When the CIA did prewar intelligence on Iraq they didnt have to worry about USA law and they still got it?

Question

wrong. How can we expect them to do any better with the patriot act? How can we expect intelligence used against American's to be any less cherry picked? Or even what is being used to convict suspected terrorists?

Thanks for the suggestion that by some miracle the CIA may begin to function correctly but look at the history...
Bay of Pigs
Failed assasinations on Castro.
Iran Contra
Prewar Intel in Iraq
just to name a few.

Answer 1

This is why there USED to be protections from our own government embedded within our rights.

Neo-cons need someone to exact control over them and tell them exactly what to think. Look at the Chivo intrusion into a married couple lives.

Answer 2

This is the scenerio that the CIA was faced with at the time:

In December of 1999, the weapons inspection team (UNSOM) was replaced by a UN commission team (UNMOVIC). This was resolution 1284. Iraq rejected this resolution and ousted the inspection team. Before their departure, they had found and destroyed 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 tons of chemical agents. They had also discovered a nuclear program far in advance of what they had expected. You must remember that Saddam's own troops believed Iraq had WMD arsenals at their disposal.
Based on saddam's dismal record in complying with the UN resolutions and his history of using chemical weapons to kill an estimated 25,000 people - including 5000 Iraqi Kurds - the chance that Saddam had actually complied by destroying all of his WMD arsenals was slim indeed.
On the other hand, the Patroit Act and the broad powers given the different agencies are under a microscope - the FBI has already been indicted for their abuses for their phone tapping scandal. The guidelines for these extended powers are many and the intent is clearly to track terror related activities.
Obviously, any terrorist activities must be discovered and prevented before the fact - and certain individual privacies will necessarily be compremised if they are to be successful.
Oversight is the key to prevent abuses - and at the present time, these seem to be in place and working.

Answer 3

There wasn't any information of looking WMDs, accordingly no on the spot probability antagonistic to us from Iraq. by the Constitutional criteria we are in hassle-free words to pass to warfare if we are below an instantaneous probability by the different united states or we were attacked by some ability by that united states. Afganastan and Bin laden did that, no longer Iraq. So the warfare is unlawful by Constitutional criteria. Bush is already speaking about the guns in different international places like Iran and North Korea, who will believe him now if or maybe as WMDs are truly discovered someplace. Bush has shown he's a obdurate guy by no longer taking flight the troops from his warfare in Iraq, he maintains to deliver more effective in. he's wanting to expose the international in this that he's suitable and the final public is faulty and he received't hear to the persons anymore.

Answer 4

Failure in one instance does not assure failure in another.
But when a pattern emerges, it becomes predictable.

We were going to invade Iraq, with or without reliable intelligence. It has something to do with Bush's
Oedipal Complex.

Answer 5

Non sequiter. Failure in 1 instance does not preclude the possibility of success in another.

Answer 6

We can't.
Scary isn't it.