In the same week as the State Department report endorsing findings that the CIA lied to Congress and brutalized suspects, the CIA is now admitting that its recent denials of hacking Senate computers was also false. Once again, however, there is not even a suggestion of discipline, let alone criminal charges, for CIA officials who lied to Congress (or allowed others to lie) and hacked into congressional computers.
CIA Director John Brennan used the type of Orwellian speech that we have come to expect when discussing CIA abuses. He admitted that employees “acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding” between the agency and the Senate. That “inconsistency” just happened to involve hacking into computers during an investigation of the CIA itself on Bush-era interrogation practices.
Keep in mind that it was Brennan who just a few months ago mocked the allegations and said “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. … That’s beyond the scope of reason.” Now one of two possibilities exist. First, Brennan lied to the Senate and then lied to the American people. Second, high-ranking CIA officials lied to Brennan and then sat back as he lied to the Senate and the public. I am not sure which is worse but both would seem a logical basis for a criminal investigation.
The Obama Administration last year struggled with questions of why it has blocked any investigation, let alone prosecution, of James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, who previously acknowledged lying before the Senate. Not only has Clapper not been fired, but Obama has asked him to help oversee the “reforms” of the very abusive program that he helped run and then lied about to Congress. It is part of America’s Animal Farm where government officials can commit crimes with impunity while pursuing others like Snowden for arrest. Yet, the questions persist about Clapper so the Administration sent forth National Intelligence general counsel Robert Litt, who promptly made it far worse.
You may recall that when Clapper appeared before the Senate, he was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.”
We now know that was a lie. Later, Clapper admitted to giving a false answer to Congress but explained that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. Yet, of course, that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury. Indeed, when Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress, he was not told of the option to tell the least untrue statement on steroid use.
The scandal followed the Clapper false testimony but the CIA did not hesitate to deny the allegation in the face of bipartisan criticism. Brennan reportedly apologized in private but of course such admissions are not made in public –just between members of what appears a ruling elite in this country. In a truly Orwellian twist, Dianne Feinstein (who has not commented on the admission) issued a statement . . . thanking the Administration for not opening a formal investigation of her staff. That’s right. Feinstein was thankful that the Administration that hacked Senate computers and lied to its members did not proceed to investigate the victims of the hacking. That passes for progress today in our new massive national security system.
So let just keep score. We have the recent admission of Clapper lying to Congress in testimony. He is allowed to keep his position and even put on the board reviewing the very program that he lied about. We have the CIA lying to Congress about torture and destroying evidence. No one is charged and the man who ordered the destruction is allowed to retire with full honors. We have the hacking of Senate computers and lies to Congress by CIA officials. The Senate then thanks the Administration for not investigating the victims and no investigation is ordered of the CIA officials.
It appears, as explained by the pig Squealer in Animal Farm, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Source: National Journal
Paul C. Schulte
… the ACLU has skin in the game …
============================
Yep.
Civil liberties skin.
Beats authoritarian oppression.
In my book.
Paul C. Schulte
AY – asymettrical warfare is hard to fight …
========================
Yep.
That is the problem with being a one trick pony.
Ros – the ACLU is only getting partial records from the government and it is hard to make judgments from that. I wish they were getting all the records, but the government is reluctant to give up records for anything.
Since the ACLU has skin in the game, I would not rely on their figures. If the conviction rate is only 10% (using ACLU figures) it does not seem like the wrong people are being punished.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – if you do not care what I think I think why do you spend so much time with using ad hominem attacks against me?
=====================
False accusation by a one trick pony.
Heck, I don’t know much, but we did try and put in a puppet in Vietnam as well as other places. We did succeed in South America in numerous countries. We did take over the Iran issue that Great Britain was afraid to handle. What did George the 2nd do to Iraq? Oh yeah….. Think before you speak. Are these computer generated responses, as you suggested to Dredd?
AY – I would agree on some of your claims but military intervention for pre-emption is considered viable as a defense. And the goal of every country is survive and protect itself and its citizens. Sometimes that means making deals with the devil.
Re: Paul C. Shulte
Using the government’s own records, the ACLU found essentially that national security agencies were using “terrorism laws” primarily for “non-terrorism” cases. Go to http://www.ACLU.org and put “Surveillance Under the Patriot Act” to see their statistics.
Exploiting a national tragedy is about as disloyal as one can get. I never said it wasn’t a threat, the “response” to the threat was an exploitation that makes us all less safe.
The conviction rate for terrorism crimes is less than 10% using terrorism laws to bypass constitutional due process. Making the haystack larger makes it harder to find the real terrorists and punishing the wrong people helps none of us.
Let me understand, you’re all for fighting terrorism. What if we created the response that you justify? Reading history will help…
AY – asymettrical warfare is hard to fight, we had the same problem is Vietnam. And the Soviets have had to deal with it in Afghanistan. There are ways to deal with it but most people do not have the stones to do the job.
So wars that we create and then get involved in are justified? I guess that’s ok.
AY – don’t read anything into my remarks that is not there.
Does anything our military and contractors do count Paul? Or are we the justified imperialist?
AY – when you are engaged in a war, all is fair. Although, I will say somethings are less effective than others. There are things we do that I would think are not in the best interests of prosecuting a war, but then I am not in charge. My head is not the one that is going to roll if things fail. I am partially opposed to the drone attacks that Obama is using, but I do see the purpose. Trying to track down someone who is constantly on the move requires instantaneous reaction which can only be done by drone.
Help Help Help WordPress has eaten a comment.
AY – the ones who are blowing s**t up.
Who are the real terrorist….
rafflaw,
The comment that WordMess ate points out that The John Birch Society and McCarthy suspected/accused President Eisenhower of being a communist.
Which is a false accusation.
It all has to fit into the Bill of Rights, which forbids guilt by association and protects freedom of speech.
One could make the case that socialized police department, socialized fire departments, socialized public schools or even a socialized FBI are communist. These agencies don’t send an invoice to each citizen after they provide services nor are they listed in the U.S. Constitution.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is only illegal if they attempt to subvert constitutional due process. Harry S. Truman even debated this point and thought the vast majority of voters were too smart to support communism. Truman’s hard line on communism was in response to Republicans exploiting the issue and winning elections in the 1940’s acting tough on communism – it was mostly political countermeasures and not based on reality.
Today politicians exploit terrorism to win elections, not based on the real threat.
Dredd – just for clarity, it is the John Birch Society. Do you know who John Birch is?
anon – there is no difference, but you have your mind made up and I am sure I cannot expect anyone to back up their claim.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – the concern is by fellow progressives who think linking to your own articles is bad form.
=======================
I don’t see you as a progressive and I don’t care what you think you think.
Dredd – if you do not care what I think I think why do you spend so much time with using ad hominem attacks against me?
WordMess ate another comment of mine.
rafflaw
I am not buying what you are selling Paul about McCarthy never accusing any innocent people of being a communist.
===============================
The John Bircher Society mentality supports McCarthyism now and back then too.
Ros – you really think terrorism is not a real threat?
Dredd – do not remember McCarthy accusing Eisenhower of being a Communist.
There’s a big difference, Paul.
Paul has his mind all made up. And he’s wrong. But that won’t keep him from playing his games.
Play away your life, Paul.