The CIA Director confirmation hearings

17 comments on “The CIA Director confirmation hearings ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   10 January 2017 at 11:14 am

   Poacher and gamekeeper….what could possibly go wrong as they look after THEIR free world
2. adam 2

   10 January 2017 at 12:24 pm

   Some Muppet’s on this forum keeps banging on how trump will be the agent of change, except his cabinet choices are all 1%ers of the deranged persuasion.

   This guy is defiantly on the dangerously paranoid end of right wing politics. A believer – a true believer, one which that thinks just by me writing this, I hate him and america.

   You Ad, are right royally done.

   The state has effectively given up on all responsibility to the people, the US state is more and more just a tool with which to use it’s greatest monopoly – violence.

   I can’t see how this is going to change anytime soon.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   10 January 2017 at 1:15 pm

   1) Your summary on the front page says Pompey

   2) If intrusive mass surveillance continues under the Trump era it will be because of Obama’s approval of those systems, and also Obama’s crushing of whistleblowers during the tenure of his Administration.

   3) Trump has filled up his Cabinet with strong men and alpha females. Good on him. Snowflakes won’t cut it.
   • Ad 3.1

     10 January 2017 at 1:29 pm

     If President Trump chooses to override PPD 28 and enable really intrusive data collection of persons as well as metadata collection, it will be because President Trump has chosen to do so.

     It will also be the responsibility of the Head of the CIA, which is his appointment.

     President Trump has a chance to change the intelligence community. On the one hand he has shown a healthy skepticism of their capacity. On the other hand he would prefer to execute whistleblowers.

     President Trump will, together with the leadership he hires to execute his will, be solely responsible for the intelligence gathering policies of his new government.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 2:09 pm

       If President Trump chooses to override PPD 28 and enable really intrusive data collection of persons as well as metadata collection, it will be because President Trump has chosen to do so.

       The NSA didn’t build hundred thousand square feet data storage facilities for the sake of storing metadata.

       And I didn’t hear any news of any of these data storage facilities, eg in Utah, shutting down after PPD 28.

       President Trump has a chance to change the intelligence community…On the other hand he would prefer to execute whistleblowers.

       Let’s see what happens. I think Trump understands the importance of whistleblowers in a different way now.

       He’ll have to work very hard to persecute whistleblowers more than Barack Hussein Obama. Forcing down the official jet of a foreign leader etc because they thought Snowden was onboard etc.
       • Ad 3.1.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 2:19 pm

         The President Elect has been inferring for a while that a comprehensive and structural review of all the intelligence agencies is on the cards. But I don’t see that turning into an actuality until the main overall head of intelligence is confirmed, and until Trump actually generates some solid structural policy about intelligence full stop.

         Hopefully the intelligence community gets a proper direction out of his first confirmation speech, if not the first State of the Union.

         My one piece of CIA wish list is that there be a single entity responsible for operating drone craft, rather than continuing to allow the CIA to run its own programme separate to the military. IMHO it should all be until one military command, and subject to the Joint Chief of Staff and the President as directly as possible. Needs more sunlight.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 2:33 pm

           Also need to avoid situations where Pentagon supported Kurds end up fighting CIA supported “moderate” jihadists in Northern Syria.
4. One Two 4

   10 January 2017 at 1:29 pm

   Explaining the genesis of The CIA would provide the required context

   It’s nothing to do with the ‘colour’ of the POTUS. GHWB aside!
   • Ad 4.1

     10 January 2017 at 1:38 pm

     Crikey. You have to go back to 1946 and President Truman.
     He established the National Intelligence Authority. This was the immediate predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency.

     Lawrence Houston, head counsel of the SSU, CIG, and, later CIA, was principal draftsman of the National Security Act of 1947, which dissolved the NIA and the CIG, and established both the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1949 Houston helped to draft the Central Intelligence Agency Act (Public law 81-110), which authorized the agency to use confidential fiscal and administrative procedures, and exempted it from most limitations on the use of Federal funds.

     You can have a trawl through Wikipedia if you like.

     But my personal fictional account of its operations is James Ellroy’s The Cold 6000.
     It’s huge fun with Hoover.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 2:11 pm

       Biggest mistake ever was allowing the CIA to have an ops function.
       • McFlock 4.1.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 2:18 pm

         lol

         Yeah, all intelligence agencies should be restricted to open-source data like everyone else is.

         No need for any intelligence organisation to actually run an intelligence operation. /sarc
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 2:30 pm

           Sorry my bad for not being clear, I meant a paramilitary operations function, as opposed to legitimate intelligence gathering in the field.
           • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 2:52 pm

             Ok, so according to you they should be able to place spies, but not protect those spies?
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 January 2017 at 5:14 pm

               No, not what I mean. CIA clandestine services group are capable of black ops taking down small governments and waging wars against small armies. Their purpose goes far beyond the protection of agents or assets.
               • McFlock …

                 10 January 2017 at 5:44 pm

                 Well, you’ve already okayed the deployment of undercover armed personnel into other nations in order to protect your spying activities on their soil. Why shouldn’t they overheat the odd pump-station or stab someone with an umbrella while they’re there, if it serves their own national interest? They’re already well into illegal activity in any nation.
5. Nick 5

   10 January 2017 at 5:06 pm

   Whatever Trump says about anything is subject to complete reversal or denial that he ever said it in the first place….much like other politicians sadly….I better add shonkeys favourites….I dont remember and I dont have the information.

   That mexican wall will not even be built…..
6. Conal 6

   10 January 2017 at 6:33 pm

   From the front page teaser: “Are we going to see the unprecedented destruction of rights of privacy?”

   Well, maybe, but not just yet. The situation has improved recently (because Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance have led to courts actually enforcing the law, and because of the expiry of PATRIOT Act provisions), so things will have to worsen quite a bit before the loss of privacy rights become as bad as they were, or worse, “unprecedented”.

   It’s interesting to note how easily “intelligence” agencies (I prefer the term “secret police”) can flout government policy, or national or international law, and get away with it for years, and when caught, get let off with a stern warning. How many people went to jail because they illegally spied on hundreds of millions of people, or worse, because they “tortured some folks” (as Obama put it)? There were clear and serious breaches of the law, and yet Obama was inclined to let it slide because he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, take on the “intelligence community”. The US has this myth that it’s a “state of laws, not of men”, but it’s just that – a myth.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS