4 ms·

What in the world would the CIA be looking for in searching members of Congress? Do they actually think that elected officials are involved in terrorism or end

by tibbon 13y ago

What in the world would the CIA be looking for in searching members of Congress? Do they actually think that elected officials are involved in terrorism or endangering the security of the US? If members of Congress are being watched, then I really have to assume that everyone is a suspect. To be honest, the makes the Nixon spying stuff seem tiny in comparison. I have voted for Obama twice, but if it turns out that this came from his administration it really does seem like grounds for some sort of hearings (I really can't believe I'm saying that, because 99.999% of calls for impeachment are just absurd)

jdimov 13y ago
As a matter of fact, US government officials are indeed involved in a wide variety of terrorist activities around the world and do seriously endanger (and routinely and indiscriminately violate) global security and peace. However, I doubt that's what the CIA was trying to find, as they know this all too well - after all, the CIA is the executive branch of the US terrorist network.
MrZongle2 13y ago
I have voted for Obama twice, but if it turns out that this came from his administration... The heads of the nation's intelligence agencies answer to the President. Congress may approve their funding, but he provides their marching orders. If there was ultimately nothing inappropriate about this, then their boss, the President, needs to be publicly standing behind the CIA. Otherwise, if he remains silent and heads do not roll, then he is either complicit or indifferent.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >then he is either complicit or indifferent. Those aren't the only possibilities.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Go on...
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      The other options are unaware and impotent. I find these last two options far more likely. Yes, the head of the CIA 'answers' to the president, but the president isn't aware of every detail of every action the CIA takes. I'm sure his knowledge and direction is only at a high level. The fact is these institutions and their behavior do not change much if at all with the passing of each administration. This in itself says a lot.
      - MrZongle2 13y ago
        The other options are unaware and impotent. The President, at this point, should not be unaware of the CIA spying on the Senate. We know it now, and we aren't privy to a daily classified briefing. So Obama no longer has this particular excuse. As for impotent: if the CIA is operating independently of all three branches of Government, then it is operating outside of the Constitution of the United States. It is then the sworn duty of the President to address this issue. If he is incapable of doing this duty, then we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. The duty of this nation's citizens would be, at this point, unpleasant to consider.
- revscat 13y ago
  Or powerless. There seems to exist a large, perhaps even predominant, section of the government that exists outside of the control of the democratic process. The de jure objection to this is that the Administration can fire and hire at will, and can affect these agencies with that power. The de facto reality, however, is that the President only has limited ability to affect these agencies, much more limited in power than we are taught in school.[1] Further, the oversight abilities of Congress have been negated in ways that are well demonstrated here. I am no Obama fan, especially in this regard, but I do believe his Administration is the problem. The problem is systemic rather than political, and these institutions are structured such that they are almost entirely outside of the ability of the democratic process to change. To say that Feinstein has encountered face of the real American government is probably an exaggeration, but not enough of one for comfort. [1] http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This is silly. Presidents routinely fire generals, even during military conflicts. The CIA and the NSA are under his direct perview. Buck stops with POTUS on this.
    - jfmiller28 13y ago
      Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations. A new general may attack today instead of tomorrow, but it will be the mid-ranking officers who determine what set of rape pillage and plunder happen in the aftermath. It is the same with the CIA. The director may set targets and direct stratagity but it is the untouchable civil servants who run the show. Given the Hall of Mirrors effect, I think it could be possible that the appointed leaders are mere figure-heads just there to take the blame what a job goes bad.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        "Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations" The second half of this sentence doesn't ring true. The last two major generals Obama fired were McChrystal and Patraeus. Both hugely influential in structuring day to day operations, if not direct tactical decision. The latter was the author of http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2.pdf http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus
mayneack 13y ago
Several members of the committee were attempting to declassify the report about waterboarding. I think this was related. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/feinstein-accuses-cia-intimidation-torture-report http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/feinstein-accus...

by tibbon 13y ago

jdimov 13y ago

As a matter of fact, US government officials are indeed involved in a wide variety of terrorist activities around the world and do seriously endanger (and routinely and indiscriminately violate) global security and peace. However, I doubt that's what the CIA was trying to find, as they know this all too well - after all, the CIA is the executive branch of the US terrorist network.

MrZongle2 13y ago

I have voted for Obama twice, but if it turns out that this came from his administration... The heads of the nation's intelligence agencies answer to the President. Congress may approve their funding, but he provides their marching orders. If there was ultimately nothing inappropriate about this, then their boss, the President, needs to be publicly standing behind the CIA. Otherwise, if he remains silent and heads do not roll, then he is either complicit or indifferent.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
>then he is either complicit or indifferent. Those aren't the only possibilities.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Go on...
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    The other options are unaware and impotent. I find these last two options far more likely. Yes, the head of the CIA 'answers' to the president, but the president isn't aware of every detail of every action the CIA takes. I'm sure his knowledge and direction is only at a high level. The fact is these institutions and their behavior do not change much if at all with the passing of each administration. This in itself says a lot.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      The other options are unaware and impotent. The President, at this point, should not be unaware of the CIA spying on the Senate. We know it now, and we aren't privy to a daily classified briefing. So Obama no longer has this particular excuse. As for impotent: if the CIA is operating independently of all three branches of Government, then it is operating outside of the Constitution of the United States. It is then the sworn duty of the President to address this issue. If he is incapable of doing this duty, then we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. The duty of this nation's citizens would be, at this point, unpleasant to consider.
revscat 13y ago
Or powerless. There seems to exist a large, perhaps even predominant, section of the government that exists outside of the control of the democratic process. The de jure objection to this is that the Administration can fire and hire at will, and can affect these agencies with that power. The de facto reality, however, is that the President only has limited ability to affect these agencies, much more limited in power than we are taught in school.[1] Further, the oversight abilities of Congress have been negated in ways that are well demonstrated here. I am no Obama fan, especially in this regard, but I do believe his Administration is the problem. The problem is systemic rather than political, and these institutions are structured such that they are almost entirely outside of the ability of the democratic process to change. To say that Feinstein has encountered face of the real American government is probably an exaggeration, but not enough of one for comfort. [1] http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
- 001sky 13y ago
  This is silly. Presidents routinely fire generals, even during military conflicts. The CIA and the NSA are under his direct perview. Buck stops with POTUS on this.
  - jfmiller28 13y ago
    Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations. A new general may attack today instead of tomorrow, but it will be the mid-ranking officers who determine what set of rape pillage and plunder happen in the aftermath. It is the same with the CIA. The director may set targets and direct stratagity but it is the untouchable civil servants who run the show. Given the Hall of Mirrors effect, I think it could be possible that the appointed leaders are mere figure-heads just there to take the blame what a job goes bad.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      "Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations" The second half of this sentence doesn't ring true. The last two major generals Obama fired were McChrystal and Patraeus. Both hugely influential in structuring day to day operations, if not direct tactical decision. The latter was the author of http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2.pdf http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

mayneack 13y ago

Several members of the committee were attempting to declassify the report about waterboarding. I think this was related. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/feinstein-accuses-cia-intimidation-torture-report http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/feinstein-accus...