So in this case the CIA ought to be criminally liable. Now does the Committee get a pass if it broke every law on the books?
Why would you think that anything relating to the Congressional committee has any bearing on the legality of the activities by the CIA?
The CIA's allegations are immaterial. It doesn't matter if the commission broke every law on the books to get the information and if it was illegal for them to even be in possession of it. The CIA is just as much a law enforcement agency as OJ Simpson was a law enforcement officer. The CIA has just as much authority over that data as OJ did his memorabilia. It was illegal for him to break into that hotel room, and it's illegal for the CIA to break into a US computer.
I don't think we are talking about legality per se. I think it's about right and wrong.
I have no idea what happened and I've said so. If the CIA exceeded its authority and Feinstein and Co properly accessed information then the CIA is certainly in the wrong. Those responsible ought to face criminal charges. What I don't know is where the truth lies and that's going to be devilishly hard to determine. You did mention partisanship though, not myself.
It's a matter of issues not party. If it were otherwise then I could not possibly be supportive of Leahy. That's what you seem to miss. Hell, you are downright Southern Conservative Republican compared to how I see it.
If it wasn't clear before I'll say it again. I don't know what happened. I don't know who is right or wrong. What I do know is that some people (and in this case it was Feinstein who complained, but it could have been anyone as far as I'm concerned) have tried to prevent the EFF and ACLU among others from determining if illegal monitoring of citizen communications has occurred. In essence the position of Feinstein et al has been that providing such knowledge represents an untenable breach of security. The average citizen is out of luck. But now that those who would hold these agencies unaccountable may have themselves been targeted, violations of their fourth amendment rights is suddenly important. Why? Because it's them, not you or I or anyone here on these boards. Now if you don't see how perverse that is I can't help it.
Now I've already said that if what the CIA has been accused of doing is true then criminal penalties ought to apply. For sake of argument what if the reverse is true and those who are charged with monitoring did so by illegally gaining classified documents without proper clearance? I'll head you off right now about one thing. There is no such thing as universal access to classified material. Because one is the chairman of whatever does not entitle circumventing laws and regulations of classified materials. One key concept is a chain of custody. If that has been violated then whatever material was examined might have fallen into the hands of those who had no business whatsoever having access.
In this hypothetical case, would you be as much for criminal charges brought against those responsible on the committee as I am with the CIA under the circumstances I've outlined, or do you hold those on the committee above the law, but hold others to it?
Note that if the Director of the CIA was black the conservatards would now be talking about how, "even the Democrats have to acknowledge the violation of federal unauthorized computer access and domestic spying laws." But given that he's an old white guy who served under Bush and so can't be pinned wholly on Obama, it's about Feinstein.
Conservative talk's spin and thus our conservatard forum members' perspective follows a pretty basic script.
Feinstein (typical democrat) thinks laws do not apply to her.
I expect no less from liberal democrats to scream and cry when they are forced to live under the same laws the rest of us have to live by.
And they're the ones cramming most of the recent laws down our throats, like Obamacare. Things are really twisted.
There's a whole lot wrong and little right to be found, at least as far as we can know, which is very little.
I would love to lick the liberal tears off her cheek.
But then again, I do not want to touch that nasty hag.
Sure, in the same way that edward snowden should be held accountable but that in no way invalidates what he found and released to the public. However, like with whistlblowers, its a slippery slope if those that go snooping for stuff to uncover what the CIA is doing and it's their job to oversee the CIA, it's a little concerning to hear charges coming from the agency that's being looked into. Do you not see the issue and the conflict of interest here?
It's like a cop telling a police investigator, "go ahead and investigate me, I just hope nothing happens to you while you are looking into things". What's worse is that the CIA is trained in how to set people up and more.
So the short answer is no.
Hackery again. Call Leahy and tell him he's a hack. For that matter the ACLU and EFF and yell at them too.No I said yes, you just decided to ignore that. Sorry I called you out on your hackery, it's apparent you are butt hurt about it and are now trying to play "gotcha!".
Btw, exactly how would members of congress improperly access information the CIA provided, in a room in a building the CIA provided and setup for such purposes? If the CIA can't secure secret information in an environment that they created, I'd say we have quite a few problems on our hand.
But you are right we don't have all the information needed, it's not like the people in charge of the CIA now were also in charge of overseeing the torture...I mean the enhanced interrogations!
Hackery again. Call Leahy and tell him he's a hack. For that matter the ACLU and EFF and yell at them too.
I asked a very specific question and you wandered all over the place. What the CIA is accused of doing re waterboarding is irrelevant to my question. Snowden is irrelevant. This is about a specific incident. I have no love for what this country has authorized. It's still irrelevant. "Gotcha"? You got yourself.
If the CIA broke the law in accessing committee documents I expect jail time. If Committee members broke the law in the process of investigating I expect the same. You'll dance around this, won't you? Oh yes you will. You can't help it any more than you couldn't help defend Obama by saying he couldn't direct the NSA in it's spying, then sure enough Obama announced there would be changes. Now your tune is that changes done will only be for the term of the officeholder. You defend. Never mind what may have happened. Sometimes you have good points, but you ruin them by lapsing into the apologist mode. Stop it. It makes you look silly.
FYI I was against what this nation was doing before the war broke out. I spoke out against the nonsense being spouted when the Patriot Act and the like were being touted. When YOUR party as well as the Republicans were largely for it. When warrantless wiretaps were being shoved down our throats, those that YOUR favored president and Feinstein for that matter just loves. If you embrace all that then fine. Kiss Bush's ass too. Don't presume to lecture about what the CIA did. You talk about Snowden? Feinstein et al don't want you to be able to do a damn thing if the CIA or the NSA were violating your rights. Obama himself lied about intel gathering not having harmed US citizens, and I have yet to see you call him out for that whopper. Obama and Feinstein and the Republicans and Democrats who support them wouldn't allow you to avail yourself of your rights for "national security" purposes. The executive branch has attempted to prevent every effort by citizens and advocates to address this and you stand by them. "Is it right or wrong? First tell me if my favorite politicians are involved or not" isn't going to score you points with any objective mind.
If the CIA broke the law as alleged then jail time is the proper reward. If the committee broke the law, be it republican or democrat they should face and get and serve the same penalty. End of story. If they don't respect our privacy, our rights, or our laws then I don't care what job they hold. Out with them.
Hay,
The facts as I understand them boil down to the CIA gives some 'internal deliberative' type documents to the Committee then goes into the system the committee has to review those documents and takes them back under the guise that the committee ought not have them coupled with their misuse by taking them to the Hart Senate repository.
[I know there are a few other bits but they are basically part of the same issue]
This Committee is special... It is entitled to have what it needs to proclaim the CIA, in this case, are within the law. The CIA should comply with every request this Committee puts to it... every document possible should be made available and destruction of the interrogation tapes is evidence the CIA did not comply and ought to be held in contempt on that issue alone. And, the illegal (in my opinion) invasion of the Committee's data base ought be before the Justice Department yesterday.
These CIA folks must operate subject to the Committee's full and unhindered oversight.
You decided to deflect with Snowden who isn't involved in the least.You are a hack because I answered your question within the first few words of my post!
Yes you do.I don't have a team
Another question for that you also most likely won't answer as well: how do we know if the CIA broke the law if the very committee tasked to oversee it can't do its job because the CIA is withholding information? How do you think a secretive organization who only answers to one entity will protect itself if it thinks that the crimes it has committed will be exposed?
he irony you find amusing regarding Feinstein and the CIA is not amusing at all, this issue deals with trust
You complain about politicians doing stupid shit, well it's because we have stupid people encouraging them to do stupid shit. These same stupid people are all ready to gloss over this issue and chalk it up to another hypocritical politician and by doing so the change you and I so desperately want will not happen. Do you get it now or do want to add some more bullshit to the discussion?
Indeed the CIA may be completely in the wrong. If that is the case then they need to pay the penalty. We need to see the facts of the case, but the problem is that many of the indignant members created and fed this Beast. They're upset because her fourth amendments may have been violated but hardly concerned about the rights of others. That's the irony. Note that the fourth has been brought up by Feinstein. A lesser supporter there's not been in many a year.
We're lied to about intel not having harmed US citizen. There is no truth to be had from the politicians. None to be had by those doing the work of intelligence gathering. Yeah I'm ticked about the whole thing LR and am allowing myself the feeling some satisfaction although if I had my say none of this would be happening to begin with.
So by all means punish the guilty, but I have no sympathy for those who accuse. They raised this animal and unloosed it and still lie to us and deny us any possible legal defense.
The CIA needs to comply with all proper requests but those who receive it regardless of who they are must follow proper protocol. We hear about how we can't know if we are being targeted because of security concerns so they darn well better respect the rules as well. The penalty for mere mortals can be draconian.
Agreed. The right is typically more tolerant of invasions of privacy (at least in the name of security) than is the left. That suggests that if/when we get another Republication President (something that Obama seems to be actively trying to make happen) we'll have even more people in favor of this.If you look at it without any partisan slant, you can be upset at BOTH the CIA for what you mention above, AND Feinstein for the irony and having the nerve to say:
How can she simultaneously support the NSA's activities and yet be sensitive to "principles embodied in the United States Constitution"?
Be angry at both parties, and double the rage.
In many ways the irony IS the problem. She has no problem with the government spying on us without due process OR reasonable cause, yet she wants to insist on Constitutional protections for herself. Oversight has no inherent need for privacy. What you are arguing for is a legal class distinction where the elite have basic Constitutional protections which are denied to everyone else. That is as anti-American as anything you could possibly support. Our rulers need MORE scrutiny than the average guy, not less.I didn't say you gave the repubs a pass, I said you were part of the problem, focusing on her hypocrisy and not on the issue itself. I'm not defending anyone btw, thats you projecting. I'm just not jumping on a non issues when we have a serious issue that needs addressing. Thanks for making a non partisan issue a partisan issue though. I expected that from the others not you.
And we may not have all the facts but I certainly don't see you asking for more info or taking this issue serious.
Problem is Congress' actual job is also preserving Constitutional protections for all Americans. The irony is that she has no problem abolishing such protections for most Americans even while arguing for them for herself.No kidding. Congress is trying to do something kinda related to their actual job, and these clowns are like "Yuk yuk, she deserves it because the NSA might have downloaded my Hotmail account. Derpa derp." The CIA works for all of us, through Congress (or is supposed to). That's the issue. Along with the whole "trying to cover up a probable crime" thing.
You decided to deflect with Snowden who isn't involved in the least.
So let's cut to the chase. No Snowden, Bush, or anyone else. If the committee broke laws with criminal penalties in improperly obtaining, using or handling of classified materials should they receive them? This is a yes or no.
Yes you do.
Agreed. The right is typically more tolerant of invasions of privacy (at least in the name of security) than is the left. That suggests that if/when we get another Republication President (something that Obama seems to be actively trying to make happen) we'll have even more people in favor of this.
In many ways the irony IS the problem. She has no problem with the government spying on us without due process OR reasonable cause, yet she wants to insist on Constitutional protections for herself. Oversight has no inherent need for privacy. What you are arguing for is a legal class distinction where the elite have basic Constitutional protections which are denied to everyone else. That is as anti-American as anything you could possibly support. Our rulers need MORE scrutiny than the average guy, not less.
Problem is Congress' actual job is also preserving Constitutional protections for all Americans. The irony is that she has no problem abolishing such protections for most Americans even while arguing for them for herself.
We have to trust her that isn't lying
No we do not. We have been lied to and it's been shown to be the case. If you want to engage in the fantasy then so be it. Don't tell others that they need to bend the knee.
What has she lied about?
I didn't realize you were one of those people who thinks government is corrupt. Good luck with that! I hope you got plenty of guns because the gobment is coming for them!
Enjoy being crazy, it seems to be the new trend.