Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 3

message: CIA is now a GA, I passed it this morning, lets hope next I will be supporting it for FA status. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, Dep. Garcia. I didn't expect it passed so fast. I'm also looking for your support if I propose it to FAC. AW 09:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got my support just give me a link to the page on my talk page where I can give this article my support! Regards Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It passed GA  

message: I just found some vandalism on the top of the page.  It said "Salina's first period licks balls".  I deleted it because I wasnt sure how to report vandalism.  What should I do in a situation like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Mandos (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: warn the person using . If it continues, they will be banned. Please sign your posts using ~~~~. 68.92.157.24 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The following was removed today:
:On April 30 2007 a tape recording of E. Howard Hunt which was recorded on his death bed was played on Coast to Coast radio, in the recording E Howard Hunt claims that he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill President John F Kennedy.
68.92.157.24 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed info

message: Already mentioned here on Wikipedia: OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD. Why NOT here in THIS article ? 205.240.144.168 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the bird is sick of being mocked  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.226.5 (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's in a branch of the article now, see CIA Activities by Region: Americas#Operation Mockingbird. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA Operation

message: I read the changes that  made, including inserting this:
:The CIA is very loyal to its function; this is reflected in the fact that the agency will resort to dark methods, in order to obtain information, such as colossal violations of human rights through torture and the maintenace of illegal secret prisons. Its secondary function is propaganda or public relations, overt and covert information dissemination, both true and false, and influencing others to decide in favor of the U.S. government.
I don't see anything on the cited ref that would give the impression that the CIA's secondary function is what Lars T. says that it is.  Additionally, I'd think that the use of the words "colossal" and "illegal" here would definitely NOT be NPOV, given that the issues referred to there are quite controversial. I'd suggest reverting back to a version of the article prior to the insertion of this paragraph.  --Folic Acid 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but I didn't "insert" that, I reverted the deletion (that didn't give any reason). The part "Its secondary function... " has been in this article undisputed for quite some time now. If you want to delete the first sentence, which is only a few days old, that's your business. Lars T. 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Lars - I just saw that you'd re-added it.  I apologize for the mistake.  --Folic Acid 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think the lead section should be rewritten. But it's a difficult task. AW 03:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So can you suggest other words which better maintain NPOV but still reflect exactly the properties of CIA functions? Almost everything is controversial, thus it's hard to write it in a more neutral tone. AW 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There seemed to already be an apparent consensus here in this discussion that the current article introduction was problematical, so I attempted a very cursory rewrite of the first paragraph only to see if that would address some of the most important objections to NPOV violations.  If anybody else can improve on it further or make additional suggestions on how it can be made better, more power to them. Office of independent counsel 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "The problem here is that the debate about whether or not the CIA maintains illegal prisons and tortures people is not a matter of point of view," is what you have written above.  It is a point of view because the definitions of "illegal," "torture," and "prisons" seem to be bending at the moment (or at least in some people's opinions).  I saw the director of the agency on an interview on PBS.  The guy looked and sounded like a complete moron.  I was certainly wrong once I paid more attention.  The tactics being employed by the country's current administration include shaping definitions to suit their pursuits.  If a woman was pregnant and you guessed she was going to give birth to a boy, and someone else said a girl neither of you are giving an opinion.  I understand your above commentary, and will tell you that it is logically sound and well stated.  But.  The controversy still stands.  "Does the US operate illegal prisons for torture?"  Maybe.  In order to make this a usable question though the terminology needs to be clearly defined. 66.91.214.29 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission of the CIA and NPOV? 

message: Many of the cia.gov links seem to be broken I replaced a couple, but coudn't find the updated URLs. There are a few more dead references. I'd replace them all with s, but can't find them since "Find" in most broswers will not search text fields.Phantombantam 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cia.gov links 

message: http://www.foia.cia.gov/ and click "family jewels" in the second paragraph
This is a great source for a lot of fidel castro-type things. I'm not the best writer/editor so maybe somebody better then I can make use of this source. These are the recently declassifed documents. Very dirty stuff in there. Virek 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New CIA declassified documents 

message: Leroy Fletcher Prouty is listed as a CIA whistle blower. Prouty worked for military intelligence and was never on the payroll of the CIA.  John Geraghty —Preceding unsigned comment added by John geraghty (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prouty is also a source of extremely low credibility (witness, e.g., his defense of L. Ron Hubbard's bogus autobiographical claims about intelligence work). Lippard 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fletcher Prouty

message: The original text:
: "Many of the post-Watergate restrictions upon the Central Intelligence Agency were lifted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the The Pentagon.  Some critics charge this violates the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the federal budget be openly published.  However, 52 years earlier, in 1949, Congress and President Harry Truman had approved arrangements that CIA and national intelligence funding could be hidden in the U.S federal budget. "
The order of the sentences gives the meaning that because restrictions were lifted, a violation of the Constitutional requirement may have occurred.  In fact, the meaning should be that because the arrangements were made, a violation of the Constitutional requirement may have occurred.  Also, the implication of the original text is that Congress and the President can overrule the Constitution.  (The implication: SINCE Congress and President approved arrangements, then the critics' charge is invalid)  Obviously, this is not correct.
The revised version then:
: "Many of the post-Watergate restrictions upon the Central Intelligence Agency were lifted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the The Pentagon. 52 years earlier, in 1949, Congress and President Harry Truman had approved arrangements that CIA and national intelligence funding could be hidden in the U.S federal budget. Some critics charge this violates the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the federal budget be openly published."
72.188.233.83 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong meaning and invalid implication 

message: I would like permission to add a section showing how the CIA contributes to the development of knowledge resulting in crucial Committee decisions. The example I would like to use is the The CIA input into the Committee on Foreign Relations resulting in the decision of Ranking Minority head Sen. Jesse Helms' letter to Boris Yeltsin which brought about the turnover by the Russian Federation of KAL 007's long hidden Black Box. Bert Schlossberg 89.138.147.180 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to ask for permission to add something like that to the article. Be bold! Blackeagle 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While the CIA provides information to these committees, it does not, nor has it ever, function as an investigative arm for any committee of Congress.  --Folic Acid 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA as source to Congressional Committees in their work 

message: Is this really relevant? So the American and Iranian legislatures got in a name calling match; is this notable? I think it is neither; that it was stated by a notable entity (the Iranian parliament) does not by definition make it notable. Parsecboy 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to its removal.  It's the sort of standard, rhetorical denunciation that gets issued at regular intervals by all sorts of governments. No barometer of intelligence 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labelled as terrorists by Iran 

message: A larger section was removed by the anon today: 
:The CIA acts as the primary American provider of central intelligence estimates. It is believed to make use of the product derived from surveillance satellites of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the signal interception capabilities of the National Security Agency (NSA), including the ECHELON system, the surveillance aircraft of the various branches of the U.S. armed forces and the analysts of the State Department and Department of Energy. At one point, the CIA even operated its own fleet of U-2 and A-12 OXCART surveillance aircraft. The agency has also operated alongside regular military forces, and also employs a group of clandestine officers with paramilitary skills in its Special Activities Division. Johnny Michael "Mike" Spann, a CIA officer killed in November 2001 during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, was one such individual. The CIA also has strong links with other foreign intelligence agencies such as the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Israel's Mossad, and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Further, it is currently believed to be financing several Counterterrorist Intelligence Centers. One of these, known under the codename of Alliance Base, was allegedly set up in Paris and jointly run in cooperation with France's DGSE. Although classified, the CIA may also be actively cooperating with India's Research and Analysis Wing and possibly Russia's SVR. The CIA worked extensively with Pakistan's ISI throughout the Afghan-Soviet War, and works with this agency closely for the War on Terror.
If it remains removed, maybe people can take sections from this and add it to the article later. Travb (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed by anon

message: What do other editors think about the possiblity of eliminating all but a short one-paragraph mention of the current content of this section of the CIA article, and letting interested parties click on the Wikilink to the Robertson Panel main article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel
That is what is done with the ""Farewell Dossier" section directly below it, and it seems like a good solution from keeping the main article from becoming unwieldy.  The Robertson Panel is pretty ancient history anyway, and fairly non-notable in terms of real historical importance, IMHO. Its lengthy inclusion in the main article also detracts from overall credibility, as prominent mention of UFOs brings in elements of fringe belief in all sorts of oddball conspiracy theories.  Might as well include a section on Skull and Bones or "remote viewing" experiments if UFOs are given such lengthy treatment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by No barometer of intelligence (talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was no immediate feedback on this suggestion, so I took the Wikipedia maxim to "be bold" to heart and made an attempt to implement this idea myself.  I am not at all offended if someone reverts the edit(s) I made to this article and the Robertson Panel article; I'd just appreciate it if they would explain their reasoning for doing so here on this discussion page.  Note that I did not remove any material from Wikipedia in the process of making these dual edits, and worked hard to preserve accurate citations of the Brenda Denzler book as I moved text from this article to the Robertson Panel article. No barometer of intelligence 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the person who made this section semi-respectable to avoid an edit war. I found all of the citations for this section. I am fine with moving this section. Hopefully it will be watched as carefully over at Robertson_Panel as it has been here. I think it is a grand idea, and I have considered it myself too. Travb (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "UFOs and Robertson Panel" article subsection

message: Has there ever been a case of anyone in the CIA ever being persecuted for any of these illegal crimes abroad? One thing that is missing in this article is the involvement of the CIA in Abu Grahib. Seems like the CIA has tacit immunity from any crime, is this correct or is there any case of a CIA officer being persecuted? Travb (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer to your question, but I think you mean "prosecuted", not "persecuted". For example, one is prosecuted for a crime, while persecuted for one's political or religious beliefs, prosecution being a legal action, while persecution being social or physical. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect the answer to your question is that since the CIA's activities are inherently secretive, it is often very difficult to prove a CIA staff member's even involvement, let alone willful or negligent wrong-doing in a particular situation. Though I do know that Henry Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in some countries, and the ex-CIA guys involved in the Watergate break-ins did all go to jail. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA ever persecuted?

message: I agree with ultramarine's addition of a tag to the long list of CIA operations. Unfortunately, verifying everyone of this events in CIA history to everyones satisfaction is going to be a herculean task. I think the list is a good start.
I think for now it is better now that this section is at the very bottom of the article, which I did yesterday.
I would like to eventually see no controversial authors such as William Blum listed as references in this section, replaced by government reports such as Congressional committees. That is why I added the :Template:Refimprovesect
Trav (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: The following was removed because it was not sourced:
*Employees of the CIA commonly refer to their place of employment as simply, Langley. As in "Washington is on the sat phone, Langley wants an update".
Trav (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item removed