posted by
janrinok
on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:15PM
from the Quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes? dept.
from the Quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes? dept.
Angry Jesus writes:
"The New York Times has reported that the CIA improperly monitored the work of staffers on the senate intelligence oversight committee. The specifics have not been made public yet but appear to be part of an attempt to find out how a CIA memo regarding torture that contradicted CIA testimony was 'leaked' to the committee."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by irick on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:32PM
Maybe if a few stupid abuses of power can put a bit of outrage into the senate we can get actually reasonable oversight. You know, like maybe the CIA could stick to doing their job.
Or maybe (i'm just spitballing here) we should make the CIA and the FBI duke it out for the rights to investigate internally. The NSA can officiate.
(Score: 1) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:42PM
Feinstein has been among the biggest advocates for dragnet surveillance, and if even she is starting to fight against the intelligence agencies, that does seem like a big deal.
Perhaps I'm being over-optimistic here, but I take her on-record remark:
to mean, "the CIA is going to get smacked down now." :-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by snick on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:49PM
Feinstein is a huge proponent of surveillance for thee but not for me.
Someone flew a toy helicopter outside her house and she threw a major shit fit over drone surveillance.
(Score: 1) by gottabeme on Thursday March 06 2014, @06:21PM
That's something I have never understood. Don't these people realize that, whether they're bureaucrats or elected officials, someday they will be civilians like everyone else, and the monsters they are building now will turn on them?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WildWombat on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:50PM
I took it to mean "I'm going to say whatever I need to say to appease the fraction of my constituency that actually cares about this while doing the exact opposite."
You know, kind of like how part of the platform Obama ran on was transparency and protecting whistle blowers and the policy he has implemented is the exact opposite.
Maybe I'm being over-cynical but that's how I see it.
Cheers,
-WW
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:59PM
This is true however I believe that Obama meant that stuff when he said it. I really wonder what the spooks told him that changed his mind.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:58PM
They told him, Listen, Barry, we know you traveled to Russia under a false name with a illegal passport,
so you either play along, or we out you one week before the election.
That was good enough to get his attention the first time around.
Why he still cow-tows to them the second time around is anybody's guess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:47PM
I think he fell victim to having a law degree. If you go back and parse his statements, even before his election, he mostly talks about the illegality of it and not so much about how it is "destroying freedom to save freedom." So once he got in office he set about putting a legal framework up around it and called it done.
It doesn't really matter that the legal basis is dubious at best, and that the intent of the laws on which the framework rests isn't in line with how they are being used. What matters to a legal mindset is that there is something resembling a legal process of oversight now in place.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 06 2014, @12:24AM
I don't buy that.
Even if Obama isn't a puppet of the shadow government behaving like a Supernegro from a bad reality show to dazzle the mentally incontinent, and if we take into account the emergence of all his behavior and not just legal opinions, we see that perhaps the poor sonofabitch was just corrupted by power and celebrity. Some people like Zuckerburg are just born assholes. Other assholes, like Obama, are made. If it happened to Louis XVI, or Metallica, or Charlie Sheen; it can happen to anyone. It's the classic selling of the soul to the Devil.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:55AM
Does this mean they had intelligence, but it just leaked out unexpectedly?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:50AM
No, he didn't. He was on the Senate FISA committee before being elected, and his actions on that committee were one of the reasons I didn't vote for him. He was NEVER in favor of openness or transparency...or at least he wasn't at the time he was running for president.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:52AM
> He was on the Senate FISA committee before being elected,
> and his actions on that committee were one of the reasons
> I didn't vote for him.
There is no such committee.
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Friday March 07 2014, @07:31PM
Did they change the name? Or did I mis-remember the initials? It's the committee that is supposed to oversee the actions of the intelligence services. And does so much rubber-stamping.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:35PM
Who says it was the spooks? Could just be competing priorities. Poll numbers are more affected by unemployment numbers than by how the well President upholds the Bill of Rights. Hell, poll numbers are more affected by what the First Lady wears to a state dinner than by how the well the President upholds the Bill of Rights.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gottabeme on Thursday March 06 2014, @06:27PM
Why would you believe that?
You think that the day after inauguration, he got a briefing and decided, "Oh, ok, I'll just forget about everything I promised and said and do the exact opposite forever"?
I think it's far more likely that, like most politicians, he's a convincing liar and manipulator. And considering how he got himself elected and reelected, and considering how he's lied and manipulated since then--not just about things he promised in his campaigns--I see no reason to believe he was honest during his campaigns. He simply said what people wanted to hear. A lot of people fell for it. Some of us saw through it and never believed him to start with.
The campaigns were run by enormous propaganda machines. If you still say Obama was honest during his campaigns, it's like proudly announcing, "I still don't get it! I'm still naive!"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:05PM
Alternate theory: The three-letter agencies blackmail Congress so they can continue doing whatever they want without fear of any kind of real consequences, including budget cuts or criminal sanctions or even too many probing questions.
They could also, if they gained access to a politician's social network, cell phone, or email account, wreak all sorts of havoc by creating messages that appeared to be from the politician's office but were in fact from the three-letter agency.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @12:09AM
Maybe it‘s time everyone developed a public private key pair and sign their comments.
(Score: 4, Funny) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:57AM
The irony of an AC asking for signed and authenticated comments is richer than this fine piece of cheesecake I'm eating right now.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:33PM
It matters not a wit if the Republicans on this committee have their staffers under suspicion, but if Udall and Fienstein are (belatedly) getting nervous perhaps something will come of this.
we can only hope, but none of these congress critters are above throwing a staffer under the bus as long as nothing splashes back onto them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:55PM
Unfortunately, all members of congress seem to be more afraid of defunding our "national security" apparatus and being blamed if something big happens than they are of the demise of democracy.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by EvilJim on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:55PM
Why do we need a Print Icon on each story? Who does that?
I use that all the time when browsing S/N on my 1960's era mainframe who's only output is via daisy wheel you insensitive clod.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:45PM
When the watchers of the watchers watch the watchers, then recursion will take its course and a stack overflow ensue. You end up with a message "Illegal operation", "Page Fault" or "Stack Fault". Any would, imho, describe the irony of the situation at a somewhat appropriate level.
Time to flush all watchers and reboot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jt on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:01PM
It's only a matter of time before Snowden releases the PowerPoint slides which prove that the NSA is spending 60% of its annual budget spying on itself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:49PM
If they had been doing that, he never would have been able to walk out of there in the first place.
Thus closing the loop and everybody will immediately forget that he even existed.
(Score: 2) by jt on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:53PM
I guess the other approach is to keep expanding the CIA staff budget until every human on earth is on the payroll. At this point there is zero probability of sensitive information spilling out into outsiders' ears and minds.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:02AM
Funny, but that is exactly what a totalitarian dream looks like.
Highly compartmentalized information and thinking directed from the top on down with a strict culture of never questioning what comes from the top at all, lest you become 'disappeared' as that's exactly what you did yesterday to some man 3 states over for reasons you know you shouldn't even be thinking about having explained to you at all.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:56PM
From TFA:
So this investigation started as a partisan witch hunt against the former Republican administration -- which they richly deserve, in my opinion. Turns out the CIA was complicit in the crimes against humanity, so they tried to impede the investigation and find the patriot^H^H^H^H "traitor" in their midst who had leaked the information (so they could retaliate against him, I'm sure).
<cynicism>But what they didn't count on was that by interfering in the investigation, they were getting in the way of a well-orchestrated political attack, and that is one thing a creature like Feinstein will not abide. So they're probably going to learn what "retaliation" really means.<\cynicism>
Let me get some popcorn, I'm looking forward to this.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:59PM
If Nixon had had access to the NSA apparatus, he never would have bothered with a bungled burglary in his attempt to spy on his political opposition.
In light of not only history, not only admissions of NSA spying on love interests, not only NSA spying on foreign heads of state, but now NSA spying on Congress itself, the only reasonable conclusion is that our elected politicians serve at the pleasure of the NSA. It would be trivial for the NSA to discretely provide campaign intelligence to assist desired candidates or to uncover or even fabricate dirt on undesirable candidates, as well as to blackmail politicians once elected. Even if every single person in the NSA is too noble to have actually done so, assuming otherwise is naïve in the extreme.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:19PM
It seems to me that they're all at each others throats. Three letter agencies probably spy on each other just as often as they do on congress. The five eyes will all spy on each other. Congress or the White House likely spies on the three letter agencies as well. At different times, one party will get the upper hand on another.
There's probably some deep psychology at work somewhere. These agencies work on the basis of some very severe paranoia, and if they're willing to harvest useless Facebook updates, you can bet your ass they'll be doing much deeper work on other agencies.
When I find myself getting annoyed about the NSA revelations, I imagine the sort of clinically paranoid, fear drenched, feverishly distrustful mind that dreams up this stuff. When I think about it like that, I almost pity them.
I'll roll my own conspiracy theory, just for fun. Edward Snowden worked for the CIA, right? What if he'd leaked those NSA documents not just on some ethical grounds, but because the CIA itself wanted to discredit its rival agency?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mrbluze on Thursday March 06 2014, @12:07AM
That's exactly what they are getting at. The country has already been overthrown.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 2) by SpallsHurgenson on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:09AM
It doesn't even have to be some huge, shadow-government conspiracy. With all that information available, it could be mis-used by individuals - not the agencies as a whole - to forward that individual's objectives.
e.g.,
Candidate X and Candidate Y are vying for a Senatorial seat.
CIA generally supports Candidate Y. However, CIA agent Peon, who has top-secret clearance, supports Candidate X.
CIA agent Peon leaks incriminating information about Candidate Y to Candidate X.
Because of this leak, Candidate X wins election.
LoveInt (and Snowden, for that matter) shows how poorly the intelligence agencies are at policing their own people. Having this amount of information on people is dangerous and corrupting. If it is to be collected, there had better be a damned good reason for it and some serious oversight on its use. As it currently stands, the agencies are collecting the info largely because it is so easy to gather and it may add some useful pieces to the puzzle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:39AM
What if Anthony Weiner did not post that dick-pic to his official twitter feed?
What if a twitter employ who didn't like him saw the pictures on private twitter account and did it for him?
After a long string of conspiracy theories and denials, Weiner finally came out and said he posted it himself.
But really, what choice did he have? If you want public forgiveness you have to be seen to have accepted responsibility.
He probably really did post it himself. But if it had gone down a different way, we would never know.
Postscript...
The guy who got Weiner's seat was from the other party.
Weiner's party had held that seat for 60+ years.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:57PM
You mean, intelligence agencies given carte blanche to violate the Constitution and our god-given rights would feel entitled to violate the sacrosanct institution of Congress? Who could have known? And now we're led to believe that anyone who would object to that state of affairs (which has existed forever) is actually a vile traitor and a handmaiden to terrorists. Well, here's one American who says unequivocally that every single person in the CIA or NSA or any other agency in DC who has done so should swing from the trees. They are the criminals and must pay the price for their crimes against our freedom. Period. Most who work for those agencies are not bright, and are not capable. A vanishing few among them might be smarter than the rest of us. But they cannot resist concerted action undertaken by the rest of us, because we are meant to be their base of supply against enemies external. What can they do when every action they wish to take is contested? Fill up their truck in Virginia? Contested. Buy beer at the Piggly-Wiggly? Contested. Pay their phone bill? Contested. When they know Americans mean to bring them to justice, their behavior will change.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:12AM
Americans mean to continue living in apathy and respond to such depressing and concerning stories as this by using their fat plump fingers to change the channel on the great Panem et Circes show.
For the few Americans they know wish justice like you, they just initiate a file, click a button, and start their time honored methodology of ruining you. That's only if you have the charisma necessary to momentarily overcome the allure of Panem et Circes and start to upset the sleeping unwashed masses.
We are literally victims of our own success at creating a standard of living, and once that happened, we now have "bed sores" and "parasites".
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by AnythingGoes on Thursday March 06 2014, @04:38AM
Just one question - how are they going to be brought to justice?
I have not seen a single prosecution for lying to Congress over surveillance, for putting in illegal wiretaps (which were retroactively made immune!). Even politicians who promised "openness", "Change", "Protection of whistle blowers" and have not kept those promises have not lost any elections or been impeached...
So the question again, HOW?
(Score: 0) by mendax on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:55AM
... this time. If this phrase "C.I.A. officers went as far as gaining access to computer networks used by the committee to carry out its investigation" from the article is true, these people should not only be fired and lose their federal pensions, they have committed crimes, violations of federal and state laws, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. These people are criminals pure and simple.
It would not surprise me that if these officers had some support from their supervisors. I wonder how far up the chain of command the pus from this infection can be found. Heads need to roll and people hauled off to jail.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.