Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 04:18 AM Mar 2014

The CIA Has Brought Darkness to America by Fighting in the Shadow

After 9/11 the agency was given free rein to break the rules but when allowed to play dirty abroad, it's difficult to stop at home


Little more than a week after 9/11, Cofer Black gave instructions to his CIA team before their mission. "I don't want Bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead … I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want Bin Laden's head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to show Bin Laden's head to the president. I promised him I would do that."

A month later, at a meeting sponsored by Schwab Capital markets, CIA executive director "Buzzy" Krongard laid out for investors what such a war would entail. "[It] will be won in large measure by forces you do not know about, in actions you will not see and in ways you may not want to know about," he said.

Back then there wasn't a treaty that couldn't be violated, a principle waived or a definition parsed in the defence of American power and pursuit of popular revenge. To invoke the constitution, the Geneva convention or democratic oversight was evidence that you were out of your depth in the new reality. Laws were for the weak; for the powerful there was force. This was not just the mood of a moment; it has been policy for more than a decade.

Obama's arrival offered a shift in focus and style but not in direction or substance. "I don't want [people at the CIA] to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders," he said shortly before his first inauguration. It was never difficult to see what could go wrong with this approach. But it has, nonetheless, been shocking to see how wrong things have gone. As covert operations were shielded from oversight, so human rights violations became not just inevitable but routine.


much more:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/09-8

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The CIA Has Brought Darkness to America by Fighting in the Shadow (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 OP
K&R DeSwiss Mar 2014 #1
The CIA gave more to Hollywood Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #2
I really hated that movie. nilesobek Mar 2014 #11
Iching, most Americans do not know how true this is. dotymed Mar 2014 #3
I wonder how many are in the Ukraine...nt newfie11 Mar 2014 #4
Very interesting. We all know their budget is $50 billion, yet nobody talks about what they do with reformist2 Mar 2014 #5
The Budgets for the NSA, CIA Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #6
Wow. And yet some people would claim the CIA is not involved at all in the Ukraine, lol! reformist2 Mar 2014 #7
Interesting story Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #10
what's that Nietzsche quote about fighting monsters? hobbit709 Mar 2014 #8
The abyss gazes also into you... Junkdrawer Mar 2014 #9
 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
1. K&R
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 04:56 AM
Mar 2014
''Not telling the truth to someone…in my opinion...is a crime. But what is a bigger crime is knowing that we are being lied to and turning our head the other way. We become the bigger liars.''

~Christina Rasmussen

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
2. The CIA gave more to Hollywood
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 06:26 AM
Mar 2014

in the movie 'Zero Dark Thirty' than what the Senate got because they could control the propaganda.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
11. I really hated that movie.
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 04:45 PM
Mar 2014

Somehow I was to feel sorry for the torturers and their hard lives? Outrageous! It wasn't even good propaganda.

dotymed

(5,610 posts)
3. Iching, most Americans do not know how true this is.
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 07:30 AM
Mar 2014

I live next to Ft. Campbell, Ky. The home of the 101st Airborne and many black ops trained troops.
I know one of these troops personally. While he cannot tell me the where's and details, I observe his sudden deployments, they are almost constant. He is a very brave man and while being a Sargent he earns the salary of a colonel (I assume by his home and lifestyle). He gets paid the hazard pay (plus other pay I would imagine) that combat troops earn while they are in a war zone. He earns this combat pay every month even though he is officially stationed stateside. He has to be ready to leave at a moments notice. We (he,his wife and I) have been out enjoying ourselves, he will get a call and have to leave immediately. His deployments, to areas of the world that we are not officially involved in, typically last from a week to many months. Then he suddenly returns.
His family are great people (as is he but very secretive) and when he is on long deployments, he usually gets a short R&R where his family is flown (usually to Hawaii) for a few days visit.
He has never broken his vow of secrecy but he has acknowledged to me that if most Americans knew of the location and scope of his deployments, we would be shocked. He has lost some comrades, while they are not officially recognized deaths, at these times he is particularly solemn.
This is just one person, at one Army base. He has many comrades from all over the world.
Black-ops are very real and very frequent and Americans have no idea of them.
The seal team six pilot was from Ft. Campbell attended my daughters church. He is no longer alive, killed in a different "op."
The internationally illegal things they are ordered to do are not usually the heroic stuff that many imagine. I have had the privilege of knowing the family for about 6 years and sometimes, although extremely well trained both physically and emotionally, after many deployments, I detect a lot of sorrow in him and I wonder, "how long can any person take these horrors before they crack?
He is still going strong but I wouldn't want his top secret, violent job. BTW, he IS a ghost. He is very quiet and most people would not remember having seen him unless they noticed his physical strength.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
5. Very interesting. We all know their budget is $50 billion, yet nobody talks about what they do with
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 07:48 AM
Mar 2014

all that money!

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
6. The Budgets for the NSA, CIA
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 08:13 AM
Mar 2014

and DOD black Ops operations are all hidden and classified but it looks like around $150 billion give or take if not more.


This is a good academic report from
Michael E. Salla, PhD
Center for Global Peace/School of International Service
American University
Washington DC


If you want to know more:

Excert......... and link:

http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm#Legal


Legal and Congressional Efforts to Disclose the CIA’s Black Budget


William Richardson was an ‘ordinary’ citizen who realized the inconsistency between the Constitution’s requirement that all government appropriations would have “a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures” published, and the CIA’s Act’s secrecy provision concerning the CIA budget. In 1967, Richardson made an effort to discover the true size of the CIA’s ‘black budget’ by writing a letter to the US Government Printing Office. He requested a copy of the CIA budget “published by the Government in compliance with Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the United States Constitution.”[x] [10] Richardson received replies from the US Treasury that essentially rebuffed his efforts and he decided to start a Federal court action against the US government.

He argued that the CIA Act was “repugnant to the Constitution” since it “operates to falsify the regular Statement and Account of all public Money.”[xi] [11] After three years of legal wrangling, Richardson’s case was dismissed by the Pittsburgh Federal Judge, Joseph P. Wilson, who decided that Richardson did not have ‘standing’ to sue the Federal government since he was not directly affected by issue at dispute. In short, the judge was taking the conservative legal position that a ‘generalized grievance’ is not a sufficient basis for a private citizen to take a US Federal Agency to court. Richardson appealed and in 1971, succeeded in having his case heard before a full bench of the United States Court of Appeals in Philadelphia (the penultimate legal court in the US). In his legal brief, Richardson claimed:

Never in the history of this country has so much money been spent without the traditional safeguard of openness and in direct defiance of constitutional provisions…. Billions are spent each year by unknown entities and this amount is spread throughout the Treasury’s reporting system to confuse the public and belittle the Constitution.[xii] [12]
The nine federal judges ruled in a 6-3 decision in 1972 that Richardson did have legal standing since the Court reasoned that a
… responsible and intelligent taxpayer and citizen, of course, wants to know how his tax money is spent. Without this information he cannot intelligently follow the actions of the Congress or the Executive. Nor can he properly fulfill his obligations as a member of the electorate.[xiii] [13]

Richardson had won an extraordinary, though ultimately short lived, legal victory. He had succeeded in arguing that the ‘black budget’ was inconsistent with his constitutional obligations and that the CIA Act had doubtful constitutional standing. The 1971 decision of the Court of Appeals is the closest any US court has come to ruling on the constitutionality of the CIA Act. The Court had effectively decided that Congress had no right to deprive American citizens knowledge of the true size of the appropriated money that was being channeled to the CIA through other government agencies.

The Federal Government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and in July 1974, the nine Supreme Court Justices ruled in a 5-4 decision, that Richardson did not have the legal standing to challenge the Federal government.[xiv] [14] Adopting a conservative legal position, the Court argued that Richardson’s suit was nothing more than a generalized political grievance by a citizen that needed to be dealt with through the political system, rather than the legal system. The Supreme Court concluded that it did not need to examine the merits of Richardson’s case, since he did not have legal standing to bring the suit to the Court. The Supreme Court thus overturned the earlier ruling of the US Court of Appeals. The immediate consequence was that the black budget would remain a secret for some years yet. Despite the setback, Richardson had demonstrated that the ‘black budget’ and the CIA Act that created it, had dubious constitutional standing, and only required a challenge from a party with legal standing to most likely have it struck from the statute books.[xv] [15]

In the 1970’s the black budget and its true size became for the first time a subject of intense congressional scrutiny. In the aftermath of the Vietnam war and the behavior of the intelligence community in sponsoring private wars throughout Indochina and elsewhere, the Senate decided in 1976 to elect a committee to investigate the CIA’s covert activities and the black budget for the intelligence community. In its final report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) found the black budget to be unconstitutional and recommended public disclosure of its size:

The budget procedures, which presently govern the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies of the Intelligence Community, prevent most members of Congress from knowing how much money is spent by any of these agencies or even how much money is spent on intelligence as a whole. In addition, most members of the public are deceived about the appropriations and expenditures of other government agencies whose budgets are inflated to conceal funds for the intelligence community.

The failure to provide this information to the public and to the Congress prevents either from effectively ordering priorities and violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution…. The Committee finds that publication of the aggregate figure for national intelligence would begin to satisfy the Constitutional requirement and would not damage the national security.[xvi] [16]

Unfortunately, the Church Committee’s recommendation was never implemented as the CIA Director (DCI), George Bush, successfully argued for the committee to hold off implementing its decision. The Committee voted 6-5 to hold off and the recommendation was never brought to the whole Senate for a decision.[xvii] [17]

It would have to wait until the 1990’s before Congress would once again take up the issue of the black budget. Ironically it was Congress that had provided the legislation that would be an effective mechanism to end the secrecy surrounding the size of the black budget. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed in 1966 and made it possible for individuals to gain access to the records of any federal government agency by making a written request.[xviii] [18] All agencies are required to disclose requested records except for information that falls under nine exemptions and three exclusions of the FOIA. The most relevant of these exemptions for the CIA Act was (b)(1) exemption 1 which says: “This exemption protects from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order.” If an agency refused to release information, the requestor could ask for a Federal judge to adjudicate whether the information did or didn’t qualify for the exemption claimed by the agency in withholding the relevant information.

In 1967 when Richardson first took legal action, he did not use the newly passed FOIA in requesting information about the CIA’s ‘black budget’ since he was challenging the constitutional basis of the black budget and CIA Act, rather than arguing that release of the figures would not pose a national security threat. Richardson rightly assumed that the CIA would not release information concerning the black budget on the grounds of national security, and that it could persuasively argue this before a federal judge qualifying for exemption from FOIA.

In 1996, President Clinton introduced a major change in the secrecy over the size of the black budget when he argued that its disclosure would not threaten national security. The DCI under Clinton, John Deutsch gave Congressional testimony that President Clinton was “persuaded that disclosure of the annual amount appropriated for intelligence purposes would inform the public and not, in itself, harm intelligence activities.”[xix] [19] President Clinton had effectively undercut the main legal barrier to the CIA indefinitely withholding the size of the black budget from an FOIA request. In 1997 the Federation of Atomic Scientists made an FOIA request to the CIA, to disclose the secret combined appropriations for the Intelligence community that comprises the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), and intelligence branches of the Air force, Navy and Army.[xx] [20] The DCI refused and the case eventually went before a Federal Court. In a last ditch effort to prevent disclosure of the ‘black budget’ the DCI persuaded both the Senate[xxi] [21] and the House of Representatives[xxii] [22] to vote against amendments that would have recommended its disclosure.

The CIA’s efforts were to no avail and in 1997 the Federal Judge decided in favor of the FAS that the ‘black budget’ could be disclosed without harming the national security of the US. In what was the first major crack in the official secrecy surrounding the CIA’s budget and its intelligence activities, the CIA subsequently decided to release for the first time the size of its ‘official’ black budget (appropriations drawn from single line items on the DoD budget), but reserved the right to not disclose this figure in future. For the fiscal year of 1997, the combined aggregate appropriations for the Intelligence Community (black budget) was said to be 26.6 billion dollars.[xxiii] [23]



The ‘official’ black budget for the CIA can be estimated by using the percentage of the black budget for the intelligence community that went to the CIA as opposed to other intelligence agencies from DoD appropriations. According to Victor Marchetti and John Marks, the CIA portion of the intelligence black budget was 750 million from 6.228 billion (approximately 12%) for 1973.[xxiv] [24] Victor Marchetti and John Marks put the overall intelligence budget at $6.228 billion for 1973, of which the CIA disposed of $750 million. According to David Wise

In 1975 the entire CIA budget was hidden within a $2 billion appropriation for "Other Procurement, Air Force." The $12 billion total for all U.S. intelligence, much higher than previous estimates, was indicated in the report of the Senate intelligence committee.[xxv] [25]

Wise’s estimate suggests that the proportion of the intelligence black budget that goes to the CIA is closer to approximately 16.7% than the 12.0% estimated by Marchetti and Mark. At the other end, the Federation of Atomic Scientists, using 1998 figures, estimated that the CIA’s portion of the black budget was 11.5%.[xxvi] [26] If 12% is taken as the more accurate estimate of the CIA portion of the black budget, then this suggests that of the 26.6 billion dollars Tenet disclosed went to the Intelligence Community from DoD appropriations, approximately $3.2 billion (12%) was the official ‘black budget’ of the CIA. The 1998 estimate converts to $3.5 billion in 2002 terms, and compares quite favorable with the 1953 figures that presumably made up DoD appropriations for the CIA black budget that can be converted to approximately $3.4 billion in 2002 using CPI adjustments.[xxvii] [27] Consequently it appears that much of the mystery surrounding the black budget of the CIA and the intelligence community had been ended once official figures for the CIA were released through FOIA in 1997.

However, it will now be argued that the figures released by Tenet in 1997 for the ‘official black budget’ for the intelligence community, and earlier estimates dating from 1953 data, committee reports in the 1970’s, is disinformation intended to steer analysts, Congress and the general public away from the true size of the CIA’s black budget. It will be argued that the ‘unofficial’ CIA black budget, in terms of Congressional appropriations and other funds the CIA transfers through other government departments and agencies far exceeds the ‘official’ black budget (DoD appropriations earmarked for the intelligence community), and has been well disguised as a major purpose of the CIA ever since its creation. The major purpose of the CIA is to act as a funnel for the combined black budgets of the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. This is the reverse of the conventional wisdom behind the ‘official’ black budget that the DoD funds the CIA. In fact it is the CIA that funds secret projects run by the various military and intelligence services in the DoD. Using the testimony of whistleblowers of other federal government agencies and testimony of DoD Inspector Generals, I will argue that billions of dollars are annually extracted from these agencies by the CIA, topped up by revenue from other sources used by the CIA, and then siphoned to the military intelligence agencies within the DoD for distribution to ‘deep black projects’ outside of the regular appropriations and oversight process mandated by Congress for ‘black projects’.


More: http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm#Legal


Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
10. Interesting story
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:17 PM
Mar 2014

but a hint on your writing style


Separate it out a bit for breaks in thoughts. It makes it easier for all to read.


like I did here.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
9. The abyss gazes also into you...
Mon Mar 10, 2014, 09:13 AM
Mar 2014

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The CIA Has Brought Darkn...