“Our job is to break the law” is a phrase John Kiriakou attributes to CIA instructors, and which he raises to explain why a debate about warrants misunderstands the organisation being discussed.
The training line
The subject arose over Vault 7 capabilities — remote control of vehicles, the reverse-engineering of televisions into microphones — and the observation that such things are not supposed to be done without a warrant. Kiriakou’s answer began with the culture rather than the statute. “You know, at the CIA… God, in training they they used to tell us all the time, ‘Our job is to break the law.’”[1][2]
The qualification he made
His recorded reaction at the time was not dissent from the principle but from its scope. “And I remember saying, ‘Yeah, but not here.’ The job is to break the law over there.”[2]
Kiriakou is explicit that he acted on that distinction rather than merely stating it. “You know, I was perfectly happy and and on multiple occasions actively participated in, you know, breaking into people’s houses or offices and planting bugs and cameras. We’re the good guys. That’s what we have to do. This is to protect the United States.”[2]
The domestic limit
The other half of the distinction is stated as law, not preference. “But not here. You need a warrant. And besides, the CIA is forbidden by law from doing anything operationally inside the United States. That’s what the FBI is for.”[2]
His own frustration is with how rarely that line is understood: “I just never understood this. Like, why isn’t it that clear to everybody?”[2]
The contrast with the FBI
Asked whether the FBI behaved similarly, Kiriakou drew a sharp distinction from long experience. “You know, it was my experience when I was working with the FBI, and I worked with the FBI for years and years, that they they really were sticklers for the law, where the CIA wasn’t.”[2]
His illustration was an exchange in which he offered FBI colleagues a technique for dismantling a small terrorist cell by turning its members against one another. The response was “Oh my god, that’s so illegal. We couldn’t possibly do that” — and Kiriakou’s own reply is the clearest statement of the gap between the two institutions: “Oh, it never even occurred to me that that might be illegal.”[2]