I'll take the latter everytime.Macbeth wrote:
So which would we all rather have? An agency that could do whatever it wants with no oversight or a agency that's ability to do it job is more difficult.
ya because of abuse of power and illegal things are only specific to the govtoug wrote:
better idea: let the CIA roam free, I'm sure they got some genetic code going that doesn't allow them to abuse power
l
Last edited by usmarine (2009-03-02 16:49:03)
the biggest turds come from the biggest dogs marineusmarine wrote:
ya because of abuse of power and illegal things are only specific to the govt
ƒ³
Well, actually, corporations tend to be even worse, but it's usually with the help of government.oug wrote:
the biggest turds come from the biggest dogs marineusmarine wrote:
ya because of abuse of power and illegal things are only specific to the govt
so you want bigger turds to watch the smaller turds? then the tiny turds that watch all the turds will turn into the biggest turds.oug wrote:
the biggest turds come from the biggest dogs marineusmarine wrote:
ya because of abuse of power and illegal things are only specific to the govt
no, from what you said i gather that's what you wantusmarine wrote:
so you want bigger turds to watch the smaller turds?
I can live with that because then the shit will spread evenly amongst many. I say let all the little turds rule themselves.usmarine wrote:
then the tiny turds that watch all the turds will turn into the biggest turds.
/shit-talk
ƒ³
So we make the CIA explain everything they are doing... sounds like a good plan to me...
Love is the answer
maybe keep all their notes and asset names on the interwebs[TUF]Catbox wrote:
So we make the CIA explain everything they are doing... sounds like a good plan to me...
jsnipy wrote:
maybe keep all their notes and asset names on the interwebs[TUF]Catbox wrote:
So we make the CIA explain everything they are doing... sounds like a good plan to me...
Oversight
Description: Oversight is a system for addressing questions of potential risk through guidelines, regulations or other structures.
You are assuming that there aren't checks at multiple levels, both internal and external to the CIA. That would be an incorrect assumption.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's what I'm getting at though - we just take the CIA's word that the tapes erased didn't cover Gitmo? There is a lack of transparency, which should be addressed.FEOS wrote:
Actually, they've already covered that. The judge's ruling was specific to Gitmo. The tapes erased did not pertain to Gitmo.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Right, and one thing this lawsuit will probably answer is whether or not those tapes were legally erased. Just because the CIA says they had no value does not mean they had the authority to erase them against the judge's ruling.
The "lack of transparency" that you mention is called "protection of classified information". There is no--and there never will be--"transparency" involving classified data. Otherwise, it wouldn't be classified.
BL: If the judge had wanted all tapes of all CIA interrogations--as opposed to what he actually asked for (and was delivered, btw)--then that's what the injunction would've covered. It didn't...but now, because they've followed SOP for material NOT covered by the injunction, they're "hiding something".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You clearly don't understand what FISA is. FISA would have ZERO applicability in these cases, as it is authorization to use the intelligence community to surveil specific targets who are US persons...which none of these knuckleheads are.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah it's not like the FISA was passed for any other reason than crazy Californians.usmarine wrote:
you want transparency for a spy agency?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There is a lack of transparency, which should be addressed.
man there really is something in the air or water in kalifornia
It doesn't provide "transparency" for anything.
Again, which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this case, as the individuals in question are not US persons.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
COINTELPROusmarine wrote:
its amazing how much you cry about that. i dont need more than a few lines. transparency for a spy agency is stupid imo. its that simple. no need for anymore text.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Drop a line and troll another thread pl0x.
An example of government SPY agencies engaging in ILLEGAL activities. One of the reasons FISA was enacted.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-03-03 03:31:18)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's a moot question, as the former doesn't exist and hasn't existed since 1975.Macbeth wrote:
So which would we all rather have? An agency that could do whatever it wants with no oversight or a agency that's ability to do it job is more difficult.
Of course you will...because that's all that exists.Turquoise wrote:
I'll take the latter everytime.Macbeth wrote:
So which would we all rather have? An agency that could do whatever it wants with no oversight or a agency that's ability to do it job is more difficult.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-03-03 03:32:09)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
We still have piles of old intel from WW2 stored away in vaults.
Why would we destroy stuff a few years old?
Why would we destroy stuff a few years old?
Fuck Israel
Exactly. The only reason for CIA to destroy information is to make sure that anyone who has the authority to ask for it doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure they're not lacking in storage space lol
ƒ³
we do? or has it been deemed "historical" and cannot be destroyed?Dilbert_X wrote:
We still have piles of old intel from WW2 stored away in vaults.
Why would we destroy stuff a few years old?
ill wait
deemed historical
muahahahaha good one
I guess all of the CIA's intel and info will be historical some day, that's why they keep it - to sell later at some museum! big bucks!
muahahahaha good one
I guess all of the CIA's intel and info will be historical some day, that's why they keep it - to sell later at some museum! big bucks!
ƒ³
It doesn't appear that some people understand the point of a secret intelligence agency.
Allow me to direct you to what classified is all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information
Allow me to direct you to what classified is all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information
I'm well aware of his history. That obviously does not change any of the sentiments in the post you quoted. You might have something against the person, but the criticism that you put forth is pretty inane.Poseidon wrote:
mikkel wrote:
He's not ignoring the fact that the government of his country does it as well. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that a bad deed done by a multitude of people is still a bad deed, and complaining about a bad deed is not any less valid because the bad deed is done elsewhere, too.mikkel wrote:
There are plenty of sensible arguments for why many of the things that rammunition posts are insane, but this is absolutely not one of them.If you knew anything about his post history, you'd know it's EXACTLY what he does. He posts either 1) very selective incidents that happened within the US military and then goes on to generalize every American on the actions of those few, ignoring the fact that many selective incidents just like what he posted have happened with British troops in Iraq as well or 2) Posts something like this whilst ignoring what his own country's equivilent does which is either the same thing or very similar.rammunition wrote:
O, the american extremists sympathizers have arrived and are trying to avoid the question/change the answer/blame someone else.
whats new then
I don't really care if it's bad (I mean, I DO, but it's not the point I'm trying to express) or not, acknowledge that your own country and most of the world is similar and has done the "bad deed" as well before bashing America for doing it. But if he did that, he wouldn't really have grounds for a thread. Because he's a TROLL.
It's a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black. And you think that's okay?
It's akin to saying "but he did it too!" when you're caught doing something you aren't supposed to do. It does nothing to absolve you of responsibility, no matter how much you want to redirect or redistribute the criticism. Because of that, it matters very little.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-03-03 09:31:24)
WWII was a tad bit different. but i guess you cannot grasp that.oug wrote:
deemed historical
muahahahaha good one
I guess all of the CIA's intel and info will be historical some day, that's why they keep it - to sell later at some museum! big bucks!
It would appear also that there are some people that fail to grasp the necessities of democracy and the hazards deriving from uninformed voters due to the compulsive and mischievous secrecy of those elected to serve them and the unchecked and soaring power that comes in the hands of those very few individuals that actually do have access to such information and who btw do not report directly back to the voters, but rather hide behind bureaucracy and agencies with dubious responsibilities, vague jurisdiction and serious sounding initials. Alas, there is no wikipedia link for the simpletons to understand such notions.
In general though, I can only tell you that as a citizen of any country, obscurity is your enemy and transparency is your friend.
In general though, I can only tell you that as a citizen of any country, obscurity is your enemy and transparency is your friend.
ƒ³
Who cares about WWII? Don't change the subject by sticking to insignificant details. Better address the real issue.usmarine wrote:
WWII was a tad bit different. but i guess you cannot grasp that.oug wrote:
deemed historical
muahahahaha good one
I guess all of the CIA's intel and info will be historical some day, that's why they keep it - to sell later at some museum! big bucks!
ƒ³
FISA provides independent oversight (something that seems to be missing in this instance). I mentioned COINTELPRO because it is an example of illegal activities by spy agencies - an instance of the intelligence community overstepping their authority. A simple example of when the intelligence community failed. I know you are a smart person, can you not understand? I thought I made it clear why I mentioned COINTELPRO and FISA, I guess not. I did not mean that particular oversight committee (set up as a result of COINTELPRO among other transgressions) needs to look into it. I didn't even infer that. C'mon.FEOS wrote:
You clearly don't understand what FISA is. FISA would have ZERO applicability in these cases, as it is authorization to use the intelligence community to surveil specific targets who are US persons...which none of these knuckleheads are.
It doesn't provide "transparency" for anything.
Again, which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this case, as the individuals in question are not US persons.
I don't trust the CIA to police themselves. I also wouldn't want classified information to be released. I also wouldn't trust your word that the CIA looked into it and decided the tapes weren't relevant. There have been too many instances where spy agencies engage in illegal activities and a legitimate lack of oversight by independent agencies. Until this is addressed I will have a problem.
FISA is to ensure that US persons are not collected on without a warrant. Period. That's why FISA warrants must be issued to collect on a US person. The oversight committees existed before FISA, I believe.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
FISA provides independent oversight (something that seems to be missing in this instance). I mentioned COINTELPRO because it is an example of illegal activities by spy agencies - an instance of the intelligence community overstepping their authority. A simple example of when the intelligence community failed. I know you are a smart person, can you not understand? I thought I made it clear why I mentioned COINTELPRO and FISA, I guess not. I did not mean that particular oversight committee (set up as a result of COINTELPRO among other transgressions) needs to look into it. I didn't even infer that. C'mon.FEOS wrote:
You clearly don't understand what FISA is. FISA would have ZERO applicability in these cases, as it is authorization to use the intelligence community to surveil specific targets who are US persons...which none of these knuckleheads are.
It doesn't provide "transparency" for anything.
Again, which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this case, as the individuals in question are not US persons.
I don't trust the CIA to police themselves. I also wouldn't want classified information to be released. I also wouldn't trust your word that the CIA looked into it and decided the tapes weren't relevant. There have been too many instances where spy agencies engage in illegal activities and a legitimate lack of oversight by independent agencies. Until this is addressed I will have a problem.
Particular oversight committees already look into these issues. That's why they exist. They police the CIA, NSA, and all the other intelligence agencies...to include the intel functions of each of the Military Departments.
It's not my word that says the CIA looked into it and decided the tapes weren't relevant. It is not just the CIA's, either. It is the DNI's, the House and Senate Intel and Select Intel Committees, and several others. The point is...it is already addressed and has been for quite some time.
So I guess you don't have a problem then, right?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The point is it was only the CIA who decided the tapes weren't relevant, when they stood accused of torture.FEOS wrote:
It's not my word that says the CIA looked into it and decided the tapes weren't relevant.
Destroying evidence use to be a serious issue.
Fuck Israel
Burn after reading.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is it was only the CIA who decided the tapes weren't relevant, when they stood accused of torture.FEOS wrote:
It's not my word that says the CIA looked into it and decided the tapes weren't relevant.
Destroying evidence use to be a serious issue.
