Talk:Directorate of Operations (CIA)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dubious statement

If the NCS absorbed the CIA, then why would Jose report to Porter Goss? It should be the other way around...can anyone substantiate that claim? freestylefrappe 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is answered in the article and links. NCS is absorbing part of the CIA: E.g. one directorate (department.) I fixed a fragmented sentence for you. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger

The merger suggestion is inappropriate. One article is discussing a specific agency, and the other is discussing a class of agencies, of which the NCS is a member. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. They are one and the same as presented here Clandestine service (the article) refers specifically to the US goverment body, not to a general category of covert operations institutions. I say mine Clandestine service for whatever info is valuable and insert into the other. Then redirect Clandestine service into a general espionage-related article. Alcarillo 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category: NCS is not an independent federal agency

Just a point of clarificaiton, or maybey I'm missing something. NCS is not a separate, distinct federal agency. It is a part of the CIA. See the official press release annoucing its creation where it discusses the "the creation of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) at CIA." It has duties that extend beyond the CIA, but for organizational purposes it is a part of the CIA.

I recommend removing the category that lists this as an "indepdenent federal agency" but leaving the rest that identify its relation to the CIA and US intelligence activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcmacnut (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

You're right. I will fix accordingly. Alcarillo 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Overt HUMINT

In the section Overt HUMINT it says: "In addition they may produce HUMINT from overt sources, such as voluntary interviews with travelers, businesspeople, etc." But isn't overt sources precisely the definition of OSINT instead of HUMINT? Gamgee (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gamgee: I see your point but "overt HUMINT" is correct. OSINT does not simply refer to unclassified information; it specifically concerns "open and public" sources such as civilian media agencies, institutional press releases, public speeches, published literature, and freely observable information such as geography. OSINT must be both "overt", meaning that the source reveals the information willingly; and "publicly available", meaning that most or all members of the general public have access to it.

--Distinguishing examples:--

1. An American tourist sees suspicious activity at his hotel in Turkey. He goes to the US Embassy in Ankara and is debriefed by a Foreign Service Officer. The FSO sends his report to the State Bureau of Intelligence and Research, who use the information to estimate the location of a suspected terrorist. Though the information is "overt" (the tourist released the information willingly and did not conduct any clandestine activity), it is not "publicly available" (not everyone saw the suspicious activity, and it was not reported by any media outlets). Therefore this should be considered HUMINT (or specifically "overt HUMINT") and not OSINT.

2. A Chinese defense contractor publishes quarterly financial data and new product brochures on its public website. A CIA analyst downloads this information and uses it to draw conclusions about PRC government spending and military technical capabilities, which he includes in an intelligence estimate on the People's Liberation Army. In this case, the information is both "overt" (the defense contractor released the information willingly) and "publicly available" (anyone with an Internet connection can access it). Therefore this is an example of OSINT, whereas the first example is not.

--MrPinkBullets (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the difference, thank you, MrPinkBullets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamgee (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

NCS equals DO

As far as I can tell, the NCS is just the DO. That may not have been the intent, but it appears to be the outcome. You can see it in the tensions between the DCI or the DNI. The CIA's public statement is:

the National Clandestine Service (NCS) operates as the clandestine arm of the CIA, and serves as the national authority for the coordination, deconfliction, and evaluation of clandestine human intelligence operations across the Intelligence Community.

. We don't know enough to say whether deconfliction and coordination is actually occurring, or if it is occurring because of the NCS. This looks like just another of those ill-designed changes that the Congress unleashed after 2001. Gaintes (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Opening paras

The NCS is still a part of the CIA, albeit semi-autonomous. The opening paras didn't reflect that fact. I have edited accordingly. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

References to assasinations

References 9 and 19 on the SAD carrying out assassinations and raids no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.137.211 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

SAD or SAC?

FIRM41 Is there any other sources confirming this "name change"...? A quick look around Google shows that "Division" is still almost exclusively in use, except for a couple of sites quoting the buzzfeed source you used. - ^theWOLFchild 22:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings wolfchild, I apologize I am still learning. Is this the talk page you reference in the edits for the article? On the issue. Special Activities Division changed his name to Special Activities Center. There are multiple articles that reference that change and refer to it by its new name. In 2016 the CIA underwent a reorganizations and it changed then. This is one article https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/04/measuring-change-at-the-cia/. Here is a government recruiting article that referee to the new name change (https://news.clearancejobs.com/2018/03/20/leak-week-cia-commandos-job/). Here is an article that references the name in the new administration. (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/cia-trump-kill-teams-terrorists). Here is the memorial foundation that raises money for the families of the fallen that reference the name change "Special Activities Center" (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/cia-trump-kill-teams-terrorists). I am sure there are many other references. Do I need to post this someone else or is this good? Thanks much FIRM41 (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the last reference on the memorial foundation is (https://www.thirdoptionfoundation.org/about/#story) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIRM41 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since I did post a question to you here, then it is certainly appropriate for you to reply here. But that was months ago, in response to an edit you made about the name change and I reverted. I don't know how many other CIA-related articles you may have noted the name change on, it there is an article about the Special Activities Division, that talk page would be the best place to have this discussion. I will post there, and link to your comments here. Please go there to continue. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

International Organizations Division

Why does "International Organizations Division" redirect to this article, yet the term "International Organizations Division" is mentioned nowhere in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. The redirect was created back on 19 December 2006 by Jokestress, but there was no mention of such a division in the article back then either. Now that I've pinged her, maybe she will pop in and help clarify this (if she can, it has been 15 years). - wolf 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)