13 ms·

Yes, The CIA Spied On Congress

284 points by interpares 13y ago

baddox 13y ago
Anyone want to make bets over whether anyone will ever be legally punished over this?
- RankingMember 13y ago
  There's just not enough fuel in the outrage tank to keep up with all of these revelations, which starts to look a lot like disaffection/acceptance.
- NamTaf 13y ago
  Of course they won't. It would take a politically suicidal president or congressperson to try to rein them in, in any way other than as a token gesture.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > It would take a politically suicidal president or congressperson to try to rein them in And any such person was filtered out long before reaching the position of power. No one will let you take the presidential chair if you're a danger to their interests.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I'll put odds equal to the odds that these assholes in Congress will ever be punished for their crimes.
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  congress will want blood, sadly not for spying on the american people but for spying on them.
- discardorama 13y ago
  Nope. Because they have dirt on everyone; and because politics is a messy business, there's plenty of dirt to be found if you have the kind of resources that they do. Heck, Clapper lied _openly_ and admitted it later, only to get away scot free. (Yes, I have read the entire account in detail. He lied. There's no doubt about it.)
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  They figured out how to immunize themselves during the Bush administration. Get a compliant lawyer to write a memo saying whatever you want to do is legal. Then you are relying on advice of counsel which tends to defeat the mens rea necessary to convict of a crime. The lawyer is also not liable because it's not a crime to give bad legal advice. This technique is how everyone at the CIA got the hook for destroying video evidence of torture which had already been requested by a congressional committee and a federal court in 2005. It's also explains Yoo's farcical torture memos -- they may not pass the straight face test but they still were a major barrier to criminal liability for those who procured them.
  - gillier 13y ago
    > The lawyer is also not liable because it's not a crime to give bad legal advice. There is no excuse for not disbarring such lawyers, though. Also, when I was on trial, I was told that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - zhemao 13y ago
    Right, because the CIA has no electronic surveillance capabilities whatsoever. They can't cast a large dragnet over all of the country's communications like the NSA can, but they can sure as hell tap a few congressmen's phones and email.
  - fredgrott 13y ago
    under the Patriot Act the lines are no longer clear cut and dry like you imply.
    - pkinsky 13y ago
      >under the Patriot Act the lines are no longer clear cut and dry like you imply. This is incredibly creepy to see under two deleted posts.
wpietri 13y ago
The thing I would be wondering in a Congressperson's shoes shoes: what other things have I been doing that the CIA has been spying on? Chilling effects indeed. And for those inclined to brush that away as implausible, it might be time for a refresher on J. Edgar Hoover and his secret files on political leaders. [1] 50 years later, our tech is a lot better, so it would be much easier to gain inordinate power through surveillance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  Late in life and after his death Hoover became a controversial figure, as evidence of his secretive actions became known. His critics have accused him of exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting Presidents.[4] However, according to biographer Kenneth Ackerman, the notion that Hoover’s secret files kept presidents from firing him is a myth.[5] Seems some on Wikipedia disagree...
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Somebody disagrees that his files prevented him getting fired. Does anybody dispute that he kept files on political leaders that had information that they didn't want revealed?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Some on Wikipedia are also on a payroll. Including in articles about commercial products and companies, but even more so in political articles.
    - sillysaurus3 13y ago
      Really? That's very interesting. Do you have a link or further info about that?
shadowfiend 13y ago
Oh man, I hate this as much as the next person, but I think the best thing we can say right now is that there is nowhere near enough (public) evidence that this is a believable allegation. What we have is an article from McClatchy whose title ends in a question mark (“Probe: Did the CIA spy on the U.S. Senate?”), which to me is the red flag of red flags that they have no level of certainty whatsoever. Then the article seems to draw dubious lines between this allegation and some questions in hearings. Other articles building on it imply additional tenuous connections between all this stuff and a letter Mark Udall wrote that may be referencing this vaguely, maybe. It's a problem that all of this stuff has to remain vague. It gets in the way of our reaching conclusions. But assuming the lack of information is information in and of itself is problematic for me in this case. I think it's fair to wait and see what the justice department's investigation, if any, reveals. If there's no investigation, then we have to make do with the information we have. The fact that the CIA has been shown to be doing all sorts of terrible stuff doesn't mean that our obligation to be skeptical about allegations in general needs to be suspended. To me, it's likely that this is true, but I won't tout it as fact until something clearer than the current foggy tangle of vague statements emerges. As a side note, I think the greater question to arise from this is the fact that during a Congressional investigation, it was through agreement that the CIA wasn't supposed to be monitoring Congressional investigators. Why is that sort of thing not clearly ensconced in law?
- discardorama 13y ago
  It's not McClatchy that's making it up. It's in Senator Udall's letter to Obama.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  The CIA director has pretty much acknowledged that they did indeed spy on the committee in this letter: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/brennan-letter-to-wyden-acknowledges-that-cfaa-applies-to-the-cia http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/brennan-lett... > The Computer Crimes and Abuse Act...expressly "does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective or intelligence agency...of an intelligence agency of the United States"
line-zero 13y ago
Article in The Intercept: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-intelligence-community-whos-overseeing/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-intel...
Franklin_B 13y ago
It's ridiculous to believe that the CIA deserves the benefit of the doubt in this matter. More likely there are worse things we just aren't privy to.
suprgeek 13y ago
So the CIA Illegally Spied on the Congress Staffers investigating illegal CIA Torture Methods? ------illegality recursion too deep----------- But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. These agencies shouldn't be allowed to pull this kind of Shit without suffering serious consequences. Time for the Executive to step-up, fire a bunch of high-rankers and NOT sweep this under the carpet as some sort of "Bad Apples" or "Mistakes were Made" whitewash. Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.
- line-zero 13y ago
  >Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Where have you been?
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The problem is that people forget where Obama comes from: Obama is not a progressive. Obama is not centre-of-the-Democratic-party. Obama is pretty much smack bang in the middle of the US political landscape today. Take him back to before the Republican Party went totally off the rails, and he might've just as easily been a left wing Republican. The "Hope & Change" looks a lot more successful when you judge it based on an intent of returning US politics to somewhere near the centre, than if you take the unrealistic proposition that it would bring the US to some point well left of Clinton which a lot of people seemed to have thought and hoped it might.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  I don't think firing is going to do much though it is a good start. It's the law that needs change. In fact, in Edgar Hoover's FBI era, spying on the entire government was a norm. Presidents were afraid of Hoover. Before we end up with a second Edgar, or a second McCarthy Red Scare, yeah, I think we should step up and make a firm change. But I am hopeless. Election is coming up and everyone is too busy on every other issue. Intelligence and privacy have always been neglected in election despite most Americans continues shows against NSA spying (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...). After watching House of Cards, I don't know politics work anymore. I understand the show was a drama, but if you tell me that half of the congressmen wasn't expecting CIA or NSA secretly watching them I think that's probably a naive mistake. Somehow, we will find a way to compromise. Some people are 100% against any surveillance, some are okay with 70%, some are okay with 40% and some are okay with 100% of surveillance. The end result of compromise may end up ugly like a bandaid.
maccam94 13y ago
Petitions to release the report: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int... https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committee-release-cia-torture-report https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committ...
intslack 13y ago
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-staffers-slipped-secret.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-staffers... >Congressional aides involved in preparing the Senate Intelligence Committee’s unreleased study of the CIA’s secret interrogation and detention program walked out of the spy agency’s fortress-like headquarters with classified documents that the CIA contended they weren’t authorized to have, McClatchy has learned. >After the CIA confronted the panel in January about the removal of the material last fall, panel staff concluded that the agency had monitored computers they’d been given to use in a high-security research room at the CIA campus in Langley, Va., a McClatchy investigation found. >The documents removed from the agency included a draft of an internal CIA review that at least one lawmaker has publicly said showed that agency leaders misled the Intelligence Committee in disputing some of the committee report’s findings, according to a knowledgeable person who requested anonymity because of the matter’s extraordinary sensitivity. >Some committee members regard the monitoring as a possible violation of the law and contend that their oversight powers give them the right to the documents that were removed. On the other hand, the CIA considers the removal as a massive security breach because the agency doesn’t believe that the committee had a right to those particular materials. [...] >While eating lunch during a visit to New Britain, Conn., with four New England governors, Obama was asked by a reporter if he had any reaction to the allegation that the CIA monitored Intelligence Committee computers. >“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he responded.
- josephlord 13y ago
  >“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he responded. I don't get what that means or adds to the story. Is he ignoring the question? Dismissing the question? Didn't hear the question? Or so stunned by the allegation he just sprayed soup across the table? Or is it something I've missed?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jostmey 13y ago
Can't congress just pull funding? I suppose the CIA has too much dirt on many of our congressmen for that to ever happen.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Yes, they could, but I don't think dirt is the biggest reason why they wouldn't.
sentientmachine 13y ago
How far does a government agency have to go in breaking law before the military is deployed to put boots on the ground to reel in the agency back under the rule of law? I'd like to think that if agencies started hiring their own armies and created their own version of law enforcement zones from other countries, and started killing people who opposed them, that someone would actually do something to stop that... right?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- protomyth 13y ago
  It would be the FBI, as the military cannot be used for internal policing functions.
  - prutschman 13y ago
    The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act might apply in that case.
    - sentientmachine 13y ago
      But couldn't such an act be repealed as "enabling the terrorists" and be rendered inert?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vamega 13y ago
For what it's worth here's a whitehouse petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int...
cookiecaper 13y ago
This just in: spy organization spies on important national political figures. Did you guys never hear of intelligence agencies before Snowden leaked his docs? This is normal and expected. It's the reason intelligence agencies and spies exist. They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers may consider ... untoward.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers may consider ... untoward. Except of course for the part where the CIA is explicitly legally barred from domestic US spying, and where they were spying on their employers. Am I surprised? No, not at all. I'm from Norway. Most people would probably consider Norway less likely to be involved in sinister surveillance activity than a country like the US. Yet 20 years ago, an investigation into the Police Security Service finally got underway, and everyone were shocked - shocked, I say - to find out that the several decades of illegal surveillance of left wing groups that any member of either of the communist parties or socialist groups had known, and publicly alleged, were happening had actually been happening (they knew, because members of the security service made it abundantly clear, by e.g. occasionally stopping people on the street and making fun of them over details of conversations they'd had in the privacy of their own home). When the establishment finally accepted that the security service had to be reigned in, a parliamentary commission was established. During the investigation into the security service, it quickly became clear that they were still engaged in the illegal surveillance while the commission was investigating them. Not only that, but it was revealed that they were illegally spying on the chairman - a well respected member of parliament - of the commission investigating their illegal spying. So I'm not the least bit surprised. But that does not mean it is legal, or what they are "supposed" to do.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry? Spying on Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense. Congresspersons have very sensitive access, very special privileges, and very substantial influence. If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and cooperate with a terroristic unit, which is not too far-fetched in the day of the Tea Party, the results could be catastrophic both to the government's ability to function and to American cultural heritage. It completely makes sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have that type of capacity, regardless of title or location.
gadders 13y ago
Wouldn't surprise me, given that congress and their assorted hangers on would leak confidential information for political advantage.

284 points by interpares 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

Anyone want to make bets over whether anyone will ever be legally punished over this?

RankingMember 13y ago
There's just not enough fuel in the outrage tank to keep up with all of these revelations, which starts to look a lot like disaffection/acceptance.
NamTaf 13y ago
Of course they won't. It would take a politically suicidal president or congressperson to try to rein them in, in any way other than as a token gesture.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > It would take a politically suicidal president or congressperson to try to rein them in And any such person was filtered out long before reaching the position of power. No one will let you take the presidential chair if you're a danger to their interests.
_delirium 13y ago
I'll put odds equal to the odds that these assholes in Congress will ever be punished for their crimes.
ericcumbee 13y ago
congress will want blood, sadly not for spying on the american people but for spying on them.
discardorama 13y ago
Nope. Because they have dirt on everyone; and because politics is a messy business, there's plenty of dirt to be found if you have the kind of resources that they do. Heck, Clapper lied _openly_ and admitted it later, only to get away scot free. (Yes, I have read the entire account in detail. He lied. There's no doubt about it.)
bradleyjg 13y ago
They figured out how to immunize themselves during the Bush administration. Get a compliant lawyer to write a memo saying whatever you want to do is legal. Then you are relying on advice of counsel which tends to defeat the mens rea necessary to convict of a crime. The lawyer is also not liable because it's not a crime to give bad legal advice. This technique is how everyone at the CIA got the hook for destroying video evidence of torture which had already been requested by a congressional committee and a federal court in 2005. It's also explains Yoo's farcical torture memos -- they may not pass the straight face test but they still were a major barrier to criminal liability for those who procured them.
- gillier 13y ago
  > The lawyer is also not liable because it's not a crime to give bad legal advice. There is no excuse for not disbarring such lawyers, though. Also, when I was on trial, I was told that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- zhemao 13y ago
  Right, because the CIA has no electronic surveillance capabilities whatsoever. They can't cast a large dragnet over all of the country's communications like the NSA can, but they can sure as hell tap a few congressmen's phones and email.
- fredgrott 13y ago
  under the Patriot Act the lines are no longer clear cut and dry like you imply.
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    >under the Patriot Act the lines are no longer clear cut and dry like you imply. This is incredibly creepy to see under two deleted posts.

wpietri 13y ago

The thing I would be wondering in a Congressperson's shoes shoes: what other things have I been doing that the CIA has been spying on? Chilling effects indeed. And for those inclined to brush that away as implausible, it might be time for a refresher on J. Edgar Hoover and his secret files on political leaders. [1] 50 years later, our tech is a lot better, so it would be much easier to gain inordinate power through surveillance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Late in life and after his death Hoover became a controversial figure, as evidence of his secretive actions became known. His critics have accused him of exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting Presidents.[4] However, according to biographer Kenneth Ackerman, the notion that Hoover’s secret files kept presidents from firing him is a myth.[5] Seems some on Wikipedia disagree...
- wpietri 13y ago
  Somebody disagrees that his files prevented him getting fired. Does anybody dispute that he kept files on political leaders that had information that they didn't want revealed?
- coldtea 13y ago
  Some on Wikipedia are also on a payroll. Including in articles about commercial products and companies, but even more so in political articles.
  - sillysaurus3 13y ago
    Really? That's very interesting. Do you have a link or further info about that?

shadowfiend 13y ago

Oh man, I hate this as much as the next person, but I think the best thing we can say right now is that there is nowhere near enough (public) evidence that this is a believable allegation. What we have is an article from McClatchy whose title ends in a question mark (“Probe: Did the CIA spy on the U.S. Senate?”), which to me is the red flag of red flags that they have no level of certainty whatsoever. Then the article seems to draw dubious lines between this allegation and some questions in hearings. Other articles building on it imply additional tenuous connections between all this stuff and a letter Mark Udall wrote that may be referencing this vaguely, maybe. It's a problem that all of this stuff has to remain vague. It gets in the way of our reaching conclusions. But assuming the lack of information is information in and of itself is problematic for me in this case. I think it's fair to wait and see what the justice department's investigation, if any, reveals. If there's no investigation, then we have to make do with the information we have. The fact that the CIA has been shown to be doing all sorts of terrible stuff doesn't mean that our obligation to be skeptical about allegations in general needs to be suspended. To me, it's likely that this is true, but I won't tout it as fact until something clearer than the current foggy tangle of vague statements emerges. As a side note, I think the greater question to arise from this is the fact that during a Congressional investigation, it was through agreement that the CIA wasn't supposed to be monitoring Congressional investigators. Why is that sort of thing not clearly ensconced in law?

discardorama 13y ago
It's not McClatchy that's making it up. It's in Senator Udall's letter to Obama.
r0h1n 13y ago
The CIA director has pretty much acknowledged that they did indeed spy on the committee in this letter: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/brennan-letter-to-wyden-acknowledges-that-cfaa-applies-to-the-cia http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/brennan-lett... > The Computer Crimes and Abuse Act...expressly "does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective or intelligence agency...of an intelligence agency of the United States"

line-zero 13y ago

Article in The Intercept: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-intelligence-community-whos-overseeing/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-intel...

Franklin_B 13y ago

It's ridiculous to believe that the CIA deserves the benefit of the doubt in this matter. More likely there are worse things we just aren't privy to.

suprgeek 13y ago

So the CIA Illegally Spied on the Congress Staffers investigating illegal CIA Torture Methods? ------illegality recursion too deep----------- But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. These agencies shouldn't be allowed to pull this kind of Shit without suffering serious consequences. Time for the Executive to step-up, fire a bunch of high-rankers and NOT sweep this under the carpet as some sort of "Bad Apples" or "Mistakes were Made" whitewash. Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.

line-zero 13y ago
>Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Where have you been?
- vidarh 13y ago
  The problem is that people forget where Obama comes from: Obama is not a progressive. Obama is not centre-of-the-Democratic-party. Obama is pretty much smack bang in the middle of the US political landscape today. Take him back to before the Republican Party went totally off the rails, and he might've just as easily been a left wing Republican. The "Hope & Change" looks a lot more successful when you judge it based on an intent of returning US politics to somewhere near the centre, than if you take the unrealistic proposition that it would bring the US to some point well left of Clinton which a lot of people seemed to have thought and hoped it might.
yeukhon 13y ago
I don't think firing is going to do much though it is a good start. It's the law that needs change. In fact, in Edgar Hoover's FBI era, spying on the entire government was a norm. Presidents were afraid of Hoover. Before we end up with a second Edgar, or a second McCarthy Red Scare, yeah, I think we should step up and make a firm change. But I am hopeless. Election is coming up and everyone is too busy on every other issue. Intelligence and privacy have always been neglected in election despite most Americans continues shows against NSA spying (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...). After watching House of Cards, I don't know politics work anymore. I understand the show was a drama, but if you tell me that half of the congressmen wasn't expecting CIA or NSA secretly watching them I think that's probably a naive mistake. Somehow, we will find a way to compromise. Some people are 100% against any surveillance, some are okay with 70%, some are okay with 40% and some are okay with 100% of surveillance. The end result of compromise may end up ugly like a bandaid.

maccam94 13y ago

Petitions to release the report: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int... https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committee-release-cia-torture-report https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committ...

intslack 13y ago

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-staffers-slipped-secret.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-staffers... >Congressional aides involved in preparing the Senate Intelligence Committee’s unreleased study of the CIA’s secret interrogation and detention program walked out of the spy agency’s fortress-like headquarters with classified documents that the CIA contended they weren’t authorized to have, McClatchy has learned. >After the CIA confronted the panel in January about the removal of the material last fall, panel staff concluded that the agency had monitored computers they’d been given to use in a high-security research room at the CIA campus in Langley, Va., a McClatchy investigation found. >The documents removed from the agency included a draft of an internal CIA review that at least one lawmaker has publicly said showed that agency leaders misled the Intelligence Committee in disputing some of the committee report’s findings, according to a knowledgeable person who requested anonymity because of the matter’s extraordinary sensitivity. >Some committee members regard the monitoring as a possible violation of the law and contend that their oversight powers give them the right to the documents that were removed. On the other hand, the CIA considers the removal as a massive security breach because the agency doesn’t believe that the committee had a right to those particular materials. [...] >While eating lunch during a visit to New Britain, Conn., with four New England governors, Obama was asked by a reporter if he had any reaction to the allegation that the CIA monitored Intelligence Committee computers. >“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he responded.

josephlord 13y ago
>“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he responded. I don't get what that means or adds to the story. Is he ignoring the question? Dismissing the question? Didn't hear the question? Or so stunned by the allegation he just sprayed soup across the table? Or is it something I've missed?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jostmey 13y ago

Can't congress just pull funding? I suppose the CIA has too much dirt on many of our congressmen for that to ever happen.

rhizome 13y ago
Yes, they could, but I don't think dirt is the biggest reason why they wouldn't.

sentientmachine 13y ago

How far does a government agency have to go in breaking law before the military is deployed to put boots on the ground to reel in the agency back under the rule of law? I'd like to think that if agencies started hiring their own armies and created their own version of law enforcement zones from other countries, and started killing people who opposed them, that someone would actually do something to stop that... right?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 13y ago
It would be the FBI, as the military cannot be used for internal policing functions.
- prutschman 13y ago
  The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act might apply in that case.
  - sentientmachine 13y ago
    But couldn't such an act be repealed as "enabling the terrorists" and be rendered inert?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vamega 13y ago

For what it's worth here's a whitehouse petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int...

cookiecaper 13y ago

This just in: spy organization spies on important national political figures. Did you guys never hear of intelligence agencies before Snowden leaked his docs? This is normal and expected. It's the reason intelligence agencies and spies exist. They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers may consider ... untoward.

vidarh 13y ago
> They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers may consider ... untoward. Except of course for the part where the CIA is explicitly legally barred from domestic US spying, and where they were spying on their employers. Am I surprised? No, not at all. I'm from Norway. Most people would probably consider Norway less likely to be involved in sinister surveillance activity than a country like the US. Yet 20 years ago, an investigation into the Police Security Service finally got underway, and everyone were shocked - shocked, I say - to find out that the several decades of illegal surveillance of left wing groups that any member of either of the communist parties or socialist groups had known, and publicly alleged, were happening had actually been happening (they knew, because members of the security service made it abundantly clear, by e.g. occasionally stopping people on the street and making fun of them over details of conversations they'd had in the privacy of their own home). When the establishment finally accepted that the security service had to be reigned in, a parliamentary commission was established. During the investigation into the security service, it quickly became clear that they were still engaged in the illegal surveillance while the commission was investigating them. Not only that, but it was revealed that they were illegally spying on the chairman - a well respected member of parliament - of the commission investigating their illegal spying. So I'm not the least bit surprised. But that does not mean it is legal, or what they are "supposed" to do.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry? Spying on Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense. Congresspersons have very sensitive access, very special privileges, and very substantial influence. If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and cooperate with a terroristic unit, which is not too far-fetched in the day of the Tea Party, the results could be catastrophic both to the government's ability to function and to American cultural heritage. It completely makes sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have that type of capacity, regardless of title or location.

gadders 13y ago

Wouldn't surprise me, given that congress and their assorted hangers on would leak confidential information for political advantage.