CDZ Is it Time to Break Up the FBI and CIA?

[task0778]

I've got several years into the "intel biz" and that phrase is used all the time.. But it does NOT describe the conspirators like Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Clapper who have SERIOUSLY abused their offices, because they are TEMPORARY POLITICAL APPOINTEES who serve only on the whims of POLITICAL leaderships...
The purposes and missions of the Intel community are known by only HANDFULS outside the orb. And so their lives and work just "sails on" while all the drama queen action goes on in the heads of the departments.. Even WITHIN the depts, only handfuls have a COMPLETE PICTURE of what the deep state is doing...

Someone posted this article that was published in 2014, way before trump, and it explores the Deep State and how it has evolved.

From 1960 to 1980 we did not have a single President finish two full terms, which prior to that was unusual in our politics. I think that was mostly due to the rise of the Deep State to displace civilian authority from the shadows of our government and the support industry that surrounds it.

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

And in 2013, particularly after the military return to power in Egypt, more and more authors referred to this second level as America’s “deep state.”2 Here for example is the Republican analyst Mike Lofgren:

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.3​

I believe that a significant shift in the relationship between public and deep state power occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, culminating in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. In this period five presidents sought to curtail the powers of the deep state. And as we shall see, the political careers of all five—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter—were cut off in ways that were unusual. One president, Kennedy, was assassinated. Another, Nixon, was forced to resign....

This tension increases, and predictably tips toward violence, if a well-organized open community expands beyond its own borders and is increasingly occupied with the business of supervising an empire. It is repeatedly the case that progressive societies (like America) expand. As their influence expands, their democratic institutions, based at bottom upon persuasive power among equals, are supplemented by new, often secret, institutions of top-down violent power for the control of alien populations abroad, often speaking different and unfamiliar languages. The more the society expands, the more these institutions of violent power encroach upon and supplant the original democracy.

As a result these nations also experience a deeper and deeper politics, much of it a contest between these two types of power. One special feature of American deep politics since World War Two is that much of it has been characterized by a series of conspiratorial deep events: emblematic of the ongoing conflict between these two forms of power and their corresponding mindsets. One is the acknowledged public mindset of openness, egalitarianism, and democracy. The other is the global dominance mindset committed to maintaining and expanding American hegemony. In domestic policy we often analyze the two cultures as liberals versus conservatives; in foreign policy, doves versus hawks. (Yet American liberals when they reach power, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have also been deeply entwined in the militarization of American politics and its global expansion.) But with the recent expansion since 9/11 of extra-constitutional agencies like the NSA, it is time to supplement these horizontal distinctions with a vertical one: between those agencies constrained by constitutional checks and balances (the public state) and those not so constrained (the deep state). Although the deep state as we have defined it has always existed, its recent radical expansion has brought it into occasional conspiratorial conflict with the public state, even with the president....

In saying that these deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American society, I am not attributing them all to a single agent or “secret team.” Rather I see them as flowing in part from the socio-dynamic processes of violent power itself, power associated with and deployed in the service of the global expansion of American military might, which (as history has shown many times) has the effect to transform both societies with surplus power and the individuals exercising that power.7 Insofar as these power processes govern America without deriving from its constitution, we can say that they derive from the milieu of the American deep state.

In discussing the deep events of Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra and 9/11, I will argue that, while the mysteries of these deep events cannot at present be fully dispelled by historical analysis (given the tight lock on official documentation), analysis does point to a pattern linking them....

The continuity between all these successive deception plots suggests that there may be an underlying source for all of them, and that the repeated appearances of external attacks or threats (from North Vietnam, Nicaragua or Iraq) may be false. I will suggest that for at least a half-century the conflict between the two mindsets has given rise to a series of conspiratorial deep events emanating from the hidden recesses of the American war machine all designed to deceive and coerce the American people so as to sustain or further military expansion. I will go further, and argue that this continuity underlies yet other significant deep events that led, not to the start of yet another external war, but to the progressive militarization and political repression of domestic American society.

Later I came to state this conclusion more forcefully:

Since 1959, virtually all of America’s major foreign wars have been wars 1) induced preemptively by the U.S. war machine and/or 2) disguised as responses to unprovoked enemy aggression, with disguises repeatedly engineered by deception deep events, involving in some way elements of the global drug connection.8​

These deceptions were not designed to deceive America’s enemies, but first and foremost to deceive the American people, to accept the unilateral initiation by America of illegal wars....

The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22

Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24

CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.​

All that WAS "reigned in" in the latter 60s by the Church commission and Congress... ALL Intel orgs were PROHIBITED from interfering or running operations DOMESTICALLY... With the exception of the FBI Intel folks who were really limited in their capabilities anyways...

But considering that there are CIA fingerprints all over the spying on the Trump campaign and the pranking and compromising of some campaign members, and that Brennan and Clapper BOTH played key roles in abusing the phony ass "Steele dossier" and FISA abuse and setting up full on overseas "compromising missions' on Page and Papadopolous, several others, with foreign assets -- AND we now have "CIA whistleblowers" being used as political hand grenades about PRIVILEGED CIC communications with foreign leaders -----

You'd THINK that there was NO restrictions on Intel grroups acting domestically anymore.. That pandora box is once again opened.. But I have STRONG feeling, it's gonna get nailed shut again.. Ask yourself how the CIA is suddenly "a check" on the Chief Exec by spying and PUBLICLY RELEASING details of diplomatic discussions...

Things were "groovy" when I was involved.. All our focus was on FOREIGN threats and assessments. So I never experienced or noticed a SHRED of evidence that our Intel agencies were turned on US... I'm sure the long-timers and rank/file deeply RESENT the political shift and treasonous behavior....

Thing is, I for one am scared that a Democrat is going to be back in the WH sooner or later, and this shit that went on under Obama will return to what it once was. Especially if he/she has a Dem-controlled Senate that can approve whoever they want to fill cabinet positions, judges and justices, and many top-level Intel jobs. Not that the Repubs are a bunch of choir boys, of course they ain't but the kind of stuff the Dems have done is way over the top IMHO. As I think we will see when the current investigations release their findings.

What I don't get right now is why those same Intel agencies and others in the Exec Branch are more interested in covering up what was done instead of weeding out all the bad apples and trying to restore the reputation they once had with the American people for Honor and Integrity. And that goes for the Legislative and Judicial Branches too, it's almost all politicized and personal, or seems to be. People at the top levels of gov't should have to follow the same code of conduct as everyone else, and IMHO should be held in even more strict accountability. Maybe it can't be proven in court, that's the way our system of justice is, you gotta have sufficient evidence (unless it's Trump), but we oughta be suspending the bastards and firing them if the appropriate tribunal determines guilt. And BTW, it's not just what did he/she do that can be proven, that should lead to prosecution no matter who you are. But I think if you bring discredit to your organization that that should be grounds for the President to fire your ass without benefits, even if illegal action cannot be proved. We simply cannot allow unethical behavior to exist anywhere in gov't, but especially in those at the top.

 

[JimBowie1958]

CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.​

All that WAS "reigned in" in the latter 60s by the Church commission and Congress... ALL Intel orgs were PROHIBITED from interfering or running operations DOMESTICALLY... With the exception of the FBI Intel folks who were really limited in their capabilities anyways...

But considering that there are CIA fingerprints all over the spying on the Trump campaign and the pranking and compromising of some campaign members, and that Brennan and Clapper BOTH played key roles in abusing the phony ass "Steele dossier" and FISA abuse and setting up full on overseas "compromising missions' on Page and Papadopolous, several others, with foreign assets -- AND we now have "CIA whistleblowers" being used as political hand grenades about PRIVILEGED CIC communications with foreign leaders -----

You'd THINK that there was NO restrictions on Intel grroups acting domestically anymore.. That pandora box is once again opened.. But I have STRONG feeling, it's gonna get nailed shut again.. Ask yourself how the CIA is suddenly "a check" on the Chief Exec by spying and PUBLICLY RELEASING details of diplomatic discussions...

Things were "groovy" when I was involved.. All our focus was on FOREIGN threats and assessments. So I never experienced or noticed a SHRED of evidence that our Intel agencies were turned on US... I'm sure the long-timers and rank/file deeply RESENT the political shift and treasonous behavior....

The Safari Club is post-Church committee.

We need the functionality, but we do not need it all under one tent. That should come at the level of the WH and National Security Council.