Comments on: The DNI Is Well-Meaning. Really. Except with Those He Claims Want No IC.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:19:17 +0000

25 – Don’t think of it is late – think of it as starting phase 2 of the party.

19 – that’s it exactly and that is also why the US has traditionally PREFERRED to have a centralized, strong dictator “one stop shop” rather than democracies to deal with.

By: john in sacramento

john in sacramento — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:02:49 +0000

Just what I get for living on the West Coast … I’m always late to the party

When McConnell is advocating for retroactive immunity for those firms that violated the law, he undoubtedly is one of those lawbreakers. When nominated to be DNI, he was at Booz Allen Hamilton, a major player in datamining and data analysis. From Rockefeller’s nomination speech:

Upon retiring from the Navy, Admiral McConnell went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton where he has been a senior vice president for intelligence and national security. He also is currently chairman and chief executive officer of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an industry group that works with the Government looking for ways to solve some of our complex intelligence problems.

Why does the press never point out McConnell’s conflict of interest?

John Young @ cryptome is invaluable

http://cryptome.org/spy-mike-flog.htm

And I forget how I got on the listserve, but there are a lot of nuggets in the DoD contract email they put out every day to help you ‘follow the money’… like this one

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., of Herndon, Va., is being awarded a contract for $6,304,373. This action provides for the Information Assurance Technical Analysis Center to research a state-of-art 3D facial recognition biometrics program and prepare a final technical report. At this time $289,855 has been obligated. 55CONS/LGCD, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., is the contracting activity (SP0700-98-D-4002, Delivery Order 0332).

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:52:10 +0000

Bmaz @19
What you suggest is that it’s not about oil supply, but about control of the oil supply market, not about bringing stability, but control of stabilty. One could extend this to say the issue is not about about stabilty in home mortgages, but control of stability in mortgage markets. Thus we get calls for “enforcement action”.
I suppose this could extend to the thinking of a political strategist as well: it’s not about getting votes, but about controlling the voting. Heh, or even controlling the justice system, not merely a particular case or two. Sound familiar?

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:41:42 +0000

The DNI is giving voice to The One Percent Doctrine. I would observe that the One Percent Doctrine is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. One may draw any number of interesting and useful conclusions from that.

By: JTMinIA

JTMinIA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:34:47 +0000

Your view of Confucianism appears to be too narrow for me. While I agree that the obligations of the citizen to the state don’t include any real discussion of the limits of the state’s power, if you read the other half — i.e., that which concerns the obligations of rulers to the ruled — you will see quite a few limits. And remember: if a magistrate accused a citizen of a crime, but could not prove it, then the magistrate suffered the same punishment that would have been given to the accused. The key here is that Confucianist thinking stresses the people involved (apples to apples) and not the citizens vs the state (apples to a big orange).

By: AZ Matt

AZ Matt — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:26:36 +0000

Concerning comments made at the Furman University speech:

Feingold Calls Out Intel Chief For Saying Dems Want To Imprison Bush

The Honorable J.M. McConnell Director of National Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20511

Dear Director McConnell:

I have received a copy of your March 28, 2008, speech at Furman University. In it, you described Senate action on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, stating:

“We had a bill go into the Senate. It was debated vigorously. There were some who said we shouldn’t have an Intelligence Community. Some have that point of view. Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail. I mean, this is democracy, you can say anything you want to say. That was the argument made. The vote was 68 to 29.”

As you correctly noted, the bill was the subject of vigorous debate. Many members of the Senate expressed serious concerns about the lack of checks and balances included in the legislation and the potential impact of the new authorities on the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Many Senators were also concerned that retroactive immunity for companies alleged to have cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program would undermine the rule of law.

However, I am not aware of any Senator saying or suggesting that “we shouldn’t have an Intelligence Community” or that President Bush “should be impeached and should go to jail.” I would therefore appreciate your providing a list of all statements made by Senators during the debate that you believe support these assertions. If there are no such examples, you should issue an immediate correction and an apology.

While all sides of this debate deserve to be heard, to falsely attribute statements to United States Senators serves only to mislead the American people. It also undermines your credibility and that of the position of Director of National Intelligence.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
U.S. Senator

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:25:11 +0000

B.I.N.G.O

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:22:39 +0000

Not to mention that we are by far the largest destabilizing force there lately. Crikey, they will sell the freaking oil, the only problem is that Cheney and his buds won’t make as much money. That’s what the battle is over.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:05:10 +0000

My attention was drawn to the notion that oil comes from areas that are unstable. That word,”unstable” seems ominous. I think it means “unreliable”, from a business viewpoint, as in: unplannable access to resources or markets. Our history is replete with “gunboat diplomacy” and other military adventures organized to insure such stability. Thus we have a rationale for the endless war footing, hundred-year occupations, spreading democracy, etc.
Furthermore, after the immediacy of the need for “stable” supplies of oil, we have need for “stable’ supplies of fresh water, which if anyone has been noticing, is also getting scarce.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:46:57 +0000

Hayden is the head of the CIA, McConnell is DNI. I heard Hayden make those arguments about the 4th amendment not requiring warrants and probable cause to wiretap Americans on American soil (haven’t heard McConnell but wouldn’t be surprised if he said the same).

You are right Mary. It was Hayden not McConnell. Sorry everyone. Need more coffee.