Yes, it is different when it happens to her. She represents one of the three branches of government. It is not within the authority of one branch to seize stuff from another.
The CIA (part of the executive branch) isn't allowed to interfere in a congressional investigation. In that sense, yes, this is very different than any of the fourth amendment debate that has been going here. Quoting the Feinstein transcript:
Based on what Director Brennan has informed us, I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.
IT looks like this genuine misconduct on the part of a paranoid intelligence agency trying to cover themselves from an investigation. This is what many allege the NSA was doing w/ bulk collection- individual people actively snooping around.
W/ the NSA program, you're just a row in a database, if you're not a terrorist* and do not associate with terrorists nobody has time to give rat's ass about what you're doing unless one can relate you to another suspicious character. That's national security stuff, sorry if ya don't like it, but tough.
THIS is different. This is real domestic spying by spies.
*"But how do we define terrorism, isn't one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter wahhhh" -Tsarnaevs & people like them? Those are terrorists. Bad guys, got it?
> The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday sharply accused the CIA of violating federal law and undermining the constitutional principle of congressional oversight as she detailed publicly for the first time how the agency secretly removed documents from computers used by her panel to investigate a controversial interrogation program.
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that the situation amounted to an attempted intimidation of congressional investigators, adding: "I am not taking it lightly."
I guess the outrage, and constitutional protectiveness, depends on which citizens are being spied on.
You know, we mere citizens are supposed to have overall oversight on Congress and the government. Can't we get a little outrage love too?
Glad to see she has belatedly grown a sense of moral indignation about overreach by intelligence agencies. Once can only hope that this debacle will add credence to the idea that the US clandestine apparatus is in dire need of meaningful reform.
I understand where you are coming from. But looking at it pragmatically- Citizens will always have right/protection <= to that of Congress. Congress being outraged and defending its rights is at least a step in the right direction that has a realistic chance of leading to the protection of everyones rights.
What in the world would the CIA be looking for in searching members of Congress?
Do they actually think that elected officials are involved in terrorism or endangering the security of the US? If members of Congress are being watched, then I really have to assume that everyone is a suspect.
To be honest, the makes the Nixon spying stuff seem tiny in comparison. I have voted for Obama twice, but if it turns out that this came from his administration it really does seem like grounds for some sort of hearings (I really can't believe I'm saying that, because 99.999% of calls for impeachment are just absurd)
As a matter of fact, US government officials are indeed involved in a wide variety of terrorist activities around the world and do seriously endanger (and routinely and indiscriminately violate) global security and peace. However, I doubt that's what the CIA was trying to find, as they know this all too well - after all, the CIA is the executive branch of the US terrorist network.
Senator Feinstein is shocked, SHOCKED, that the dogs she said should be trained to bite other people's hands have bitten hers. Never saw this one coming.
They threatened her staff; that's why she's speaking out.
I honestly dislike Senator Feinstein. I think she's excused actions that are unacceptable to me and her conception of her constitutional duties to the people of the United States seems off.
However, if this is what it takes to get some of this out in the open, so be it.
A new category of laws needs to be enumerated: "Laws that only apply to Congress".
This is the reverse of the "Laws that do not apply to Congress" [0]
[0]
Whistleblower Protections; Subpoenas for Health and Safety Probes; Keeping Workplace Records; Prosecution for Retaliating Against Employees; Posting Notices of Workers’ Rights; Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Training
Would someone be willing to share with me their impression of Senator Feinstein? I have thought quite highly of her because every time there's been an issue I care deeply about, I have noticed her name as one of the Senators who wrote the relevant bill or supported it very early on. I recently mentioned this to a friend who had nothing but horrible things to say about her record and it seems she isn't so popular on HN as well (and the politics of HN and those of my friend differ greatly - hence my curiosity about what her reputation is). I feel like I must be misinformed about some other things :)
I don't know that much about her in general, but from what I do know she has typically defended the actions of the NSA. So I would think that for her to come out publicly against the CIA like this is a pretty big deal.
The right hates her, because she's an effective Democratic politician. Silicon Valley hates her because she favors Hollywood over tech. I support some of her positions and oppose enough that I've voted against her most of the chances I've had.
Would someone be willing to share with me their impression of Senator Feinstein?
I mostly can't stand her. There may an issue or two where we are aligned, but of the things she has been very vocal about, and the things I'm particularly passionate about, we are pretty much diametrically opposed.
The most obvious example would be the extent to which she is notoriously "anti gun" while I am a staunch supporter of private firearms ownership.
Overall, she comes off as mostly pro-big-government, and I'm a radical anarchocapitalist / voluntaryist type who wants all but none of the kind of "government" we have today. So I don't think she'll be on my Christmas card list, or vice-versa, anytime soon.
I find her to be extraordinarily repulsive. I'd put her on the top 10 list of worst standing politicians in America. She has been one of the strongest supporters of the military's domestic espionage programs. As a powerful US Senator, that inherently makes her one of the biggest supporters of the rapidly expanding police state, with all the violence and broad Constitutional violations that entails.
So they are getting charged under the Espionage Act, right? Or is that reserved only for whistleblowers now, and not for real spies, spying on their own country? Just wanting to make sure.
I suspect that she knows that in the long run of history the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program will be considered an unambiguous set of war crime's authorized at the highest levels of the US government and seeks to be personally exonerated from these crimes.
Everyone in this thread seems to be conflating the NSA metadata spying and the CIA torturing people. These are very different things and it seems Feinstein has been (surprise surprise) consistent in her view that torture is bad and the CIA shouldn't do it, and that the NSA's activity has adequate oversight.
I disagree on the latter point, but I have to say the former is more important and can't fault Feinstein for focusing on it.
At first, I was excited about this and saw it as our generation's "only Nixon could go to China" moment. The spy agency's leading cheerleader within Congress accused them of going too far? Wow!
However, according to the NY Times article, the documents were removed from the computer her staff was using in 2010. It clearly wasn't enough to change her mind in the past 4 years. That makes me rather cynical about whatever she is doing now.
"The searches, officials said, were conducted in an effort to determine how committee staff members had gained access to a draft version of an internal agency review of its controversial interrogation program."
"Feinstein confirmed that committee investigators had received and reviewed documents detailing the interrogation policy but said she didn’t know whether they were provided intentionally or unintentionally by CIA officials or by agency whistleblowers."
These political games are extremely complex and I don't know if we'll ever know what actually went on here. I suppose it's possible that the CIA leaked these unauthorized documents to Feinstein to give them a pretext for searching her computers.
You could argue that the legislative branch has every right to do this, regardless of if the CIA knew or approved.
After all, even if the CIA declared legislators broke the law (which they probably didn't due to their constitutional oversight role in the government trumping any normal laws), legislators are in fact the only people in government who could retroactively make their actions legal-
[+] [-] rosser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjensen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimax|12 years ago|reply
Based on what Director Brennan has informed us, I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.
[+] [-] boguser|12 years ago|reply
IT looks like this genuine misconduct on the part of a paranoid intelligence agency trying to cover themselves from an investigation. This is what many allege the NSA was doing w/ bulk collection- individual people actively snooping around.
W/ the NSA program, you're just a row in a database, if you're not a terrorist* and do not associate with terrorists nobody has time to give rat's ass about what you're doing unless one can relate you to another suspicious character. That's national security stuff, sorry if ya don't like it, but tough.
THIS is different. This is real domestic spying by spies.
*"But how do we define terrorism, isn't one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter wahhhh" -Tsarnaevs & people like them? Those are terrorists. Bad guys, got it?
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that the situation amounted to an attempted intimidation of congressional investigators, adding: "I am not taking it lightly."
I guess the outrage, and constitutional protectiveness, depends on which citizens are being spied on.
You know, we mere citizens are supposed to have overall oversight on Congress and the government. Can't we get a little outrage love too?
[+] [-] phkn1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voidlogic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbon|12 years ago|reply
Do they actually think that elected officials are involved in terrorism or endangering the security of the US? If members of Congress are being watched, then I really have to assume that everyone is a suspect.
To be honest, the makes the Nixon spying stuff seem tiny in comparison. I have voted for Obama twice, but if it turns out that this came from his administration it really does seem like grounds for some sort of hearings (I really can't believe I'm saying that, because 99.999% of calls for impeachment are just absurd)
[+] [-] mayneack|12 years ago|reply
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/feinstein-accus...
[+] [-] MrZongle2|12 years ago|reply
The heads of the nation's intelligence agencies answer to the President. Congress may approve their funding, but he provides their marching orders.
If there was ultimately nothing inappropriate about this, then their boss, the President, needs to be publicly standing behind the CIA.
Otherwise, if he remains silent and heads do not roll, then he is either complicit or indifferent.
[+] [-] jdimov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgtyoder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ameister14|12 years ago|reply
I honestly dislike Senator Feinstein. I think she's excused actions that are unacceptable to me and her conception of her constitutional duties to the people of the United States seems off.
However, if this is what it takes to get some of this out in the open, so be it.
[+] [-] wcummings|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pachydermic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nateabele|12 years ago|reply
It only 'raises Constitutional issues' and '[undermines] the Constitutional framework' when it happens to you.
[+] [-] ixnu|12 years ago|reply
This is the reverse of the "Laws that do not apply to Congress" [0]
[0] Whistleblower Protections; Subpoenas for Health and Safety Probes; Keeping Workplace Records; Prosecution for Retaliating Against Employees; Posting Notices of Workers’ Rights; Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Training
http://www.propublica.org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-says...
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usefulcat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|12 years ago|reply
I mostly can't stand her. There may an issue or two where we are aligned, but of the things she has been very vocal about, and the things I'm particularly passionate about, we are pretty much diametrically opposed.
The most obvious example would be the extent to which she is notoriously "anti gun" while I am a staunch supporter of private firearms ownership.
Overall, she comes off as mostly pro-big-government, and I'm a radical anarchocapitalist / voluntaryist type who wants all but none of the kind of "government" we have today. So I don't think she'll be on my Christmas card list, or vice-versa, anytime soon.
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexeisadeski3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] higherpurpose|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmanian|12 years ago|reply
I suspect that she knows that in the long run of history the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program will be considered an unambiguous set of war crime's authorized at the highest levels of the US government and seeks to be personally exonerated from these crimes.
Anywho, https://shameonfeinstein.org/
[+] [-] lukeschlather|12 years ago|reply
I disagree on the latter point, but I have to say the former is more important and can't fault Feinstein for focusing on it.
[+] [-] anonymousDan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VintageCool|12 years ago|reply
However, according to the NY Times article, the documents were removed from the computer her staff was using in 2010. It clearly wasn't enough to change her mind in the past 4 years. That makes me rather cynical about whatever she is doing now.
[+] [-] cle|12 years ago|reply
"Feinstein confirmed that committee investigators had received and reviewed documents detailing the interrogation policy but said she didn’t know whether they were provided intentionally or unintentionally by CIA officials or by agency whistleblowers."
These political games are extremely complex and I don't know if we'll ever know what actually went on here. I suppose it's possible that the CIA leaked these unauthorized documents to Feinstein to give them a pretext for searching her computers.
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tloewald|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erdle2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/07/220273/senate-staffers...
[+] [-] voidlogic|12 years ago|reply
After all, even if the CIA declared legislators broke the law (which they probably didn't due to their constitutional oversight role in the government trumping any normal laws), legislators are in fact the only people in government who could retroactively make their actions legal-
[+] [-] adolgert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexeisadeski3|12 years ago|reply