Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 5

message: When trying to tell what the CIA has or has not done, especially with respect to recent events, do remember that its bureaucratic position has changed. From 1947 (in theory, more like 1952, to 2004, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) "wore two hats". One was to run the CIA. The other was to coordinate the entire Intelligence Community.
In late 2004, the position of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was created, and the position of DCI abolished, as well as most of the IC-wide responsibilities, which moved to the office of the DNI. CIA position titles and functions were changed, for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the head of the CIA is now the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCIA).
I've seen some references saying where the CIA did something, where it really happened in the DNI or sometimes the White House/National Security Council. This is not a simple matter to explain CIA activities, since prior to 2004, the National Intelligence Estimates and similar documents, as well as the Presidential/NSC committee action authorizations, could both be under the CIA for a given year. Now, some of this information goes under several agencies.
It's worth noting that the reorganization still left major intelligence analysis function in CIA, as well as the National Clandestine Service, which does both clandestine intelligence gathering and covert action. 
I don't have a simple answer moving forward, but I hate to see covert actions alone presented without the directly relevant intelligence estimates and NSC authorization. This is not too much of a problem right now, since the more recent actions are classified, but it is something to consider when discussing things like "budget". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects of US intelligence reorganization

message: This is directed primarily at Morethan3words -- do you think this would be a good place for you to start with your CIA/Nazi info?  It would be a great page for us to link to from here.   Stone put to sky (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With a title such as this, it nicely deals with a couple of issues: war criminals other than Nazis, and war criminals protected by US intelligence agencies other than the US. Assuming there is a regional/chronological section, I could see a note in the sections on Germany and Japan, 1945-1952, saying that other intelligence agencies made deals, which, in some cases, may have involved CIA continuing something already started. They may show up in odd places -- I'm no expert on Klaus Barbie, but the article suggests he may have been involved in some drug trade, which, in turn, may have involved CIA. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was planning on concentrating my additions on the scramble that took place shortly after WWII to recruit german officials, scientists, etc. I don't se a problem at all with expanding the article to include those questionable characters that were recruited who didn't happen to be Nazis. However, I don't think it was entirely limited to "war criminals", e.g. the nazi rocket scientists who were recruited after the war. Perhaps a title like "CIA Involvement with the former Axis powers" or something along those lines? This would include German, Japanese, Italian, etc. and not be limited to "war criminals" per se. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, realize my title didn't include the good point about CIA's establishment and the intelligence efforts occuring before that. How about "US Intelligence and the former Axis powers"? Also, on a side note, I apologize in advance if I'm not able to answer ever comment right away, sometimes I just can't get on wiki until the weekend or sometime. Anyway, once there's a concensus on the article title, I'll go ahead and create it, and add my content. We can play with the sandbox for the wording in the main article. If you'd still all prefer I make a sandbox for the new article, just let me know and I'll try and figure out how to do that... (Morethan3words (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, i think "U.S. Int. and War Criminals" is actually better than "U.S. Int. and the Former Axis Powers".  For one thing, the scope and content of a page that deals with a clearly defined concept like criminality is much easier to defend from charges of original research and/or non-notability than a page that is focused on a relationship with former, defeated government powers.  Moreover, I think you could include all of the information you allude to under the first heading while also holding the door open for other people to add more content, and it would be an excellent way to resolve a lot of the conflict that's currently occurring on his page.  In fact, my guess is that you'll be forced to include it all, since there will undoubtedly be others who will challenge whatever phrase or fact you post to it. F'rfinstance, if i were writing that page i'd start off by noting that "war criminals" is a key concept that is distinct from, say, just cooperation with former enemies, but that some people accused of war crimes aren't necessarily apprehended or are given, quid pro quo, protection from prosecution.  Later in the article you could then give examples.  That's just my two-cents, though.  Stone put to sky (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you kept the pages short, though, there's no reason why you can't do both and link between them.Stone put to sky (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's start with the "War Criminals" and see how that pans out. In the worst case, we can always ask an admin to change the title later, or even merge into a different article if preferred. I'll try and create the article sometime this week, depending on my schedule. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Content Fork:  "US intelligence and WWII War Criminals"