Turn on thread page Beta

Confirmed: Lee Harvey Oswald Worked for the CIA watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    They haven't exactly defined what they mean by that third purpose. It might mean simply tracking people but I would have classed that as intelligence gathering. It might mean only capturing people but it might also mean assassinating people. What makes you sure that they only mean capturing and not killing?
    Ford banned the CIA from killing political figures (over 3 decades ago). It can theoretically kill terrorists, but capturing them is far less messy, thus the whole rendition thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Ford banned the CIA from killing political figures (over 3 decades ago). It can theoretically kill terrorists, but capturing them is far less messy, thus the whole rendition thing.
    Was that passed as law or just while he was President, because the statement did say "under presidential direction" or something like that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Was that passed as law or just while he was President, because the statement did say "under presidential direction" or something like that?
    Executive Order 11905. Executive Orders have the power of law until they are amended by succeeding presidents (the assassination aspect of it was never amended).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Executive Order 11905. Executive Orders have the power of law until they are amended by succeeding presidents (the assassination aspect of it was never amended).
    Yeah I found that out after my post, sorry. Although Bush did think about revoking the ban but I don't think he ever did.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Yeah I found that out after my post, sorry. Although Bush did think about revoking the ban but I don't think he ever did.
    Yeah. It actually made the attack against a location where Hussein was supposed to be staying (first night of Iraq War) rather dodgy. I wonder why no one picked up on it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah. It actually made the attack against a location where Hussein was supposed to be staying (first night of Iraq War) rather dodgy. I wonder why no one picked up on it.
    That could be classed as a military strike of war. Hussein was a legitimate military target.

    More worrying would be this case:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5126-2002Nov4

    [finally found a link to the story]
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    That could be classed as a military strike of war. Hussein was a legitimate military target.

    More worrying would be this case:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5126-2002Nov4

    [finally found a link to the story]
    Nope, Hussein is a politician. He should be off-limits.

    I think there's a higher likelihood that it's a DoD operation, with an American base in Djibouti and all, but this would be within the CIA's mandate if it felt the individuals in question were preparing to attack the US.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Nope, Hussein is a politician. He should be off-limits.

    I think there's a higher likelihood that it's a DoD operation, with an American base in Djibouti and all, but this would be within the CIA's mandate if it felt the individuals in question were preparing to attack the US.
    So who can't the CIA kill then? And if you distinguish between CIA and DoD then isn't it the DoD who tried to kill Hussein with that missile?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So who can't the CIA kill then? And if you distinguish between CIA and DoD then isn't it the DoD who tried to kill Hussein with that missile?
    That's actually a good point. You can't target civilians, which includes politicians, under the Geneva Conventions. One can justify attacks against the Taliban leadership, since the Taliban wasn't the recognized government of Afghanistan, but I don't see any grounds for attacking the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The fact that Hussein was a POW and tried in an Iraqi court after the war is in line with Hussein being a civilian by the way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    That's actually a good point. You can't target civilians, which includes politicians, under the Geneva Conventions. One can justify attacks against the Taliban leadership, since the Taliban wasn't the recognized government of Afghanistan, but I don't see any grounds for attacking the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The fact that Hussein was a POW and tried in an Iraqi court after the war is in line with Hussein being a civilian by the way.
    So the CIA is only barred from assassinating political leaders?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So the CIA is only barred from assassinating political leaders?
    Yes. Keep in mind that the CIA knocked off Mossadegh, helped knock off Allende and several other leaders in Latin America, and tried to assassinate Castro a dozen times in the two decades prior to that order.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yes. Keep in mind that the CIA knocked off Mossadegh, helped knock off Allende and several other leaders in Latin America, and tried to assassinate Castro a dozen times in the two decades prior to that order.
    So, then part of the CIA's job might well be to kill people?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So, then part of the CIA's job might well be to kill people?
    I said it's not part of its mission; I didn't say it never happens. Its main goal is to gather intelligence, and killing people is not a good way to do that. The amount of terrorists that have been captured and sent to Guantanamo or secret facilities in Europe attests to that. The CIA kills people under very extreme conditions; it's outside the norm.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I said it's not part of its mission; I didn't say it never happens. Its main goal is to gather intelligence, and killing people is not a good way to do that. The amount of terrorists that have been captured and sent to Guantanamo or secret facilities in Europe attests to that. The CIA kills people under very extreme conditions; it's outside the norm.
    OK
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So does someone want to answer my initial post about why Oswald being involved with the CIA in a limited capacity means that any thing he did was sanctioned by the CIA? It's a known fact that the CIA has contacts with unsavory individuals (including in the Mafia) and probably has quite a few such individuals on its payroll (which is not to say they're CIA agents). Does that mean that when some mafioso on the CIA's payroll murders someone, the CIA is behind it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    So does someone want to answer my initial post about why Oswald being involved with the CIA in a limited capacity means that any thing he did was sanctioned by the CIA? It's a known fact that the CIA has contacts with unsavory individuals (including in the Mafia) and probably has quite a few such individuals on its payroll (which is not to say they're CIA agents). Does that mean that when some mafioso on the CIA's payroll murders someone, the CIA is behind it?
    I think it's called guilt by association and is a cornerstone of most good conspiracy theories. A lot of the stuff about the evil neo-cons relies heavily on this. Oddly enough, though, guilt by association is roundly (and correctly) attacked in other circumstances even by the people who rely on it here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yes, let's rely on a handful of quotes and endless conspiracy theories instead of the actual facts. But don't lose the tinfoil hat, since that apparently gives you meaning in life.
    Wait a minute? It' still a "theory"? Back and to the left? Over 50 people rushing to the grassy knoll because they heard the shot fired by Lucian Sarti? New photographic proof independently verified and first shown by the History Channel showing the guy taking the shot ? But if you want to remain clueless, to each his own.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    Wait a minute? It' still a "theory"? Back and to the left? Over 50 people rushing to the grassy knoll because they heard the shot fired by Lucian Sarti? New photographic proof independently verified and first shown by the History Channel showing the guy taking the shot ? But if you want to remain clueless, to each his own.
    Yeah yeah, and for every History Channel documentary that says one thing, there are 5 that say the opposite. I'm glad you have such a high standard for proof.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I think it's called guilt by association and is a cornerstone of most good conspiracy theories. A lot of the stuff about the evil neo-cons relies heavily on this. Oddly enough, though, guilt by association is roundly (and correctly) attacked in other circumstances even by the people who rely on it here.
    Exactly. I really don't understand it. I mean, I might know people who are communists, or fascists, or terrorist-supporters. So if I ever get a political post, I should be held accountable for their actions? :confused: And if I have my own business, and one of employees does something despicable on their free time, am I responsible for their actions? :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah yeah, and for every History Channel documentary that says one thing, there are 5 that say the opposite. I'm glad you have such a high standard for proof.
    :rofl: Since when was truth subject to popular opinion ? And you call that a rebuttal? You sure proved me wrong! Ha!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    :rofl: Since when was truth subject to popular opinion ? And you call that a rebuttal? You sure proved me wrong! Ha!
    Gee, I never realized that every documentary made on the subject was fact. Especially seeing that most of them contradict each other. But like I said, if believing the entire world is conspiring against you gives your life meaning, then go ahead and keep on believing it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2007
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.