Message boards :
Politics :
Feinstein goes nuclear against the CIA
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Anybody but me see this one? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feinstein-cia-searched-intelligence-committee-computers/2014/03/11/982cbc2c Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) accused the CIA of breaking the law by searching her committee's computers. Senator Feinstein's committee is the one in the Senate responsible for oversight of the CIA... She is usually a very ardent supporter of the CIA. But Tuesday morning, speaking on live video in the US Senate, she accused the CIA of removing documents, searching committee computers, trying to intimidate congressional investigators, breaking several US Federal laws, Violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, and an executive order from the President. Thoughts? |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34768 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
It was on the news over here tonight. I think that yous have got some serious problems going on over there. Cheers. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Anybody but me see this one? The link doesn't work. If its true what you say though, well, makes sense she gets angry at the CIA. Then again, it should be of no surprise that an organization that has so little oversight and such a strong aversion to transparency that they try things like this. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
|
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
So the question is how and why did it happen? Simple enough answer. Some organisations have got too powerful to the point that many within them feel themselves above the law. Intelligence Services Banks Two great examples this century! |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Some organisations have got too powerful to the point that many within them feel themselves above the law. To many safeguards? What safeguards? An annual report to some government committee? That's not a safeguard, that is intentionally deluding yourself. But sure, close down your newspapers because they do their job and shed light on government activities that the public ought to be aware of. Programs that didn't even work effectively. Give up your press freedom in the name of security. I'm willing to bet that the UK intelligence community is already spying on British politicians. It has already done so against British citizens and foreign politicians, so its not such a far stretch to say that they are spying on British politicians as well. But hey, its all for national security, because its vital for the security of your country to know which politician harbors plans to tighten the leash on intelligence agencies and potentially prevent them from stopping terrorists. Look, these intelligence agencies are like any other bureaucratic institution. They have their own interests and agenda, and those interests and their agenda does not always coincide with that of their political overseers. So they will spend some of their resources figuring out ways to work around such annoyances such as accountability and having to do what their political bosses want them to do. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Some organisations have got too powerful to the point that many within them feel themselves above the law. As the Metropolitan Police have so eloquently demonstrated. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
I would have fully expected that response from you. Just again confirms your age group. It really isn't that hard to guess my age given that you know I'm still a student. You are right that a newspapers job is to educate it's readers to activities that the general public should be aware of in the public interest. But it is clearly not in the public interest to disclose information that could damage national security. No terrorist attacks have occurred since the Guardian started with the Snowden revelations. Therefor, the argument that 'it damages national security' is just not relevant. On top of that, it most certainly is in the publics interest to know that it turns out they don't have any privacy left. You would be correct, but I would not use the word spying. Monitoring and an overall awareness yes. Because they have access to sensitive information that could be misused, and has been at times in the past. If you want to stand for public office, then you accept that your activities will come under scrutiny. I find that an extremely troubling idea. This is a democracy, the only people who should be scrutinizing elected officials are the voters through the press, NOT the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, politicians are ultimately answering to intelligence agencies, rather than the public. You really are naive aren't you? Both the USA and the UK have "black ops" outfits that don't officially exist, and never appear in any accounts, and only known to a very few top people. Even the British PM and the American President don't know about them. Politicians come and go, threats to countries from many places are always permanently there. These are the true patriots. The SAS has secret undercover squads all over the world, and always have done, and a damn good job too. You read too many Ludlum thrillers. Of course the world is ruled by a bunch of shadowy figures, working for some non existent government agency, directing non existent hit squads taking down civilization threatening terrorists every week, and somehow manage to do this without the rest of the world noticing (conveniently the rest of the world also never knows about these secret terrorists with doomsday weapons capable of instantly destroying the UK or US if their nefarious plots succeed). Uhuh, of course, that makes total sense. And sure, Democracy, just a way to keep the masses fooled and have them think they have any say in the way the government operates. And yeah, it totally makes sense that there are positions within the government that are beyond even the PM or Presidents knowledge or authority. If these black ops are so secret and only a few people know about them, how do you know about them? And even if you are by some chance correct and the world is indeed run by a bunch of shadow agencies and their shadow hitmen, its not something that should be applauded or encouraged. It means the government is indeed only one tiny step away from turning into some tyranny. It means you got no freedom and no say whatsoever. If you think those people are patriots because they are really good at murder, well then I don't think you understand what your country is supposed to stand for. What our civilization is supposed to stand for. And what has me and the Crimea got anything to do with this topic? |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
And when they are I hope there will be government funds to provide one way tickets home to their supporters. There you go again (fake)Englishman! Britain is and has always been made up of various nationalities and many fought and died so that you can spout your xenophobic racism. Whenever one speaks ill of your country, you tell them to f off home? I suggest you be like old soldiers, just fade away. Will save me paying. You haven't paid enough taxes to cover the fares whereas the other 59,999,999 may have! |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
You have more freedom to say what you think than any single person living in China or Russia, and you should be grateful that there are those out there that fight to uphold that right for you. Go away, live some real life, get married (or not), have a couple of kids, and come back in 10 years and revisit your comments. We will see if you still think the same. So should you Then enter politics when you got what you wanted when you retire. No wonder the world is in such a mess, too much selfishness. If these black ops are so secret and only a few people know about them, how do you know about them? Yep, definitely read too many Ludlum books. You wouldn't have a clue on Skill at Arms.... ...1st lesson, the bullet goes in the thick end and comes out the small round end. ...careful how you load it though. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
In the USA the Boston Marathon bombings were on April 15 2013, the Snowden leaks were on June 5th 2013. So clearly the terrorists now know the extent that the security services were on to them. That could be seen as a deterrent, but could also mean that they are now regrouping knowing their weaknesses. Yes, the extend to which the security agencies were on to them. That is to say, they had no effing clue until the bombs went off. You are exaggerating again as usual. Of course the ordinary man and the woman in the street has their privacy in day to day matters of living ordinary lives. The whole point is that if they choose to get involved in other activities that could jeopardise the security of their country, then they should be warned that their activities will likely come to the attention of the security services and be monitored. They are monitoring people 3 steps away from known terrorists. That means that if I know a guy who knows guy, who knows a guy who knows a potential terrorist, I get monitored. Even though I have no clue who the terrorist or the guy who knows him is and no, I would have no choice in that. On top of that, people are like what, 7 steps at the most away from literally everyone else in the world? So yeah, privacy is dead, even for the common citizen, simply because he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a terrorist. People of your age group who read 1984 often do have that attitude to life. For gods sake, the UK press is more corrupt than the UK government will ever be. Eavesdropping on murdered schoolgirls mobile phones is OK in your book is it? Of course not. But such news papers are also breaching peoples privacy for no good reason. I find it unacceptable if intelligence agencies do it, and so I also find it unacceptable if the press does it. However, the Guardian is not the News of the World. Comparing them is like comparing apples with oranges. If you wish to think that then carry on. Ask nicely and you might just get an invite to the next Bilderberg Group meeting. Next time I'll clearly state when I'm sarcastic. If I told you that I would have to kill you afterwards. I admit, that made me chuckle. That is a typical outlook from your age group, because you have been conditioned to think that way. You have more freedom to say what you think than any single person living in China or Russia, and you should be grateful that there are those out there that fight to uphold that right for you. Go away, live some real life, get married (or not), have a couple of kids, and come back in 10 years and revisit your comments. We will see if you still think the same. Stop presuming you know me. After that, you should really ask yourself if you think that society is in such existential danger that we constantly need to 'fight it'. People like you misunderstand the real threat to our freedom. Its not a bunch of angry guys with beards and bombs strapped to their chest. It are not the crazy idiots that hijack a plane and fly it into a building. All those people can do is cause pain and grief and do some structural damage. The real danger comes from our response to such attacks. We saw in America an immediate knee jerk reaction which pretty much abolished the constitution and reintroduced things like torture. The terrorist won from America, not because they managed to overthrow the government and establish some tyrannical Muslim regime, but because they made Americans betray their own principles. Principles such as treating prisoners with some basic human decency, such as not torturing prisoners, such as having constitutional protection against the government spying on innocent citizens, such as following the rule of law and upholding the rule of law. Freedom dies when people abolish it out of fear, either from dying in some statistical incredibly unlikely event, or for fear of losing said freedom to 'terrorists'. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
You haven't paid enough taxes to cover the fares whereas the other 59,999,999 may have! Have to leave you something to come back on.... The fare from London to Dublin is £38 Ireland fares. But you'll have to change your attitude because the motto of the City is Obedientia Civium Urbis Felicitas ...as the bankers & spies already proved.... At least it is much cheaper for me to go home compared to this..... One way trip to Wales |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
That is 4 steps. Whatever, it is well known that Uni students in their mid 20's do tend to get involved with fringe activists, and some, not all, go on to become serious threats to society. Choose your friends carefully. Oh so thats enough justification to monitor us all like we are terrorists. The foundation of our justice system is 'innocent until proven guilty' and this is just turning that around. On top of that, just because someone I know because I worked with them together on a paper for uni, gets involved in illegal activities doesn't mean I do as well. That is an urban myth perpetuated in the Internet. Oh, its only 6 degrees. And it turns out to be pretty true. Just imagine, I have 250 people on Facebook (and that is not that much, most people I know have over 500) and if I add the people I know from forums that I don't have on Facebook I can easily add 50 more people to the people I know. Now, if everyone knows about 300 people, well, do the math yourself. The whole 6 degrees of separation is no longer such an urban myth. That is a fair point and I accept that. But they can be seen to have done similar harm to the public in both their separate ways. How has the Guardian harmed anyone? The supposed threat to national security? Until you can actually link a terrorist attack on US or UK soil, which is made possible directly because the terrorists avoided certain communication channels because the Guardian revealed they were monitored, this argument remains unconvincing. Sometimes it isn't that evident when you are, and when you are serious. An honest comment. I know. I sometimes forget that the tone the voice in my head has does not translate to the written word. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
At least it is much cheaper for me to go home compared to this..... Let me know when your next trip is & I'll treat you to a real Black & Tan :-) |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.