hmmmm.....

[Soldier]

I never said "directly", nor does it matter. They still work for the President, and that is the entire point.

[esskreemr]

I never said "directly", nor does it matter. They still work for the President, and that is the entire point.

The DCI is the President's prinicipal intelligence ADVISOR. The CIA also reports to various government departments and agencies.

Should the Head of the Intelligence Community be force through political loopholes to retain his position? Is this a good idea?

[scrapinpeg]

You're obviously confusing what agencies are currently under Presidential control with what agencies the Emperor... I mean President... would eventually like to have control of.

Thanks for the civics lesson COMRADE (by using Comrade in place of your name, I'm insinuating that since you don't have the list of Government agencies memorized you are a communist).

Hey, when you voted for President, did you have all the relevant information wrong on that one too?

Okay, you really don't know what you're talking about.
The phrase "independent agency" does NOT mean it is independent of the executive branch. It does NOT mean it is out there on its own. The phrase is a term of art in the context of government.

The phrase "independent agency" refers to those administrative divisions of government which are not described or provided for in the Constitution. They have been created in order to carry out the duties of the Executive. They are part of the executive branch, and answer to the President.

I know you're having a hard time grasping this concept, but it really is very very simple.

[esskreemr]

Okay, you really don't know what you're talking about.
The phrase "independent agency" does NOT mean it is independent of the executive branch. It does NOT mean it is out there on its own. The phrase is a term of art in the context of government.

The phrase "independent agency" refers to those administrative divisions of government which are not described or provided for in the Constitution. They have been created in order to carry out the duties of the Executive. They are part of the executive branch, and answer to the President.

In general, the independent agencies comprise all Federal administrative
agencies not included under the executive departments or
under the direct, immediate authority of the President. These
many and diverse organizations range from regulatory commissions,
to Government corporations, such as the U.S. Postal Service,
to a wide variety of boards and foundations. Some of these, such
as the Smithsonian Institution, are of long standing, while others
have been created in recent years, as the Federal Government has
increased its responsibilities. Independent regulatory commissions
have been established by Congress—beginning in the 1880s with
the now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission—to regulate
some aspect of the U.S. economy. Among these are the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission,
the Federal Trade Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Such agencies are not independent of the U.S. Government and
are subject to the laws that are approved by Congress and executed
by the President.

Independent regulatory commissions, Government corporations,
and various other Government-sponsored enterprises are bodies
headed by several commissioners, directors, or governors, who are
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Unlike
administrators of executive agencies, regulatory commissioners
serve for fixed terms and cannot be removed at the pleasure of the
President. In some cases, Government-sponsored enterprises may
also have directors who are private citizens. While all of the independent
regulatory commissions and most of the Government-sponsored
enterprises submit their budget requests to OMB for review
and clearance, the degree of dependence on these budgets varies
considerably. While nearly all of the Government-sponsored enterprises
generate a substantial part of their financial resources from
outside sources, almost all the independent regulatory commissions
rely on the Government for their funding.
Activities of all of these entities are presented in public reports
which are prepared annually. In addition, they are subject to periodic
authorization and appropriations hearings in Congress, where
their activities and operations can be reviewed.

I know you're having a hard time grasping this concept, but it really is very very simple.

Listen, I understand that you're operating under the principle of "If I say it enough times in different ways, it must be true." I'm sure that we could also argue what "control" refers to, but from a strictly organizational perspective, the CIA is not in the Executive Branch of the government I haven't found anything to indicate that legally, the CIA is under direct control of the President.

The CIA provides intelligence to the President, the NSC, and any other government official, agency or department that is engaged in operations requiring intelligence.

The DCI is the head of the CIA

The President Appoints the DCI

Congress confirms the appointment.

[Soldier]

The DCI is the President's prinicipal intelligence ADVISOR. The CIA also reports to various government departments and agencies.

I'll say it again. As a Federal agency, the President is in charge of the CIA. It may not be directly, but one way or another, he is. Period.

Should the Head of the Intelligence Community be force through political loopholes to retain his position? Is this a good idea?

No. But I see no reason to believe this is what is happening.

[esskreemr]

I'll say it again. As a Federal agency, the President is in charge of the CIA. It may not be directly, but one way or another, he is. Period.

You can say it all you want. Doesn't mean that the President has the authority to enforce his agenda on an independent federal agency. The influence is there, and has been since the CIA's conception. There needs to be a demarcation point for his control.

If the President is to excise such minute control, he should go ahead and rework the CIAs mission statement as well as the laws that govern the agency and its fundings. Oh wait, that's the responsibility of Congress.

No. But I see no reason to believe this is what is happening.

Didn't expect that you would. There are many times throughout history that partisans have turned a blind eye to their party's consolidation of power until it was too late.

[Soldier]

Again, you are assuming actions that you have no more evidence for than one man's opinion. The only authority he is exercising (which is perfectly fine) is to get rid of disloyal and/or leaking employees (leaking employees...sounds like a personal problem). You are assuming that anyone who disagrees is considered disloyal. I am not making that assumption. This does not constitute "turning a blind eye" on my part.

[esskreemr]

Again, you are assuming actions that you have no more evidence for than one man's opinion. The only authority he is exercising (which is perfectly fine) is to get rid of disloyal and/or leaking employees (leaking employees...sounds like a personal problem). You are assuming that anyone who disagrees is considered disloyal. I am not making that assumption. This does not constitute "turning a blind eye" on my part.

I'm not assuming that. I AM assuming that it is a possibility. IMO, such a purge would be idiotic (no guarantee that would stop it). Imagine a second-term Prez pissing off a bunch of spooks or other people in the know. How many leaks do you think that would open?

[jBirch]

I'm not assuming that. I AM assuming that it is a possibility. IMO, such a purge would be idiotic (no guarantee that would stop it). Imagine a second-term Prez pissing off a bunch of spooks or other people in the know. How many leaks do you think that would open?

So the issue is that it is a stupid decision then, rather then a nefarious one?

[esskreemr]

So the issue is that it is a stupid decision then, rather then a nefarious one?

The issue, right now, is rather or not it is true. I agree that an article stating that "a cia operative" is dubious at best. I have a feeling that we will know one way or the other in the next few months.

IF it were true, IMO the decision would be stupid and nefarious. Sorry, I neither subscribe (I'm not saying that you do) to the idea that the more power the President has the better nor believe everybody in every agency is under direct control by the President. This is irregardless of rather the Prez is a Repub or a Dem.

Rather the law backs me up, I guess that's arguable.

[jBirch]

The issue, right now, is rather or not it is true. I agree that an article stating that "a cia operative" is dubious at best. I have a feeling that we will know one way or the other in the next few months.

IF it were true, IMO the decision would be stupid and nefarious. Sorry, I neither subscribe (I'm not saying that you do) to the idea that the more power the President has the better nor believe everybody in every agency is under direct control by the President. This is irregardless of rather the Prez is a Repub or a Dem.

Rather the law backs me up, I guess that's arguable.

Ok, so the truth is the issue. The truth, specifically, about whether or not the purge is happening? Or whether the parameters of the purge are accurate? Ie// whether it is actually liberals, leakers or disloyal civil servants who are being released.

[esskreemr]

Ok, so the truth is the issue. The truth, specifically, about whether or not the purge is happening? Or whether the parameters of the purge are accurate? Ie// whether it is actually liberals, leakers or disloyal civil servants who are being released.

X-zakary.

Another note, if it is not so heinous to fire based on partisanship why is Director Goss bending over backwards to refute the alleged memo?

"I also intend to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. We support the administration, and its policies in our work as agency employees. We do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies. We provide the intelligence as we see it -- and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker."

The New York Times reported on the memo Wednesday in a story with the headline, "Chief of CIA Tells His Staff To Back Bush."

"It is false," said one official, "quite baffling." The official called the New York Times headline "dopey."

A CIA spokesman said the memo was "a statement about the nonpartisan nature of what this agency does," rather than the opposite."

"What that means," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano, "is when we are asked to provide intelligence on a particular topic, we do so without shading or shaping the information in any way. It is not a question of partisan support."

If the CIA is under the control of the President, why can't he hire and fire at will? He does so with his cabinet.

Scrapinpeg?

[scrapinpeg]

X-zakary.

If the CIA is under the control of the President, why can't he hire and fire at will? He does so with his cabinet.

Scrapinpeg?

Not even counting regulatory boards and commissions, the Executive Branch employs about 3,000,000 civilians and 1,000,000 soldiers. Presidents do not hire and fire the bulk of these people -- that's what the Civil Service is for. Presidents assert their influence over these individuals by appointing (and accepting the resignations of) the leadership of the agencies.

For example, the President selects cabinet secretaries for the major governmental departments (Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, etc.), plus heads of the other independent agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA. The President appoints anywhere from 12 to 50 top-ranking officials in each cabinet-level department, and about 10 in each of the major independent agencies.

Additionally, the President chooses a significant number of people who work directly for him in the White House. In the Executive Office of the President there are twelve offices, two executive residences, a staff of nearly two thousand individuals with a budget of over a quarter of a billion dollars (egads). Some of these offices include the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of the Trade Representative and the office of the "Drug Czar." Some members of the White House Staff, such as the White House Travel Office, are civil servants and, under most circumstances, cannot be unilaterally fired by the president.

Note, they work for the President, but he can't fire them. This is how it works.

The President has the authority to directly appoint about 650 top executive branch officials. His designees, in turn, appoint another 2,500 people, giving the President direct or indirect control over more than 3,000 executive branch appointments. Although this is a staggering number, this amounts to less than 1% of the people who work for the federal government. All others are selected and removed according to procedures of the Office of Personnel Management that administers the Civil Service System.

Hope this answers your latest Civics question. Always happy to edify you!

[esskreemr]

Always happy to edify you!

Oh yeah?! Well go edify yourself!

[Soldier]

So, let me see if I can sum this up:

1. The CIA, while not directly controlled by the President, does work for the President. Thus, he is able to purge it (if indirectly).

2. A memo has been released saying that the CIA is being purged of leakers and disloyal employees.

3. It is unknown at this time whether "disloyal" is a valid qualifier, or if it is a veil for "liberals/Democrats".

4. If the former, that should be perfectly legitimate. If the latter, then it is problematic.


Is this accurate?

[Inquartata]

It would depend on the definition of "disloyal" which hasn't been determined yet.

No, it makes no difference to what I am getting at with my question.

Assuming there are solid hiring practices and internal work policies, assuming qualified people are hired and utilized, why would it make a difference to the mission even if every single Democrat were gone and the Agency was 100% Republican?

Are you implying that Republicans cannot do the jobs as well as Democrats? Because they're not as smart, maybe? Or are you saying that individual workers in the Agency would deliberately slant their findings to support a political agenda, and only the presence of Democrats prevents this?

[Inquartata]

The CIA provides intelligence to the President, the NSC, and any other government official, agency or department that is engaged in operations requiring intelligence.

The DCI is the head of the CIA

The President Appoints the DCI

Congress confirms the appointment.

Why are you quibbling over semantics?

If I own a business, and I hire someone to manage it and run the day-to-day operations, including supervising the work force, does that make the business "independent" of me? Does it make the manager, whom I pay and can fire, "independent"? Or does he and the company still work for me?

Sheesh.

[Philistine]

Why are you quibbling over semantics?

If I own a business, and I hire someone to manage it and run the day-to-day operations, including supervising the work force, does that make the business "independent" of me? Does it make the manager, whom I pay and can fire, "independent"? Or does he and the company still work for me?

Sheesh.

It is semantics--and neither the President nor Congress really has full "control" over the CIA.

It was enacted by act of Congress, Congress has the purse strings, and has some oversight powers and responsibilities through various intelligence committees, and can constrain or empower it through laws. The president hires and fires the DCI, and is advised by him--and can generally address the focus and methods of the CIA.

Also, CIA agents, as federal employees have civil service protection and (except for the very highest positions) cannot be fired due to their politics.

While it is technically part of the Executive Branch--if not technically an "Executive Agency," that does not give the President full control over the personell decisions made at the mid to lower levels.

All that being said--anyone leaking information from the CIA would be subject to dismissal regardless of his politics--and also potentially subject to prosecution.

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

So, let me see if I can sum this up:

1. The CIA, while not directly controlled by the President, does work for the President. Thus, he is able to purge it (if indirectly).

2. A memo has been released saying that the CIA is being purged of leakers and disloyal employees.

3. It is unknown at this time whether "disloyal" is a valid qualifier, or if it is a veil for "liberals/Democrats".

4. If the former, that should be perfectly legitimate. If the latter, then it is problematic.


Is this accurate?

That seems to sum it up.