Ron Paul and a Timeline of CIA Crimes and Atrocities
-
josda1000 wrote:
Firstly, it's unconstitutional to terrorize and is not explicitly delegated as a power to Congress. Second, because it is not a power to Congress, they couldn't delegate the power to anyone if they didn't have it in the first place.
The original PURPOSE of the CIA was to gather foreign intelligence, not to "terrorize." With some of their covert ops, they seem to have exceeded that mandate, but unfortunately, sometimes that's the lesser of two evils. But regardless, Congress does have the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Now, I'm no expert, obviously, and this might not be the actual part they used to justify the National Security Act of '47, but it seems to me that the CIA could be classified as a "force."
josda1000 wrote:
Third, it's not in our form of government: "Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our form of government." -- Thomas Jefferson.
This isn't conquest, though. Conquest implies territorial expansion, and it's a bit of a stretch to refer to CIA black ops as "conquest." Just looking at the worst things they do (Or that we're pretty confident that they do)... Assassination and destabilization. They push aside the dictators, but we don't move in and take over (Granted, the dictator that comes in after isn't always better).
josda1000 wrote:
The CIA does actually spy internally, not just the NSA, not to mention the FBI with self-written search warrants and wiretapping.
As I said, the CIA is SUPPOSED to operate outside of our borders. When their target enters the US, they're supposed to pass the buck to the FBI. Any domestic spying done by the CIA is, I agree, a problem, due to their differing tactics (As I mentioned). As for the FBI wiretapping... Yes, also a problem, but we're talking about the CIA here. By the way, gotta correct myself... The FBI is actually the only agency that's supposed to operate within our borders. The CIA and NSA are both supposed to be foreign intelligence. NSA monitors communications, CIA operates field agents. (Again, SUPPOSED to be... Their mandate has grown a bit too much over the years) Basically, I do agree that they've exceeded their mandates (Patriot act, DHS, etc), but I also believe that in their original capacity, they are necessary. EDIT: Clarifying last statemen
Noooo... both of you have it wrong. You should be friendly with all, but entagle yourselves with none. Isolationism is usually only implemented in a totally authoritarian state (AKA Cuba, China...) We should defend our borders, but it doesn't mean that we seal the borders. Since the CIA deals in covert action, of course we have alliances that us normal folk don't understand at all. Why is there so much confusion? How about this: bring the troops home, destroy the NSA and CIA, and everyone would be happy again. The CIA and MI6 are the ones creating problems, not "extremist muslims" or "right-wing extremists" or "terrorists" in general. BTW: This is an opinion post. Citation not necessary.
-
josda1000 wrote:
That's precisely where it all goes wrong, and why they should not have been created in the first place.
Citation needed.
josda1000 wrote:
But once you give any authority to anyone, they will try to get away with more.
Citation needed.
josda1000 wrote:
The CIA does actually spy internally
Citation needed.
josda1000 wrote:
The CIA unmasked themselves (poor choice of words, but apropos nonetheless) when the libertarian ex-wrestler Jesse Ventura took office after being elected governor of Minnesota.
Citation needed.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That's precisely where it all goes wrong, and why they should not have been created in the first place.
This is an opinion. Citation unnecessary.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
But once you give any authority to anyone, they will try to get away with more.
This is an opinion. Citation unnecessary.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The CIA does actually spy internally
USA Patriot Act. Look up Jesse Ventura. I'd assume you'd know better, but how do I really know that, you're just being defensive.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The CIA unmasked themselves (poor choice of words, but apropos nonetheless) when the libertarian ex-wrestler Jesse Ventura took office after being elected governor of Minnesota.
See previous blockquote.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You want a country that is not seen as isolationist.
The purpose of boarders are to isolate. You want isolationism. Isolationism is good.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The purpose of boarders are to isolate.
I thought the purpose of boarders was to look cool while surfing or skating. For someone who's always claiming to know what's best for the US, you could at least learn the language. Of course, if you meant BORDERS, which are those funny little lines on the map that separate us from Canada and Mexico, their purpose is not to isolate, but to define the boundaries of ownership or sovereignty. You can claim to be an isolationist (Which is pretty silly in this day and age), but don't redefine words to suit your belief.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Noooo... both of you have it wrong. You should be friendly with all, but entagle yourselves with none. Isolationism is usually only implemented in a totally authoritarian state (AKA Cuba, China...) We should defend our borders, but it doesn't mean that we seal the borders. Since the CIA deals in covert action, of course we have alliances that us normal folk don't understand at all. Why is there so much confusion? How about this: bring the troops home, destroy the NSA and CIA, and everyone would be happy again. The CIA and MI6 are the ones creating problems, not "extremist muslims" or "right-wing extremists" or "terrorists" in general. BTW: This is an opinion post. Citation not necessary.
We need to have somewhat of an isolationism policy. We should only trade with economies that do not underpay their workers, and we should never ever allow trade imbalances. We should only send troops if we legally declare war on a country, and not some phony abstract war like terror or drugs.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Noooo... both of you have it wrong. You should be friendly with all, but entagle yourselves with none. Isolationism is usually only implemented in a totally authoritarian state (AKA Cuba, China...) We should defend our borders, but it doesn't mean that we seal the borders. Since the CIA deals in covert action, of course we have alliances that us normal folk don't understand at all. Why is there so much confusion? How about this: bring the troops home, destroy the NSA and CIA, and everyone would be happy again. The CIA and MI6 are the ones creating problems, not "extremist muslims" or "right-wing extremists" or "terrorists" in general. BTW: This is an opinion post. Citation not necessary.
If, by bringing the troops home, you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, then I agree with you. Do realize, though, that part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence. Just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire[^], an interesting read with several sides to the issue. As for the CIA/NSA... The way I see it, being one of the larger countries, and one of the richest, makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders. I don't think I have to point out our position as one of the major hubs of commerce, finance, etc... That's enough to ensure that we WILL be a target. Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that. Now, having the CIA/NSA focus more on intelligence gathering than covert ops might be a good thing... But ditching them entirely would practically be an invitation. Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You want a country that is not seen as isolationist.
The purpose of boarders are to isolate. You want isolationism. Isolationism is good.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Isolationism is good.
Yep, obviously. Because it works so well. Like in the early 1900s Or after the Great Depression. Oh wait, World Wars all started while we were too busy minding our own business not to step in and stop things before they got out of hand. It doesn't work. You seriously think we shouldn't get involved in world politics when they directly impact us?
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government
Like you do? Oh, wait, sorry, you don't do that either. You post in a PROGRAMMING site a bunch of youtube and infowars links and don't actually DO anything.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
He just reads them and thinks 'yeah, THAT'S why I have failed at life. The CIA'
I thought it was Climategate... Or was that last week's excuse? :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yeah, it's a moving target, obviously.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
We need to have somewhat of an isolationism policy. We should only trade with economies that do not underpay their workers, and we should never ever allow trade imbalances. We should only send troops if we legally declare war on a country, and not some phony abstract war like terror or drugs.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We should only trade with economies that do not underpay their workers, and we should never ever allow trade imbalances.
Well to me, that's not isolationist. That's just free trade. But yes I do agree.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
. We should only send troops if we legally declare war on a country
Technical point here: the term to use is "lawfully", not "legally". But yes, completely agreed. Only Congress can declare war, not the president on a whim. It MUST be debated.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
not some phony abstract war like terror or drugs
BINGO.
-
If, by bringing the troops home, you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, then I agree with you. Do realize, though, that part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence. Just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire[^], an interesting read with several sides to the issue. As for the CIA/NSA... The way I see it, being one of the larger countries, and one of the richest, makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders. I don't think I have to point out our position as one of the major hubs of commerce, finance, etc... That's enough to ensure that we WILL be a target. Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that. Now, having the CIA/NSA focus more on intelligence gathering than covert ops might be a good thing... But ditching them entirely would practically be an invitation. Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence.
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?! what the hell do you really think is going on over there? I hope you're not getting all of your information from mainstream media sources. I don't think that wiki was very good at all. Yes, we are imperial. We have bases everywhere in the world. We're the policemen. We have bases in every country, even peaceable countries.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
one of the richest
We used to be THE richest... but now, ever since the federal reserve was enacted... (Ok let's not debate this Ian lol)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders.
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that.
You're right. We'd have to pull our troops out as well. Then we wouldn't look like bullies that start fights.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good. They are a demoralized group. They were created during the cold war to gather intelligence and do covert ops. In secret. Theoretically they're accountable to the Congress, but they don't tell Congress everything if they don't want to. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence.
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?! what the hell do you really think is going on over there? I hope you're not getting all of your information from mainstream media sources. I don't think that wiki was very good at all. Yes, we are imperial. We have bases everywhere in the world. We're the policemen. We have bases in every country, even peaceable countries.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
one of the richest
We used to be THE richest... but now, ever since the federal reserve was enacted... (Ok let's not debate this Ian lol)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders.
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that.
You're right. We'd have to pull our troops out as well. Then we wouldn't look like bullies that start fights.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good. They are a demoralized group. They were created during the cold war to gather intelligence and do covert ops. In secret. Theoretically they're accountable to the Congress, but they don't tell Congress everything if they don't want to. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are. And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board? Keep in mind, nukes aren't all that hard to come by, particularly "dirty" ones (Which are more devastating from a terrorism standpoint), in some places. It's delivery systems that are difficult. Right now, the CIA and NSA are working around the clock to detect plots like that BEFORE they reach our shores. That's one of their main purposes. They're the first line of defense. See, I'm not talking about military invasions... The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple. Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all you need are a few WORKING ICBMs, and no soldier will openly set foot in your country. I'm talking about terrorism, or guerrilla warfare. Yeah, I know terrorism is the new thing that they hang over our heads to scare us, but it's always been there. 9/11 was just the first BIG one that the CIA/NSA/FBI didn't catch.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good.
Unfortunately, it's hard to debate this, since good facts are hard to come by. For all we know, they could have agents in almost every major terrorist organization in the world, preventing hundreds of potential attacks from reaching us. On the other hand, they could be doing absolutely nothing. They're so
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are becoming an annoyance.
Do you resent the competition ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are. And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board? Keep in mind, nukes aren't all that hard to come by, particularly "dirty" ones (Which are more devastating from a terrorism standpoint), in some places. It's delivery systems that are difficult. Right now, the CIA and NSA are working around the clock to detect plots like that BEFORE they reach our shores. That's one of their main purposes. They're the first line of defense. See, I'm not talking about military invasions... The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple. Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all you need are a few WORKING ICBMs, and no soldier will openly set foot in your country. I'm talking about terrorism, or guerrilla warfare. Yeah, I know terrorism is the new thing that they hang over our heads to scare us, but it's always been there. 9/11 was just the first BIG one that the CIA/NSA/FBI didn't catch.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good.
Unfortunately, it's hard to debate this, since good facts are hard to come by. For all we know, they could have agents in almost every major terrorist organization in the world, preventing hundreds of potential attacks from reaching us. On the other hand, they could be doing absolutely nothing. They're so
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
Circular logic, but how do you know it's not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are.
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board?
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, shit still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news: http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=888[] http://www.prisonplanet.com/bomber-had-no-passport-helped-to-board-plane-by-sharp-dressed-man.html[] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6968560.ece[]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple.
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
-
TLDR: The CIA is a bunch of jerks. Not really news here, everyone knows they have been stupidly overstepping their bounds and they have a bunch of guys with every James Bond movie in their collection to which they spend quality time with a tissue watching them and wishing they could just blow away bad guys all day long.
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
You know, I'm about to possibly have Dave Champion on the show soon. So guess what... YEAH! I'm DOING something, you moron!!! I don't need Freedom of Information Act requests if I can get a radio personality that's already done so ON the show. BTW!! I HAVE A SHOW!!! Ok sorry I'm done.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants
The only reason I'd cry is if we get more oppressed. And again... you're not helping. So do something and help. Instead of calling everyone in the Back Room names. Something tells me that you're just an evil 12 year old or something. I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE!
-
You know, I'm about to possibly have Dave Champion on the show soon. So guess what... YEAH! I'm DOING something, you moron!!! I don't need Freedom of Information Act requests if I can get a radio personality that's already done so ON the show. BTW!! I HAVE A SHOW!!! Ok sorry I'm done.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants
The only reason I'd cry is if we get more oppressed. And again... you're not helping. So do something and help. Instead of calling everyone in the Back Room names. Something tells me that you're just an evil 12 year old or something. I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE!
josda1000 wrote:
I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE! Quote Selected Text
Woah Woah Woah... You haven't finished debating Ian yet. You are not going anywhere until you finish that debate, and win.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE! Quote Selected Text
Woah Woah Woah... You haven't finished debating Ian yet. You are not going anywhere until you finish that debate, and win.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
lol relying on me? not yourself?! That's the point. If you start a debate (and you do ALL the time), then YOU debate! He and I debate, but we never really finish it, because we just don't see eye to eye on much. I enjoy it, however, it's not going to happen. I don't think there's any real win. But no, I am done with you. You act like a child. And I have the inclination to say that you do this on purpose. I believe most on here would agree with it as well, and you have accepted it, in some whorish way. You've demoralized yourself. And that's the kind of thing that Alex Jones attracts, while at the same time saying that's the reason why the country's gone to hell in a hand-basket. And don't tell me what to do. I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
-
lol relying on me? not yourself?! That's the point. If you start a debate (and you do ALL the time), then YOU debate! He and I debate, but we never really finish it, because we just don't see eye to eye on much. I enjoy it, however, it's not going to happen. I don't think there's any real win. But no, I am done with you. You act like a child. And I have the inclination to say that you do this on purpose. I believe most on here would agree with it as well, and you have accepted it, in some whorish way. You've demoralized yourself. And that's the kind of thing that Alex Jones attracts, while at the same time saying that's the reason why the country's gone to hell in a hand-basket. And don't tell me what to do. I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
Well, maybe you should take the spotlight here. There are approximately 350 people that read this forum, 150-200 daily. Take it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Well, maybe you should take the spotlight here. There are approximately 350 people that read this forum, 150-200 daily. Take it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
But this forum screeches to a dead halt, and readers disperse if I do not post here. You should just go ahead and take over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]