4 ms·

I know a retired NSA analyst. When I asked him what he thought of the NSA wiretaps, etc, he was silent for a bit. Then he said one of the most important things

by trebor 13y ago

I know a retired NSA analyst. When I asked him what he thought of the NSA wiretaps, etc, he was silent for a bit. Then he said one of the most important things I've heard politically (paraphrased, I wish I wrote it down): > The organization is only as good as its administrative head, and the NSA I served in was widely different from the one that exists today. The problem is that the administration, the Congress, the Senate, the Judicial System, and the intelligence agencies (with some of the law enforcement agencies) have lost their integrity. The ends do not justify the means. Lying to the American public which put them in power is the ultimate breach of faith. Not only are these things usually secret, but when revealed they are outright lied about. Why would we punish intelligence agencies for something we don't hold either the administration or our elected officials to? They're all dishonest.

bmelton 13y ago
The obvious counterpoint to your last question is "Why shouldn't we punish our intelligence agencies just because we don't hold our elected officials accountable." Two rights don't make a wrong, and that argument is just as specious as those who argue that "Well there are already infringements on the second amendment, why shouldn't there be infringements on the fourth?" Logical fallacies notwithstanding, the real question is why don't we hold more elected officials and their appointees accountable? Because it is they who we entrust to police themselves. The problem is that there are too few punishments meted out, and if we continue to allow our elected officials and their appointees to do what they like without fear of reprisal, it can only get worse.
- trebor 13y ago
  I agree. I asked that last question because I doubt the American public these days. The politicians that enabled these fiascos deserve every bit the same punishment as the organization(s) that overstepped their proper bounds. I hope both are punished. But at the end of the day, I doubt that either will get what they deserve.
trotsky 13y ago
I agree that the blame is shared - the appeal of ubiquitous surveillance and related is just too great for any executive branch to resist at least right now. I'm not entirely sure about congress, I think mostly they're just easily manipulated. But, I know quite a few folks who work for fort meade both govies and contractors, and it seems pretty clear to me that the nsa has significantly mutated in terms of their internal culture, goals and morality in the last 20 years. Primarily 2001+. I think most of them would agree with that though they might not consider it as bad as I do. Based on how gen Alexander frequently takes his narrative straight to the press (+10 2-3 full page section A stories in the washington post in the last 12 months alone) and some other factors I honestly believe that organization has a life of its own and would at least take an unusual amount of effort to train. Comparing them to the CIA it's very telling. WHile the CIA has traditionally done a lot of shit and been the "cowboys" if you will, they give the impression of an organization (today) that is much less prone to systemically "go rogue". Not that I'm implying the NSA programs aren't with executive branch blessing. Just that if by some miracle you got someone running the show that didn't want to spy on every item on the earth, they might find it pretty hard to shut down the machine. My (uninformed opinion) is that it mostly came from the sick, sick amounts of money they started getting post 911 as a big part - someone who knows the situation pretty well guessed that they may in fact be up 600% in total buget (combined) as compared to around y2k. The second biggest factor was the intelligance community reorginization 10ish years ago that created the DNI and has everyone including the NSA and CIA reporting to them. As an outsider, it seems the DNI never quite managed to be a strong enough organization to keep these proudly independent orgs under their control and working together. Both groups were thus left to do battle and arguable the NSA won at least budget wise, though CIA ultimately managed to bypass their boss and regain a quasi-independant status at least with Obama. The last bit is tech, even though it's obvious. Things are just sickly out of balance now in terms of ease of surveillance, data storage, etc in favor of the eavesdroppers. It's like taking a junkie who's been pretty functional for 20 years and locking them in a room with unlimited drugs, strippers and so much money they make it rain just by walking. Who could resist? Whatever other mistakes are being made (and there are plenty) the NSA is a big, lumbering, arrogant agency filled with political power. We've got to shoot it in the head and start over.
bo1024 13y ago
Part of the point is that we shouldn't have a system whose morality depends on individuals. Individuals are fallible. A system that is susceptible to the failures (or moral deficiencies) of people is bound to fail sooner or later.
nijk 13y ago
When was you friend working for the agancy under good leadership? During the Bay of Pigs? Vietnam War? Afghanistan (the first time)? The South American banana republics? Iran-Contra? (Perhaps these are more CIA issues, and NSA was rather tame in the past.)

by trebor 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

The obvious counterpoint to your last question is "Why shouldn't we punish our intelligence agencies just because we don't hold our elected officials accountable." Two rights don't make a wrong, and that argument is just as specious as those who argue that "Well there are already infringements on the second amendment, why shouldn't there be infringements on the fourth?" Logical fallacies notwithstanding, the real question is why don't we hold more elected officials and their appointees accountable? Because it is they who we entrust to police themselves. The problem is that there are too few punishments meted out, and if we continue to allow our elected officials and their appointees to do what they like without fear of reprisal, it can only get worse.

trebor 13y ago
I agree. I asked that last question because I doubt the American public these days. The politicians that enabled these fiascos deserve every bit the same punishment as the organization(s) that overstepped their proper bounds. I hope both are punished. But at the end of the day, I doubt that either will get what they deserve.

trotsky 13y ago

I agree that the blame is shared - the appeal of ubiquitous surveillance and related is just too great for any executive branch to resist at least right now. I'm not entirely sure about congress, I think mostly they're just easily manipulated. But, I know quite a few folks who work for fort meade both govies and contractors, and it seems pretty clear to me that the nsa has significantly mutated in terms of their internal culture, goals and morality in the last 20 years. Primarily 2001+. I think most of them would agree with that though they might not consider it as bad as I do. Based on how gen Alexander frequently takes his narrative straight to the press (+10 2-3 full page section A stories in the washington post in the last 12 months alone) and some other factors I honestly believe that organization has a life of its own and would at least take an unusual amount of effort to train. Comparing them to the CIA it's very telling. WHile the CIA has traditionally done a lot of shit and been the "cowboys" if you will, they give the impression of an organization (today) that is much less prone to systemically "go rogue". Not that I'm implying the NSA programs aren't with executive branch blessing. Just that if by some miracle you got someone running the show that didn't want to spy on every item on the earth, they might find it pretty hard to shut down the machine. My (uninformed opinion) is that it mostly came from the sick, sick amounts of money they started getting post 911 as a big part - someone who knows the situation pretty well guessed that they may in fact be up 600% in total buget (combined) as compared to around y2k. The second biggest factor was the intelligance community reorginization 10ish years ago that created the DNI and has everyone including the NSA and CIA reporting to them. As an outsider, it seems the DNI never quite managed to be a strong enough organization to keep these proudly independent orgs under their control and working together. Both groups were thus left to do battle and arguable the NSA won at least budget wise, though CIA ultimately managed to bypass their boss and regain a quasi-independant status at least with Obama. The last bit is tech, even though it's obvious. Things are just sickly out of balance now in terms of ease of surveillance, data storage, etc in favor of the eavesdroppers. It's like taking a junkie who's been pretty functional for 20 years and locking them in a room with unlimited drugs, strippers and so much money they make it rain just by walking. Who could resist? Whatever other mistakes are being made (and there are plenty) the NSA is a big, lumbering, arrogant agency filled with political power. We've got to shoot it in the head and start over.

bo1024 13y ago

Part of the point is that we shouldn't have a system whose morality depends on individuals. Individuals are fallible. A system that is susceptible to the failures (or moral deficiencies) of people is bound to fail sooner or later.

nijk 13y ago

When was you friend working for the agancy under good leadership? During the Bay of Pigs? Vietnam War? Afghanistan (the first time)? The South American banana republics? Iran-Contra? (Perhaps these are more CIA issues, and NSA was rather tame in the past.)