
Yes, The CIA Spied On Congress - interpares
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/05/yes-the-cia-spied-on-congress/
======
wpietri
The thing I would be wondering in a Congressperson's shoes shoes: what _other_
things have I been doing that the CIA has been spying on?

Chilling effects indeed.

And for those inclined to brush that away as implausible, it might be time for
a refresher on J. Edgar Hoover and his secret files on political leaders. [1]
50 years later, our tech is a lot better, so it would be much easier to gain
inordinate power through surveillance.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)

~~~
sillysaurus3
_Late in life and after his death Hoover became a controversial figure, as
evidence of his secretive actions became known. His critics have accused him
of exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass
political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political
leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover
consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate
and threaten sitting Presidents.[4] However, according to biographer Kenneth
Ackerman, the notion that Hoover’s secret files kept presidents from firing
him is a myth.[5]_

Seems some on Wikipedia disagree...

~~~
coldtea
Some on Wikipedia are also on a payroll. Including in articles about
commercial products and companies, but even more so in political articles.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Really? That's very interesting. Do you have a link or further info about
that?

~~~
nl
There's a Wikipedia page about it[1]. More broadly, this Google search[2] will
find plenty more incidents.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_staff_edits_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_staff_edits_to_Wikipedia)

[2]
[https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Staffer+edited+Wikipedia](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Staffer+edited+Wikipedia)

------
shadowfiend
Oh man, I hate this as much as the next person, but I think the best thing we
can say right now is that there is nowhere near enough (public) evidence that
this is a believable allegation. What we have is an article from McClatchy
whose title ends in a question mark (“Probe: Did the CIA spy on the U.S.
Senate?”), which to me is the red flag of red flags that they have no level of
certainty whatsoever. Then the article seems to draw dubious lines between
this allegation and some questions in hearings. Other articles building on it
imply additional tenuous connections between all this stuff and a letter Mark
Udall wrote that may be referencing this vaguely, maybe.

It's a problem that all of this stuff has to remain vague. It gets in the way
of our reaching conclusions. But assuming the lack of information is
information in and of itself is problematic for me in this case. I think it's
fair to wait and see what the justice department's investigation, if any,
reveals. If there's no investigation, then we have to make do with the
information we have.

The fact that the CIA has been shown to be doing all sorts of terrible stuff
doesn't mean that our obligation to be skeptical about allegations in general
needs to be suspended. To me, it's likely that this is true, but I won't tout
it as fact until something clearer than the current foggy tangle of vague
statements emerges.

As a side note, I think the greater question to arise from this is the fact
that during a Congressional investigation, it was through _agreement_ that the
CIA wasn't supposed to be monitoring Congressional investigators. Why is that
sort of thing not clearly ensconced in law?

~~~
r0h1n
The CIA director has pretty much acknowledged that they did indeed spy on the
committee in this letter: [http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-
releases/brennan-lett...](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-
releases/brennan-letter-to-wyden-acknowledges-that-cfaa-applies-to-the-cia)

> _The Computer Crimes and Abuse Act...expressly "does not prohibit any
> lawfully authorized investigative, protective or intelligence agency...of an
> intelligence agency of the United States"_

------
intslack
[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-
staffers...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/05/220273/senate-staffers-
slipped-secret.html)

>Congressional aides involved in preparing the Senate Intelligence Committee’s
unreleased study of the CIA’s secret interrogation and detention program
walked out of the spy agency’s fortress-like headquarters with classified
documents that the CIA contended they weren’t authorized to have, McClatchy
has learned.

>After the CIA confronted the panel in January about the removal of the
material last fall, panel staff concluded that the agency had monitored
computers they’d been given to use in a high-security research room at the CIA
campus in Langley, Va., a McClatchy investigation found.

>The documents removed from the agency included a draft of an internal CIA
review that at least one lawmaker has publicly said showed that agency leaders
misled the Intelligence Committee in disputing some of the committee report’s
findings, according to a knowledgeable person who requested anonymity because
of the matter’s extraordinary sensitivity.

>Some committee members regard the monitoring as a possible violation of the
law and contend that their oversight powers give them the right to the
documents that were removed. On the other hand, the CIA considers the removal
as a massive security breach because the agency doesn’t believe that the
committee had a right to those particular materials.

[...]

>While eating lunch during a visit to New Britain, Conn., with four New
England governors, Obama was asked by a reporter if he had any reaction to the
allegation that the CIA monitored Intelligence Committee computers.

>“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he
responded.

~~~
josephlord
>“I’m going to try to make sure I don’t spill anything on my tie,” he
responded.

I don't get what that means or adds to the story. Is he ignoring the question?
Dismissing the question? Didn't hear the question? Or so stunned by the
allegation he just sprayed soup across the table? Or is it something I've
missed?

------
line-zero
Article in The Intercept:
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-
intel...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/05/congress-intelligence-
community-whos-overseeing/)

------
vamega
For what it's worth here's a whitehouse petition.

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-
int...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-
committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F)

------
Franklin_B
It's ridiculous to believe that the CIA deserves the benefit of the doubt in
this matter. More likely there are worse things we just aren't privy to.

------
sentientmachine
How far does a government agency have to go in breaking law before the
military is deployed to put boots on the ground to reel in the agency back
under the rule of law?

I'd like to think that if agencies started hiring their own armies and created
their own version of law enforcement zones from other countries, and started
killing people who opposed them, that someone would actually do something to
stop that... right?

~~~
protomyth
It would be the FBI, as the military cannot be used for internal policing
functions.

~~~
prutschman
The
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)
might apply in that case.

~~~
sentientmachine
But couldn't such an act be repealed as "enabling the terrorists" and be
rendered inert?

------
maccam94
Petitions to release the report:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-
int...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-senate-intelligence-
committees-cia-torture-report/JSPcJY3F)

[https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-
committ...](https://www.aclu.org/secure/tell-senate-intelligence-committee-
release-cia-torture-report)

------
jostmey
Can't congress just pull funding? I suppose the CIA has too much dirt on many
of our congressmen for that to ever happen.

~~~
rhizome
Yes, they could, but I don't think dirt is the biggest reason why they
wouldn't.

------
cookiecaper
This just in: spy organization spies on important national political figures.

Did you guys never hear of intelligence agencies before Snowden leaked his
docs? This is normal and expected. It's the reason intelligence agencies and
spies exist. They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the
world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the
agency's employers may consider ... untoward.

~~~
vidarh
> They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make
> sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers
> may consider ... untoward.

Except of course for the part where the CIA is explicitly legally barred from
domestic US spying, and where they were spying on their employers.

Am I surprised? No, not at all. I'm from Norway. Most people would probably
consider Norway less likely to be involved in sinister surveillance activity
than a country like the US.

Yet 20 years ago, an investigation into the Police Security Service finally
got underway, and everyone were shocked - shocked, I say - to find out that
the several decades of illegal surveillance of left wing groups that any
member of either of the communist parties or socialist groups had known, and
publicly alleged, were happening had _actually_ been happening (they knew,
because members of the security service made it abundantly clear, by e.g.
occasionally stopping people on the street and making fun of them over details
of conversations they'd had in the privacy of their own home).

When the establishment finally accepted that the security service had to be
reigned in, a parliamentary commission was established. During the
investigation into the security service, it quickly became clear that they
were _still_ engaged in the illegal surveillance while the commission was
investigating them. Not only that, but it was revealed that they were
illegally spying on the chairman - a well respected member of parliament - of
the commission investigating their illegal spying.

So I'm not the least bit surprised. But that does not mean it is legal, or
what they are "supposed" to do.

~~~
cookiecaper
Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry? Spying on
Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense.
Congresspersons have very sensitive access, very special privileges, and very
substantial influence. If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and
cooperate with a terroristic unit, which is not too far-fetched in the day of
the Tea Party, the results could be catastrophic both to the government's
ability to function and to American cultural heritage. It completely makes
sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have that type of capacity,
regardless of title or location.

~~~
vidarh
> Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry?

Congress. They were created by an act of Congress, and the only ones with
oversight powers are the intelligence committee that they spied on.

> Spying on Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense.

Except it is explicitly _illegal_ for them to do so. The same act that
authorised the creation of the CIA - the National Security Act 1947 - also
bars them from domestic spying. Anyone tasking the CIA to do so have at the
very least participated in a crime, whether or not they can be charged with
anything.

> If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and cooperate with a
> terroristic unit

That being so, that would fall under the remit of the FBI, Department of
Homeland Security or - in the case they communicate about this with foreign
interests - the NSA (!). Only if they were to do something stupid like attend
in-person meetings outside US borders would it fall under the remit of the
CIA, or even be _legal_ for the CIA to pursue.

> It completely makes sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have
> that type of capacity, regardless of title or location.

Not when they are barred by law from doing so, it is the responsibility of
other agencies if any, and the persons they spy on are the very people tasked
with providing the checks and balances against the _CIA_ going rogue. And in
fact, in this very case they were explicitly investigating claims that the CIA
had committed gross violations of human rights. In that case there's a massive
conflict of interest - the CIA has every reason to want to minimise their
findings, and possibly even to try to strongarm them into silence.

And in fact, the CIA _has_ repeatedly made public statements to try to
discredit this report - that in itself is shocking to the extreme; in any
other organizations, heads would be rolling if a department started a PR
campaign against a board committee, which is the closest equivalence.

And do I have to remind you that the CIA has _decades_ of history of horrific
operations behind them, including the illegal overthrow of multiple
democratically elected leaders, a long range of assassinations, dealing drugs
to fund illegal operations, and more, - they've proven time and time again
that they badly need more oversight. When was the last time a member of the
intelligence committee went rogue again?

Well, unless you count the times they were _complicit_ in illegal CIA cover-
ups, that is.

------
baddox
Anyone want to make bets over whether anyone will ever be legally punished
over this?

~~~
bradleyjg
They figured out how to immunize themselves during the Bush administration.
Get a compliant lawyer to write a memo saying whatever you want to do is
legal. Then you are relying on advice of counsel which tends to defeat the
mens rea necessary to convict of a crime. The lawyer is also not liable
because it's not a crime to give bad legal advice.

This technique is how everyone at the CIA got the hook for destroying video
evidence of torture which had already been requested by a congressional
committee and a federal court in 2005. It's also explains Yoo's farcical
torture memos -- they may not pass the straight face test but they still were
a major barrier to criminal liability for those who procured them.

------
suprgeek
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.

~~~
fragsworth
> 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.

~~~
jtfrench
>> 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.

~~~
galois17
"[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.

~~~
jtfrench
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.]

~~~
_xzu
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.

------
gadders
Wouldn't surprise me, given that congress and their assorted hangers on would
leak confidential information for political advantage.

