3 ms·
>What exactly in the admittedly shortened list am I supposed to be upset about? It makes no distinction between US citizens and overseas parties. If these actio
by topwer 10y ago
>What exactly in the admittedly shortened list am I supposed to be upset about? It makes no distinction between US citizens and overseas parties. If these actions are being done domestically against US citizens, with no just cause sure I will get upset, but that has yet to be seen.
From the Reppublica article: "Three years ago the news that the Agency had spied on the US Senate intelligence committee's years-long effort to investigate CIA's tortures by penetrating the computers of the committee staff members sparked public outrage and political fury."
- dvcc 10y agoThis is a past revelation that was already investigated, no? Without any direct connection to the current release it muddies the waters.
- RodericDay 10y agoHow does it muddle the waters? People are saying "no big deal I expect my agency to defend me from foreign threats", and it turns out they have been used against domestic do-gooders. It seems incredibly relevant.
- dvcc 10y agoI think it makes an unwarranted (ha!) connection between the current released documents that do not indicate they were used against US citizens, and a previous probed and documented illegal act by the CIA. Not a justification for their previous behavior, more of drawing solid lines between two ideas, where maybe a dash is better fitted.