Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 2

message: The CIA has been criticized for being a front for Bavarian Intelligence, and that this German influence began when the Nazis were first allowed to work for the CIA in te 1940s. The CIA's torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes are said to be a continuation of the same characteristic Nazi methods. The question is whether the CIA controls the Nazis or have the Nazis control the CIA through gradual influence. The NSA and MJ-12 are said to be similar fronts. There is a widespread belief that the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government' within the U.S. governement, kept secret through the CIA's non-disclosure status. Any who discover this secret are assassinated, so believers say. (Added to article by )
:Yes, the Bavarians, definitely.  It all started on Walpurgisnacht.  I hear the Bavarian John Negroponte was hanging out with Bavarian George Tenet and discussing Iraqi ties to al Qaeda when the ghost of Josef Mengele came to them and instructed them to kill....  In fact, we should just delete this article, as well as the NSA and MJ-12 articles, and have them all point to this page.
:Oh shit, is that an assassin at my door?  I gotta go.--csloat 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not such a matter of joke.  The CIA was really formed around the same time that many Nazis were brought over to the USA under Project Paperclip.  Allen Dulles was even shown to have Nazi sympathies and ideas, signing some of his letters with 'Heil Hitler'.  Although, the CIA is now in itself a criminal organisation based in the USA, and not really a 'branch of Bavarian intelligence'.  However, the Mossad on the other hand, has major connections to Berlin and Frankfurt am Maine Frankfurt am Main, which are in Germany...  Whatever the case, the origins of these organisations, though damning (the Mossad was founded by pro-terrorists), are not so important as their modern crimes against humanity.  Matthew A.J.?.B. 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bordering on conspiracy theory, and is  based on Weasel Words: There is a widespread belief that the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government' within the U.S. governement, kept secret through the CIA's non-disclosure status. Any who discover this secret are assassinated, so believers say.  I hope to God this is not in the article, because it should be removed.  Conspiracy theories like the CIA killed JFK, etc only make those who oppose the CIA look less credible.  There is a very rich and well documented history of "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" of the CIA without including unsubstantiated beliefs.  This only makes the article less encyclopedic.  It is a great theory, but I would strongly encourage wikipedians to focus on the exhastively documented "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" of the CIA. (Many of these incriminating documents are the actual CIA manuals and government documents themselves, which lends a level of credibility to these charges which cannot be matched). Is the Bavarians or Germans partially run a 'secret government'  true? Maybe?  But I am not going to spend my time running down unsubstatiated rumors and conspiracy theories, when  there is solid, unrefutable proof of CIA "torture, assassinations, secret policing, brainwashing, political influence, and other crimes" which still needs to be added to this article. Some authors have speculated that conspiracy theories are not created by the government, but are happily used by the government to mislead the public and have the focus on wild goes chases and searches down rabbit holes.  Whether this is true or not is as likely to be proven as the Bavarian conspiracy theories.Travb (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean the Nazis just vanished into thin air in 1945? Lars T. 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Government 

message: I have to take issue with the direction this article is taking. There seems to be a systematic campaign by people to remove any positive mention of CIA accomplishments. In fact, there used to be a section dedicated to that which has gotten lost along the way. Like or hate the CIA, this article needs balance in a big way. If we are unable to find balance, then at least the section on successes needs to be reinstated. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, add it back. In my experience, many wikipedians ignore messages on this board, if you want it done, you often must do it yourself.Travb 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not section on the CIA's "failures" so why should there be a section on its "successes" both should be included in the section on its "Historical Operations."  What you are perceiving as a "negative bias" is actually merely a factual matter of the level of controversy associated with the CIA.  One definition of 'controversy' from dictionary.com is a "disputation concerning a matter of opinion."  Indeed there is disputation about many of the CIA's activities, but this is not equivalent to declaring their activities "failures," or having a negative bias.  It is merely stating the fact that the legitimacy of many of the CIA's activities are disputed. Dwinetsk 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
Here is Lexis Nexus summary of this famous case:
:Petitioners, eight German-born U.S. residents, were captured by the United States, as they tried to enter the country during war time, for the purpose of sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations under the law of war. The President of the United States held that petitioners were to be tried before a military tribunal under the Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.S. §§. Petitioners challenged the President's authority, arguing that under the U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, amends. V and VI, petitioners had a right to demand a jury trial at common law in the civil courts. The court found that petitioners were alleged to be unlawful belligerents, and that under the Articles of War, they were not entitled to be tried in a civil proceeding, nor by a jury. The court also determined that trying petitioners before a military court was not illegal and did not violate the U.S. Const. amends. V and VI relating to "crimes" and "criminal prosecutions." Thus, the court affirmed the President's authority to try petitioners before a military tribunal without a jury.
This has nothing to do with the defintion of an assination.  I see were you are going with this, that the president has the authority to deal with enemy combants.  Your legal arguments are much more on point, and have been kept in the article.
If I had the time right now and desire, I could probably dig up law review articles which dispute this interpretation of the Ford Exectutive order.  Suffice it to say, in my edit, I simply put that several legal authorities disputed the definition of assassination, and that these "targeted killings" do not fall under the EXecutive Order.  I hope this satisfies both of us.
I should have known that I was dealing with an aspiring lawyer or practicing lawyer.  Lawyers (and politicians) are very good at arguing what the real definition of "is", is. 
Two similar cases come to mind, one with Rwanda and Slick Bill's administration arguing that the Genocide in Rwanda isn't really a genocide, and the recent definition of torture, as defined by the current administration.  I am sure you can come up with more, as you have today with the definition of "assassination". 
Web bloggers do the same thing, but the have much less practice using there tongues as weapons, and are therefore less effective.  
I apologize for my negative words and I was 100% wrong in my assumptions above.  I was wrong assuming:
:a) you don't know the law, you appear to know the law, probably better than me, and 
:b) that lawyers have tried with their wit and sharp tongues to circumvent the laws established by the Church Committee.
signed:Travb 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, my mistake, looks like it was signed by Reagan, I know there is early laws on this because of the Church Committee.  I know little about this order, but correct me if I am wrong, that Reagan's order was more leneint than what was done by Ford.Travb 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I cited that case not as anything with the definition of assasination, but to actually define the presidents justification to name someone an "enemy combatant". My goal was 3 part: First to show that the POTUS has the authority to name someone an enemy combatant. Second to show that he named al-Zawahiri as such. And finally, that surprise attacks against enemy combatants aren't assassinations. Anyway, the current version looks fine to me. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 21:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You an army lawyer, or hope to be one? I notice you were in the military, or where in the military.  Thanks for your contributions to the article, and sorry for my uncalled for and ignorant belittlement before.Travb 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops missed your question. No, not an army lawyer, I was army infantry, on a RSTA team, hence my interest in the subject. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is all fine and good, except that this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, so if the legal definition of assassination conflicts with the consensed definition (i.e. the one in the dictionary), we go with the consensed definition.  The dictionary claims an assassination is any murder by surpise attack -- it says, "as for political reasons" not "for political reasons".  Even if political reasons were required by the consensed definition of the word, it would still apply, because the legal categorization of a person as an enemy combatant only serves to legitimize the political decision to kill him or her (remember that the law is created by politicians, who make it for reasons, which include the representation of their constituencies, i.e. politics).  In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not a legal argument for or against the killing by surprise attack of al-Zawahiri, so it is an assissination.  End of story. Dwinetsk 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: The following was removed as per WP:RS:
It has now been firmly established (see references below) that the OSS actively recruited and protected many high ranking Nazi officers immediately following World War II, a policy that was carried on by the CIA. {{cite web   
- | title =After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals   
- | work =Historical and Investigative Research   
- | url =http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally.htm#1945   
- | accessdate=2006-07-30   
- }}  These included, the CIA now admits, the notorious "butcher of Lyon" Klaus Barbie, Hitler's Chief of Soviet Intelligence General Reinhard Gehlen, and numerous less-renowned Gestapo officers. General Gehlen, due to his extensive (if dubious) intelligence assets within the Soviet Union, was allowed to keep his spy-network intact after the war in the service of the United States. The Gehlen organization soon became one of America's chief sources of Intelligence on the Soviet Union during the cold war, and formed the basis for what would later become the German intelligence agency the BND. 
Signed: Travb (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The following was removed

message: I noticed the statement about the CIA charter fitting under the FBI's definition of terrorism. I think this violates NPOV as it is a clear attempt to imply that the CIA is a terrorist organization without explicity stating it. In other words, it is an attempt to circumvent NPOV rules in order to preach the author's high controversial, personal viewpoint. The implication that the CIA engages in terrorism is endlessly debatable and, thus, a statement or implication toward one side or the other is, by definition, not neutral. Therefore, I've removed it. If people have a problem and want it added back, then I strongly request that I NPOV flag be placed on the article.
Sbstern 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you also going to flag the FBI article because you don't like their definition of terrorism? Lars T. 15:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA Operations and Terrorism 

message: :=== JFK assassination ===

Documents obtained and disclosed by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board revealed that the CIA concealed documents, for more than thirty years, about its direct knowledge that a Lee Harvey Oswald impersonator tried to contact an assassin in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, Mexico, less than two months before President Kennedy was assassinated. The PBS "Frontline" documentary news program reported that said information already was known to the CIA, was learned by President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover hours after President Kennedy was assassinated; it "electrified" top Washington insiders.  
Nice catch User:Mytwocents. 
I didn't read the PBS article, nor have I. 
I removed this section to the talk page.  I suggest it remain here, unless someone else cuts and pastes a small snippet of the actual words of the PBS show, so there will be no argument or doubt what the PBS special says. 
The other JFK conspiracy sections which have been deleted are found here:  for anyone who cares. Travb (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: ODCI Redirects here, but it is not mentioned anywhere on the page. 74.104.177.80 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ODCI

message: I was reading through this article and in the history section in the second to last paragraph it states, "all fifteen Intelligence Community agencies are under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence."  However, if one follows the link to the Intelligence Community, this article states, "The United States Intelligence Community is a cooperative federation of sixteen United States government agencies,"  One of these articles must be in error, and somebody who knows which is correct should fix this.
:Dammnit, sign your posts using ~~~~ PLEASE. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction with Another Article

message: This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.
It's kinda needed... F.F.McGurk 14:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to be split

message: Is Jose A. Rodriguez really the director of the NCS?
From the CIA's web site:
The National Clandestine Service is responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence. The current director is under cover and cannot be named at the present time.
I heard the same thing from a CIA agent at NCS.
Air Phloo 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director of NCS 

message: It's very clear that this article has taken on a negative bias. There is now little-to-no reference of positive actions performed by the CIA. Sure, the CIA is surrounded by a lot of controversy, much of which is conjecture. It just seems that any time someone posts something that paints the United States Government in a neutral-to-positive light, people jump at the chance to scream, "POV! POV! BIAS! BIAS!" Present both sides and let people draw their own conclusions. Jackryan 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show us what negative bias do you imply? We need to know exactly to know what should be improved. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Bias 

message: Two external links sections make the article look very confused. I think some of the second section can be moved to ==Further reading==. Moreover, I see some exlinks seem not to be very reliable. Can anyone help me clean and classify them? Apple••w••o••r••m•• 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Agengy? See the logo(CIA.svg) carefully please.  ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's something wrong with your eyes. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which word is misspelled (if any)? I don't see any. BQZip01 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with Nussknacker's eyes. The word "Agency" was indeed misspelled. Shortly after the posting, I managed to contact the creator of the file, who fixed it right away. —Gintar77 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I didn't notice it and when I do, I see nothing wrong with the image. Sorry Nussknacker. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the file's creator? BQZip01 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An user on Commons. Gintar77 is right. Here's the old version. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error in Logo CIA 

message: I think there is some very real bias present in this article. For example, there is no attempt made to describe the Phoenix Program, which was a campaign to assassinate Viet Cong leaders; it is simply compared as a "Nazi atrocity". Clearly whoever wrote that is more interested in having the reader draw the conclusion "CIA = Nazis" then presenting an actual objective viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.123.244 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Another officer in "Phoenix", Bart Osborne, testified before Congress in 1971: I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through his interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown out of helicopters.  Osborne again: It [Phoenix] became a sterile depersonalized murder program... Equal to Nazi atrocities, the horrors of "Phoenix" must be studied to be believed." Poor CIA, being compared to Nazis by (former) CIA officers in front of Congress. Well, maybe we can take out the part with the Nazis, and replace it with the part about people being thrown out of helicopters? Lars T. 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV