• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

Is the CIA patriotic and trustworthy?


  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Torture is illegal!
This is about torture, lies, deceit, treachery, our Government, supervision of Intelligence, and power "to big to prosecute."

The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

By David Cole
"The ...snip... And the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee is until now the only comprehensive effort to review the extensive classified CIA records about the program.
Even before the investigation began, the CIA appears to have been aware that its interrogation practices might not withstand scrutiny. The intelligence committee’s investigation was itself sparked by a CIA agent’s destruction of ninety-two videotapes of the agency’s actual interrogations. According to accounts by former CIA officials, twelve of the tapes documented the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. One tape showed al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, apparently screaming and vomiting. In 2012, John Rizzo, who was the CIA’s acting general counsel at the time the tapes were made, told the BBC that a US intelligence official who reviewed the footage had found that “portions of the tapes, particularly those of Zubaydah being waterboarded, were extremely hard to watch.”
But we cannot know for certain what was on the tapes, because in November, 2005, Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service, ordered them destroyed. He did so over the stated objections of the White House Counsel and the Director of National Intelligence, and despite their obvious relevance to numerous possible criminal investigations—of the suspects interrogated and of the CIA itself.
In 2007, when the New York Times first reported that the CIA had destroyed interrogation tapes, the Senate Intelligence Committee launched an inquiry. The CIA assured the committee that the tapes’ destruction would not hinder review of its program, because it had many cables contemporaneously describing the interrogations in detail. (These would of course be the CIA’s descriptions of what was done, not an actual record of what was done.) The intelligence committee requested access to those documents. The CIA replied, in Senator Feinstein’s words, with a classic “document dump,” giving the committee literally millions of documents, entirely unorganized and unindexed, presumably hoping to overwhelm their limited resources.
The CIA refused to allow the Senate staff to use their own computers to review the documents, insisting that they be reviewed in a separate CIA-leased facility. According to an agreement worked out between the Committee and the CIA, the agency was to provide the committee with a
’stand-alone computer system’ with a ‘network drive’ ‘segregated from CIA networks’…that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA—who would ‘not be permitted to’ ‘share information from the system with other [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.’​
It soon became clear, however, that the CIA had violated the agreement. In 2010, Feinstein explained,
I learned that on two occasions, CIA personnel electronically removed committee access to CIA documents after providing them to the committee. This included roughly 870 documents or pages of documents that were removed in February 2010, and secondly roughly another 50 were removed in mid-May 2010.​
Feinstein took the matter to the White House, and the CIA was compelled to apologize and to reaffirm its commitment not to interfere with the investigation. But when the CIA later learned that one of the documents the committee had received was the agency’s own internal review of the cables, directed by then-director Leon Panetta, it covertly searched the committee’s files yet again.
Why the concern over the internal review? From Feinstein’s perspective, the CIA’s real worry is that this internal review corroborates her committee’s findings about the CIA’s own abuses—and contradicts a subsequently drafted official CIA response that tries to deny or minimize CIA abuses. As Feinstein put it, “What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.” Apparently the CIA was willing to give the Senate committee access to all evidence except the smoking gun.
So blatant is this obstruction that the CIA’s own Inspector General referred the matter to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation of CIA staff. In what appears to be retaliation, the CIA’s acting general counsel, Robert Eatinger, in turn asked the Justice Department to investigate the Senate committee staff regarding their access to the internal review. Eatinger, Feinstein notes, was himself previously oversaw the CIA’s interrogation program, and is mentioned by name some 1,600 times in the Senate committee’s report. Evidently, however, he saw no conflict of interest in requesting a Justice Department investigation of those reviewing his own conduct.
How this controversy ultimately gets resolved, Feinstein rightly noted, “will show whether the Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.”
But even more urgent than resolution of the inter-branch dispute, is the release of the intelligence committee’s 6,300-page report. Though the committee adopted the report in December 2012, not one word of it has yet seen the light of day. That the investigation has gone on so long, cost so much (reportedly $50 million), resulted in such an extensive report, and still not been seen by the public, reflects the gravity of what is at stake here. The nation’s highest officials coldly approved war crimes and human rights abuses—and to date, no one has been held accountable in any manner for doing so.
As I have argued before, accountability comes in many forms; there is little likelihood that former officials will be criminally prosecuted, even after the report is issued. But an official report can itself be a form of reckoning. In both Canada and the United Kingdom, official inquiries have served exactly that purpose, after the US rendition of Canadian Maher Arar to Syria, and after the UK’s detention and coercive interrogation of suspected IRA members. A secret report, however, is no accountability at all. In an encouraging sign, President Obama on Wednesday said that he favors making the report public so that the American people can judge for themselves the CIA’s conduct. You can bet the CIA will fight tooth and nail to frustrate that pledge. We must insist that President Obama keep this promise.
In law, we say that torture “taints” an investigation. The legal doctrine that precludes reliance on evidence obtained from torture is called the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule. But as this latest saga reflects, torture does far more than merely “taint” evidence. It corrupts all who touch it. The CIA’s desperate efforts to hide the details of what the world already knows in general outline—that it subjected human beings to brutal treatment to which no human being should ever be subjected—are only the latest evidence of the poisonous consequences of a program euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation.”

6300 pages, $50 million, since 2005,

Should torture be illegal?

Should someone/s be prosecuted?

Should we feel proud?

Should we feel shame?

Are we betrayed by our own Gov't?

and the question:
Is the CIA patriotic and trustworthy?
 
The current controversy between the Senate Investigation committee and the CIA is about TORTURE. All the media just talks about the CIA impeding investigations, exceeding its' authority as per document review, and other nuances of thought that don't say a thing about torture. Does that seem odd to anyone? The fact that the Mainstream Media, with its' many entrenched CIA assets as documented by the Church Committee, doesn't reveal the true and clear issue doesn't surprise me, but the apathy of the public in this matter blows my mind. Investigations impeded. tapes destroyed, computer investigations sabotaged, investigations bugged, and the list goes on. There are 6300 pages of documentation that cost $50 million to produce and documents CIA torture and the players involved. Should this be swept under a rug? Never! Does the CIA operate independent of Congressional authority? Apparently. Is the Agency rogue? It would appear to be so. The CIA works for USA CORPORATIONS overseas like Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, and John Deere, among others, in Ukraine. The CIA uses front groups like USAID, NED, Freedom House, NGOs, etc. to cover its' footprints. The CIA has its' own army now. The CIA operates the drones. Are individuals afraid to talk about this? Don't believe it? Don't want to believe it? Rebels using "sarin" gas in Syria. CIA supporting rebels in Syria. Chaos and mayhem in Libya. CIA supporting rebels in Libya. Does the recent chaos, mayhem and death leave a footprint in Ukraine? I think this Agency has most Congressmen and women by the short hairs and twists whenever the need arises. I don't see them as good guys and you'll hear the old crap that "we're not allowed to talk about our successes." How about death squads in Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, and and those leaders all trained in Georgia at the "School of the Americas." The school is still operating under a different name. In the past and perhaps even now, the CIA has sold massive amounts of drugs to self finance and self sustain operations. I'm a Capitalist and after you develop a market and shelf space, you don't drop it or toss it away like last week's pizza. Forgive me if I think the CIA might be capitalistic because it is associated with all those USA CORPORATIONS that need help with their 'banana Republics." Ukraine has 30% of the world's best soil, is relatively level, and has a favorable climate and location to be a "banana Republic," and the Agricultural CORPORATIONS are already players there. Cargill (meat), John Deere (farm equiptment), Monsanto (Chemicals, seeds), Chevron (gas for fertilizer), and others, but you get the message. Is the CIA going to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas in Ukraine? That's their job.
 
The USA has not been invaded. The CIA has done a good job.
 
The USA has not been invaded. The CIA has done a good job.

Bullcrap! They've protected us from Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Haiti, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Right. Hot damn, but the perceived threat must be awesome. All that killing and all those drugs. Invasion and media generated hypothethical threats are made to generate business for the Military Offens Industry. Corporate welfare at its' finest.
 
Bullcrap! They've protected us from Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Haiti, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Right. Hot damn, but the perceived threat must be awesome. All that killing and all those drugs. Invasion and media generated hypothethical threats are made to generate business for the Military Offens Industry. Corporate welfare at its' finest.

You certainly could relocate to another country if you think one is better. I think all in all the CIA has done a damn good job keeping Americans safe. I'm not sure where in it's policy manual its purpose is to keep other people safe. Can you quote that section?
 
You certainly could relocate to another country if you think one is better. I think all in all the CIA has done a damn good job keeping Americans safe. I'm not sure where in it's policy manual its purpose is to keep other people safe. Can you quote that section?

For sure, you don't know anything about the CIA. Their job is to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Does that sound like John Smith? Document with links any invasion the CIA has thwarted. The CIA makes sure Rockefeller's hundred thousand acre Latin American plantations to make sure United Fruit Corp. makes good profits. Oh Yeh! That means install a management friendly New Leader in whatever Latin American plantation starts having labor problems. It must make you feel proud, eh?
 
For sure, you don't know anything about the CIA. Their job is to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Does that sound like John Smith? Document with links any invasion the CIA has thwarted. The CIA makes sure Rockefeller's hundred thousand acre Latin American plantations to make sure United Fruit Corp. makes good profits. Oh Yeh! That means install a management friendly New Leader in whatever Latin American plantation starts having labor problems. It must make you feel proud, eh?

Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.
 
Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.

I am pleased that you realize that we, the USA, are often the scumbags making the big profits by using our CIA for USA Corporations overseas in real world skullduggery. Now, in Ukriane, we are assisting Cargill (meat), Chevron (GAS, fertilizer), John Deere ( heavy equiptment), Monsanto (chemicals, seeds), and other USA CORPORATIONS overseas to establish in some of the World's best topsoil. We have put Billionaires in charge, That would be Yats, Preubly, etc. , etc. etc. and isn't that just a hell of a coincidence that we have found "Billionaires" to lead this Nation that used to be a fledgling Democracy. Gotta make one proud to known we've booted out the Democratically elected scumbag billionaire and installed scumbag billionaires that will do business with our USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Progress or the lack thereof?
 
Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.

I think it's proper to aspire to better. Not to mention that its a good idea to be honest.

As to the poll, there isn't an answer I'd pick. It's an organization that there is a place for, but one that can easily go bad. Oversight is critical. And the need to a clear moral compass within the organization can't be overstated. Because they walk the line by necessity, that line needs to be clear.
 
I think it's proper to aspire to better. Not to mention that its a good idea to be honest.

As to the poll, there isn't an answer I'd pick. It's an organization that there is a place for, but one that can easily go bad. Oversight is critical. And the need to a clear moral compass within the organization can't be overstated. Because they walk the line by necessity, that line needs to be clear.

Here's another example of the problem. The issue is torture and see if torture is mentioned in the article. Censorship by omission. Talking Points that frame the issue by obfuscation.



Reid Orders Probe of CIA Spying, Warns of 'Intelligence Community Run Amok' | The World's Greatest Deliberative Body
"In my capacity as the leader of the U.S. Senate, the CIA’s actions cause me great concern,” Reid wrote to Holder. “The CIA has not only interfered with the lawful congressional oversight of its activities, but has also seemingly attempted to intimidate its overseers by subjecting them to criminal investigation. The developments strike at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Left unchallenged, they call into question Congress’s ability to carry out its core constitutional duties and risk the possibility of an unaccountable intelligence community run amok.”"
 
Depends on one's definition of "patriotism". But are they "trustworthy"? God no. Like any intelligence agency in just about any country they protect their own, and use all possible and even illegal means to find what they want. Like all intelligence agencies they hide all the unfavorable information on them and release the info that will make them look positive.
 
Depends on one's definition of "patriotism". But are they "trustworthy"? God no. Like any intelligence agency in just about any country they protect their own, and use all possible and even illegal means to find what they want. Like all intelligence agencies they hide all the unfavorable information on them and release the info that will make them look positive.

In my mind I think Watergate, October Surprise, Iran/Contra, BCCI, Mena Arkansas, black sites and torture, Panama/Noriega, etc. These are just the large visible issues and many, many more must have been hidden or they are completely inept.
 
Depends on one's definition of "patriotism". But are they "trustworthy"? God no. Like any intelligence agency in just about any country they protect their own, and use all possible and even illegal means to find what they want. Like all intelligence agencies they hide all the unfavorable information on them and release the info that will make them look positive.

Here's another link that shows the "bastardization" of our Mainstream Media "Stenographers" doing a fine job of not reporting the News. Regarding an issue of investigation of multiple Kidnap and torture by the CIA, can you find the words "kidnap" (rendition) or torture anywhere in the framed news article. Do you think that leaving those words out changes the context of that article or does it frame the issue as just an investigation of something? The fish smells bad.

Terror report release may fuel Congress' CIA spat
Terror report release may fuel Congress' CIA spat

"WASHINGTON (AP) — If senators vote this week to release key sections of a voluminous report on terrorist interrogations, an already strained relationship between lawmakers and the CIA could become even more rancorous, and President Barack Obama might have to step into the fray.

The Senate Intelligence Committee hopes that by publishing a 400-page summary of its contentious review and the 20 main recommendations, it will shed light on some of the most unsavory elements of the Bush administration's "war on terror" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Despite now serving Obama, the CIA maintains that the report underestimates the intelligence value of waterboarding and other methods employed by intelligence officials at undeclared, "black site" facilities overseas. The entire investigation runs some 6,200 pages.

The dispute boiled into the open earlier this month with competing claims of wrongdoing by Senate staffers and CIA officials. The intelligence committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, accused the CIA of improperly monitoring the computer use of Senate staffers and deleting files, undermining the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The agency said the intelligence panel illegally accessed certain documents. Each side has registered criminal complaints with the Justice Department.

This week's vote could fuel the fight, if it goes in favor of disclosure. It would start a process that forces CIA officials and Senate staffers to go line-by-line through the report and debate which elements can be made public and which must stay secret because of ongoing national security concerns. The CIA and the executive branch hold all the keys as the final determiners of what ought to remain classified. Senators primarily have the bully pulpit of embarrassing the CIA publicly and the last-resort measure of going after the agency's budget.

But senators are hoping the dispute can be diffused with the intervention of Obama, whose record includes outlawing waterboarding, unsuccessfully seeking the closure of the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and supporting other changes in how the United States pursues, detains, questions and prosecutes terrorist suspects. The president has refused thus far to weigh in on Congress' dispute with the CIA, while pledging to declassify at least the findings of the Senate report "so that the American people can understand what happened in the past, and that can help guide us as we move forward."

Obama's involvement may be in the interest of both sides. Senators fear their report will be scuttled by CIA officials directly involved in past interrogation practices, undermining the role of Congress in overseeing the nation's spy agencies. For the intelligence community, which prides itself on its discretion and foresight, even the perception of manipulating that oversight could be damaging with a public still coming to grips with National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's revelations of massive government collection of telephone and other data.

And a further worsening of Congress' spat with the CIA hardly serves Obama's aims. It has centered on Feinstein, a Democratic supporter of the president who has backed the White House on NSA and other matters, and CIA Director John Brennan, who previously served as Obama's homeland security adviser. The entire fuss is over counterterrorism practices the president entered office determined to eliminate.

Brennan offered conciliatory words in a message to CIA employees Friday. He said agency officials would address the committee's concerns so it can complete its work report as soon as possible. He also complimented Feinstein and other congressional figures for carrying out "their oversight responsibilities with great dedication and patriotism." But he did not directly address Feinstein's tart criticism or acknowledge any agency wrongdoing. He said that as a result of the unpublished review, the agency has already taken steps to strengthen CIA performance. He did not detail those moves.

Adding heat on the CIA, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ordered an investigation by his body's top cop into the computer network that contained the confidential, internal CIA review that has sparked the rift. Congressional aides say the "Panetta review," so called because it was ordered by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta, counters CIA claims about the effectiveness of its interrogation methods and backs up assertions in the committee's review.

Brennan has yet to say publicly whether the CIA will allow Senate law enforcement personnel to search agency computers that staffers had used in northern Virginia. In his note, Brennan said only that "appropriate officials are reviewing the facts."

In letters last week to the heads of the CIA and Justice Department, Reid, another close Obama ally, said the CIA's unapproved searching of computers was "absolutely indefensible." He challenged the credibility of Brennan's claims and echoed Feinstein's conflict-of-interest concerns about CIA lawyer Robert Eatinger, who was acting general counsel when he filed the criminal referral against Senate employees. That was after Eatinger was identified 1,600 times in the committee's study of the interrogation program.

Eatinger was a controversial figure even before his most recent run-ins with congressional investigators. Between 2004 and 2009, he was chief counsel for the CIA Detention and Interrogation Unit that employed harsh questioning tactics that some consider torture, such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation. He was also among several CIA lawyers involved in the decision to destroy graphic videotapes of al-Qaida suspects being waterboarded.

Congressional officials worry that Eatinger and other CIA officials who worked in the interrogation unit could be involved in the agency's declassification of the Senate report. Former intelligence officials familiar with the agency's procedures said the process would probably by overseen by lawyers from the CIA's general counsel office, as well as its Intelligence Management section, which handles declassification of long-secret historic and important documents.

In some declassification projects, documents can be farmed out to appropriate CIA units that have historical knowledge of the events, said congressional and former intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Concern that Eatinger and other former interrogation unit members might be involved in declassification partly explains the committee's insistence on White House oversight, congressional aides said."
 
Last edited:
Depends on one's definition of "patriotism". But are they "trustworthy"? God no. Like any intelligence agency in just about any country they protect their own, and use all possible and even illegal means to find what they want. Like all intelligence agencies they hide all the unfavorable information on them and release the info that will make them look positive.

Here's another one today from the Nation.

Spy Agencies, Not Politicians, Hold the Cards in Washington | The Nation
"Spy Agencies, Not Politicians, Hold the Cards in Washington
William Greider on March 24, 2014 - 12:57 PM ET
" am addicted to House of Cards, the British and American versions, but I suggest that both TV series have been looking at the wrong game.

On television, the story line is about a wicked political schemer, accompanied by his wicked wife, who climbs to the ultimate perch of power—prime minister or president—through fiendishly malevolent manipulations, including homicide. In the real world of Washington, however, politicians look more like impotent innocents compared to their true masters. It is the spooks and the spies who shuffle the deck and deal the cards. They hide their cut-throat intrigues behind bland initials—the CIA and the NSA.

In recent weeks, a lurid real-life melodrama has been playing out in the nation's capital that has the flavor of old-fashioned conspiracy theories. The two clandestine agencies are the true puppet masters.

It is elected politicians, even the president, who are puppets dancing on a string. I hope the TV writers are taking notes. This would make a swell plot outline for a third season of the popular drama—"House of Cards, the Reality TV Version."

The plot begins a decade ago in the bad years after 9/11 when the CIA embraced global torture in the war against terrorism. Official Washington was traumatized by the attack and looked the other way, pretending not to know what the spooks were doing. The men in black plucked various "terrorists" off the Arab Street and shipped them to less squeamish countries around the world where the US agents could use medieval methods for pain and punishment, techniques officially prohibited by US law.

The political system was at first shocked when gruesome details were exposed by vigilant reporters. But soon enough the spooks were being celebrated as our anonymous heroes—sticking it to the bad guys, satisfying the popular thirst for revenge. CIA operatives even taped the cruelty for agency archives. The torturers even got their own popular TV show called 24. The Bush administration issued far-fetched legal justifications explaining their torture wasn't illegal torture. The press backed off a bit and began gingerly noting differences of opinion on waterboarding and sleep deprivation.

Eventually, as truth caught up with official lies and the long war in Iraq was exposed as another gigantic fraud, Americans lost their stomach for lawlessness in Washington. The CIA discreetly destroyed its torture tapes (a pity since this would have been terrific footage for the TV show). The Agency denied everything and promised not to do it again. The new president took their word for it. In a forgiving tone, Obama urged Americans not to be obsessed with old controversies. Congress assured the nation that the Intelligence Committees of House and Senate were exceedingly vigilant and they would scold the CIA vigorously if it ever lied again (details, alas, were kept "classified" so as not to aid the enemy).

Public affairs in Washington might have settled down to usual pretensions of "straight talk" except that some high-minded computer geeks came along and blew the doors off government secrecy. First, it was the notorious Wikileaks gang that posted reams of official government documents on the Internet, lighting bonfires of indignation around the world. Reading the private cables from US embassies or the text of a secretly negotiated trade agreement is an educational experience. It desanctifies the lofty legends of diplomacy."
.......

"Next it was Citizen Snowden who came forward with the crown jewels of secrets—the shocking dimensions of the National Security Agency's digital invasion of privacy. The government really is listening to your daily pedestrian talk, recording our intimate thoughts. For many years, the people who believed this were usually also hearing voices from God and the Wizard of Oz. Now it is established that Americans at large are in the files, their phone calls conveniently recorded for the spooks and spies, should the government agencies find a reason to know more about you. The agency says it won't do this (unless really, really necessary to save the nation). But we also learned the agency lies, not just to you and me, but to congressional inquiries.

The NSA and the CIA, though sometimes rivals for power, can be thought of as the "evil twins" of government bureaucracy—licensed to trample on the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting the nation from alien forces. The two agencies are joined at the hip by this new storm of staggering revelations. Both are trying awkwardly to maintain their Cold War mystique but the storm threatens to blow away their "house of cards." Puppet-like politicians are exposed as utterly incompetent watchdogs. The puppet masters don't look so smart either.

What's promising is they are turning on each other. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and long-loyal apologist for the spy agencies, accused the CIA of spying on her committee's belated investigation into the torture scandal. CIA Director John Brennan turned around and put the blame on her, actually accusing her committee staff of snooping on the agency. He even filed a complaint with the Justice Department and asked for a criminal investigation of the congressional oversight committee.

Feinstein in turn asked Justice to investigate Brennan. This is truly weird.

A Huffington Post headline captured the absurdity: " Senators Okay with Spying on Citizens, But Outraged It Happened to Congress." You can turn it around and make the same point. The CIA and NSA routinely ignore the law and Constitution themselves but want the Justice Department to protect them from an over-reaching Congress. The "House of Cards" is playing for laughs. Which side will President Obama take in this fight?

Meanwhile, Citizen Snowden continues his educational campaign with more bracing revelations about the National Security Agency. Thanks to Snowden, The Washington Post reported that the NSA has built a surveillance system that can record "100 percent" of a foreign country's telephone calls—every single phone conversation. The voice interception program is called MYSTIC. Its official emblem portrays a gnarly wizard in a purple robe and pointy hat, holding a cell phone aloft. Do they think this is a Saturday morning cartoon?



The more I thought about it, I kept coming back to the homeland."


"The spies may not have tapped the White House phones but they do know what he knows and can always make use of it. This is the very core of the card game played by the intelligence agencies and it didn't start with Barack Obama. When any new president comes to town, he is told the secrets first thing and continuously. The briefings can be chilling but also thrilling.

Ultimately, it can also be slyly coopting to learn what the government knows only at the very highest level. As the agencies take the White House deeper and deeper into the black box, it becomes harder for a president to dissent. It also makes it riskier to do so. The CIA or NSA know what he heard and know what he said when he learned the secrets. If the president decides to condemn their dirty work, the spooks and spies can leak to the press how in the privacy of the Oval Office the commander-in-chief gave the green light."
 
Hey as long as Feinstein stays pissed at the CIA, we'll have entertainment.
 
Hey as long as Feinstein stays pissed at the CIA, we'll have entertainment.

We should all be possed at the CIA. They have dishonored us, as a Nation, repeatedly. Torture, torture and torture. Lies, lies, and more lies. Coverups, obfuscation, and co-ordinated destruction of our Congressional regulatory processes. Geez, Louise (Chuck Butler) gimme a break.
 
We should all be possed at the CIA. They have dishonored us, as a Nation, repeatedly. Torture, torture and torture. Lies, lies, and more lies. Coverups, obfuscation, and co-ordinated destruction of our Congressional regulatory processes. Geez, Louise (Chuck Butler) gimme a break.

Actually that's what we pay them to be good at. I guess they really are. :lol:
 
Poll has too Many options to see what sentiment actually is.
A Simple YES and NO would have been Much better.
As it stands, it's Ridiculous.
It adds Duplicate and irrelevant options. (ie, "Torture"!)
Why not add "They take too much vacation time" to further destroy your own poll.
What a muddled abortion.

- YES
- NO
- Patriotic, not trustworthy
- Trustworthy, not patriotic
- Torture is illegal and they're hiding everything
- Like Cops, they protect their own
 
Last edited:
Poll has too Many options to see what sentiment actually is.
A Simple YES and NO would have been Much better.
As it stands, it's Ridiculous.
It adds duplicate and irrelevant options.
Why not add "They take too much vacation time" to further destroy your own poll.
What a muddled abortion.

- YES
- NO
- Patriotic, not trustworthy
- Trustworthy, not patriotic
- Torture is illegal and they're hiding everything
- Like Cops, they protect their own



Only in a very simple mind would a yes or no answer be minimally adequate. You're supposed to have to think about these options. Apparently you cannot. Fine, works for me.
 
Only in a very simple mind would a yes or no answer be minimally adequate. You're supposed to have to think about these options. Apparently you cannot. Fine, works for me.
ie,
IF "Torture is illegal and they hide everything" Then they are NOT Trustworthy. "NO"
WTF is the problem?
If someone feels they are "Not" trustworthy on balance, then their opinions get so Fragmented numerically, one Cannot discern the OVERALL sentiment. Polls are Numeric queries.
You made a duplicative Laundry List mostly for "NO".

additionally, "They protect their own" is tangential/nearly irrelevant to the issue.
They could be "trustworthy" on balance and still 'protect their own'.

You could add 10 more options/proxies for/Examples OF - YES and NO - so that no answer got more that 5 people choosing it.
It's a Meaningless mind-splatter and Defeats the purpose OF a poll.
 
Last edited:
They should have been disbanded decades ago. After what they did in the 60s, 70s and 80s we just have to burn the name. We need an INTELLIGENCE agency, but they should be forever barred from action. Their job should be strictly limited to intel. Action belongs to the military special forces.
 
ie,
IF "Torture is illegal and they hide everything" Then they are NOT Trustworthy. "NO"
WTF is the problem?
If someone feels they are "Not" trustworthy on balance, then their opinions get so Fragmented numerically, one Cannot discern the OVERALL sentiment. Polls are Numeric queries.
You made a duplicative Laundry List mostly for "NO".

additionally, "They protect their own" is tangential/nearly irrelevant to the issue.
They could be "trustworthy" on balance and still 'protect their own'.

You could add 10 more options/proxies for/Examples OF - YES and NO - so that no answer got more that 5 people choosing it.
It's a Meaningless mind-splatter and Defeats the purpose OF a poll.

Multiple choice poll and you are allowed to select all or none that apply in your mindset.. Balance, don't ya' know?
 
The CIA is made up of patriotic individuals who regularly risk their lives in crappy sections of the world, away from their families for years at a time, in order to make others safer.

No power, however, is trustworthy.
 
The CIA is made up of patriotic individuals who regularly risk their lives in crappy sections of the world, away from their families for years at a time, in order to make others safer.

No power, however, is trustworthy.

If the CIA has 200,000 employees and only 10,000 in crappy sections of the World and the remaining 190,000 desk jockeying in the DC/Virginia area, then you are only speaking for a very small minority of the Agency.
 
Back
Top Bottom