5 ms·

> Biden admin has expressed intention to renew it It will be renewed. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back

> Biden admin has expressed intention to renew it It will be renewed. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" - Chuck Schumer

newZWhoDis 3y ago
I just wish we had an IC that loved America more than its own power. Yet time and time again we see these orgs are full of corrupt, evil people.
- bradley13 3y ago
  Pournelle's Iron Law
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": > First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. > Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. > The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.[1] Definitely. I think this very well explains how we got to this position. [1]: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
- nickff 3y ago
  >"I just wish we had an IC that loved America more than its own power." They probably think that they do love their country more than their power, while believing they need the power to protect their country. This may be a sort of 'moral corruption', though not the conventional sort. It doesn't seem 'evil' to me.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Exactly. IC people are humans too, just like the rest of us. It's convenient to assume they are sinister evil bastards (some of them are to be clear, but clearly not all of them), but it's an unhelpful and counterproductive stereotype. I've known a few people involved in intelligence, and they absolutely believe they were serving and loving their country. It reminds me a bit of being an infrastructure person where when you mess up, everybody knows, but when you're doing your job well, nobody knows you exist. They see a constant and non-stop stream of threats that outsiders don't see, and when a threat is stopped nobody knows about it. I would bet it's not too hard to justify the intrusive capabilities and any "mistakes" made with them when you have that visibility into the successes. Humans are wonderful at justifying what they want to believe is true, and intel is no exception. The individual intel person is not the problem here. It's a systemic problem enabled by legislation that needs to be addressed at the legislative level.
    - landemva 3y ago
      While they are humans, the gatekeeping in the system ensures only sinister humans will get those jobs. CIA director admitted to interferring in elections. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-cia-director-us-meddles-in-foreign-elections-for-a-good https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-...
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        CIA officials told my country's ex-president to stop doubting the voting machines. That's what ultimately convinced me they must have been compromised.
  - ecommerceguy 3y ago
    How do you know that they love this country? Pure conjecture. Evidence, however, indicates the contrary; they break the laws to suppress people for power. That's pretty much the definition of evil.
    - 3y ago
- gottorf 3y ago
  This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. Any system of governance that depends on an unbroken chain of good people is bound to fail, and fail much sooner rather than later. The only sustainable safeguard against it is to make sure that said system of governance is limited in what it can do.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; > because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. That doesn't logically follow, given that the state governments can exercise more than just enumerated powers. And at the moment, quite a few of them are really, really fucking evil, with a few more being highly corrupt. It makes a lot more sense when you view that separation of power as a compromise made to deal with the problem <one 'evil, corrupt'[1] federal organization in conflict with another 'evil, corrupt'[1] state organization>[2] as opposed to some weird conflict between <'evil, corrupt' federal government versus the people (but the 'evil, corrupt' state governments get a free pass or something..?)>. The question of 'who gets residual powers' isn't some 250 IQ bit of brilliant statesmanship and foresight, it's a just a decision that quite honestly, has gone either way in plenty of different countries, and none of them are in any quantifiable way worse off for it. [1] Your words, not mine. I think it's a pretty childish moniker devoid of all nuance, but when in Rome... [2] Which is actually the lens through which the founders viewed things. [3] [3] And they have been proven so, so wrong by history. As it turns out, in a high-speed communication society, party unity tends to override these kind of extra-organizational struggles. It's why the party of states rights complaints incessantly about federal tyranny, but only when it doesn't control the presidency.
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      The federal government's powers are enumerated while everything else is left to the states. You may not like that the OP presented the federal government as corrupt but that doesn't negate the point. There is no accountability at the federal level. The federal government has turned into a mess of alphabet agencies whose sole purpose is to grow. They are not elected but write the laws. Congress has abducted their responsibility. There is recourse at the state level.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  I think that's why there is so many checks and balances betweent the different branches of government. The FF knew that politicians (humans?) are bound to be corrupt and try to centralize ever more power (and money) to themselves.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Quote context: New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. <https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...>
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Not sure what this context adds, but ok.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    What the context adds is that the quote comes from a political attack against the intelligence services, rather than attempts to legislate restrictions (the context in which the quote was submitted in this thread), requirements, regulations, of regulatory actions through the executive, or court decisions through the judiciary. Of which there is ample history of each.
    - b59831 3y ago
      [dead]
    - bhk 3y ago
      Oh, so disagreeing with their conclusions might trigger vengeful retaliation, but actually threatening their power will not?
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> I was curious about the quote: was it in fact legitimate, and when and in what context did it originate. And shared what I found. Otherwise my comment stands for itself. But thanks.

> Biden admin has expressed intention to renew it It will be renewed. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" - Chuck Schumer

newZWhoDis 3y ago

I just wish we had an IC that loved America more than its own power. Yet time and time again we see these orgs are full of corrupt, evil people.

bradley13 3y ago
Pournelle's Iron Law
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": > First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. > Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. > The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.[1] Definitely. I think this very well explains how we got to this position. [1]: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
nickff 3y ago
>"I just wish we had an IC that loved America more than its own power." They probably think that they do love their country more than their power, while believing they need the power to protect their country. This may be a sort of 'moral corruption', though not the conventional sort. It doesn't seem 'evil' to me.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Exactly. IC people are humans too, just like the rest of us. It's convenient to assume they are sinister evil bastards (some of them are to be clear, but clearly not all of them), but it's an unhelpful and counterproductive stereotype. I've known a few people involved in intelligence, and they absolutely believe they were serving and loving their country. It reminds me a bit of being an infrastructure person where when you mess up, everybody knows, but when you're doing your job well, nobody knows you exist. They see a constant and non-stop stream of threats that outsiders don't see, and when a threat is stopped nobody knows about it. I would bet it's not too hard to justify the intrusive capabilities and any "mistakes" made with them when you have that visibility into the successes. Humans are wonderful at justifying what they want to believe is true, and intel is no exception. The individual intel person is not the problem here. It's a systemic problem enabled by legislation that needs to be addressed at the legislative level.
  - landemva 3y ago
    While they are humans, the gatekeeping in the system ensures only sinister humans will get those jobs. CIA director admitted to interferring in elections. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-cia-director-us-meddles-in-foreign-elections-for-a-good https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-...
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      CIA officials told my country's ex-president to stop doubting the voting machines. That's what ultimately convinced me they must have been compromised.
- ecommerceguy 3y ago
  How do you know that they love this country? Pure conjecture. Evidence, however, indicates the contrary; they break the laws to suppress people for power. That's pretty much the definition of evil.
  - 3y ago
gottorf 3y ago
This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. Any system of governance that depends on an unbroken chain of good people is bound to fail, and fail much sooner rather than later. The only sustainable safeguard against it is to make sure that said system of governance is limited in what it can do.
- vkou 3y ago
  > This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; > because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. That doesn't logically follow, given that the state governments can exercise more than just enumerated powers. And at the moment, quite a few of them are really, really fucking evil, with a few more being highly corrupt. It makes a lot more sense when you view that separation of power as a compromise made to deal with the problem <one 'evil, corrupt'[1] federal organization in conflict with another 'evil, corrupt'[1] state organization>[2] as opposed to some weird conflict between <'evil, corrupt' federal government versus the people (but the 'evil, corrupt' state governments get a free pass or something..?)>. The question of 'who gets residual powers' isn't some 250 IQ bit of brilliant statesmanship and foresight, it's a just a decision that quite honestly, has gone either way in plenty of different countries, and none of them are in any quantifiable way worse off for it. [1] Your words, not mine. I think it's a pretty childish moniker devoid of all nuance, but when in Rome... [2] Which is actually the lens through which the founders viewed things. [3] [3] And they have been proven so, so wrong by history. As it turns out, in a high-speed communication society, party unity tends to override these kind of extra-organizational struggles. It's why the party of states rights complaints incessantly about federal tyranny, but only when it doesn't control the presidency.
  - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
    The federal government's powers are enumerated while everything else is left to the states. You may not like that the OP presented the federal government as corrupt but that doesn't negate the point. There is no accountability at the federal level. The federal government has turned into a mess of alphabet agencies whose sole purpose is to grow. They are not elected but write the laws. Congress has abducted their responsibility. There is recourse at the state level.
lost_tourist 3y ago
I think that's why there is so many checks and balances betweent the different branches of government. The FF knew that politicians (humans?) are bound to be corrupt and try to centralize ever more power (and money) to themselves.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Quote context: New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. <https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...>

fallingknife 3y ago
Not sure what this context adds, but ok.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  What the context adds is that the quote comes from a political attack against the intelligence services, rather than attempts to legislate restrictions (the context in which the quote was submitted in this thread), requirements, regulations, of regulatory actions through the executive, or court decisions through the judiciary. Of which there is ample history of each.
  - b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  - bhk 3y ago
    Oh, so disagreeing with their conclusions might trigger vengeful retaliation, but actually threatening their power will not?
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> I was curious about the quote: was it in fact legitimate, and when and in what context did it originate. And shared what I found. Otherwise my comment stands for itself. But thanks.