7 ms·

The primary threat to "liberal democracy" is CIA, DHS, MI5, and MI6. It is not SVR or MSS. This has been true since the Cold War. Who did more harm to "liber

The primary threat to "liberal democracy" is CIA, DHS, MI5, and MI6. It is not SVR or MSS. This has been true since the Cold War. Who did more harm to "liberal democracy", J. Edgar Hoover (who tried to extort MLK into suicide), or KGB?

woodruffw 6y ago
I'm not going to play the historical game of who-did-what-is-worse. Hoover was a criminal, and the US MIC/IC has a long history of committing domestic and international atrocities. But, on the long tail of things, I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system. I have more confidence that the former offers just recourse, even if it takes a generation or two.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  What about this summer? The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists? That's way more harmful to "liberal democracy" than some foreign sock puppet dumping evidence of high-level corruption.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    I agree completely. I look forward to more leaks that discredit and diminish the DHS and law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that I trust Wikileaks to adequately balance the motivations and lensing of its sources with its mission of absolute transparency.
    - h0h0h0h0111 6y ago
      I'm not sure that I trust Wikileaks on that either, but I don't trust the powers that be to adequately balance such motivations either, and ultimately I'd rather Wikileaks released information in dubious faith than not at all. At least with information in the open, people can attempt to grok the full picture for themselves.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        I agree completely. The more information, the better.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        You have to trust that all the information actually IS in the open though. Wikileaks can't guarantee that.
  - seppin 6y ago
    > The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists? How many of them were killed/disappeared? If you can't cite a number in the hundreds (or even one case), your comparison is false.
    - seppin 6y ago
      Downvote opposing views without response and move on. This website is pathetic.
- praptak 6y ago
  > "I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system" No contest but I think GP point was not about the absolute quality of democracy right now but rather about which power did more to destroy democracy in the recent years.
- harry8 6y ago
  >Hoover was a criminal Are you really saying that the FBI has and continues to celebrate a criminal [1] and their own criminal behaviour as most exemplary? For nearly half a century now? And no bi-partisan political rebuke? And are not treated with total contempt by every adult in the USA and every court in the world? How is that remotely possible? Surely this is a conspiracy theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover_Building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover_Building
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    Yes. Hoover was a criminal in the literal sense of the word: he repeatedly and brazenly violated US laws, and fostered a culture of illegality in the FBI. His crimes are well attested by both his own records and the official records of the FBI. The FBI is a law enforcement organization; anybody who knows this history of LEOs in the US shouldn't be particularly surprised that they defend their own. Many Americans do hate him. But it's important to note that Hoover's criminality did not extend to the average White American: his efforts focused on Black Americans, gays, and anybody sufficiently "radical" by the standards of cold war America. Ronald Reagan also has buildings named after him, mind you.
    - harry8 6y ago
      So you're saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a criminal organisation that does not respect the rule of law and indeed brazenly celebrates that in public in a way nobody could miss by making sure a criminal is its most famous ever employee? And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court? I would believe that kind of thing about the Soviet Union. Or some other dictatorship. And this is happening, right now, in the USA, largely ignored by media, by politicians, by courts, with massive BLM protests, you say? >Many Americans do hate him. Many Americans believe the world is flat. Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        > you're saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a criminal organisation No. What I said was that Hoover was a criminal, and that his reign at the FBI was marked by illegality. Whether or not the present FBI is a criminal organization is a separate claim that I'm not going to make right now. > And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court? It's an established fact about the FBI, the same way that the Tuskegee Experiment is an established fact about the CDC. Both agencies (claim to) have reformed, so there's nothing to "bring up" in court. The fact that you don't personally know about it doesn't mean it's ignored. It's taught in US high schools as a critical part of America's cold war hysteria as well as the federal government's reaction to the civil rights movement. > Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility. You asked specifically whether Americans hold Hoover in contempt, not for the factual content of their beliefs. I think that they're right to hate him, but the base factuality of their beliefs doesn't change the fact that his public image is negative.
seppin 6y ago
> Who did more harm to "liberal democracy", J. Edgar Hoover (who tried to extort MLK into suicide), or KGB? I get this is supposed to be a debate, but the FBI never rolled tanks into Poland or Czechoslovakia. The FBI never annexed the peninsula of a foreign country, then set up fraud elections to make it look organic. Most importantly, the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war. The KGB has no such intention.
- drewblaisdell 6y ago
  > the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war Except in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Middle East...
  - seppin 6y ago
    > Venezuela Specifically voiced support for the pro-democratic opposition leader that arguably won the election. > the Middle East Supported democratic reforms in Egypt against a long time pro-US dictator in Mubarak. Supported Syria's right to self-determination to the point of fighting with FSA for years. > Bolivia Bolivia is an interesting case, the opposition claimed fraud but i've seen no evidence of it. A black eye for sure to come down against the results of their election without proof.
    - whatifthenelse 6y ago
      >that arguably won the election [This claim about election fraud is disputed.]
  - whatifthenelse 6y ago
    That's the CIA, not the FBI. The FBI is doing dirty stuff at home, the CIA does the dirty stuff abroad.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelmrose 6y ago

woodruffw 6y ago

I'm not going to play the historical game of who-did-what-is-worse. Hoover was a criminal, and the US MIC/IC has a long history of committing domestic and international atrocities. But, on the long tail of things, I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system. I have more confidence that the former offers just recourse, even if it takes a generation or two.

rmrfstar 6y ago
What about this summer? The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists? That's way more harmful to "liberal democracy" than some foreign sock puppet dumping evidence of high-level corruption.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  I agree completely. I look forward to more leaks that discredit and diminish the DHS and law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that I trust Wikileaks to adequately balance the motivations and lensing of its sources with its mission of absolute transparency.
  - h0h0h0h0111 6y ago
    I'm not sure that I trust Wikileaks on that either, but I don't trust the powers that be to adequately balance such motivations either, and ultimately I'd rather Wikileaks released information in dubious faith than not at all. At least with information in the open, people can attempt to grok the full picture for themselves.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      I agree completely. The more information, the better.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      You have to trust that all the information actually IS in the open though. Wikileaks can't guarantee that.
- seppin 6y ago
  > The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists? How many of them were killed/disappeared? If you can't cite a number in the hundreds (or even one case), your comparison is false.
  - seppin 6y ago
    Downvote opposing views without response and move on. This website is pathetic.
praptak 6y ago
> "I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system" No contest but I think GP point was not about the absolute quality of democracy right now but rather about which power did more to destroy democracy in the recent years.
harry8 6y ago
>Hoover was a criminal Are you really saying that the FBI has and continues to celebrate a criminal [1] and their own criminal behaviour as most exemplary? For nearly half a century now? And no bi-partisan political rebuke? And are not treated with total contempt by every adult in the USA and every court in the world? How is that remotely possible? Surely this is a conspiracy theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover_Building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover_Building
- woodruffw 6y ago
  Yes. Hoover was a criminal in the literal sense of the word: he repeatedly and brazenly violated US laws, and fostered a culture of illegality in the FBI. His crimes are well attested by both his own records and the official records of the FBI. The FBI is a law enforcement organization; anybody who knows this history of LEOs in the US shouldn't be particularly surprised that they defend their own. Many Americans do hate him. But it's important to note that Hoover's criminality did not extend to the average White American: his efforts focused on Black Americans, gays, and anybody sufficiently "radical" by the standards of cold war America. Ronald Reagan also has buildings named after him, mind you.
  - harry8 6y ago
    So you're saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a criminal organisation that does not respect the rule of law and indeed brazenly celebrates that in public in a way nobody could miss by making sure a criminal is its most famous ever employee? And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court? I would believe that kind of thing about the Soviet Union. Or some other dictatorship. And this is happening, right now, in the USA, largely ignored by media, by politicians, by courts, with massive BLM protests, you say? >Many Americans do hate him. Many Americans believe the world is flat. Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      > you're saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a criminal organisation No. What I said was that Hoover was a criminal, and that his reign at the FBI was marked by illegality. Whether or not the present FBI is a criminal organization is a separate claim that I'm not going to make right now. > And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court? It's an established fact about the FBI, the same way that the Tuskegee Experiment is an established fact about the CDC. Both agencies (claim to) have reformed, so there's nothing to "bring up" in court. The fact that you don't personally know about it doesn't mean it's ignored. It's taught in US high schools as a critical part of America's cold war hysteria as well as the federal government's reaction to the civil rights movement. > Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility. You asked specifically whether Americans hold Hoover in contempt, not for the factual content of their beliefs. I think that they're right to hate him, but the base factuality of their beliefs doesn't change the fact that his public image is negative.

seppin 6y ago

> Who did more harm to "liberal democracy", J. Edgar Hoover (who tried to extort MLK into suicide), or KGB? I get this is supposed to be a debate, but the FBI never rolled tanks into Poland or Czechoslovakia. The FBI never annexed the peninsula of a foreign country, then set up fraud elections to make it look organic. Most importantly, the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war. The KGB has no such intention.

drewblaisdell 6y ago
> the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war Except in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Middle East...
- seppin 6y ago
  > Venezuela Specifically voiced support for the pro-democratic opposition leader that arguably won the election. > the Middle East Supported democratic reforms in Egypt against a long time pro-US dictator in Mubarak. Supported Syria's right to self-determination to the point of fighting with FSA for years. > Bolivia Bolivia is an interesting case, the opposition claimed fraud but i've seen no evidence of it. A black eye for sure to come down against the results of their election without proof.
  - whatifthenelse 6y ago
    >that arguably won the election [This claim about election fraud is disputed.]
- whatifthenelse 6y ago
  That's the CIA, not the FBI. The FBI is doing dirty stuff at home, the CIA does the dirty stuff abroad.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 6y ago