4 ms·

> I think it's not out of the question it's multiple motives, too. It's not impossible someone chose to grab some stuff due to moral objections, and is feeding

by defen 10y ago

> I think it's not out of the question it's multiple motives, too. It's not impossible someone chose to grab some stuff due to moral objections, and is feeding the information through some channels that themselves have their own motivations. That would be my guess as well - an application of so-called "Fourth-generation warfare". In the same way that ISIS seeks to encourage self-radicalization, since it is virtually untraceable, Russia (or really, anyone opposed to US interests) would aim to create a climate where NSA/CIA employees "self-radicalize" in the sense that they become convinced that those organizations are engaging in illegal or immoral activities. So, create organizations like Wikileaks, people like Ed Snowden, plant news stories, etc. At a high level the idea is that you create a broad-spectrum propaganda campaign that is designed to encourage insiders to leak secrets for the benefit of their own conscience. If you reach the right people you can gain access to tons of secrets in a way that is 100% deniable. No payments, no meetings or communications with Russian agents that can be tracked, etc.

cpr 10y ago
Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate? Isn't it prima facie clear that the three-letter agencies are essentially rogue governments (the "deep state"), a law unto themselves, and thus completely antithetical to the whole idea of a democratic republic? So internal people at those agencies, if they have half a brain and a conscience, and are patriotic in the original sense of loving one's patria (fatherland), though hating the bad aspects of one's government, should already be willing to spill the so-called secrets by which these agencies operate their illegal and immoral agendas.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, that's certainly an arguable proposition. But of course, that helps Russia etc in selling it.
  - jerf 10y ago
    Exactly; there doesn't need to be an "either-or" here. In fact one could even agree that Russia could be helpful exposing something untoward the US government is doing, even while you do not endorse all the things they may do and may vigorously oppose them on other fronts. To be honest, thinking about all this mostly makes me glad I never got into that world, and I hope I never really do. I don't have the constitution for it.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Most folks in the IC never face a significant ethical dilemma (unless you think that spying on other governments is wrong). They just do their jobs and go about their lives. Most IC employees lament that they could be earning way more in the private sector ;) . So you most likely made the right choice!
- defen 10y ago
  Right, the point I'm making is how do you "know" that is true vs propaganda? In reality it's probably a mix of the two. It's important to recognize that although there is a binary distinction between "employees who have leaked" and "employees who have not", there is a much fuzzier distribution of the trait "propensity to leak" across all CIA/NSA employees. Some people leak for personal gain (bribe/gambling debt/etc); some people leak for ideological reasons (convinced of the inevitable triumph of Communism/hatred of USA); some people leak because of their conscience (whistleblowers) The goal of an anti-US entity would be to nudge someone who is on the border / considering leaking into actually going through with it.
- nanistheonlyist 10y ago
  Found the russian
- linkregister 10y ago
  Is it prima facie clear though? Of the controversial activities the spy agencies have taken post-WW2, weren't virtually all of them under some White House or Congressional auspice? The actions and capabilities revealed in the Snowden leaks were overtly defended by both the President and (most) members of Congressional intelligence committees. If there's a deep state in the Intelligence Community, then the Commander-in-Chief, appointed Executive Branch officials (e.g. Director of National Intelligence and Defense Secretary), and Senators & Representatives on Intel committees are part of it. In which case, public elections are part of the deep state?
  - cpr 10y ago
    Until you get a president the deep state loathes (like Trump) and whom they would not have chosen, and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things about him and taking out his appointees (like Mike Flynn).
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Chris, I respect you. However, your comment contains conjecture without much facts. 1. >The deep state loathes. What makes you think that a large amount of intelligence community members didn't vote for Trump? He won a third of Maryland and almost half of Virginia. And what about the military? Do you honestly think even 40% of servicemembers voted Democrat? 2. >and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things So a handful of leaks blemish the whole IC? The IC has been doing its job, supporting military operations ordered by the President and assisting ICE and CPB. As far as we know, the leaks came from congressional or White House staff. 3. >taking out his appointees Is Mike Flynn's conduct defensible? He was working for foreign governments without reporting it. I don't think there's anything wrong with talking to the Russian Ambassador, but he brought all this on himself. You never addressed my point about the "deep state" being controlled by Congress and the Executive. The IC is dependent on line items in its budget to be passed in order to get funding. Unless congressmen are corrupted, there isn't an autonomous "deep state."
- PerfectDlite 10y ago
  > Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate Because they're following Soviet playbooks. And if they'll create enough FUD they will be able to freely annex neighbouring countries.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory, especially NATO-aligned states. It does make sense for the Russian Government to reduce the influence of the U.S.
    - PerfectDlite 10y ago
      > I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory That was wishful thinking in 2008 and the result was Crimean invasion a few years later.
- wbl 10y ago
  Have you read the Presidents Commission on Intelligence Oversight report? Nothing you said is true: the NSA had informed congress and the courts of everything.

by defen 10y ago

cpr 10y ago

Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate? Isn't it prima facie clear that the three-letter agencies are essentially rogue governments (the "deep state"), a law unto themselves, and thus completely antithetical to the whole idea of a democratic republic? So internal people at those agencies, if they have half a brain and a conscience, and are patriotic in the original sense of loving one's patria (fatherland), though hating the bad aspects of one's government, should already be willing to spill the so-called secrets by which these agencies operate their illegal and immoral agendas.

mirimir 10y ago
Well, that's certainly an arguable proposition. But of course, that helps Russia etc in selling it.
- jerf 10y ago
  Exactly; there doesn't need to be an "either-or" here. In fact one could even agree that Russia could be helpful exposing something untoward the US government is doing, even while you do not endorse all the things they may do and may vigorously oppose them on other fronts. To be honest, thinking about all this mostly makes me glad I never got into that world, and I hope I never really do. I don't have the constitution for it.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Most folks in the IC never face a significant ethical dilemma (unless you think that spying on other governments is wrong). They just do their jobs and go about their lives. Most IC employees lament that they could be earning way more in the private sector ;) . So you most likely made the right choice!
defen 10y ago
Right, the point I'm making is how do you "know" that is true vs propaganda? In reality it's probably a mix of the two. It's important to recognize that although there is a binary distinction between "employees who have leaked" and "employees who have not", there is a much fuzzier distribution of the trait "propensity to leak" across all CIA/NSA employees. Some people leak for personal gain (bribe/gambling debt/etc); some people leak for ideological reasons (convinced of the inevitable triumph of Communism/hatred of USA); some people leak because of their conscience (whistleblowers) The goal of an anti-US entity would be to nudge someone who is on the border / considering leaking into actually going through with it.
nanistheonlyist 10y ago
Found the russian
linkregister 10y ago
Is it prima facie clear though? Of the controversial activities the spy agencies have taken post-WW2, weren't virtually all of them under some White House or Congressional auspice? The actions and capabilities revealed in the Snowden leaks were overtly defended by both the President and (most) members of Congressional intelligence committees. If there's a deep state in the Intelligence Community, then the Commander-in-Chief, appointed Executive Branch officials (e.g. Director of National Intelligence and Defense Secretary), and Senators & Representatives on Intel committees are part of it. In which case, public elections are part of the deep state?
- cpr 10y ago
  Until you get a president the deep state loathes (like Trump) and whom they would not have chosen, and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things about him and taking out his appointees (like Mike Flynn).
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Chris, I respect you. However, your comment contains conjecture without much facts. 1. >The deep state loathes. What makes you think that a large amount of intelligence community members didn't vote for Trump? He won a third of Maryland and almost half of Virginia. And what about the military? Do you honestly think even 40% of servicemembers voted Democrat? 2. >and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things So a handful of leaks blemish the whole IC? The IC has been doing its job, supporting military operations ordered by the President and assisting ICE and CPB. As far as we know, the leaks came from congressional or White House staff. 3. >taking out his appointees Is Mike Flynn's conduct defensible? He was working for foreign governments without reporting it. I don't think there's anything wrong with talking to the Russian Ambassador, but he brought all this on himself. You never addressed my point about the "deep state" being controlled by Congress and the Executive. The IC is dependent on line items in its budget to be passed in order to get funding. Unless congressmen are corrupted, there isn't an autonomous "deep state."
PerfectDlite 10y ago
> Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate Because they're following Soviet playbooks. And if they'll create enough FUD they will be able to freely annex neighbouring countries.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory, especially NATO-aligned states. It does make sense for the Russian Government to reduce the influence of the U.S.
  - PerfectDlite 10y ago
    > I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory That was wishful thinking in 2008 and the result was Crimean invasion a few years later.
wbl 10y ago
Have you read the Presidents Commission on Intelligence Oversight report? Nothing you said is true: the NSA had informed congress and the courts of everything.