CIA finally goes too far?

[gay_Aleks]

As low as it gets?

 

[hangman]

As low as it gets?

Noooo, it's much, much lower than that...

If I can make an (awful) analogy to limbo, the CIA would be underground.

 

[r16]

ı have at times talked with people from the Cold War ; they tend to maintain that it was a very good thing for ordinary Americans that there was some hot stuff abroad . For if not kept busy as such , the Americans fighting for freedom might have brought Democracy to US ...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

ı have at times talked with people from the Cold War ; they tend to maintain that it was a very good thing for ordinary Americans that there was some hot stuff abroad . For if not kept busy as such , the Americans fighting for freedom might have brought Democracy to US ...

Knowing I was part of an apparatus designed to incinerate the earth did lead to me taking a really hard look at the process and people in control of that apparatus. And I wasn't overly impressed with what I saw. Democracy American style looked like a very irresponsible way to choose the most dangerous man on the planet. It took twelve years after I left the military, but sure enough they handed the ball to Cheney the ventriloquist and his dummy.

 

[r16]

the same Cold War people will readily ignore Bush II as a dummy . Their take on him is about him being so well educated and stuff that he falls into real foolishness out of hubris ; otherwise he is quite talented to play the dumb one . Cheney ? Humpff ... ( A sound of , well , ignoring Cheney as evil . Far "better" examples that Cheney would just look up in admiration to do evil aplenty in White House afterall )

Knowing I was part of an apparatus designed to incinerate the earth

so , boomer guy then ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

the same Cold War people will readily ignore Bush II as a dummy . Their take on him is about him being so well educated and stuff that he falls into real foolishness out of hubris ; otherwise he is quite talented to play the dumb one . Cheney ? Humpff ... ( A sound of , well , ignoring Cheney as evil . Far "better" examples that Cheney would just look up in admiration to do evil aplenty in White House afterall )


so , boomer guy then ?

Not exactly, but close enough. Incinerating planets involves an integrated system with a lot of moving parts. At some point keeping boomers off the bullseye was close enough that I couldn't deny that my function in the world was standing by to end it.

Young George didn't get enough out of the disaster for me to believe he caused it intentionally. Cheney, on the other hand, had an entire lifetime of war profiteering behind him when he got in position for the big score...and unsurprisingly scored big. Pretty clear who ran who.

 

[Berzerker]

Finally? After all the blood they've spilled and we're gonna be upset over spying on the politicians who are spying on us?

 

[r16]

Not exactly, but close enough. Incinerating planets involves an integrated system with a lot of moving parts. At some point keeping boomers off the bullseye was close enough that I couldn't deny that my function in the world was standing by to end it.

Young George didn't get enough out of the disaster for me to believe he caused it intentionally. Cheney, on the other hand, had an entire lifetime of war profiteering behind him when he got in position for the big score...and unsurprisingly scored big. Pretty clear who ran who.

sorry for the delay , not on the net regularly these days . From the Titanic thread ı got the impression that you were in the engine rooms of naval vessels . So , hunting Russian subs ? Or retiring from a shore base ?

can't debate much that Bush II would look up to Cheney ; but still would argue Dabya is not an empty gasbag .

 

[jackelgull]

This scares me a bit. The NSA thing scared me too. Because we are placing a lot of information in the hands of corruptible people.

If the president of the US decides that a senator is protesting too much, he can go to the NSA and tell them, give me all you got on this guy, he's a threat to national security and what can they do but comply?

So they dig up the information and the president now has all the information he needs to slander the man's name or whatever he wants done.

Afterall, the FBI in the fifties and sixties worked hard to hinder Civil Right's movements.

 

[aelf]

Rocket science is a lot less complicated than a government that needs to keep in line a government that needs to keep in line a government that needs to keep in line a government that needs to keep in line a..... The more money and resources you give it, the further it flies and protects it's interest. Why is it a surprise that when you have to spiral down so far to see who is actually pulling the strings, that it would not backfire eventually?

Yeah, but where does the slippery slope begin? Quite far up, probably. You might want to check out anarchy (à la Somalia, not the communal kind, which is far too lefty). I hear it's great.

 

[tetley]

Obviously the CIA has gone too far. And they're never going to prosecute because the fox is guarding the hen house. Then again, those same people were saying they were going to catch Snowden and "bring him to justice". Looking back, I'm inclined to think they were wrong.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am really tired of getting worked up on the American political structure.

What springs to my mind is "How on hell can there be no persecutions. How on hell can Obama back the head of CIA?!"
I mean jabba jaba he can deny knowledge all he want - that is the thing - there are red lines when denial or apologies are not enough anymore. When the risk is too great to risk that those are just lies or simple incompetence. This certainly should be such a line.

Moreover - that previously Obama publicly stated "No prosecution. I back the guy" should now really kick him in his ass. Will it? He probably just spouts some generic lines, then some talking heads get generically worked up and that is that.

Almost everything seems to go over there. I am done.

 

[jackelgull]

The greatest threat to any democracy is generally not an armed minority but the apathy of the voting public. That said, I agree with your sentiment that nothing seems to be done, but that is because we have come to the point that few people really care.

Even in the 2012 presidential elections, only about 57 % of voters turned up that is considered high. That means Obama won with 29 % of the popular vote.

 

[Phrossack]

I am really tired of getting worked up on the American political structure.

What springs to my mind is "How on hell can there be no persecutions. How on hell can Obama back the head of CIA?!"
I mean jabba jaba he can deny knowledge all he want - that is the thing - there are red lines when denial or apologies are not enough anymore. When the risk is too great to risk that those are just lies or simple incompetence. This certainly should be such a line.

Moreover - that previously Obama publicly stated "No prosecution. I back the guy" should now really kick him in his ass. Will it? He probably just spouts some generic lines, then some talking heads get generically worked up and that is that.

Almost everything seems to go over there. I am done.

We all are. Just try not to start hating Americans in general, we're all sick of it too.

 

[kochman]

The CIA is part of the executive...
This isn't totally unprecedented, of course. There was "Abscam", where the FBI, also part of the executive, ran sting operations on members of Congress.

The difference is, the FBI was trying to stamp out corruption, and was well within its mandate.

Was the CIA within its mandate? That's a hard case to sell... but, do we have full knowledge of what its mandate is?

As for being "unconstitutional"? GC, please explain that specific claim.

 

[Gary Childress]

The CIA is part of the executive...
This isn't totally unprecedented, of course. There was "Abscam", where the FBI, also part of the executive, ran sting operations on members of Congress.

The difference is, the FBI was trying to stamp out corruption, and was well within its mandate.

Was the CIA within its mandate? That's a hard case to sell... but, do we have full knowledge of what its mandate is?

As for being "unconstitutional"? GC, please explain that specific claim.

Is it "constitutional" for the CIA to spy on members of congress? Are we not so different after all from the Soviet Union and the KGB? I thought the CIA (as well as NSA) were concerned with protecting Americans from potential invaders from other countries or whatever. Are the CIA and NSA also mandated to protect themselves from the American people? I haven't read the Constitution in years and have forgotten much of the specifics of what I read, but I guess I'll need to go back and read it again.

On the other hand if what was done was a simple "accident" then I guess it is OK for the perpetrators to keep their jobs and continue to participate in the system, right? Let's set a precedent there which is unique to most of the rest of us out there who completely screw up on our jobs. Or maybe the perpetrators will volunteer to "fire" themselves from their jobs?

 

[Farm Boy]

I am really tired of getting worked up on the American political structure.

What springs to my mind is "How on hell can there be no persecutions. How on hell can Obama back the head of CIA?!"
I mean jabba jaba he can deny knowledge all he want - that is the thing - there are red lines when denial or apologies are not enough anymore. When the risk is too great to risk that those are just lies or simple incompetence. This certainly should be such a line.

Moreover - that previously Obama publicly stated "No prosecution. I back the guy" should now really kick him in his ass. Will it? He probably just spouts some generic lines, then some talking heads get generically worked up and that is that.

Almost everything seems to go over there. I am done.

I think the only recent semi-mainstream candidate for the executive branch that had stated policy goals directly against the power of the federal government along these lines was Ron Paul. You know how well he goes over on this forum. People have picked their poison(s). The Chicago style Democrat got international cheering throngs, remember?

 

[PhroX]

Is it "constitutional" for the CIA to spy on members of congress? Are we not so different after all from the Soviet Union and the KGB? I thought the CIA (as well as NSA) were concerned with protecting Americans from potential invaders from other countries or whatever. Are the CIA and NSA also mandated to protect themselves from the American people? I haven't read the Constitution in years and have forgotten much of the specifics of what I read, but I guess I'll need to go back and read it again.

I asked this eariler in the thread but didn't really get an awser. Why is this incident in particular so bad? The US intelligence agencies spy on Americans all the time. What makes the fact that they spied on some people in government worse? Is it "constitutional" for them to spy on anyone in America? If the answer is yes, why the hell should members of congress recieve a special exception?

 

[Samson]

I asked this eariler in the thread but didn't really get an awser. Why is this incident in particular so bad? The US intelligence agencies spy on Americans all the time. What makes the fact that they spied on some people in government worse? Is it "constitutional" for them to spy on anyone in America? If the answer is yes, why the hell should members of congress recieve a special exception?

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.

 

[kochman]

Is it "constitutional" for the CIA to spy on members of congress? Are we not so different after all from the Soviet Union and the KGB? I thought the CIA (as well as NSA) were concerned with protecting Americans from potential invaders from other countries or whatever. Are the CIA and NSA also mandated to protect themselves from the American people? I haven't read the Constitution in years and have forgotten much of the specifics of what I read, but I guess I'll need to go back and read it again.

Well, I mean, there's been a ton of violations of the Constitution, more really the BoR, over the past 14 years.

On the other hand if what was done was a simple "accident" then I guess it is OK for the perpetrators to keep their jobs and continue to participate in the system, right? Let's set a precedent there which is unique to most of the rest of us out there who completely screw up on our jobs. Or maybe the perpetrators will volunteer to "fire" themselves from their jobs?

That's how government jobs generally are... precedent has long been set.