![]() | 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 | → | Archive 5 |
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.
The "NPOV" poster below scoffed at the 100,000 illegal acitivites number:
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. -- V V 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: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
!!! 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
I have removed the following statements from the section labeled "Other":
They are clearly POV and have no place in a serious encyclopedia. Taco Deposit 21:12, Jun 10, 2004 (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 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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
I posted the following to User talk:4.242.153.136:
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)
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
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?
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
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
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).
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."
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.
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)
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
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)
"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."
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)
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) .
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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 ( ??? ??????) 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
There have been repeated changes in the wording of that section by User:205.134.16.55.
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:
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.
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
-- Greasysteve13 10:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be taking aim to make the world more efficient?
-- Creighton Brown, 17:21 2006.02.05 GMT+12
===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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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".
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)
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:
Signed: Travb ( talk) 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
User has been blocked: User:Akademy-force yeah! Travb ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
<ref name = " "> {{cite book |
<ref name = " "> {{cite journal |
<ref name = " "> {{cite web |
<ref name = " "> |
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)
Hmpf, interesting... Well, problem solved then. -- Scotteh 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 5 |
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.
The "NPOV" poster below scoffed at the 100,000 illegal acitivites number:
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. -- V V 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: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
!!! 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
I have removed the following statements from the section labeled "Other":
They are clearly POV and have no place in a serious encyclopedia. Taco Deposit 21:12, Jun 10, 2004 (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 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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
I posted the following to User talk:4.242.153.136:
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)
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
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?
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
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
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).
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."
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.
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)
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
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)
"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."
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)
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) .
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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 ( ??? ??????) 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
There have been repeated changes in the wording of that section by User:205.134.16.55.
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:
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.
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
-- Greasysteve13 10:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be taking aim to make the world more efficient?
-- Creighton Brown, 17:21 2006.02.05 GMT+12
===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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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".
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)
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:
Signed: Travb ( talk) 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
User has been blocked: User:Akademy-force yeah! Travb ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
<ref name = " "> {{cite book |
<ref name = " "> {{cite journal |
<ref name = " "> {{cite web |
<ref name = " "> |
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)
Hmpf, interesting... Well, problem solved then. -- Scotteh 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)