The Deep State

[Praktik]

Most of the "Deep State" actors are folks who have security clearances, and many took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. So when you're bureau has a recording of the National Security Adviser talking with a Russian diplomat - before he has been sworn in - red flags shoot up, and when you see your bureau's leadership sitting on it without taking action you have a choice: You can do nothing and hope the Russians only use their influence for good, or you leak the transcripts.

If you are a good American you leak the transcripts.

There is legal precedent for this with Daniel Ellsberg a the "Pentagon Papers". Unlike Manning and Snowden,who gave away the entire store, Ellsberg leaked important documents about Vietnam without compromising the larger National Security apparatus.

We have seen this many times, most recently with enhanced interrogation (torture), and the NSA's eavesdropping during the Bush Administration (prior to Snowden).

This is why big evil secrets are hard to keep. I know, it sucks all the fun out of the CT world, but it is the real truth.

Im almost in 100% agreement but would argue there are differences between Snowden and Manning's leaks that put Snowden closer to Ellsberg, in terms of using a filter to leak.

Manning is very much an example of a "document dump" though.

Can't say im all that upset about any of these.

We should be thankful for leaks. Helps keep some check on things even if some leakers are too exuberant and use less filters.

 

[Hans]

Especially when the reality is more "Yes, Minister"

Yes I thought of that also and in my experience working with a number of governments it was frightening correct.

 

[No Other]

Most of the "Deep State" actors are folks who have security clearances, and many took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. So when you're bureau has a recording of the National Security Adviser talking with a Russian diplomat - before he has been sworn in - red flags shoot up, and when you see your bureau's leadership sitting on it without taking action you have a choice: You can do nothing and hope the Russians only use their influence for good, or you leak the transcripts.

If you are a good American you leak the transcripts.

Leaking documents appears to be a "safe way" to get knowledge to the public due to certain Administrations prosecuting Whistle Blowers. The information that Snowden leaked was very old information what was troubling for the public is that portions of the Government were/are using their skills and turning them inward on the US. Even though, the Pentagon Papers were more about the LBJ Administration the Vietnam War was still active and those leaks virtually castrated the Nixon Administration. As it turned out the Vietnam War was a bad war.

There is legal precedent for this with Daniel Ellsberg a the "Pentagon Papers". Unlike Manning and Snowden,who gave away the entire store, Ellsberg leaked important documents about Vietnam without compromising the larger National Security apparatus.

The "National Security apparatus" is not in any danger of losing it's power and/or role within our Government. The greater Public has more information now than it did prior to Snowden but the Public is still impotent when it comes to doing anything about it...

We have seen this many times, most recently with enhanced interrogation (torture), and the NSA's eavesdropping during the Bush Administration (prior to Snowden).

I agree; only low level personnel get assigned blame and the Decision Makers march forward.

This is why big evil secrets are hard to keep. I know, it sucks all the fun out of the CT world, but it is the real truth.

This is where I own a different opinion; today the Agencies have compartmentalized much better than just a few years ago. Back in the day of the Pentagon Papers, the means to keep it within a few people was not as easy because there were Troops on the ground and in the air that knew of the atrocities in Vietnam and there was nothing that prevented them from acting out their thoughts when they were discharged. Vietnam was bound to implode and it would have happened earlier except for Nixon's escalation with his desire to carry on a Secret War. Today, we contract out many services to the Public and they are not under the same protection as Government workers which makes it easier for the Government to control the contract companies. Those same companies are able to avoid many obstacles that Government Agencies have placed in front of them like oversight. Blackwater is good example of how an Administration was able to direct the war through the State Department.

The Abu Grahaib debacle had 5 people spend a few years in prison and the only thing the Officers received were reprimands with one General reduced to a Brig. General heck only one officer was charged with abuse and that officer had his record expunged in January of 2008.

The Congress granted immunity to AT&T after the fact and life moved ahead with absolutely nobody even being reprimanded.

The big question is: How did any of these events affect "Deep State"?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Rootless internationalists
Global bankers
Shadow government
Deep state

How often do these people make me change the sign on the door of our Synagogue?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Seriously.

I have footage of the real Deep State.


EDIT:
I've been beaten to the punch on this reference.

 

[Hans]

Seriously.

I have footage of the real Deep State.


EDIT:
I've been beaten to the punch on this reference.

I received a VERY similar sounding speech from an official of an Arab nation's 'Ministry of Education' on their stand about allowing local communities to decided the number and type of Islamic classes they wanted to include with their 'liberal western education' and what should and shouldn't be taught to girls (no electronics, no sports, no health, no self-defense, etc).

 

[Axxman300]

The "National Security apparatus" is not in any danger of losing it's power and/or role within our Government. The greater Public has more information now than it did prior to Snowden but the Public is still impotent when it comes to doing anything about it...

Snowden didn't tell us anything that we didn't already know in Silicon Valley. The exploits of Windows and the iPhone were - at least I thought they were - common knowledge. All he has done is revealed their operational code names, making it easier for foreign intelligence to back-check their data using those names in their search, and then figure out what has been compromised.

I have bad news for you, the NSA, CIA, and NRO ain't goin' nowhere.

This is where I own a different opinion; today the Agencies have compartmentalized much better than just a few years ago.

Actually, in the 1950s and 1960s the CIA was almost a cult. Secrecy was dogmatic, as evidenced by how few memiors come out of that time frame as compared to the 1970s through 2010.

If secrets seem easier to keep it's because the general US public doesn't seem to care, or have the attention span to read up.

Today, we contract out many services to the Public and they are not under the same protection as Government workers which makes it easier for the Government to control the contract companies. Those same companies are able to avoid many obstacles that Government Agencies have placed in front of them like oversight. Blackwater is good example of how an Administration was able to direct the war through the State Department.

This comes from the big draw-down in 1992. The GOP is allergic to spending money, and the DNC doesn't like to spend it on defense...so we hire out.

Snowden was a contractor, which is why the ability to keep secrets is only as good as the private security company's vetting process for its employees.

The fact that these private security companies are not under the same protections as US Government agencies is a double-edged sword as they are subject to local laws, and can be left hanging by the US, and in the case of Blackwater - operators can be hung out to dry by their own employer.

The big question is: How did any of these events affect "Deep State"?

The big answer is that it didn't, nor should it have. Each event you listed was initiated by ELECTED OFFICIALS either in the White House, Senate, or Congress. Any action with the subtext being a potential act of war, or Constitutional violation ALWAYS comes from Capital Hill, never Langley, or Fort Mead. Deep State doesn't move without something in triplicate from someone in a nice Washington office. Every REAL conspiracy starts on one of those offices.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm just hoping this year Deep State finally beats Navy in the big game.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This. It actually does have a relevant and useful meaning - the "deep state" remains no matter which faction of the civilian rabble is running things at the head of government.

But i think people like using it now because it just sounds so cool and scary.

Agreed.

There are certainly 'difficult to remove' people in critical posts. Any time you have a handful or more people who feel fairly secure in their positions and that their overall interests are aligned, you're going to find a 'faction' for lack of a better term. Some are temporary and borne of convenience, but history is rife with seemingly diligent middling office holders who's names the public don't know (not from obfuscation, necessarily) who all believe "the state" must survive and can wield a surprising amount of control. For many such examples from the era before nation-states, simply substitute the term "court" for "state."

At the same time, the very nature of this paradigm is such that you'll only read about it in the aftermath, so most attempts to attach their authorship to any given political maneuvers are going to end up being vapor.

 

[trustbutverify]

I'm just hoping this year Deep State finally beats Navy in the big game.

What's their fight song?

 

[bruto]

What's their fight song?

Look out there team
We're not what we seem!

We don't need no violence,
we sneak up in silence.

When all that you value
Comes tumbling down
We'll simply deny
We were ever around.

Rah Rah Rah.

 

[marplots]

What's their fight song?

Lean to the Left!
Lean to the Right!

Stand up!
Sit down!
Lay down, sleep!

 

[Hans]

What's their fight song?

A special version of the Zombie's 'She's not there'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKBRc8zNQ30

 

[trustbutverify]

I love that goddamn band.

 

[No Other]

I have bad news for you, the NSA, CIA, and NRO ain't goin' nowhere.

I agree with you, these organizations are here to stay. I must not have made myself clear on that... my bad.

If secrets seem easier to keep it's because the general US public doesn't seem to care, or have the attention span to read up.

Agreed, Dulles relied on the public not reading the WC report or even caring about it.

The big answer is that it didn't, nor should it have. Each event you listed was initiated by ELECTED OFFICIALS either in the White House, Senate, or Congress. Any action with the subtext being a potential act of war, or Constitutional violation ALWAYS comes from Capital Hill, never Langley, or Fort Mead. Deep State doesn't move without something in triplicate from someone in a nice Washington office. Every REAL conspiracy starts on one of those offices.

They HAVE to start in those offices, this is where Legislation, Appropriation, and "oversight" begins. None of these agencies can survive without elected officials. I do not see any disagreement in our stances.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Glenn Greenwald has been writing about the 'deep state' for a while. It's at least credible.

Jan: The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

IN JANUARY 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

I found this part of his opinion quite ironic:

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

It's also interesting to note that contrary to the NY FBI office scuttlebutt that they undermined Clinton, the CIA was more inclined to back Clinton. That the CIA leaked memos about the Trump/Russia connection to the FBI has been reported.

Greenwald presents a detailed account of the dossier affair including all the issues with the credibility of the information. Whether you like Greewald or not, it's not like he doesn't lay out an extremely detailed case, complete with supporting evidence.

Greenwald made this case on the 16th on Democracy Now: Greenwald: Empowering the "Deep State" to Undermine Trump is Prescription for Destroying Democracy

Some supporters of Trump, including Breitbart News, have accused the intelligence agencies of attempting to wage a deep state coup against the president. Meanwhile, some critics of Trump are openly embracing such activity. Bill Kristol, the prominent Republican analyst who founded The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter, "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." We talk about the deep state with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept.

My feeling about that is, maybe this is one time to worry about Trump first and the 'Deep State' second.

But then I read Greenwald reminding us:

GLENN GREENWALD: The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.

Worth paying attention to at a minimum: Vox: Is the “deep state” a threat to Donald Trump — or to democracy?

The president knew he was being undercut by his own spies. And he was not happy about it.

“This whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don't talk about the real subject, which is illegal leaks,” Trump said. “I've actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks. Those are criminal leaks.”...

“Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do,” Eli Lake, a neoconservative columnist at Bloomberg View, wrote in a column that Trump praised on Twitter.

Glenn Greenwald, the editor of the left-wing publication the Intercept, wrote something making basically the same point as Lake’s column — an ideological convergence that I’m not sure has ever happened and probably never will again.

And then there is the propaganda coup this serves as a windfall for Trump.

Donald Trump Can Do a Lot With the “Deep State”
Even if the deep state isn't real, the idea of one could do real damage.

A hallmark of the Trump era is that fringe ideas are now at the forefront of American politics. Such has been the trajectory of the phrase “deep state,” which has its origins in Turkish politics (it described the entrenched secularist faction in the military that resisted, sometimes violently, elected Islamist governments) and was introduced into America by the radical left. But thanks to President Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the intelligence community, which he has compared to the Nazis for leaking information against him, the concept of a deep state is now being widely discussed all over the political spectrum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Shouldn't this be in USA politics?

Anyway, deep state vs shallow state:

White House Staffers Leak News of Sean Spicer’s ‘Phone Check’ Targeting Their Leaks

Last week, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer conducted a surprise phone check on his staff in an effort to stamp out leaks, according to a new Politico report. Spicer, upset that information had leaked out of a previous meeting he had held with roughly a dozen members of his staff, ordered another meeting and had staff surrender their phones and other electronic devices when they arrived. The search — which applied to both personal and government-issued phones — was overseen by White House lawyers, and Spicer then warned staffers against using privacy-focused messaging apps like Signal and Confide, noting that doing so violates the Federal Records Act. He also, per Politico’s sources, “warned the group of more problems if news of the phone checks and the meeting about leaks was leaked to the media,” which it promptly was.

Too funny.

 

[Bubba]

Skeptic Ginger said:


Glenn Greenwald has been writing about the 'deep state' for a while. It's at least credible.

Jan: The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
Quote:
IN JANUARY 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

I found this part of his opinion quite ironic:

Quote:
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

It's also interesting to note that contrary to the NY FBI office scuttlebutt that they undermined Clinton, the CIA was more inclined to back Clinton. That the CIA leaked memos about the Trump/Russia connection to the FBI has been reported.

Greenwald presents a detailed account of the dossier affair including all the issues with the credibility of the information. Whether you like Greewald or not, it's not like he doesn't lay out an extremely detailed case, complete with supporting evidence.

Greenwald made this case on the 16th on Democracy Now: Greenwald: Empowering the "Deep State" to Undermine Trump is Prescription for Destroying Democracy

Quote:
Some supporters of Trump, including Breitbart News, have accused the intelligence agencies of attempting to wage a deep state coup against the president. Meanwhile, some critics of Trump are openly embracing such activity. Bill Kristol, the prominent Republican analyst who founded The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter, "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."


We talk about the deep state with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept.

My feeling about that is, maybe this is one time to worry about Trump first and the 'Deep State' second.

But then I read Greenwald reminding us:

Quote:
GLENN GREENWALD: The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.

Worth paying attention to at a minimum: Vox: Is the “deep state” a threat to Donald Trump — or to democracy?

Quote:
The president knew he was being undercut by his own spies. And he was not happy about it.

“This whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don't talk about the real subject, which is illegal leaks,” Trump said. “I've actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks. Those are criminal leaks.”...

“Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do,” Eli Lake, a neoconservative columnist at Bloomberg View, wrote in a column that Trump praised on Twitter.

Glenn Greenwald, the editor of the left-wing publication the Intercept, wrote something making basically the same point as Lake’s column — an ideological convergence that I’m not sure has ever happened and probably never will again.

And then there is the propaganda coup this serves as a windfall for Trump.

Donald Trump Can Do a Lot With the “Deep State”
Even if the deep state isn't real, the idea of one could do real damage.
Quote:
A hallmark of the Trump era is that fringe ideas are now at the forefront of American politics. Such has been the trajectory of the phrase “deep state,” which has its origins in Turkish politics (it described the entrenched secularist faction in the military that resisted, sometimes violently, elected Islamist governments) and was introduced into America by the radical left. But thanks to President Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the intelligence community, which he has compared to the Nazis for leaking information against him, the concept of a deep state is now being widely discussed all over the political spectrum.

Yep.



Speaking of Glenn Greenwald.....he says of his former friend Rachel Maddow:

She is an intellectually dishonest party hack.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Greenwald has zero credibility at this point. He might have some facts, but I am extremely wary of any of his conclusions.

 

[bknight]

Watch any episode of 'Yes Minister'

And/or watch any episode of X-Files.