Similarly, the NSA betrayed us. They don't get to say that they were just following orders. We must always understand that the NSA betrayed us and we can't trust them any more. Information dominance is the most powerful way for a nation to dominate and control its people. The NSA turned on the US Citizens and betrayed them in this way.

Do you think they wanted to control US people?

Do you not?

Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA.

Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it.

This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.

> Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA.

* 109 generals oppose her nomination in a letter: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/RMLSena...

* yes, there were some democrats who voted in her favour, but there were republicans too who voted against her. Overall though, the overwhelming majority democrats did vote against her. Far from "unanimous support" like you claim.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

I have no goal in undermining your point; it has only raised a curiosity for me. Overall your point is strong with your second bullet, it's just the first bullet I want to discuss without detracting from.

109 generals sounds like a large number. It's a compelling metric!

But, I don't really know how many generals (and admirals) there really are in the military. I just know that the US military is kinda huge, so there's got to be a lot of them. I mean, the Pentagon alone is a massive building (the largest office in the world!) that I imagine being full of generals.

And then, I see in the letter that all of the signees are retired, which expands the total number of generals (and admirals) alive significantly.

I guess, I'm trying to ask a question about metrics, because I face this constantly. The absolute metric (>100 generals!) looks very strong, but the relative metric (nn% of all living generals and admirals active and retired) would possibly be underwhelming. It's no small feat to get a person with a real voice to sign a public letter like that so, the absolute number is big, but if the cause were of broad interest the relative number would be significant too....

On a minor bit of research I see there can only be 231 flag officers active at any time. I don't know how many are retired, but that does indicate the absolute number is a significant relative number. I still just struggle with the right way to report and digest metrics like this.

The number of generals (and admirals) in active duty is capped at about 650. Active duty generals are prohibited in most instances from opining in political matters, and they almost absolutely refrain from political matters over which they are not prohibited from opining on. Even after retirement, most still refrain from public opinions on political matters, but a small subset become politically active.

109 retired generals is far more than you can regularly expect on ordinarily political matters. For context, nominations for secretary of defense generally elicit opinions from retired generals. James Mattis, who quite possibly is the most popular military general for several decades, only ever received a couple dozen public expressions of support for confirmation as secretary of defense. The fact that 109 generals publicly opposed any confirmation of a Secretary of Anything, let alone a director level position, and did so in a unanimous letter, is absolutely massive.

> I see in the letter that all of the signees are retired, which expands the total number of generals (and admirals) alive significantly.

Active duty generals generally do not comment on political matters. Once they have left military service it's much easier for them to give a public opinion about politics without creating a conflict of interest.

Thank you, I had not seen the letter before. It is chilling that anyone voted for her after seeing it.

You are welcome!

There was at least some level of accountability for US Army members after the Abu Ghraib scandal [0], while I haven't heard about any CIA employee being held accountable in a similar way.

It's one thing to support an authoritarian regime with torture cells because it gives you cheap oil, it's another thing to do it yourself, with your own personel, because with this you lose your moral superiority and tarnish your own reputation. I'm not saying the former is great, it's bad, but that regime is not beholden to the US constitution, laws and judges, unlike the US federal employees.

A good point I heard a senator make in her confirmation hearings [1]: Even if she wasn't involved in torture at all, (and she was), alone the fact that Trump nominated her because he believed she was involved, turns the decision about her nomination into a decision about torture, no matter how much she regrets it in her letter to Sen. Warner (and the letter's regret was minimal).

[0]: Caution, graphic pictures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9R9ZGubvMs

Perhaps they were afraid that they would be tortured.

Both republicans and democrats will do everything to keep up the American empire. Their foreign policy doesn't differ too much (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Bay of Pigs/Cuba, Panama, ...) as does their management of the three letter agencies (CIA torture and drug trading, NSA listening in, ...). Kennedy, Obama and Clinton haven't been that different from Nixon, Reagan or Bush in that area. Sometimes their tools differ.

And John Yoo teaches at Berkeley law!

“Any questions class?”

“How do you sleep at night?”

These are war crimes. Someone convicted of torture in the way that CIA officials have authorized could be sentenced to life imprisonment. The only problem is that the US is not a party to the ICC (probably because so many power holders are guilty of war crimes), so we do not pursue war crime trials.

I would like to see a concerted effort to document these crimes, issue warrants for arrest, and have customs officials in all ICC-party states ready to flag and arrest any suspected war criminal, in order to extradite for ICC trial. Some countries do this already but we need all of the ICC-party states to do it.

And yes, I get that they would likely just never travel to countries where they may be arrested. But for the powerful, that in itself is a punishment. They may not serve prison time, but we can take away their European vacations.

That's a nice fantasy you've got there. I'd love to see some EU nation try to kidnap a prominent US citizen, but it'll never happen because the consequences would be severe.

The consequences would not be simply severe. There is an actual law passed by US in 2002 authorizing military action against ANY country (including NATO members!) working to bring US citizens to the Hague for a trial at ICC. And yes, that law explicitly allows invading the Netherlands and attacking ICC if needed in order to prevent war crime trials against US citizens. To make matters worse, there are rumored secret extensions (by executive action) of that law allowing LETHAL action against ANY individual(s) (as opposed to countries) who work towards getting a US citizen to trial at the ICC. See my comment in response to the use who you said was living in a fantasy world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

They're certainly trying:

https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/germany-criminal-complaint-agai...

User @jaywalk said you live in a fantasy but it is actually an understatement! How come you have never heard of the "American Service-Members' Protection Act", which Bush signed into law SPECIFICALLY for de-facto preventing ICC from ever trying a US citizen for war crimes???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

https://www.wearethemighty.com/us-can-invade-the-hague

"...In 2002, then-President George W. Bush signed the American Service-Members' Protection Act into law, authorizing the use of military force to free its citizens from incarceration and trial by the International Criminal Court. The act, dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act" for the name of the city in the Netherlands where the ICC holds prisoners, allows the President to use the American military to free its service members or those of any allied country who might be captured for trial there. More menacingly for potential U.S. allies, the act allows the United States to end military assistance for signatory countries to the ICC treaty, unless they agree not to extradite American citizens to The Hague."

That law explicitly authorizes the US military to INVADE the Netherlands and attack the ICC in order to free a US citizen on trial there. Netherlands is a NATO member, just like the US!! Not to mention a party to a number of other non-aggression pacts the US has with most Western European countries. That law Bush pushed for and signed makes the entire NATO idea a freaking joke. No country is safe if it ever dares to arrest US military members, no matter how horrible the war crimes committed by them. As they say in the commercials "but wait, there is more!" There are also multiple secret executive actions and DOJ "legal opinions" accompanying that fascist/evil law and the rumor is those secret amendments authorize covert LETHAL action by US special forces against foreign government officials (or any other foreign individual for that matter) working towards bringing a US citizen to trial at the ICC in Hague.

So, I would be thrilled to know what customs officials you have in mind that would be willing to get assassinated (covertly) for doing ANYTHING that can be construed by the US as aiding/abetting the capture and bringing a US citizen to ICC for a war crime trial. Even if you find such kamikazes, no country would dare issue orders authorizing its own officials to perform such acts against US military personnel.

So, no offense, but what world exactly are you living in!?!?

What happend with Gen. Keith Alexander?

He retired and became an executive at a privet cyber security company last I had heard.

Was anything they did ruled illegal? Pretty sure it wasn’t so I’m not sure how that is relevant.