Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The CIA: Setting the bar very low
The CIA is congratulating itself for having "plugged" leaks to the media.
Andy McCarthy:
I haven't decided what's more pathetic, the thought that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a bright man whose main job is to anticipate what our enemies might do next and whose other job is four-star general, may actually think the kind of strategic leaking we've seen for years can be stopped by "an in-house policy of open communication"; or the thought of a public official who thinks a good way to relieve his "frustrations" is to violate a solemn oath, commit a felony, compromise our national security secrets, and abet those trying to kill us.
Frankly, I just want our spies to keep our secrets and not subvert the policies of our elected officials. Apparently, that is too much to ask from the CIA, which really should enact a simple rule that bars any employee of that agency other than designated press officers from communicating to or for the benefit of any reporter, under any circumstances, about any matter involving the United States. Knowing violation of that rule should involve automatic termination, whether or not the subject of the discussion is classified. Too demanding you say? Why? Any public company has the same rule, and the stakes are much lower.
MORE: This story suggests that the CIA has, in fact, failed to plug the leaks, victory lap notwithstanding.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed May 23, 01:03:00 PM:
The folks who run the CIA are political appointees who come and go. Political appointees are short-timers.
People forget that most CIA employees are career civil servants. They are protected by civil service rules like any other non-appointed government employee. Some have distain for the policy dictates they are given. Some think they know better than their bosses (and that may be true). So it's easy to drag their feet, obfuscate and otherwise be uncooperative when they get intructions they don't like. If their bosses insist they do something they don't want to do, they leak to the press to throw a monkeywrench into the works.
Some actively pursue foreign policy objectives that are contrary to what their elected official boss wants them to do. There are many examples of this.
Employees of the CIA are not like employees of the fishery commission, or the department of agriculture. Their's is a direct and vital national security function. One's who don't get with the program should resign or be fired.
By 
Kent's Imperative, at
Wed May 23, 02:14:00 PM:
http://kentsimperative.blogspot.com/2007/05/another-broken-oath.html
We would second Tigerhawk’s statement: “Frankly, I just want our spies to keep our secrets and not subvert the policies of our elected officials.”
Being better versed in the distinctions within the world of espionage, we expect nothing from the spies – the recruited agents whose lives are written in treachery – but we expect the highest standards from the intelligence officers and analysts who are the professionals of our community. We have seen too often the terrible cost when those standards are not met.
By , at
Wed May 23, 02:22:00 PM:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Iran-planning-strike-on-Europe-analyst/2007/05/23/1179601443913.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/22/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iran.php
Time to nuke the bastards, without mercy.
By sammy small, at
Wed May 23, 02:32:00 PM:
The leak of these types of secret initiatives by CIA opportunists just may have the opposite effect in the long run and force a more deadly confrontation to occur as a result. But then again, these type of leakers are probably unable to rationally look past today's righteous political cause.
Maybe its time to provide agency wide polygraph tests on a regular basis, just like the old drug testing.
By skipsailing, at
Wed May 23, 02:38:00 PM:
Recently I listened to a BBC interview of John Bolton. Setting aside my opinion that the interviewer was a snotty, smarmy SOB I noted with interest that Mr Bolton took the British foreign Service to task.
He essentially said that the British civil servants in the Foreign office should obey orders when they are clearly given. Further Bolton stated his opinion that Blair's policies were being subverted by the bureaucracy.
I've been saying this about our Government for a long while now. My friends we are in the midst of a coup d'etat.
The standing government is now so large and so unaccountable that our perogatives as voters are being reduced continually.
this CIA leak is a perfect example, but we've seen case after case of leaks from them and from State. The standing government doesn't approve of the choices made by our elected president, in essence the man who represents the majority, so they are attempting to limit his policy options.
that's a coup. We don't run this government, it now runs us.
Are we really OK with that? Are we really OK with a huge, unaccountable and wickedly expensive government sucking up a significant chunk of our effort and then doing as they please?
It is not surprising that the only sector of the economy that is seeing growth in union membership is the public sector. TS Eliot got it right: not with a bang, but a whimper.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 23, 08:27:00 PM:
"The standing government doesn't approve of the choices made by our elected president, in essence the man who represents the majority, so they are attempting to limit his policy options."
The State Department has been doing that a hundred years.
By , at
Wed May 23, 08:53:00 PM:
Knowing violation of that rule should involve automatic termination
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
