Hacker News Reader

Comment by suprgeek | Hacker News Reader

So the CIA Illegally Spied on the Congress Staffers investigating illegal CIA Torture Methods?

------illegality recursion too deep-----------

But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. These agencies shouldn't be allowed to pull this kind of Shit without suffering serious consequences.

Time for the Executive to step-up, fire a bunch of high-rankers and NOT sweep this under the carpet as some sort of "Bad Apples" or "Mistakes were Made" whitewash.

Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.

View on HN

> But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama.

A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. He can't even get rid of Guantanamo, which was central to his campaign. His response to the Snowden leaks was entirely supportive of the intelligence community, against the general public's perception of what happened. A political figure like him supporting Snowden would have made a massive difference in the public's perception of the events that took place, but he had to side with the NSA.

You're absolutely wrong if you think he has even the slightest bit of control over the CIA. The executive agencies that are supposed to be directed by the president are probably much more directing the president than the other way around.

Maybe you consider it to be conspiratard nonsense, but there's a bit of history behind what happens to presidents who are at odds with the intelligence community.

So is the summary of your message that it's acceptable for the President to just give in to pressure from his subordinates? He is either incompetent or complacent, whichever you position you align with doesn't change the end result for the country.

Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say it was acceptable! It's fucking terrifying.

And it's also very difficult to say whether the reason is that the President is incompetent, complacent, inherently aligned with the intelligence community, or threatened by the intelligence community, or a combination of any of these things.

I'd say it's not acceptable, it's not even inevitable, it's just obvious. You can't get that high in politics without owing lots of things to lots of different people and groups, and I doubt they'd let people who are not loyal to them that high. Maybe the first presidents had some real power, but the current system is designed to filter out quickly people who are too much of a trouble for the status quo.

I find this another reason to stay as far away from politics as possible if one wants to really change anything in this world.

>> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it.

If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus.

If this is case, and if we as (Americans? people?) tolerate it, then I guess it's our implicit way of saying "corruption is indeed the best way — it keeps everyone happy" (pan e circo).

If we don't tolerate it and change it somehow, then maybe our particular multiverse trajectory goes another direction.

Who knows if Obama is actually the one to do this. I'm not expecting much of anything from him, no more/less than I do of any other past President. I have no clue what it's like to be POTUS, but I assume it's like inheriting the CEO/President role at a super old, well-known established company, with an even older and power-hungry Board. Sure, they'll let you be the CEO, but they hold all the political "preferred stock" and can make sure the CEO is ousted if he doesn't do what they want.

>> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it.

> If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus.

Ever since someone asked me if I thought GWB was "a good president", I've been mildly interested in what the president is (a) supposed to do, and (b) empowered to do. It turns out both questions are quite difficult to answer, and in particular the answer to (b), as best as I've been able to tell, is "almost nothing". At this point, I'm a little confused as to why the position is so prestigious.

Douglas Adams satirised precisely this point with his Zaphod Beeblebrox character in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. To quote wikipedia[1], his was "a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited"

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox

As far as I can tell it's some sort of interesting issue with the human condition. If you compare pre-presidential Obama's views with the current Obama's you see that he's become totally impotent regarding the issues he argued so strongly about in the past. So something changes once he's in power (I suspect there's a look of talk about what "is in the best interest of the people").

There's nothing physically stopping him - he's in a position where he addresses the world. He could very well stand up at his next speech and say "I'm very worried about the seemingly illegal activities of govt agencies... I've struggled change anything because... There are powers in play would prefer...". As a human being on this earth there's absolutely nothing stopping him from doing that but we all know it's never going to happen.

It's sad really.

> So something changes once he's in power

But my point is, he's not actually "in power" as far as I can tell. What power is he in? What can he do? And why?

Ilya Somin likes to point out that the government suffers when shark attacks occur, no matter that there is generally no conceivable relationship between them. Is respect for the office of the president backed by anything more substantial?

> If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) [...].

Come again?! Where did this come from, Hollywood?

just look around you. Surely I'm not the first person to mention this concept to you. I'm not saying I believe that the US has the best example of democracy, but true or not, that's the general story being "sold" on the news (and yes, in movies as well).

It's the general story being "sold" in a subset of US news.

In large part of the rest of the world, the threat of "American conditions" or similar is a frequently used political insult.

The news and movies are lying to you. This is not a common view across the world.

> US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally)

> regarded best globally

Excuse me?

I find it hilarious how you and others ask rhetorical questions like this, as if you had trouble reading what I wrote, and need me to repeat it. Without going into this again, you can refer to my previous comments.

I think the fact that so many people don't understand the point you were making probably means you didn't make the point clearly enough. If you has said "is regarded by Americans as ..." you would have been clear. As it is your comment gives another impression.

He probably is getting tired (as I am) of all of the comments on HN anymore that American government is the worst that has ever been present on planet earth, because the NSA (a spy agency) has been caught spying (their mandate).

If one would ease up on the constant "the government of the USA is literally Hitler" nonsense a bit, maybe more productive talk could occur.

Not at all. The point is that he is making a very controversial claim with no evidence or source at all. Also, you are the one dropping the H. bomb.

My comment said nothing about the actual position only the fact that the point he was trying to express wasn't clear (previous poster had to follow up to at least three posts to explain it again and I wouldn't have understood the meaning without the follow ups). I wouldn't have commented but for the fact the follow up was blaming others for not understanding rather than accepting the lack of clarity in the post.

I don't believe the USA is Hitler or the worst on the planet but that is not the expectation or standard the US should be held to. It used to be an example to the world (or at least wanted to be one), a shining beacon of hope[0]. Now the standard is "not as bad as China" which is a sad state of affairs and isn't enough to have moral authority in the world.[2]

I haven't seen many (not sure I've seen any) posts saying the US government is Hitler but what I have seen is a number of comparisons to the Stasi. The Stasi were famous for the massive amounts of surveilance and they would have loved the capabilities that the NSA had. That doesn't mean that the results of political opposition in the US are the same as they were in East Germany but East Germany was one of the experiments in the effects on observers and the observed in a mass surveilance society and we should at least look to it for lesson and warnings.

[0] I know that there were always flaws but the aspiration was there.

[2] I'm from and in the UK and I make no claim that we are better in general, while in some ways it feels less corrupt and politically broken than the US sometimes seems we don't bother to restrain GCHQ at all.

> Now the standard is "not as bad as China" which is a sad state of affairs and isn't enough to have moral authority in the world.[2]

I think this goes to what I'm talking about. Not as bad as China? That executes businessmen who are found to be doing corrupt things, systemic forced children policies, wholesale censorship, and the great firewall...Just going on FoxNews half of the Republican party is calling Obama a weak leader and questioning his authority in the Senate daily, this would never happen in China.

You are now just making shit up wholesale.

You make an outrages claim that I believe to be false, so I would like to see a source.

"[US political system] which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally"

err, what? As a foreigner living in the US for the last 5 years I will tell you this: The US political system is regarded as the best example of democracy, by they Americans only. Period.

Having lived and traveled in Europe for the most part of my 30 years of my adult life I have heard no person having this perception of the American political system. In fact, I would say that it is closer to the truth to claim that the American political system is regarded as corrupted, like most of other political systems globally.

I really don't want to hijack the thread but I am kind of tired of this perception that some Americans have of themselves and their country that is ("regarded as") the best democracy in the world.

The american democracy is a representative democracy powered mainly by two private funded right-wing Christian parties.

Not to mention that this political system cannot provide to it's citizens and tax payers the right to public education and public health care.

Anyways, yes in my opinion, it would not be a surprise at all if CIA spied on Congress or if the President (or better the USA CEO) could not do anything about it.

> "[US political system] which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally"

As far as I can tell, Switzerland has the best political system (with the most direct democracy) and it's really a shame that nobody seems to want to imitate it (which of course can be explained by the fact that it means more power goes to the People, not corporations/secret gvt agencies/etc, which are often allowed to buy politicians via "donations", accepted corruption called "lobbying", etc)

It's a good point, and I wonder what is the ultimate underlying reason because I've heard many share that same opinion. Despite all the things the US political system gets "wrong" and other systems "get right" — somehow the US still calls the shots.

Switzerland has strong redistributive system. From a layman's perspective, it would seem this can be supported by the very high profits in the financial and high-end finished goods markets.

In an economy without such high GDP and average household income, I wonder if it would still be such an effective or model system.

Except it consistently makes decisions that are bad for most of its populace, like (not) joining the EU and restricting EU immigration.

You (and many others) are having a knee-jerk reaction to what I said. I'm not saying that the US has the best example of democracy (and based on the rest of my post, you would think that would have come across).

What I am saying is that there is a widespread public perception that "America knows best" — the news supports this, Hollywood supports this, and yes, loads of people around the globe support this notion as well.

Please tell me I'm not the one bursting your bubble on this one.

Now what you mention about having lived in Europe/other countries: I hear you. I've lived in other countries as well (Spain, Costa Rica, and a brief stint in Saudi Arabia). Everyone in all of these countries talks shit about the US. It's the cool thing to do. Like us talking shit about Facebook.

But what do they want come their birthdays? Xboxes! Call of Duty! Pizza and Coca Cola!

There is a deeply imbued adoration for America as a model of "all that a country can aspire to be" — and this image is what I'm referring to.

[EDIT:

you know, I knew since this was the internet, someone was going to bring up the whole "hey, did you know pizza is italian". Yes, I did. And as people from NYC or Chicago can tell you, the US has created it's own version which has taken on its own fame.

But while we're on it, did you know that French Fries aren't actually from France?

And to those who are going to take what I said as "because I buy these products I endorse America" , you have clearly missed the broader message of my post.

It's not about the specifics of Coke, Xbox, or fast food (I can't believe I actually have to explain this but, wait, yes I can). It's the overall "image" that America sells overseas. It's the reason why Hollywood movies are popular all around the world, yet not as much the other way around. Again, that is just ONE example, so no need to hyper focus on just that. The fact is, there's an undeniable adoration of American culture abroad --- and it exists RIGHT ALONGSIDE the contempt and disgust for American culture abroad.]

So you're extrapolating from the fact that people like Coke, Xboxes, CoD and pizza (which is Italian btw) that they must also adore America? That's way too much of a stretch.

There is no logical connection between the two following statements:

   - x buys american products  
   - x considers US the best political system in the world

There is a deeply imbued adoration for America as a model of "all that a country can aspire to be" — and this image is what I'm referring to.

There may have been briefly, just after WWII, but that hasn't been even slightly true for decades. Certainly not since Vietnam.

How I see the situation as an European and Finnish US is as a country and a democracy very mediocre or below median level. It's good place if you have top 95% percentile income but otherwise there are lot's of better places to live in.

In my view one part of the success of US is collective belief in American Dream. If you work hard and try you will get Rich. And this leads to kind of prove of infinite monkey theorem: when lot's of people try to achieve something eventually someone will. Of course this will benefit only small partition of people but others are still satisfied since they have a dream, hope for glory even rationally costs are higher than most probable profits ( see Income inequality in the United States, Socio-economic mobility in the United States, Poverty in the United States ).

I'm very happy that monkeys will keep trying and eventually produce great things to me to consume. This doesn't have anything to do with the democracy in the US though.

Tons of electronics and silly throwaway gadgets we have in the EU are produced in China. I guess that must mean we endorse and envy their political system as well.

Ridiculous conflation of politics, culture, economy and military.

Talking shit about US politics isn't just because it's "the cool thing to do", it's also because US politics is kinda shit, and it does affect us over here as well. And apparently all American people are so very helpless to do anything about it, even your president ...

> did you know that French Fries aren't actually from France?

yes, because nobody calls them French Fries outside the US and McDonald's :)

Actually, while I had exactly the same reaction as you initially I realized, once I had calmed down a bit, that assertion being made is about perception not reality.

It wouldn't surprise me that if you did a global poll that the democracy in the US would be subjectively be regarded as "best" - for a lot of reasons:

- The size of the US (probably the single biggest factor)

- The fact that a lot of people from the US genuinely believe that their system of government is the best (a view they are perfectly entitled to) and are rather evangelical about this belief

- The strength of US consumer brands that, at least historically, were associated with "freedom". A lot of the US worldview often seems to have remained frozen in a rather Cold War perspective (e.g. referring to the US President as "leader of the free world" - which always makes me grind my teeth when I see it).

The US have been and are still recognized for their economical strength.

The US have been and are still recognized for their military strength.

The US were once recognized for their democracy but this was some time ago. Today the politics - domestic and foreign - of the US is perceived as corrupt and controlled by the economy. Maybe even as stuck in the cold war.

I think this is a fairly typical perception of the US in western Europe, I am quite sure it is here in Germany. Whether this perception is true or false is a different matter. And if you are not living in a well developed country, if you are living in a non-democratic country, you may of course still perceive the US democracy as desirable.

Germany is often looking at Scandinavia because we think they are doing a couple of things in a better way than we do. You would probably have a hard time or have to look quite some time back to find examples were someone suggested we should do it the American way. Even if you forget about politics and look at the economy. Yes, the economy is recognized as really strong, but it is not perceived as superior.

I probably should have added that I don't think US democracy is held in high regard here in Europe - I am in the UK and I suspect most people here feel that the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Switzerland probably have better functioning democracies than we do. When people talk about our political system in the UK becoming more like the US model it isn't regarded as a good thing!

> the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus.

Those checks and balances are keeping Gitmo open.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/26/obama-takes-...

Immediately after Obama won his presidential election in 2008, this was one webcomic's take on Obama's promise of "Change":

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994

I don't think firing is going to do much though it is a good start. It's the law that needs change. In fact, in Edgar Hoover's FBI era, spying on the entire government was a norm. Presidents were afraid of Hoover. Before we end up with a second Edgar, or a second McCarthy Red Scare, yeah, I think we should step up and make a firm change. But I am hopeless. Election is coming up and everyone is too busy on every other issue. Intelligence and privacy have always been neglected in election despite most Americans continues shows against NSA spying (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...). After watching House of Cards, I don't know politics work anymore. I understand the show was a drama, but if you tell me that half of the congressmen wasn't expecting CIA or NSA secretly watching them I think that's probably a naive mistake.

Somehow, we will find a way to compromise. Some people are 100% against any surveillance, some are okay with 70%, some are okay with 40% and some are okay with 100% of surveillance. The end result of compromise may end up ugly like a bandaid.

OK, but there is a problem upstream of that -- the CIA has NO jurisdiction inside the US. They are a foreign intelligence operation.

Myself, I'd propose a battle royale between the CIA and NSA. Do a giant wargame, see which can pwn the other faster/better. Two agencies enter, one leaves.

The surviving agency is then split into foreign and domestic branches, with a sane level of cooperation.

Would pay anything to see live streams of that game.

They'd probably secretly take down the government, one executive at a time, and then the (new) president would say, "yeah, this was kind of pointless, let's leave the two agencies be".

>Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.

Will?

Will continue to be

>Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.
Where have you been?

The problem is that people forget where Obama comes from: Obama is not a progressive. Obama is not centre-of-the-Democratic-party. Obama is pretty much smack bang in the middle of the US political landscape today. Take him back to before the Republican Party went totally off the rails, and he might've just as easily been a left wing Republican.
The "Hope & Change" looks a lot more successful when you judge it based on an intent of returning US politics to somewhere near the centre, than if you take the unrealistic proposition that it would bring the US to some point well left of Clinton which a lot of people seemed to have thought and hoped it might.

If the surveillance they did was under EO12333 or similar (basically, Presidential orders), it was not illegal. That's why the fix has to be something more fundamental.

When it stops being a "test" and becomes a failure? When Obama retires? I think it is obvious by now Obama was not, is not and will not be willing to do any changes that rein in rampant security apparatus. And why should he? It's not like antiwar/privacy types are going to vote Republican, right? (1% of them may vote Libertarian but since whole Libertarian base is around 1% anyway it's not even on the radar). What's the incentive here? He's not the small government type. He's not a proponent of rigid Constitutional boundaries (except in moments when he wants to invoke those as an excuse for not doing something he doesn't want to do). He's not in fear of loss of votes for himself or his party. He's a darling of all the press except the ones from the opposing party who would hate him anyway. Why exactly should he pay any more than the lip service to this hard and messy issue and engage in this battle which may cost him but will not win him anything he doesn't already have?
>>> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.
Will be? Will be? How naive can one be, really? It's going on for over 5 years now, and we're still talking as if Obama is just starting up and if he doesn't do this and that then maybe what he said is just words? Maybe it's time to face it - yes, it's just words.

Even firing all of the high-rankers would leave all the mid/low level guys who were the ones who actually followed illegal orders. Those people need to go as well, the entire agency must be gutted.

fire a bunch of high rankers? put every single one of them regardless of rank on public trial. Lengthy prison terms for everyone.

> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric.
But not yet? We've seen the full first term, and the destruction of the nation's economy and everyone's civil liberties, but umm.. we can't tell if the Hope & Change sloganeering was just empty rhetoric or not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com