6 ms·

So the CIA Illegally Spied on the Congress Staffers investigating illegal CIA Torture Methods? ------illegality recursion too deep----------- But seriously th

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.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  OK, but there is a problem upstream of that -- the CIA has NO jurisdiction inside the US. They are a foreign intelligence operation. Myself, I'd propose a battle royale between the CIA and NSA. Do a giant wargame, see which can pwn the other faster/better. Two agencies enter, one leaves. The surviving agency is then split into foreign and domestic branches, with a sane level of cooperation.
  - pirateking 13y ago
    Would pay anything to see live streams of that game.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    They'd probably secretly take down the government, one executive at a time, and then the (new) president would say, "yeah, this was kind of pointless, let's leave the two agencies be".
coldtea 13y ago
>Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Will?
- chadillac 13y ago
  Will continue to be
Crito 13y ago
Even firing all of the high-rankers would leave all the mid/low level guys who were the ones who actually followed illegal orders. Those people need to go as well, the entire agency must be gutted.
rhizome 13y ago
If the surveillance they did was under EO12333 or similar (basically, Presidential orders), it was not illegal. That's why the fix has to be something more fundamental.
fragsworth 13y ago
> But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. He can't even get rid of Guantanamo, which was central to his campaign. His response to the Snowden leaks was entirely supportive of the intelligence community, against the general public's perception of what happened. A political figure like him supporting Snowden would have made a massive difference in the public's perception of the events that took place, but he had to side with the NSA. You're absolutely wrong if you think he has even the slightest bit of control over the CIA. The executive agencies that are supposed to be directed by the president are probably much more directing the president than the other way around. Maybe you consider it to be conspiratard nonsense, but there's a bit of history behind what happens to presidents who are at odds with the intelligence community.
- hueving 13y ago
  So is the summary of your message that it's acceptable for the President to just give in to pressure from his subordinates? He is either incompetent or complacent, whichever you position you align with doesn't change the end result for the country.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say it was acceptable! It's fucking terrifying. And it's also very difficult to say whether the reason is that the President is incompetent, complacent, inherently aligned with the intelligence community, or threatened by the intelligence community, or a combination of any of these things.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    I'd say it's not acceptable, it's not even inevitable, it's just obvious. You can't get that high in politics without owing lots of things to lots of different people and groups, and I doubt they'd let people who are not loyal to them that high. Maybe the first presidents had some real power, but the current system is designed to filter out quickly people who are too much of a trouble for the status quo. I find this another reason to stay as far away from politics as possible if one wants to really change anything in this world.
whatevsbro 13y ago
> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. But not yet? We've seen the full first term, and the destruction of the nation's economy and everyone's civil liberties, but umm.. we can't tell if the Hope & Change sloganeering was just empty rhetoric or not?
malloreon 13y ago
fire a bunch of high rankers? put every single one of them regardless of rank on public trial. Lengthy prison terms for everyone.
smsm42 13y ago
When it stops being a "test" and becomes a failure? When Obama retires? I think it is obvious by now Obama was not, is not and will not be willing to do any changes that rein in rampant security apparatus. And why should he? It's not like antiwar/privacy types are going to vote Republican, right? (1% of them may vote Libertarian but since whole Libertarian base is around 1% anyway it's not even on the radar). What's the incentive here? He's not the small government type. He's not a proponent of rigid Constitutional boundaries (except in moments when he wants to invoke those as an excuse for not doing something he doesn't want to do). He's not in fear of loss of votes for himself or his party. He's a darling of all the press except the ones from the opposing party who would hate him anyway. Why exactly should he pay any more than the lip service to this hard and messy issue and engage in this battle which may cost him but will not win him anything he doesn't already have? >>> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Will be? Will be? How naive can one be, really? It's going on for over 5 years now, and we're still talking as if Obama is just starting up and if he doesn't do this and that then maybe what he said is just words? Maybe it's time to face it - yes, it's just words.

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.

spiritplumber 13y ago
OK, but there is a problem upstream of that -- the CIA has NO jurisdiction inside the US. They are a foreign intelligence operation. Myself, I'd propose a battle royale between the CIA and NSA. Do a giant wargame, see which can pwn the other faster/better. Two agencies enter, one leaves. The surviving agency is then split into foreign and domestic branches, with a sane level of cooperation.
- pirateking 13y ago
  Would pay anything to see live streams of that game.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  They'd probably secretly take down the government, one executive at a time, and then the (new) president would say, "yeah, this was kind of pointless, let's leave the two agencies be".

coldtea 13y ago

>Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Will?

chadillac 13y ago
Will continue to be

Crito 13y ago

Even firing all of the high-rankers would leave all the mid/low level guys who were the ones who actually followed illegal orders. Those people need to go as well, the entire agency must be gutted.

rhizome 13y ago

If the surveillance they did was under EO12333 or similar (basically, Presidential orders), it was not illegal. That's why the fix has to be something more fundamental.

fragsworth 13y ago

> But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. He can't even get rid of Guantanamo, which was central to his campaign. His response to the Snowden leaks was entirely supportive of the intelligence community, against the general public's perception of what happened. A political figure like him supporting Snowden would have made a massive difference in the public's perception of the events that took place, but he had to side with the NSA. You're absolutely wrong if you think he has even the slightest bit of control over the CIA. The executive agencies that are supposed to be directed by the president are probably much more directing the president than the other way around. Maybe you consider it to be conspiratard nonsense, but there's a bit of history behind what happens to presidents who are at odds with the intelligence community.

hueving 13y ago
So is the summary of your message that it's acceptable for the President to just give in to pressure from his subordinates? He is either incompetent or complacent, whichever you position you align with doesn't change the end result for the country.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say it was acceptable! It's fucking terrifying. And it's also very difficult to say whether the reason is that the President is incompetent, complacent, inherently aligned with the intelligence community, or threatened by the intelligence community, or a combination of any of these things.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  I'd say it's not acceptable, it's not even inevitable, it's just obvious. You can't get that high in politics without owing lots of things to lots of different people and groups, and I doubt they'd let people who are not loyal to them that high. Maybe the first presidents had some real power, but the current system is designed to filter out quickly people who are too much of a trouble for the status quo. I find this another reason to stay as far away from politics as possible if one wants to really change anything in this world.

whatevsbro 13y ago

> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. But not yet? We've seen the full first term, and the destruction of the nation's economy and everyone's civil liberties, but umm.. we can't tell if the Hope & Change sloganeering was just empty rhetoric or not?

malloreon 13y ago

fire a bunch of high rankers? put every single one of them regardless of rank on public trial. Lengthy prison terms for everyone.

smsm42 13y ago

When it stops being a "test" and becomes a failure? When Obama retires? I think it is obvious by now Obama was not, is not and will not be willing to do any changes that rein in rampant security apparatus. And why should he? It's not like antiwar/privacy types are going to vote Republican, right? (1% of them may vote Libertarian but since whole Libertarian base is around 1% anyway it's not even on the radar). What's the incentive here? He's not the small government type. He's not a proponent of rigid Constitutional boundaries (except in moments when he wants to invoke those as an excuse for not doing something he doesn't want to do). He's not in fear of loss of votes for himself or his party. He's a darling of all the press except the ones from the opposing party who would hate him anyway. Why exactly should he pay any more than the lip service to this hard and messy issue and engage in this battle which may cost him but will not win him anything he doesn't already have? >>> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. Will be? Will be? How naive can one be, really? It's going on for over 5 years now, and we're still talking as if Obama is just starting up and if he doesn't do this and that then maybe what he said is just words? Maybe it's time to face it - yes, it's just words.