about people being thrown out of helicopters? Lars T. 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)