On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Softy <[1]softservant@gmail.com> wrote: Have to say it seems more plausible to me that they did a faux-forthright job of answering questions from this new review process. I mean what else could they do? Stonewall? Adam here is his argument : i bought a gun i shot someone killed them got arrested and convicted of the murder my trial in which i blamed the manufacturer of the gun for the whole ordeal was overturned after i sued the gun manufacturer and they in fact were then convicted of my murderous rampage and i was let out of jail and everything was reversed and oh yay i am a good person its just the gun manufacturer > they are bad - very bad white men and all those people in history that have been convicted of committing war crimes they didnt do it really as they were just following orders wonder what geoff would have said had he been purchased a steak dinner - doesnt matter he lets clouds enter his logic like all the other good americans do FTS I'll suggest a slightly different scenario. One in which Stone is presenting his honest opinion, and in which what he spoke is accurate. I don't know much about him - I think I'm fairly safe in stating prior to his Review panel he never went close to, let alone through, the Ft. Meade perimeter onto NSA grounds. Doing so is awe inspiring. Not just with heady notions of which agency, and its history, runs the building; but also seeing the scale of the operations. It's a visceral reminder of the power of the United States - both of it's good and bad aspects. So, I suggest Mr. Stone was overwhelmed andgenuinelyconvinced of what he saw: he wanted to see abehemothof an organization full ofsun-glassedcovert agents running amok. Rather he saw slightly shabbily dressed day workers interspersed with the occasional suit, allsurroundedby uniformed members of the five military branches as well as those of five other countries. Second, I suggest the NSA ( and any other semi-/fully- covert agency ) can easily "expose" all of its bookkeeping for review without exposing anything it doesn't want exposed. They don't need to be secretive - the nature of the organization is so silo'd, looking in from any combination of directions would never give any indication of a compartment unless one knew where and how to request that compartment by name. The result is the Review panel feels they came away with a complete understanding of the Agency, and the individuals came away with a knew understanding of what Power means, and how it is applied into the world. Some of that understanding is valid - some isn't. Lastly, I think taking Mr. Stone's words as only about the NSA is a mistake. He was writing to, and about, the Agency employees. Namely, suggesting to them they might do better in the future tocontinuallyre-evaluate their bosses; rather than assuming "father knows best." And this is the best possible oversight - the tens of thousands of employees are as American as anyone, they have it in their own best interest not to tolerate abuses by their bosses. Sadly that type of oversight is insufficient, but that mindset within the majority of employees is crucial and what I think Mr. Stone was trying to enrich. go easy, -daniel -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 [2]carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <[3]https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited. References 1. mailto:softservant@gmail.com 2. mailto:carimachet@gmail.com 3. https://twitter.com/carimachet