28-10-2010, 05:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2010, 10:03 PM by Albert Doyle.)
While blaming "CIA" in general can be too broad an accusation in the case of cells and compartments and a large number of minor divisions of such into rogue groups of members, I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these groups simply because they are so directly related that CIA can't escape association with them. If CIA itself is a once-removed aspect of American government from Constitutional oversight, then these rogue groups are removed even further and represent the ultimate empowered and unaccountable force.
The reason I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these people is because the way our system is structured CIA has to take responsibility for them one way or the other. Our system is based on extreme application of personal responsibility and legal accountability. We have an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ethic in this country. We also have an equal rule of law for government and citizen standard. So when an individual goes before the law he is held accountable for that which falls under him in terms of this system and order. And so goes it for those government bureaucracies that have taken so much power under their legal, ethical, moral, and structural domain.
The sword cuts both ways and CIA has to be responsible for its own shop. If it insists on creating such a dark woods then it has to be responsible for that which goes on in its shadows. Those woods are still legal, Constitutional territory that someone has to take responsibility for. You can't, in a Constitutional system, create such a murky woods, raise shadowy creatures within it, teach them dark methods, and then deny any responsibility when they create mischief in the village, whether that be rogue strays or not. Government is not as tolerant or forgiving when it comes to individual accountability.
America deals with this by saying on cable TV News or in the Times that Congress is set-up to monitor CIA and its doings. That's what people should be getting their fur rubbed the wrong way over - IMO.
The reason I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these people is because the way our system is structured CIA has to take responsibility for them one way or the other. Our system is based on extreme application of personal responsibility and legal accountability. We have an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ethic in this country. We also have an equal rule of law for government and citizen standard. So when an individual goes before the law he is held accountable for that which falls under him in terms of this system and order. And so goes it for those government bureaucracies that have taken so much power under their legal, ethical, moral, and structural domain.
The sword cuts both ways and CIA has to be responsible for its own shop. If it insists on creating such a dark woods then it has to be responsible for that which goes on in its shadows. Those woods are still legal, Constitutional territory that someone has to take responsibility for. You can't, in a Constitutional system, create such a murky woods, raise shadowy creatures within it, teach them dark methods, and then deny any responsibility when they create mischief in the village, whether that be rogue strays or not. Government is not as tolerant or forgiving when it comes to individual accountability.
America deals with this by saying on cable TV News or in the Times that Congress is set-up to monitor CIA and its doings. That's what people should be getting their fur rubbed the wrong way over - IMO.