Internet Searches Reveal CIA's Secrets

GabrielF writes "In another blow to the reputation of the agency that just can't seem to get anything right, the Chicago Tribune used web searches and various commercial online databases to uncover a treasure trove of information about the CIA. The Tribune found the identities of over 2600 CIA employees (including an undisclosed number of covert operatives) as well as the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities across the U.S., internal telephone numbers, and information on 17 aircraft."

Comments

Disinformation

[SkankinMonkey]

But how are they sure it's not disinformation setup by these organizations to throw people off the trail? I don't have much faith in our government, but I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

Re:Disinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

After further thinking, you might realize that it is no better if your statement is true because innocents might get into trouble by being falsely identified as CIA agents. In one way or another, it is stupid.

Re:Disinformation

[flyingsquid]

But how are they sure it's not disinformation setup by these organizations to throw people off the trail? I don't have much faith in our government, but I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

Hmm, let's see here...

- WMDs in Iraq.

- 9/11.

- Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, still alive and at large.

- failure to anticipate India's test of nuclear weapons.

- failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Yes. Yes, they are just that stupid.

The organization probably employs some really bright people. The problem is that when the culture of a government organization goes bad, it goes really bad, because it's not accountable; they still get funded whether they succeed or fail. The only thing you are accountable for is breaking policy, so bureacracy and following the rules to the letter(never mind that the rules often make no sense and are counterproductive) become more important than actually doing anything. The best people- the ones who actually care about getting something done instead of sitting on their asses eight hours a day so they can one day collect a pension- get frustrated and leave. At any rate, that's my experience dealing with a messed-up government institution. Keep in mind, however, that the private sector isn't necessarily the solution. As Enron so brilliantly displays, corruption, arrogance and incompetence can flourish in private industry as well.

Re:Disinformation

[tenchiken]

You say that it was a political decision but then you admit:

Actually that was a political decision. Read up on the subject, the general consensus is that CIA simply acted on outdated info (we know they HAD WMDs in the past) and the Bush administration took that as face value.

(which by the way, doesn't jive with recent reporting. Saddam bluffed to everyone (including, indirectly us) that he had WMD until 2002 when he finally admited to his officers that the didn't have anything they could use against the US. By that time the die was well cast by 9/11. As recently as 1999, he openly threated to use chemical weapons against the Shiites, and his forces were still taking pot shots at Coalition air forces protecting the Kurds.

The information was outdated and simply wrong, but we didn't have anyone in the core of Saddam's circle who could have told us that. That's the problem with dictatorships, it's much easier to hold secrets, much easier to bluff and threaten. There was a great article yesterday in the NYT about how Saddam's efforts to make sure that he didn't have any stockpiles by revisiting his old weapons labs sites, actually was interpreted by the CIA as Saddam going back to his stockpiles and destroying weapons (which is what would have happened if they actualyl found anything). Saddam does this to make sure there is not any real WMD, we see him returing to his weapons sites, put one and one together and rightly note that he never disclosed these sites in the first place.

I am not trying to whitewash the CIA here, but they clearly were reporting to the president that Mr. Hussein was up to his old tricks. Bush was getting attacked at the time by democrats who believed that he should have magically detected the 9/11 plot. Now his CIA agency is telling him that Hussein is stockpiling weapons, sponsering terrorists (including a assasination attempt on his own father). What do you think he is going to do under thoose circumstances?

Re:Disinformation

[birge]

Actually, as Enron displays, corruption DOESN'T flourish in private industry. I can't believe you missed the irony in your own statement. The CIA has been a disaster far longer than it took Enron to collapse. The private sector is not perfect, but it's reliance on VOLUNTARY financial support (at least to the extent the government keeps the hell out) means that it's connected with reality in a way the government never can be. In the long run, the private sector is self-correcting. Pointing out the (former) existence of Enron actually proves that point. Enron was an example of that mechanism in action. The world will never be perfect; all we can hopefor is a system where the right underlying forces are in place.

People seem to expect a world in which nothing bad ever happens, and when something does, rush to form government solutions that are worse than the problem. The best we can hope for is a world where bad stuff dies as quickly as possible. More government is almost never the right answer. (I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, so don't take any of this personally.)

Red Herrings

[TFGeditor]

How do we know that all that info is not just a bunch of red herrings to throw us off the track and keep us distracted?

Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The Gestapo was a secret police and its facilities were perfectly well known (and feared).

(Damn, I just broke Godwin's law...)

How do they know it's reliable info?

[noidentity]

Is the information is correct or just bogus data planted?

Is this "story" itself planted by the CIA? (not that we'd care either way)

2600? Funny number there.

Following the money

[Hao Wu]

IIRC, over half the CIA budget is spent on counter-intelligence, which includes programs of disinformation.

Whatever the Chicago Tribune has uncovered, one might presume that they were expected to.

Re:Covert Agency?

[nx]

I don't think they ever were the super heroes they're portrayed as in the movies. As far as I can tell using public information, they've had some successful missions, and some very unsuccessful. And they've probably always been chatting away on unsecured telephones and using government issued credit cards. The difference is the global informational infrastructure, which is available to the general public. My guess is that a decent 'social engineer' probably could've gotten this information even before the Internet.

Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists.

[Grumpy Troll]

FOXNews.com has published an article which may be of interest: Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth .

Three excuses. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

FOXNews.com has published an article which may be of interest: Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth .

Of interest to who?

Those who forgot that FOX persecuted its own journalists for trying to expose Monsanto's BGH artificial hormone scam? That Fox fought against the whisltleblowers by arguing that FOX was not obligated under freedom of speech to tell the truth? --And won! And that they continue to persecute the journalists? Those guys?

That's just one instance of FOX's bald faced lying and villainy. They are committed to lying for corporate and government interests. NOTHING they report is worth the spit it's sent on.

There are SO many gaping holes in FOX's integrity that I can only see three excuses for anybody buying into their propaganda. 1. Laziness, 2. Foolishness, or 3. Being Evil.

-FL

Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence

[whitroth]

Excuse me, the "failure got 3000 civilians killed"? What about the presidential security briefing, a month before 9/11, entitled "bin Laden plans to strike inside the US"?

And what about the US MURDERING somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqis, on the basis of no WMDs?

Now, unless you think that we've spent tens of billions of dollars on what, three? four? five? (CIA, FBI, NSA, Army intel, Pentagon Intel, etc) agencies completely staffed by clones of Maxwell Smart, the only intelligence failure, either through ideological blinders or deliberately for ideological reasons, is the administration and the GOP.

And the fools who voted for them.

        mark

Re:Treason

[Forbman]

The CIA is on its own side. It is not on yours, or mine, or anyone else's necessarily. It is not even necessarily on the US government's side sometimes.

The article is somewhat misleading...

[ChePibe]

The article puts up some big numbers, but lest we forget a few things:

- The CIA is a BIG organization - it needs support personnel, etc. and they are not likely to ALL be undercover. Maintaining cover on accountants and receptionists would certainly be a big waste of resources.

- Most CIA positions are not undercover, including most analysts

The article admits a lot of this halfway down: "Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list."

So, in other words, the Tribune puts up a big number that is supposed to be shocking and then, after most people stop reading, admits it's not really that big a deal. The article does state, however:

"But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets."

There must be at least one - given the example at the top of the article - but no one says how many. The discovery that 26 people are working at Camp Peary (AKA - "The Farm" of "The Recruit" fame) is equally unimpressive, as SOMEONE must work there for support staff, and the 26 individuals discovered are likely to be support staff, not trainers. The 17 aircraft aren't particularly interesting, either, as the CIA likely operates many aircraft openly. Big organizations like the CIA cannot maintain cover on EVERYTHING, nor do they try to, as this report implies

I'm of the opinion that this article boils down to the following:

- The Chicago Tribune tooting its own horn
- A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days
- Sensationalist journalism - they put up big numbers, but those numbers are unlikely to actually mean anything

Many have jokingly said, "move along, nothing to see here". To be honest, I think those statements are accurate.