3 ms·

Hard to read this without knowing more details. It just said the senator was targeted because they were a target of foreign spies, but crossed lines in doing so

Hard to read this without knowing more details. It just said the senator was targeted because they were a target of foreign spies, but crossed lines in doing so. No names or specifics. I guess in another sense it may be better that the public doesn't know, because that information could sway voters unjustly.

Bud 3y ago
[dead]
roenxi 3y ago
In this instance, doesn't the FBI have the power to make it illegal to know more details? That was always one of the major weaknesses of the unhinged post-9/11 reforms. Easily abused powers with insufficient checks and no effective channels to uncover abuse. If someone is capable of believing that reform is necessary they'll have to come up with an opinion on the subject without concrete details. James Clapper has a proud record of literally lying to Congress in order to cover up the spy program and the consequences are a plum job at CNN. Which could be spun as a punishment I suppose, but realistically he probably doesn't think so. That isn't an outcome from a system that is going to provide concrete details. I'm not sure if anyone spied on Obama, but both subsequent presidents have been spied on by their political opponents. A trend likely to continue given the partisan groundwork that has been laid since 2016. There will be rampant nonpartisan corruption in the intelligence agencies targeting US politicians of all stripes.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  It's on ongoing investigation bro just trust me bro it's an ongoing investigation so I can't tell you about it! - Every FBI testimony to the oversight committee
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  However, how does one run a successful spy operation where everything's done in the open? The fundamental problem is the main adversaries the US faces (China, Russia, Iran & co) are not bound by open society rules. Since at least WW2, in trying to fight back against these dictatorial and at times totalitarian regimes, the US has itself become a bit like them. If you gaze long into an abyss... More democratic oversight of US spy agencies is Xi's dream, it would mean they won't even have to do much spying because the US themselves would lay open all their intelligence agency work in plain sight in committees and public hearings. So how do you balance the two, how to preserve freedom while fighting an enemy that feeds on this weakness? That is rarely ever discussed and democracies don't seem to have found good solutions to this dilemma at all. That is part of the reason why we're seeing ever more surveillance and overreach. Unless ways are found to build open societies more resilient to attacks, things are not going to change. >There will be rampant nonpartisan corruption in the intelligence agencies targeting US politicians of all stripes. That's never been the case in the history of unchecked power. We can argue if it's already the case or not but the loss of neutrality of these agencies is only a matter of time. There is no mechanism in place that would prevent it.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > However, how does one run a successful spy operation where everything's done in the open? The obvious answer is you don't? It is punching at phantom enemies - the FBI turned out to be the bigger source of disinformation than the Russians. US politicians are for sale (see Joe Biden's recent scandals, but there isn't much evidence he is unusual in the halls of Congress). The US intelligence service doesn't do anything about that. The spy program is a much more fit-for-purpose tool for internal corruption than fighting external forces.
TMWNN 3y ago
You're basically restating influx's >I need to know which party the senator belongs to, so I can decide whether to be outraged. Except he was being sarcastic.
- asveikau 3y ago
  I don't know how I can be restating a comment that was written after mine. I did not say anything partisan there. I even said there could be a problem with more disclosure because it could be used electorally and that may be inappropriate. Really we don't know anything specific so we can't judge. It's a weird thing. The FISA courts have been said to be unusual for decades, and I think this story shows some of why that is.

Bud 3y ago

[dead]

roenxi 3y ago

In this instance, doesn't the FBI have the power to make it illegal to know more details? That was always one of the major weaknesses of the unhinged post-9/11 reforms. Easily abused powers with insufficient checks and no effective channels to uncover abuse. If someone is capable of believing that reform is necessary they'll have to come up with an opinion on the subject without concrete details. James Clapper has a proud record of literally lying to Congress in order to cover up the spy program and the consequences are a plum job at CNN. Which could be spun as a punishment I suppose, but realistically he probably doesn't think so. That isn't an outcome from a system that is going to provide concrete details. I'm not sure if anyone spied on Obama, but both subsequent presidents have been spied on by their political opponents. A trend likely to continue given the partisan groundwork that has been laid since 2016. There will be rampant nonpartisan corruption in the intelligence agencies targeting US politicians of all stripes.

TechBro8615 3y ago
It's on ongoing investigation bro just trust me bro it's an ongoing investigation so I can't tell you about it! - Every FBI testimony to the oversight committee
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
However, how does one run a successful spy operation where everything's done in the open? The fundamental problem is the main adversaries the US faces (China, Russia, Iran & co) are not bound by open society rules. Since at least WW2, in trying to fight back against these dictatorial and at times totalitarian regimes, the US has itself become a bit like them. If you gaze long into an abyss... More democratic oversight of US spy agencies is Xi's dream, it would mean they won't even have to do much spying because the US themselves would lay open all their intelligence agency work in plain sight in committees and public hearings. So how do you balance the two, how to preserve freedom while fighting an enemy that feeds on this weakness? That is rarely ever discussed and democracies don't seem to have found good solutions to this dilemma at all. That is part of the reason why we're seeing ever more surveillance and overreach. Unless ways are found to build open societies more resilient to attacks, things are not going to change. >There will be rampant nonpartisan corruption in the intelligence agencies targeting US politicians of all stripes. That's never been the case in the history of unchecked power. We can argue if it's already the case or not but the loss of neutrality of these agencies is only a matter of time. There is no mechanism in place that would prevent it.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > However, how does one run a successful spy operation where everything's done in the open? The obvious answer is you don't? It is punching at phantom enemies - the FBI turned out to be the bigger source of disinformation than the Russians. US politicians are for sale (see Joe Biden's recent scandals, but there isn't much evidence he is unusual in the halls of Congress). The US intelligence service doesn't do anything about that. The spy program is a much more fit-for-purpose tool for internal corruption than fighting external forces.

TMWNN 3y ago

You're basically restating influx's >I need to know which party the senator belongs to, so I can decide whether to be outraged. Except he was being sarcastic.

asveikau 3y ago
I don't know how I can be restating a comment that was written after mine. I did not say anything partisan there. I even said there could be a problem with more disclosure because it could be used electorally and that may be inappropriate. Really we don't know anything specific so we can't judge. It's a weird thing. The FISA courts have been said to be unusual for decades, and I think this story shows some of why that is.