Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dkf

(37,305 posts)

28. All intelligence committee heads are suspect.

Reply to Catherina (Original post)

Wed Aug 14, 2013, 03:08 PM

Aug 2013

They are completely biased towards the surveillance state and are complicit in making sure the public knows nothing.

They don't want anyone to be held accountable for violating the constitution so they need to protect members by giving them plausible deniability. That's the sad truth.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Intelligence committee urged to explain if they withheld crucial NSA document [View all] Catherina Aug 2013 OP

Yo "The Guardian", if you are going to masquerade as a real news outlet snooper2 Aug 2013 #1

I think The Guardian has a pretty good handle on how to be a real news outlet hootinholler Aug 2013 #3

There should be no bias in journalism, Period snooper2 Aug 2013 #4

First, What bullshit! hootinholler Aug 2013 #5

I agree, except I would change that to every paper has an editorial bias... deurbano Aug 2013 #10

says who? nt David Krout Aug 2013 #30

+100 nt 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #13

We "get it" that you dislike Snowden & The Guardian, but.. bvar22 Aug 2013 #7

I thought members of the Intelligence committees had clearance other members didn't have snooper2 Aug 2013 #8

Really? Defending Republican Chairman Rogers? bvar22 Aug 2013 #15

OFFS! hootinholler Aug 2013 #19

Cool, guess he fucked up LOL snooper2 Aug 2013 #20

nice ad! too funny Pretzel_Warrior Aug 2013 #32

When presented with evidence of a complete breakdown in the Congressional oversight process Maedhros Aug 2013 #16

Hyperbole gets ratings! snooper2 Aug 2013 #17

Why are you so focused on ridiculing those of us who are concerned about our Constitutional rights? Maedhros Aug 2013 #24

117k Targets, it's the truthy far left far right government is spying on me! snooper2 Aug 2013 #25

Ah, yes. Concern for civil rights is "far Left." Maedhros Aug 2013 #29

Nobody knew about the robosigning. reusrename Aug 2013 #33

Cut the bullshit. Did the intel comm. withhold surveillance info before the Patriot Act vote?? chimpymustgo Aug 2013 #31

Attack the messenger. Attack the messenger. nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #34

Are they appointed by Nancy? kentuck Aug 2013 #2

Based on this 2007 announcement, it looks like Pelosi chooses the Dems for the House Select Catherina Aug 2013 #9

"... tantamount to subversion of the democratic process ..." Scuba Aug 2013 #6

+1 uponit7771 Aug 2013 #12

This what is most dangerous about the surveillance bureaucracy. JDPriestly Aug 2013 #11

A most important point. Thank you n/t Catherina Aug 2013 #23

"Now Morgan Griffith, a Republican ... is calling for answers." What about some Democrats? AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #14

The Democrats are searching for "Bi-Partisan Consensus", bvar22 Aug 2013 #18

Why not try blaming the Republican Chair of the Committee who made the decision pnwmom Aug 2013 #21

There's Holt, Wyden, Udall, Conyers.... Forget Pelosi for this one Catherina Aug 2013 #22

Republicon occultism. As usual. Berlum Aug 2013 #26

Sounds like a Republican problem to me, as they chair the committee. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #27

All intelligence committee heads are suspect. dkf Aug 2013 #28