CIA finally goes too far?

[PhroX]

What I got, and it could be very wrong, is that they spied on the committee congress set up to investigate them, with the implication that they could use that knowledge to influence the outcome of that committee in their favour. Seems bad in a slightly different way to spying on everyone.

Ok, I can see that being an issue, I'd missed that when I read over the OP.

But I still wonder about Gary's question of "Is it "constitutional" for the CIA to spy on members of congress?" If those congress members weren't directly involved in an investigation of the CIA, why should the constitution treat them any different from the rest of the population when it comes to being spied upon.

 

[bhsup]

I think that's the second time I've seen you differentiate between the Constitution and the BoR as though the BoR is not a part of the Constitution. Any reason for that?

 

[jackelgull]

Unfortunately the Bill of Rights does not mention a right to immunity from being spied upon. How extensively a government can spy upon its people is up to the government to decide and the people can merely grumble at the government that they don't approve.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't the whole existence of the CIA sort of boil down to: "We need an agency that can go too far without people knowing or being able to do much about it"

?

As such, they are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing - doing America's dirty work, whatever that may involve.

 

[bhsup]

Before the September 11 attacks, the intelligence agencies had no charter to operate domestically. That was the domain of the FBI. It was intentional so as to not have one behemoth organization like the KGB that did it all and would obviously oppress people.

But then people complained about them not sharing data and how the attacks could have been prevented and they chose security over freedom. We did it to ourselves. The citizenry ing and moaning about security deserve what they got.

 

[warpus]

Before the September 11 attacks, the intelligence agencies had no charter to operate domestically. That was the domain of the FBI. It was intentional so as to not have one behemoth organization like the KGB that did it all and would obviously oppress people.

But then people complained about them not sharing data and how the attacks could have been prevented and they chose security over freedom. We did it to ourselves. The citizenry ing and moaning about security deserve what they got.

Was it really the citizens or just the people in charge choosing the least politically suicidal path to a "solution" ?

It seems like a lot of people in charge want to be seen appearing to be doing something, rather than putting in the time and effort to doing it right. It's all about appearances, and in the end you end up with security theatre at airports that doesn't actually make people safer, while at the same time projecting an image of: "Look at us! We're doing something!"

A significant percentage of your population is going to freak out after a terrorist attack.. and ask for more security.. but it seems to me that it's the government's job to drown that noise out and look at the facts. And implement a plan that will actually be good for the country... instead of just going with the easiest possible "solution", that doesn't even really work.. and affects the country negatively overall.

But hey, at least they're doing something about it!

 

[dutchfire]

Obama adminstration says that Obama administration did not do bad things. More at eleven.

Well crud, I guess I have to eat some massive crow here







I'm sorry Sen. Feinstein! Looks like they really were spying on you.

It is not paranoia if they're out to get you!

 

[kochman]

I think that's the second time I've seen you differentiate between the Constitution and the BoR as though the BoR is not a part of the Constitution. Any reason for that?

The BoR are amendments to the original document.

On December 15, 1791, Articles Three–Twelve, having been ratified by the required number of states, became Amendments One–Ten of the Constitution.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

Since there are 3 years time in between those, it's hard to say they are one document.
The Amendments are additional changes to the original documents, but that doesn't make them the same document.

This is a common misunderstanding. I, for one, was under the impression for years that the BoR was added to get the Constitution signed at its original signing.

 

[bhsup]

I am well aware of how amendments work, but once they are passed and certified, they DO become part of the Constitution. There is no differentiating.

The Constitution is all of the articles AND amendments that have passed. It is the whole ball of wax.

 

[kochman]

OK, but the BoR was still a separate document. It's later joining doesn't remove this fact.
The Amendments are part of the Constitution, but if you specifically mention the BoR you are talking to a separate document... which just means you can talk about it separately (or jointly).