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.
Seems some on Wikipedia disagree...
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?
> 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"
>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.
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?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int...
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?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-int...
https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committ...
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.
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.
I understand that now it's a little different because we had hard evidence, but it shouldn't be as surprising as it seems to be to people!
It is obvious that if something can be done and can benefit folks with enough money, it will be done. There are no "checks and balances" on the level of intelligence agencies, because by definition we pay them to do things that would be prosecuted if discovered.
It smells to me like the "hammer and nails" proverb in reverse. Spies are building super sophisticated hammers and people really, really don't expect them to use those hammers to nail things everywhere?
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.
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.)
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.
------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.
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.
If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus.
If this is case, and if we as (Americans? people?) tolerate it, then I guess it's our implicit way of saying "corruption is indeed the best way — it keeps everyone happy" (pan e circo).
If we don't tolerate it and change it somehow, then maybe our particular multiverse trajectory goes another direction.
Who knows if Obama is actually the one to do this. I'm not expecting much of anything from him, no more/less than I do of any other past President. I have no clue what it's like to be POTUS, but I assume it's like inheriting the CEO/President role at a super old, well-known established company, with an even older and power-hungry Board. Sure, they'll let you be the CEO, but they hold all the political "preferred stock" and can make sure the CEO is ousted if he doesn't do what they want.
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.
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.
Will?
Where have you been?
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.
>>> 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.
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?
