The deep cynic in me is enjoying watching the CIA flail helplessly as someone inflicts on them what they've inflicted on other countries: a disruptive right-wing leader supported by the intelligence services of a hostile power.
They've talked up "cyberwar" for so long without realising that it wouldn't be big fat obvious targets like power plants that got hit, but the machinery of civil society, parties and media. Or that internet astroturf could be so effective.
>1) Trump presidency is dangerous.
>2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected Govt is dangerous.
> One can cogently believe both.
In fact it is the typical hypocrisy: We like our democratic system, greatest in the world. Except when things don't go the way we want - then it's okay to circumvent it.
>So is the United States seeing the rise of its own deep state?
>Not quite, experts say, but the echoes are real — and disturbing.
I don't agree with the NYT here. 8 years ago I'd think the below linked juxtaposition of American leaders was a bit paranoid. Today I think it's more important than ever. Eisenhower warned us of the Deep State. Truman warned us of it. JFK warned us of it, said he was going to destroy it, and was assassinated.
Obama told us not to worry: https://files.catbox.moe/sa27od.jpg
Truman: 'the CIA has turned into cloak and dagger operations within the USA' https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/in-1974-call-to-abolish-...
Eisenhower - http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
JFK - said 'he wanted to splinter the CIA to a thousand pieces' http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9400E4DB1639E63...
Now whether it's a good idea to (potentially) damage the democratic system because of those ideals is a more complicated issue. I think sometimes yes.
Of course, in context of the NYTimes it might well be considered hypocrisy.
Damaging democracy to impose your ideal on the majority is called tyranny. Simply put, you are a totalitarian. Now note that I am not judging. I'm just trying to be accurate and to the point.
What I meant to say was that there are many scenarios where a person's own moral beliefs conflict with a democratically elected government's stance, and the moral beliefs win out. I belief that in some cases that is justified, and I also belief that believing so is not even close to being in favor of totalitarianism. I'm speaking of individual convictions, not making some claim about how to rule a society.
Some examples where I feel moral beliefs rightly trump the democratic consensus:
- a couple I know taking in asylum seekers about a decade ago because of a whole complicated kerfuffle, risking quite a bit because it's against the law.
- releasing classified documents such as these
- downloading tons of JSTOR publications because they should be publicly accessible
- the many people engaging in unsanctioned but otherwise peaceful protest, often leading to arrest.
Edit: In hindsight I could've simplified this comment by saying that it is an unfair and somewhat incendiary leap to equate promoting totalitarianism with a personal moral belief applied to specific circumstances.
For the case of gay marriage, I don't believe the constitution is written so as to exclude it as a valid marital contract.
I also worry about that. Once you put personal convenience above the rule of law and order, you pave the way for everyone to throw justice aside, paving the way to the path to tyranny.
In some sense Snowden was the same thing, and a big chunk of the public was happy about what he did.
The scale of resistance is new, but the fact that the president is so wilfully incompetent is also new.
Maybe they will feel emboldened, but it seems more than likely that heads will roll as a result. Congress is already starting a review into the leaks.
It might be quite healthy for some heads to roll to show that you can't use leaks to amass power.
I'd posit the leaking comes from the license plate maxim, "Don't tread on me."
Bring in the family as well, because everyone else is untrustworthy; a classic ploy used in North Korea, Iraq (Hussein), and virtually every other dictator.