undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmorpheuskafka7y ago0 comments

Per your first article, the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties). That means most of the representatives and senators who we elect to actually vote on the laws governing and funding the CIA don't even get access to briefings on all of its activities (meanwhile, nearly 5 million Americans have a security clearance).

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

WillPostForFood7y ago· 1 in thread

the President has the discretion to limit reporting of intelligence activities to only eight members of Congress (all of whom, by definition, belong to the two major parties)

1: that's not "absolutely zero oversight"

2: It seems like a reasonable way to maintain critical secret information while still informing members of the opposition party. That means at least several of these members are being briefed:

Dianne Feinstein - California

Ron Wyden - Oregon

Martin Heinrich - New Mexico

Angus King - Maine

Kamala Harris - California

Michael Bennet - Colorado

If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight.

DiogenesKynikos7y ago

> If something goes totally off the rails they can provide oversight.

Historically, that's not true at all. I was going to give a list of cases of egregious actions by the CIA, but quickly realized I'd be sitting here all night if I really wanted to put together any halfway complete list. The sheer number of coups, assassinations, drug-running operations, weapons smuggling operations, etc. that the CIA has run is just mind-boggling. The list of countries that haven't had a CIA-backed coup or insurgency might be shorter than the list of countries that have. Things "go off the rails" so often with the CIA that going off the rails seems to be the plan.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse