Senators Demand CIA Director Admit He Lied About Spying On Senate Computers 148
blottsie writes with a link to a story at The Daily Dot which begins: CIA Director John Brennan lied when he denied ordering agency employees to search Senate computers to trace a leak. Frustrated with his unwillingness to admit the obvious, three Senate Democrats on Friday called on Brennan to admit that his agency crossed the line. The Senate Intelligence Committee was preparing a report on the CIA's Bush-era torture programs when the spy agency discovered that the committee had somehow acquired an internal CIA report on the program. To determine how the report had leaked, Brennan ordered CIA officers to pry into the computers used by committee staffers. The heart of the story is in the letter in which the Senators call for Brennan to 'fess up, also linked from the story. Drawing from that letter: When you were asked publicly about the CIA's search in March 2014, you denied that any improper access had occurred, stating that "As fas the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, that's -- that's just beyond the -- you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we could do." The reports of both the Inspector General and your review board demonstrate that this denial was at odds with the facts.
In June 2014, senior officials from the FBI, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all testified that it would be inappropriate for their agencies to secretly search Senate files without external authorization. To date, however, there has been no public acknowledgement from you or any other CIA official (outside the Office of Inspector General) that this search was improper, nor even a commitment that the CIA will not conduct such searches in the future. This is entirely unacceptable.
In June 2014, senior officials from the FBI, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all testified that it would be inappropriate for their agencies to secretly search Senate files without external authorization. To date, however, there has been no public acknowledgement from you or any other CIA official (outside the Office of Inspector General) that this search was improper, nor even a commitment that the CIA will not conduct such searches in the future. This is entirely unacceptable.
Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how the spying is only bad when it's done against politicians. Against the plebes, it's perfectly fine. I'm shedding so many crocodile tears for them.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to realize though, that those congressmen are our constitutional representatives. They represent the power of the people in this democracy. If the CIA can get away with spying on Senate computers then that's it. They really are above the law. They can literally do any damn thing they want to. It's kind of like Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. The CIA director should get his dick stomped on. In fact 2 or 3 years in jail for him would do the country a world of good. If no one gets in trouble for this then you can mark it as official. The Republic is dead, all we have is a farce.
Re: (Score:3)
No one of any importance will get in trouble for it.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're putatively our representatives, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they actually aren't in any way representing us. Perhaps it's time for us to all stop pretending that the emperor is wearing clothes and get about fixing our system.
Anyway, they're currently in the process of renewing a law which supposedly authorizes spying on US citizens (while simultaneously complaining about being spied on), so the constitutional basis of any of this is questionable. Pretending that throwing a bureaucrat in jail, even if he is high ranking, will save our republic is a little silly.
re: (Score:2)
The world is always changing and always will be. It will always be a power struggle between various groups and if you quit, you loose. Look at German culture in current times. Parliament has many glass windows to represent 'if you want know what we are doing, come and look inside' (as it was described to me when I did a tour of the city). The vast majority praise Snowden for doing the right thing.
There is corruption in all systems and a lot in America. You need to fight it and get behind this call for the t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The precedent that's being renewed here is that it's all well and good to fuck with the common people, but doing the same to VIPs is unacceptable. It's funny that you mention Germany, as this exact same scenario played out there when Merkel was completely fine with German citizens being spied on, but threw a shit fit when it surfaced that she was being spied on as well.
The only outcome of this is the further solidification of our two-tier society where different rights exist for the ruling class and the hoi polloi.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not like Congress, hell you might not even like your representative but most people do. Individual senators and rep's have approval ratings in the 60-90% (very high) range with their constituency. The overall congressional approval rating is so low because everyone doesn't like the people everyone else picked, not because they hate their own.
This is something pretty scary. The CIA basically violated the separation of powers and ignored and actively opposed congressional oversight. These are prime tenets of our system. Throwing those checks and balances and oversight out and we are one step away from a dictator running things out the CIA office. Government leaders can't just decide they are going to stop worrying about those constitutional limits on power and doing whatever they want.
The most infuriating part of this is that Congress already has the power to punish him. They CAN hold him in contempt and refer him for prosecution for lying under oath. The problem is they won't, because that could endanger national security or some such bullshit. So they write a stupid letter and ask him to admit he broke the law while they wag their finger at him when they should be voting to hold him in contempt.
In summary, though this is a huge concern I have a hard time getting worked up about it when Congress won't use the power it already has to punish him for lying and breaching the separation of powers. Hell, they could de-fund his position and bar the government from paying him a salary if they wanted to be real dicks. They have numerous ways to punish him but they won't and that's the scariest thing of all. Someone breached a basic tenet of our government, lies to Congress and invalidates congressional oversight and the people with the power to punish him won't do it.
Re: (Score:1)
The most infuriating part of this is that Congress already has the power to punish him. They CAN hold him in contempt and refer him for prosecution for lying under oath. The problem is they won't, because that could endanger national security or some such bullshit. So they write a stupid letter and ask him to admit he broke the law while they wag their finger at him when they should be voting to hold him in contempt.
If they punished him, it would set a precedent that the powerful could be held accountable for their actions. We can't have that.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got to realize though, that those congressmen are our constitutional representatives. They represent the power of the people in this democracy
I think the OP is referring to the fact that the NSA lied to Congress and the American people when asked about spying, not on Congress, but on the American people:
(watch for yourself [youtube.com])
Some Republicans have said He should be fired [washingtonpost.com]. Obama said he misspoke [rt.com].
One might think he should have been arrested [youtube.com]. Instead, they arrested the lawyer who asked him why he lied. [investmentwatchblog.com].
We've seen this double-standard applied recently-- no one arrested for torture except the CIA Whistleblower [democracynow.org]. Leakers getting huge sentences unless their rank is high enough [theguardian.com].
If the CIA can get away with spying on Senate computers then that's it. They really are above the law.
They've gotten away with much much worse already. (I started adding links but there are hundreds of them...)
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:4, Funny)
You're talking about Clapper's NSA lying to Congress about spying on US citizens. That's blown over and nobody cares about that. This story is about Brennan's CIA spying on Senators. This is a totally different situation and is completely unforgivable.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, one person was forced to retire.
Re: (Score:2)
In June 2014, senior officials from the FBI, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all testified that it would be inappropriate for their agencies to secretly search Senate files without external authorization.
How do the Senators know that he lied? For all we know, they could just have used the webcam on their PC to watch some of the Senators having sex with their interns. And they could just be key logging everything, recording every sound they could, and also recording live screencasts from their computer screens.
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
enhanced interrogations
Stop using the CIA's euphemisms - it's called torture.
Re: (Score:1)
You've got to realize though, that those congressmen are our constitutional representatives. They represent the power of the people in this democracy. If the CIA can get away with spying on Senate computers then that's it. They really are above the law. They can literally do any damn thing they want to. It's kind of like Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. The CIA director should get his dick stomped on. In fact 2 or 3 years in jail for him would do the country a world of good. If no one gets in trouble for this then you can mark it as official. The Republic is dead, all we have is a farce.
That? Not illegal wars, not limitless bribery of public officials dressed up as "free speech"? Not mass incarceration for nothing, modern slavery, and the systematic murder of prisoners? THIS is what "killed" the republic for you? Not the fleecing of the American people, or the hoovering-up of wealth by people who need it the least? Not minimum wages that decrease over time due to inflation, the destruction of the environment, all the greedy bastards basically being allowed to "regulate" themselves, or
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how the spying is only bad when it's done against politicians. Against the plebes, it's perfectly fine. I'm shedding so many crocodile tears for them.
I think this was a lot worse.
The public keeps the senate in line and the Senate keeps the CIA in line. When the CIA oversteps its bound the Senate is the club the public uses to knock them back in line.
When the CIA spies on the Senate they're trying to take away your club.
You at least have the option of voting out a bad Senate, how do you vote out a bad CIA?
Re:Boohoo, crocodile tears. (Score:5, Insightful)
You at least have the option of voting out a bad Senate, how do you vote out a bad CIA?
I can? Since when? Big money and incumbent advantage makes this highly unlikely in almost all but very few cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
If the people were really upset, they would remove the senator. The problem is most people either don't pay enough attention to care or don't hold the same opinions as you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, really. This is well-documented fact.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's well documented excuses for why less popular people lost elections or attempts to oust senators.
I have yet to see any fact on the subject that isn't basically an opinion going on a pity party.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those facts don't disagree with anything I have said. Again, the problem you are facing is that not enough people care about whatever it is that you care about or have different opinions on the outcome / position.
It's even more likely that even people who do care - care about something else even more and don't mind whatever if it in any way pushes what they do care about. Look at the TEA parties for instance. They are breaking up the establishment strong holds and are vilified by both sides and most of the
Re: (Score:2)
That's a guarantee not to win.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Swap out the people enforcing them (elected & un-elected) at far higher frequency.
3. Understand that corruption is a cost of doing business, and can only be managed, not "solved". And that by applying 1. and 2.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the only ones who can stop the CIA.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how the spying is only bad when it's done against politicians. Against the plebes, it's perfectly fine. I'm shedding so many crocodile tears for them.
It really is worse though. For example, it means that the NSA owns the politicians, because they have career-ending blackmail material on them. Observe the politicians being incredibly pissed off at the NSA, but not doing anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. And while I agree it shouldn't have been done, I'm significantly LESS concerned with the *government* looking at *government* computers used by *government* employees than I am with the government spying on people without probable cause who are *not* their employees and on computers that they do *not* own.
Re: (Score:1)
FUCK the Government, look at them on TV... they're all LIARS.
But...but... (Score:5, Funny)
If you have nothing to hide, dear Senators...why worry about it?
Re: (Score:1)
They did not just look at the senate computers. They deleted files that they did not want the senate committee to see. If there hadn't been separate backups and printouts (and that's actually lucky since the computer administration was in CIA hands), the stuff would have been gone and you'd only hear "Panetta report? Never heard of such a thing. Are you sure you have not dreamt it?".
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah like how they are going to keep renewing the heinous Patriot Act.
Re: Consequences (Score:1)
Fuck you, brownshirt.
Re: (Score:1)
Congresscritters versus intelimals (Score:2)
Well mister vocal congressman, it would be a shame for this (fabricated or not) evidence of your (pick one.. drug use, homosexual activity, pedophilia, adultours wife, illegal contributions), to become public wouldn't it?
Wonder who wins....
Re: (Score:1)
If it's a democrat, it likely wouldn't matter unless his last name is Weiner and the press won't let it go. It's the republicans who will demand someone fall on their sword for misdeeds. The dems seem to think it makes them "regular people" or something and don't bother so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, he lied. Why not? Congress is a bunch of spineless whores, there to grub up the money and do what they're told by whichever puppetmaster has his hand shoved up their ass at the moment.
Besides, what are they going to do about it? Make another speech? So what?
They can defund the CIA or particular CIA programs if they want. If there's one thing the CIA hates about Congress, it's the fact that they have to get a new budget from them every year--they can't plan multi-year operations without having contingencies for different funding levels, etc...
Most of Congress may be spineless, and all of it pretends to be spineless, but it is not powerless.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh joy - so they will have to turn back to their old ways of raising funds like selling weapons to terrorists (North and Hezbolla) or drug running.
Any solution is going to require extra funding for incarceration of those that choose to continue to act against the state - the sort of thing that used to be called treason before it got more narrowly defined.
As an example there is an astonishing amount of effort being put in by these spooks to suppo
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking that the Saudis deliberately lowering oil prices to hurt US based production is a delusional fantasy. It's just that OPEC cannot currently dictate [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As for the second - I did not say OPEC, I was referring to the situation where the market is being flooded to drive down the price as Saudi policy and not OPEC policy. Iran and Venezuela were not a threat to them before - this is about trying to halt new producti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they had a set of balls between them they'd send the motherfucker to jail where he belongs. They don't and they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
3 senators just stood up against the cia.
And demanded he admit he lied? That's quite toothless.
Re: (Score:2)
3 Senators can do jack shit when at least 90 more will do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Great joke. This is going to change nothing.
Fess Up? (Score:2)
He should fucking resign, as should most of the old retards who occupy the halls of congress. It was their blind eye that led to the situation of torture being used in the first place.
Everything will be OK. (Score:2)
If they continue to push this, then Brennan will resign and then they'll tell us that everything will be OK.
Then we'll get a new head of the CIA.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
these same senators don't hesitate to trample all over it.
and then back up over the victim, just to make sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm all for civil liberties, but we can't even begin to have a conversation about those if one agency is refusing to even be accountable to its overseers. This is/was a bigger deal. This is "dad beat me, and when I told mom, he killed her." You don't say "boo hoo" to that, you say "holy shit."
Re: (Score:2)
He will admit it, and regret it! (Score:1)
After he gets a book deal. Then the confessions will fly. Standard procedure...
Senators Demand... (Score:2)
OMG,
"Senators Demand CIA Director Admit He Lied About Spying On Senate Computers"
What if the senator is demanding the CIA director lie?
If he did lie make a case and charge him.
The senators should simply demand honesty.
However N.B. the senate and congress passed laws with little audit and oversight.
Some senators may in point of fact be legitimate targets of investigations one,
two, three, four degrees of Bacon connection.
OBTW the spying might have been to track back international criminals that had
illegally c
memory (Score:5, Insightful)
This is relevant. In today's news:
Get that? The goddamn Director of National Intelligence just "forgot" that they're collecting information about millions of Americans. It takes balls to get up in front of a congressional committee and say that shit. "We all make mistakes". Yes, we all make mistakes. I accidentally left my keys in the back door once. But forgetting about data collection efforts on millions of Americans? "We all make mistakes" doesn't quite cover it. But the senators? They're made because they're just figured out that the NSA treats them just like the rest of us. So they're gonna get all up in John Brennan's grill but let the NSA get off with a warning, billions of dollars in increased black budget and maybe a little tug job in the basement of the Capital for the effort.
http://thehill.com/policy/tech... [thehill.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, danheskett.
But it is it not truly naivete to not understand that every phone and every computer of every congressperson is not *closely* monitored?
Of course the CIA didn't spy on Senate computers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
CIA: Hey, MI5.... Can you do me a favour? I'll owe you one.
MI5: Sure, what do you need?
CIA: Can you skim through these PCs and look for evidence of this thing I'd like to know about?
MI5: Sure, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No... (Score:5, Funny)
The CIA would not have a foreign power search US Senate computers even for plausible deniability.
Re: (Score:1)
But I wouldn't put it past them to have a special cell of a "foreign" intelligence agency which is entirely controlled by the US.
Re: (Score:2)
CIA: Hey, MI5.... Can you do me a favour? I'll owe you one.
MI5: Sure, what do you need?
CIA: Can you skim through these PCs and look for evidence of this thing I'd like to know about?
MI5: Sure, no problem.
Hate to ruin a joke, but the computers we're talking about were the CIA's. The data on them was provided by the CIA, in a facility run by the CIA.
Couple of things.. the Senate Committee made copies of sensitive documents and removed them from that CIA run facility.
CIA staff erased some documents that they felt they should not have made available to the Committee, and they searched the computers to determine how the information left the facility.
It's easy to argue both sides were doing their jobs, as expec
Charge him and prosecute him... (Score:4)
If he lied under oath and there's proof that he did then charge the bastard with perjury and put him on trial and make an example of him to show that you can not lie under oath to congress and get away with it.
Re:Charge him and prosecute him... (Score:5, Interesting)
If he lied under oath and there's proof that he did then charge the bastard with perjury and put him on trial and make an example of him to show that you can not lie under oath to congress and get away with it.
There's a reason you almost never see anyone charged with perjury for testifying before a congressional committee, and not the one many here will offer. Legally, it isn't enough to show that what they said was wrong. To prove perjury you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were saying was not true (plus a few more requirements). And since these people live in a world of constantly seeing and reviewing mounds of conflicting information, proving they knew what they were saying was wrong, and that it wasn't just a mistake, gets very hard. Even if there is evidence they were told one thing, there can easily be evidence they were also told the opposite by someone, and then the issue of reasonable doubt pops up. They may have lied, but reaching the legal requirement for a conviction of perjury can be almost impossible, so don't necessarily blame the officials for not bringing charges when they don't think they will get a guilty verdict.
Re:Charge him and prosecute him... (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be practical problems prosecuting people who have obviously lied to congress but the fact is that if people do and there are no consequences then that sends a clear message to anyone in the future that they can lie and there will be no repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a way too complicated explanation, one put out to deceive and distract.
No that is the law. To convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person knowingly commited the offense. Given everything they see and are told every day it would be almost impossible to prove they didn't believe what they were saying might not be true which is the standard required. If you think a different standard should apply then you need to petition the government for a change of the law, and possibly even a change of the Constitution. Otherwise if charges were brought in a case like thi
Corruption (Score:1)
well .... (Score:2)
... John Brennan serves at the pleasure of one Barack Obama, and has in some capacity or other for the last six years.
Any chance we could hold him accountable too? Or did he read about this in the papers like everything else?
Take him to court (Score:2)
Senators, if you believe he committed a crime, have him arrested and take him to court.
We have a legal system. This is what it's for.
If you don't think it will achieve the goal, accept that the system needs reform and start reforming it.
How far will it go? (Score:1)
We are in the Fourth Reich (Score:2)
Time to cut the crap --- CIA has never been formally audited (I suspect the same applies to the NSA, DIA and others) --- time to audit them and shut them down as they have nothing to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with supporting the Fourth Reich.
Recommended reading: Expulsions, by Saskia Sassen (she's the daughter of a Nazi, so she should know)
Re: (Score:2)
Above the law (Score:1)
Only the little people have to obey the law. Snowden, Manning, etc. Big wigs like James Clapper, John Brennan, and David Petraeus never get charged with crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the little people have to obey the law. Snowden, Manning, etc. Big wigs like James Clapper, John Brennan, and David Petraeus never get charged with crimes.
Except Petraeus did get charged and after pleading guilty, got two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Not as much as I think he should have, but it shows that sometimes the big wigs DO get charged.
Not going to happen. (Score:1)
Not going to happen as long as Snowden and his conspirators are fugitives from justice.
No amount of willful lack of understanding of security clearance work, which thrives in Snowden supporters, will change that fact.
Re:Not unacceptable at all (Score:5, Informative)
That sentence is straight from the letter from the Senators. Why is it inappropriate to include the Senators' words?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Senators are a bunch of morons and are the last group that should ever complain about someone lying. They are experts at prevarication and give unambiguous answers that always leave room for them to back track. Only a very select committee of Senators are privy to anything relating to classified US intelligence matters and that committee is responsible for determining what information can be safely released to the entire Senate. Any Senator claiming they did not know about certain intelligence programs
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the relevance of your post to mine. The AC was trying to claim that including that sentence was some sort of inappropriate editorializing when it was simply part of a quote of the letter. I was simply informing them of the source of the sentence that got them butthurt.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they would describe it as "Serving our country."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
US Senate: Liar liar pants on fire! ... Even at that point, it would only be half the battle...
CIA: Pot/Kettle?
The people: You are fired!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)