CIA - Police agency? or Crazy Illegal Agency?

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

It seems that the CIA can do what ever they want, is this true? If so, why haven't they been shut down yet?

[Andrew]

Hmm. If the CIA can do whatever they want, then that would be a good reason as to why they have not been shut down. ;)

CIA is USA intelligence agency. Every country has some form of intelligence agency. They do what they do in order to protect the people.

[Dude_Doc]

They do what they do in order to protect the people.

Or, so we are told. ;)

[Andrew]

Or, so we are told. ;)

You mean like when they assassinated JFK or blew up the WTC?

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

CIA does things that are completely illegal hands down.

They do what they do in order to protect the people.

My ass, they can kidnap anyone they want and torture them, even without suspicion.

[gunner154]

Of course they'd justify that. In the name of protecting the other people. The same reasons, as always.

[Dude_Doc]

You mean like when they assassinated JFK or blew up the WTC?

No, I don't believe in the WTC conspiracy, nor have I seen any convincing evidence for a conspiracy in the JFK assassination (although, I haven't read much about the conspiracy theory).

I mean that while they formally speak of protecting people, they are doing many things contrary to that - like supporting oppressive regimes all over the world. It's the hypocracy of saying that one supports "freedom and liberty", while actually doing everything opposing that. It's the support for Saudi Arabia and making enemies of Venezuela.

[nemafakei]

"I don't believe in the WTC conspiracy"

I do. There is no plausible explanation for such a coincidence of plane crashes - an Al-Quaeda conspiracy is the best bet.

[Tatar Khan]

CIA does have a number of allowances for their actions. However they are not allowed to kidnap people who are citizens of USA, they can kidnap any other national (except leaders of the country, there is a federal law in US against that and UN's convention), because under US laws foreigners have no rights (there are no laws or constitutional provisions that guarantee any rights to foreign nationals.

As for support of some regimes and not others that is done out of interests of the country and not out of "freedoms, liberty, justice" bullshit. The US constitution makes US government accountable to its citizens and their interests not the citizens of the country who are getting killed by 100s or 1000s due to US support of that government. So if US supports a genocidal leader because that will guarantee US necessary resources, military basis, or rights to use the ports or etc., it is all good.

As for Kennedy and WTC conspiracy well I only have one thing to say that so far I have seen US try and so far do its best to follow its own laws. The reason I think is behind it is that this way later generations can not call any of actions of the previous leaders illegal or put them on trial, neither will be able any other organization, since all the US laws were followed. 

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

Well, generally, the US government/the CIA are disgustingly corrupt.

[Andrew]

Well, generally, the US all government/the CIA and all organizations are disgustingly corrupt.

Fixed that for you :)

[Sneakgab]

The US govt and the CIA could be said to have reached something of a milestone though, or could perhaps be considered to be the leaders in corruption and abuse of power in the ''democratic'' category.

[Tatar Khan]

It is not abuse as long as their actions benefit their own citizens.

For a regular person it looks like abuse because if you not american you are not on beneficial end of the actions.

As for world corruption: http://www.transparency.org/content/download/24101/360189

[nemafakei]

"It is not abuse as long as their actions benefit their own citizens."

Huh?

So if I was being pestered by a tourist, who, for the sake of argument, otherwise contributed a net of zero to the British economy, there would be no abuse of power if MI6 shot the tourist?

That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

[Tatar Khan]

How that actions benefits British government?

It destroys the world perception of Britain. It will ruin the tourism industry thus hurting the British citizens involved in the tourism industry.

What must be remembered about politics is "There is no such thing as free lunch" you pay for your actions, but governments must through cost benefit analysis decide which actions are more favorable and which are not.

[nemafakei]

...

Yes, I know, there are externalities. I am trying to contend that murdering the tourist is not bad solely because of the effect on the tourism industry, but because of something somewhat more universal. The notion that murder is simply subject to a nationalistic cost-benefit analysis is a more-or-less accurate portrayal of how governments DO work, but not one of how they SHOULD work.

[Tatar Khan]

Governments will never be Mother Teresas. hold hands and smell flowers. They represent people and those people have interest that will always clash. we never got along since the dawn of civilization and we are not going to anytime soon.

Example take two male cats in the spring season and put them in the same room with one female cat. I don't think they will take turns.

There is no universal good or universal evil, it is all a matter of perspective.

[nemafakei]

"They represent people and those people have interest that will always clash. we never got along since the dawn of civilization and we are not going to anytime soon."

That's an explanation, not a justification.

Anyway, it's more than that. Governments represent the interests of a very small minority of each country, and conduct a great deal of warfare against their own people. Spooks, agents provocateurs... the US and Britain, like most other nations have a documented history of infiltrating groups with interests contrary to those of the elites. The interests of one nation or another plays a comparatively tiny role.

[Edric O]

Governments will never be Mother Teresas. hold hands and smell flowers. They represent people and those people have interest that will always clash. we never got along since the dawn of civilization and we are not going to anytime soon.

Of course. Governments in general - and the CIA in particular - serve the interests of some people against the interests of other people.

The question is, which people? Does the CIA serve the interests of the majority of the American people, or the interests of a small group of the most rich and powerful people in the United States? I'd say the answer is quite obviously the latter.

The CIA serves the interests of the American ruling class, which are very different from the interests of the average American citizen (or the average citizen of any country for that matter).

[Dante]

There are greater threats to life and freedom than the CIA, methinks. Even if one were to acknowledge some threat from the CIA, it would only be as a tool of some other manipulator.

[Edric O]

There are greater threats to life and freedom than the CIA, methinks.

There are quite a few countries where the CIA really is the greatest threat to life and freedom, or at least it was at several points in the past.

[Tatar Khan]

I am not big on the ruling class, or how CIA is serving the ruling class (I guess you guys already know that) but I know one thing that if the government is not responsible to its people than under terms of social contract it would be broken. Overall that means that if the government doesn't serve they have to fix it. In other words if the American government is not representing the people, due to their misinterpretation of the definition it is up to the people to fix. There is enough history of civil rights movements there to draw on for people. No system is perfect and it must remain flexible to adjust to different stresses that the world is putting on it. America adjusted the definition of who are the people according to the government quiet a lot through its history.

As for threats to lifes and freedoms due to CIA in some countries well as long as it is in other countries rather than US and not hurting American interests more than it is serving them  CIA is still doing nothing wrong, just its job.

[Sneakgab]

Since when was wrong or right defined by whether you're doing you're job or not? The torturers employed by tyrants are also doing their jobs, which serve the interests of the government that employs them along with the interests of those influencing the government. Clearly this does not justify their actions. I don't see how actions can be justified based on serving random people in power or on hurting citizens of one nationality to help others (unless it's better over all, but obviously not the objective here). So CIA is justified in murdering British to get something for the Americans. Then, is MI6 justified in murdering Americans for the sake of the British? The only way to justify both acts is so to say that simply serving you're government is justified, but I'd say that falls under ''serving random people in power'' as above. Besides, ''each man owes a greater loyalty to each other than to some nation, as all men are brothers''. I qoute Acriku's sig because that's something I've felt for a while now. Why do we define ourselves through nationality. Killing anyone is as bad as killing somebody of you're own country, and being ruled by a foreign dictatorship is as bad as being ruled by you're own. Being ''British'' or ''American'' doesn't mean anything other than you are subject to their rights (at least you're supposed to be) and generally their constitution

Besides, the CIA don't even truly serve American interests. They just serve the interests of the oligarchy and their corrupt officials in government. Still, they are serving the people in power. If that is justification ( a moral axiom really) of an act then one only needs to find the right people to forgo any concerns regarding his actions. Want to rape and pillage? just find a place where the bandits are the true power and proceed.''

''Overall that means that if the government doesn't serve they have to fix it. In other words if the American government is not representing the people, due to their misinterpretation of the definition it is up to the people to fix. There is enough history of civil rights movements there to draw on for people.''

''There are quite a few countries where the CIA really is the greatest threat to life and freedom, or at least it was at several points in the past.''

Yes, definitely. I think the CIA is very much ''under-rated'' and taken to lightly considering their actions. They have replaced many elected leaders with dictators and have interfered many times against the interests (or at least the interests of the ''democratically'' elected leader who is supposed to hold their interest, though obviously the interference did not have the true interests of the pop in mind regardless) of the populations of many countries. I might go so far as to say that never has this much damage been done without relying on open warfare. Of course most of that is in the past, but the CIA's current actions will also be called ''in the past'' by the time  they are declassified (if ever) and anyone gets to find about them. Bleh, there are no uproars over what happened in the past it seems, so as long as people only find out late enough one apparently need not fear retribution or consequence. 

[Tatar Khan]

1 when you say corruption please give examples and indicated instances of such. I am not saying that  there are corruption free government, that is impossible but I want to have specific examples.

To answer the question about the whether secret service of one country has the right to kill, torture, etc people from another country the answer yes as long as the laws of the secret service's home country do not make that illegal. Why? they have a right because they progressing the interest of their people. And this could mean anything from greater security, to greater economic interest, to feeding the hungry in their country, to making sure that prices for certain products stay low. Why are they allowed to cause pain to other countries because why should they sacrifice the well being of their people for some people of another nation? Those people do not pay taxes to you, they did not elect you. So thus you have no responsibility to them.

In the end it comes down to your people come first, survival of your people come first, their wellbeing, their happiness. Everything else is secondary.

[Edric O]

To answer the question about the whether secret service of one country has the right to kill, torture, etc people from another country the answer yes as long as the laws of the secret service's home country do not make that illegal.

So the existing law is your only measure of right and wrong? What if the law is wrong or unjust? What if the law permits genocide? Does a secret service have a right to commit genocide as long as this is legal under the laws of their country?

If you answer yes, you should have been a defence attorney at Nurenberg. :P

Why? they have a right because they progressing the interest of their people.

As I said before, there is no reason to believe that a secret service is necessarily serving the interests of the people. Secret services are controlled by powerful government leaders, not by average people. Therefore secret services will serve the interests of powerful government leaders, which may or may not coincide with the interests of the people.

In the end it comes down to your people come first, survival of your people come first, their wellbeing, their happiness. Everything else is secondary.

Nations are artificial constructs and national borders are arbitrary. There is no good reason to separate "your people" from "other people."