Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers 242
An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly accused the CIA of inappropriately searching computers used by her committee, violating presidential directives, federal laws and the Fourth Amendment. The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location for use by the members of the intelligence committee. When the committee staff received internal documents the CIA had not officially provided, the agency examined the computers used by the committee and removed the unauthorized documents. The action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution."
There were rumors of such a few weeks ago, and now it's official. Read the transcript of her speech.
NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.
I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?
I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have sympathy for her
I have absolutely no sympathy for that piece of shit.
She's a typical example of what is wrong with the government of the United States of America.
Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.
If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance, even if it means applauding someone who is typically not on our side, and whom we may find personally reprehensible.
Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?
Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it's at all out of order to take some pleasure in one of the most-pro NSA people in Congress being hoisted by her own petard. Is it wrong to take pleasure from the chickens coming home to roost for Feinstein... well maybe a little, but I just can't help myself.
Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, by all means take pleasure in it. But if you want to see things change keep your pleasure to yourself and back her protest. "Even my detractors are rallying behind me" is a powerful battle cry.
Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Back her protest?
No.
Back her opponent in the next primary. She is worse then useless.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely no reason you can't do both.
Is she worthy of backing?
Is her cause worth backing?
If your answers are "No" and "Yes", and you make that clear, then your support can be an even more powerful boon to the cause than the support of those who would happily follow her off a cliff. Not to mention informing her potential opponents in the next election as to which issues are actually important to you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only so much time in the day. Violations abound.
Supporting 'her cause' supports her implicitly. Just because her clock is stopped at the current correct time, doesn't mean you should in any way make it look good.
Re: (Score:3)
Her cause, so far as I can tell, is to stop Federal spooks from spying on her. It does not appear to be stopping Federal spooks from spying on anybody beyond the rarefied circles of Congress.
Feinstein is the problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Feinstein is a liar and has mislead the American people on countless occasions about NSA spying and has been in lock step with the emerging police state. this is a distraction from the real constitutional violations that she has been complicit in covering up.
She deserves every insult, every invective and our complete contempt. And even more so for this latest charade and false indignation. If anything this just shows that not even the CIA respects her.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.
Attacking people is no way to win an argument yet it communicates a useful function for the purpose of filtering out noise.
While a crackpot might on occasion say something true is it really worth your time to wade through all of their garbage to scrape a few grains of sanity from the bottom of the pan?
If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance
She is like all of the other power hungry whackos ... she does not care unless it effects her personally...I'm not going to applaud her for that.
Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?
The problem with just supporting any statement from anyone who s
Re: (Score:3)
Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being
She only does the job when it effects her personally and her power. Does the office monkey who only does any work while the boss is watching deserve a positive review? I believe the CIAs actions were wrong. My only disagreement is with assigning credit to Feinstein for not sleeping while the boss is looking her way.
I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?
Each time without exception someone has used the words "I take it" to describe a position I have never asserted they get it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments.
Can't we do both?
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate, or is name-calling all you have in your wheelhouse?
Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...because she's callous and domineering? ...because people in this country like that kind of leadership so long as it is hidden behind a fake smile, decorum, and a few ginned up talking points to drool over?
Liz Cheney Syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we are the little people and she is the ruling class. We only matter to gain her more power and make her husband more money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.
Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To be clear, they are absolutely hacking her personal email, no doubt about it.
I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who gets illegally wiretapped -- except for people like Feinstein who openly call for practically everyone (except her) to be illegally wiretapped. She deserves it; the rest of us don't.
ewww (Score:2)
ewwww
I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who's boss made them read about her personal life. Many times more so if there were pictures!
Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that its the same Senator who argued how necessary to national security the NSA surveillance programs are after the Snowden leaks.
Hypocrisy at its finest; curb stop my constituents 4th amendment rights and thats all fine, but violate my rights and look out!
I'd like to think she might learn something from this, but I doubt she will.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.
I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?
It's worse than that - this is a fundamental breakdown of Congressional power that's leading to a dictatorial Presidency.
It's just fine by her when the executive branch unilaterally changes things like statutory Affordable Care Act deadlines, because it suits her political purposes.
It's fine by her to give the DNI a pass when he perjures himself in congressional testimony, because it suits her political purposes.
It's fine by her when the President makes "recess" appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was
Animal Farm (Score:4, Insightful)
Because she - being a very wealthy Senator - is more equaler than the rest of us.
Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
said the CIA had searched through computers belonging to staff members investigating the agency’s role in torturing detainees, and had then leveled false charges against her staff in an attempt to intimidate them. “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause,” she said. “It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.”
From the intercept [firstlook.org].
The intelligence community blackmailing the people who are supposed to have oversight of the intelligence community is probably at least a little more dangerous than the intelligence community spying on it's citizens. If for no other reason that the former prevents the latter from being solved. Pruning the CIA and NSA back to appropriate levels will require congressional action, and that's likely exactly what the CIA and/or NSA is trying to stop with these actions.
Re: (Score:3)
I only disagree when you get to "now she does". I don't believe that to be true. I think she only objects to their spying upon her and her staff. I would be quite happy were she to prove me wrong.
Frist Snowden! (Score:2)
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.
I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Informative)
The hypocritical Senator's own word, for our enjoyment. Pass the popcorn.
The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America [wsj.com]
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 13, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET
Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency's call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer: The program—which collects phone numbers and the duration and times of calls, but not the content of any conversations, names or locations—is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program [usatoday.com]
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 20, 2013 6:22 p.m. EDT
The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.
The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone checked her Ox lately? I think it probably has some holes in it.
Re: (Score:3)
And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.
I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"
This is the same woman who is one of the strongest supporters of gun control while she herself has one of the few concealed carry licenses in California. I don't think she even considers hypocrisy something to be ashamed of.
Re: (Score:2)
US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.
Someday, people will learn what "traitor" means in the USA. But probably not soon.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is probably true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
My cat as well... (Score:3)
Though one must convert all output to PETSCII
Schadenfreude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe a bit too cynical there, but hey, can'
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't snooping (Score:2)
It was Freedom Filing. Murka!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, according to CIA, it was them attempting to retrieve stolen documents.
Citation: Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
Wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
Feinstein is Chair on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence! That she doesn't know what the CIA, NSA, or anyone else is doing with regard to surveillance, or is kept out of the loop on purpose, or hasn't pulled any muscle to reign it in, speaks volumes to what exactly her position in the committee does.
Quick jab... but sure as hell, when it comes to copyright and the media cartels, her power seems endless.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone knows there's no intelligence in the senate.
CIA computers (Score:5, Informative)
As I read it, the CIA searched their own computers that were made available to the Senate Committee, looking for documents that were not supposed to be made available or publicly released. For whatever reason (probably a CIA screw-up) someone on the committee found those documents and blabbed about them.
Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers. It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint, but given the amount of hysteria around leaks these days it doesn't surprise me that the CIA thought they had a bigger problem than just one of their own inadvertently releasing documents that should not have been.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No we are not being unfair to Feinstein. Secrect committees and secret courts monitoring secret agencies about what secret data they are collecting in their secret facilities; isn't a workable model on the scale we are trying to do it.
Sure state craft requires some secrets and shadows, but democracy in the form a functioning republic needs a lot a sunshine. We have been trying to get people like her to understand we have gone way way way to far with this crap. We have created a monster "We the people" ca
Uh OH (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:3)
CIA searched the CIA's own computers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From what I read you're misreading it. The CIA agreed to put a bunch of its own stuff on its own computers for the Senate to look at, under the written agreement that they would let the Senate do its investigation without interference. Apparently, at one point they (the CIA and apparently 3rd party public contractors) started removing documents from the secure computers in violation of that agreement. That was what you were referring to, and that alone would be the CIA searching and hiding stuff from the
Wait... (Score:2)
They visit a secret "undisclosed CIA location", use PCs that are "provided" for them by the CIA, then are surprised that the CIA knows what's on them?
If I walk over to my friend's house, he lets me borrow his PC, I write a nasty email criticizing my friend, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he somehow found out what I'd written.
The biggest big government police state lover... (Score:2)
The biggest big government police state lover Swinestein is mad at the evil police state she helped create?
Why so serious.... (Score:2)
Snoop my ass (Score:2)
I am so sick of the word "snooping." Snooping is what you do when you're twelve years old and you peek in mom and dad's closet to see what you're getting for Christmas. What the government does is called "spying," or "gaining illegal access" or "hax0ring ur boxen." It is not "oh you little scamp, doing your snooping tee hee!" It's FUCKING SPYING.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to tell (Score:2)
It's easy to tell if they someone has been going through the private pictures on her computer. Check the log of their sick days. I don't care what kind of torture resistance training they have been through. Nobody has a stomache that strong!
Good!! (Score:2)
This needed to be public (Score:5, Informative)
The CIA did something wrong. The Senate opened an investigation. The CIA accidentally sent them incriminating information, then deleted some after it had already been reviewed. The CIA agreed not to delete any more, then did it again. The Senate put some of this incriminating information into their official report and moved evidence to a secure location. The CIA didn't much care for that and started an investigation into how they got it, trumped up accusations of criminal conduct and have refused to accept the legitimate oversight role of the Senate. Hate Feinstein all you want, but don't dismiss this illegitimate action by the CIA because she's no angel herself.
TL;DR (Score:2)
For those that didn't read the article, there are a few important points to clarify:
Feinstein's staff is being (falsely) accused of hacking/spying on CIA since they got their hands on some documents the CIA did not want them to have: namely the CIA's own internal investigation of the documents being released to the senate investigation. It seems like the "search tool" provided to the senate staff picked up more than the CIA thought it would. The staffers smartly made their own copy of these docs (as previou
This isn't spying, it's evidence tampering.... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the outset, let's look at the moral of the story: You can't trust spies or spy agencies. Especially not the way the Senator has consistently told us we should trust the NSA.
The "CIA computers" were part of a document production system provided by the CIA pursuant to a Senate Committee subpoena. It contained CIA documents responsive to the Senate subpoena in electronic form instead of paper copies. The document depository was run by private contractors. That's not really that unusual.
Apparently, when the CIA found out they had turned over to the Senate Committee a CIA draft report that was particularly harmful to the CIA's position, the draft report "disappeared" from the computerised document depository. The senior Senator from California believes the CIA caused it to disappear.
It's like erasing portions of White House tapes that had been subpoenaed a la Nixon. Just because it was done by the CIA doesn't mean it was spying, merely criminal tampering with a federal investigation. That's all.
Trust the CIA and the NSA. They will never over-reach or break the law.
sorry (Score:2)
Sorry Sen Feinstein, we'd come to help you but you took all our guns away
It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Informative)
That asshole's name is Dianne Feinstein, a staunchly pro-NSA, pro-BIG BROTHER senator.
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:4)
If she's attacking the CIA, she's probably a terrorist. Better cuff her and get her on a plane to Gitmo. Better safe than sorry when it comes to national security.
I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Interesting)
I say it's time to double-down
You gotta understand that assholes like Dianne Feinstein doesn't think like us.
She thinks she's in the 0.1% elite, and for that, she ought to have the immunity from the same BIG BROTHER that she has thrown her support for.
As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.
I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Informative)
As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.
I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.
Personally I blame California.
Re: (Score:2)
if only the people could vote to change... the name.
Diebold... (Score:4, Informative)
Any other questions?
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Northern California voters are beyond stupid. They'll unthinkingly vote for anyone who is "Democrat" even if he bankrupted the state twice already or if she has already been a downright awful senator for 3 or 4 terms already.
It's not that they'll vote for anybody that is a Democrat, but rather against anybody who is a Republican. No matter how bad their guy is, they're still better than the other guy's guy. I see the same thing for people voting for Republicans in OK. So long as they're not a democrat, they think they'll come out ahead.
Happens Everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately. People are either stupid or easily influenced. Part of it is probably the propaganda bombardment they get during and leading up to elections. Hell politicians don't even bother with that anymore, they campaign 100% of the time now.
I have a friend who I would consider otherwise intelligent, however I could not believe his political leanings. Basically voting against his best interests. Political parties also seem to tend to create these fictional realities that people buy into. Ideologies that they proport, but never really live up to. I think the big problem is, anyone that closely follows politics would easily see through the lies, however most are so disinterested in politics, so apathetic about their vote being more less meaningless, that most don't vote, and those that do don't really pay enough attention to even make an informed decision. Also there are social status that comes into play, voting for Conservatives/Republicans means you must be part of the wealthy elite (even though your really not).
Anyway I mean the guy in question is in a Union, and when I said that voting for Conservatives in Canada was counter to his best interests because they are anti-union he didn't believe me. His impression was that the Conservatives loved Unions and they had never ever done anything to Unions in the past. Some of the first things they did once elected were to break several Unions and force settlements, all under the guise of "for the sake of the economy" etc...
Anyway I know a few that are informed, and swing Conservative because they believe in certain factual things, which I can respect, however most seem to just spit ideology and rhetoric, most of which is meaningless as fed to them, and seem more than happy to vomit it up over anyone else close enough to listen.
Also not to generalize, but Old People. They tend to pay about as much attention (which is none), however are much more dangerous because most of them do vote. Most of them vote very consistently, and will proudly say that they have been Conservative for 30 years. Never mind that the Conservative party they are used to voting for has little resemblance to the one that exists today. They are not voting for someone, or something, but an idea of what they think a party is. Which is why in a rather cynical move the Conservatives apparently amended a bill recently to attempt to reduce the number of younger voters (as they more often than not do not vote Conservative). Anyway haven't really looked up the details for that one yet, but I wouldn't doubt it given their past machinations.
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:4, Interesting)
As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.
I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.
I didn't vote for her. I voted for somebody else. Yet Feinstein was just, in 2012, reelected with the most votes any senator has ever received, ever. [politico.com]
I think humans are defective. Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world. Democracy is a terrible idea for a country as large as the United States. It's better than any other idea we've tried so far, but there are just too many voices demanding too much attention for it to work well.
So, humans simplify. Most people stick to the 2 parties that they hear about the most. The media talk about the 2 parties that pay them the most. The major party candidates listen to the donors who donate the most. Larry Lessig hopes that campaign finance reform will fix democracy, [lwn.net] but humans still need simplified choices.
I think humans can't reasonably manage something as large as the United States. The federal government needs to be scaled way down, or the United States split up, so more local decisions can be made about local issues. But, again, humans are defective, and for example people in New York are personally offended at the local education decisions made in Texas, so the federal government just keeps growing.
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world.
The Representative Democracy our founding fathers intended did not have this issue. The issue began when the Federal government grew beyond its scope. Federal spending is now about equal to the total combined spending of State and Local governments (a little larger now, actually.) This is very far removed from the intentions of our founding fathers. Good intentions was the excuse for the massive amount of violence used to overthrow the States as primary governing bodies.
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, she is in the 0.1% elite and got her money the true American way by inheritance, marriage, and political corruption: ... and here:
"On January 20, 1980, in San Francisco, California, finance capitalist Richard C. Blum (born in 1936) and the ambitious Democratic Party politician Dianne Feinstein (born 1933) were married in a wedding ceremony at San Francisco City Hall. This marriage created a family economic and political alliance that in a little over a decade would allow them to become the top power couple in the state of California with a place on the national and world stages. They remain at the pinnacle of power today, he as a billionaire financier, speculator, real estate executive and deal maker; she as the senior Senator (California’s highest federal official), from the largest and most powerful state in the United States. They exemplify power as it is now wielded in the higher circles of the class system of the U.S. today, and illustrate well the dismal results of this system. This system is best characterized as a plutocratic kleptocracy, completely lacking in authentic democracy, operated by and for corporate racketeers, in short, a dictatorship of big capital, the top 1% of wealth holders, which makes up a ruling class. "
More background here:
http://www.foundsf.org/index.p... [foundsf.org]
http://www.revolutimes.com/201... [revolutimes.com]
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit! Congress happily gave Federal agencies powers to spy on virtually every human being on the planet, so they can fucking well live on the same sphere we do.
Don't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, Feinstein? Well, a big "fuck you" from the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
If only that achieved anything.(not sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
We are all equal but some of us are little more equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a little? Time to paint a few more updates on the side of that barn...
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:4, Informative)
They don't even bother hiding it anymore. She routes millions to her husband and nobody cares.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he got it right. She wants freedom from CIA snooping. I think that's good for all of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, she really is fucking nuts and a huge hypocrite. As if the gun control and now governmental spying hypocrisy weren't enough to clue you into that, consider her stance on drones. She was all for more drones... until Code Pink was flying (read: constantly crashing) a cheap $25 remote control helicopter near her house in protest. So, Feinstein made up this whole dramatic story about how there was these huge drones spying on her and peeking in her windows and it scared her so much that she totally went the
Re: (Score:2)
She's crazy. She's a liar. She's a hypocrite.
Sound like a real politician and a real good one.
Sure, I'm the idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
And so the NRA's smear campaign continues to influence idiots like you
I am a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.
I am an American who treasure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and am willing to do anything and everything to protect my country from traitors such as that asshole Feinstein.
If doing so makes me an "idiot", so be it, and I hope that America has more "idiots" like me than "geniuses" such as your kind.
NRA and ACLU?? (Score:2)
While I personally agree with the stated mission of both of those organizations aren't they just going to cancel each other out, spending most of your membership dues on campaign donations on opposite sides from one another?
Re:NRA and ACLU?? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ACLU isn't anti second amendment. They just don't actively support that particular civil liberty.
Both the NRA and the ACLU are pro-civil liberty organizations. Between them, they support (as much as realistically possible) the whole constitution. The NRA is the United States oldest civil liberty organization.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was always both.
Granting it had to step up when idiots started to gain power.
Re:It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.
Oh I wish (Score:2)
Oh I wish somebody would run a "spear" campaign against her. If you meant "smear" campaign though you are right. Just give her a microphone and let her do it herself.
Re: (Score:2)
Touch typing and hand injuries just don't mix. It's a lot of effort just to type this well.
As a card carrying member of the NRA (Score:2)
Please know that we 3 Senator Feinstein. There is no need to smear her. She smears her stupidity all across her face.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope I never live in a world where you can't even trust the CIA to be honest with you.
Re: (Score:2)
She is a very wealthy Democrat in a district that will always vote Democrat. The only one who can unseat her would be another Democrat in the primary, but the DNC powers that be would never allow it. Luckily she is quite old, so should die or retire soon. Either is fine with me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see now.
Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.
And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?
Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the populace who are supposed to oversee and authorize the government. The populace can hardly effectively oversee the government when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Every once in a while an AC says something salient. Case in point:
the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.
It seems like Feinstein has adequately demonstrated that she is incapable of doing her current Senate assignments. Is there a procedure to force her out of her chairmanship for cause, where cause is obvious incompetence?
Can a Senator like Feinstein be impeached?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, not only that, but on CIA territory:
The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location
So, you go visit the CIA, you sit down at a CIA computer, and you expect they are not monitoring its use ? I wouldn't expect that when going to any client site let alone a f***ing intelligence agency.
What next ? She going to complain that the CIA computer also intercepted messages sent to someone in the Ecuadorian embassy in London ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, somehow, no one else needs that same right?
Re: (Score:2)