Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
We tried to tell you how comments like that can be easily taken out of context, but you stuck your fingers in your ears and linked us to *gasp* Fox News
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
sebster wrote: The CIA was operating in the area, and wants its operations kept secret. I have no fething clue how that's even news.
Did you even read the fething CNN article?
Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Jeezus Seb... that's fething scary man.
Is there context for that quote? And is the source a reliable one or just someone who had an interesting thing to say
How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
"You work for the CIA and I have family members who are also currently working for the government and hold a security clearance. If you do something to screw this up, you can loose your security clearance and also your job since a security clearance is required. But it's not just you. If you loose your security clearance and get fired for leaking clasified documentation, then it can also affect your direct family members who also hold a security clearance. The government could revoke their clearance since they associate with you and I have very close (and maybe even intimate relationships (wife/husband) with you and your actions could jeapordize their security clearance and therefore their employment and careers."
Also:
"If you get fired, your family suffers because you don't have a job."
But if you want to read it as "Say a word to anybody and we will bag and tag your family and send them to Gitmo" then go right ahead
How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
We tried to tell you how comments like that can be easily taken out of context, but you stuck your fingers in your ears and linked us to *gasp* Fox News
Right... still not buying it. Still trying to find ways to peg this to austerity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 03:59:11
whembly wrote: Okay... so, it's the Republican's fault then to push this eh?
No. What?
What is someone's fault? I don't even get the question.
Look... this isn't from a no-name blogger, Van Jones or *gasps* FoxNews. This is CNN.
I don't think CNN really carries the journalistic gravitas your statement assumes.
They may not have the obvious political hackery of FOX or MSNBC, but the standard of their work frequently very gakky, and generally very sensationalist. "Look here's some exciting sound noise that hints at a great conspiracy isn't this exciting and thrilling and also complete nonsense" is right up their alley.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 08:57:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
Because no one has been making a noise about how the events at Benghazi should be made more public, and no official enquiries have taken place attempting to force CIA members to reveal information they might not want to.
No one has been pressuring for more information, and the media scrutiny could in no way cause someone to feel that they were under pressure at work.
Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Jeezus Seb... that's fething scary man.
Do you think that's a CIA threat, or the recognition that any information which reveals the identity and activities of agency operatives places not only the operative at risk, but his family as well?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Listen this is just... ludicrous. It is. I'm going to make a common sense check here and say that if the CIA wanted analysts to talk to the media about what they knew about Benghazi, probably the fastest way possible to make that happen would be to threaten the families of analysts with what might happen if they talk to the media about what they know about Benghazi.
Reminding analysts of the legal consequences of what happens if they caught leaking is a reasonable precaution, especially in light of the Edward Snowden situation. So far as the shady room with the cigarette smoking man, let's not be dramatic here.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
It's been reported that the CIA were attempting to arm the anti-Assad crew in attempt to overthrow Assad. But, if that's true, that's not really damaging to the Obama administration in itself and all this effort to intimidate the survivors doesn't quite add up to those facts.
Do you honestly believe that the maintenance of secrecy on the part of the CIA is exclusively about Obama?
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted that "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,"
Obviously, the comittee doesn't believe that.
Any member of the CIA is free to speak to Congress so long as they do not reveal sensitive information absent CIA approval. Which is pretty much how it has always been.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 12:26:57
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dæl wrote: They still use polygraphs!? Weren't polygraphs proven to be useless years ago?
As silly as some may think it, polygraphs are very much of use in the intel community. I know some positions require a pretty extensive 'lifestyle polygraph' which starts broad in scope, but can narrow down quickly based on answers. Using polygraph isn't cheap either, but they are reliable enough and give enough info as opposed to say NOT doing the polygraph that certain agencies do use them for certain positions. Remember, in this context they are not being used to gather trial worthy evidence/confessions, which would entail a completely different standard of acceptability.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
The government will always intimidate and posture and governments are filled with lairs who don't like their dirty laundry aired out. So yeah all this doesn't surprise me, kinda getting numb to all the wrong doings of our government. I did a eenie meenie miney moe when voting last election because both of them are kinda tools (Yes I know I will get flamed for hating them equally but oh well) Benghazi was a tragedy but sadly the least publicized on the news because the media thought a trial that is OVER and some guy leaking things that we all knew in the back of our minds was more important. So middle fingers all around to the politicians and the media.
Suffer Not the unclean to live ======Begin Dakka Geek Code======
DA:80+S+GMB+IPw40k06--D+A++/cWD-R--T(M)DM+ ======End Dakka Geek Code======
2000pts
1500 pts
Dark Vengance owner 1 squad
1 Crisis battlesuit
Forar wrote: I think there's an awful lot of "insider this and that" in a continued effort to spin something, anything interesting out of that tragic event.
Shockingly, the State Department was fairly hush hush on international affairs, and the CIA (a notably warm, fuzzy and transparent organization) was uncharacteristically silent on the matter as well.
*yaaaaawn*
Oh, a republican wants to stir up more grak over this. SURPRISE SURPRISE.
We've seen the US gov sell weapons to cartels and then lose track of them, the IRS specifically targeting particular groups, the NSA listening in on literally everything you do that involves data moving over the air or wire, rampant expansion of DHS powers (not to mention the rapid purchase of so much ammunition that it's actually becoming hard to come by), and President Change and Transparency demanding the crackdown on whistleblowers and signing into act a bill that allows the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens, among various other scaryscary things.
daedalus wrote: Maybe it always was. Maybe it's just more overt now.
Yeah, its pretty much always favored the wealthy and powerful, as do most democratic systems, though it was more overt in the past; what with the franchise being limited to white, male, landowners. That said, comparing the US to an oligarchy is a bit of stretch.
What we see now is that an abundance of leisure time, coupled with a large number of media outlets designed to take advantage of that leisure time, has cause a comparatively larger number of people to realize this fact and believe it is within their power to change.
We've seen the US gov sell weapons to cartels and then lose track of them, the IRS specifically targeting particular groups, the NSA listening in on literally everything you do that involves data moving over the air or wire, rampant expansion of DHS powers (not to mention the rapid purchase of so much ammunition that it's actually becoming hard to come by), and President Change and Transparency demanding the crackdown on whistleblowers and signing into act a bill that allows the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens, among various other scaryscary things.
Can you really be that blasé at this point?
Of those, the only things I find especially onerous are Fast and Furious, and the permission of indefinite detention of US citizens within the US itself.
So at the very least I can see how someone might regard the OP story in a nonchalant manner.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 13:10:14
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ouze wrote: Listen this is just... ludicrous. It is. I'm going to make a common sense check here and say that if the CIA wanted analysts to talk to the media about what they knew about Benghazi, probably the fastest way possible to make that happen would be to threaten the families of analysts with what might happen if they talk to the media about what they know about Benghazi.
Reminding analysts of the legal consequences of what happens if they caught leaking is a reasonable precaution, especially in light of the Edward Snowden situation. So far as the shady room with the cigarette smoking man, let's not be dramatic here.
But I think everyone is forgetting one important thing...
Congress truly does have oversight over the CIA. It's obvious that they're not cooperating...
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted that "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,"
Obviously, the comittee doesn't believe that.
Any member of the CIA is free to speak to Congress so long as they do not reveal sensitive information absent CIA approval. Which is pretty much how it has always been.
Wrong. Citations please...
House and Senate does have regular access to classified information... he's a brief explanation:
The committees also have different secrecy arrangements regarding controls over their classified
holdings. Secrecy oaths distinguish the two chambers. All Members of the House, including, of
course, those on the Intelligence Committee, must swear or affirm not to disclose classified
information, except as authorized by the rules of the chamber; the current oath is modeled after a
previous one which had been required only for the members of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. The Senate does not impose a similar obligation on its Members.
Non-member access to classified materials also separates the two panels. The House committee
has a more detailed and exacting set of requirements for non-members than its Senate
counterpart.
In addition, the Senate panel is authorized to disclose classified information publicly on its own.
Such actions are to follow elaborate procedures in which the President and the full Senate have an
opportunity to act. (For whatever reasons, it appears that the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence has not disclosed such information on its own over its history.) By comparison, the
House select committee cannot release classified information on its own, if the President objects
to its disclosure; in such a case, the House itself makes the determination by majority vote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 15:13:55
whembly wrote: Congress truly does have oversight over the CIA. It's obvious that they're not cooperating...
Absolutely. If Congress feels that the CIA, or any other executive agency, isn't doing what it's supposed to do, it's their right and indeed their duty to put on their big boy pants and start yanking some of those purse strings.
I'm speaking in generalities here, mind you, not to the Republican-Obama relationship.
In general, I think Congress has allowed the executive to tip the balance of power a little more than they should have. I think Nixon did it, and it got pushed back on (eventually). I think G.W. did it post 9/11, and it hasn't yet been pushed back on. I'm not "blaming Bush" as I think the nature of the executive, and of humanity in general, to try and amass as much power as possible; who wouldn't? The problem is that I think Congress has failed, and is continuing to fail, to check those excesses. If they didn't like the NSA tapping, and so on and so forth, they could have a stop to it immediately.
But, that's not the way it actually is; better to just go along, get along, and keep collecting that easy money by playing for "your team" instead of for America at large.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: Congress truly does have oversight over the CIA. It's obvious that they're not cooperating...
Absolutely. If Congress feels that the CIA, or any other executive agency, isn't doing what it's supposed to do, it's their right and indeed their duty to put on their big boy pants and start yanking some of those purse strings.
I'm speaking in generalities here, mind you, not to the Republican-Obama relationship.
In general, I think Congress has allowed the executive to tip the balance of power a little more than they should have. I think Nixon did it, and it got pushed back on (eventually). I think G.W. did it post 9/11, and it hasn't yet been pushed back on. I'm not "blaming Bush" as I think the nature of the executive, and of humanity in general, to try and amass as much power as possible; who wouldn't? The problem is that I think Congress has failed, and is continuing to fail, to check those excesses. If they didn't like the NSA tapping, and so on and so forth, they could have a stop to it immediately.
But, that's not the way it actually is; better to just go along, get along, and keep collecting that easy money by playing for "your team" instead of for America at large.
Oh... you're preaching to the choir here man...
I sincerely hope I'm off my rockers because things like these are spookey man. And if they are true, I can't fathom why they're trying so hard to keep this under wraps. It isn't like Obama would be hurt much politically for this... and I really don't see this as protecting H. Clinton... So, it's confusing, and harrowing.
I still stand by the whole "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" thing... I don't care what you do... you do NOT talk about other people's family like that, especially in that industry... regardless of what context some others are trying to spin. It's chilling.
No, quite right. Per your own citation implicit (in the sense of CIA approval) access to classified information is granted only to the Intelligence Committees of each chamber. These Committees may subsequently release classified information to the larger body of which they are a part, but a member of the CIA may not disclose classified information to any body* other than an Intelligence Committee without the approval of the CIA itself; at least so long as he values his job.
This has been established practice since the late 70's.
*As in not the whole of Congress or any other committee.
I sincerely hope I'm off my rockers because things like these are spookey man. And if they are true, I can't fathom why they're trying so hard to keep this under wraps. It isn't like Obama would be hurt much politically for this... and I really don't see this as protecting H. Clinton... So, it's confusing, and harrowing.
That's probably because you're focusing only on Obama, and a potential Clinton candidacy.
I still stand by the whole "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" thing... I don't care what you do... you do NOT talk about other people's family like that, especially in that industry... regardless of what context some others are trying to spin. It's chilling.
Are you certain the quoted individual wasn't talking about his own family?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 17:41:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
No, quite right. Per your own citation implicit (in the sense of CIA approval) access to classified information is granted only to the Intelligence Committees of each chamber. These Committees may subsequently release classified information to the larger body of which they are a part, but a member of the CIA may not disclose classified information to any body* other than an Intelligence Committee without the approval of the CIA itself; at least so long as he values his job.
This has been established practice since the late 70's.
*As in not the whole of Congress or any other committee.
Erm... the citation explicitedly states that committes would have access to any/all classified information. o.O
I sincerely hope I'm off my rockers because things like these are spookey man. And if they are true, I can't fathom why they're trying so hard to keep this under wraps. It isn't like Obama would be hurt much politically for this... and I really don't see this as protecting H. Clinton... So, it's confusing, and harrowing.
That's probably because you're focusing only on Obama, and a potential Clinton candidacy.
Then what? Gun-running to anti-Assad crews? (isn't that against international law??)
I still stand by the whole "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" thing... I don't care what you do... you do NOT talk about other people's family like that, especially in that industry... regardless of what context some others are trying to spin. It's chilling.
Are you certain the quoted individual wasn't talking about his own family?
There are plenty of good reasons to remind people that their actions have consequences for their families. You just keep ignoring them. Classic case of " how stuff feels" vs what is actually happening.
Erm... the citation explicitedly states that committes would have access to any/all classified information. o.O
Yes, Intelligence Committees. The quoted portion of the document you cited is a subsection of the section entitled "House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence."* In that context, the word "committees" refers only to those two bodies.
*Note the variation in font size, and the way the document is described in the table of contents.
Then what? Gun-running to anti-Assad crews? (isn't that against international law??)
The maintenance of organizational secrecy after Snowden in the context of a Congressional investigation which is not necessarily purview to classified material.
Also consider that simply because the CIA hasn't supplied classified material to the Benghazi Committee does not mean they haven't supplied it to the House Intelligence Committee.
No? How did you even arrive at that interpretation?
CNN reported that the phrase "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" came from an "exclusive communication obtained by CNN". It does not specify who the author was, other than "an insider" and further does not indicate who said "insider" was communicating with. Was it CNN itself? Was it another member of the CIA? Was the author of the potentially problematic phrase a superior of the recipient? A peer?
There are too many unanswered questions to get worked up over a single sentence.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Whembly, if you put a third of the effort you dedicate daily to Benghazi into questing for the truth as to why we invaded Iraq, that place of no WoMD, no Al Q and no credible threat to the civilized world, to a death toll of over a million, it might make it look a little less like a right wing crusade against Obama and Clinton.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Whembly, if you put a third of the effort you dedicate daily to Benghazi into questing for the truth as to why we invaded Iraq, that place of no WoMD, no Al Q and no credible threat to the civilized world, to a death toll of over a million, it might make it look a little less like a right wing crusade against Obama and Clinton.
Dude... I was against going into Iraq in the first place. Once it was a committed policy, all my concerns were really the armed forces there as I had numerous family there at the time. I did NOT pay close attention to the news at the time because they were all politicised to the extreme.
There's this free-lanced writer who I followed closely as he was actually embeded to the squads in Iraq/Afganistan that did great work. He didn't shy from criticising policy, the administration or anyone else. His name is Michael Yon, please take some time to look at is dispatches on his website.
Now, back to the OP: I want the administration held accountable for their political response/action to this event. They're attempt to deflect it to that youtube director and now saying it's a "phony" scandal pisses me off. Just go ahead and tell the loves ones who are seeking answers that this is "phony".
No? How did you even arrive at that interpretation?
CNN reported that the phrase "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" came from an "exclusive communication obtained by CNN". It does not specify who the author was, other than "an insider" and further does not indicate who said "insider" was communicating with. Was it CNN itself? Was it another member of the CIA? Was the author of the potentially problematic phrase a superior of the recipient? A peer?
There are too many unanswered questions to get worked up over a single sentence.
Oh.. I got you know.
You do have a point... I'll dial it back a notch then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/03 17:24:45
Grey Templar wrote: Polygraphs aren't useless, but they aren't infallible either.
You can fool the machines, either by being skilled at it or simply being freaked out by the machine itself enough to taints your answers.
Its simply a tool that can give useful information, albeit one that is only moderately reliable.
That is not useful information. Anything that is likely to produce false positives (because having your career hanging on the result of an ouya board reading is stressful) and false negatives (because it doesn't fething work) is useless except as a way to harass someone. If polygraphs provided useful information the CIA wouldn't need a do-over every month, because they'd already have the right answers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/04 10:34:35
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Joe DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney who now represents Mark Thompson, one of the so-called "Benghazi whistleblowers" who testified before Congress last spring, says he's been told that some "very ugly people" had stolen the missiles, and that the Benghazi annex played a key role in the theft.
"I do not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles," said DiGenova in an interview Monday with WMAL's Mornings On The Mall.
How did DiGenova get this information? He told WMAL that ever since he and his wife and law partner, Victoria Toensing, began representing the Benghazi whistleblowers last spring, they have been contacted by several people eager to share information about what really happened the night of September 11, 2012, when four Americans were killed in the Consulate attack, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
"This information comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community," said DiGenova, "and it is pretty clear that the biggest concern right now is that 400 missiles, which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten into the hands of some very ugly people. And they are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner," he added.
Are these missles that these guys can't get normally on the black market? What's so special about 'em? o.O
Restoring the four to duty eliminates the need for hearings over their status... interesting. They're told they can go back to work as if nothing happened.
You see...hearings that could easily embarrass the State Department and the Accountability Review Board.
whembly wrote:Did you even read the fething CNN article?
Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Just to be clear here, officials were not making threats against operatives families. Let's look at that section of the article:
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." [whembly: WTF!]
Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
The insider is not reading a memo or anything. The only actual direct threat the article presents is the underlined, which I think you'll agree is reasonable.
whembly wrote:Look... this isn't from a no-name blogger, Van Jones or *gasps* FoxNews. This is CNN.
How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted that "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,"
Obviously, the comittee doesn't believe that.
1. CNN:
That is an actual debate that happened on CNN. CNN is a joke. Have been for years.
2. Those comments all square fairly well with covert operations. They're covert for a reason, and it's certainly not a life entered into easily. I would think the old Tehran listening operation shows what happens when CIA activities are outed, and if you think the CIA isn't still in Bengazi I don't know what to tell you. It's not like spies just go "Whoops, got caught, better never go back!"
(Yes I know I will get flamed for hating them equally but oh well) Benghazi was a tragedy but sadly the least publicized on the news because the media thought a trial that is OVER and some guy leaking things that we all knew in the back of our minds was more important. So middle fingers all around to the politicians and the media.
Suffer Not the unclean to live 
1500 pts
Dark Vengance owner 
1 squad
1 Crisis battlesuit 
