Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpr | Hacker News Reader

Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate?

Isn't it prima facie clear that the three-letter agencies are essentially rogue governments (the "deep state"), a law unto themselves, and thus completely antithetical to the whole idea of a democratic republic?

So internal people at those agencies, if they have half a brain and a conscience, and are patriotic in the original sense of loving one's patria (fatherland), though hating the bad aspects of one's government, should already be willing to spill the so-called secrets by which these agencies operate their illegal and immoral agendas.

View on HN

Right, the point I'm making is how do you "know" that is true vs propaganda? In reality it's probably a mix of the two. It's important to recognize that although there is a binary distinction between "employees who have leaked" and "employees who have not", there is a much fuzzier distribution of the trait "propensity to leak" across all CIA/NSA employees. Some people leak for personal gain (bribe/gambling debt/etc); some people leak for ideological reasons (convinced of the inevitable triumph of Communism/hatred of USA); some people leak because of their conscience (whistleblowers) The goal of an anti-US entity would be to nudge someone who is on the border / considering leaking into actually going through with it.

Is it prima facie clear though?

Of the controversial activities the spy agencies have taken post-WW2, weren't virtually all of them under some White House or Congressional auspice?

The actions and capabilities revealed in the Snowden leaks were overtly defended by both the President and (most) members of Congressional intelligence committees.

If there's a deep state in the Intelligence Community, then the Commander-in-Chief, appointed Executive Branch officials (e.g. Director of National Intelligence and Defense Secretary), and Senators & Representatives on Intel committees are part of it. In which case, public elections are part of the deep state?

Until you get a president the deep state loathes (like Trump) and whom they would not have chosen, and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things about him and taking out his appointees (like Mike Flynn).

Chris, I respect you. However, your comment contains conjecture without much facts.

1. >The deep state loathes. What makes you think that a large amount of intelligence community members didn't vote for Trump? He won a third of Maryland and almost half of Virginia. And what about the military? Do you honestly think even 40% of servicemembers voted Democrat?

2. >and then they can turn on him, like leaking negative things So a handful of leaks blemish the whole IC? The IC has been doing its job, supporting military operations ordered by the President and assisting ICE and CPB. As far as we know, the leaks came from congressional or White House staff.

3. >taking out his appointees Is Mike Flynn's conduct defensible? He was working for foreign governments without reporting it. I don't think there's anything wrong with talking to the Russian Ambassador, but he brought all this on himself.

You never addressed my point about the "deep state" being controlled by Congress and the Executive. The IC is dependent on line items in its budget to be passed in order to get funding. Unless congressmen are corrupted, there isn't an autonomous "deep state."

Well, that's certainly an arguable proposition.

But of course, that helps Russia etc in selling it.

Exactly; there doesn't need to be an "either-or" here.

In fact one could even agree that Russia could be helpful exposing something untoward the US government is doing, even while you do not endorse all the things they may do and may vigorously oppose them on other fronts.

To be honest, thinking about all this mostly makes me glad I never got into that world, and I hope I never really do. I don't have the constitution for it.

Most folks in the IC never face a significant ethical dilemma (unless you think that spying on other governments is wrong). They just do their jobs and go about their lives.

Most IC employees lament that they could be earning way more in the private sector ;) .

So you most likely made the right choice!

> Why would Russia (or other anti-US entities) need to create such a climate

Because they're following Soviet playbooks. And if they'll create enough FUD they will be able to freely annex neighbouring countries.

I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory, especially NATO-aligned states. It does make sense for the Russian Government to reduce the influence of the U.S.

> I don't think Russia is planning on annexing any more territory

That was wishful thinking in 2008 and the result was Crimean invasion a few years later.

Have you read the Presidents Commission on Intelligence Oversight report? Nothing you said is true: the NSA had informed congress and the courts of everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com