Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Democrats United States

CIA Accused: Sen. Feinstein Sees Torture Probe Meddling 187

Posted by timothy
from the taking-the-heat-off-that-other-agency dept.
SternisheFan writes with this news from the Washington Post: "In an extraordinary public accusation, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee declared on Tuesday that the CIA interfered with and then tried to intimidate a congressional investigation into the agency's possible use of torture in terror probes during the Bush administration. The CIA clandestinely removed documents and searched a computer network set up for lawmakers, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a long and biting speech on the Senate floor. In an escalating dispute with an agency she has long supported, she said the CIA may well have violated criminal laws and the U.S. Constitution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIA Accused: Sen. Feinstein Sees Torture Probe Meddling

Comments Filter:
  • power (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BradMajors (995624) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @10:42PM (#46460799)

    We will see who is more power, Congress or the CIA. The answer will be the CIA.

  • by coaxial (28297) on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @12:04AM (#46461107) Homepage

    Personally, I find it unlikely that the CIA would do something so ham handed and transparent. And yet, since the War on Terror and the idea that anything goes when the people you're drowning don't wear matching hats, the CIA and the entire IC has lost all credibility, that I can't dismiss the allegation.

    That said, Feinstein is a out of touch 80 year-old that thinks mass surveillance is cool [latimes.com], but at the same time gets upset when the IC spies on allies (like everyone else does) [theguardian.com], and when spy on her [nytimes.com].

    As a Democrat and a Californian, I say Fuck Feinstein.

  • by s.petry (762400) on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @12:58AM (#46461243)

    Except it's not "for the good of the country", that's just the rhetorical propaganda used constantly. It is usually for the good of themselves, followed by their kind. Plenty of documentation exists in this regard, such as passing laws contrary to their election platform to generate campaign contributions. Worse in my opinion is using tax money to set up and run fund raisers, like Obama has done on every single trip he has ever taken to California where he does nothing else.

    It's hard for people to see the rhetoric as propaganda since it's repeated all the time. I know many people that are happy to see Obama come to the SF Bay area 4 times a year to set up 20K plus a plate dinners, because they think he's working on his 1 day junkets. Why? Because the TV media refuses to discuss it or tell people what he's really doing for the most part. Our "Talk" radio stations discuss it but, well, it's talk radio and has a select audience.

    Anyway, I don't think you are necessarily wrong but neither was the person you responded to. Pretty much, everything these people do is for self benefit and self preservation. They will use any sales pitch that works toward that end and they will continue until people wise up. I believe people are catching on to whats happening.

  • by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @02:31AM (#46461503) Journal

    Eh it's a little more complicated than that. The autobiography of John Rizzo (General Counsel, CIA) after he retired basically states that the CIA made a tactical decision after Iran Contra to stop getting involved in stuff. Then Sep-11 happened.

    As the CIA had literally no other intel than a couple of hard nosed al queda birds, it decided that it needed to torture people to save lives.

    Funny thing is it probably did save lives. But the ends do not always justify the means. And really it shows just how the CIA dropped the ball....

  • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @07:45AM (#46462575) Journal

    No, she didn't.

    Blowing hot air on the Senate floor during the absence of a quorum isn't "going nuclear" - it's blowing hot air in order to generate headlines.

    She's the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Going nuclear would be issuing Congressional subpoenas to Agency officials to be sworn in and testify in front of her committee in open hearings, which she has complete power to do. But, you don't do that unless you have a little thing called "evidence" - doing so would just make her look like even more of a complete jackass, if that's even possible.

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Working...