HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
National Intelligence Director
it290 - Aug 3, 2004
  it290 Aug 3, 2004
Well, one of the main things Bush has been talking about in the past week is that he wants to go with the suggestion of the 9/11 Commission and create a post for a National Director of Intelligence. So far, there hasn't really been much opposition to this plan, either in Congress or w/the press and public. Personally, I find this a little frightening. Do we really want or need a non-elected official who has power over all the intelligence agencies, potentially with a lifetime term? People with that much control in intelligence have done some scary things in other countries in the past. Does anyone else feel this is a little too '1984' for our own good?

Also, with one human in a post like that, will we really be any more secure? Any single human being is extremely fallable. I would personally rather see some type of oversight agency.

 Dud Aug 3, 2004
Who cares? The USA is run by a group of 12 men called The Patriots, I'm sure they'd place someone reliable in that position.

 it290 Aug 3, 2004
But they're all dead!

edit - jokes aside, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here, but I do believe this could have some serious impacts on civil liberties.

 lordofduct Aug 3, 2004
Screw bush... ive decided im voting kerry. anyone who believes in socialized health care and 100% support of the education system is great in my books.

 The Man Aug 3, 2004
Putting someone in charge for all the agencies is going too far. Not like we need another person to pay them way to much money so we can hear the same crap from the agency it can from. :huh

 3rdman Aug 3, 2004
What is Condi Rice gonna do now...bring coffee to the new director. Well, she already brings it to Bush. Vote everybody...as often as possible.

 racketboy Aug 3, 2004
Just put me in as dictator and all will be well

 The Man Aug 3, 2004
FTS - then I know we'll be in more over our heads that before.

 Alexvrb Aug 3, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Aug 3, 2004 @ 07:19 PM



 Well, one of the main things Bush has been talking about in the past week is that he wants to go with the suggestion of the 9/11 Commission and create a post for a National Director of Intelligence. So far, there hasn't really been much opposition to this plan, either in Congress or w/the press and public. Personally, I find this a little frightening. Do we really want or need a non-elected official who has power over all the intelligence agencies, potentially with a lifetime term? People with that much control in intelligence have done some scary things in other countries in the past. Does anyone else feel this is a little too '1984' for our own good?



Also, with one human in a post like that, will we really be any more secure? Any single human being is extremely fallable. I would personally rather see some type of oversight agency.


I don't like it either. But I get pretty irritable when I hear random idiots blaming Bush for this and everything else. I'm not referring to you it290, I'm just saying it's like few people realize that this was the Commission's suggestion. If he resists any of their suggestions, they'll attack him. If he goes along with them, people attack him for that too.

Anyway, no solution is perfect. I'd be happy with them opening (within limits) communication and cooperation between the various agencies. That's pretty much already been done, but I don't know how well it currently works in practice.

Question: If you have a czar or even an organization responsible for oversight, who watches over them? Who polices the polices' police?

"My car is out of gas, DAMN YOU GW!!!"

 it290 Aug 3, 2004
I agree. I don't see this as a Bush or Republican issue - so far it has garnered quite a bit of support from both sides of the aisle.

 Caelestis Aug 3, 2004
From what I understood, the CIA and FBI were designed to have trouble communicating on purpose. It had something to do with letting both of them have a little overlap, so they'd police each other just a little bit, without the need for an oversight committee.

But that's just me.

 Gear Aug 3, 2004
Another issue in the neverending battle of USA against the world.

 Lyzel Aug 4, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Gear@Aug 4, 2004 @ 02:20 AM



 Another issue in the neverending battle of USA against the world.


Well? what can you say? Who else in this planet runs to the aid of countries that are in need help? The United States of America! Most other countries just have their fingers up their butts!!! :smash

 Gear Aug 4, 2004
Are you serious?

 VertigoXX Aug 5, 2004
I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea to put in place a cabinet position, someone to whom all the intelligence groups report to on a daily basis. However, the idea of one person being able to tell the CIA, FBI, etc. what to do does worry me. The various agencies need to retain a good degree of independance. The person they report to (and their staff, of course) should have the task of seeing where one agency could benifit from information gathered by another agency. IE: Hey, Mr. Special Agent In Charge FBI person, you're investigating this drug ring where money's been coming in from country X. Meet Mr. CIA handler, he's been investigating a terrorist group that's been funneling that money into your drug cartel. Now work together and play nice.

Ya know, someone like Oracle in the Batman comics. LOL She provides all the Bat-crew, the JLA, the JSA, the Titans, and, well, just about all the mainstream superheroes in the DC universe with whatever information they need and recruits them when their powers or skills are needed for a particular mission. It is kind of a corny reference to make, but if you read DC comics, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 schi0249 Aug 5, 2004
See, that is exactly how I invision that position. Someone who oversees, but has minimal control. As we all saw, 9/11 is what happens when your intelligence depts are not working together.

 Alexvrb Aug 5, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Caelestis@Aug 4, 2004 @ 01:23 AM



 From what I understood, the CIA and FBI were designed to have trouble communicating on purpose. It had something to do with letting both of them have a little overlap, so they'd police each other just a little bit, without the need for an oversight committee.


Yes, something like that. Which is why I said "within limits". A cabinet position where they report to him would be a good thing, but he shouldn't have any real power over them. Someone in that position could piece things together more quickly than anyone else, since he gets intel from all the groups, but he should definetely not have control. His job should be to take what he's learned and report it to the president and the agencies, not to tell them what to do with it.