National Intelligence Director

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

it290

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
3,265
Points
36
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

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Messages
1,925
Points
36
Age
32
Website
sky.prohosting.com
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

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
3,265
Points
36
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

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,440
Points
36
Age
35
Website
www.myspace.com
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
34
Points
6
Website
Visit site
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

New Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2001
Messages
355
Points
16
Age
49
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. ;)
 

Alexvrb

Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
2,199
Points
36
Age
35
Website
Visit site
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

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
3,265
Points
36
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

New Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
360
Points
16
Age
35
Website
Visit site
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.
 

Lyzel

New Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
388
Points
16
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
 

VertigoXX

Mid Boss
Joined
Apr 16, 2001
Messages
1,135
Points
36
Website
www.PoetsHaven.com
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

Mid Boss
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Messages
1,990
Points
36
Age
42
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

Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
2,199
Points
36
Age
35
Website
Visit site
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.
 
Top