By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. That is where
accountability ends. They don't have to explain themselves to you.
How effective is this oversight? I think the vast majority Members of
Congress in general do not have the cognitive skills to understand
the issues that the CIA creates. Let alone come to an agreement on
how to handle the agency.
To summarize the problem: the CIA is has about 20.000 employees.
Which is substantially bigger then in the 1950s where they had maybe
about 4-5.000. They are an intelligence office. They started out
gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities
and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for
some years.
Now, we know they spy on Congress. Manipulate congress. Overthrow
governments. Steer elections. But who controls them? With no
oversight they basically do 'whatever' and 'whatever' is quite a
dangerous thing to do. Now, in hindsight, I don't care if they go
around the world and bully people into playing nice. But that is
besides the point.
The problem is the culture. Recent breaches of security contractors
have shown that information technology information gatherers (ITIG)
employs a lot of clowns. Like you, you want a polarized version of
the world where the CIA is bad. Just bad. And by your own admission
you don't even care what they do, you are just looking to punish
them. That is not a data driven assessment, it's just operating on
assumptions. Which is what the U.S. Government's foreign policies are
based on. Which is why I know that either a. the CIA does not hold
it's information gathering capabilities to a professional standard,
or b, they listen to clowns.
And this brings us back to the CIA who is SUPPOSED TO JUST FUCKING BE
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT. Instead they gave middle management a gun and told
them to go fix things in the world. Middle management has always been
decorated five U.S. flags, with sprinkles with red white and blue and
enough U.S. jingoism to fill a stadium. I.e. it created the CIA.
Now I assume, as a Congressional committee, that every time you ask
the CIA for a report on a foreign issue they do a little sing and
dance and ask for more money to go solve it. Because the following
things are *always* valid: a. They can claim they have limited
capabilities to get men on the ground. and b. With the right people
and equipment and amount of cash Congress does not have to send in
the military if things get really nasty if they solve it for them.
Other then that I don't think people working for the CIA are that
different from the majority in that they polarize the world to
preserve their sanity: They want every Arab to be bad. And actively
want to know everything about them, just to make them look bad. They
know that ever Congress Member or committee might not vote in their
best interest, so everyone needs to be manipulated.
And if I had a track record of overthrowing governments, fixing
elections and operating with impunity overseas because foreign
governments *allow* them. I'd be feeling pretty awesome about myself
too. All the while they are operating under the grace of congress.
This is not the only institute that grew out of control in the United
States.
And the fact that I don't sleep well is that even if I printed this
piece of text on a piece of paper and went around congress and tacked
it on each of their foreheads it would not change anything. It is
just that to be make a person aware of a problem does not give them
the skills or knowledge to deal with it.
And really, all congress has to do is take the gun away from middle
management. This ofc is a bad analogy. I believe everyone should be
able to carry a gun if they please.
Are you suggesting CIA, NSA, FBI, etc ought do what they will,
except ath someone is able to say that what they've been doing is
not in U.S. best interest? That sounds inane.
I am not even in U.S. nor a U.S. citizen - to me your statement
sounds highly problematic and indicative and problematic
nationalist think.
Yes. I like my country. I has lots of nice people.
Yes we need a balance of powers in the world - we need national
strength and unity, but this applies to all countries, not just to
the U.S.!
Considering what you said about the problems with nationalistic think
in your last paragraph I take this as an admission you're well versed
in doublethink.
Collections of power, as happens with govt, attract more power
abusers than benevolent dictators, unfortunately. For this reason,
a one world government would be doomed from the outset. We need a
strong Russia, a strong America, and strong small countries etc.
I don't need a stronk Russia. Russian culture is not conducive to how
I'd like people to run things. Emphasis on people. Not the government.
It's the only hope for any long term semblance of balance. If the
world we a single U.S.A.W. entity, Snowden could never have
happened. Of course Snowden required a courageous individual too,
but it would have required someone willing to actually give up the
rest of their life if there were no possbility of sanction anywhere
in the world.
The Ed event would still have happened. It is just the retarded
notion that to be make a person aware of somehow gives them the
insight to deal with it.
You might reconsider your push to have someone other than yourself
somehow prove that the CIA's actions over the decades have not been
in U.S. best interests, or that this is a relevant question!
I frankly don't care. I just don't want them to have the ability to
muck things up. Because it kinda proves they have issues. I don't
mind them doing good for the wrong reasons. It's doing bad for the
right reasons.
The CIA has very well funded issues. VERY WELL FUNDED... VERY WELL...
VERY... WELL... funded? And if they don't get the funds directly they
start running dope and sell guns.
So, CIA's issues are a domestic issue. So I'm pointing my finger at
Congress. And since this is a democracy I'm kinda limited to the rule
of the majority.
