This is long but worth it... worse than any horror movie!
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."
The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.
The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.
The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm
-
Craig Bardo commented at 7:02 AM~
As a preamble, I am continually amazed at the number of left leaning people who end up working at our intelligence agencies. That The State Department is loaded with liberals and even leftists is no surprise, but I find it intriquing that they would also be among the ranks of the security establishment.
If you go to the grocery store to get hamburger, you can get it in a neatly wrapped, cellophane covered package. You can take it home and without regard to how it was produced, you prepare it to your liking and eat.
In much the same way, Americans pay taxes and expect to be secure. We never give any thought to how that security is "produced." When I watched the towers burn and fall on September 11, I didn't know that people from two different firms that I used to work with, a large law firm and the best "swap desk" in the country, were about to die in the very offices where I once visited them.
Security is a dirty business and I know that many Clinton era appointees are among the current apparatus. They were sent there to dismantle the operation and did an effective job. I remember being in league with the thought that our policies seemed to promote dictators at the expense of freedom. So what are we to do?
To the chagrin of many conservatives, Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchannan among the most vocal, Bush promulgated a policy that lined up our interests with the interests of the people of the world. Rather than simply promote some limited view of self interest, he aligned our security and diplomatic resources toward the promotion of liberty.
I dismiss liberal criticism of Bush because they can't see straight. They think he stole the 2000 election so they have lost all perspective. Because as a liberal, I remember being frustrated with those things the author cited regarding the CIA's involvement in affairs around the world, at least what was published about them. So from a liberal perspective, Bush's policy makes sense.
The foreign policy myopia used to involve only communism. However, as the author points out, the means didn't justify the ends. Now we are aware that communism isn't the only threat to liberty; radical ideologies and right wing dictatorships too threaten people's liberty.
Yet the abolishment of the CIA is not so much a solution as it is a reaction. The problem with these agencies of the government is the problem with our system of government. The next president will undoubtedly try to put his or her stamp on our intelligence/security/foreign policy apparatus and will meet resistence from the semi-permanent staff.
The solution lies in who we are and who we elect to lead these agencies. The problem is not a particular agency, they are a reflection of what we want. The problem is us.
-
Craig Bardo commented at 7:02 AM~
As a preamble, I am continually amazed at the number of left leaning people who end up working at our intelligence agencies. That The State Department is loaded with liberals and even leftists is no surprise, but I find it intriquing that they would also be among the ranks of the security establishment.
If you go to the grocery store to get hamburger, you can get it in a neatly wrapped, cellophane covered package. You can take it home and without regard to how it was produced, you prepare it to your liking and eat.
In much the same way, Americans pay taxes and expect to be secure. We never give any thought to how that security is "produced." When I watched the towers burn and fall on September 11, I didn't know that people from two different firms that I used to work with, a large law firm and the best "swap desk" in the country, were about to die in the very offices where I once visited them.
Security is a dirty business and I know that many Clinton era appointees are among the current apparatus. They were sent there to dismantle the operation and did an effective job. I remember being in league with the thought that our policies seemed to promote dictators at the expense of freedom. So what are we to do?
To the chagrin of many conservatives, Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchannan among the most vocal, Bush promulgated a policy that lined up our interests with the interests of the people of the world. Rather than simply promote some limited view of self interest, he aligned our security and diplomatic resources toward the promotion of liberty.
I dismiss liberal criticism of Bush because they can't see straight. They think he stole the 2000 election so they have lost all perspective. Because as a liberal, I remember being frustrated with those things the author cited regarding the CIA's involvement in affairs around the world, at least what was published about them. So from a liberal perspective, Bush's policy makes sense.
The foreign policy myopia used to involve only communism. However, as the author points out, the means didn't justify the ends. Now we are aware that communism isn't the only threat to liberty; radical ideologies and right wing dictatorships too threaten people's liberty.
Yet the abolishment of the CIA is not so much a solution as it is a reaction. The problem with these agencies of the government is the problem with our system of government. The next president will undoubtedly try to put his or her stamp on our intelligence/security/foreign policy apparatus and will meet resistence from the semi-permanent staff.
The solution lies in who we are and who we elect to lead these agencies. The problem is not a particular agency, they are a reflection of what we want. The problem is us.
-
commented at 7:56 AM~
Well said. I agree with Craig on the lion's share of his post. The problem IS us. We are too willing to look the other way as opposed to having the stomach to chime in on hard choices. And, I am not so much a knee jerk liberal that I would absolve liberals in the CIA (although, I've got to admit, I can't believe there are many) from their crimes. I think it is our entire community of intelligence agencies that should be abolished (not Craig's point, I know); but we also need to be secure. Bush's policies have exacerbated worldwide hatred of America. My belief is that the dirty tricks and destablization and (most importantly) the assassinations must end. The original intent was to have a proactive listening post model -- not a leauge of killers.
-
Frank Partisan commented at 2:55 PM~
You might find it hard to believe, but Craig is correct. The CIA is made up of mostly liberal Democrats. That's why Bushies were so casual about making public Valerie Plame.
-
Jae commented at 8:30 AM~
Two guys with big intellects -- and a propensity for checking their facts -- say the CIA is full of liberal Dems. I've got to put some credence into that statement. But, you're right Ren, it's hard for me to believe.
-
Graeme commented at 10:32 AM~
it should be noted that there is a difference between what is considered a "liberal democrat" in the US and what is considered "the left" in the rest of the world.
-
troutsky commented at 9:16 PM~
We promote dictators because they are good for the business climate, otherwise known as "US interests".War on Terror is the same as the Cold War bogeymen and the Dominoe theory, pure diversion and excuse for imperialist adventuring.The CIA are the advance men for General Electric, Dyncorp,Bechtel,Exxon etc..
-
Frank Partisan commented at 12:58 AM~
Because of posts like this, the law in the Valerie Plame affair was invented.
