Talk:Special Activities Center/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Note

Note that the original text of this article is copied verbatim from a story in the Washington Post. I'll probably get around to replacing the content with new stuff, but until I do I thought it was worth mentioning. Copyright violation is a Bad Thing, folks. Neilc 07:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eh, I'll do it sometime... --Prospero

OBE. This arcle contains content from over 100 separate sources. It is well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliSEAL (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has become very well sourced and informative since original posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettMcGill (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good article well drafted, informative and sourced. AbdullahMo (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

photo

It should be noted that, in the photos listed as being of "Dave" and another agent, picture 4 is actually of Dave and a German TV producer (Arnim Stauth is his name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using ~~~~ Travb (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Farm, redlinks, linkloops

Someone reverted my edits and I don't know why. Linking a page to itself serves no purpose so I will once again change SAD to SAD. Also, isn't Camp Peary know as the Farm? so isn't the Special Training Center the same thing? except one links to an actual page? I hate redlinks so I am going to change that back as well. Geedubber 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. I made the same edits as well, and they keep getting switched back. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I erased part of your article.

Hi, I apologize if I edited out any of your article. I was tring to insert some facts that were published in USA today, about the post 9/11 CIA SAD, being re-tooled for more hunter'killer type operations in the vein of Israel's "Kidon" unit, which is the Mossad's paramilitary/assassination arm. The article war written by Willam Arkin. Agins I ddin't mean to erase any parts of your article I was merely trying to add to it. I apologize if I erased anyhting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.182.234 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using ~~~~ Travb (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Known in 2001?

OK, now I definately remember reading about the CIA-SAS/D some time before then; sometime in the mid-late 90's. It was on this website. I guess you could say that it was definately rumored before 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.97.182 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using ~~~~ Travb (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This entry is factually incorrect

The article states in the Atlee section (political officers) that Arbenz was in Nicaragua. He was in Guatemala (and he wasn't a Communist- assertions to the contrary violate neutrality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.5.92 (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


There have been numerous published books detailing the special activities division (formerly the miltary and special programs division (msp), formerly the international activities division (iad)for decades.

The main body of this entry comes from a very shallow and recent washington post story.

In fact, the division is one of the oldest in the cia clandestine service, dating back to 1947. Its many exploits in china, tibet, eastern europe, korea, vietnam, laos, bay of pigs, central america, angola, congo, somalia, afghanistan (first round), kuwait, iraq and afghanistan (round 2, since 9-11-01).

I refer you to the following published titles:

SHOOTING AT THE MOON by Roger Warner - The history of CIA/IAD'S 15-year involvement in conducting the secret war in Laos, 1960-1975, and the best source on the career of legendary CIA PMCO (paramilitary case officer) Bill Lair.

DECISION FOR DISASTER (Grayston Lynch) - BAY OF PIGS ACCOUNT by one of two principal PMCOs (paramilitary case officers) who went ashore with the Brigade, Gray Lynch)

FEET TO THE FIRE by Conboy & Morrison - The history of CIA/IAD's paramilitary operations in Indonesia in the 1950s, detailing the activities of IAD's Ground Air and Maritime Branches, and highlighting the roles of legendary PMCOs Tom Fosmire, Anthony Posephny ("Tony Poe"), Jim Glerum and others.

AIR AMERICA and THE RAVENS- by Chris Robbins - Both are the history of CIA/IAD's war in Laos, providing excellent bio and details on such legendary CIA PMCOs as Wil Green, Tony Poe, Jerry Daniels, Howie Freeman, Bill Lair, and the pilots, ground crew and support personnel managed by IAD/SOG/AIR BRANCH under the proprietaries Bird Air, Southern Air Transport, China Air Transport and Air America-- and the US Air Force forward air controllers (RAVENS) who were brought in under CIA/IAD command and control as "civilians" to support secret combat ops in Laos.

RAIDERS OF THE CHINA COAST by Frank Holober - History of CIA/IAD paramilitary operations in the Taiwan Straits, 1947-1955, with details on such legendary PMCOs as Ernie Tskikerdanos, others.

--- and there are many other lesser-known published histories.

It would be well worth your while NOT to rely on the Washington Post for its falacious and shallow account of "Special Activities Division" as the principal source for your Wikpedia entry.....it provides more dis-information than enlightenment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.155.229 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

FYI Typing in all caps is considered yelling, is bad etiquette, and is rude. I put your screams in small caps.
WP:BB and take the time to rewrite this section. Few people read the talk page.
Also sign your posts using ~~~~ Travb (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed image section

I removed the following to the talk page:

Images of CIA operators and other coalition forces including the SBS at Mazari Sharif, Afghanistan where Johnny Micheal Spann was killed [1][2]
Images of CIA operator "Dave" and various locals and reporters [3]

[4] [5] [6]

This appears to have nothing to do with the article. Travb (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source for the "citation needed". I am not sure how to put it on the page.

Time Magazine The CIA's Secret Army Monday, Feb. 03, 2003 By DOUGLAS WALLER/WASHINGTON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.8.154 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article still reads like a recruitment poster. I do not have access to the original sources (of which there are many), but easily obtained FIA documents contradict several accounts in this article. Particularly biased (and unfortunately, it seems deliberately misleading) is the section on Che Guevara. It's been edited to reflect that history is not in fact written by CIA fan boys, or just by American whimsy. I would have this article flagged as "non-neutral," and would appreciate if the extensive citations were more readily verifiable. 138.87.212.195 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems pretty not neutral. It repeatedly states that it is considered by some to be the most efficient blah blah blah in the world. I wouldn't have thought this to be necessary to state even once, yet alone drill it into the readers head multiple times. 125.238.236.94 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs a bit of adjustment to bring it back into perspective. Right now it almost reads like a recruitment brochure. 123.211.230.199 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sentence "If compromised during a mission, the government of the United States may legally deny their status and all knowledge of their mission." is highly non-neutral. what they do is illegal in all other countries than USA, and these countries (yes, there are other countries in the world than only US!!) don't care about what's legal in US... --Philtime (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe the article is pretty balanced, perhaps from edits since original posts. It is also one of the more informative of the article I have read. CaliSEAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliSEAL (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to have far less blah blah then most special operations and military type articles. Perhaps it was taken out. --EverettMcGill (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Very balanced and supported article HoyaProff (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's written like an advertisement for the most part. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is objective on the whole, with well sourced quotes. Refs match. Might need to be split into several articles however. RCPayne (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it's objective yet, and the references for the most part seem to be from less-than-objective sources. But it could definitely do with some splitting into sub-articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's objective as of 6-17-2009 but maybe this is after the edits. Let's try and keep whether or not you agree with what they do separate from the article itself.131.247.83.135 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is well sourced and balanced in its representation of this unusual unit. Language such as "death squads" should not be included in this or any other article. That is a political loaded term (everyone thinks the other guys military is a "death squad"). Neutrality should be the goal and objectivity should not rest with whether you agree with what the unit does. As it stands now, very good article though. SaadMuhammad (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If this article wishes to be considered neutral the introduction requires changes to address the issues raised above (recruitment-like language, etc) and the widespread criticism of the agency must be addressed. (See the award-winning book [Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner] - may be advisable to also provide a reference to the [CIA's response to the book].) Further, the section entitled "Covert Action" should be addressed. More specifically, claims made in the second paragraph of this section should be substantiated particularly as the sole source of these arguments is [Daugherty's Executive Secrets: Covert Action and the Presidency] which has been [questioned] for it's reliability. 98.221.237.255 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some bullshit that is probably related to the overall "fanboy" tone of the page. AFAIK the Glomar Explorer thing has nothing to do on this page (not a SAD op.). For the Somalia part, the guy codenamed "Condor" is Michael Shanklin, he was not a paramilitary officier but a case officier [7]. There are some claims not supported by the sources quoted and no source I have read dealing with SAD. For example : "SAD/SOG officers are selected exclusively from the most elite U.S. military units" - just see the CIA recruitment page for PMO [8] to learn that "combat arms experience" is enough - I guess you won't call any combat arms unit "elite"). You can find some critical stuff about the SAD in the 9/11 Commission Report recommendation (p.415) and in a piece written by Henry Crumpton (CTC/Special Operations chief) about the CIA teams sent first into Afghanistan [9]. Rob1bureau (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article seems well sourced. Better than many similiar special operations articles although there will always be some language about being the 'best of the best' at least this is a quote from an author that studied all of the elite forces. But those claims are of minimal use. The claim that most of the PMO's are from special operations is supported by several article from Woodward (pulitzer price winner) which is a good source. The fact that their web page doesn't require it, doesn't make that claim incorrect. Delta force gets most of their soldiers from the Ranger battalions and SF ODA's but their web site only says the minimum require like that fact you need to be in the Army and a US citizen. As for the Glomar Explorer, I believe SAD has changed it's name over the years, but the maritime section of the CIA would be the one to execute that mission I believe. Good article, but too long. C.Carcharias (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources for sure but as the two examples I cited showed, they don't support some claims made in the page, I think a check should be done. "Exclusively" doesn't mean "mostly", and in Gary Berntsen's book, half of the SAD guys were not former SOF, including Mike Spann. For the Glomar Explorer, it was mostly a CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology (DS&T) operation with DoD Research and Engineering (R&E) and Global Marine operation [10]. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed "exclusvely" and changed another to "mostly". Added Science Directorate to that section. Good article, balanced and well referenced.RCPayne (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Morris Berg 03.jpg

The image File:Morris Berg 03.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Convoy of Death

My addition about the massacre of Taliban POW's by the Northern Alliance/U.S. forces was removed without discussion, supposedly because CIA personnel were not involved. I think it's hard to argue that the CIA, which had been interrogating these prisoners before they disappeared, did not participate, and only U.S. Special Forces are implicated. There is video of Officer Spann telling John Walker Lindh that they can only save so many people, and if he wants to die, that's his choice.118.4.190.177 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JWL was a deep cover CIA asset and the story about the massacre a red herring. The core facts may not be published until 2063, and will probably never be fully declassified. Its removal was entirely warranted.74.13.54.26 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Its hard to argue the CIA was involved, there is zero evidence implicating them. Not US SOF were implicated, Spann telling John Walker that only so many can be saved is not evidence, its called tact. cia said plenty of things while interrogating prisoners, its not any evidence of guilt. why would the cia and SOF forces kill prisoners? So they get implicated in war crimes for no reason? No, its nonsense with zero evidence. I'd love your source that implicated SOF and cia personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.147.18 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

SAD/SOG

Maybe the article should, if possible, define more clearly how SOG distinguishes from SAD. Several times, they are now referred to in the text as SAD/SOG. Now, is it possible to say what's a typical SAD activity, that's not a SOG kind of work? Gamgee (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated Stuff

This article not really my bag, but it's very bloated and slow to load, due to lots of duplicated stuff, both within the article and with stuff elsewhere in WP. I've done a bit of tidying up refs etc and made savings, but other editors can continue this. In particular, the mini biographies are surely unnecessary for people with existing Wikipedia biographies, and lots of that could be combined or reconciled with the full biogs. MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings PeterWD. Permission granted in advance if anyone can reduce the analysis from Dawn that I added today. Sorry it wasn't condensed further. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. My beef is particularly aimed at the mini biographies. They can't do justice to their subjects if a main WP article already exists for them. This is a principle of Wikipedia, where you don't expect to read everything within the current article, you go and read the details on another page, then come back and continue reading where you left off. This article is cumbersome to read, especially for users with old PCs and dialup or other speed issues. See also WP:SIZE
User RCPayne has reversed some of my 'improvements' to the Cuba section. Someone please review these actions. 1.Details of battles belong in the BoPI article. 2.I left the Lynch and Robertson stuff untouched, but it's now duplicated. 3.Casualty numbers are contentious, and explored in the BoPI article and its archived talk pages. 4.The Guatemala and Iran stuff belongs elsewhere, not under Cuba. 5.The image of Cuba seems irrelevant - no similar images for other sections. 6.I believe The template:duplication tag should be reinstalled in the biographies section until they are suitably pruned.MTIA,PeterWD (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The details of this amphibious covert operation highlighted the paramilitary officers involved and the relationship this had to other SAD operations. This info is unique to this article and is most appropriate in this location. In addition, it is short and concise only including three sentences. I believe it should remain in this section. You have a point on the picture though, will remove. RCPayne (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Acronym (ization)

U.S. stands for United States, check the U.S. article, the first sentence. While it can appear correct U.S. is the most proper way. Aaron mcd (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this also apply to U.K. and U.S.S.R.? What are you basing this on? Does US not also stand for United States? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the U.S. article's first sentence? U.S. is more correct than US. Aaron mcd (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? Could you answer my first question? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question does not seem relevant, and I do not have extensive knowledge about how those country's acronyms should be capitalized, I do however have knowledge on the U.S.. I understand you internet may not functioning correctly or the U.S. page may not be functioning for you, so I will quote the first sentence.

" I did not see US, however I do see U.S., again I will say that while US can be correct, U.S. is more correct. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should strive for consistency with our acronyms. Your "more correct" argument seems to me to be on the weak side. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You continue to confuse me, where is the flaw with the consistency? Also, the "more correct" argument is not my only point.

  • There is a word "us" in the English language.
  • The word "us" brings you to a disamg page in wiki, while U.S. does not.
  • U.S. stands for United States and is a proper noun.
  • The U.S. article says "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." There is no "us" in that sentence.

At this point you are reaching, the argument is over and you do not have any valid points, no one else wants to add to the discussion, so if you want to contact an admin to solve the problem you should, perhaps one experienced in copyediting? Thanks Aaron mcd (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Is it policy to use periods where the acronym could be confused with a word? If not, perhaps it should be. That's a good argument. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not particularly good when context and use of capitalisation is an indicator of whether it's an acronym or a word.
ALR (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about if it is a policy, but they are good reasons, I was just trying to make it more formal, and beacuse "us" leads to a disamg page. I'll clean up the rest of them US to U.S. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the subtlety of my point was perhaps too subtle. There is no explicit policy/ guidance because the authority is that about forms of english usage. First usage defines the form of english to be used in an article, and most don't get too worked up about overuse of punctuation, particularly where it doesn't add anything to communication. In this instance the context and use of capitalisation is a clear indicator that it's an acronym, not a word.
Notwithstanding all of that, I've been watching this little spat and thought I may add to it. To extend the principal, since the article is now inconsistent in its usage, all acronyms should have punctuation marks added: SAD > S.A.D. etc.
ALR (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. And I've just noticed that US does actually link to United States, not a disambiguation page. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_%28disambiguation%29
US redirects to United States, upon searching US you get taking to a disambg page
@ ALR, I don't know about SAD needing periods, but I do know about the U.S. needing them, and having it capitalized does not necessarily indicate that it is a acronym, that statement was opinionated. Looking at your spelling I think maybe you from the U.K. maybe you have different rules about acronyms, however this article relates to the U.S. so maybe we should stick with american grammar? If you can show me a wikipolicy, that gives guidelines on acronyms I would happy to fix it. Thanks Aaron mcd (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I just ran a search on US from the WP search tool. For all its flaws it came up with the correct article. You've based quite a lot of your argument on that and it's not accurate.
My point is about consistency. If you're wanting to punctuate US then you should also do the same to every other instance, such as SAD etc. It's probably worth reviewing the article on acronyms with respect to the use of punctuation in text. There is no correct way as different style guides take different positions.
Your comment that my statement was opinionated is curious. My immediate perception is that you're seeking to use that as a pejorative term, since I can't see any way in which I shouldn't have an opinion. Your comments may not have been intended to infer that, but it would be useful if you could clarify your intent. The fact that I'm from the UK is not particularly relevant, whilst there are differences in our usage of the English language the main thrust of my comments above is about consistency, and also the lack of substance of one of your main arguments. LP also uses a similar form of English, although it's not clear whether he's from NI (which would mean that he's also from the UK) or Eire.
Finally, it's generally not considered particularly good form to interfere with another users comments, particularly in a discussion about language where you impose your own spelling on another. I would be grateful if you desist from that in future.
ALR (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how I interfered with another users comments (maybe you were talking about changing spelling to american, if so it was an accident, my browser automatically does it, most of the time I stop it). What I mean, with my statement about opinions, is not that you should not have an opinion, it is just you were basing part of your argument on that, while I am basing mine on fact. It in no way was to personally offend you, I apologize if I did. Your argument seems to based on consistency, but mine is based on my other things mainly that as a acronym it should have proper punctuation. We have a few options, we could extend it to united states or you can change the other acronyms. All I know is in the U.S. article, it does not say anything about US.
The english language is full of instances where one needs to understand context to appreciate which meaning of a word applies, and whilst you may seek to dismiss my argument based on your perception that it's based on an opinion that does not really add much to the debate. In a topic such as language usage, where much is subjective, we are both basing our arguments on our opinion of how the principles should apply. My argument is based on the fact that there is no defined way to use punctuation in this context, there are two regularly applied approaches, and for what it's worth I see far more usage without punctuation than with, including in many documents authored by US government representatives.
I think it's notable that in the first line of the article that you repeatedly refer to, both examples are used viz. U.S. and USA. The sentence in question is inconsistent, it should be either U.S. and U.S.A. or US and USA.
There is also a physical readability aspect, for those who have mild reading impairments the punctuated version is disruptive.
Wikipedia guidance/ policy is that articles should be consistent in their language usage, WP:LANG.
ALR (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All very entertaining, but mostly misplaced POV. Surely what the U.S. article says is immaterial, as it can be amended by anyone. The policy is in (dare I mention it) the Manual of Style -
(quote)US and U.S.
In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English and is becoming increasingly common in American English. In longer abbreviations incorporating the country's initials (USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. U.S.A. and USA are not used unless quoted or as part of a proper name (Team USA).(unquote)
I'm not American, or in USA, so I'm not bound by archaic American education traditions.:-)PeterWD (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Great stuff, so either way, but this is an article about the American C.I.A, so we should perhaps stick with U.S. as stated in the Manuel of style, because U.S. does not really (once or twice?) pop up along side other abbreviated countries. Thanks Aaron mcd (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually that excerpt is so ambiguous it supports both interpretations. I read it as suggesting that the punctuated version is out of date and the phrasing puts a lot of caveats on it's use. If anything a critical analysis might be a cause for some reflection.
So regardless, I don't think your case is made, particularly given your failure to address the various points in this discussion.
ALR (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Check this, maybe you did not see it. I am using the standard form, everything is consistent. What point have I not addressed? I don't think that saying that the MoS is out of date is a valid argument, it is well written. Thanks, Aaron mcd (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed, getting old. And once again you suggest that your interlocutor is incapable of reading, which is in its own right rather tedious.
Essentially the section of the MOS that applies is ambiguous, and leaves much up to editor interpretation.
It seems to me that rather than address the issues that people raise you instead call into question their motivations, abilities and indeed right to express an opinion. Frankly I stepped into this discussion because your attitude towards Lapsed Pacifist stinks, consider it a test to see how you might approach my views. You responded as expected.
I'd agree that you are using a standard form that is becoming less widely used, however the article is not consistent. I'm not really intending on doing anything about that, I just wanted to see what you'd do ;)
For what it's worth a lot of US originated documents cross my desk, several every week. I don't recall the last time one of them punctuated the abbreviated form.
ALR (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not degrade to personal attacks. I do not see the where you could interpret it differently, I mean for other acronyms, perhaps, but the article (MoS) specifically states that in American English, U.S. is the standard. I do not personally attack anyone on Wikipedia, nor do I question their personal motivations (unless they’re a vandal). If I have offended you I do apologize, however I suggest (not trying to be mean) that you get some tougher skin. I have indeed saw many US documents that use they less punctuated form, it is correct. However Wikipedia is not a place to replace things with new trends or styles, until they are more widely accepted. Also in the future if you have a personal problem, rather than making a lengthy argument on an article's talk page, you could simply state your original motivations, and we could discuss them on my talk page. Thanks, Aaron mcd (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, an expression of my perceptions of your behaviour are not a personal attack, merely an expression of my impressions. Of course my impression of your response, and the suggestion that my perceptions are unimportant and that I should grow a thicker skin, could quite conceivably be similar. In any case, I would suggest a critical reading of your previous on this, and in other areas. Incidentally I didn't say that you were being mean (bluntly, I left the school playground a very long time ago, prior to reaching a reasonably senior rank in a combat arm) but I did provide you with a number of more specific pointers as to why I might suggest that your approach stinks. Call it constructive criticism if you like.
Anyway, my point remains and whilst I understand why you won't acknowledge that the MoS is ambiguous, it is. This is not something to get aggressive over, to suggest that people cannot read the guidance, or don't understand that their browser is not working properly, the fact that I or others may use a different form of the English language than you does not allow you to dismiss the arguments being presented to you without addressing them. Incidentally your position is somewhat undermined by your grammar.
Perhaps once you have some more life experience you'll be a little more sensitive to the principles of effective dialogue, rather than argument.
All the best
ALR (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this is a debate between whether we should use American English or British English for punctuation (the manual of style pretty much says that U.S. is the accepted form in the United States, while US has become prevalent elsewhere). Is there a defined wikipedia policy on what form of English we use? If not, perhaps we should default to American English, simply because this page is about a body of the American government. In addition, one might argue that for issues of semantics in wikipedia (I don't mean that literally) issues like this are usually resolved by consensus. The consensus in most English- and Non-English- speaking countries is that American English is the preferred type for international business, diplomacy, etc., and generally, non-speakers who learn English prefer to learn American English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

El Salvador

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article410491.ece. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a valid source, but really is that the best way to call the tactics? And that source already being cited(see below) does not seem the most reliable. If were are going to use such a term, than we need to explain what it really means. I also noticed that there are some weasel words that should be removed from that section.
"The term "death squad" while appropriately vivid, can be misleading because it obscures their fundamental identity. Evidence shows that "death squads" are primarily military or paramilitary units carrying out political assassinations and intimidation as part of the Salvadoran government's counterinsurgency strategy" quoted right out of the source being used in that section. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html
On another note, some user said I was being mean towards you?, that was never the case, nothing personal at all. Thanks, Aaron mcd (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have a number of concerns around using that source in the way that you've tried to use it, although I would highlight that the term death squad is highly emotive and I would question whether it conforms to the principles of balanced treatment of the topic.
Specific issues with that source are that El Salvador is not the main topic of the piece and is only used as an illustration, the article is a news article in a newspaper and demonstrates no legitimacy in it's own use of sources, and the author has no known credibility in the field of COIN or covert operations.
ALR (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
See also Death_squad#El_Salvador. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Wheeling out a very poor quality article doesn't really support your assertion. What you are talking about in this context is the allegation that the US government supported the creation of teams to conduct extra-judicial killings. That has human rights, security sector integrity and rule of law implications.
fwiw I also think that the bland description of counter-insurgency is equally unbalanced since it reduces the need for discussion of the various issues.
ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment of the article's quality. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Death Squads, to me seems a little bit politically incorrect. Also, I guess the term counter-insurgency teams is a little to politically correct in the united states favor. Perhaps if we used a more neutral term (I don't really know of one). Death_squad#El_Salvador has like 4 or 5 cleanup tags on it, so I do not know how reliable it will be. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The terminology has little to do with political correctness, but with balance and NPOV.
The section is similar to so much of the rest of the article, inasmuch as it conflates several things and attributes specific positions of the US regime with a single arm of government. So I think we neeed to answer several questions, and similar questions apply to each country section.
The first question really should be - was there CIA involvement in the training, direction or leadership of these so called death squads, and is there any evidence to support that? From my view of the sources there certainly appears to be support for the view that the US government were involved, although the reliability of those sources is questionable from a Wikipedia perspective. There is a weight of evidence that supports inclusion, but it would probably benefit from the use of caveats.
The second question becomes how we describe the involvement? The sources do seem to support the assertion that training of internal security personnel was conducted by the US, there is also adequate material to support the suggestion that some of those trained were then engaged in extra-judicial killing or political and civilian targets. I'm not convinced that the available sources support a causal relationship and there doesn't appear to be anything that supports the assertion that the extra-judicial killing was sanctioned by the regime in Washington. Making that link, at present, becomes original research.
Finally we get into what terminology to use, and IMO Death Squad is inappropriate. The term is undefined, either in this article or the article about the topic which is mainly a collection of polemic ranting.
I'd suggest that those steps allow us to come up with a form of words that indicates the nuanced nature of the assertions and injects some subtlety into the narrative.
Once this section is dealt with the whole article needs a thorough going over.
ALR (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It is the most common term. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it defined, balanced or meaningful.
Anyway, do you have any views on the substance of my previous? You need to make your case for usage.
ALR (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Training/encouraging these squads seems a pretty natural continuation of the Phoenix Program across the Pacific; I don't agree about the causal relationship. I take your point about whether this was sanctioned by Washington; to that I would point to the last sentence of the article's second paragraph: "If they are compromised during a mission, the government of the United States often denies all knowledge." Journalists writing about these events seem pretty happy with the term; the London Times isn't known for being anti-CIA. I've found an interesting webpage that seems to have been written by Ralph McGehee, but Wikipedia won't let me link it. If you Google "ralph mcgehee el salvador cia white paper death squad", it should be the first one. The countries are in alphabetical order. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Assassination

References provided only say one thing about the SAD

"Inevitably, little is known about any covert US action but some analysts believe that the CIA’s paramilitary wing, the Special Activities Division (SAD), has been allowed to pursue terrorist suspects in the Philippines on the basis that its actions will never be acknowledged."

The word "assassination" is not used, nor is the phrase "targeted killings". That article is talking about a drone attacking, not the SAD. Perhaps you should locate sources that better clarify the SAD's involvement in such activities. Not trying to be a jerk, but such a controversial topic deserves a solid source(s). Aaron mcd (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that dropping a hellfire missile on an al-Qa'ida or taliban operative in a country the United States is not at war with, such as Pakistan, is a assassination aka targeted killing. I believe it is the definition of it. Whether that weapon be a silenced rifle or hellfire. The tactic is the same. In addition, there are several well sourced article by the LA Times and Robert Woodward describing an "assassination team". I will add those and the Predator strike ref as well. I agree that it is a controversial topic that needs to be discussed. Respecfully submitted to you. SaadMuhammad (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Pakistani government has authorized (publicly or otherwise) these killings, does that necessarily make it extrajudicial or an "assassination?" It's entirely possible these drone strikes could be sanctioned and legal... although the Pakistani government has not openly said they allow them, they allow Predators and Reapers that carry out attacks inside Pakistan to take off and land from their own airbases within their territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.209.236 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the section in this article on the assasination on Osama Bin Laden is an obvious assassination, but not labeled as such, which I also find disturbing, and I think should be more clearly labeled as an assassination. Sending in an assassination squad into a foreign country, to break into a highly visible political figure's home at night, and kill them on sight, without a trial, is obviously a blatant assassination. Assassination of political figures is explicitly illegal according to international law, and yet the US administration makes no bones about it, they are quite brazen to state their clear intention was to murder Osama Bin Laden on sight without a trial.

What is more disturbing about this wiki, is a search within the article for the term "assassination" finds only one instance, and that is in regards to an investigation into the "JFK assassination". I say disturbing, because the CIA is notorious for its covert "wet work" (assasinations) around the world. Do I need to edit the article myself, a site an ocean of published resources so that my edits won't be deleted? Assassination as a term is an old concept, and has been employed by nation states for thousands of years, and I do not think it is such a charged term that it can not be used as needed within this article, or perhaps better, a stub list "Assassinations by the CIA". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

bin laden wasn't assassinated, he was armed with an AK and was killed. He was a leader of a terrorist organization. Your statement about the cia being notorious for "wet work" is hilarious. ST6 isn't a assassination squad. You have some crazy bias that is sickening to be honest, you must jump through some major mental gymnastics to call the killing of Osama a Assassination.

Recent reversion

Far from removing inappropriate language, I believe IshmaelMarcos reintroduced it with his revert. It reads like SAD cheerleading. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reasonable defence of it is proferred, I'm going to revert it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Black Ops

It seems to me that by definition the SAD can't be credited for running Black Op as it is defined in the Black Ops page 'Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action'. If the operations are by necessity denied then how can it can be credibly claimed they run such activity. Have they said "Our job is intelligence and not just running secret opperations we just wont talk about but running operations crafted so that we can deny we ran them or the ever likely existed". Seems like it should be remove or a citation given from a credible source they probably run Black Operations as defined by the Black Op page...or whatever I suppose... Mrbeardy (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Dougherty (2004), the first source given in the lead, contains the relevant information. The Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/10/cias-hayden-impressed-with-panetta/ uses quotes for the "black" in "black operation". If there are reliable sources that say the CIA runs black operations, a denial by the CIA would somehow rather confirm such an assessment. Maybe there even is some CIA statement that confirms that the CIA is doing black operations (probably using a different term), but not acknowledging any particular such operation.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Legality

Theoretically, how does the SAD prevent itself from status as an illegal paramilitary militia or organization? Although it is part of an intelligence agency, it performs black ops which by definition are generally not in compliance with US law. This is simply a theoretical question, I have no desire to take legal action against the men and women who continue to serve under difficult situations. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not. The whole CIA is a terrorist organization. 81.155.34.137 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Paramilitary is not illegal, its under the cia. cia is not a terrorist org like the clown above me said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikmuns (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Forty-four Presidents

From the article:

Every U.S. President since George Washington has used covert action as a part of their broader foreign policy, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

...this is very weakly (and ambiguously) cited and is of curious accuracy. Perhaps we can compile some separately-citable references here to determine if this statement should should remain in the article? It shouldn't take long to find references for FDR through Obama authorizing covert actions, but some of the 31 that proceeded FDR may require more time. (William Henry Harrison died on his thirty-second day in office.) - Eric (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording and Basic Mechanical Issues...

The article seems to have been written by a person with second-grade reading and writing skills, and the tone is much more like a personal narrative than an encyclopedic entry. Another concern I have is with the apparent bias of a good portion of the text, especially under the section on Afghanistan. It seems like someone is saying, "I have some vague and loosely connected sources, so all this nonsensical propaganda that I'm saying must be right." There are quite a few purely mechanical issues such as spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but I think someone should take this page under serious review for both the delivery and the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.165.68 (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I agree, and the Famous Paramilitary Officers section is poorly set up as well, with some sections ridiculously long, improperly added "REFERENCE," and too informal of a tone ("No poetry-writing philosopher-warrior was Tony Poe.") This whole page needs review. (AndrasKrigare (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

rename to cia special activities division

shouldn't this page get renamed to cia special activities division? to make more specific.71.198.209.193 (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


It might not hurt, but I don't see there being any real need to. A google search of "Special Activities Division -CIA" (to remove results that contain CIA) returns either references to the same SAD, or to a group within the video game Eve Online of the same name. (AndrasKrigare (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

Freedman/Somalia

"On December 23, 1992... Freedman was killed while conducting special reconnaissance in advance of the entry of U.S. military forces."

According to the UNITAF article, Marines landed in somalia on the 9th of December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.139.169 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pulled for dubious relevance

In January 1978, the Iranian Revolution began with major demonstrations against the Shah. After strikes and demonstrations paralysed the country and its economy, the Shah fled and Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran in January 1979.[1] On February 11, rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979 when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum.[2]

Not sure what this has to do with the CIA Solicitr (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

CIA misinformation and propaganda

It is obvious that CIA representatives are in overdrive to prevent facts from being presented and misinformation from being corrected. This is the most biased and misinformed article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. As an American citizen, as a United States Marine, as a combat veteran, and as a scholar, I find this to be egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.58.226 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree

The Iraq section at least is pretty much all confused garbage. For example Ansar al-Islam was hostile to Hussein and received support from Iraq's mortal enemy, Iran, so Hussein would likely have wiped them out if not for them operating in the no-fly zone that protected them from direct military action by Hussein's forces. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

what is your point? they operated in a Kurdish area before sept 11 and the kurds failed to destroy the group until the US SOF/SOG came in. I don't see where the misinformation is, You can't throw out accusations like that without providing evidence. This article isn't about the cia as a whole, its about the SAD and you will find it hard to directly tie them to many events that have happened. Sorry you cannot make outrageous claims without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikmuns (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jundallah and Baloch insurgents.

There is little evidence the US government actively aided Jundallah and baloch insurgents. iran caught the leader of Jundallah and during a TV interview he said he was going to meet US operatives and even Israeli, dubious considering the torture he most likely suffered. I find the Baloch accusation suspect too, its well known Iran aids Baloch insurgents in Pakistan and even some Taliban groups. It could be possible baloch rebels take aid from Iran in Pakistan, but not in Iran. The whole thing is strange, but its doubtful the cia helped Jundallah. There is no mention of PJAK and other Kurdish groups. The US more likely was involved with them. MEK on the other hand, there is some evidence the US was involved with MEK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikmuns (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

POV in section "Afghanistan"

I removed a PR text in the section on Afghanistan; this was later reverted. the only reason given was "As if pro-CIA sentiment is a problem on Wikipedia." IMO, this kind of emotional storytelling has no place in an encyclopedia and is a clear violation of NPOV. At the minimum, I would expext a reason why this section is appropriate before reverting my edit. --MarioS (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Special Activities Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jahangir Amuzegar, The Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution, (1991), p.4, 9–12 ISBN 0791407314
  2. ^ Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, I. B. Tauris (March 30, 2006)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Activities_Center/Archive_1&oldid=1137197526"