6 ms·

These retrospectives are so important - we can understand from these historical examples how agencies can get out of control and operate without adequate oversi

These retrospectives are so important - we can understand from these historical examples how agencies can get out of control and operate without adequate oversight, management control or democratic accountability. Thank goodness reforms have been made so that excesses like those described cannot happen again

doublerabbit 3y ago
> Thank goodness reforms have been made so that excesses like those described cannot happen again. I'm sorry. Reforms maybe, but harsh torture? I don't believe that for a second.
lazide 3y ago
I really can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. We already knew this before those specific abuses in the 50’s-70’s. They were already illegal, which is why they were done by the secret agencies, and not by - say - the dept. of health (directly). Congressional oversight has only gotten weaker since the Church commission (and frankly, the Church commission only made the mildest impact from what I can tell). The real question is, what are they up to now?
- reaperman 3y ago
  It was sarcastic, and your additional commentary is also accurate. We do need more systems to actively protect citizens against these kinds of abuses. It’s “uncommon” in the sense that a very small % of government employees are involved in these, but it’s common in the sense that something along these lines are always ongoing.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  That comment is brilliant because a lot of the commentary on past bad deeds exude that stance without stating it so explicitly. Here's the general lifecycle: 1. Year 0: you are a conspiracy theorist if you think that X is doing Y 2. Year 15: only people on the fringes think that X was doing Y 3. Year [declassified documents]: Some nerd reads it, tells it to a living room full of people 4. Year [declassified documents] + 15: We have learned a lot from how X was doing Y in the past; the leaders of current X will have to reckon with this past [which is definitely the past and has nothing to do with the present] 5. Year [declassified documents] + 30: Yeah, everyone knew that X was doing Y all along, idiot. It was a different time back then and nothing about it is comparable to our current times.
  - almatabata 3y ago
    It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Some people do not require iron clad proof before they agree something looks fishy. Others require a very high level of proof before they agree something happened. If you require a high degree of proof you will always have to wait for declassified documents or leaks before you agree on anything. I can understand why people chose to wait. You have so many different conspiracies and most people simply do not have the time to sift through hundreds of documents to make yourself an opinion. People already barely have the time to read the news let alone follow the conspiracy rabit hole. Most people simple chose to wait and see. It does get annoying when people immediately dismiss any doubts you have as conspiracy nonsense though. Most people believe in some form of conspiracy without realizing it. How many agree that Epstein did not kill himself?
    - lazide 3y ago
      Or, most people don’t want to believe something uncomfortable until it no longer matters (if ever), and classifying/making these programs secret is exactly so the general public (which is composed mostly of those people) has plausible deniability? Which is also why whistleblowers get at most some feathers rustled, but rarely results in actual structural change. Because the public mostly is concerned about how they feel, not what is actually happening.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        You're conflating the CIA with the public which makes no sense.
        lazide 3y ago
        How so? I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: 1) Church commission type investigations would be a monthly occurrence (at the scale the gov’t current works at), not a one time fluke (historically) 2) Classified information and secret programs would require third party independent oversight (actual oversight. Not FISA like rubber stamping, which BTW came out of the Church commission investigations). 3) classified information would have very short timeframes before mandatory publication (at most a decade) 4) people would actually go to jail for abuses. None of which happens.
- BitwiseFool 3y ago
  The trouble is, how do you effectively oversee an agency that specializes in lies, misdirection, cover-ups, coercion, and blackmail? I also worry that our three letter agencies have collected an immense amount of dirt on Millennials and Gen-Zers. It's not hard to imagine blackmailing politicians or releasing dirt on candidates running on a platform to curtail or rein-in such agencies in order to prevent them from getting elected.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's known that the FBI was spying on and blackmailing civil rights activists like MLK Jr. They even tried to coerce him into suicide. They were never held accountable for this, so why would they stop? And without anybody to hold them accountable, what would stop them from doing this to elected officials too?
    - lazide 3y ago
      Yup, and a lot more - the wider program was COINTELPRO
    - mc32 3y ago
      And more recently the Congress[1] and a presidential candidate[2] —that we know of. Much we may not. But even Congress doesn’t have the will to do anything about the apparatus. What chance does the public at large have to have their constitutional rights protected? [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-dan... [2]I'm sure some people will find no problem given an unsympathetic person, but it's still wrong.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Congress is also likely a lot easier to manipulate/control (in a general sense).
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > our three letter agencies have collected an immense amount of dirt This is something I can't help being reminded of any time there's "breaking news" about a political candidate and some taboo subject, even today. It seems at least naive to believe it never happens. I don't think it's too wrong to say that political candidates today either have very clean histories or "play nice" to some extent with these agencies.
ericmcer 3y ago
This stuff is terrible, but if it's framed around "what are the dark secrets of Americas national security agency." It is kinda pathetic. I am glad no Unit 731 level stuff has come out about the USA.
- cutemonster 3y ago
  Unit 731, "It killed an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 That's 100 or 1 000 times more people than what I could have guessed.
coldtea 3y ago
Is this parody?

doublerabbit 3y ago

> Thank goodness reforms have been made so that excesses like those described cannot happen again. I'm sorry. Reforms maybe, but harsh torture? I don't believe that for a second.

lazide 3y ago

I really can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. We already knew this before those specific abuses in the 50’s-70’s. They were already illegal, which is why they were done by the secret agencies, and not by - say - the dept. of health (directly). Congressional oversight has only gotten weaker since the Church commission (and frankly, the Church commission only made the mildest impact from what I can tell). The real question is, what are they up to now?

reaperman 3y ago
It was sarcastic, and your additional commentary is also accurate. We do need more systems to actively protect citizens against these kinds of abuses. It’s “uncommon” in the sense that a very small % of government employees are involved in these, but it’s common in the sense that something along these lines are always ongoing.
avgcorrection 3y ago
That comment is brilliant because a lot of the commentary on past bad deeds exude that stance without stating it so explicitly. Here's the general lifecycle: 1. Year 0: you are a conspiracy theorist if you think that X is doing Y 2. Year 15: only people on the fringes think that X was doing Y 3. Year [declassified documents]: Some nerd reads it, tells it to a living room full of people 4. Year [declassified documents] + 15: We have learned a lot from how X was doing Y in the past; the leaders of current X will have to reckon with this past [which is definitely the past and has nothing to do with the present] 5. Year [declassified documents] + 30: Yeah, everyone knew that X was doing Y all along, idiot. It was a different time back then and nothing about it is comparable to our current times.
- almatabata 3y ago
  It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Some people do not require iron clad proof before they agree something looks fishy. Others require a very high level of proof before they agree something happened. If you require a high degree of proof you will always have to wait for declassified documents or leaks before you agree on anything. I can understand why people chose to wait. You have so many different conspiracies and most people simply do not have the time to sift through hundreds of documents to make yourself an opinion. People already barely have the time to read the news let alone follow the conspiracy rabit hole. Most people simple chose to wait and see. It does get annoying when people immediately dismiss any doubts you have as conspiracy nonsense though. Most people believe in some form of conspiracy without realizing it. How many agree that Epstein did not kill himself?
  - lazide 3y ago
    Or, most people don’t want to believe something uncomfortable until it no longer matters (if ever), and classifying/making these programs secret is exactly so the general public (which is composed mostly of those people) has plausible deniability? Which is also why whistleblowers get at most some feathers rustled, but rarely results in actual structural change. Because the public mostly is concerned about how they feel, not what is actually happening.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      You're conflating the CIA with the public which makes no sense.
      - lazide 3y ago
        How so? I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: 1) Church commission type investigations would be a monthly occurrence (at the scale the gov’t current works at), not a one time fluke (historically) 2) Classified information and secret programs would require third party independent oversight (actual oversight. Not FISA like rubber stamping, which BTW came out of the Church commission investigations). 3) classified information would have very short timeframes before mandatory publication (at most a decade) 4) people would actually go to jail for abuses. None of which happens.
BitwiseFool 3y ago
The trouble is, how do you effectively oversee an agency that specializes in lies, misdirection, cover-ups, coercion, and blackmail? I also worry that our three letter agencies have collected an immense amount of dirt on Millennials and Gen-Zers. It's not hard to imagine blackmailing politicians or releasing dirt on candidates running on a platform to curtail or rein-in such agencies in order to prevent them from getting elected.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It's known that the FBI was spying on and blackmailing civil rights activists like MLK Jr. They even tried to coerce him into suicide. They were never held accountable for this, so why would they stop? And without anybody to hold them accountable, what would stop them from doing this to elected officials too?
  - lazide 3y ago
    Yup, and a lot more - the wider program was COINTELPRO
  - mc32 3y ago
    And more recently the Congress[1] and a presidential candidate[2] —that we know of. Much we may not. But even Congress doesn’t have the will to do anything about the apparatus. What chance does the public at large have to have their constitutional rights protected? [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-dan... [2]I'm sure some people will find no problem given an unsympathetic person, but it's still wrong.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Congress is also likely a lot easier to manipulate/control (in a general sense).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > our three letter agencies have collected an immense amount of dirt This is something I can't help being reminded of any time there's "breaking news" about a political candidate and some taboo subject, even today. It seems at least naive to believe it never happens. I don't think it's too wrong to say that political candidates today either have very clean histories or "play nice" to some extent with these agencies.

ericmcer 3y ago

This stuff is terrible, but if it's framed around "what are the dark secrets of Americas national security agency." It is kinda pathetic. I am glad no Unit 731 level stuff has come out about the USA.

cutemonster 3y ago
Unit 731, "It killed an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 That's 100 or 1 000 times more people than what I could have guessed.

coldtea 3y ago

Is this parody?