Ciao!

I don't think anybody joined the CIA because he/she would like torturing people. Serving the country seems a very likely reason to me for joining intelligence agencies.

(I haven't been aware of widespread accusations against the CIA concerning that matter, actually.)

Anyway, the crucial thing is to determine what the national interests are.

So assuming, a CIA agent wants to get information that he regards as very important for national security. And he uses tortureous measures in the process. If news about his methods reach the public widespread anger against the CIA or the nation in general might follow.

In that case he would not have served the national interest of his country by using torture (although he was trying to).

If - along this strain of thought - he would decide that not the torturing is bad but leaking information then he would maybe see the national interest in silencing the leakers.

How true to the constitution of any democratic country would measures like this be?

Now, this thought makes Intelligence Agencies not very likeable organizations all over the world.

In my opinion they are neccessary, yes. But I am suspicious of their ways no matter which country they are trying to serve.

(One more thing, I didn't get the remark about gestapo. Was someone accusing you to be in favor of gestapo methods?)

Marco:

I agree w/ everything you wrote. Good analysis. As for the gestapo comment ... I'd tried making the argument that using a stereotype (mostly from cheesy movies & conspiracy theories) & broadly applying it to the group wasn't fair/objective. So this guy decided to make a crack making the same point using gestapo, instead of CIA. The goal, of course, was to belittle my point & mock me in the process. I could've countered, of course, w/ the fact that many gestapo agents are on record for saving hundreds of Jews & others from the Third Reich, as were many high level Nazi officials. But no point in taking a jackass seriously, eh?

Miguel,
I agree that all states need some sort of covert information gathering agency. I also think you're right in criticizing the view that everyone who works at the CIA is some kind of inhuman torturer--that is obviously not the case.

However, those naive people who view the CIA so negatively because they think America shouldn't be allowed to pursue its national interest have their match on the other side of the coin, by those "true believers"--who are just as naive and, I would argue, just as dangerous. These people--many of whom work at places like the CIA, the DIA, NSA, etc--have the world view that America is always right and any action done in its name is justified.

This is very wrong and I believe this mindset has led some federal agents and soldiers to rationalize the torture cases we're now hearing about.

Further, the lack of accountabilty for American intelligence activity represents another weakness of all the agencies. When was the last time the public heard about any disciplinary actions or firings at the CIA? Obviously, there were some incredible intelligence failures (9-11 being one) and yet there appears to be no accountability for a job poorly done. One of the main reasons accountability is lacking, has to do with almost all agency activity being put under the overwhelming and overused blanket of "national security." I would argue it is in the national security of the country, any country, to know what its various agencies are doing, have done, or most importantly how they have failed--it is only then that the country can figure out a solution. Letting the national security agencies perpetuate their failures, or trying to solve them in-house will never be a real solution.

Patrick:
I clearly agree w/ you, too. Hope you don't think I beleive the naivete is only one-sided. Ignorance goes both ways, of course.