Have *you* actually read Sen. Feinstein's complaint?

...there is a lot of spinning in the media. Feinstein:


Here is likely the best summation of events: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024648419

Damn I love facts!

Hair on fire, not so much.

I do believe she linked to you kicking your own thread.

No I won't link to it, yet we both know it's there. It's a silly call out when you do it yourself, don't you think?

Apology is that some people are too biased to see it really is on fire at times!
It is fun watching your worship though!

Doesn't matter if it's once, twice or thrice.

And I am so very glad that I am a source of amusement for you. I will do my best to keep up to your expectations.

What do you think about the US lecturing other countries on 'invading countries' considering our own recent and ongoing occupations?

I think you need to be free from guilt yourself before pointing fingers elsewhere.

And like most religious zealots, they relabel their beliefs as facts. Good luck, but I fear you're farting in Jupiter's great red spot.

Really? I'd never have guessed that.

...and they sure jump in fast.
How is it they seem to always get in the 1st response to a thread?
It appears that some have nothing else to do but hover over DU,
finger on the button,
generic Cut & Paste NonPost ready to go,
just waiting for a Liberal Democrat to post something.

How DO they do it?

Do they really believe they are somehow "helping" their president by attacking Liberals?

It is like a certain group...imo the POTUS would be sad to learn that there is a group here that pretends to support him with blind loyalty...sadly not all Obama supporters are allowed...just the ones that are embarrassed of open conversation. So really, the name of the group is incorrect.

but MORE importantly,
passionate Democratic Party supporters who have realized that the very best way we can help the Democratic Party is to hold OUR party to the high standards set by FDR and LBJ with the New deal and The Geat Society.

Passively going along with anything the Party or its leaders say or do is NOT the way to support the President OR support the Party....or your Husband or Wife for that matter.
That road of submissive subservience is the road to ruin... and more than a little creepy.

Naturally they were so 'loyal' to the president, they were incapable of understanding it. And yes, their blind loyalty enabled Bush to commit the crimes he and cabal of war criminals were responsible for. A perfect example of what TR meant to convey.

And if there is a chance that this president wants to do the right thing regarding this situation, he NEEDS the support of the people to overcome the rogues within our government. Having that support makes his position easier. Which is why I don't understand the effort to simply cover it all up. How does that help him assuming he wants to do what is right?

The CIA is accusing the committee staff of hacking the CIA's computers. The CIA has referred them to be criminally prosecuted.

In reality, it seems that the CIA hacked the committee's computers.

Apparently, all of this is just fine with The Transparency President™, just fine.

"In reality, it seems that the CIA hacked the committee's computers.

Apparently, all of this is just fine with The Transparency President™, just fine."

...you apparently have issues with Feinstein's statement even as you're hyping it as "worse then (sic) you think it is."

It's bad, but too bad for you it has nothing to do with Obama and "transparency."

See:

Please stop.

- And laugh-off all those tortured innocents that the CIA and Dianne and the WH would rather not be mentioned. Nobody in the Senate, the CIA nor the WH gives a shit about them either.......

and release."

I can totally see why you would not want that focused on.

Did your parents have any children that lived?

Jury: please put me out of my misery.

I see a bank robbery. You see the robber and clerk touching hands, sharing an intimate moment.

...you're ripping off your clientele.

George Costanza is an architect,
and I am Anastasia,
the long lost heir to the Russian Throne.

In seriousness, I have no reason to doubt that the poster in question is an attorney, but I also believe she uses her profession as a cudgel to get her way in arguments. And she's not always right.

Sadly, because it's been done so much that if she actually has a valid point, people just ignore it because of all of the previous smoke screens and detours.

exactly the reason you stated.

people. What should happen, what will happen? Nothing happened the last time torture was revealed, Manning, remember, well nothing happened to the torturers or those who approved it, Chelsea Manning was tortured herself and then jailed for 35 years.

So what can we expect to happen to the torturers this time?

I want to see war criminals in jail. Always have.

but the CIA is requestin that the committee be investigated or prosecuted in conjunction with the committee's accessing certain documents in preparing that report, then the CIA is acting independently and not as a department under the control of the executive, of Obama.

That would suggest that the CIA is a rogue agency that considers itself to be independent of, if not superior to, the President.

That is what is wrong with this situation.

The various intelligence agencies appear to be acting outside our constitutional form of government. That is a serious crisis if true. And it does appear to be true. The CIA and NSA should act only within the narrow confines of the authority they are granted by Congress and by the President. If there is a conflict between what Congress and the CIA believe is right, and if the CIA is acting properly within the command of the White House, then we have a constitutional crisis. We have to ask who is in charge.

Here are the relevant portions of the Constitution that should be considered, I think in answering that question with regard to the treatment of prisoners captured in war or overseas:

Article I, section 8:

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

And remembering that Congress is authorized to "make rules concerning captures on land and water" and to "define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations," the president's responsibility is:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Neither the President nor Congress has total power over matters of foreign policy, war and the treatment of prisoners of war. They are supposed to work together. Congress is fulfilling its oversight duties when reviewing the actions of the executive branch with regard to the treatment of prisoners. No CIA documents should be so secret that the members of Congress charged with overseeing the activities of the CIA may not have them. That degree of secrecy would make it impossible for Congress to exercise the authority that the Constitution grants it.

President Obama needs to get better control over the CIA and require the CIA to cooperate with Congress.

... and maybe they already are.

Surveillance and secrecy is a potent combination of powers.

We need both surveillance and secrecy to a certain extent. But they easily overtake those branches of government because surveillance and secrecy are the means to overwhelming power.

whether you think the CIA is acting in good faith, or if a Democratic Senator is lying. I don't much care for Dianne Feinstein, but I have a real problem with automatically assuming she a liar when there are plenty of Republicans sitting on the Intelligence Committee with her who would eagerly throw any Democrat under the bus for political gain if she was making a mountain out of a molehill, breaking the law or lying.

She gave an excellent speech on global warming in the climate change overnighter on Monday night. She has some good qualities, some bad. I think she needs to leave the Senate.

if 14-1, most of the Republicans agree with her that the CIA was obstructing justice and inhibiting their job of oversight, telling the truth.

The CIA, as usual, overstepped their bounds and thought they were above the law. Most of the time, it appears they are and don't give a crap about the law.

They did what they always do, to quote Peter Goss: Admit nothing, Deny everything, and file counter charges.

this is a very serious problem, one that even the BOG cannot rationalize away.

they have been doing in their name and then to rise up en masse against those who have tried to subvert the very foundations of this democracy. That is treason, and there are NO, ZERO, excuses for it, no way to try to explain it. And from now on anyone who does that, needs to be avoided because no citizen of this country, knowing what is being exposed almost on a daily basis now, would even try to excuse it.

If this report, which she says is worse than they had initially been
told by CIA, is declassified and released to the public, what then?

Public demand for prosecutions? Without some accounting, such a
report will not be good for any international relationships.

How do we make sure it never again will be considered or permitted?
I remember the days when they'd have a bunch of heads on stakes at
the gate to the city, to encourage lawfulness.

I am dumbstruck! If Bush had done this you would have been so up in arms. Is there anything in the world that a person in the Obama administration could possibly do that you might actually agree was unwarranted? CIA spying on Senate, no problem if it's the Republican hired by Obama. CIA spying on all Americans for no reason, again no problem for you.

Don't worry, I won't be replying to any of your posts anymore. There's no logic, just a consistent and profound belief that Obama is God or at least the only perfect person ever born and so is everyone he appoints. I've never been into cults of personality so won't contribute anything else to this one.

Have a good day.

calling a Democratic Senator a liar. As though there aren't 7 Republicans on the committee that would cheerfully throw her under the bus for political gain if she is lying, making a mountain out of a molehill or breaking the law.

No, the actions by the committee which is bipartisan tells me that the CIA went way too far and pissed them off unilaterally enough to stand together on this issue.

It's their duty to oversee Intelligence Agencies. Obstructing that ability is breaking the law.

No, no, no.

Defend and derail are the only objectives, though mostly in the reverse order.

OMG!!!

Faux silliness.

prosecuted?

I would expect you to call 7 Republicans that sit on the committee with them liars, but the 8 Democrats?

That's a new one for you ProSense.

"That's a new one for you ProSense. "

Aerows, your comment makes zero sense. The reason it doesn't makes sense, Aerows, is because your interpretation of my comment has nothing to do with what I posted.

Nice try, Aerows.

LOL!

and can't refute that.

Gotcha.

Oh, and

Just for you .

Thank you for posting this.

A constitutional crisis is upon us.

It's worse than most people can imagine. There's no oversight. Snowden, Binney, Thomas, all the whistleblowers certain people love to hate, are more than vindicated for the warnings about an out of control intelligence complex.

I don't know for how long though because I'm taking advantage of a break to post here. I bit off more than I can chew with some social commitments and am trying to pawn one of them off so I have time to post again. But thank you

Lots of people were asking about you
and your posts are very illuminating.

Right now I'm trying to pawn one of my projects off on someone else. I've half-convinced them they're better qualified anyway lol. If that works, I'll have lots more time again.

"We believe these documents were written by CIA personnel to summarize and analyze the materials that had been provided to the committee for its review. The Panetta review documents were no more highly classified than other information we had received for our investigation—in fact, the documents appeared to be based on the same information already provided to the committee.

What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.

To be clear, the committee staff did not “hack” into CIA computers to obtain these documents as has been suggested in the press. The documents were identified using the search tool provided by the CIA to search the documents provided to the committee.

We have no way to determine who made the Internal Panetta Review documents available to the committee. Further, we don’t know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower."

No matter how cynical I am... it's always worse.

Then you'll be in the ballpark.

Listen to what Manny says, believe the opposite.

There are no ulterior motives with Manny. No one is paying him to be on here calling out bad decision making and worse policy.

I am surprised that anyone with half a brain would think that after cointelpro things would get better. I mean they have even gone after the little things like keeping pictures/video of the military coffins from the public. I believe there is nothing they won't do and I believe they know or think they can do anything they want.

"Further, we don’t know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower.""

It had to have been unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower, provided intentionally by the CIA just doesn't make sense.

If Senator Feinstein is 100% accurate, her statement is extraordinary. The CIA is attempting to override the Constitution and impose its will upon Congress.

Note I made the caveat of 100% accuracy. Time will tell.

Illegal find this whole incident vastly entertaining.

Somehow it is very very bad for the CIA to spy on the computers of Feinstein's staff, but perfectly acceptable if done by the NSA spying on us and the content on our devices.

Hmm....

"While we viewed this as unnecessary and raised concerns that it would delay our investigation, the CIA hired a team of outside contractors—who otherwise would not have had access to these sensitive documents—to read, multiple times, each of the 6.2 million pages of documents produced, before providing them to fully-cleared committee staff conducting the committee’s oversight work. This proved to be a slow and very expensive process."

So the CIA hired outside contractors to review 6.2 million pages of documents before the fully cleared career congressional staffers could see them.

How f*cked up is that?

Incredible.

Incredible.

CIA is so dad-gummed set on absolute secrecy about this report, but then they hire contractors to read the whole 6,200,000 pages? Who are these super secret contractors? To whom do they report? Who vets them? What sort of confidentiality contract do they sign?

No words for this, really.

I wouldn't put it past them to attempt a white-wash of their criminal behavior.

Stunning read. Really. No words.

K&R

The CIA has an agreement with the Senate committee. But the CIA carries out portions of the agreement through contractors. The contractors don't have an agreement with the committee: the contractors are instead governed by (say) a contract with the CIA. Although it would be obviously non-kosher for the CIA to directly instruct the contractors to behave in a manner contrary to the CIA's agreement with the committee, there's lots of room there for obfuscation through supposed "misunderstandings" or "misstatements" and so on

of the rightwing push for privatizing and/or outsourcing government operations

"Forewarned is forearmed"

stunning THAT we knew about it and it is ongoing and apparently getting worse rather than being stopped.

And no, it isn't just right wingers now. We elected Democrats to put a stop to all this nearly six years ago. By not doing so they, anyone who voted to fund these crooked corporations, is now complicit.

The most sought-after documents on torture, ones the CIA is desperate to keep from the public, were created/turned over by Leon Panetta.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024654245

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

the taxpayers.

This needs to be changed. Privatization of our National Security, the billions of wasted dollars, no oversight of these morons. These Private Businesses were not elected, but Bush/Cheney were the ones who made this 'business opportunity' (9/11) grow like a weed, farming out everything, war, security especially.

If anything comes from this, it should be that Congress start working for their living rather than passing their duties along to a bunch of War Mongering profiteers and sending the bill to the American people.

More and more I am entertaining the belief that there is a shadow US government who really controls it all.

contractors under the guise of fighting 'terror'. As we now know, in 12 years they have not caught a single terrorist, including one they should have caught, the Boston Bomber.

You would think that with this info, Congress would have cancelled all future contracts and started doing the job they were elected to do. But they seem to have no power other than to rubber stamp all these policies, as Conyers said in Fahrenheit 9/11, without even reading the bills.

Too busy playing golf or attending lobbyist yacht parties to be reading silly bills.

She has this very annoying penchant for understating/omitting selective details in general and as a matter of habit

This is partly why this affair of going public with as much as she has thus far is so astonishing at first glance. Due to the way my brain is wired, something doesn't add up which calls up all sorts of intriguing speculation as regards to her motives for her going public at this juncture, given her well established role as chief protector and
staunch defender of the authoritarian state as well as protector of state secrets.

For reasons not clear at this time, she seems to be throwing them under the bus, which is survivable. Let's see if she actually throws them to the wolves where they belong.

marci wheeler named the cost of the contractors in her interview with brad

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10535

mp3 is at bottom of article

I thought marci had an amazing grasp of this whole deal and the time line

has had a fit of conscience over role in helping to support the undermining of the people's rights.

Could be she fears what they have found out about her and others.

Otoh, miracles sometimes happen. Maybe she woke up and realized the harm those she supports so loyally have done to this country??

Well, we can dream ....

reading this highly classified stuff. omg.

not just skim through. That makes no sense.

on the staffers?

"We have no way to determine who made the Internal Panetta Review documents available to the committee. Further, we don’t know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower."

That's what she said in the report.

They weren't supposed to see it. There's also a snit that she dared complain when they surreptitiously removed other documents they didn't want them to see.

And I'll take C for $500 Alex, "intentionally by a whistle-blower". Snowden did warn them there were many others who were sick of what was going on because they signed on to serve their country, not to deceive the American people and our representatives.

The internal review just happened to be in the massive, disorganized dump of information that the CIA dropped on the committee, apparently trying to make relevant information harder to find. Looks like possibly a whistleblower took advantage of the "dump" and slipped the bombshell internal CIA review of itself into the mix.

In the internal review, the CIA overtly acknowledges doing things that they have DENIED to Congress.

CIA hacks the committee's computer during the report process. Some information disappears.

Committee expresses alarm over CIA behavior, demands accounting. They also use completely legal channels to move other remaining information to a safer place.

CIA responds with unfounded accusations of criminality to Justice Dept. that are interpreted as a threat by Feinstein.

Did I get that right? Worth a second read tomorrow.

Of course, that doesn't even get into the outrageous revelations even earlier in the statement, including the INCREDIBLE sharing of this information with a bunch of hired contractors given greater access than the Congress's own Committee on Intelligence...as grasswire rightly pointed out above. Also...did you see Scuba's post in this thread? It's a great summary of *many* jaw-dropping revelations in the statement.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, this is absolutely unfathomable stuff. This is the country watching the slimy brown apple quiver, and the worms start to come tumbling out.

curious about that, too. knowing what we know, which is not to say it's close to being enough.. but you get my point, i think, eh?

I can see how anyone who felt threatened by the CIA might feel a little more comfortable having the threats on record.

She is certainly explicit: "I view the acting general counsel’s referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff"

What can you even say. It's like the intelligence establishment has metastasised.

We are witnessing history.

"In May of 2010, the committee staff noticed that [certain] documents that had been provided for the committee’s review were no longer accessible. Staff approached the CIA personnel at the offsite location, who initially denied that documents had been removed. CIA personnel then blamed information technology personnel, who were almost all contractors, for removing the documents themselves without direction or authority. And then the CIA stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the White House. When the committee approached the White House, the White House denied giving the CIA any such order."

The larger "gestalt" of the situation is this one:

Here is a Senator who has declared publicly that it is perfectly noble and good for the NSA and its illegal operations to have the "go ahead" to spy on ALL Americans, but now she is protesting when such crimes are committed by the CIA against her and her staff.

Your computer or my computer is mere fodder for the illegal meta data gathering done by the NSA that Feinstein professes to support. But her computer and that of the staff is not fodder for any alphabet agency to investigate.

So is her outrage real? Or is it a totally contrived event to make the public think that here is a dedicated civil servant who loves us having out freedoms?

Or is it some combination of the above?

I'd be willing to judge her outrage as being real when she starts harping on the many deplorable and illegal techniques utilized by the alphabet agency personnel. One example: how the FBI's officers entrap the mentally ill into the purchase, under their specific direction, of items that can be used for detonation, and then that personnel outs their victim and declares they have saved us all from yet another terrorist attack.

My senator is the worst on the important issues. She's a war-profiteering parasite at best.

That being said I think she is so authoritarian that she takes her role of oversight "seriously" in that she's convinced she is helping, I think her outrage is real, but that she still feels that the program is fine when applied to everyone in the world except for her committee.

... making sense like a pro.

"Constitutional crisis" is not an exaggeration.

This is the first time I've seen the whole thing. Brennan was the guy the President had to have as CIA director. Yet somehow the buck never reaches the oval office.

1. Who was the member of the Senate Intelligence Committe who voted "no" in the 14-1 vote on March 5, 2009, when the Committee voted to initiate a comprehensive review of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program? Just curious.

2. Do you find it troubling that when the Senate Intelligence Committee asks the CIA to produce documents, the CIA proposes an alternative arrangement?

3. Do you find it troubling that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't smack their knuckles with a ruler when they propose an alternative?

4. Are you flabbergasted that when the CIA determined would not allow Congress to see certain documents, they outsourced their document selection process to "outside contractors"?

5. Do these "outside contractors" have higher security clearances than members of the Senate Intelligence Committee?

6. Do you think the CIA's forwarding of millions of documents "without any index, without organizational structure" was an attempt to obsfucate the content of some sensitive documents? (Or am I just an overly-suspicious person?)

7. Do you find it troubling that the IT personnel at the secure facility that the CIA originally blamed for removing documents were "almost all contractors"?

8. What do you make of the CIA claiming the White House ordered the documents removed and the White House denying this?

9. Do you find it curious that there have been claims in press that the Senate Intelligence Committee gained access to documents to which they had no right? (Debunked by DiFi.)

10. To repeat DiFi's own question: How can the CIA’s official response to the Committee's study stand factually in conflict with its own "Internal Panetta Review"? Does this alone not constitute an attempt to deceive the Committee?

11. Are you astonished that the CIA denied the Senate Intelligence Committee access to the final Panetta Review?

12. Do you find it troubling that the CIA refuses to answer the 12 questions that DiFi sent to Brennan on January 23rd? Or more to the point, that the CIA seems to be blowing off requests from the Committee responsible for their oversight?

13. Do you agree that the CIA spying on their bosses is a bigger scandal than the CIA Detention and Interrogation program they appear to be trying to cover up? Are you experiencing any sense of deja vu?

14. Will our Republic survive this crisis?

1. Idunno.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. My brain exploded when I saw that.

5. If so, then we're utterly #%^*ed.

6. Yep.

7. Incredibly troubling.

8. Someone needs to be fired, right quick.

9. I should be more curious, but I suspect we know what happened.

10. Clearly, something is rotten in Denmark.

11. Disturbed, but not surprised.

12. Very disturbed.

13. Who is a bigger idiot? Bachmann or Palin? Some questions are tough to comprehend.

14. At least in the short term. Long term, we need some serious action to right the thing.

I have given up the fight. All that remains is resentment, apathy, pessimism (more just can't think of all the words to use because I am angry) and years of anger management classes.

Very nice summary of MANY jaw-dropping revelations in the report.

Please post as an OP. I might just send it to my senator (Wyden) if that's okay with you.

This needs to be seen.

:wave:

the government behind the government.

Yeah he wouldn't have a vested interest in "moving forward" now would he?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/cia-lawyer-at-center-of-computer-snooping-clash/2014/03/12/764290e4-a9b6-11e3-8a7b-c1c684e2671f_story.html

No longer will Robert Eatinger be able to maintain the 'low-profile' he apparently needed.

Thanks for the article; you should probably post it as an OP.

About those 92 videotapes of torture & the timing of it...



...reminded me of a huge shredder truck photographed outside Dick Cheney's house back in 2006:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2690158

Seems to be the same AP article as the one on WAPO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024649476#post2

If she said the details were much worse than the "cables" then how would she know unless she'd seen photos. Were photos slipped into the report and that's what she's talking about above saying "documents were put in and taken out by CIA or possible Whistleblower."

That would be something. If those photos were saved somewhere and she or staffers saw them and then knew they were removed.

This is sounding very much more serious than it seemed at first..

It's been so many years, I'm losing track of who had what story and the evidence. I thought it was him?

Haven't thought about that article from Seymour Hersh in years, either. But, he did say he had worse than we had seen and said something about releasing them...but..didn't hear anymore about it.

I don't want to be "CT" ...but you brought up that memory and I don't think it ever went anywhere. But...for DiFi or Senate Intell to sit on those photos for this long...would be kind of odd. Unless Hersh released them to someone in CIA and that person was whistleblower who inserted them into the documents or they got in there somehow from someone at the CIA who was sympathetic to Hersh.

We forget that not everyone in CIA is like the Extremists we hear about. Valerie Plame was CIA...so there may be a bigger group than we know trying to reform all this in any way they can. So maybe it could be Sy's photos replaced ones CIA Destroyed...and got slipped in. ????

But I do not think Hersh sent to Intel, he would know what they would do with it. I betcha he sent to certain selective reporters, maybe at the NYT, WaPo or who knows who... but i figured that someone got to him, and he's not said a word that I know of since.. (that needs to be fact checked).

Maybe someone with personal connections/contact will flesh that out from him. ??

I'm too tired to dig up the transcript right now, but NYT reporter was being interviewed and he mentioned the name of CIA interrogation unit's lawyer. I think it's important to dig it up, and spread it around far and wide, so we can recognize who he is in the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/cia-lawyer-at-center-of-computer-snooping-clash/2014/03/12/764290e4-a9b6-11e3-8a7b-c1c684e2671f_story.html

but mysteriously, Difi never utters his name in her remarks. Robert Eatinger is the name we need to remember for future reference when this episode is discreetly closed, something nefarious will eventually emerge and his name will be associated with it.

1. This has NOTHING to do with the NSA, despite efforts to confuse the two issues.
2. This was an investigation into the CIA practices, as allowed under GWB

It appears to me that there has been a concerted effort to conflate this issue with the recent NSA accusations. They are 2 separate issues.

There seems to be a "blame Obama" mindset - this relates back to GWB, not Obama.

If you want to place blame, blame GWB not Obama.

I prefer not to point fingers, unless it's towards the future. Isn't that the definition of a Progressive? To Progress?

Why do you suppose Obama is providing cover for the Bush Crime Family?

To point fingers at the correct source of these problems requires looking back at Dick Cheney & his sidekick, along with the now-acting CIA general counsel who was there to christen & to legitimize the CIA's torture programs.

Oh Lord.

"I should blame Bush for Obama's CIA #%^*ing with the Senate Oversight Commitee"

Heads will likely roll at the CIA at the conclusion of an investigation into the removal of documents. It's likely there could be criminal charges. The main purpose of this trampling on the separation of powers is an attempt to hide Bush's torture program.

The report, if as damaging as Feinstein states, should result in war crime prosecutions.

Where the head of the thing - who had zero to do with the lunatics who thought groups with "Tea Party" in their name might be political - had to be fired immediately?

Shirley Sherrod? Van Jones?

The NSA and CIA are out of control. Now. Today.

...you want someone fired? As I said, it's likely heads will roll.

At least you seem to grasp that Obama isn't micromanaging each agency.

I swear, if the Army blew up an elementary school, the BOG-types would post nothing but arguments on why it had nothing to do with Obama.

a job, other than the Whistle Blowers, like Manning eg most of whose revelations were from the Bush era, considering that is when she had access to the material she leaked. Did you support her exposing war crimes under Bush?

Why did we 'move forward' from the massive crimes committed by the Bush gang?

Especially since this was one of the main issues for people who got Democrats elected?

Is the same thing going to happen again?

You said something about 'blaming' this president. He is not being blamed for Bush's crimes. He has however, protected them from being prosecuted, not just here, but as the Wikileaks cables revealed, influenced the Spanish Court which was about to prosecute six of Bush's torturers.

And now he is standing firmly behind Brennan. He didn't stand behind Van Jones, or Shirley Sherrod eg. Why stand by all these Republicans?

as your twisting gets "progressively" worse. See...semantics.

1. This has NOTHING to do with the NSA, despite efforts to confuse the two issues/////////////////

both alphabet agencies are supposed to be under control of the president, both deal with illegal surveillance

2. This was an investigation into the CIA practices, as allowed under GWB //////

yes it happened under w but for whatever reason current potus has repeatedly shielded w......obstruction


If you want to place blame, blame GWB not Obama.

I prefer not to point fingers, unless it's towards the future/////////////////////

this torture included waterboarding, beatings, electrical shock, sexual depravity, chaining people to the floor and freezing them to death, I do not want people capable of ordering that or doing that walking around in society

potus can still prosecute and be on the right side of history

that Mr. President will terminate some employment at the conclusion of investigations. I haven't read all of the stuff yet. So still working on keeping informed. Thanks for the link to the report. And just for the record, I don't say I totally trust Feinstein, but I guess all she has reported is verifiable or better damn be. She has done some things that have truly pissed me off to the bone in the past.