Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Factional Rule
It's simple really -- through careful use of the courts versus seeking democratic legislative redress, via bureaucratic warfare given voice via the mainstream media and additionally by giving voice to enemy propaganda via the traditional media, the minority voice is not merely protected. It is amplified. The minority voice is elevated from whisper to equal status with that of the majority.
Well, that ain't right folks. It should be protected, but it doesn't merit equal time, equal mindshare. And when violations of law are condoned or encouraged to amplify the impact of the minority policy, at some point, the law needs to be enforced -- speaking specifically of leaky CIA-types. The consistent promotion and amplification of minoritarian policies to undermine the effects of democratic elections at some point renders the democracy endangered, and impedes its ability to act forcefully. That is no way to provide for the common defense or foreign affairs, the province of the executive.
2 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jul 11, 06:23:00 PM:
I think with the demise of the USSR, the CIA lost some of its raison d'etre. It became a bloated, inert bureaucracy without a clear mission. Instead of agents, you had analysts and policy-types who naturally disagreed at times. Operational security grew lax due to a lack of urgency. The agency got fat and political. So when the elected folks drive policy away from select bureaucratic factions, they run to the press for any number of reasons - have their way, make money, whatever. Scheuer, Plame and Clarke (NSC) are all examples of rogue blabbermouths who think their ideas should supplant those of democratically elected leaders.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 11, 09:47:00 PM:
It didn't suddenly become a bloated bureacracy after the fall of the USSR, it was already on its way. As I've mentioned before, the risk averse 'play it safe' legalistic corporate haze began to set in with the Carter administration.
Possibly excluding the latest batch of operatives mobilized for the Long War (tm), the CIA doesn't have warriors running it anymore. It has paper pushers and careerists who don't know what it's like to risk life and limb in battle against an enemy and *win*, and they don't care.
The willingness of these types of people to blab state secrets to whomever they please (a phenomenon that exists in Military Intelligence also) for personal benefit or satisfaction (mostly related to that ultimate tool in the spy's arsenal, ego) is depressing. It's the movers and doers who have the most respect for secrecy and effiency, but the least overall knowledge of Agency affairs ("need to know") and impact on strategy.
