Constitutionality of the CIA

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

In the How we trained Al-Queda (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51089) thread, Gelatinous Cube said,


More often than not, it's a result of Government incompetence coming up with incompetent ideas, as opposed to anything sinister. I believe we would be better off without a CIA to perpetuate these kinds of thing [referring to the troubles and intervention in the Balkans]--the CIA is terrible unconstitutional. As is the FBI, but at least it has proven it's worth.

I've never heard that before. I mean, yeah, the Constitution doesn't say we should have a Central Intelligence Agency, but it also doesn't say we should have an Air Force. Care to explain, Cube?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It allows the president to bypass Checks and Balances, by giving him a separate organization that is entirely devoid of the checks and balances system. Our Government was made to counter-balance itself, so nobody gets too powerful, but presidents have been using the CIA to make the Executive office more and more important ever since it's establishment.
Sounds like it fits the bill, but could you give me a little more info, maybe some specifics? I don't know much about it.

And what should we do about the situation, in your opinion? The CIA has to be better than having no intelligence agency, right? Even if their wrong or crazy the majority of the time, wouldn't it be better than having our heads in the sand?

[Don Corleone]

The CIA doesn't live outside the checks & balances philosophy. There's a Senate Intelligence Committee, and if Senator Patrick 'Leaky' Leahy would quit divulging 'eyes only' information to the press, they might start hearing what the CIA is up to again.

EDIT: Okay, GC, just read your post closer. You're right, they're not truly accountable. Why? Because a Senate committee meeting has been deemed unsecure. Why? Why can't your Democratic senators abide the law and keep their mouths shut about what they find out?

And I hate to be rude, but it's Central Intelligence Agency, not Counter.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Most, if not nearly all, had not commited any crimes, unless you count being a communist a crime. And while I disagree with Communism, ones privilage to express their political viewpoints peacefully is 100% protected under the 1st Amendment.
To nitpick in an off-topic manner so very briefly, I agree with the part about expressing the political viewpoints peacefully and all that. But wasn't the Communist party (or parties?) in the USA actively trying to overthrow the government? My history isn't that great on the subject, but maybe there were a few cases where scrutiny was justified.

But I digress.


The CIA and FBI are more or less autonomous and answerable mostly to the president.

I still wait to hear what you think we should do about this. It's a pretty interesting topic. :book:

EDIT: You're not being rude, Don. Central it is. Thanks for the catch. I wasn't sure, so I went with... the wrong word.

[Don Corleone]

So you would agree with the Democrats' policy of publishing committe notes to their staffers, who then diffuse them to the press, possibly jeopradizing agents across the globe?

In light of the Democrats, and their pack of hounds the mainstream American media going after the administration on Valerie Plame, who outed herself, mind you, this is a laughable position.

You guys need to learn to stick to issues you have credibility on. Protecting covert intelligence is not what the Democrats in the senate want to hang their hats on, trust me. It'll get really ugly if you make us trade Karl for Pat Leahy.

[Don Corleone]

I am so sorry, GC. Your logic is overwhelming, and yet, I, a simpleton, fail to grasp it. On September 12th, the entire country of the United States wanted to know who had done this to us the day before, and why.

Should I understand you properly, it is your argument we need not know these things. I'm sorry, I'm not all that bright, I'd like to, actually. Can you explain to me why I don't need to know? Or, in absence of that, can you explain to me how you intend to explain to me the inner workings of terrorist camps?

[Don Corleone]

Beghorah! Our next president, and here, sure enough, posting in our Backroom Tavern Forum!!!

Eliminate the CIA and you'll eliminate the need for them!!! Brilliant!!!

Does the same hold true with my taxes, by the way? When you eliminate them, you'll also eliminate the need for them??? Brilliant!!! ~D

[Don Corleone]

Ladies and gentlemen, please, remove your hats. We have a true American hero here. GC knows how to spot terrorists the moment they enter the country and will take any risk, including dogfighting a hijacked plane to the ground, the moment the start trouble. He will respect their rights, seek no foreign intelligence, but the moment they begin their nefarious deeds, he will be there, ever vigilent, ready to put an end to it. He will provide this protection around America and its possessions, around the clock. What's more, as long as they are out there, he will not sleep. God bless you, GC.

[Don Corleone]

Don't be an ass. Good advice, to be heeded by the recipient, and the giver.

Do I believe an intelligence force, acting in a foreign land, granting all people they encounter the rights American citizens enjoy could survive, let alone gather intelligence? No. They cannot. It is a compromise we make. Personally, if it's us, here in New York or London or the terrorists in Damascus or Riyadh, I choose us. You seem to be indifferent. Fair enough.

What I will challenge you on is effectivity. Every recommendation you just made was disputed by the 'Blue Ribbon 9/11 panel". They argued for a more centralized intelligence community, with much more overseas human intelligence. You're saying a few extra FBI agents, disband the CIA, and we'll be all set.

No offense GC, cause I like a lot of your other arguments, but here, you're being a fool. It's us or them. And if you think disbanding the CIA is going to make the terrorists like us and stop bombing us, you really, truly don't know what they're after.

[Don Corleone]

GC, I hate to break it you. As a former Idealist myself, I salute you, and for the moment, I do not mock you, adult life is about compromise. This is the sad fact of life that makes adolescents hate anyone older than them, throughout history. You gain knowledge, and then knowledge inside knowledge and feel cheated. This dates back as far as knowledge has been recorded. I can't help you, but I can empathize.

How do you protect yourself against a hostile neighbor (and in the age of jet travel, we're all neighbors) without bending your principles? I agree with you, it should always be a bend, not a break, and we should always know what the bend is. But your ivory tower isn't gone, it never existed. Sacco & Banzetti were two Italian anarchists who got here last century. In the 1700s, we had all sorts of dubious foreign influences, like the French (just kidding, Louis, Louis, Meneldil & Brenus). All kidding aside, it's a terrible problem. How do you balance your right to be safe against your desire to be true? Well, if you have a good answer, work hard and get into Harvard Law, and go work for the Government, cause I'm honestly waiting for it. I'm just a silly engineer who makes electronics who can see in the absence of something better, we have what we have.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And if you think disbanding the CIA is going to make the terrorists like us and stop bombing us, you really, truly don't know what they're after.

Well I think hes saying if it were not for the CIA we wouldnt have terrorists in the first place. I hate to say it but the more I study it the more it seems to be true.

[King of Atlantis]

Well I think hes saying if it were not for the CIA we wouldnt have terrorists in the first place. I hate to say it but the more I study it the more it seems to be true.

Terrorist are extremist that fight with terro. I hardly think there wouldn be any terrorist without the CIA. Islamic extremit hate islamic non extremist. :dizzy2:

[Xiahou]

Now I admit, I only skimmed this thread- but I don't see where the CIA is unconstitutional. If you want to argue it has done some bad things, that's a seperate matter. But I don't buy the checks and balances argument- the armed forces are also primarily accountable to the commander and chief, but no one is saying that's counter to checks/balances.

Show me what I'm missing. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Terrorist are extremist that fight with terro. I hardly think there wouldn be any terrorist without the CIA. Islamic extremit hate islamic non extremist.

Were there Islamic extremist terrorists before the CIA and Europe got involved in the Middle east? Do you think they would be attacking the US if we never bothered them? Im beggining to see the light here. I never trusted the government and now I know why. If we had just minded our own bussiness this wouldnt be going on. Everyone thinks their James Bond. Please go refute some of what I posted in the AQ thread. None of my fellow conservatives have seen fit to do so so far. Seems were playing good terrorist, bad terrorist here.

[sharrukin]

Were there Islamic extremist terrorists before the CIA and Europe got involved in the Middle east? Do you think they would be attacking the US if we never bothered them? Im beggining to see the light here. I never trusted the government and now I know why. If we had just minded our own bussiness this wouldnt be going on. Everyone thinks their James Bond. Please go refute some of what I posted in the AQ thread. None of my fellow conservatives have seen fit to do so so far. Seems were playing good terrorist, bad terrorist here.

The CIA is just a blooded sword, wielded by those in power. They are the one's who bear the responsibility IMO, not the guys carrying out the orders. Supporting insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters is something that is done simply because it is cheap and easy to do. It is very unwise to teach disaffected people how to overthrow governments and fight guerilla wars, as you never know what they might do with these skills. Many western governments have chosen the easy way, and end up paying a long term price. Or rather the one's who suffer at the hands of these groups pay the price.

[King of Atlantis]

Were there Islamic extremist terrorists before the CIA and Europe got involved in the Middle east?

In power....


Do you think they would be attacking the US if we never bothered them? Im beggining to see the light here.

If it wasn't for U.S aid there probably wouldn't be an isreal, so no, probably not attacking the U.S though.


I never trusted the government and now I know why. If we had just minded our own bussiness this wouldnt be going on. Everyone thinks their James Bond. Please go refute some of what I posted in the AQ thread. None of my fellow conservatives have seen fit to do so so far. Seems were playing good terrorist, bad terrorist here.

I don't trust the gov ether. Thats why limitng freedom of privacy is very bad in my opinion.

I still don't see any evidence that,


if it were not for the CIA we wouldnt have terrorists in the first place.

maybe no AQ attacking america, but that isnt what you said. You seemed to change your position that there wouldn't be any terrorist to there wouldnt be any islamic terrorist.

[Redleg]

Yes. The CIA is a tool, misused by presidents.

That however does not make the CIA unconstitutional. Neither does the percieved lack of checks and balances by the U.S. Congress. THere is a Senate Intelligence Committee that is suppose to oversee all aspects of the Intelligence Community.

If Congress fails to uphold their obligations and responsiblities under the Consitution - does not make an agency unconstitutional.


JURISDICTION
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.


And the Closed committee does meet.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/hr109.htm


From this website - an interesting read by the way
http://www.geocities.com/dulfkotte/blackbudget.html


In 1947, the National Security Act created the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Organization (CIA) and consolidated the US military into one entity, the Department of Defense (DoD). One of the issues that remained unresolved from the creation and operation of the CIA was the extent to which its budget and intelligence activities would remain a secret. According to Article 1, sec. 9, of the US Constitution, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” This constitutional requirement conflicted with the need for secrecy concerning Congressional appropriations for the CIA. The solution was for Congress to pass legislation approving the secrecy over the funding mechanisms used for the CIA and its intelligence related activities. The necessary bill was passed with great haste and minimal debate causing considerable concern among those few Congressmen brave enough to openly challenge the constitutionality of the Act. [3] Congressman Emmanuel Celler of New York voted for the bill but protested: “If the members of the Armed Services Committee can hear the detailed information to support this bill, why cannot the entire membership? Are they the Brahmins and we the untouchables? Secrecy is the answer.” [4] Celler, like the majority of Congressmen, passed the CIA Act very much like the wealthy father viewed the birth of an illegitimate child, appropriate care would be taken to provide for the child, but there would be no official admission of patrimony and the responsibility that entails.


Now this points out that the formation of the CIA was within constitutional rules - but that the funding is of questionable constitutionality.

Personally I think you are mixing your arguement by calling both the FBI and CIA unconstitutional - because in their formation - ie the constitution does allow the government to form such agencies.

From the constitution

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

This allows for secrecy of committee actions - straight out of the constitution itself.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now I am not a constitional expert - but I do believe this gives congress the authority to make law to establish such agencies as the FBI and CAI.

As the above post link and tidbit pasted from that link states - the questionable part of the CIA is this statement in the Constitution.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Yep hiding money is unconstitutional - however it was included in the public law passed by Congress. It does make for an interesting conflict between two aspects of the constitution. But correct me if I am wrong the overall budget of the CIA is published in the GAO report - but the aspects of taking money from other agencies - is kept secert but the budget is reported in full.

It is an interesting loophole that might be unconsitutional - and if not should be- that the government found when the CIA was formed. But that aspect of the CIA does not make the whole agency unconsitutional - it just makes it budget process unconstitutional.

Even the IRS is not unconstitutional as an organization - since the government is allowed to collect taxes. However some of the methods the IRS uses are in my opinion unconstitutional.

[Redleg]

Unconstitional is a very large term to use on them. Indeed, I would be better suited to say that some of what they do is unconstitutional, and that the basis for their forming is questionable at best.


And that is a statement I would completely agree with, and then I would hold Congress more responsible for passing bad legislation that allows these government agencies to act that way - and for the Supreme Court for failing to do its job and rule on the constitutionality of the law - not there interpation of the law.



I think the track record of both organizations speak for themselves. The FBI has gone from bad, to good, to heading back towards bad; and the CIA went from bad, to worse, to evil. Personally, I'd like to see some kind of reformation; but as has been pointed out so clearly to me by many who've posted in this thread--it's not that easy. That doesn't mean the problem should be ignored, though.

Reform of the United States Congress is where it all starts. The congress has gotten lazy and have legislated their powers to other agencies and to the president in direct violation of the constitution - ie the war powers act, the areas of both agencies that you are questioning, the IRS, and a few others.

The nation can not just reform the FBI and the CIA without first getting congress to actually follow the responsiblities that are in the constitution. And this particlur laziness of the congress is the fault of both politicial parties .