"In the rare instance of a just war (and when did the US last wage one of those?) members of the armed forces are trained and authorized to kill. Maintaining a group of killers to use in peacetime to clandestinely kill enemies of the government, or overthrow governments or sabotage economies is just plain immoral."

It is just plain immoral on whom? I suppose the answer to this gets at my earlier question, which is that Mr. Cockburn is really after the Dick Cheney's of the world not Agent Bill. I would agree, and if what Mr. Gervaise says is true, then it's clear how one perversion soon begets another. But you would no sooner blame the private in Afghanistan for the unjustness of our war there than you would the spook in the CIA for our ridiculous policies in Colombia. And if our private in Afghanistan kills someone in the name of our unjust war, he is no different than that spook who does the same thing, albeit in a different way. Or are you condemning the method outright?

"Since the CIA has mostly been a failure, a largely incompetent organisation which usually doesn’t serve the interests of the country or the government but rather it’s own, why keep it around?"

This is a very important question, but how exactly do we even go about talking about it? I have no idea if the CIA has been unsuccessful or great. I fear it is like when your goalie makes a mistake, the result is a goal for the other team, whereas others' mistakes are less apparent or quantifiable. How do we know what their successes are? How do we know they're serving their own purposes? While we keep electing maniacs, there will be no sense in scrutinizing the servants.

I just think it makes for difficult footing from an effectiveness standpoint. It is clear to me in a broad way that there is too much bureaucracy within the intelligence community, but a completely centralized reaction would be equally dangerous.

(I've been thinking as well about what if we got someone with common sense into office, and what if we scared Congress so badly that they would go along with it. How could an acting President ratchet-down previous promises or decisions that maybe have taken years to play out? I'm becoming more convinced that term limits are a big problem.)

While I do believe that on-the-ground intelligence gathering, spying and espionage may be necessary in some cases, especially if you have something like the Soviet Union and it's world wide subversion activities bearing down on you, in most cases, a country that does not run a partly covert, partly overt empire like the U.S. does has precious little need for such things, and in any case they can be done small-scale without the need for an entire bureaucratic apparatus, as they were done throughout most of history. Usually, though, there is little or no need for such things and they should be avoided if possible.

Since the CIA has mostly been a failure, a largely incompetent organisation which usually doesn't serve the interests of the country or the government but rather it's own, why keep it around?

The CIA is an institution of the US world empire and both should be abolished. Necessary intelligence can be obtained by electronic intercepts, the internet, and normal above board contacts of US embassies. It is not necessary to suborn the treason of foreigners. But the really poisonous part of the CIA is the operations side, the ninjas. The very purpose of this side is to enable the rulers of the US to wage clandestine warfare against enemies some of whom may not even know they are being targeted. This is both immoral and cowardly. The CIA is far from the only governmental alphabet agency which should be abolished, but it definitely should be on the list. It is in fact "a damned murder inc."

Politicians create the expectations which grant some people license to do nasty things most people would condemn. However, when Mr. Cockburn opens his article with an insinuation that we should be horrified the CIA teaches people how to kill, I think he's misdirecting.

"does it or did it ever have its in-house assassins, a Double O team?" Unless there is a very rich subtext I'm missing, I would sure hope they did. Honestly, I don't really follow that whole scene too much because it always seems like gossip, heresay, or hollywood.

I'm with you in terms of reining in our cancerous foreign policy -- all of its tools. However, when you hold deception and murder over their heads, well now you're starting to sound like Mr. Cockburn. That's like holding basic training over the head of a grunt who gets out of line or who loyally obeys an unjust order. The mistake is in the decision, not the tools or training.

This is not normally, however, what people are thinking of when they talk of spying. The professional spy routinely lies to friends, enemies and even his or her spouse, and suborns treason from his foreign contacts in order to accomplish the mission. The ninjas of feudal Japan and their modern counterparts are tasked with killing others by means of stealth. While killing may be justified in the very limited circumstances of a just war, ninjas are tasked with killing even when there is no war at all.

There is nothing honorable about being a deceiver and murderer even if one is loyal to one's master, which many of these people are not. I guess it cannot be repeated too much that the end does not justify the means.

The US actually came rather late to the practice of having an intelligence organization capable of deception and murder on an international scale, lagging behind the British, French, Germans, and Soviets. The OSS was more or less an extension of wartime special ops. That's not to say that all of its activities were moral, but even its immoralities paled by comparison to such atrocities as the mass bombing of civilians. It was only with the establishment of the CIA in the post war era that the US became fully engaged in the use of deception and murder as routine tools of foreign policy.

One of the more corrupting aspects of this has been the popular acceptance of the spy and assassin as exemplary patriots. The popularity of such fictional characters as serial seducer and murderer James Bond and torturer Jack Bauer are simply two among many examples of this in contemporary pop culture. But what is one to expect if one starts with the premise that honor should be given to spies and assassins?

Furthermore, the ability to argue circumstantially is hampered if not made impossible by the nature of the intelligence community. How many hands have we seen the real cards on?

I think Mr. Cockburn is lassoing a ghost here. Is he against intelligent interference or against Dick Cheney? The bulk of his article suggests that he is against anything secretive or violent at all. But I see no scandal or impropriety in secret ops; just problems with bad political leaders and convoluted bureaucracies that might engender a schizophrenic madness in what should otherwise be a subservient and loyal group operating only with utmost efficiency and necessity.

It's similar to a problem I've had with many of my anti-war friends on the Left. Although they've been right more often than not in my lifetime, they have no idea why. They also seem to neglect the honor of soldiers in the process. There should be no difference in honor between a private and a spy.

It may be appealing to guess at what these people have or haven't done, but it is a hollow battle cry.