Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#81

Post by lotsofmangos »

poof131 wrote: post #62
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’m impressed by the diligence in trying to make sure your most wanted target is there before taking lethal military action. Diligence would have required following through with the vaccination campaign. For pennies they could have vaccinated the kids, and probably evaded detection, but in their haste they carelessly exposed their operation. > I’m disappointed by the immediate release of operational details for poli…

I agree with your first point: They should have vaccinated everyone. I don't agree with your second point, way too much information about the operation was released. And your last point I find most discouraging. It's the president who is most responsible for the actions of the government both at home and abroad. It's too easy to blame a 3 letter agency than the leaders we elect for then we would have to blame ourselv…

It's the president who is most responsible for the actions of the government both at home and abroad.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#82

Post by shitlord »

dickinurass wrote: post #7

It's hilarious, if anyone else was caught infiltrating senate computers .. but the CIA f'n seriously they were trying to interfere with a torture investigation .. ridiculous where are the repercussions what country am I living in?

But nobody infiltrated senate computers to begin with...

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#83

Post by lotsofmangos »

srean wrote: post #77
lotsofmangos wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Jacques,” he said, “You and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord” Chirac said nothing. He didn’t know where Bush was going with this. “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,” Bush said. ‘’Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled.” Gog and Magog? What was that?, thought Chirac. “This confrontati…

...and I thought this was a scene from a Coen brothers movie, it is that bizarre.

Ronald Reagan riffing on that theme is equally mental:

"Ezekiel tells us that Gog, the nation that will lead all of the other powers of darkness against Israel, will come out of the north. Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn’t seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become Communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly."

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#84

Post by krapp »

sroerick wrote: post #67
krapp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the media's purpose to declare something treason - doing so would make them look like partisan hacks.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=snowden+treason

If you're trying to prove the media doesn't get accused of partisanship with that, it's not a strong case. There were arguments on this very site that the media outlets which weren't reporting aggressively enough on the Snowden events were suppressing information on behalf of the intelligence services, and the ones which were, were either attempting to lambast him on behalf of of the same, or were manufacturing the whole thing as a smokescreen to hide the government's true crimes. Only the Guardian itself ever seemed to get by without some accusation of pandering or being a shill for some dark agenda.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a legitimate argument to have but... especially given the political climate post-Snowden, I wouldn't expect discourse wherever the 't' work is invoked to be particularly helpful.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#86

Post by lawnchair_larry »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #70
poof131 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not at any cost. The irony of this tragedy is that the intent of the operation was to mitigate the possibility of collateral damage and going after the wrong target. I'm pretty sure Cowboy Bush would have been all in at the mention of Osama and never done the vaccination op. To depict targeting Osama as a revenge killing is not right. I try to empathize with the grievances he had and represents against the…

“Jacques,” he said, “You and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord” Chirac said nothing. He didn’t know where Bush was going with this. “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,” Bush said. ‘’Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled.” Gog and Magog? What was that?, thought Chirac. “This confrontati…

Who was present for all of these detailed conversations as a source for the author?

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#87

Post by lotsofmangos »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #86
lotsofmangos wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Jacques,” he said, “You and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord” Chirac said nothing. He didn’t know where Bush was going with this. “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,” Bush said. ‘’Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled.” Gog and Magog? What was that?, thought Chirac. “This confrontati…

Who was present for all of these detailed conversations as a source for the author?

Jacques Chirac has apparently confirmed the account - http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_bibli...

The original source appears to be the theologian Dr. Thomas Romer, whose expertise was sought to try and work out what Bush was going on about.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/gog-magog-and-...

Of course, they all have it wrong. As anybody knows, Gog and Magog are the two giants who defend the City of London on behalf of the Lord Mayor.

http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/history/gog-and-magog

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#88

Post by [deleted] »

tomjen3 wrote: post #28
TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

You know what's CIA's even more reckless breach of trust? Organizing fake vaccination campaigns[0]. Now the efforts with eradicating Polio in some parts of the world meet with resistance of people who don't trust the vaccination campaign isn't a cover for US clandestine operations[1]. Hard to blame them, to be honest. "The edict by the Islamic militants to ban immunization was in response to the CIA's setting up a fa…

Shouldn't be difficult to fix. The programs should just be financed and controlled by Saudi Arabia or some other ME country.

[deleted]

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#89

Post by lawnchair_larry »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #87
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who was present for all of these detailed conversations as a source for the author?

Jacques Chirac has apparently confirmed the account - http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_bibli... The original source appears to be the theologian Dr. Thomas Romer, whose expertise was sought to try and work out what Bush was going on about. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/gog-magog-and-... Of course, they all have it wrong. As anybody knows, Gog and Magog are the two giants who defe…

What about the rest of the article? The conversations between Blair and Putin, etc.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#90

Post by mikeash »

auxbuss wrote: post #60
mikeash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing one guy who isn't even all that important in the organization should definitely not have taken priority over seriously harming polio eradication efforts. Yes, sometimes you should let the bad guy get away if the consequences of what's required to catch him are worse. This should be obvious, but people's minds shut down when confronted with "terrorism".

"... but people's minds shut down when confronted with "terrorism"." And why is that? I ask, because, like many here -- well, as few, at least -- I grew up in the UK with the IRA bombing things around me every now and again. These were frequent events. I saw the aftermath of a few of them myself. They were as hideous, as you can imagine. I narrowly missed being caught up in two. My girlfriend and I had a picnic on th…

"Why" is the big question, isn't it?

It looks to me like a feedback loop. Fear in the populace results in politicians and media responding to and magnifying that fear. Fearful news reporting generates better ratings in a fearful populace, which makes them more fearful. Similarly, fearful political rhetoric garners votes from a fearful populace, which makes them more fearful. This would imply that it's sensitive to small differences in initial conditions.

One thing that I'd bet makes a big difference is the existence and magnitude of other threats. The US and UK are pretty solidly secure right now. There are no major human threats present now or in the near future. Compare with the era you're talking about, in which our countries (and, of course, many others) were perpetually 15 minutes away from total annihilation at the hands of the Soviets, either because they decided to try to take over the world, or just because of some terrible mistake. I imagine one probably doesn't take a terrorist nail bomb too seriously when you legitimately think there's a real possibility that you and everyone you ever knew will be killed in a two-hour-long WWIII.

Perhaps we're geared towards thinking about existential threats, and if one isn't present, we'll magnify whatever we can find.

Post reply on HN