WikiLeaks on Wednesday began releasing documents from one of former CIA chief John Brennan's non-government email accounts, which he is said to have "used occasionally for several intelligence related projects."
1970's technology (HUMINT al a "The Rockford Files") still works great; it is hard to encrypt human nature.
So glad this public "servant" sets such a high bar. This revelation will pick at the scab of Hilary's email debacle. May we live in interesting times.
Did John Brennan do this on purpose to destroy America along with his lies about torture committed in our name?
According to Dick Cheney's One Percent Doctrine, if there's even a One Percent Chance Brennan is a terrorist, then we have to take him out. Brennan left classified information lying around where a 13 year old kid could read it. We must at least strip him naked and put him in a cell next to Chelsey Manning who is serving 30 years for also leaking National Security Secrets. Let's find out who Brennan is really working for, since we know it is not American Citizens, who he has bombed and "disappeared" in many cases.
Should we also waterboard John Brennan to find out why he lied to Congress about the efficacy of CIA torture techniques? I will leave that question up to you.
After all, National Security is at stake. Right? A bunch ragheads on Camels who don't even have a pure internet connection could read Brennan's resume and outflank 1000 Military bases and the biggest War Machine on the Planet! (/sarcasm).
I'll tell you what Director Brennan, you leaked top secret American information to the enemy. I am demanding that either you go to jail for it, or else free Bradley Manning for doing the same thing, along with pardoning Edward Snowden (a real patriot) for informing we citizens of your misdeeds and war crimes that you seem to commit on a daily basis.
You've got my support on most of your comment.
Then you state: "This revelation will pick at the scab of Hilary's email debacle."
Phraseology aside, would you care to share with us what you meant by the characterization -- "Hil[l]ary's email debacle" -- with particular reference to use of the word "debacle"?
...Every Tom, Dick, and Harry... style.... why do so many posters opt for the name Tom here? (The female equivalent is Elizabeth).
By my count there's:
It's pretty strange; and it's the only masculine name that has this many derivatives.
I agree about the Nuremberg Trials... but you're pretty cavalier about stating what the rest of the world ought to be doing as if the U.S. martial empire isn't bearing down with heavily armed bases in every sector.
Although I wholeheartedly agreed with Bernie Sanders' dismissal of the email issue, many others don't. Having worked a quarter of a century in the public sector (universities), I do recall never transacting professional correspondence with students, colleagues, administrators, or funding agencies using a private email address. From early on it was clear that such communications were to be archivable. Personally, I'll ding HRC on other more substantive matters.
Not Edwin Snowden... Edward Snowden. However, you raise an apt point about "Zero Tolerance" for leaks and leakers... let's see how these dangerous imbeciles put a finger in the dam... lest they are ready to offer one of their own as scapegoat for impossible missions... impossible, in the sense they were built upon fallacious cases all stemming from the ultimate Inside Job.
Thank you for the correction. I shall fix it with the non-shameful edit button!
Not for this Tom, as per Sue's concerns, but the reality regardless how you feel about Wikileaks or Brenden, makes clear if you're a bit paranoid about what is released the public, it might be worthwhile to consider what we are all typing.
Nothing is private. Why expect it.
How does it feel to be on the receiving end, Chief Brennan?
It seems that that is what is happening actively both in Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria. And it started well before Brennan's emails were hacked. And on that argument, gentlemen of the jury, the case of Jefferson v. Brennan fails abysmally.
I'm unsure what point you are trying to make. John Brennan is not a common citizen and has no expectation of Fourth Amendment "No unreasonable search and seizure" rights as all of us do. Hopefully, NSA spies on him and knows what misdeeds he is up to (about the only check and balance we have anymore.) He handles classified information which can never be left on social media servers outside the control of the US Government. What he did was unforgivable.
Naturally, the bar has to be set higher for him than it is for citizens not privy to state secrets and national security material. What if he stored intercepted tomahawk launch codes on AOL's servers and they were launch-able by any kid able to publish them since he's too stupid to put them on an encrypted CIA server? Or, did he do this on purpose to defend the government's claim that hackers are our greatest threat nowdays?
We need to fire his azz and get to the bottom of this.
I'm a researcher -- and I try to avoid assumptions, generalizations, non sequiturs -- and other logical fallacies. The preponderance of reliable evidence has to be there to substantiate a claim.
It's more than curious that Clinton's email account HASN'T been hacked into (according to reports) -- despite attempts -- while government systems and accounts HAVE been hacked into -- suggesting that the whole notion of what is and is not secure is far from self-evident.
I've yet to find a shred of credibility in the so-called "evidence" presented by right-wingers in their accusations pertaining to both Benghazi AND Clinton's personal email account (and attendant security set-up) -- making this a much more interesting discussion than meets the undiscerning eye.
Afganistan and Syria are contrived conflicts designed to keep the MIC on the taxpayer gravy-train just like Vietnam with the same government contractors like Brown and Root (now KBR) benefiting. When Obomber sent billions of dollars and ARMS to al Qeida (to fight the CIA invented ISIS) do you really need any more proof it's all fake?
The common denominator in Banker Wars is to fund both sides and clean up on massive interest payments from both sides after everything is destroyed. This is what undid Napoleon by the way. He ran out of Rothschild loan money to feed and pay his troops and was forced to sell the vast "Louisiana Purchase" in America to Thomas Jefferson for a song.
My tongue in cheek diatribe against Brennan is nothing but melodramatic theater to underscore the hypocrisy of the Global War on Terror. If such a thing really existed, Brennan would be on the rack for endangering the United States. Since it's all fake, his recklessness is in no way going to endanger the Empire, so he will not be procecuted like Bradly Manning or Edward Snowden were.
Just a pit paranoid, Tom? Brennan should have never used an AOL e-mail re:
the possibility of sending information related to the job he holds. Nor, IMHO should have Wikileaks chosen to expand that information for any and all to have it for whatever use they might put it to. I simply don't share the same opinions and views you do. No point to be made, just making a statement as like you it is my right. But in the end to expect privacy on the internet is foolish IMHO.
I too, was/am a researcher and concur with your instincts. Politics, however, mostly lies outside of logical processes. It is how the masses can be manipulated to view Clinton's handling of email that transcends truth that is at play. In politics, message trumps (gasp, no pun intended) truth.
That's easy to answer SR,
They are all trying to irritate and imitate me! One even used the same talking points and signed his posts as TJ as I have forever. The "Liz" clones are less clear. Could it be they worship royalty, like Queen Elizabeth? The aggressive one always featured pure-bred racehorses on her avatar. Just guesses on my part. Also the variations on Shaw Berry and his stalking gang are quite memorable to me. They morphed into John Treada, Maxwell and now JJ.
Well at least I'm a trendsetter. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, you know!
Oh, long before the '70s -- my colleagues and I were using it in the '60s, and we were taught by those who used it in the '40s. There's evidence from mythology that the techniques predate the historical record.
As you say: it's hard to encrypt human nature.
Well, Tom Carberry is a real person, a lawyer in Colorado - you can look him up.
Probably more generally, it's popular because Thomas was an Xian apostle ("Doubting Thomas") and it's a popular name among Xians and pseudo-Xians the same way Shmuel or Akiva is among Jews, or Ali among Muslims.
In accordance with the obvious corruption and bastardization of systems by politicians and corporate elites -- and the complete irrelevance of factual scrutiny, much less something as abstract as "truth" -- we hold politicians to significantly lower standards than would be sustainable in an academic environment.
But in the Clinton email matter there isn't even a "policy" pertaining to what "should" and "should not" be practiced. That's a pretty important to policy to have don't you think? (The Federal Records Act has no provisions for enforcement so it's excluded as a policy per this discussion.) Hence the fact that Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta -- and quite possibly thousands of other gov't employees -- transformed this into what might be construed as an alternative accepted practice that went largely unchecked. These are not IT people who understood computer hardware and software systems and networks, interfacing issues and the effectiveness of "security" applications (including encryption).
The point is, much like the consistently ineffective screening for weapons at airports, security systems are far from secure -- and until that actuality is properly acknowledged and then addressed we're taking some rather cavalier risks, with varying levels of probability, as it pertains to potential life and death situations.
So it's not so much that we're NOT dealing with the importance of facts (and truth as you've mentioned) -- but that we're not even scrutinizing information at the most basic levels to ascertain mere "satisfactory" grades. It highlights the illusory nature of life -- esp. at the most powerful levels -- and the potential for transforming those illusions into delusions -- a trap that hoodwinks far too many.