3 ms·
GP is not defending illegal domestic surveillance of protest movements by the CIA. They are explaining that the CIA handing any domestic concerns it has to the
by maxbond 4y ago
GP is not defending illegal domestic surveillance of protest movements by the CIA. They are explaining that the CIA handing any domestic concerns it has to the FBI is what the law prescribes, not a circumvention of the law. Note that and we can recognize this is how the law works, and still condemn any unjust actions they partake in together or even the intelligence apparatus as a whole. Indeed, our objections would be better informed and more sound as a result.
This isn't apologia.
- chitowneats 4y ago> GP is not defending illegal domestic surveillance of protest movements by the CIA. Right. GP is defending CIA participation in a domestic influence/disinformation campaign, operated by the FBI. You will not convince me that this type of thing was intended to be permissible when the agency was created. See the quote from the ACLU above. If you read the recent Twitter files, you will see that Elvis Chan included the CIA directly in a meeting with Twitter executives.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- maxbond 4y ago> GP is defending CIA participation in a domestic influence/disinformation campaign, operated by the FBI. Please show me the phrase where they do this.
- chitowneats 4y ago> In that domestic in intelligence/counterintelligence is the FBIs job, and that they are expected to do it as part of and in close coordination with other parts of the intelligence community including the CIA, yes, but its not getting around anything since its exactly the way things are supposed to work. "Expected" "not getting around anything" "Supposed to" Textbook apologia for the CIA's expansive interpretation of its own mandate.
- maxbond 4y agoI guess we just entirely disagree about what this comment is saying and what it means.