Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
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 administration 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.