Hacker News Reader

Comment by elefanten | Hacker News Reader

I think she's naive and not very credible when she advocates things like: -dismantling the CIA -dismantling the presidency -the notion that the CIA dictates what Harvard teaches -no borders

And that's just from the last week or so. She doesn't strike me as someone with very nuanced positions.

edit: case in point https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504

View on HN

Maybe so, but having political opinions that you consider naive and not credible is quite far from being "incredibly confused and narcissistic."

Well, I for one don't think that people have to be 'bright' to have integrity, that said, I'm not sure she has a lot of integrity.

I think what she did was very, very wrong, but I'm also sympathetic - she was pretty young. Young people do dumb things sometimes.

- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe? - There are alternative political systems available - I'd be surprised if the CIA didn't exert influence over Harvard - Borders are a modern development.

The problem is that the CIA is an entity unto itself, and as a consequence of the velvet veil of secrecy in which it has cloaked itself for so long, it is no longer really beholden to the American public.

American corporations, yes. The public, no.

So there is a very real possibility that the answer to the question: "does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect?" cannot be answered until you add a qualifier " .. for its masters?", and then ask yourself, just who does the CIA answer to. The answer is, American, for sure not you...

"- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe?"

As the CIA is an American intelligence organization, responsible for American interests, the correct question would be: "Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on American power and stability?"

Now, we can debate that question all day long, but AFAIK the CIA has no responsibility to "the globe".

I'm a US citizen that would prefer that US government entities have a net positive impact on the globe.

I guess I'm not the only one.

I don't think that's unreasonable, but as things stand today that's not what the CIA (or any other US intelligence agency) is for. It's like wanting a hammer to work as a screwdriver, even when the latter is appropriate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com