This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
As a binary choice, this is asking who to believe between:
1) The people who said that Saddam had WMD, that the NSA didn't spy on people unconstitutionally and that the USA has always been really nice to elected Latin American Governments.
2) Someone who said that Muslim gangs control parts of London, that Trump University was not a shyster operation and that Mexico was deliberately sending rapists over the American border.
In answer to the question; I trust neither.
I do think that Russia was [i]probably [/i]involved in the DNC hacking. They had every reason to what do so and there is circumstantial evidence. I would need to hard proof though to believe it fully. Some of the American right actually have a point on this one when they are skeptical of what intelligence agencies tell them. Unless this is conclusively proven in public, it will remain a partisan issue.
1) The people who said that Saddam had WMD, that the NSA didn't spy on people unconstitutionally and that the USA has always been really nice to elected Latin American Governments.
2) Someone who said that Muslim gangs control parts of London, that Trump University was not a shyster operation and that Mexico was deliberately sending rapists over the American border.
In answer to the question; I trust neither.
I do think that Russia was [i]probably [/i]involved in the DNC hacking. They had every reason to what do so and there is circumstantial evidence. I would need to hard proof though to believe it fully. Some of the American right actually have a point on this one when they are skeptical of what intelligence agencies tell them. Unless this is conclusively proven in public, it will remain a partisan issue.
Ynotisay · M
OK. But the intelligence agencies didn't say Saddam had WMD's. The CIA declassified the information a couple of years ago. The Bush administration said he had WMD's. Big difference.
Also, you'll need to point me in the direction of the NSA unconstitutionally 'spying' on people. It was operating legally under the guise of the Patriot Act UNTIL the courts decided it was "unconstitutional." After the fact is different from breaking the law. And it's not like metadata isn't still being analyzed. It's just that the procedures to access it are different.
Also, you'll need to point me in the direction of the NSA unconstitutionally 'spying' on people. It was operating legally under the guise of the Patriot Act UNTIL the courts decided it was "unconstitutional." After the fact is different from breaking the law. And it's not like metadata isn't still being analyzed. It's just that the procedures to access it are different.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
[quote]Also, you'll need to point me in the direction of the NSA unconstitutionally 'spying' on people. It was operating legally under the guise of the Patriot Act UNTIL the courts decided it was "unconstitutional." After the fact is different from breaking the law. [/quote]
I said unconstitutional, not illegal TBF. Though it was bad enough for the NSA to lie to Congress about what it was doing:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/07/reason_clapper_lied_about_nsa_spying/
Fair point about the CIA not themselves lying about WMD but the main point is that for important political decisions (like a huge beef with Russia) the info should be public for people to decide. Otherwise its just loud whispers in the dark.
Intelligence agencies are by design and by necessity professional liars. I hate Donald Trump but I don't think you can trust the CIA either. I know this should not be a partisan issue in US politics but unfortunately it is. There is no way of getting around that until Russian involvement is proven by public evidence.
I said unconstitutional, not illegal TBF. Though it was bad enough for the NSA to lie to Congress about what it was doing:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/07/reason_clapper_lied_about_nsa_spying/
Fair point about the CIA not themselves lying about WMD but the main point is that for important political decisions (like a huge beef with Russia) the info should be public for people to decide. Otherwise its just loud whispers in the dark.
Intelligence agencies are by design and by necessity professional liars. I hate Donald Trump but I don't think you can trust the CIA either. I know this should not be a partisan issue in US politics but unfortunately it is. There is no way of getting around that until Russian involvement is proven by public evidence.
Ynotisay · M
@Burnley123: I know you said "unconstitutional." And I'm saying it wasn't UNTIL it was deemed "unconstitutional." That's just the fluidity of our legal system.
I agree to a point about making certain things public. That's the push now here in the States surrounding the Russians. Will it happen? We'll see.
However, I think there's a great many things the public should not be made aware of. And that's for a good reason. The "public" is pretty damn stupid. And, in all honesty, there's nothing the "public" can do about most issues anyway short of personal boycotts and voting.
And I see the intelligence agencies in a different light. Similarly to how I see scientists. Their jobs aren't predicated on the results. Their jobs are about the process of attaining the most accurate and truthful information they can. They deliver information to those who then act on what they're given. That said, personal motivation exists in every field. As does, in the case of Clapper, personal protection.
I agree to a point about making certain things public. That's the push now here in the States surrounding the Russians. Will it happen? We'll see.
However, I think there's a great many things the public should not be made aware of. And that's for a good reason. The "public" is pretty damn stupid. And, in all honesty, there's nothing the "public" can do about most issues anyway short of personal boycotts and voting.
And I see the intelligence agencies in a different light. Similarly to how I see scientists. Their jobs aren't predicated on the results. Their jobs are about the process of attaining the most accurate and truthful information they can. They deliver information to those who then act on what they're given. That said, personal motivation exists in every field. As does, in the case of Clapper, personal protection.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
I think we have to agree to disagree on this. Btw I have the same low opinion of gchq, mi5 and mi6, which are our versions. They do some pretty shit stuff.
Some things should be kept secret but the Russian thing is a big decision which deserves Democratic accountability. All the best.
Some things should be kept secret but the Russian thing is a big decision which deserves Democratic accountability. All the best.
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
@Burnley123: As far as WMD goes. The US intelligence agencies (as well as the British) were being fed bogus information by very dodgy characters in Iraq who had close connections to the neocons. The CIA were actually highly sceptical of the claims , but because it fitted their narrative and Rumsfeld was insistent it came to be accepted as fact.
Trump's claims therefore are , not for the first time , spurious.
Trump's claims therefore are , not for the first time , spurious.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@pezzza: I agree but all the more reason to make information public.