Russia and China crack Snowden Cache

[Tim Beelen]

On 6/16/2015 9:16 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen <tim at diffalt.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2015 7:13 AM, John Young wrote:
>>> WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been
>>> declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M.
>>> Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02%
>>> of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M.
>> The reason for this is the work that /all/ of these institutes do. It is
>> bigger then what an individual or, is some cases, a small group can
>> accomplish. And can easily be undermined if details are published. Who
>> is it to say that what CIA has been doing is not in U.S. best interest.
>> You? Me?
> You just bought not only the false presumption, but a logical
> impossibility - without knowledge in detail of the CIA's actual
> actions, I am unable to prove their violations.

So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but 
you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right?

By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. That is where 
accountability ends. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

How effective is this oversight? I think the vast majority Members of 
Congress in general do not have the cognitive skills to understand the 
issues that the CIA creates. Let alone come to an agreement on how to 
handle the agency.

To summarize the problem: the CIA is has about 20.000 employees. Which 
is substantially bigger then in the 1950s where they had maybe about 
4-5.000. They are an intelligence office. They started out gathering 
intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have 
capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years.

Now, we know they spy on Congress. Manipulate congress. Overthrow 
governments. Steer elections. But who controls them? With no oversight 
they basically do 'whatever' and 'whatever' is quite a dangerous thing 
to do. Now, in hindsight, I don't care if they go around the world and 
bully people into playing nice. But that is besides the point.

The problem is the culture. Recent breaches of security contractors have 
shown that information technology information gatherers (ITIG) employs a 
lot of clowns. Like you, you want a polarized version of the world where 
the CIA is bad. Just bad. And by your own admission you don't even care 
what they do, you are just looking to punish them. That is not a data 
driven assessment, it's just operating on assumptions. Which is what the 
U.S. Government's foreign policies are based on. Which is why I know 
that either a. the CIA does not hold it's information gathering 
capabilities to a professional standard, or b, they listen to clowns.

And this brings us back to the CIA who is SUPPOSED TO JUST FUCKING BE 
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT. Instead they gave middle management a gun and told 
them to go fix things in the world. Middle management has always been 
decorated five U.S. flags, with sprinkles with red white and blue and 
enough U.S. jingoism to fill a stadium. I.e. it created the CIA.

Now I assume, as a Congressional committee, that every time you ask the 
CIA for a report on a foreign issue they do a little sing and dance and 
ask for more money to go solve it. Because the following things are 
*always* valid: a. They can claim they have limited capabilities to get 
men on the ground. and b. With the right people and equipment and amount 
of cash Congress does not have to send in the military if things get 
really nasty if they solve it for them.

Other then that I don't think people working for the CIA are that 
different from the majority in that they polarize the world to preserve 
their sanity: They want every Arab to be bad. And actively want to know 
everything about them, just to make them look bad. They know that ever 
Congress Member or committee might not vote in their best interest, so 
everyone needs to be manipulated.

And if I had a track record of overthrowing governments, fixing 
elections and operating with impunity overseas because foreign 
governments *allow* them. I'd be feeling pretty awesome about myself 
too. All the while they are operating under the grace of congress.

This is not the only institute that grew out of control in the United 
States.

And the fact that I don't sleep well is that even if I printed this 
piece of text on a piece of paper and went around congress and tacked it 
on each of their foreheads it would not change anything. It is just that 
to be make a person aware of a problem does not give them the skills or 
knowledge to deal with it.

And really, all congress has to do is take the gun away from middle 
management. This ofc is a bad analogy. I believe everyone should be able 
to carry a gun if they please.

> Are you suggesting CIA, NSA, FBI, etc ought do what they will, except
> ath someone is able to say that what they've been doing is not in U.S.
> best interest? That sounds inane.
>
> I am not even in U.S. nor a U.S. citizen - to me your statement sounds
> highly problematic and indicative and problematic nationalist think.
Yes. I like my country. I has lots of nice people.
> Yes we need a balance of powers in the world - we need national
> strength and unity, but this applies to all countries, not just to the
> U.S.!
Considering what you said about the problems with nationalistic think in 
your last paragraph I take this as an admission you're well versed in 
doublethink.
> Collections of power, as happens with govt, attract more power abusers
> than benevolent dictators, unfortunately. For this reason, a one world
> government would be doomed from the outset. We need a strong Russia, a
> strong America, and strong small countries etc.
I don't need a stronk Russia. Russian culture is not conducive to how 
I'd like people to run things. Emphasis on people. Not the government.
> It's the only hope for any long term semblance of balance. If the
> world we a single U.S.A.W. entity, Snowden could never have happened.
> Of course Snowden required a courageous individual too, but it would
> have required someone willing to actually give up the rest of their
> life if there were no possbility of sanction anywhere in the world.
The Ed event would still have happened. It is just the retarded notion 
that to be make a person aware of somehow gives them the insight to deal 
with it.
> You might reconsider your push to have someone other than yourself
> somehow prove that the CIA's actions over the decades have not been in
> U.S. best interests, or that this is a relevant question!
I frankly don't care. I just don't want them to have the ability to muck 
things up. Because it kinda proves they have issues. I don't mind them 
doing good for the wrong reasons. It's doing bad for the right reasons.

The CIA has very well funded issues. VERY WELL FUNDED... VERY WELL... 
VERY... WELL... funded? And if they don't get the funds directly they 
start running dope and sell guns.

So, CIA's issues are a domestic issue. So I'm pointing my finger at 
Congress. And since this is a democracy I'm kinda limited to the rule of 
the majority.