PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on FBI/ CIA




rp0x
09-06-2007, 06:18 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before. But, the search is not working. During the debate yesterday, this question was asked. Ron Paul didn't seem to answer it directly. Does anyone know what he really thinks about them ? If he wants to get rid of them, what's the alternative ?

Thanks.

rp0x.

Mr. White
09-06-2007, 06:21 PM
I can't speak for the man, but deep down I think he'd like to see them gone, but realistically he knows that it would have to be done over a long period of time.

Vvick727
09-06-2007, 06:24 PM
it seems to me like he wants ONE information agency.

with the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. i think there's way too much 1) miscommunication between them, and 2) holding information from each other just so they can "solve" the case instead of the other

rajibo
09-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before. But, the search is not working. During the debate yesterday, this question was asked. Ron Paul didn't seem to answer it directly. Does anyone know what he really thinks about them ? If he wants to get rid of them, what's the alternative ?

Thanks.

rp0x.

You can check out this thread I started yesterday after the debate. The Bill Maher link is great.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=16044

1000-points-of-fright
09-06-2007, 06:31 PM
I recall hearing him say something like putting all the intelligence agencies like the NSA and CIA under one department, namely the Defense Department. I don't know if he would include the FBI in that. The FBI is more about domestic crime and stuff like that. Defense Dept is strictly national defense although the two would overlap in the case of international terrorism.

john_anderson_ii
09-06-2007, 06:31 PM
I can see the benefit to getting rid of them. My biggest concern is with the CIA. They've been known to be very, um, well "naughty", and no one reviews their actions other than the executive.

The Faux News asshats that like to poke of RP's stance on these departments are just blind morons. Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of them so the U.S. won't have any intelligence gathering capabilities. He wants to get rid of them because they are flawed, inefficient, and corrupt. Adding the flaws, inefficiencies and corruption with more bureaucracy is obviously not the solution. I wish he had more time in the debate to elaborate on what he would do to gather intelligence after dissolving these troublesome agencies.

blazin_it_alwyz
09-06-2007, 06:33 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before. But, the search is not working. During the debate yesterday, this question was asked. Ron Paul didn't seem to answer it directly. Does anyone know what he really thinks about them ? If he wants to get rid of them, what's the alternative ?

Thanks.

rp0x.

Let's put it like this.

FBI received 40 BILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING in 2001. They also received intelligence about the planes hitting the world trade towers.

9/11 still happened. So what is the use of wasting billions of dollars on these groups that aren't going to stop anything anyways? There is better ways of gathering intelligence than funding billions of dollars into the FBI and the CIA, because as we have obviously seen, they really serve no purpose if they allowed 9/11 to happen. That is why we have to get rid of them.

If you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask.

kylejack
09-06-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't think he'd drop them entirely. I think sometimes maybe he gets a little overzealous when he talks about the CIA because he's furious about all the stuff they have their fingers in, like rendition, assassination, coups, and torture. He stated on the Bill Maher interview that there's plenty of room for intelligence gathering, but none for aggressive black ops. The trouble with the CIA is that they've built their own little kingdom. I suspect that there's a lot that the CIA does that presidents are never told about. Was the president advised when the CIA was drugging citizens with LSD for experimental purposes in the MKULTRA project? Was the President advised when the CIA was smuggling drugs into the country in the Air America project? I really doubt it. Ron Paul certainly supports intelligence collection, but the CIA may have a major cultural problem that makes it incompatible with sane governance in its current form. It needs to be reformed, at the very least. The same goes for the NSA, which used to be known as No Such Agency. Ron Paul didn't clarify because he knew they'd ding his bell just as he got to his point. He kept it short and sweet to beat their game.

rp0x
09-06-2007, 06:38 PM
Thanks for the answers. I wish the "search function" was working.

blazin_it_alwyz,
The fact that no action was taken based on intelligence is no fault of FBI, is it ? Their job is to gather intelligence and according to your post, they did that.

Also, you mention that there are better ways of gathering intelligence. Can you please elaborate a bit on that ?

Thanks..

rp0x.

Cliff
09-06-2007, 06:39 PM
If a business is losing money do you keep giving them more funding???

Intelligence is important but as Ron said you need intelligent people reviewing the information.

If you have an employee not doing his job you fire his ass and bring in someone who will.

If the CIA and FBI don't get off their ass then they need to go.

Everyday I go to work and I have to prove my worth to my company. Why is the FBI and CIA any different???

It is time for some friggin accountability in government.

It is time for the Ron Paul Revolution :)

Cliff
09-06-2007, 06:41 PM
Thanks for the answers. I wish the "search function" was working.

blazin_it_alwyz,
The fact that no action was taken based on intelligence is no fault of FBI, is it ? Their job is to gather intelligence and according to your post, they did that.

Also, you mention that there are better ways of gathering intelligence. Can you please elaborate a bit on that ?

Thanks..

rp0x.

They have gathers but they also have people who review it. If they find a common theme a case is built. Plenty of people reported the there were individuals learning to fly but not land. The information was ignored. The FBI failed miserably unless the information was in fact passed to the Bush Admin and they ignored it.

Revolution9
09-06-2007, 06:48 PM
RP spoke of intelligent people looking at the intelligence. I have mused often over the years as they set up the databases and started logging all emails that there is tooooooooo much information and not enough qualified people to analyze it. Having a degree idoes not equate to knowing people and street buzz. Being classroom trained does not let you pick the needle from the haystack. This is a talent just like being a practiced musician or an excellent artist. Not everyone that wants to can. So..if you were to take the actual intelligent people and put them nder one roof you would squash the size of the bureaucracy down to correct size and have proper intelligent analysis of data. Right now some fat porker with a lazy streak is mining databases and if his boss wants performance your name just might be the focus he needs to not get fired or a reprimand.

Randy

Nathan Hale
09-06-2007, 08:01 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before. But, the search is not working. During the debate yesterday, this question was asked. Ron Paul didn't seem to answer it directly. Does anyone know what he really thinks about them ? If he wants to get rid of them, what's the alternative ?

Thanks.

rp0x.

that was the worst question of the night, for two reasons.

First, I'm upset that he ducked it. As other posters have mentioned, he didn't actually address the question, and that's a pretty serious betrayal for those of us who have faith in him.

Second, I'm upset that he didn't spin it back at those fucks at fox news. Clearly the night was about discrediting Paul and grouping him in as as the Gravel of the Republican field. What upsets me is that he went for it. He came off as an angry old lunatic, and he even, at one point, manage to turn a rare and much-prized query about his domestic policy into another rant about foreign policy.

Paul needs to focus on his domestic policy for the rest of the race. I said after his first big wave in a Fox news debate that he needs to start challenging more top tier candidates on domestic issues. That never happened. it needs to happen now.

But I hear that Thompson wants him one on one, so this is Paul's chance to own on the war issue. We shall see.