Criticizing DiFi is fine, but calling her a hypocrite due to the CIA thing is dumb.

[DanTex]

The CIA spying and/or trying to thwart a senate committee which is supposed to be overseeing it obviously a bad thing. And bringing this to light is not in any way equivalent to publicizing classified information that could put US operatives and operations at risk.

I have no problem with the argument that DiFi is too dismissive of privacy concerns when it comes to intelligence gathering. I'm actually not sure where I stand on the NSA/Snowden debate. Unfortunately, on DU, it has fallen into namecalling with little discussion of what the limits of intelligence operations should be, and where the line is between whistleblowing and compromising classified intel.

But, regardless of where anyone stands on those issues, I think everyone should agree that the CIA spying on the Senate is bad. And, people who think Snowden is a hero and the NSA should be abolished should be the most outraged by the fact that the CIA is spying on it's elected overseers. But instead, a lot of people are more interested in taking a cheap shot at DiFi than what is actually going in regards to oversight of intelligence operations.

[cali]

1. I'm glad she's speaking up but she's still corrupt. she's still

a corporate tool.

[FreakinDJ]

2. DiFi deserves every cheap shot she receives

[Iggo]

3. You know it's not either/or, right?

I can be pissed at the senator and still be pissed that the CIA is spying on the senate.

[jsr]

5. +1

[DanTex]

7. That's my point. Being pissed at her is fine, but that doesn't make her a hypocrite

for objecting to CIA spying on the senate.

[hobbit709]

13. She didn't object to any spying until she found out she was being spied on.

she's been a big fan of the security apparatchik.

[DanTex]

26. Not all "spying" is equal.

There are a lot of different forms and levels of intelligence gathering. Why does this discussion have to be reduced to slogans and one-liners?

[hobbit709]

32. spying on citizens without cause is never justified.

Having been exposed to security states in my life has made me adamant about it.

[Iggo]

14. She's upset that she's being spied on, but she's not upset that I'm being spied on.

Call it what you want.

[DanTex]

30. She's upset that the CIA is spying on elected officials that are supposed to be

investigating them. She's not upset that the NSA is gathering massive amount of data on citizens in its counterterrorism efforts.

Not all "spying" is equal. I can easily understand being opposed to both, and I can also understand being opposed to just one of them. They are different issues.

[bobduca]

21. Exactly. The OP is right that we not diminish the importance of her statement

but she's still a war-profiteering hypocrite, who happens to recognize the constitutional crisis.

[Romulox]

4. Senators have the same 4th Amendment rights as everyone else. No more, no less. nt

[Fumesucker]

8. Everyone's fourth amendment rights are equal

But some are more equal than others.

[Romulox]

12. Also, it's in bad taste to mention "hypocrisy". Not 'cause DiFi *isn't* a hypocrite, but because it

is gauche to remind her of that fact!

[Sgent]

45. There are special congressional privliges

especially when applied to the body as a whole, rather than individuals.

Constitutionally, congress enjoys:

Article 1, Section 5:3, the right to secrecy in their voting, debating, and investigating, upon their own initiative.
Article 1, Section 6, things said during debate cannot be challenged. This privilege as been expanded by the courts and congress to include their deliberations, including the functioning of their committees.
Article 1, Section 8:11-16 governing the right to regulate the military, military prisoners, etc.

Congress as a whole has when acting in official capacity, is given very, very broad powers and protections. They have the authority to review anything anywhere in federal government, secret or not. Congress as a whole can delegate that power to committees, which the delegate overseeing the CIA to the intelligence committee which was acting in its official capacity.

[Fumesucker]

55. The CIA begs (hah!) to differ

We shall see who owns whom...

[DanTex]

15. Not all "spying" is equal.

First of all, collecting bulk data is very different from hacking into or manipulating data on specific computers.

Second, senators are elected officials who are supposed to be overseeing intelligence activity. They are different from ordinary citizens in many ways. Spying on the senate doesn't and couldn't have anything to do with preventing attacks against the US, it's not just a question of the 4th amendment, it's also about separation of powers, etc.

[Romulox]

16. Legal cite? That's not a Constitutional argument. nt

[DanTex]

22. Legal cite for what?

That bulk intelligence collection is different than hacking into specific computers? That the CIA spying on elected officials that are investigating them is different from the NSA's counterterrorism programs?

You seriously disagree with any of this? Do you have a legal cite saying they are the same?

[Romulox]

27. You posit a special right for Senators not to be spied upon. There's only one 4th Amendment.

So from whence does this special right for Diane Feinstein not to be spied upon originate?

[DanTex]

31. I'm positing that not all "spying" is equal.

I don't see why this is so controversial or hard to understand. What the CIA (allegedly) did, and what the NSA does are completely different.

[Romulox]

33. There's no basis in the law for that, though. That's what I meant by asking for a cite.

If your argument is based on the Constitution, you haven't identified any special Constitutional Right a Senator has against being spied upon. And if your argument is based on Statute, you haven't identified any such statute.

[DanTex]

36. No basis in law for the fact that bulk gathering of metadata is different

from targeting a specific senate computer and modifying files on it? This is blindingly obvious.

Do you have a cite that says they are the same? Or a cite that supports your apparent belief that all activities should be considered identical even though they are drastically different?

[riderinthestorm]

39. If the CIA is breaking the law with Senators, why do you believe the NSA is only collecting metadata

It makes no sense to believe that one agency is dirty and the other agency is abiding by the law.

With the White House refusing to blast either agency, it looks as though the rot is very deep.

[randome]

46. So the Food and Drug Administration is guilty, too?

Okay, you only meant spy agencies, I suppose. Still, without evidence that an agency is actively breaking the law, how can you micro-manage everyone?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Romulox]

40. That's not how legal arguments work. No question hinged on you proving "but that's different!"

If you think that DiFi has a special right not to be spied upon, let's hear your theory. Otherwise, she's in the same boat with the rest of us.

[DanTex]

44. Wrong. If you think that collecting bulk metadata is the same as hacking into a specific computer

and modifying files, then the burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming they are similar.

The fact of the matter is that the NSA and the CIA did completely different things. Trying to lump them together under "spying" is silly.

[Romulox]

48. So...you got nothing. That's disappointing, actually. nt

[DanTex]

51. LOL. A time and tested way of admitting defeat...

[Romulox]

52. Uh, huh. I am patiently waiting for your theory to prove *your* OP.

[DanTex]

57. Good times. I guess my target audience was people that were

capable of holding more than one thought in their heads at the same time. Maybe I'll mention that next OP.

[Romulox]

59. You should just send your next OP straight to the Washington Post! Good stuff. nt

[DanTex]

63. Am I missing some conspiracy theory here? I don't keep track of all the loony stuff that you

apparently take for granted, so you'll forgive me if I don't follow...

[Romulox]

64. No. You just don't know what you're talking about, but want your opinion to settle the matter. nt

[DanTex]

66. Hey, maybe I'm part of the NSA too!

I kinda get where you're coming from. In a way it's fun to just ignore the facts and be outraged about everything!

[Romulox]

67. You want to convince people of your view, then do the hard work of forming an argument.

It was your OP, remember?

[DanTex]

71. Like I said, my target audience was people capable of holding more than one thought

in their mind at the same time. Wasn't trying to reach out to conspiracy nuts. But if I ever do, I'll PM you for some advice. Your expertise won't go unappreciated.

[Romulox]

72. You haven't convinced a soul in this thread with your top-of-your-head meanderings. nt

[DanTex]

75. So now you're a mind reader also. This is getting more fun by the post!

Anything else I should know? Voodoo? Palm reading?

[closeupready]

88. Nope. He sure hasn't. If anything,

he's following almost blow-per-blow the psy counter-ops misdirection strategy which someone talked about here just the other day. Maybe he's a Congressional staffer, or something? Who knows.

[Romulox]

90. Well spotted. nt

[riderinthestorm]

53. Then your OP is bullshit. You DO have a position on the NSA

That its operating legally.

[Romulox]

54. Somehow the default position is his OP is correct. Prove him wrong! nt

[DanTex]

58. No, I don't.

I'm saying that what the NSA did and what the CIA did are completely different. They might both be illegal, or just one of them. But there is no connection between the two, and no logical implication that just because one is illegal, the other must be also.

[Romulox]

60. But your OP was about how DiFi isn't a hypocrite. That's a lot different than "this MAY be illegal"

Your problem isn't that you don't have the guts to argue what you really want to argue: namely that NSA spying is OK, but that CIA spying is not. Since there is no basis in the law, common sense, or decency for that argument, you have devolved into name-calling.

[closeupready]

20. With a Congress as corrupt as ours, who cares if senators are

being spied on?

For average people, we already have an elected body that does not serve the interests of those who elected them; instead, they serve the interests of those who can give them cushy Board of Director jobs after they finish their terms, and those who can give their families lucrative contracts.

[DanTex]

25. Well, I care. Given that the only way the spy agencies can be limited

is by elected officials, I'd say it's pretty important.

[closeupready]

28. sounds good.

cheers.

[frylock]

89. oh that train sailed a long time ago

[Blue_Tires]

6. +1

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd have thought there would be some celebration for the breakthrough or congrats for DiFi finally 'seeing the light', but naturally Snowden/Greenwald and the like derp it up instead with their "Oh, so NOW it's a scandal!!!111!" snarky bullshit...

I'm starting to believe Snowden has been treating this whole thing like a game...

EDIT -- Cesca says it better than I could:

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/03/team-snowden-falsely-compares-cia-senate-scandal-with-ongoing-nsa-leaks/

[Cha]

95. snowden the hypocrite said she's a hypocrite so

it must be so.

[Autumn]

9. I agree. The CIA spying on the Senate is bad.

The NSA spying on Americans is bad. Now why is she upset at one and not the other? Seems to me both are unconstitutional.
I think she's a damn hypocrite because one bothers her and the other doesn't.
I don't know what the hell else you would call that and I'm fine with cheap shots at her.

[DanTex]

17. The CIA spying on the senate is bad for different reasons than the NSA is bad.

They are separate issues. Just because someone agrees with you on some issues and not on others doesn't make that person a hypocrite.

[Autumn]

29. So NSA spying on Americans is not a violation of our rights

but the CIA spying on the Senate is a violation of their rights. The people we elect to govern us are entitled to their rights but we aren't. I get what you are saying.
But see, I'm not fine with the CIA spying on them and I see no reason why they should be fine with the NSA spying on Americans.

CIA Spying and NSA spying. Both are being used to control. One she defends, one she is outraged about. Hypocrisy at it finest.

[randome]

47. Storing copies of phone metadata records is not 'spying' to most people.

Which is why they aren't in the street demanding change. Most of us see the metadata records as no big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

49. to most people.

To some of us it is, but to people like you it's fine and you do your best to insist that it's no big deal. Propaganda. That doesn't work on some of us.

[Rex]

92. It doesn't work on DU so when we see it, it is so obvious

to everyone what is going on. NSA and CIA apologists are obvious.

[riderinthestorm]

10. The CIA's illegalities with the Senate mirrors the NSA's illegalities with our civil rights

I have no problem believing that both intelligence agencies are fucking everyone over because they believe they operate on a whole separate playing field then we do.

I'm equally horrified at both but that DiFi is only upset when it comes to her?? Come on, she deserves it. She's looked the other way when it came to the NSA breaching our civil rights.

[DanTex]

19. No it doesn't.

The NSA issue is a question of the balance between privacy and security. The CIA issue involves an intelligence agency interfering and spying on elected officials that are supposed to be overseeing and investigating it.

Apples and oranges.

[closeupready]

24. Well, whatever. You're drawing a distinction that won't resonate.

Go have a parade where nobody comes, and see if it's covered in the news.

[randome]

38. Ha! Hold a protest over the NSA and see how many show up.

Most people don't equate copies of phone metadata records as 'spying'. OP is right.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[closeupready]

43. Obviously not, or else he would not have felt a need

to start a thread telling "DU" why it's "wrong".

[Fumesucker]

34. The fact that one spy agency is wildly out of control has no bearing on whether another one is also

So stop saying that..

[riderinthestorm]

35. If you can't see the overlap in what's wrong with what both agencies are doing

I'm not sure anyone could explain it then.

The Senate oversight committee's job investigating torture definitely involves national security since the blowback from those programs has been devastating. Much more devastating than the non-existent proof of any national security harm from Snowden's leaks. Obama's decision to close that door without any trials or investigation is/was seriously damaging.

That the CIA feels as though it can invade the privacy of the Senate committee investigating the torture and abuse in order to yank sensitive information is no different than the NSA feeling as though it has carte blanche to rifle through my computer and phone contents to grab material.

They are both very similar yet with some differences in my view.

Regardless the bottom line - the CIA and NSA obviously both feel as though they don't have to abide by the law.

[DanTex]

42. Well, the NSA doesn't have carte blanche to rifle through your computer and phone contents.

I guess the only way to explain the similarity is through falsehoods. Collecting bulk metadata is obviously different than not only examining but also modifying files on a specific computer. Beyond that is the fact that the CIA was doing this to elected officials who were tasked with investigating it. It was not in any way an anti-terrorism or security operation. It was a spy agency attempting to thwart the senate.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Then your OP is bullshit. You DO know where you stand on the NSA issue

that they aren't doing anything illegal.

So your entire premise IS based on something the rest of us don't believe about the NSA.

I also think it strains credulity to believe that if the CIA feels above the law, that the NSA isn't also criminally complicit. That the White House refuses to do anything meaningful about any of it makes them a party to it.

[DanTex]

56. What? Actually, no I don't know where I stand.

What I do know is that my opinions aren't based on false or exaggerated information about what the NSA is doing. I'm simply stating the fact that the NSA does not, in fact, have carte blanche to hack into, look at, and modify data on anyone's computer at any time they want for whatever reason they want. That's not an opinion.

I'm open to arguments that what the NSA is doing is overreach. In fact, I probably agree with that. On the other hand, I do think we need some kind of intelligence gathering. But, wherever we draw the line between privacy and security, what the CIA (allegedly) did is illegal.

[Romulox]

62. Every computer and phone in America has a NSA "back-door" key. Do try to keep up. nt

[DanTex]

77. Really, every computer has an NSA back door? Haven't heard that one before.

[Romulox]

80. Wow. Just a full court press of an argument you make! nt

[DanTex]

82. I was hoping for a link. I guess that would expose you to fact-checking though. Good call.

[riderinthestorm]

73. From Facebook to computers we've now been discovering the NSA has back doors

And if you don't think they aren't using them on Americans I have a bridge to sell you.

The bulk metadata collection has been used to drone people - that's a fact.

Clearly you don't see the big deal in bulk metadata collection (and haven't been paying attention to the other nonsense they're doing) and want to scold anyone who does, even as you admit there may be some NSA "overreach" (how polite!).

[jsr]

23. Feinstein didn't just look the other way. She actively defended them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinstein-defends-nsa-data-collection
Feinstein defends NSA data collection and insists program is 'not surveillance'
Democratic chair of Senate intelligence committee says in USA Today op-ed that NSA program has helped prevent terrorist plots
Paul Lewis in Washington
theguardian.com, Monday 21 October 2013 11.19 EDT

[riderinthestorm]

37. Very true. Thanks for this additional info nt

[Romulox]

41. Um, but that's *different*? In some way I can't elaborate on, of course... nt

[Downwinder]

78. Feinstein is not arguing for the 4th Amendment

she is arguing for separation of powers. She could care less about John Q. Public, but don't infringe upon her authorities.

[bemildred]

98. +1. nt

[closeupready]

11. Duh. This is DU, not some rocket scientist discussion board, lol.

Lots of stuff devolves into 'doodyhead!' 'am not!'

[JoeyT]

61. Actually, she became a hypocrite when she cited the 4th.

The 4th amendment doesn't grant her any more protections than it does you or me. She was fine with them spying on us, but now that they spied on her, the 4th is suddenly important again. Given her belief that the 4th amendment doesn't protect the little "people", hypocrite is actually one of the nicer things one can call her.

Yes, the CIA spying on the Senate is bad. Of course it is. What nut would think it wasn't? But it isn't unreasonable to point out the esteemed war profiteer is being hoist on her own petard, either.

[DanTex]

65. What the NSA does is completely different than what the CIA (allegedly) did.

It's an entirely consistent position to believe that collection of bulk metadata is constitutional, while hacking into a specific computer and examining and modifying data on it is not. You might disagree, and also consider the NSA's operations unconstitutional, but there is a vast difference between the two.

Besides, the 4th amendment is only part of the problem with the CIA's activities. There's also the issue of interfering with a senate investigation of it.

[Romulox]

69. Then make and defend the argument you only hint at:

namely, that:

It's an entirely consistent position to believe that collection of bulk metadata is constitutional, while hacking into a specific computer and examining and modifying data on it is not.

That's the argument you're trying to have, in a round about way. Only you have no legal (or logical, or moral) support for it. So...

[DanTex]

74. Well, all amendments are subject to interpretation, and no right is unlimited.

And since hacking into a specific computer and looking at, modifying, or removing files is far more intrusive than bulk metadata collection, then there is plenty of room for the line to be drawn between the two.

[Romulox]

76. "More intrusive" does not mean "violates the law and/or the Constitution,"

Obviously collecting meta-data is "more intrusive" than not collecting it all, and yet NSA spying is not (to your view) unconstitutional. For that reason, CIA spying being "more intrusive" than NSA spying can't possibly be the test for legality or Constitutionality.

there is plenty of room for the line to be drawn between the two.

Right, but the person making the argument (hint: you!) has to be the one to draw it. You say "that's different!" as if that settles the matter. It doesn't.

[DanTex]

81. There are (obviously) varying opinions on where the line should be drawn.

DiFi believes the line should be drawn in between the two. That is a consistent belief.

You apparently believe that the line should be drawn at zero. That is also a consistent belief.

The problem is, you can't seem to understand that there are other consistent beliefs besides your own.

[Romulox]

83. Right, but your OP seems to be drawing a bright line. What's the basis for it? nt

[DanTex]

84. I'm not drawing a bright line at all.

Quite the opposite. I am undecided about where the line should be drawn.

But DiFi is not, and neither are you. My point is that the simple fact that DiFi draws the line differently from you doesn't make her a hypocrite.

[Romulox]

85. You said, "calling her a hypocrite due to the CIA thing is dumb" (OP). Way to walk it back! nt

[DanTex]

86. Yes, calling her a "hypocrite" is dumb.

Calling her "wrong" is not dumb. But the fact that she draws the line differently than you doesn't make here a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy requires professing beliefs that are not consistent with one's own behavior. Her behavior is consistent with her beliefs. It's just not consistent with yours.

[Romulox]

91. A defensible argument requires more than a bunch of declarative sentences. nt

[DanTex]

93. I see. When you don't have a rebuttal, you go for non sequitur tangents about grammar...

[randome]

70. It wasn't very smart of her to mention that, to say the least.

But the NSA uses legal warrants so there's a big difference there.

Besides, we should be celebrating the fact that pretty much all of us think the CIA over-stepped and needs to be called to account for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[The Second Stone]

68. It is the job of Congress (and the government) to protect us

the citizens. They don't. They are very concerned with protecting themselves. They have excellent security and excellent privacy and excellent prosecutions when their turf is invaded. Our turf they don't give a damn. Feinstein is a hypocrite. And doesn't protect ordinary Americans. And I regularly vote for her because she is the lessor of two evils.

[Pholus]

87. :) She pays rent on two evils?

I know, you meant lesser. But the imagery was too interesting to not receive a comment!

[The Second Stone]

94. hehe! Good catch!

who knew the Lady DiFi was a slumlord?

[Pholus]

96. A slumlord.....of EVIL!!!

Heck, that might make a good movie. At least as good as Sharknado, right?

[The Stranger]

79. Unless you are CIA.

In which case, you're probably being paid to call her a hypocrite here.

[baldguy]

97. It's all part of the same neocon/RW libertarian/Teabagger "gubmint BAD!!" bullshit.