Again, I would guess many of the funds were for infrastructure type things that only needed to be done once.

By it's very charter the NSA is prohibited from domestic surveillance and yet there is a data room in the San Francisco AT&T office crammed full of their monitoring gear. This administration does seem to be taking a very liberal attitude towards what can and cannot happen.

You can disagree with that all you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking that such surveillance started with the Bush administration.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the CIA should disobey the laws as passed by the congress in regards to paying informants, but yet you say that the adminstration is doesn't seem to care much about violating intelligence gathering rules.

I happen to agree with you that hey CIA should be paying informants for good intel regardless of what their past entails (of course there are concerns and verifications necessary until the informant has proven to do that, and also counterintelligence concerns).

I never said it started with Bushy but I do think he has taken it to a new level. However in any case "he did it too" is hardly a defense in this case.

I never said the CIA should disobey the law, I said this administration is going to interpret the laws so that they can do whatever they damn well please. Then if/when they get in trouble they will just blame the entire thing on some mid-level manager who's dedication to duty lead him to be overzealous or some such BS.

"Unsavory" leaves a lot of wiggle room, if interpreted technically it would mean the CIA could not work with the white house.

I'll accept that's not what you said, but I think my conclusions of what I thought you meant were logical.

You did not say it started with Bush. You criticized the program and then in the next sentence talked about how the Bush administration takes a liberal stance on what it can do, so I hope you can see why I thought you might be suggesting it started with them.

You did not say specifically that the CIA should disobey the law, but when you suggested they should be offering incentives to foreign nationals (which I interpretted to mean paying informants), I took that as meaning you thought they should violate the existing law against it.

Your last statement was funny.

It's not just that the CIA deals with unsavory characters; they become those unsavory characters. Just take a look at what went on (and for all I know still goes on) with drug running around the world. CIA operatives are hip-deep in it, and it goes far beyond their need to gather intelligence.

If we take what the CIA has done in the war on drugs and move it over to the war on terror, it will be the CIA itself that is blowing up buildings in America.

Or perhaps they'll only blow up buildings in other countries, and leave it to their new associates to blow up the Americans ... with the CIA's full knowledge and consent.

I have no idea what valuable intelligence the CIA has been able to supply our government, but they have proven to be a far greater danger to American society than the value of any intelligence could possibly be worth.

Well, at least two people in the GOP get it. Thank you Laura Bush and Mary Dinglecheese Cheney. Yes, the Republicans are using gay marriage as a campaign tool.
:rolleyes:

As a sign of electoral desperation, I'm not altogether unamused.

I'm going to put on my black top hat and cape, paint on a handlebar mustache and I'm going to go out and destroy some straight marriages right now. Nyuk nyuk nyuk! :D