« Global Warming (II) | Main | Bioterrorism »

Break Up the CIA (IV)?

August 26, 2004 10:16 PM - comments (7)

Interesting discussion of this question in Slate.

Posted on August 26, 2004 10:16 PM | | technorati

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1400

Comments (7)

August 27, 2004 10:31 AM Andrew Smith:

Judge Posner, I've really enjoyed reading your posts on the Lessig blog. Do you have your own blog? Will you start one? :)

August 27, 2004 12:10 PM Tom Holsinger:

Amy Zegart, author of _Flawed by Design - Evolution of the CIA, JCS and NSC_, vehemently disagrees with Fred Kaplan's article in Slate. Here are her statements emailed to Daniel Drezner (they were in grad school together) and quoted on Daniel Drezner's blog:


"I think it's safe to say that intelligence reform expert Amy Zegart really dislikes Fred Kaplan's take. She e-mailed me the following reaction:


"I am, as my four-year old would put it, "steaming mad." Where to begin? First, anyone who has spent 5 seconds with Pat Roberts (and I spent 3 hours in front of him last week) knows he's deadly serious about reform. Where has Fred Kaplan been? Has he read the 500+ page Senate Intelligence Committee report Roberts' committee wrote in July about WMD in Iraq and the pathological deficiencies in the IC that led to it? Does he think this report descended like manna from heaven or does he realize the Committee's expert staff spent, oh I don't know, a year on it? I have anextra copy; perhaps I should send it to him.


Second, Kaplan forgets conveniently the fact that 2 of the key ideas in this proposal --splitting the CIA's clandestine side from its analytical side and creating a new national intelligence director -- were EXACTLY the same as a proposal made 12 years ago by David Boren and David McCurdy, the Democratic chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Then there is the substance of his claims. There are many valid concerns about this proposal, but Kaplan does not raise them."


The URL for this is:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001597.html

August 27, 2004 1:37 PM Anonymous:

I suppose an "intelligence reform expert" is about as useful as a high school counselor or Ted Kennedy's liver. How does a group that is allowed to operate in secrecy with essentially zero accountability ever get reformed? History clearly shows us that it doesn't.

August 27, 2004 2:56 PM Raoul:

". . . about WMD in Iraq and the pathological deficiencies in the IC that led to it?"

The source of the pathological deficiencies was the White House not the IC. If there is to be any reform, it needs to be focused on insulating the IC from political influence. Particularly, influence from oil industry executives. It’s not called black gold for nothing. It's tantamount to free money and the flust in men it produces is unmatched.

August 27, 2004 6:28 PM Steve Rhodes:

Judge Posner's review
of the 9/11 Commission Report in the Sunday NYT Book Review is now online.

October 26, 2004 10:42 AM r0wl1n6:

Wniosek taki nasuwa się z dość jednoznacznej, choć wyrażonej nie wprost odpowiedzi na pytanie o dalsze zawodowe plany, jakie zadali mu dziennikarze po jednym z pokazów jego najnowszego filmu "A Very Long Engagement".

Post a comment

By entering the words in the box, you are also helping to digitize texts that were written before the computer age. The words that you see were taken directly from old texts that are being scanned and stored by the Internet Archive. This CAPTCHA helps proofread the books. If the sample is too hard to read, click the recycle button to get another two. A space between each word is required. And thanks for the comment and help.