NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040822%2F1330444607.htm&sc=1153&photoid=20040822WX101&floc=NW_1-T

stupid idea.

So this guy wants to make even more intelligence agencies? As if being split 15 ways isn't enough to render the intelligence community incompetent already...

Your forum title is misleading... the article says they want to change who's in control of the CIA, not that they're "dismantling" it (i.e. taking it apart/getting rid of it).

I like the idea. It streamlines the intelligence agencies all into one service. Now, military intelligence, domestic intelligence, and foreign intelligence won't be left to bounce in bureaocracies, never knowing of the other's existence. Still, the Pentagon may wish to retain some intelligence services of its own.

Here's the thing--I can see the argument for efficiency in the intelligence services, but I can't get past what I've read and studied about in US history when it comes to domestic spy services and the abuses in the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover wanted to be the head of the CIA and have it subservient to the FBI, and it killed him when Dulles was named head of the CIA and was given equal status.

A single head of all intelligence gathering services is a lot of power to put into one person's hands, and that kind of power scares me. I'm still open to arguments on this subject, but I've got to admit that I'm generally opposed to a single intelligence head, just because of the opportunity for abuse.

Here's the thing--I can see the argument for efficiency in the intelligence services, but I can't get past what I've read and studied about in US history when it comes to domestic spy services and the abuses in the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover wanted to be the head of the CIA and have it subservient to the FBI, and it killed him when Dulles was named head of the CIA and was given equal status.

A single head of all intelligence gathering services is a lot of power to put into one person's hands, and that kind of power scares me. I'm still open to arguments on this subject, but I've got to admit that I'm generally opposed to a single intelligence head, just because of the opportunity for abuse.
However, dictators often have several different intelligence services, to make sure one doesn't cheat on the other. Not only creating a single intelligence agency more efficient, it is also safer. It's very likely that one single head is less likely to abuse his power than fifteen different heads. If one makes a mistake or abuses his power, the blame can be passed around from intelligence agency to agency. For example, it's possible that the NSA can make a dangerous abuse, like falsely accusing someone of a crime for political reasons, but since no dares question the NSA, they can blame it on the FBI, or ATF, or one of those. With a single intelligence agency, everyone knows exactly who to blame for an abuse, or at least where to look. Besides, the potential for corruption is less, as this is just intelligence gathering and analysis. They probably won't do law enforcement or military operations.
BTW, since there's one intelligence head, he'd be put under extra scrutiny before being elected by the Senate. So the potential for abuse is less.

That assumes that an accusation will be heard in the first place.

There's also the point to be made that according to the article I read, most of what will happen should Senator Roberts' bill be made into law will be reorganization and window dressing--the head of the CIA would basically become the NID.

That assumes that an accusation will be heard in the first place.

There's also the point to be made that according to the article I read, most of what will happen should Senator Roberts' bill be made into law will be reorganization and window dressing--the head of the CIA would basically become the NID.
What's the NID? And yes, some accusation would need to be public first, but it's easier to pinpoint a source of corruption if you only have one place to look for it.

It wont ever happen. I've been in intelligence 100% of my military career. The cost of a such a project not just in dollars but in human lives is not worth it. The only reason they would even say they were thinking of it would be so they could say we thought about it, and no.

What's the NID? And yes, some accusation would need to be public first, but it's easier to pinpoint a source of corruption if you only have one place to look for it.

National Intelligence Directorate I think.