To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [okgreens] Unshackling the CIA Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:46:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [216.115.96.78] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBD6EA31B002F40043762D873604E6C5B7; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:55:51 -0700 Received: from [10.1.4.52] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2001 01:55:39 -0000 Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 01:55:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 29307 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2001 19:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Sep 2001 19:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iris.services.ou.edu) (129.15.2.125) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2001 19:49:19 -0000 Received: from [129.15.167.176] (ppp167-176.ACCESS.ou.edu [129.15.167.176]) by iris.services.ou.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <[log in to unmask]> for [log in to unmask]; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:49:00 -0500 (CDT) From sentto-417072-3018-1000691739-thelordalmighty Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:56:04 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: [log in to unmask] X-Sender: [log in to unmask] X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] X-Sender: [log in to unmask] Message-id:

Mailing-List: list [log in to unmask]; contact [log in to unmask]

Delivered-To: mailing list [log in to unmask]

Precedence: bulk

List-Unsubscribe:

Today, the big news out of Washington is a nearly universal consensus

that the CIA needs to be "unshackled" in order to fight the war

against terrorism

(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/international/16INTE.html).

Senators are badmouthing the Church Committee, which provided much

needed congressional oversight in the 1970s, exposing a series of

tragic and ugly CIA blunders and setting up a system of greater

Congressional oversight over American intelligence. This call to let

the CIA engage in whatever dirty tricks they deem necessary has been

nearly universal and the press is absolutely refusing to challenge

its prudence. So it's worth pausing a bit to take a look at the

facts.

The critics of the Church Committee act as if it operated merely out

of a kind of unmanly moral squeamishness. That is, in fact, far from

the case. Although one may, I believe, raise serious moral concerns

about our intelligence services engaging in assassination plots and

the like, the concerns of the Church Committee were also

constitutional and prudential. The constitutional concerns were

clear. The Church Committee determined that the possibility of

largescale, covert operations without any congressional oversight

allowed the executive branch to make policy without going through any

of the regular channels dictated by our constitution. This Executive

Branch desire to circumvent our own constitutional principals

remained even after greater oversight (Iran-Contra being the most

spectacular example of it from the '80s). Even more directly,

America was using its intelligence capabilities against its own

people, most infamously in the FBI's Cointelpro operations against

the civil rights and anti-war movements. Support for constitutional

government is not squeamishness, it's keeping your eyes on the prize:

we're supposed to be defending the American way, no?

Equally important were the prudential concerns. It turns out that

despite the macho, James Bond fantasy appeal of covert ops, they

don't usually work so well. Coup attempts go awry. Assassination

plots fail. Terrorist groups that we employ turn against us (what

the CIA calls "blowback"). And all of these activities end up being

exposed, destroying American credibility overseas (see, we

progressives can talk about credibility,too). Even after the Church

Committee and congressional oversight, the CIA has continued to

support terrorism, with disastrous results. In the 1980s, the CIA

supported Osama bin Laden as part of its efforts to get the Soviets

out of Afghanistan (apparently they believed that Saudi extremists

would be easier to control than Afghan tribespeople...see this report

from noted radical new source MSNBC:

http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1 ). In the 1990s, the CIA

backed the KLA in Kosovo, a move that has helped trigger fighting in

Macedonia

(http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,449923,00.html).

Given the poor track record of such covert operations, they would

seem to be a bad idea regardless of what our goals are. But if our

goal here is to eradicate not just Osama bin Laden, but terrorism

itself, more support for groups like the mujahadeen or the KLA seems

more than merely ineffective. I can see why one might believe that

one needs to engage in terrorism to fight a single terrorist.

Clearly, you cannot engage in terrorism if your goal is to end

terrorism itself.

All of this leads me to believe that our representatives in

Washington are making a _terrible_ mistake if they think the solution

is to unleash the CIA here and abroad. I doubt very much whether we

will be able to stop this lunacy, but we should at least work toward

getting our voices heard.

Peace,

Ben