Split up the CIA- It's become a bloated bureaucracy of little use
H/T Dave Maxwell
Split Up The CIA: It's become a bloated bureaucracy of little use
By Jack Kelly
Quote:
How close is Iran to obtaining an atomic bomb? How likely are its leaders to use the bomb once they have obtained it?
Could the mullahs be toppled by a popular revolt? How would the people of Iran react if the United States or Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear sites? Would the reaction be different if the United States or Israel launched a decapitating strike at the government instead?
The safety of our republic depends on obtaining accurate, timely answers to questions like these. That's why "The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture," by "Ishmael Jones," now available in paperback, may be the most important book you read this year.
"Ishmael Jones" is the nom de guerre of a man who spent 15 years overseas as a covert CIA officer focusing on human sources with access to intelligence on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. So when "Ishmael" says our early warning system is badly broken, we should pay attention.
The CIA has become a bloated bureaucracy where senior bureaucrats are more interested in protecting their jobs than in gathering intelligence. A sign of how bad things are is that more than 90 percent of all CIA employees work within the United States. This is curious for an organization whose purpose is to collect foreign intelligence.
Direct action - constitutionality
What is your argument and legal authoriities for this proposition:
Quote:
from Van
He still misses the bigger point; the CIA's direct action capability is a clear violation of the Constitution, specifically the seperation of powers.
If a separate agency were created for the sole purpose of conducting DA operations, would you present the same objection(s) ?
Regards
Mike
1 Attachment(s)
War Powers - Executive & Legislative
Unfortunately (;)), I'm not a disciple of John Yoo's view of virtually unrestricted Presidential Power; so, I can't present that position with any sort of credibility - however, it is attached as a pdf file.
That being said, both Executive "War Powers" and Legislative "War Powers" exist in what I'd consider a balanced view of the Constitution, based on an original understanding approach to that document. Van's viewpoint, as it is stated (without any exception):
Quote:
If that agency gave the President the power to order acts of war to be commited without a declaration of war from Congress, or Congress' approval, yes, I certainly would. Under the Constitution, the government's power is carefully balanced between three branches. To give the Executive branch this degree of power in international affairs runs the risk of the President drawing the country into war without Legislature having an opportunity to assess the situation.
would prohibit the President from responding to an attack overseas or on CONUS without specific Congressional action. Another area where the Executive (based on over two centuries of history) has some discretion (at least short-term) is Presidential use of military resources in assistence to diplomacy (clearly an Executive branch function).
An exercise in defining the boundaries of the constitutional Executive "War Powers" and Legislative "War Powers" would involve recourse to the present War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), aka the War Powers Resolution; and hammering out all of the constitutional issues with that piece of work.
The two branches of government are at their strongest when they work together. I lean to getting Congressional approval to enter into an armed conflict, except under emergency circumstances; but Congress has not been reluctant to abdicate its measure of control as exemplified by the AUMFs for Vietnam, Iraq I & II and Astan. If Congressional action (or maybe better, inaction) from Korea (where it was not polled at all) up to the present is taken as evidence of how strong Congress believes its "War Powers" are, one would be hard pressed to find that Congress believes it has a veto over Presidential actions, much less a superior power to declare war or authorize entry into an armed conflict.
Regards
Mike