Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

Problem with info on HUMINT

It said within the article that the CIA had absorbed all of DIA's HUMINT capabilities. This is not true. The DIA still has overt HUMINT collection. I deleted the misleading section.

Notable CIA Agents

NOC or "Gun for Hire" ?

Non-Official Coverage Agent recruited by organic CIA Agent to do frontline legworks for the Agency. Adhoc Agent with the U.S. Secret Service was as such, as 1986 Presidential Security for visiting Philippine President Cory Aquino to Washington Dc.. Carpenter Arpa awarded Meritorious Award and Commendation while as a Pentagon Resident serving on active duty service in the United States Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.229.112 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, heard of a NOC who gotten a Presidential Citation Award who also served as such in the Navy. Also as such and a war veteran who seem to have disappeared with no more knowledge of his whereabouts and uncanningly lost his family-brothers and sisters included along with his wife and children. You are one lucky man. But not as lucky as NOC-Alvin Siglos (missing reward money) that not his direct family knows of his whereabouts since the time of ASG Abu Sabaya in the Southern Philippines. Could he be with the WPG locally or abroad, or with the Devil. Lucky you and your famlies.

The passages above may make sense to the writers, but they are in need of serious editing from a native English speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.28 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Reference

"Conspiracy? The CIA and the Nazis" produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for the History Channel, copyright 2004 A&E Television Networks might serve as a possible reference for those seeking to expand this article. Official site. Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squideshi (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Security failure?

The article lists the 1993 shooting near their entrance as a CIA security failure. I don't feel this is valid. The shootings happened without warning, on public property, not on CIA property. The security forces at the CIA headquarters had no authority out on that public road, nor was it part of their responsibility. If something happened out there, they were to call local law enforcement. So how are we calling something they didn't have repsonsibility for a failure? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Have gone way beyond "Above and Beyond" fellas. NOCs are better-off than that, taken extreme care. Taking responsibility of...perhaps not so in a way although tecnically right considering that the agency or company have the responibility of national security. It does amply implies the same responsibility when overseas. however, the circumstances in the shooting, there was an alternative respondent/s if called upon. Since the call was never made, the situation was aslike being overseas or abroad made a responsibility. A security failure only if the local law enforcement was called. Otherwise, personally. I think it was permissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Half of that answer makes no sense. What in the world does this NOC Mission Impossible fantasy have to do with the question? And yes, local law enforcement was called and involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IMF-CIA

Impossible Mission Force or Central Intelligence Agency Forces. This two may be one and the same, isn't it. Featured in movies as MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, THE AGENCY. THE CORPORATION OR COMPANY. It seek to control world events in the carrying out of safety measures for national security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He he. They don't want an audit of the Fed Reserve, their principle direct black financier.

391 loser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Successes

"In its operational role, some successes for the CIA include the U-2 and SR-71 programs, and anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s"

This is listed under the controversies section of the article. If I am not mistaken, these anti-Soviet operations are responsible for helping to train Osama Bin-Laden during Operation Cyclone, which would not be considered a "success" for the United States. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• bin Laden may have been trained by the Pakistani's via CIA funded programs (not directly by them), but the goal of the programs was to make it difficult for the Soviets and hasten their exit from Afghanistan. That happened, so it would be a success. That bin Laden fell into the number of people trained wouldn't make it a failure. It's an unintended consequence. Trying to dismiss it all as a failure, isn't realistic. It would be sort of like saying the Saints didn't win the Super Bowl because they allowed the Colts to score. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be more like saying that The Saints beat the Colts, but then failing to mention that, as a result of this, some second string Saints cornerback went on to murder thousands using the football training he received. To consider something a "success" you have to take into account all consequences, unintended or not.WesUGAdawg (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• What were the objectives of the operations in Afghanistan? Were they achieved in most part? Goals achieved = success. Unintended consequences etc. should be dealt with in other sections. The other fault in your example would be that this assumes that bin Laden wouldn't have done any of those things had the CIA never been involved. He was already a radical. He went to Afghanistan because of his beliefs. That he accepted help from Pakistan (help funded by the CIA) to achieve his goals or that CIA money went to someone who was later undesireable, but was helping the CIA achieve their goal is secondary. The issue is covered more in the article about the CIA in Afghanistan. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be some discussion on the MERITS of spying on other countries. The CIA sends highly trained spies overseas to 100's of foreign countries. These spies are paid to break the laws of these countries and steal secrets. They do so by disrupting the lives of the people that live and work in these countries. Is this really worth it? It seems that there is a very high price being paid here by the other countries and by the CIA spies themselves as well as taxpayers of both countries. Is the information obtained worth the cost? What happens to the people the CIA turns after they CIA abandons them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

note on watchers vs. viewers

Every once in a while I notice a site with a comparatively high level of watchers with a comparatively low frequency of readers. CIA is high on the list.... Gee, I wonder why... :)

• Maybe because we know it's going to be vandalized routinely. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe not.....--Nabo0o (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe because the watchers think many people will read it but much less people than expected are intrested. After all, the CIA probably doesn't want too many people reading this.66.183.58.186 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of COINTELPRO, no mention of Gladio

Wow... This reads almost like the summary of the CIA as might be found on their own website. The CIA supports any group or person worldwide that opposes left-wing politics and has probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide. This may be the most heavily biased article on all of Wikipedia.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Biased? You mean like saying that the CIA "probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide"? Why would COINTELPRO be in this article? That was a FBI program, not a CIA one. As for Gladio, that's not exclusively US and the CIA involvement still isn't clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• neither radical islamist groups nor dictatorships as Burma are left-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.240.225 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The CIA scandal, similar to Cointelpro, is MKULTRA. There is an MKULTRA entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One-sided?

This article appears to be very 'one-sided', meaning that it comes from an anti-CIA point of veiw, calling the persons responsible for the protection (and sometimes failure to protect) our loved ones. Wikipedia should "maintain an unbiased point of veiw", as stated by the site administrator. Waterboarding is a means of extracting useful information from MEN WHO WANT TO HARM AMERICANS. There was once a waterboarding inflicted on a terrorist who ended up talking of a plot to bring down a major bridge in New York City. Investigators acted on this information and found the tools to cut the cables of the bridge in a suspect's apartment, thus saving many people from harm. Waterboarding is HARMLESS. It is a tool used to frighten a victim in the extreme. If you ask me, reading about what liberals are doing in Washington, D.C. is frightening!Pumanike (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The objection to waterboarding is it violates humane treatment of prisoners. The USA has never before permitted torture of a prisoner to extract information. Also, it may be PHYSICALLY harmless, but it does psychological damage. That is why it is considered immoral and illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Torturing can cause the suspect to become increasingly hostile, disabling the possibility of more effective measures. 66.183.58.186 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Honest Reactions of a CIA Operative

I see vast misinformation in this article. The DNI, for example, is a completely separate entity from the CIA and has no acronym, but that is just a minor point. I am a CIA Operative myself and I would personally prefer more truthful information here for the general public because this artcile could be a useful recruitment tool, and it badly discourages recruits when they find out that everything they ever thought they knew about the CIA was a fabrication. I would recommend government service to anybody, certainly, but we are at a time in history when the overzealous members of our government protect sensitive information by spreading falsehoods which could create more confusion and problems than they solve. Please check the official CIA website for more accurate information. I don't know who posted this stuff here but I'm asking my department to consider posting a full revision that is more accurate and cleared for public disclosure. We are finding recently that "leaky espionage" and selective truth-telling are really valuable for recruitment as well as other things. In the Biblical book of Sirach, there is a scripture passage in a section on "Conduct in Public Life" which esentially reads, "Telling lie after lie is no good." Truly, it seems like government misinformation has to ebb, really, since we have reached a point where the American public has little hold on reality. Naturally, there will always be secrets and secrecy over national security issues, which is simply prudent, but basic honesty with the public has been overwhelmingly positive so far, and I would personally like to see how far we can go with intentional disclosures to the public. I'll post some of my code names here in case somebody wants an ethical debate. I'm known as "h" in the United Kingdom, "Leviathan" in France, "667" in Russia, "Mr. Taco" in China, and the international community knows me as both "g" and "Zero." The material posted here in this article makes the CIA sound very nefarious and intimidating, but that is not the way I perceive it as a spy who has worked overseas. We maintain a family-oriented atomosphere and field agents are treated wonderful most of the time by management, since you can't get very far with what we do in any other way. The Company has a no-commitment pledge program that can let you try out some simple tasks to "grow your legs" and show us what you can do without getting into anything where you would feel in over your head. Like I said, I would recommend working for the CIA to anybody. Thanks for reading and have a nice day. -"Montgomery," "Priest." Message permitted and approved by 'Frank' 12 August 2010 from D Department. D Department rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.159.47 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the CIA is/was not the way they do things. I believe CIA operative are normal people and would do things like an average person in the average case. The problem is more about making too many operations secret. When an ordinary person has the choice to make what he does secret, I think things will work differently. I can only see two possible reasons a operation would be secret. 1, the suspected reason: the operation is corrupt and immoral so it is hidden. 2, the claimed reason, it is to protect the operatives by hiding their identities. If you look closely at #2, you'll see the problem. Obvious facts: the CIA's identities are hidden because enemy would rather attack the operatives than American civilians (if that’s not true they would leave the operatives alone while attacking civilians so there is no need of hiding), the enemy only has a limited amount of ability (if they had unlimited power we'd all be dead by now), it requires the enemy more ability to kill an well equipped and trained specialist CIA agent than an unarmed US civilian (the terrorists killed a lot of unarmed American and Middle Eastern civilians but few CIA agents died), and the current enemy would attack innocent US civilians when they can't identify the soldiers/agents in the operations (we all knew it happened). So less people will die if the operatives are not "protected." I guess when the operatives are spared and innocent US civilians die from terrorist attacks the propaganda artists can scream at the fact the enemy attacked innocent people so more people will support the operatives. Win-win situation of the operatives isn't it? If you think the CIA is very nice and caring, why would they even have any secrets? Qwertyuioplkjhgfdsa7 (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you need to stay off Wikipedia. It's because of people like you why the quality and integrity of Wikipedia is always called into question. 98.174.219.212 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What is on the talk page can never degrade Wikipedia's "quality and integrity" (if they're beneficial, the article will be changed, if not and the article changed, it's the editor's fault, not the talk page)Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

CIA Organizational Chart

Should this be relevant on the article.Link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.2.108 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is obviously written in a very liberal, anti-CIA point of view, and lacking citations for most of the alleged wrongdoings. I myself am not a fan of the CIA, but if you're going to be this biased against an organization, make it less obvious. Controversy sections need to be shorted or made into separate articles and they need to have citations. I don't think I have seen any articles of organizations on Wikipedia that are as negative as this one. More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy, much of it lacking citation, making this one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia. Once again, if you are going to hijack and sabotage an article, make it more subtle and less obvious than this. 98.174.220.8 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And looking at the other articles linked to this page, such as the CIA's influence on public opinion, are also poorly written and covered with layer after layer of philosophical ramblings and conspiracy theories, lacking citations for the vast majority of the articles. Proof that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information, and revisionists seem to have a vetted interest of rewriting history or attempt to manipulate opinion themselves. As a liberal, I say this article is a slap in the face to objectivity and balance. We strive for FACT, not TRUTH. Truth is what you make of things, fact is fact. 98.174.220.8 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy" It is not Wikipedia's something it writes about has so much "accusation, controversy, and conspiracy," but the reliable sources which describe the object. Don't blame Wikipedia about the fact that the majority of know reliable sources make statements about the CIA you do not recognize as praise. Some cultures give cunning and advanced power good connotations, and it is only your opinion that the facts stated in this article are bad. Also, Wikipedia does not "strive for FACT, not TRUTH" if "Truth is what you make of things, fact is fact." Many articles contain incorrect information, but if everyone thinks the information is the truth, Wikipedia doesn't care about whether or not it is a "fact" because Wikipedia vows to never use its own research(for example, if Jimmy Wales mixes material X and Y and everyone on Wikipedia sees it turn red, but all the other sources claim it turns blue, the articles will state it turns blue). You should also note that theories on propaganda have nothing to do with "conspiracies" as propaganda and conspiracies are two very different topics.Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sniffles. The poor CIA. A den of political zealotry and idiocy.

391 loser (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Imaging Sonars

Imaging Sonars via google

Thom689 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

drug trafficking section could be expanded

The section on drug trafficking doesn't mention that there is more research still pointing to CIA involvement in drugs (and should include references to that research, especially in light of mainstream media attempts to discredit the research of Gary Webb, one of the only journalists/academics whose research actually is referenced here). The Kerry Committee report, the book Cocaine Politics by Dale-Scott/Marshall or the book Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn, all came out long before Webb's 1996 research and point to far more evidence of CIA involvement with traffickers than what Webb uncovered. Webb's research was strictly related to Meneses and Blandon, the California Contra traffickers, anyhow: not the actual Contra supply chain operatives related to the CIA and North, such as Noriega, the CIA-affiliated Cuban Exiles, and Juan Matta-Ballesteros's SETCO company, John Hull, in other words all the parties involved in the Contras who were proven by the Kerry Committee -- unreferenced here -- to have been involved with drugs... the CIA was ultimately criticized by that report for "at best" condoning and judicially protecting drug traffickers' activities knowingly, or "at worst" carrying out the practice of "ticket punching" (quoting report) whereby known traffickers were given diplomatic cover and pay in exchange for coordinating contra supply logistics. My point is, those are the real meat of CIA drug trafficking allegations from the Contra period, that is, everything that appeared *before* Webb's research on the California connection. That (findings of the Kerry Report, the research findings of the "Cocaine Politics" and "Out of Control" books) should be included, with explanation that the Kerry Committee was institutionally prevented from even uncovering all available evidence (see rider to the report that claims -- paraphrasing -- "Even this report may have been compromised due to executive branch attempts to stifle it" -- see also Kerry's public statement that he ceased investigating one particular CIA-drug connection due to what he called a "special agreement" of his with another Senator). And we should also include, with regard to Webb's research, the response of the CIA (the Hitz investigation, which attempted to deny some of Webb's allegations, stated it "couldn't find evidence" of its own to support other allegations, and confirmed a few allegations while uncovering some interesting new information on its own). I realize there is a main page for this, which is linked, but as of now the drug trafficking section gives undue weight to certain things, doesn't mention other pivotally important facts, and is a mess of "citation needed" tags. Let's give it a much due revamp. (Heroin trafficking by the CIA during the Vietnam period is also barely mentioned here, with too much weight given to the obscure CIA defense of why they did it, and should be clarified/expanded)173.3.41.6 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MicroStrategy

The address of the headquarter of MicroStrategy is

   1861, International Drive
   McLean
   Virginia

It is 5 miles from the headquarter of the CIA in Langley.

• In Munich the distance from MicroStrategy to BND is 9 miles. (30 minutes by car, with subway faster)
• In Cologne the distance from MicroStrategy to BfV is 16 miles (22 minutes by car)

--No Mercy Now (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

David Petraeus future U.S. president?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: 58 year old retired General David Petraeus, until recently commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been elected head of Central Intelligence Agency. This suggests that the main priority of the United States even more effective fight against terrorism. Besides the 37 year military career, Petraeus has been thoroughly educated. Doctorate in international relations on the lessons for the U.S. Army in the Vietnam war, and was a professor. These are all the arguments for the thesis that General David Petraeus can be a good president of the United States. It is this possibility with the right moment wisely denied. Because it is the first task to perform well the current function, and depending on that, it opens the possibility to enter into high politics.93.137.48.184 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Made a couple of edits in the intro of the article. The cia isnt what people make it out to be in the movies and i just wanted to give the article a more "realistic" tone. so i rewrote a couple of things. let me know what you think Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding Ron Rewald to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions?

Ron Rewald was a Hawaii investment banker convicted of running a Ponzi scheme in the 1980s. He claimed that he was working as an agent for the CIA, and there's evidence that it was involved in some way. Would it be reasonable to add the Ron Rewald article to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions given that there's no definitive proof that he was a CIA agent? Pburka (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence of the intro- "through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare"

The second sentence of the article reads: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare using non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents to carry out these intelligence-gathering operations; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations."

In my opinion, that whole sentence is poorly written, factually questionable, and misleading. As detailed elsewhere in the article, CIA uses many techniques to provide national security intelligence assessment that do not involve any sort of warfare; covert, psychological, cyber, social, or otherwise. The sentence implies that all of the CIA's intelligence gathering is performed by means of warfare, which is false.

I suggest replacing it with the following two sentences: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers. Intelligence gathering is performed by non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.182.14 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

il y a beaucoup de pakistanais il habitte au canada illegalement il vende dela drogue avec des iraniens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.101.235 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

spam or whatnot

seems to be some stupid shit in the article in random places. will the person who 'owns' this article clean it up? thanks